LUTC PKT 10-20-1997
~
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transp0l1ation Committee
October 20, 1997
5:30pm
City Hall
Council Chambers
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minute limit)
4. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Subdivision Code Amendment
B. Wildwood Final Plat
C. Metro Service Change for June
D. 30% Design Approval for South 304th
Street/Military Road
E. 1998 Right of Way Landscape
Maintenance Contract
F. Sidewalk Improvements
G. West Hylebos Riparian Habitat Grant
H. City Center Street Lighting
I. Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Request -
Pro Refrigeration
5. ADJOURN
Info
McClung/45 mill
Action
Williams/l0 mill
Info
Perez/l0 mill
Action
Mlller/l0 mill
Action
Miller /10 mill
Action Miller/5/min
Action Pratt/15 mill
Info Roe/5 mill
Action Moore/5 mill
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\0CT20LUT .AGN
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
September 15, 1997
5:30pm
City Hall
Council Chambers
SUMMARY
In attendance: Committee members Phil Watkins (Chair), Ron Gintz and Mary Gates; Deputy City Manager Philip Keightley;
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; Development Services Manager Stephen Clifton; SWM Project Engineer Marwan Salloum;
Code Compliance Office Betty Cn1Z; Administrative Assistant Sandy Lyle.
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:30pm by Chairman Phil Watkins.
2.
APPROY AL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the September 15, 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 Si~s - In concluding the Sign Notification Program, it has been discovered that fifty-seven subdivision
signs are out of compliance with the Sign Code. Eight of the signs are in the public right of way. Thirteen exceed the
maximum number allowed per subdivision. Eleven exceed the height restrictions. Nine exceed the allowed width.
Twenty-one do not have a required base. With minor modifications in the non-conforming code, the sign code or the
subdivision code the signs could be brought into compliance. The Committee decided to defer the matter until the
Subdivision Code Amendments are reviewed.
B. Awlewood Annexation - The Applewood neighborhood submitted a petition request for pre-annexation Comprehensive
Plan zoning at the September 16, 1997, City Council meeting, which Was forwarded to the Land Use/Tr~Portation
Committee for action. Residents attending were concerned about the timeliness of the annexation process imd how the
Comprehensive Plan amendment process worked. Terry Mutter, Kelly Fuller, Martin Barnes, John Lasnick and Sam
VeIker were in attendance to express their concerns about traffic mitigation and pre-annexation comprehensive
plan/zoning fees, runoff mitigation, density and development along SR#99. In order to conserve staff time and
eliminate duplication of work, the Committee mls/c consideration of pre-annexation comprehensive plan zoning in
conjunction with Comprehensive Plan updates scheduled later this year.
C. Non-Confonnin¡ Code Amendments/General Amendments & Water Quality - The Non-conforming Code Provisions
was presented to the Committee for discussion and review. Recommendation to approve the latest draft was forwarded
to the City Council at its October 21, 1997, meeting.
D.
Streets Polic.y Guidance - The Department of Public Works has, in the past, requested a monetary contribution from
developers in-lieu-of actual frontage improvements if a project is proposed near a Capital Improvement Project (CIP)
that is withing a few years of actual construction, specifically, six years or less. The Committee liked the concept as
part of the non-confornring code provisions and further included the provision that a developer could pay the money for
street improvements at the time of actual construction. The applicant posts a bond in the amount of the street
improvements supplemented by an agreement to include language allowing waiver of the six year spending limit. The
Committee mls/c recommendation of approval to the City Council at the October 21, 1997, meeting.
E. Student Transit Resolution - The Committee mls/c recommendation of adoption of the Student Transit Resolution to the
City Council at the October 21, 1997, meeting. The Resolution provides for a common vision between the City and
School District to utilize Metro busses for student transportation to and from school. A previous proposal was not fully
supported by the South County Sounding Board and was not forwarded to the King County Council for consideration.
F. Master Lease Aweement for Telecommunications - Under the Master Lease Agreement, general terms and conditions
. are drawn under which the City and Wireless providers agree to the lease of properties owned or controlled by the City
on which the proposer desires to site and operate wireless communications apparatus. This Master Lease Agreement
constitutes the establishment of a guideline and is not to be considered a specific proposal. It addresses such issues as
collocation. Without a blueprint it becomes difficult to write a contract with a wireless provider. The Committee
recommended going forward with preparation of a Master Use (Lease) Proposal.
5. FUTURE MEETINGS
The next meeting will be held on October 20, 1997 at 5:30pm in City Council Chambers.
6.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 7:10pm.
I: \LU- TRANS\OCT6LUT.SUM
MEMO
FROM:
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Kathy McClung, Deputy CDS Director ~
TO:
DATE:
OCTOBER 14, 1997
REi
Subdivision Code/PRD ordinance/Subdivision signs
Attached is the Planning commission recommendation for changes to
the Subdivision Code. Included in the recommendation are Planned
Residential Development regulations which allow development to
increase density when certain amenities are added to the
development. The Planning Commission conducted public hearings
on June 4 and 18th and August 20th. Don Largen, consultant from
McConnell Burke will present the subdivision code changes and PRD
ordinance to the Committee.
Also attached is an analysis and code language recommendations
for subdivision signs. I will be making that part of the
presentation to you. If I can provide additional information or
if you have questions prior to the meeting, please let me know.
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Findings
2. Draft Ordinance
3. Staff Report
4. Subdivision Sign analysis
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
planning Commission
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
September 9, 1997
CITY COUNCIL
ROBERT VAUGHAN, CHAIR
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
REGULATION UPDATES
- SUBDIVISION
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I.
BACKGROUND
The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies
that encourage innovative residential development to address
issues such as neighborhood character, housing diversity, and
appropriate in-fill development. Techniques including planned
residential developments, zero lot lines, smaller lots, density
bonuses, incentives, clustering, and others are suggested for
consideration.
Currently, the City's subdivision regulations provide little in
the way of flexibility in site development and design. For
example, while there are existing provisions to allow clustering
of units within subdivisions, there are virtually no incentives
to do so.
City staff has identified several provisions within the
subdivision regulations for review and possible amendments. The
intent is to further the City's goal of accommodating growth
through in-fill development.
II.
PLANNING COMMISSION PROCESS
The Planning Commission held 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 provided by two of the attendees. The
hearings were devoted to a section-by-section review of the
recommended regulatory language contained in the June 4, 1997
consultant staff report.
The City's consultant and City staff have prepared draft
subdivision regulation amendments and a draft planned residential
development ordinance, the provisions of which are to be included
1
in Chapter 20,
this document.
Subdivisions Code.
The drafts are attached to
I I I. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS
The following list summarize the major code amendments reviewed
by the Commission during this code revision process.
1.
b.
2.
Subdivisions (Long Plats)
a. The number of lots requiring a long plat process is
raised from 5 to 10.
A new Division 9 is added to Article II to provide a
process for the vacation of approved long plats.
A preliminary plat certificate will be required with
the submitted application.
Short Subdivisions (Short Plat)
c.
a.
The number of lots qualifying for a short plat process
(i.e. administrative review) is raised from 4 lots to
9.
provisions are added to allow for the alteration and/or
vacation of an approved short plat.
c. A party owning or having interests in adjoining short
plats shall utilize the long plat review process.
Binding Site Plans
b.
3.
a.
b.
Condominiums, manufactured home parks, and recreational
vehicle parks are required to use the binding site plan
process.
Condominiums having an approved binding site plan are
exempted from the general subdivision (long plat)
process requirements.
A new section is added to allow for the alteration of
approved binding site plans.
Open Space Requirements
c.
4.
a.
b.
A fee-in-lieu payment is allowed at the discretion of
the Parks Director instead of providing on-site open
space.
c.
Open space requirements for
lots or less are eliminated.
Open space requirements do not apply to resubdi vided
parcels if they met the open space requirements at the
time of the original plat.
short
subdivisions
4
of
2
5.
The Parks Director may alter the open space percentage
requirements on a case-by-case basis under certain
criteria.
Planned Residential Developments (PRD)
A new section is added to Chapter 20 to provide for the use
of Planned Residential Developments in creating new
residential subdivisions. The pertinent provisions are as
follows:
d.
a.
Minimum tract size for a PRD is 2 acres.
A maximum density increase of 40% is allowed on the net
tract area after deducting street rights-of-way,
environmentally sensitive areas (exclusive of buffers),
and the required 15% of open space.
The 40% density increase is reached by utilizing the
following density bonus design factors:
b.
Design Factor
Zero lot lines
Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail
If it connects to off-site trail system
Public access to:
vista or viewpoint
Lake or stream
Bonus Density %
3
5
10
4
3
3
4
3
3
5
4
3
10
Clustered units
Mix of housing types
Modulated building facades
Variation in Roof Lines
Retention of native vegetation
Utilization of natural drainage
Enhanced or increased sensitive area buffers
Affordable housing units
6.
Lot coverage provision in Chapter 22, Zoning Code, is
amended to clarify that lot coverage is calculated based on
the net lot area after the deduction of an access easement
IV.
PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Commission bases its recommendation of adoption of
the proposed amendments to the FWCC relative to subdivisions
based on the following findings:
1.
Whereas, the City's future growth will occur in the form of
in-fill development on remaining vacant lots and larger
3
nonparcelized tracts; and
2.
Whereas, existing subdivision regulations do
flexible and innovative approaches to site
housing development; and
not foster
design and
3.
Whereas, the proposed amendments are consistent with
provisions of the Land Use and Housing chapters of
Comprehensive Plan.
the
the
4.
Whereas, the Federal Way SEPA responsible official has
issued a Declaration of Nonsignificance on April 27, 1997;
and
5.
Whereas, the proposed code amendments would not adversely
affect the public health, safety or welfare.
~~
Robert Vaughan, Chai
Federal Way Planning Commission
4
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
CHAPTER 20 OF THE FEDERAL WAY SUBDIVISION
CODE, ADOPTING SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS AND
ADDING NEW REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF
PLANNED 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 subdivision 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 public hearings during 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#
PAGE 1
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 City Council its
recommendation in favor of proposed zoning text amendments adding sections to the
FWCC as noted previously; and
H.
WHEREAS the Federal Way Land Use and Transportation City Council
Committee met on
J 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 ("FWCC"):
1.
The Federal Way City Council adopted the Federal Way Comprehensive
Plan in order to comply with the state's Growth Management Act; and
2.
The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan contains policies that call for the
amending of subdivision regulations to promote innovative and flexible standards in the
design and development of new residential subdivisions; and
ORD#
, PAGE 2
3.
The Federal Way SEPA responsible official has issued a Declaration of
Nonsignificance on April 27, 1997; and
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 public hearings on the proposed regulatory amendments and has
considered the testimony, written comments, and material from the public by and
through said hearings.
Section 2. Conclusions. Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-217 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. LUP16 Revise existing land use regulations to provide for innovation
and flexibility in the design of new single family developments and in-
till.
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.
ORD#
, PAGE 3
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 and
amenities that encourage walking, bicycling, and transit use.
F. HP14 Amend development regulations to encourage superior
design and a greater diversity of housing types and costs through
such techniques as incentives, inclusionary zoning, planned unit
developments, density bonuses, and transfer of development rights.
G. HP15 Consider zero lot line standards within planned unit
developments to create higher density single family neighborhoods
with large open space areas.
2.
The Proposal bears a 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.
Amendment. 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.
ORD#
, PAGE 4
Section 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the
effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed.
Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five
(5) days from the time of its final passage, as provided by law.
day of
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this
,1995.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MAYOR, MAHLON S. PRIEST
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK, N. CHRISTINE GREEN, CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY, LONDI K. LINDELL
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
ORD#
, PAGE 5
ATTACHMENT A
Article I.
In General
Sec. 20-1.
Definitions
Binding site plan shall mean a plan drawn to scale processed in
accordance with the provisions of this chapter and RCW 58.17.
Binding site plans are divisions of land for sale or ground lease
for commercial er ~ industrial, manufactured home parks, and
condominium uses.
Short subdivision shall mean the division or redivision of land
into ~ nine or less 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 larger, 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 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 larger, 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 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.
Article II Plats
DIVISION 4. BINDING SITE PLANS*
----------
*Cross reference(s)--Site plan review procedure, §22-361 et
seq.
State law 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 development, or
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 site plan
same process and requirements set forth in this
approval of a binding site plan.
shall follow the
division for the
DIVISION 5. SHORT SUBDIVISION PLATS
Sec. 20-81. Application and review process.
The general procedure for processing an application for a
short subdivision consists of the following steps; PROVIDED,
however, that this general procedure shall not apply if at the
time of application 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, 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.
2
(2) Review of the short subdivision vacation application to
determine whether or not the application is complete and
acceptable for filing. 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 community
development services upon forms furnished by the city.
Applications shall be made by the owner or owners of the
parcel or parcels of all property encompassed by the
application or by a duly authorized agent. The owner or
owners of all parcels to be included must join in or be
represented in the application.
(b) The application shall include seven prints of the
approved short subdivision and accompanied by statement
setting forth the reasons for vacation.
(3) Approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the short
subdivision vacation by the director of the department of
community development services.
(4) Filing of the short subdivision vacation in the office of
the county division of records and elections.
Division 6.
Sec. 20-110.
Preliminary Plat
Content and fo~ of application
Preliminary plat certificate not less than 90 days old from
a licensed title insurance company.
12l Additional information as required at the discretion of the
director of community development services.
(8 )
Division 9.
vacation of Subdivisions
Sec. 20-250. Plat vacation 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 of application, routing.
(a) Upon submittal of a completed application for vacation of
plat, the department of community development services shall
transmit at least one copy of the application for vacation for
review and recommendation to each of the following:
(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 #210; 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 processed 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
agencles or private companies pursuant to section 20-251(a)
herein.
(c) All notices required in this section shall clearly describe
in layperson's terms the nature of the request, the location of
the proposal, the date, time and location of the hearing, and
address and telephone number where additional information may be
obtained relative to the application.
Sec. 20-253. Report to hearing examiner; review.
(a) No less than seven days prior to the date of the public
hearing, the department of community development services shall
submit to the hearing examiner a written report summarizing the
application for plat vacation. The report shall 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 application which were received in time to
be included in the report to the hearing examiner.
(2) A list of recommendations from the department of community
development services, 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 PRD - Procedures
Final PRD - Procedures
PRD public services availability.
5
Sec. 20-308 Design criteria - Generally.
Sec. 20-309 Design criteria - Required open space.
Sec. 20-310 Design Criteria - Bonus Density Increases
Sec. 20-311 Design criteria - Streets.
Sec. 20-301
Purpose.
A planned residential development (PRD) is an alternative to
conventional land use regulations, combining use, density and
si te plan considerations into a single process. A planned
residential development has the following purposes:
(a) To permit greater flexibility and consequently more creative
and imaginative site design than is generally possible under
conventional subdivision and zoning regulations;
(b) To promote more economical and efficient use of the land
while providing a harmonious 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.
(d) 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 located, subject to the criteria established in
this chapter.
Sec. 20-304
Preapplication conference.
A preapplication conference shall be required for a PRD
application as stipulated ln 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.
6
Sec. 20-306
Final PRD - Procedures
The procedures, process, and requirements for a Final PRD shall
be the same as those set forth in Article II, Division 7, Final
Plats, Sec. 20-131 through Sec. 20-137.
Sec. 20-307
PRD public services availability.
(a) PRD approvals are not to be granted unless such facilities
as water lines, sewer lines and streets exist or are immediately
planned in sufficient quantity to service the proposed new
development. PRD proj ects shall be so located with 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 in the area; PROVIDED, that a PRD may be
approved if, alternatively:
(1) The developers will provide private utilities, facilities or
services approved by the public agencies which would normally
provide such utilities, facilities or services as
substituting on an equivalent basis and assure their
satisfactory continuing operation and maintenance permanently
or until equivalent public utilities, facilities or services
are available.
Sec. 20-308
Design criteria - Generally.
(a) The design criteria established 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, open space shall be
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.
7
(c) Any combination of open space types may be used
accomplish the total minimum area required to be reserved
described in Section 20-155.
to
as
Sec. 20-310
Design criteria - Density Increases
A. A maximum density increase of up to 40% for PRDs located in
RS and RM zoning districts may be permitted according to the
partial percentage increases for designated design criteria set
forth in Sec. 20-311. The increases are additive, but in no case
may they exceed 40% in total.
B. The density increases will be applied to the net parcel or
tract area remaining after subtracting the following:
1. dedicated public rights-of-way; and
2. environmentally sensitive areas (exclusive of required
setbacks) as set forth in Chapter 18, Article II; and
3. required 15% open space as set forth in Article III,
Sec. 20-155.
Sec. 20-311
Design Criteria - Bonus Density Increases
The allowable number of dwelling units as calculated in Section
310(B) may be cumulatively increased as follows:
A. Three percent (3%) increase in dwelling units if twenty
percent (20%) or more of the proposed dwelling units are
developed with zero lot lines;
B. Ten percent (10%) increase in dwelling
development features a distinct mix of
residences, attached single units from
and apartments are examples 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
8
development, a four percent (4%) increase if the trails/paths
connect to an off-site trail system¡
G. Three percent (3%) increase in dwelling units if significant
general public access is 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 assures a substantial retention of
native ground cover, bushes, and trees;
I. Four percent (4%) increase in dwelling units if on-site
drainage control utilizes existing natural drainage ways and
drainage retention features and/or drainage and drainage
retention facilities are designed to resemble natural
features;
J. Three percent (3%) increase in dwelling units if a
environmentally sensitive area buffer is increased in
horizontal distance by at least twenty-five feet or in total
area by at least ten percent (10%), or the buffer is
enhanced/rehabilitated such that its functional value is
greater than its predevelopment condition;
K. Ten percent (10%) increase in dwelling units if at least ten
percent (10%) of the proposed dwelling units are affordable to
low income individuals as defined in the Countywide Planning
policies for King County.
Sec. 20-312
Design criteria - Streets.
A. In addition to those criteria established in Section 22-1477
right-of-way width and street 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 aite ia five ~crea or leaD in
Dize, ~pplic~nta m~y Deck ~ltern~tive methodD of providing the
required open ap~ce ~a permitted by aection 19 41 et aeq., if
~ccept~ble to the city; EXCEPT 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
9
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 City'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 space shall
be calculated on fifteen percent (15%) of the most recent
assessed value of the property. In the absence of an assessment,
the market value shall be based on an appraisal conducted by a
MAl certified appraiser or another professional appraiser
approved by the parks director.
(c) Any combination of open space types may be used to
accomplish the total area required to be reserved as follows:
Open Space % of Gross Land
Category Area
Usable 10% minimum
Conservation No maximum or
minimum
Buffer 2% maximum
Constrained 2% maXlmum
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 percentage requirements would result
in a superior open space plan than could be
accomplished under the standard percentage
requirements.
2. The availability 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.
10
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 on the subject property will be calculated as
a percentage of total lot area, exclusive of the area of any
recorded access easements, in determining compliance with maximum
lot coverage required in this chapter. If the subject property
contains more than one use, the maximum lot coverage requirements
for the predominant use will apply to the entire development.
11
, '" . ..." ""c,,-
I
",
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
Planning Commission
DATE
June 4, 1997
APPLICANT
City of Federal Way
PROPOSED ACTION
Text Amendments to Chapter 20, of Federal Way
City Code (Subdivisions)
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE
Don Largen, AICP
Planning Consultant
McConnell/Burke, Inc.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
use this report as basis upon which the Commission
develops a recommendation of proposed
Subdivision regulation amendments for City Council
consideration.
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 tasks is a review
and update selected portions of the City's Subdivision regulations.
II.
BACKGROUND
In January of 1994 City staff identified 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 applicable 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.
",W
"
"
III.
ISSUES & ALTERNATIVES
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. Relationships between discussion items are also indicated.
A.
SUBDIVISIONS (LONG PLATS)
Subdivisions or long plats are one of the mechanisms by which tracts of land are
divided into individual building 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
or greater. The subdivision process consists of two major parts.
The first step is approval of a preliminary plat. Typically, 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 location 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. streets 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 a final plat is usually granted only after substantial
completion or installation of the public improvements that were indicated on the
preliminary plat. Final approval is required before property within the subdivision can
be transferred or building permits issued.
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 is 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 requirements of ESHB 1724.
2
". .,_...,.~,.;.,i.,¡,¡
"
One way to do this is to increase the minimum number of lots requiring a long
subdivision application. The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 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 subdivision
more subdivisions will be reviewed administratively. This approach appears particularly
suited for Federal Way since much 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 subdivision from 5 lots to 10
lots in Article I, Section 20-1 Definitions. (Note: this will also 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 City may also establish a threshold number of lots above
which a public hearing would be required. For example, the City 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 written 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 option (i.e. 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.
3
'" "~"""'._-"'.'~_H'~_"'.' ,.~~b
"
2.
TITLE REPORT WITH PRELIMINARY PLAT
One of the items included on the list of code 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 address this item. The purpose of this requirement would' 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, covenants, 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.
RECOMMENDATION:
Add the following submittal requirement to Chapter
20, Division 6, Section 20-110(c):
A complete and accurate title report, dated no more than 90 days prior to the
application date, detailing all encumbrances, liens, covenants, restrictions, parties
with interests, or any other legal commitment that is attached to the subject
property( s).
3.
LONG PLAT AL TERATIONSN ACATION
Current City regulations do allow for the revision of long plats, but are silent as to the
process for vacation of an approved 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 plat 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 recommendation to city council, and then city council approval. The
basic issue is whether or not the plat alteration process can or should be made
administrative.
RCW 58.17.215 provides the basic 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 administratively by the planning director. Beyond that it
appears that State law does not allow 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. Conversations 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 procedures already provide for as much administrative
review as is allowed under State law. The exception may be the threshold
4
, -c,.L"..--, "_"~"""~..._.--........,..,,-....~,....>i»
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 surrounding streets is a sound one and we would not
recommend changing those thresholds. The one change that could be made to allow
for more opportunity to administratively review alterations to smaller plats would be to
raise the number of lots qualifying for short subdivision review from 4 lots to 9 lots. This
would mean that all plats having fewer than 10 lots could be altered administratively.
RECOMMENDATION:
Increase the number of' lots that qualify as a short
subdivision to a total of 9. (see also issue B.1 in the following
section)
As to the vacation of plats the RCW does not appear to allow for the administrative
review and approval of long plat vacations. This is also true for short plats if the
vacation involves some public dedication, such as a street. However, the City has no
mechanism for plat vacation in its current regulations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Create a new 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 PLAT)
A short subdivision is currently defined under City code as a division of land that
creates four or fewer individual lots. The current process for short subdivisions
provides for an administrative review and approval by the planning director, which
includes review by affected utility providers. 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 administrative the planning director must still review
the proposed short plat relative to underlying 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 related 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 subdivision of smaller parcels or tracts. If such in-fill
development meets City standards and has the effect of implementing the growth
5
.. "u~",.._~~......~,..,.,.v"'~"m"-
"
"
strategy of the comprehensive plan, then administrative review of smaller subdivisions
would be an appropriate mechanism for furthering the goals of the plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Change the number of lots from 4 to 9 in the definition of short
subdivisions in Article I, Section 20-1 Definitions.
2.
OWNERSHIP OF CONTIGUOUS SHORT PLATS
The issue here is that it is technically possible for a single individual or organization to
own contiguous parcels and over time develop these parcels under a short plat process
rather than use the long subdivision process. This poses a problem from the
perspective of trying to plan for orderly incremental growth and the provision of public
services and utilities since it allows for Ileap-frog' development. The City's 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 the same overall impact as the development of a long
subdivision and should be subject to public review.
RECOMMENDATION:
Add the following language to the end of the opening
sentence in Section 20-81:
... 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 procedures governing Division 6, Preliminary Plats,
shall apply.
The five year figure is used here since it is consistent with the period of time
used for the completion of subdivisions 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 ALTERATIONSNACATION
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 alteration or vacation of same. Th~ issue here is what
would be an appropriate process.
6
."
"
The City's subdivision regulations do not appear to specify a process for either the
alteration or the vacation of a short 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 of
Article" in Chapter 20. This can be done either by adding
two new sections at the end of the Division 5 or by
incorporating the words 'alteration' and 'vacation' into the
opening sections of Division 5.
c.
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS (PRD)
One of the items on the code update 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. In practice the clustering provisions have not worked
well since there are essentially no incentives to encourage their use; for example the
applicant is given no more lots than 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 process offers incentives, usually density bonuses, for
such things as open space, improved pedestrian circulation, building clustering, building
design, etc. It allows a more flexible approach to accommodating site features such as
slopes, wetlands, streams, and public 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 lessen the impact of new residential development on
surrounding areas and preserve natural 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 itself 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 a set of PRO regulations that establish the following
standards and bonus system:
7
. "...,.,... .'.' ,. "
. -"
"
"
PROCESS.
PRDs shall be reviewed as referenced iq Article 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 ordinances with less than a two acre minimum. On tracts less
than two acres there is often not enough space for flexibility in lot locations, lot
configurations, access, and meaningful protection of environmental features. We suggest
this minimum since the size appears to fit with the in-fill growth pattern of the City.
DESIGN CRITERIA - GENERALLY.
(a) The design criteria established within this article shall be used as a guide for an
applicant to follow in developing a pre1iminary and final PRD plan.
(b) These criteria shall also be used as the basis for recommendation and decisions
regarding density increases within a PRD.
DESIGN CRITERIA - REQUIRED OPEN SPACE.
(a)
For the purpose of this article, open space shall be described and provided in all
PRDs as referenced in Article ill Section 20-155(a) through (t').
Note also the discussions concerning open space requirements on page 11, 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. The exact amount of each partial reduction is de~ermined by
the planning director.
The primary incentive for using the PRD approach in a single family zone is the
ability to create more lots than is allowed in a conventional subdivision. The
greater the percent reduction in lot size the more lots are created. However, the
Comprehensive Plan has a goal of preserving the character of single family
neighborhoods. The maximum lot reduction allowed should not be so great as to
introduce density that is not compatible 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 neighborhoods.
8
.,.'
(1) A maximum reduction of 6 percent may be granted if at least 2S percent of the gross
land area of the PRD site is 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 35 percent is reserved as open space;
(2) A maximum reduction of 7 percent may be granted if unusual or significant site
features such as views, watercourses, wetlands or other natural characteristics are
enhanced or incorporated into 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; 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 of buildings, zero lot lines, or energy-efficient siting.
The design criteria are the basis upon which lot sizes are decreased and more lots
created. The percentages given above are similar to many codes we have worked
with and are suggested as a starting point. Each of the percent figures gives a
numerical weight to each of the design categories and are intended to reflect the
relative importance of each.
DESIGN CRITERIA - MULTI-FAMILY PRDs.
(a) Density increase. A density increase of 30 percent greater than that permitted by the
underlying zoning may be allowed for PRDs located in multi-family (RM) residential zones
according to the following partial density increases for designated design criteria. The
density increases are additive, but in no case may they exceed 30 percent in total. The exact
amount of each partial density increase is detennined by the review authority.
(1) A maximum reduction of 6 percent may be granted if at least 25 percent of the gross
land area of the PRD site is 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 35 percent is reserved as open space;
(2) A maximum reduction of 7 percent may be granted if unusual or significant site
features such as views, watercourses, wetlands or other natural characteristics are
enhanced or incorporated into 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; 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 of 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, fourplexes attached single family, town houses, etc.
(b) Required perimeter buffer zone. A minimum 30 foot buffer zone must be provided
for any PRD of multifamily structures 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
9
"
must be landscaped, screened or protected by natural features so that adverse effects on
surrounding areas are minimized.
DESIGN CRITERIA - STREETS.
(a) Right-of-way width and street roadway widths may be reduced, especially where it
is found that the plan for the PRD provides for the separation of vehicular and pedestrian
circulation patterns and provides for adequate off-street parking facilities as deemed
appropriate by the public works director.
D.
BINDING SITE PLANS
A binding site plan is another way of legally laying out and developing a parcel. They
have typically been used for developing commercial and industrial sites, but can be
utilized for mobile home and recreational 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 several 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 maintained instead of being dedicated to the City. A
binding site plan may not necessarily 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 such 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 alteration, 3) allow this process to be used for condominiums,
mobile home and recreational vehicle parks, and 4) clarify that these regulations are for
ground leases only.
In the recent code amendments relative to regulatory reform the City adopted an
administrative review process, essentially utilizing the same process as for short
subdivisions. Since City staff has just 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 the following changes to Chapter 20:
1) Article II, Division 4, Section 20-61: Add condominiums, manufactured home parks, and
recreational vehicle parks to the list of uses requiring a binding site plan.
10
2) Article I, Section 20-3 Exemptions: Add condominiums having an approved binding
site plan to the list of exemptions.
3) Article I, Section 20-1 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 20-1)
Current City regulations are silent regarding the alteration of an approved binding site
plan. Since the recently proposed approval process for a binding site plan is
administrative based on the short subdivision process, then it appears to makes sense
to utilize that process for alterations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Add a new section, 20-66 Alteration of Binding Site Plans ,to
Division 4 which states that alterations of an approved binding site
plan shall follow the same process as stipulated for short
subdivisions in section 20-81.
E.
OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS
Several questions have been raised relative to open space requirements within the
subdivision processes:
1) Should fee-in-lieu payments apply to long plats?
A fee-in-lieu payment would allow 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 contributions for subdivisions with lots greater than 5
acres.
One factor to consider is that subdivisions can vary dramatically in size. Requiring
open space in a relatively small 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 spaces 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 making a fee-in-lieu payment does provide for somewhat
greater flexibility and City control 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 space that would otherwise be provided within the
project. The fee-in-lieu of open space shall be calculated on
15% of the most recent assessed value of the property. In
11
.".
, .
the absence of an assessment, the market value shall be
based on an appraisal conducted by a MAl certified
appraiser or another professional appraiser approved by the
parks director.
2) Eliminate the requirement for open space within short
subdivisions.
2) Should large lot subdivisions (1 + acre lots) have open space requirements?
An open space requirement is intended to provide for adequate public open space
within subdivisions. Someone owning a 1 acre residential lot is unlikely to be
suffering from a lack of open space opportunities. If in the future the zoning for that
area were to change, then open space would be provided based on the land being
divided into smaller sized urban lots.
RECOMMENDATION:
Do not include open space requirements in the review and approval
of subdivisions having 1 acre lots or larger.
3) Should open space dedications 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 of whether the original division met the requirements
in effect at the time. However, these communities also employ an impact fee
structure which lends itself to being 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 subdivision standards As pointed out in #1 above this
can be a problematic approach.
However, this question is stated in terms of dedications of open space. If the
original plat dedicated an actual 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:
Do not impose open space dedications on resubdivided parcels if a
dedication had been made at the time of the previous plat.
4) Should the categories relative to 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' recreation areas, but there is no inherent advantage of using
certain terms or definitions over others. This open space classification system
12
appears adequate for Federal Way's purposes. We are not aware of any other
issues relative to these open space categories. and do not recommend any change
in these categories at this time.
A related consideration would be whether or not to allow for the alteration of the
percentages of open space types on an individual basis. A particular subdivision
may have a preponderance of one type of open space opportunity and not be able
to meet the open space requirements in the other categories. In such cases it may
be in the City's best interests to modify the percentages in order that the open space
type that is there can be fully accommodated by allowing the applicant to count that
one type in meeting their open space requirement.
One approach would be to allow for the administrative alteration of the open space
type percentages by the parks director based on some general criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
Allow for the administrative alteration of the open space
category percentage requirements on a case-by-case basis.
Review of such cases would be performed by the parks
director and would be based on the following
considerations:
1. The change in percentage requirements would result
in a superior open space plan than could be accomplished
under the standard percentage requirements.
2. The availability 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 preservation of significant
views and creation of public access to points of interest.
5. The relationship of the proposed open sp~ces to the
City's park plan.
13
",
, .,.",. -.. .,;......-
alL
F. Flag (Panhandle) Lots
Panhandle or flag lots are lots that are created such that the access to a public street is
over a long narrow extension of the lot. Staff has raised several questions and are
seeking clarification on several issues relative to flag lots.
1.
MEASURING LOT WIDTH
Subdivision regulation Section 20-152(c) states that all lots should abut a public street.
The question raised is if a long narrow lot were subdivided would it be creating one or
more flag lots? If that were true how would lot width be measured?
It is unlikely that flag lots would be approved under a long subdivision or PRO process.
However, there are situations on older larger lots where there is sufficien.t space to
subdivide, but the lot is relatively narrow. In these situations flag lots might be created
to provide access to a public street, however we Figure 1
have rarely seen situations where there are
'nested' flag lots. Access could just as easily be
accomplished via an easement across the front lot
or across an already established flag lot access.
This would eliminate the need for the 'pole' portion
of a flag lot.
In cases where such lots are created measuring lot
width should be done behind the point where the
'pole' of the flag lot extends out from the main
body of the lot.
RECOMMENDATION:
Do not allow more
than one flag lot to
be created out of
any given narrow
parcel of land. If
multiple lots can
be created the
remaining interior
lots shall be given
easements across
the flag lot to
provide access to
public streets.
14
Lot A
Lot Width
. ..
LotB
+- -Lot B Access
LotC
,
. Street
2.
SETBACKS ON FLAG LOTS
The issue here is basically how to determine which
are the front, rear, and side yards on flag lots. We
have dealt with this issue in several client
communities and there is really no good specific
formula or criteria that covers all potential flag lot
configurations and relationships to adjacent lots.
What we have done is use a generalized approach to
establishing setbacks that relies on the arrangement
of the yards on adjacent lots. In general where the
yards of a subject lot abut side yards of adjacent lots,
then those yards are the subject lot's side yards; and
where it abuts front or rear yards on adjacent lots,
those yards on the subject lot become the front or
rear yards.
RECOMMENDATION:
Utilize the following
approach in determining
the yards on flag lots:
The front yard of a flag lot shall be that yard which is
adjacent to where the 'pole' portion of the 'lot
connects with the main portion of the loti UNLESS if
in the judgment of the planning director the
arrangement of setbacks on adjacent surrounding
lots clearly suggest a different yard arrangement.
" "'" ,..- ,...."._,~~........
0"-
Figure 2
Rear
...............................................
Lot A
..............................................
Rear
................................ ......
LotB
.. ............... ......................
Rear
....... .......... ............... .......
LotC
................................. .....
Street
3.
CALCULATING LOT SIzE/LoT COVERAGE RELATIVE TO EASEMENTS
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 apply to any easement situation. This is not strictly a
subdivision issue, but is related.
Calculation of lot coverage is found in the zoning code Section 22-955. It states:
"A vehicular access easement or tract that serves more than one lot will
not be used in determining compliance with the maximum lot coverage
requirement of this chapter."
Our experience with other codes suggests that the intent of this language is to calculate
lot coverage exclusive of the area of a recorded access easement. In other words, lot
coverage will be calculated after the area of the easement is deducted form the total lot
area.
15
u..._~_._-_.."'_.....".. cl...i:2,
.
.
RECOMMENDATION:
Amend Section 22-955 to state that lot coverage is
calculated based on the net lot area after the deduction of
the area of an access easement.
v.
CONCLUSIONS
These recommendations are intended to address the issues raised by staff on certain
specific items in the subdivision regulations. It is not meant as a comprehensive update
since the City has recently gone through an update to several portions of its code.
These recommendations should provide a means for clarifying and streamlining the
overall subdivision process.
16
.
.
[RU6 ON nI/I!]
""""'" "... ,..,.".,...,..".",.,.....,'".."..""",»,,,,~
TZ:OT 0H1 L6/6Z/ÇO
:>ran uraJf - rlunnea JÇe:~'.ue"ltu. uc:vc:wp"""" """6&&"""""'"
Chapter 20
SUBDMSIONS
Article tt#. Planned Residential Developments
Sec. 20-301
Sec. 20-302
Sec. 20-303
Sec. 20-304
Sec. 20-305
Sec. 20-306
Sec. 20-307
Sec. 20-308
Sec. 20-309
Sec.2Q.310
Sec. 20-311
Sec. 20-312
Sec. 20-313
Sec. 20-314
Sec. 20-315
Sec. 20-316
Sec. 20-317
Sec. 20-318
Sec. 20-319
Sec. 20-320
Soc. 20-321
Sec. 20-322
Sec. 20-323
Sec. 20-324
Sec. 20-325
Sec. 20-326
See. 20-327
Sec. 20-328
Sec. 20-329
Sec. 20-330
Sec. 20-331
Sec. 20-332
Sec. 20-333
Sec. 20-334
Sec. 20-335
Sec. 20-336
Sec. 20-337
Sec. 20-338
Sec. 20-339
Purpose.
Minimum size.
Permitted uses.
Prcapplicarion conference.
Confonnancc with applicable codes and standards.
Preliminary PRD - Application form and content
Preliminary PRD - Acceptance of application; rouling.
Preliminary PRO - Time limitation for approval or disapproval.
Preliminary PRD . Completion of environmental policy process.
Preliminary PRO. Process for review.
Prclíminnry PRD . Official file.
Preliminary PRD - Noti<:c of application.
PrcliminRlY PRD - Notice of public hearing.
Preliminary PRO. Report to hearing e'taminer; review.
Pl'eJiminary PRO - Public bearing.
Preliminary PRD - Electronic sound recording.
Preliminary PRO. Burden of proof.
Preliminary PRD - Public commenl'ii and parlicipation at {he hearing.
Preliminary PRD - Continuation of (be bearing.
Preliminary PRD - Recommendation by rhe hearing examinc.r.
Preliminary PRD - City council review, action.
Preliminary PRD - Notice of decision.
Preliminary PRD - Judicial review.
Prdiminary PRD - Duration of approval.
Final PRD - Form and conlent.
Final PRD . Administrative review.
Final PRD - Planning commission review.
Final PRD . City council action.
Pinal PRD . Appeal of city coucH decsion.
Final PRD - Amendments.
Building pcnllit issuance.
Construction start and completion limits.
Review during construction.
PRD public services aŸai1abmty.
De.~ign criteria - Generally.
Design criteria - Required open space.
Dcsign cdteria - Single-family PROs.
Design crÍtðria . Multi-family PRDs.
Design crità'ia - Streets.
3/26/97
I
7n 'r
OT ,nT nul '~-~7_11-11!
[9¿t6 ON Dl/Xl]
'. , .. ..,.., """"", "",,"""~""""'~""""'iIUI
T~:OT!1Hl ¿616~/SO
';'¡UJJ V""/I - r ,",""CU "c;~'wr;,....... "",c;"c;,vY"'~'" "~6-.~"~'-
Sec. 20-301
Purl)ose.
A planncd residential development (PRD) is an
¡¡llernéllivc tu ,onvemiOl1al land use regulationli,
combining usc, density find site plan considerations into
a single process. A plann~d residential development
has [J\C following purposes:
(¡I) To permit greater flexibility ¡¡nd con.r¡equcnUy
more crcarive and imaginative site d~J;ign than is
generally possible undl:r conventional subdivision and
loning regulatiol\s:
(b) To promOte more economical and efficient use
of the land while providing a hannoniolL'! 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 slnblc environment in harmony with
thaI of the Slll"rounding area,
(d) T(I provide ficxibility in site development in
order to preserve and protect open spaces and
tnvironmcntally sensitive areas.
See, 2.0-302
MiIúmum size.
TIle minimum contiguous area of a PRD project is
two acres.
Sec. 20-303
Permitted uses.
A planned rcsidcntial development may include any
uses pcrmillcd outright in lhc underlying residential
lone where the PRD is located. subject to the criteria
established in this chapter.
Sec. 20.304 Preapplication conference.
Por the purposes of expediting applications and
rcdudng PRO development costs, before filing any
application for i1 PRD, the prospective applicant shall
submit to rhe dircctor of community development
services preliminary plans and sketches and basic site
infunnalion for consideration and advice regarding the
relation of the proposal to general developmental
objectives and dry policies. Aficr review of the
prclimimn'y plans by the director, a preapplcialion
confercnce will he held to discuss land use, ~itc design,
rc(luircd improvemenl" and confol'11Ulnce with {he
cUiuprehcnsivc plan, zoning ordinance and subdivision
. code. The director may request the anendance of other
staff members at the prcapplic8tion conference. A
wrÌllen rccot'd of the preapp1icalion conference shall be
gívcn to [he applicant within 30 calendar days after the
mccúng with the applicant, and a copy shall be retained
on file for future rcference.
Sec. 20-305
Conformance with applicable
codes and standards.
All applications for preliminary and final PRD
approval shall be in conformance with the zoning code
and official 7.onjng'maps of the city. In the event an
amendment to the zoning code and/or a change in Ihe
zoning maps is required to assure !:uch conformance,
the director of community dcvcl()pmenl service:> shall
1.equire that the appropriate applications for such
change be submitted so that such requests may be
considered concurrently.
P~Jiminal"y PRD - Application
fonn and content.
(a) After an applicant has a preapplication
conference, the applicant may file 8n application for
preliminary PRD. The preliminary PRD application
shall be filed with the department of community
development services on fonns furnished by the city.
Applications shall be made by the owner or owners of
the parcels of all property encompa...sed by {hc
application or by a duly authorized agent or agents,
The owner or owners of all parcels to be included mUSt
join iñ or be n.-prcscntcd in the applicati()O. An
applicant may submit applications for preliminary and
final PRD approval simultaneously, PROVIDED, all
inConnation required pursuant to article is submitted.
Sec. 20-306
(b) The application for pœllminary PRO shaH he
accompanied by the following information:
(I) A legal description and map of the prope11y
drawn to scale which shaH include: the land nrea
within the PRD, the use zoning classification of
the designated area, the zone classification and
use of aU abuuing districtx within three hundred
fccl of the subject properly, anti all public and
private rights-of-way and casements bounding
aod intersecting the designated area whieh arc
propO!!OO lO be continued. created, relocated
and/or abandoned;
(2) A title ~carch performed for (he propertY(J;);
(3) A PRD plan, drawn at a scale of nor less lhan
one inch per lwo hundl"ed reef, and a wrillcn
description of the proposed development. The
PRD plan and/or the description shall show or
stipulate the general location, arrnngement.
extent, and character for the following where
áppticable:
3/26/97
2
en 'J
ol'nl nul ~-~/-HILI
. .
[8Lt6 ON DII:U]
tz:ot ßHl L616Z/S0
~""JJ U""'J. - ¿ HAl....... ..~~._~.__. ~~.~-,.....-... ---0-----'.-
',.'.',W
8. Adjacent slreCts and alleys;
b. f ~nd uscs by type, including the gross
acreage or square footage of each proposed
u!:e;
Structures or building enve1opcs by type of
usc, maximum hcighl of structure.~.
mmdmmn gross floor area for each land use,
and land coverage of buildings and
impervious area-'!;
u. Rcsidential densities by housing type and
maximum number of dwelling unite;;
~.
e.
Interior streets and drives;
Parking. loading and outdoor storage areas
and access thereto. including areas for
storage of bolltS, campers. trailers and
recreation vehicles;
f.
g. Public and rrivate open and recreation
space;
h. Landscaped
materials;
including
typical
arta.'4
i.
Buffer areas and fencing including purpose
and timing of cOßslrucûon;
Pedestrian circulation;
J.
k.
I.
Existing and
c.'\sements:
School sites;
proposedutiliûes
and
m. Dimensions of separations betWeen
buildings, streets and oth~r features;
n. I.and dedications and public improvements;
o. Area-e; subject to flooding, retention areas
and !oõurface drainage;
p. locntion. size and lighting of signs;
q. Treutmcnt of sound. vibration. glare,
radiation, fun\cs. and heat emission which
will extend beyond the ZOne lot; and
r. Other dements such as architectural
concept.., building elevations, facade
treatmcn15, and exterior building materials
a!\ necessat)' to estabUsh how the proposed
PRO uses and structures rela[e to the
neighboring property.
(4) Application for a substantial development pc.rmit
if required by the shoreline ma.c:ter program
ol-dinance~ .
(5) Application to alter or perfonn work in an
ðnvironmentally sensitive area if required by
City ordinance;
(6) SEPA environmental checklist pursuant to the
Environmental Policy Act;
(7) A written statement generally describing the
proposed PRD and the market which it is
intended to. serve; its relationship to the
comprehensive plan; and how d\c proposed PRD
is to relate to lhc use of neighboring property;
(8) SlaLcment of the applica.nt's intcntions with
regard to d\e furore ~lJjng or leasing of all or
portions of the PRO, such as land areas,
dwelling units, etc.:
(9) A development schedule showing the
approximate date of proposed construction and
whether or not the project is intended to be
developed in phases. H the PRD is to be
developed in phases. a phasing plan is required.
The phasing plan shall be submitted for the total
project visualized by the applicanL The phasing
plan s11all identify the geographic area of each
phase and shall present a broad but cohesive and
complete overview of th~ project. Preliminary
PRD applications for each PRD phasc shall
include all materials required by subsection (b)
of this section:
(lO)Other infonnation deemed necessary by the
director of community development services to
evaluate the preliminary PRD application. The
request for additional information must be made
in writing to the applicant within twenty-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 information is not
necessary to a review of the proposed PRD. Such
waiver shall be in writing and shall specify the reasons
for such waiver.
Pre1inúnary PRD - Acceptance or
application; routing.
(a) Within 28 calendar days of receiving an
application for preliminary PRD, the city must
dctcrmine whether the application is complete. A
checklist for determining complete applications is
available through the department of communitY
development services. If the eity dcc1'ns [hc application
[0 be complete, a Letter of Completeness must be.
issued prior to the 28 day deadline. If the city
Sec. 20-307
3/26/97
3
1-.,,' ,
R¡~n¡ n~¡ JR-R?-ÀBU
[SLt6 ON nI/!l]
",..." '.....,^..: ...~"."",',.,.",
T~:OT 0H1 L6/6~/SO
"'-.JJ -. -J' . ._~.- .'w..-....-. -.. .'wr..n... .00""""" ..-
determines the application to be incomplete, the chy
shull notify the ap!)licant of what needs to be submitted
for a complete application. In this written
dctcrmination, the cil.y shall all identify, to the extent
known to the city, the other agencie./ of local, state or
federal government that may have jurisdiction over
somc a$pcct of the proposed development activity.
Within foul'teen ealendnr days after an applicant has
submillcd the additional information identified by the
city as being ncccssury for a complete application. the
city shall nodfy rhe applicant whether the application is
complctc or whether additional information is
nccc..~gary .
(b) A project permit application is complete fOT
purposcs of this section whcn it meets city's procedural
submission requirements and is sufficient for con[Înuc.d
procc.o;sing even though addiúonal information may be
required or project modifications I11.'1Y be undertaken
subseqllclllly. A dcterminaúon of completeness shall
not preclude the city from reque.o;ting at.lt.liLionaI
informatinn or studies either at the time of the Notice of
Completeness or sub!:equently if new information is
required or substantial changes in the proposed action
occur.
(c) Upon 5ubmiHai of a completed preJiminary PRD
application, the department of community development
services shall lram.-mit at least one copy of the
application for review and recommendation to each of
the following:
(1) Public works department;
(2) Parks department;
(3) School District No. 210;
(4) I.akehaven Utility District and City of Tacoma
public utility department. if necessary utilities
will be provided by the City of Tacoma;
(5) Fire District #39; and
(6) Utility companies proposed to provide
electricity. telephone, natural gas, cable
tclcvision. and golid waste collection.
(d) A preliminary PRO application shall not be
decmed complete and accepted for filing for the
purpose of official processing until:
(I) The director of community development scrvíccs
determines that the applicant has paid all fees
unci submitted all documents and information as
required herein to permit a full public hearing
lIpon rhe merits of the application; and
(2) llte director of conununity development services
has received a notice of availability from (he
Lakehavcn Utility District and City of Tacoma
public utjJitics department for sewer and water,
a./ appropriate.
See. 20.308 Prcliminary PRO. Time limitation - n ~S
for approval or di.cm.pproval. ~ <::r-'
c
A complete preliminary PRO applicatl shall he
approved. disapproved. or resumed to applicant for
modification or correction within 18 calendar days
from date of filing thereof, unless the applicant
consents to an extension of such time period:
PROVIDED, that the ] 80 day period shall not include
the lime spent preparing and circulating environmental -.L
documents as required. íJu.. I &> d~ ~ ~ ha. tl I1VT~
,~"F~~~l!~~~ .
~~~o~ ~ ~~~f'n~ ~¡; - ~~tio~ ~ r n\~ ~.
environmental policy process.
A preliminary PkD application will not be scheduled
for public hearing until the Stare Environmental Policy
Act review process has been completed. If there is an
appeal of tbe thrc.o;bold determination, the appeal
hearing shan be held simultaneously with the public
hearing in front of thc hearing examiner on the
preliminary PRD application. Said hearing "hall be
scheduled within 90 days from the date of the appeal of
the threshold determination.
Preliminary PRD - Process for
reýiew.
Upon confirmation by the director of community
development services that the preliminary PRO
application is complete and that all pertinent
requirements of the Environmental Policy, section
18-26 et seq. have been Í\llfilled, the application shall"
be processed and reviewed.
Sec. 20-310
Sec. 20~311 prelimiru:try PRD - Official file.
(a) CofrJentJ. The director lIf community
development services shall compile an official file on
the application containing the following:
(1) All application material$: $:ubmitlcd by (he
applicant;
(2) The staff report;
(3) An written comments received on the matter;
(4) J"he electronic recording of the public hearing
On me matter;
3/26/97
4
c;n'r1
n?~nT nwi JR-R?-ÀHU
(8Lt6 ON nI/!l]
T~:OT ßHl L6/6~/SO
~cUJJ U""J' - . KA>""'" ...........,....., ""~.~.vr"--.- ---0------.-
(5) .Jl\C recommendation of rhe hearing examiner;
(6) l11e electronic sound r~cording and minutes of
the city council proceedings on the matter;
(7) The decision of city council; and
(8) Any Olhcr information relevant to the maner.
(b) Availability. 1'he official f1le is a public record.
Il is available for inspection and copying in d\e
dcpnruncnt of community development scrviœs during
regular business hours.
Sec. 20-312
Preliminary PRD - Notice of
application-
(n) Contellts. Within 14 days of the LcUcf of
Completcness being issued, the director of community
development services shall prepare and publish a notice
of application within the local newspaper of general
circulation. The notice of application sball contain the
following:
(I) The name of the applicant and, if applicable. the
project name;
(2) The street address of the subject property or, if
Lhis is not available, a locationsl description in
nonlegal language. Except for notice published
in the o[fiçjal newspaper of the city, the notice
must also include a vicinity map tbat identifies
the subject prop'my; .
(3) The citarion of the provision of this chapter
describing the applied-for decision;
(4) A bdef verbal description of the requested
decision;
(5) A list of the project pennits included in the
application;
(6) A list of all required smdies submitted with the
upplication:
(7) 11\(~ date of application, the date of the notice of
cUJllpletion of the application, and the date of the
. ~,. Co>" notice of the application;
I ~;,\...tJÌ \ \Qttfl., "(8) A statement that notification of the public
I.'~ ';,\" hearing date will occur approximately 14 days
! . '\ i,; ,i' , prior [0 the scheduled hearing date;
"IV -... \j.,
\ 1 d (9) A stalcmcnt of the availability of !be official file;
,
(10) A stalcment of tbe right of any person to subnúr
wriHcn comments [0 the hearing examiner and
appear at the public hearing of the he<,U'ing
examiner to give comments orally; and
(11) A statement that o.nly persons who submit
written or oral comments to the hearing
examinel' may challenge tbe recommendation of
the hearing examiner.
(b) Distributioll. The director of community
development servicos shall distribute this notice as
follows:
(1) A copy will-be sent to d\e persons receiving the
property tax statements for all property within
300 feet of each boundary of the subject
property;
(2) If the owner of the properly which is proposed
for the PRD own.~ another parcel, or parcels, of
property which lic adjacent to the property,
notice of application shan be given to owners of
property located within 300 feet of any portion
of the boundaries of such adjacently located
parcels of properly owned by the owner of the
property proposed to be in the PRDj
(3) A copy shall be mailed to appropriate city or
county officials if the proposed PRD lies within
one mire of an adjoining city or county
boundary;
(4) A copy shaH be mailed to all parties listed in
Secdon 20-307(c);
(5) Notice shall he mailed to the state depal1mcnt of
transportation if the proposed PRD abuts a slate
highway;
(6) A copy will be published in the official
newspaper of the city; and
(1) A copy will be posted on each of the official
notification boards of thc city and at public
libraries within the eity,
(c) Public notification sign. The applicant shall
erect at least one public notification sign which
complies with standards developed by the department
of conununhy development services. This sign shan he
l()caLe~ on or near the subject pl.opel1Y facing [he
right-of-way or vehicle access easement or (ract
providing direct vchic1c access to subject property.
The director of communi[y development services may
require the placement of additional public notice sign!!
on or near the subject property if he or ~he determines
that this is appropriate to provide notice to the public.
(d) Timing. The public notification sign or signs
must be in place at least 14 calendllr days after the
Letter of Completeness has been issued, and removed
within seven calendar days after the final decision of
me city on the matter.
3/26/Y7
5
an '.1
OZ:OI nHl L6-6Z-ABW
. .
[81.t6 ON TIllY!]
t~:Ot 0Hl L6/6~/SO
""'JJ """'J. . 4 ............ ..~..._~....-. -~._._,....._.- .--ð-'-'-
',' ,"0'
. !, "\
Sec. 20-313
Prclin\inary PRO - Notice of public
hearing.
(n) CmllCIIl.f. Allcasl 14 calendar day~ prior to Lhc
date of the public hearing. the director of community
development services shall distribute a public notice in
esscnliaUy the same form as the notice of application,
c;(çcpllhat a public hearing date will be scheduled.
(b) Distl'ibution. The public notice shall be mailed
to all perSOnS and agencies who received the original
notice of application. In addition. any person
spccificulIy requesting to be notified or who submitted
cOmments as a result of the notice of application shall
be notified at this time.
(c) Public notification sign. The director of
community development services shall havc changes
made to lh~ public notification sign or signs erected at
the time of notice of application to reflect any changes
in lhe "ppHcalion. including the scheduled date of the
public hearing.
(d) Timing. The public notification sign or signs
must be removed within seven calendar days after the
final decision of the cicy on the matter.
Sec. 20.314
Prelimil1ary PRO - Report to
hearing examiner; review.
(a) No less than seven days pñor to the date of the
public hearing, the department of community
development servicc.'i shall submit to tbe hearing
examiner a wriUcn rcport sununarizing the application.
The report shull contain the following information:
(I) All pertinent application materials.
(2) An analysis of the application under the relevant
provisions of this chapter and the compr~hensive
plan.
(3) ^ statement of Lhc facts found by the director of
community development services and the
concllLc;ions drawn from those facts.
(4) A nolice of availability from the Lakchaven
Utility District and City of Tacoma public
ulilitics department 8.'1 appropriate.
(5) All conununications from other agencies or
individuals relating to the application which
were received in time to be included in the
report to lhc hearing examiner.
(6) A list of recommendations from Lbe depal.tment
of community development services, department
of public works and other appropriate
dcpanffients relàlÎng to alterations condidons of
PRO approval.
(7) A copy of the declaraûon of nonsignificance,
mitigated declaration of nonsignificance, draft
environmemal impact statement and final
environmental impact statement.' along willi a
list of any required mitig-dtion measures issued
by the responsible official.
(b) The hearing examiner shall revicw the
preliminary PRO for compliance wilh this article and
other applicable ordinances or regulations of the city.
Sec. 20-315 Preliminary PRD . Public hearing.
(a) GeneraL The hearing examiner shall hold a
public hearing on each application.
(b) Open to public. The he<U"Íngs of the hearing
examiner are open (0 the public.
(c) Effect. 111e hearing of the hearing examiner is
the open record hearing for city council on the
application. The city council shall nm hold another
open record hearing on lhe application.
Sec. 20.316
Preliminary PRD - Electronic
sound reconling.
The hearing examiner shall make a complete
elec[ronic sound recording of each public hearing.
See. 20.317
Plocliminary PRD - Burden ot
proof.
The itpplicant has the responsibility of convincing the
city (hat. under the provision of article, the applicant is
entitled to the u:quested decision.
See. 20-318
Prcliminary PRD - Public
comments and participation at the
bearing.
Any person may participate in' dle public bearing in
either or both of the following ways:
(1) By submitting written comments to the hearing
examiner. either by delivering these conuuents
to dle department of conununity development
services prior to the hearing or by giving these
directly to the hearing examiner nt the hearing.
(2) By appearing in person. or through a
rcpresentaúve. at the hearing and making oral
eonunents directly to the hearing examiner. The
hearing examiner may reasonably limit lhc
extent of oral commen!:.'! to facilitate the orderly
and timely conduct of the hearing.
3/26/97
6
J n 'j
{7,:0l nH.I. J.6-6Z-AIdW
. .
[9J.t6 ON nI/I!]
TZ:OT ßH.t L6/6ZI£O
Ò)taJJ vrap . r'tannea J(e.r'a~nrt(u LJ~V~lC)pf71em Al:¡;UUtttUru'
.1;','
Preliminary PRD - Continuation of
the hearing.
The hearing examiner may continue the hearing if,
for any reason. he or she is unable to hear all of the
public comments on the matter or if the hearing
examiner dctennines that he or she nCl.-us more
information tin the mauer. If, during the hearing. the
hearing examiner announces the time and place of the
next hearing un the matter and a notice thereof is
postcc.l on the door of the hearing room. no further
notice of that hearing need be given.
Sec. 20-319
Preliminary PRD .
Recommendation by the hearing
examiner.
(M) Gellerclily. Afrer considering aU of [he
infornmtion and comment'! submitt.c:d on tbe mauer, the
hearing examiner shall issue a written recommendation
to the city council.
Sec.. 20.320
(b) Timing. Unless a longer period is mutually
agreed (0 by the applicant and the bearing examiner.
the hearing examiner mu!o1. issue dle recommendation
not later than ten working days following conclusion of
all testimony and hearings.
(c) Dt'.ci.{ional c:riteria The hearing exnminer shan
use the following critcria in reviewing the preliminary
PRO and may recommend approval of the preliminary
PRO to the city council if:
(I) It is consistent wiLh lite compl'Chensive plan;
(2) It is con!:istent wi£h aU applicable provisions of
this chapter. including those adopted by
reference from the comprehensive plan;
(3) It is consistent with pllblic health. safety. and
welfarc:
(4) Il is consistcnt with design criteria contained in
this articlc; and
(5) It is consistent with the developm~nt standards
listed in sections 22-_.
(d) Conditions and resrr;ctÎolU. The hearing
examiner shall include in the wrillen recommendations
any ~onditions and restrictions that die examiner
determines are reasonably necessary to eliminate or
minimize any undesirable effects of granting the
aprlication.
(c) Cmlttmls. The hearing examiner shall include
the following in lhe written recommendation to the city
council:
(1) A statement of facts presented to the hearing
examiner that supports his or her
recommendation. including any conditions and
restrictions dlal are recommended.
. .
examiner s
(2) A statemelll of the hearing
conclusions based on those facL~.
(3) A statement of criteria used by the hearing
examiner in making the recommendation.
(4) The date of issuance of the recommendation.
(f) Disrribution of written recommendation. The
director of communily development services shaH
distribute copies of the recommendation of the hearing
examiner as follows:
(I) Willtin two working days after the hearing
examiner's written recommendation is issued Ii
copy will be sent to the applic.\nt, Cc1ch person
who submitted wlinen or oral testimony to the
hearing examiner, and each person who
specifically requested it.
(2) Prior to the public meeting where ci[y council
considers the hearing examiner's
recommendation. a copy will be sent to each
member of the city .counciL The director of
community development scrviccs shall include a
draft resolution that embodies the hearing
examiner's recommendation with a eopy of the
recommendation.
PreUminary PRD - City council
review, action.
(a) Following receipt of lhe final report and
recommendations of the hearing examiner, a date shall
be Set for a public meeting before the city council.
Sec. 20-321
(b) The city council review of the preliminary PRD
application shall be limited to the record of the hC"dring
heforo the hearing examiner 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
hearing examiner, the cHy council may adopt or reject
the hearing eJtamjner's recommendations based on the
record c..'tablishcð a( lhe public he¡¡ring. If. after
considering the matter at a public meeling. lite city
council deems a ch¡¡nge i'n the hearing examiner's
recommendation approving or disapproving the
preliminary PRD is necessary, the city council shall
adopt its own recommendations and approve Or
disapprove [he preliminary PRD.
3/26/97
7
Rn .~
22:01 OHI L6-62-ABW
. .
[8/.t6 ON nI/Xl]
16:01 OBI L6/66/S0
J_p &.I",,), - " ..."".... "...........,...... ....... """"1"""'" n~6 -.........,...
.'."
(d) As pan of the final review, the city council may
require or tlpprove a minor modification to the
preliminary PRO if the city determines that the change
will not increase any adverse impacts or undesIrable
effcct$ of the project and that the change does not
significantly alter the project.
Preliminary PRO. Notiee of
decision.
(a) Grneral. Following the final decision by the
city council, the director of community development
scrvÎ<;cs shall prepare a notice of the city's final
decision on the application.
Sc<:. 20-322
(b) {}isrributiO1t. Within ten working days after the
city council'1; decision is made, the director of
community development services shall distribute a
copy of the notice of the final decision as follows:
(1 ) A copy will be sentto the applicant;
(2) A copy will be sent to any person who submillcd
written or oral comments to the hearing
examiner; and
(3) A copy will be sent to each person who ha.o¡
specifically requested it.
Sec, 20-323 Preliminary PRD . Judicial review.
The action u[ the city in granting or denying an
¡¡pplicatiun under this article may be reviewed pursuant
to the standards !\et forth in RCW 36.7OC.130 in the
King County !';upcrior court. The land use petition must
be filed within 21 calendar days after the final land use
decision of the city.
Preliminary PRO . Duration of
approval.
(u) Appruval of the preliminary PRD by the city
e()uncil shall include all conditions. restrictions, and
other requirements adopted by the council as part of
app¡'oval. City council approval of a prelinùnary PRD
~haU not eon!';tÏtute approval for land clearing or
grading, vegetation removal. or any other activities
which otherwise require permits from the city.
(b) Prior to con ;lruction of imp!.ovements pursuant
to preliminary PRO approval. engineering drawings for
public improvements shall be submitted for review and
. approval to the department of public works and the
Lakehavcn Utility District or City of Tacoma public
utilities department. No CorlSU'Ucùon or site work shaH
be perfonned until final approval of all utiJity plans.
including storm drainage, the payment of all pertinent
Sec. 20-324
fees. and the submittal of performance and maintenance
securities as may be required.
(c) Preliminary PRD approval shall expire 24
months from the date of city council approval unlcss
substantial progress has been made toward completion
of the entire PRD, or the initial phase of the PRD, if the
preliminary approval included phasing. In the event the
applicant has not made substantial progress toWÜfd
completion of the PRD, the applicant may requèst an
extension from the planning director. The reque1;t for
exten¡¡Íon must be submitted to the deparLment of
community development services at least 30 days prior
to the expiration date of the preliminary PRD.
(d) In considering whe~er to grant the extenJlion.
the planning direct()r shall cnm.;dcr whether conditions
in the vicinity of the PRD have changed to a sufficient
degree since initial approval to warrant rcconsidcClition
of the preliminary PRD. If Lhc planning director dc."Cms
such reconsidenttion is warranted, a public hearing
shan be scheduled and advertised in accordance with
procedures for a preliminary PRD.
Sec. 20-325 Final PRD - Form and contcnL
(a) The applicant shall file with the depa11l11ent of
community development services a final PRO plan
containing in a detailed form the information required
in for the preliminary PRO application.
(b) The tinal PRD plan must prescnt aU of the
information required for the preliminary PRD in Q
finalized. detailed form. This includes site plans
sufficient for recording and engineering drawings. All
schemåtic plans presented in the preliminary PRD plan
stage must be presented in their detailed form. Any
items not submitted during the preliminary PRO stage
must be reviewed, and any final plats and public
dedication documents shall" also be submitted at this
time.
(c) For PRDs which are phasCd. a phasing plan 1;hall
be requiced. The phasing p1an shan describe the
general boundarie!l of eaeh phase and Lbe expected date
at which a detailed site plan will be submitted for each
phase. PROVIDED. however, no project to be
developed in phases may exceed five years from the
time the phasing plan is submitted.
Sec. 20-326
Final PRD - Administraûvc review.
The applican[(s) shall submit the final development
plan to the dIrector of community development service:,;
[or review. If the application meet"i the minimum
requirements as set forth in lhis chaplcr and is in
substantial compliance with the approved preliminary
3/26/97
8
60 'ti
22:01 OHl L6-62-AijW
. .
[8Lt6 ON nI/I~]
1Z:01 ŒH1 L6/6Z/S0
U""JJ ""WJ' . .-'".w- nww._....-. _w.w.w,.u.w... "-0-.-..-.-
, ..,',í~.
PRO development plan, it shall be submined to the
hearing examiner, The final PRO development plan
!;hall he dcemed sufficiently consistent with the
preliminary PRO development plan, PROVIDED,
modification by the applicant docs not involve a change
of one or more of the following:
(a) Violate any provisions of this chapter;
(b) Vary the lot area requirements by more than five.
percent~
(c) Involve a reduction of more than five percent of
the area reserved for open space;
(d) Increase the total ground area covered by
buildings by mOIë than two percent;
(t) Increase density or number of dwelling units by
more than five percent; and
(g) Change in points of vehicular and/or pedestrian
i\CCess.
Sec,20.327
Final PRD . Hearing examiner
review.
(a) The hearing examiner, upon receiving the final
PRO development plan and recommendations from the
director of community development services, shan
examine such plan and determine whether it conform!;
to the approved preliminary PRD development plan. If
there is any significant discrepancy, the planning
commission may permit the applicant to revise the plan
and resubmit it as a final development plan within 90
days;
(h) If the hcru'ing examiner find¡¡ that the final PRD
development plan substantially conforms to the
t approved preliminary PRD development plan, the
~hU"'iRg "gAugh-";"n shall make written findings and
conclusions recommending approval to the cíty council.
If the -plaAAiRg commiuioR docs not recommend
approval of a final development plan, its specific
reasons for disapproval shall be stated in writing and
made part of the public record as well as presented to
the aflplicant;
(c) The hearing examiner shall make a
rct;9Q1IUcndation on the final development plan within
--...lU..- calendar days after the official date it has
received the plnn from the director of community
development services.
Sec. 20-328
Final PRD - City council action.
Following formal acceptance. the final PRD
development plan shall be transmitted to the city
council for final approval. modification or rejection.
Approvals subject to modifications or conditions shall
be agreed to in writing by the applicant before fonnal
accep[ancc.
Final PRD - Appeal of city council
decision.
The decision approving ot" disapproving any final
PRD shall be reviewable pursuant LO thc standards set
forth in RCW 36.2IC.130 before the King County
superior court. Standing (0 bring the action is limited
to the following parties:
(1) The applicant or owner of the property on which
the PRD L<; proposed:
See, ZO~329
(2) Any propc.rty owner within 300 fect of the
proposal; and
(3) Any property owner who deems him or herself
aggrieved thcreby and who will suffer direct and
substantial impacts from the proposed PRD,
See. 20-330
Final PRD - A mcndlnents.
(a) Minor changes of lot lines or the combination of
lots if no new lots are created or minor changes in
location, siting and height of buildings and structurc!;
may be authorized by dle director of community
development scl"VÌces if required by enginceñng or
other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final
PRO was approved. No change aulhon:r.cd by this
subsection may cause any of the following:
(1) A change in the use or charactcr of the
development;
(2) An in<:rcasc in the overall cover;¡ge of !;trueluros;
(3) An increase in the intensity of use;
(4) An increase in the number of access point.. and
problems of traffic circulation,
(5) An increase in the problems of public utilities;
(6) A reduction in approved open space;
(7) A reduction of off-street parking and loading
space; and
(8) A reduction in required pavement widths.
(b) An other changes in l1se or re.1rrangement of
10t5, blocks and building tJ:~cts, or any changes in the
provision of common open space and changes other
than lisled in subsection (a) of this section, must be
made through a new preliminary and final PRD.
3/26197
9
0 I 'd
£Z:OI OHl L6-6Z-ABW
. .
( ~Lt6 ON: TIII:nJ
16:011lHl ¿6/6Z/~O
~IUJJ U(Ujl - ¡" lUlU/"" "",).""""",. vc...c..vl""""" ""oso&"""v,u
, I..>e,.,i,."',,""',
Sec. 20-331 Building permit issuance.
Aflcr necessary actions by the city councit. such a~
recording site plans and plal1l. building permits may be
issucd and construction may begin.
Sec. 20-332
Construction start and completion
limits.
If no construction has begun in tho PRD within 24
months rrom the approval of the final PRD and
recording of the documents. the approval shall lapse
and \tc of no further effect except that the city council,
b~lsed on the recommendation of lhc director of
community development services, upon showing of
good cause by the applicant, may extend for two
periods of 12 months each the time for beginning
construction. Requests for extensions must be filed
with the director of community development at least
thirty days prior to the expiration of the permit
approval. Upon the expiration of such an cxrcnsion(s),
the final PRO shall become nun and void. and a new
one shall be required for any PRD development on the
subject property.
Sec. 20-334
PRO public services availability.
(n) The purpose or this section is to a.~ure that
PRO approvals arc not granted unless such facilities as
water linc.'!. scwcr lines and streets exist or arc
immedial.Cly planned in sufficient quantity to service
the proposed new development. PRO projects shall be
so IOC.ltcd with respect to schools, parks. playgrounds
uml othcl' public facilities that they shall have access in
the salllc degree as would dcvclopment in a form
generally permittcd in the area; PROVIDED, that a
PRO may be approved if. alternatively:
(I) TIlC developers will provide private utilities,
facilities or services approved by the public
agencies which would normally provide s\1ch
lttilitic!:. facilities or scC't'ices as substituting on
an equivalent basis and assure their satisfactory
continuing operation and maintenance
permanently or until equivalent public utilities.
rucilitics or services are available, or
(2) The developer:\ will make provision, acceptable
to the city, for offsetting any added net public
cost or early commitment of pubHc funds
l1~ccssitnted by such development, or
(3) The city is ëtble to make such determinations
through eXpet1s acceptable to it and at the cost of
the d~vdopers. considering the difference in
anticipated public installation. operation and
maintenance costq. and the difference in
anticipated public revenue.
(b) PRD projects shaH be ~O located wilh respect to
major street... and highways or other transportation
facilities that they shall provide direct access to such
facilities without crcaûng traffic along minor streets in
residential neighborhoods outside the PRO. Major and
minor streets are defined in the section 22-1525.
<
Sec. 20-335 Design criteria - Generally.
(8) ¡he de~ign criteria established within this article
shall be used a.c; a guide for an applicant to follow in
developing a preliminary and final PRO development
plan.
(b) These criteria shan also be uscd as the basis for
recommendation and deci!:ions reg-.mIing density
increases within a PRD.
See. 20-336
Design criteria - Reqnired open
space.
(a) For the purpose of this article. open space shall
be de.'!CTibcd in the following categories:
(1) Usable open space. Aœns which have
appropriate topography, soils, drainage and size
to be considered for development as active
rccreaúon areas.
(2) Conservation open .-rpcrct!. Areas containing
special natural Or physical amenities or
environmentally sensitive reatures. the
conservation of which would benefit
:"uITounding properties or the community a.'! a
whole. Such areas may include. but are not
limited to, stands of large trees. view corridors
or view points. creeks and streams, wetlands and
marshes, ponds and lakes, or areas of historical
or archaeological itilportance. Conservation
open space and usable open space may be. but
are not always, m\1nmlly inclusive.
(3) Buffer open .rpace. Areas which are primarily
intended to provide separation between
properties or betwecn properliQl and streets.
Duffer open space may. but ducs nol always.
contain usable open space or conservation open
space.
(4) Severely constrained open space. Area... nol
included in any or the above categories which,
due to physical characteristic!:. arc impractical
or unsafe for development. Such areas may
3/26/97
10
II . rt
VG:OI nHl L6-6G-AijW
[ 8 Lt 6 ON DI/Y.I]
TZ:OT l1H.I
~~
L6/6z/ÇO
indude but are not limited ro StOOp rock
escarpments or areas of unstable soils.
(b) All PROs shall be required to pruvidc open
space in the amount of 15 percent of the gross land
aren of the PRO site.
(c) Any combination of open space types may be
uscd to accomplish the total minimum area required to
be reserved as follows;
Open space category Percent of gross land area
Usable J 0% minimum
Conserv¡¡tion No ma"imulD or
minimum
Duffer 2% maximum
Constrained 2% maximum
Sec. 20-337
Design criteria e Singlc-famßy
PROs.
(a) f.ol sizt! and .felbach r~duclion. A maximum
reduction of 25 percent for minimum lot size and
ré('juiféd setbacks for PROs located in single-family
(RS) residential zones may be permitted according to
the following p.arrial reductions for designated design
criteria. The reductions arc addiúve. but in no case
may they excced 25 percell[ in total. The exact amount
of each partial reduction is determined by the review
authority..
(I) A maximum reduction of 6 percent may be
gran led if at least 25 percent of the gross land
area of the PRO site is reserved as open space
pursuant to the guidelines set fonh in section
20-3J6(c). An additional reduction of3 percent
(9 percent cumulativc) may be gmntcd if at least
35 percc:nt is reserved as open space;
(2) A ma:r;.imum reduction of 7 percent may he
granted if advantage is taken or enhancement is
n¡;hieved of unu$ual or significant site features
.such as views. watercourses, wetlands or other
natural characteristics;
(3) A maximum reduction of 4 pcrcent may be
granted by the u~e of existing landscaping or
innovative landscaping methods fOf
~trce(.scapes, open spaceS, plazas or recreational
area.'); and
(4) A maximum reduction of S percent may be
gral\t~d by the inclusion of features such as
variation in building setbacks. harmonious use
.",W:'
of materials, clustering
enörgy-cfficient siting.
of buildings
or
Sec. 20-338 Design criteria - Multi-family
PRDs. . :;)0
a Densit increase. A density increase o@
eccent grea(C~r; than that permitted by the underlymg
7.on rñâJ.- be aUowed for PRDs located in multi-
family (RM) residential zones according to d1e
following partial density increases for designated-------::
design criteria. The ~ensity in e add' .~ á{)
in no case may they exceed 30 percent i (Otal. The
exact amount of each partla nsJty increase is
determined by the review authority.
(1) A maximum increase of 6 pcrccnt may be
granted if at lca.qt 25 pcrccnt of the gross land
arca of tho PRD site is rcscrVl.-d as open space
pursuant to the guidelines set forth in section
20-336(c). An additional reduction of 3 percent
(9 percent cumulative) may be grantcd if at least
35 percent is reserved as open space;
(2) A maximum increase of 7 percenr may be
granted if advantage is taken or enhancemönt is
achieved of unusual or significant site features
such as views, watercourses. wetlands or other
natural characteristics:
(3) A maximum increase of 4 pcrccnt may be
granted by the use of existing landscaping Or
innovative land.o;caping methods for
streetscapes, open space$, plazas or recre.uional
arc as ;
(4) A maximum increase of 5 percent may be
granted by the inclusion of features such as
vllrialion in building setbacks, harmonious use
of materials, clustering of buildings Or
energy-efficient siting; and
(5) A maximum increase of 5 percent may be
granted if a variety of housing types is provided.
(b) Required perimerer buffer lone. A minimum 30
foot buffer zone must be provided for any PR D of
multifamily structures in the RM that is adjacent to a
RS or SE zoning district The buffer zone must he kept
free of huildings or structures and must be landscaped,
scrcenëd or protected by natUral features so that
adverse effects on surrounding areas are minimi7..ed.
Sec. 20-339
Design criteria ~ Streets.
(a) Right-of-way width and street roadway widths
may be reduced by the public works director upon a
3/26/Y7
11
Gl 'd
SG:Ol nHJ. rB-B2-AtlU
[ 8 Lt 6 ON XH/X.L]
T~:OT ŒH.L L6/6~/gO .
~"'"JJ """"'!J' . .-,...-- .---.--..'-- ------r..'--- .--0--------
finding that the plan for the PRD provides for thc
scparulÍon of vehicular and pedestrian circulation
pattcl'ns and provides for adequate off-street parking
facilities.
3/26/97
J2
£1 'd
S~:Ol OHl L6-6~-^~W
staff Analysis of Subdivision Signs
Since the last LUTC meeting the staff has completed a detailed
analysis of existing subdivision signs. Several will be
conforming with some small adjustments to the code. others need
several small adjustments to the code. The following is an
analysis of the signs with the Council decision points in bold.
Subdivision names are provided as examples within the various
proposals.
1. FENCE/ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE PROPOSAL:
Change existing subdivision sign language to include "wall signs
may be mounted to decorative walls, fences, or other
architectural features". The following 23 signs require this
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
2.POLE SIGNS PROPOSAL:
Change existing subdivision sign language to include "pole
signs". Size and height requirements remain the same. Six signs
require this amendment only:
* Wedgewood West
* Wedgewood West
* Westbury
* Sunridge
* Birchwood
* Randall Lane
3. PEDESTAL SIGN PROPOSAL:
Change existing subdivision sign language to include "pedestal
signs". Size and height requirements remain the same. Two signs
require this amendment only:
* Marine Hills
4.SECOND SIGN PROPOSAL:
The current code allows two signs per entrance. Signs are
restricted to 32 square feet and if two signs are used only 32
square feet can be used between them. If the subdivision sign
language is changed to "Sign area is restricted to 50 square feet
per entrance with no one sign exceeding 32 square feet". If above
approved and second sign at entrance allowed to be a combination
of 50 square feet the following 5 signs would be in compliance:
* Rosella Lane-fence
* The Ridge 2412-fence
* The Ridge 2403-fence
* Alderbrook-fence
* Marine Hills-pedestal
5. SETBACK PROPOSAL:
When the subdivision signs were inventoried, city staff
approximated the setbacks using the utility poles, sidewalks and
other public improvements as a guide. Based on that estimate,
the following signs are on the right of way line or do not meet
the 5 foot setback line: The other amendments they need are in
parenthesis.
* Redondo Crest (fence)
* Adelaide Forest Estates (fence and second sign)
* 2 Mar Cheri signs (pole sign)
* 2 Twin Lakes signs (fence)
* Birchwood (pole sign)
* The Ridge (fence)
If the Council wishes to address signs within the setback area,
the following two alternatives are suggested:
A. To Section 22-335 Nonconforming Signs (f) extension or
exemption from amortization period (4) decisional criteria add:
(h) subdivision signs within the setback area may be considered
for exemption from the amortization period if the sign a) meets
the other size, type and height requirements, complies with sight
distance requirements and there is no other feasible location for
the sign.
B. To subdivision sign section, under location, add: "Subject
property setback five feet minimum unless attached to a fence or
architectural feature in which case it can be within the setback
area with the Public Works Director's approval."
Alternative A would resolve all signs on or within the setback
line. Alterative B would only resolve the signs attached to
fences or architectural features.
5. RIGHT OF WAY PROPOSAL:
At the time of the sign inventory, the sign crew used the same
public improvements listed above to estimate the right of way
line. Based on this criteria, the following appear to be in the
right of way: The other amendments they need are in parenthesis.
* 2 Twin Lake signs (fence and second sign)
* 2 Stonebrook signs (fence)
* The Ridge 2411 (fence)
* Campus Woods (pole sign)
* 2 Decatur Glen signs (pedestal signs)
* Sunridge (pole and second sign) appears to be in R/W as a
result of recent improvements on 21st
* Evergreen Estates (pole sign)
* Village Park (pole sign)
* 2 Country Village signs (architectural feature)
If the Council wishes to provide an alternative for future or
existing subdivision signs so that they can be located in right
of way when there is no other 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 sign must meet all other sign
requirements and must not pose a sight distance problem. The
Homeowner's Association must execute an agreement to incur all
costs and liabilities should the City need the right of way for
improvements."
6. OTHER NON-CONFORMING SUBDIVISION SIGNS
The following signs have multiple reasons for being non-
conforming and vary substantially from the current code. We
recommend that they be processed for replacement with signs that
meet the code.
* Birchwood- pole sign, not at primary entrance
* century Palisades- pole sign and exceeds are by 112 square feet
and height by 17 feet.
* 2 Westway signs- pole signs and exceed area by 12 square feet
each.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
October 14, 1997
City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee
Scott Williams, Contract PlannG~
Final Plat Application for Wildwood Estates -- Federal Way File No. SUB90-
0004
I.
II.
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION
BC Construction is requesting final plat approval of Wildwood Estates, a proposed 7-lot
single family subdivision on 1.91 acres, located east of 21st Avenue SW and south of SW
307th Street.
City staff has reviewed the final plat of Wildwood Estates for compliance with
preliminary plat conditions and all applicable codes and policies and recommends
approval of the plat to the council as discussed in the staff report. Staff also recommends
removal of the 20-foot landscape buffer along the eastern boundary of the subject
property and replacing it with the landscaping proposed on the Landscape plan submitted
as part of the Final Plat application.
The attached staff report addresses how the applicants have fulfilled conditions of
preliminary plat approval as listed in Resolution 93-150.
REASON FOR COUNCIL ACTION
As required by RCW 58.17.170 and Section 20-134 of the Federal Way City Code, prior
to approving a final plat, the council is charged with determining whether the final plat
substantially conforms to all terms of the preliminary plat approval, and whether the
subdivision meets the requirements of all applicable state laws and local ordinances, as
well as all conditions of the Hearing Examiner and/or City Council.
Bringing this matter before the City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee for
review and recommendation prior to a decision by the full council is consistent with how
land use matters are currently processed by the City of Federal Way.
City Council Land Use/Transportation
Committee
October 14, 1996
Page 2
ill.
HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION
A recommendation as to disposition of final plats by the Hearing Examiner is not
required.
IV.
PROCEDURALS~ARY
A summary of events related to this application is shown below.
June 21, 1992:
Environmental determination issued.
September 22, 1992:
Hearing Examiner public hearing.
October 6, 1992:
Hearing Examiner recommendation of approval
issued.
October 13, 1992:
Request for Reconsideration filed.
November 4, 1992:
Request for Reconsideration denied by the Hearing
Examiner.
November 18, 1992:
Letter of Challenge filed with the City.
December 8, 1992:
The City Council Land Use Committee remands the Letter
of Challenge back to the Hearing Examiner.
December 29, 1997:
Rehearing held by the Hearing Examiner.
January 13, 1993:
Hearing Examiner issues determination upholding his
original determination to approve the preliminary plat and
rezone request.
January 27, 1993:
Letter of Challenge filed protesting the Hearing
Examiner's decision issued on January 13, 1993.
March 2, 1993:
City Council remands Letter of Challenge back to
the Hearing Examiner.
April 27, 1993:
Hearing Examiner public hearing concerning issues on
City Council Land Use/Transportation
Committee
October 14, 1996
Page 3
remand.
May 19, 1993:
Hearing Examiner issues recommendation of approval for
proposed rezone and preliminary plat as proposed by the
applicant.
July 6, 1993:
City Council denies rezone application and schedules
public hearing for consideration of revised 7-lot
preliminary plat.
August 10, 1993:
City Council holds public hearing on revised preliminary
plat.
September 6, 1993:
City Council approves preliminary plat per Resolution
#93-150.
v.
DECISIONAL CRITERIA
Pursuant to Section 20-134 of the Federal Way City Code, the City Council shall
approve the final plat based on written findings if the following criteria has been met.
1. The final plat is in substantial conformance to the preliminary plat.
2. The final plat is in conformity with applicable zoning ordinances or other land use
controls.
3. All conditions of the Hearing Examiner and/or City Council have been satisfied.
4. All required improvements have been made and maintenance bonds or other
security for such improvements have been submitted and accepted. The
landscaping as proposed in the Landscape Plan submitted with the Final Plat
application has been installed.
5. All taxes and assessments owing on the property have been paid.
All of the above criteria have been met.
City Council Land Use/Transportation
Committee
October 14, 1996
Page 4
VI.
COUNCIL ACTION
A draft resolution recommending approval of the final plat for Wildwood Estates is in
the process of being prepared by the Legal Department. After consideration of the
staff report and recommendation, if the Council finds that all criteria outlined in RCW
58.17.170, King County Title 19, and Section 20-134 of the Federal Way City Code
have been met, the City Council may approve the plat for recording by a majority
vote of its membership.
C:\ WLDWOOD\LUTCMMO.DOC
I I
I I r----1
I I I 1
I ... I L UO< J ", K
'---1 ---- } 1-<.."
;:Q:: l. '\J
~ ",'
0" "'. I ~j
(j -: - J R
\f'J\:..'
,...... "
I I
I I
I I
I aÞI I
L- -.'
r'.' .,
,J .
r- -. -,
I I
I I r-.---l
I I
I"" I I lUG I
l.... - -J l..l"- - - J (
.,ø" ,
,~.'
-- -.-
i "
r - - -1- - -. - - 1
: I .' .... ~1
'L__.i-, J
'"....,...u \ ... - - - - ~
.a~ /
. ,
.
- ~-=-
, "-,.., ;¡
-----
\
-- - ".,._.
I ¡Tor -===1-.=>==, .', ~. .~=.:.=~:j=~.lT:.:=~tll~='rrR :-\~~ '""
- I r----1! I,,!, .1, I' I I I I
í -"Î\ I 8 I r - - - - 1 I' 'r - - .r :-11 LN r :,. - -sR I r - ï r l I r - - .r - 1 I r - - .r - 1 I í - ï r ì
\ ;-. \ I L____J ' 7 I N$IVI5': F. ß I '5' I I ¿þ-i 1 1.3 I I 2 I I 1U I I
\ va \ 'CÓMPREHW ,-:, ~~, 19. ~- - - ~ J I L - - - - J I l- - - - ~ I l- - - - J I L - - - - J I
\ I I I' ZONqvG, ~OTA PALISADES 01'( No, I I I
\--_.J I I LA, I VOL'IG7/6J I I
I I , . I
't CJCO / I.l. 0080 I.l. 0010 I,~, 0060 I &^ I I ,I :: I I
I 1 I t.L. 00..... 1 T,l. 0040 L 1.l, OOjO I,l, 0020
--L I L I.!. 0010
'- - - T l - - --¡-'\'" - . - - - - - 7- - T - - - - - -L - - - - -l
I.L.0270 I l 1,4 I . -¡
, . \ T,l,0020 / I,l, 00.)0 " I,L. 00'0 I.l, 0080
J-~".)--ll I I \ r---'-ï I" "'--.--1 I I
';v ..9 I I I / "I r--'--l
;.., (), J I I I r,l, 0010 \ L 2 J LAKCPTA o..'DGr:t.. - 7 I I I 8 I I
'-'-"..---- ---- / r----l "'I. l:. ì I
(T ~ I I r - - - -1 I 1 \ I ..3 I I VOL. 97y7-8 l- ,J I L - - - - J /' /1
I I I '\ / L - - - - J I,V: ~60 " I /'
I J r----" / I I ... I
~---- ' I \ I 6'" " /'
..... I / TL 0090
r-~ ( ~ )
....~ <E
- -r~7e;-l-l
,:J
(~
,Z
180'
~~
G>:J:
m-
m
-
--I
, I
I
~I~
-
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
WILDWOOD ESTATES
Federal Way File No. SUB90-0004
I.
INTRODUCTION
Date:
October 14, 1997
Request:
Request for final plat approval for Wildwood Estates
Wildwood Estates is a proposed subdivision of 7 -single family lots on 1.91
acres (Exhibit A -- Approved Preliminary Plat of Wildwood Estates).
The plat was approved by the Federal Way City Council on September 7,
1993 per Resolution 93-150 (Exhibit B)
Description:
Zoning on the site is RS 9.6. Lot sizes on the final plat (Exhibit C --
Final Plat of Wildwood Estates) range from 9,600 square feet (Lots 1-6)
to 9,608 square feet (Lot 6). The plat also includes a drainage tract (Tract
"A"), which is 11,766 square feet in size.
Access for the subdivision is proposed from 21 st Avenue SW. All roads
and sidewalks within the proposed subdivision have been constructed, storm
drainage facilities have been installed and water and sewer lines are in.
Owner:
Engineer:
Location:
B.C. Construction
29629 176th Avenue SE
Kent, W A 98042
(253) 631-1498
Mel Daley
DMP, Inc.
1215 S Central Avenue, #133
Kent, W A 98032
(253) 854-9344
East of 21st Avenue SW and south of SW 307th Street in
Section 12, Township 21 North, Range 3 East, WM, King
County (Exhibit D -- Vicinity Map).
Staff Report - Final Plat
Wildwood
Page 2
Sewage Disposal:
Lakehaven Utility District.
Water Supply:
Lakehaven Utility District
Fire District:
No. 39 - King County
School District:
No. 210 - Federal Way
Report Prepared
by:
Scott Williams, Contract Planner
ll.
mSTORY AND BACKGROUND
The original application was submitted as a 9-lot preliminary plat and a rezone from RS 9.6
to RS 7.2. Ultimately, the rezone application was denied and the plat was re-designed to
match the RS 9.6 zoning. The preliminary plat of Wildwood Estates consisting of 7-lots on
1.91 acres (Exhibit A), was granted approval by the City of Federal Way on September 7,
1993 per Resolution 93-150 (Exhibit B). A summary of events prior to that time is shown
below.
June 21, 1992:
Environmental determination issued.
September 22, 1992:
Hearing Examiner public hearing.
October 6, 1992:
Hearing Examiner recommendation of approval issued.
October 13, 1992:
Request for Reconsideration filed.
November 4, 1992:
Request for Reconsideration denied by the Hearing
Examiner.
November 18, 1992:
Letter of Challenge filed with the City.
December 8, 1992:
The City Council Land Use Committee remands the Letter
of Challenge back to the Hearing Examiner.
December 29, 1992:
Rehearing held by the Hearing Examiner.
January 13, 1993:
Hearing Examiner issues determination upholding his
Staff Report - Final Plat
Wildwood
Page 3
original determination to approve the preliminary plat and
rezone request.
January 27, 1993:
Letter of Challenge filed protesting the Hearing Examiner's
decision issued on January 13, 1993.
March 2, 1993:
City Council remands Letter of Challenge back to
the Hearing Examiner.
April 27, 1993:
Hearing Examiner public hearing concerning issues on
remand.
May 19, 1993:
Hearing Examiner issues recommendation of approval for
proposed rezone and preliminary plat as proposed by the
applicant.
July 6, 1993:
City Council denies rezone application and schedules public
hearing for consideration of revised 7 lot preliminary plat.
August 10, 1993:
City Council holds public hearing on revised preliminary plat.
September 6, 1993:
City Council approves preliminary plat per Resolution #93-
150.
The applicant applied for final plat approval in August 1996. As part of the Final Plat
application, the applicant requested removal of the 20-foot landscape buffer shown on the
approved preliminary plat adjacent to the existing multifamily development on the east.
This buffer was required by the Zoning Code that was in force at the time of preliminary
plat approval (Section 90.25). Since that time, the requirement has been removed from the
City I s code. In addition, the applicant has installed a six-foot fence and installed
landscaping as shown in Exhibit E. Therefore, staff recommends that the buffer shown on
approved preliminary plat be replaced with the landscaping as proposed on the Landscape
Plan submitted as part of the Final Plat application (Exhibit E). All other improvements,
as proposed on the plan have been installed on the site.
The remainder of staff report addresses how the applicant has fulfilled the conditions of
preliminary plat approval.
Staff Report - Final Plat
Wildwood
Page 4
III. COMPLIANCE WITH PRELIMINARY PLAT CONDITIONS
v.
The following is staff's analysis of the conditions of approval for the preliminary plat,
as contained in Exhibit B.
1.
The applicant will be required to submit an appraisal of similarly situated
property so that the City may determine the exact fee in lieu of to satisfy the
open space requirement. Payment shall be required prior to final plat
approval.
The applicant has paid the "fee in lieu of" amount of $13,500 to satisfy this
condition.
2.
Storm drainage detention facilities shall be designed in accordance with Basin
wide recommendation BW -2 of the Hylebos Creek Lower Puget Sound Basin
Plan utilizing the 2-year and 10-year, 7-day storm events instead of the 2-year
and 10-year 24-hour storm events in the King County Surface Water Design
Manual. The 30 percent factor of safety shall be applied per the Manual.
Through approval of the engineering plans and inspections during construction,
Public Works Department staff have determined that this condition has been met.
3.
Upon installation of the retention/detention facility in Tract A, the grading and
vegetation and improvements shall be installed to provide maximum sight
distance perpetually.
Public Works staff determined that Tract A was properly cleared and graded. A
note has been placed on the face of the plat to ensure that sight distance is
maintained in perpetuity. Therefore, this condition has been met.
4.
Driveways on Lots 6 and 7 shall be placed in the northernmost location on
each lot consistent with FWCC.
Public Works staff have determined that this condition has been met.
DECISIONAL CRITERIA
Pursuant to Section 20-134 of the Federal Way City Code, if the City Council finds that
the following criteria have been met, the City Council may approve the Final Plat for
recording:
Staff Report - Final Plat
Wildwood
Page 5
CRITERION #1 -- The Final Plat is in substantial conformance to the preliminary
plat.
Response -- This criterion has been met. Please refer to discussion under Criterion #2,
below.
CRITERION #2 -- The Final Plat is in conformity with applicable zoning ordinances or
other land use controls.
Response -- The final plat is in conformance with all applicable provisions of the
FWCC. The proposed modification of the 20-foot landscape buffer on the east side of
the subject property is in conformance with the current Zoning Code. Therefore, this
criterion has been met.
CRITERION #3 -- All conditions of the Hearing Examiner and/or City Council
have been satisfied.
Response -- This criterion has been met (please refer to Section III of this report).
CRITERION #4 -- All required improvements have been made and maintenance
bonds or other security for such improvements have been submitted and accepted.
Response -- This criterion has been met. All road and storm drainage improvements
have been constructed. In addition, all water and sewer lines have been installed.
Adequate bonding is in place with the City, and Lakehaven Utility District.
CRITERION #5 -- All taxes and assessments owing on the property have been paid.
Response -- Prior to being recorded, the plat is reviewed by the King County
Department of Assessments to ensure that all taxes and assessments have been paid.
VI. CONCLUSION
Based on a site visit, review of the final plat maps, construction drawings, the project
file, and approval of the requested modification of the landscape buffer by the City
Council, the application for Final Plat approval for Wildwood Estates meets all platting
requirements of RCW 58.17.070, and Section 20-134 of the Federal Way City Code. A
recommendation of Final Plat approval is therefore being forwarded to the City Council
for your approval.
A Resolution of the City of Federal Way, Washington, approving the final plat of
Wildwood Estates designated as Federal Way File No. SUB90-0004, is attached
(Exhibit F).
Staff Report - Final Plat
Wildwood
Page 6
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
EXHIBITS
81/2 x 11 Reduced Copy of Approved Preliminary Plat of Wildwood Estates
Resolution 93-150 -- September 6, 1993 City of Federal Way Preliminary Plat
Approval of Wildwood Estates.
81/2 x 11 Reduced Copy of Final Plat Map of Wildwood Estates
Vicinity Map for Wildwood Estates
81/2 x 11 Reduced Copy of Landscape Plan for Wildwood Estates
Final Plat Resolution of the City of Federal Way, Washington, approving the final
plat of Wildwood Estates
C: \ WLDWOODIFPSTFRPT.DOC
RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT 13
PAGE { OF z.t:;
93-150
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, APPROVING WITH
CONDITIONS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A SEVEN (7)
LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION,
COMMONLY KNOWN AS WILDWOOD ESTATES, FILE
NO. SUB-90-0004, LOCATED EAST OF 21ST AVENUE
S.W. AND SOUTH OF S.W. 307TH STREET WITHIN THE
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, AND DENYING A REQUEST TO
REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (R.S. 9.6) TO SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (R.S. 7.2), FILE NO. RZ-92-0002.
WHEREAS, the applicant, B.C. Construction Company, has a
possessory ownership interest in a 1.91 acre parcel of property
located east of 21st Avenue S.W. and south of S.W. 307th street,
Federal Way, Washington, legally described in Exhibit "A" attached
and incorporated hereto ("Property"); and
WHEREAS, applicant had applied to the city of Federal Way
for preliminary plat approval to subdivide the Property into nine
(9)
single-family
residential
lots,
pursuant
to
Chapter
20,
"Subdivisions," of the Federal Way city Code ("FWCC") and for a
quasi-judicial project rezone to rezone the entire site from
single-family residential (R.S. 9.6) to single-family residential
(R.S. 7.2) pursuant to Article III, Division 3, "Rezoning," of the
FWCC ("Wildwood Estates Application"); and
WHEREAS, applicant has applied for a project specific
rezone, wherein the City shall evaluate the applicant's specific
development proposal for the subject property as part of the
decision on the rezone; and
RES #
93-150
- PAGE 1
COpy
WHEREAS I
EXHIBIT ß
pursuant to section 22PA~QÇj,,~~
related rezone is processed according to Process III described in
Sections 22-477 through 22-498 of the FWCC; and
WHEREAS, after all proper notice requirements, a public
hearing
was
held
on
the
Wildwood
Estates
Application
on
september 22, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner, having
heard public testimony and reviewed all written comments
and
evidence
presented,
issued
a
Recommendation
on
Rezone
and
Preliminary Plat on October 6, 1992; and
WHEREAS,
the
Hearing
Examiner
recommended
that
the
request for rezone classification from R.S. 9.6 to R.S. 7.2 and the
preliminary plat approval for wildwood Estates Application be
approved subject to the conditions contained in the Recommendation
on Rezone and Preliminary Plat; and
WHEREAS, a Request for Reconsideration was filed by Mary
Ann Allmann on October 13, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the Request was distributed to parties of record
in accordance with section 22-488(b) FWCC; and
WHEREAS,
on November 4,
1992,
the Examiner issued a
Decision
on
Reconsideration
denying
the
Request
for
Reconsideration; and
WHEREAS, a Letter of Challenge was filed by Mary Ann
Allmann on November 18, 1992; and
RES #
93-150
- PAGE 2
WHEREAS, on December 8, 1992, the Land Use Committee of
the City of Federal Way city Council considered the Letter of
Challenge and remanded the Letter of Challenge to the Hearing
Examiner for a rehearing limiting the scope of the rehearing to one
(1) significant issue pursuant to section 22-490(c) (2) FWCC; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner held
a Hearing on Remand on December 29, 1992, concerning the issue on
remand; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said hearing the Federal
Way Land Use Hearing Examiner issued its Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendations on January 13, 1993, recommending approval of the
wildwood Estates Application with conditions; and
WHEREAS, a Letter of Challenge was filed by Mary Ann
A11mann and Everett L. Gish on January 27, 1993, protesting the
Hearing Examiner's Recommendation dated January 13, 1993; and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 1993, the Federal Way City Council
considered
the
Letter
of
Challenge
at
a
public
hearing
and
recommended the matter to the Hearing Examiner for a rehearing
limiting the scope of such hearing to three (3) significant issues
pursuant to Section 22-490(c) (2) FWCC; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Way Hearing Examiner held a public
hearing on remand on April 27, 1993; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said hearing the Hearing
Examiner issued his Response to Questions Submitted on Remand dated
May 19, 1993; and
RES #
93-150
- PAGE 3
EXHIBIT 13
PAGE :3 OF .u
WHEREAS, on July 6,1993, the city council considered the
recommendation of the Hearing Examiner and heard arguments by
Applicant and challenges; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council's deliberation,
the Council declared that it would hold its own public hearing
pursuant to FWCC section 490(c) (2) on the revised application of
seven (7) lots; and
WHEREAS, on August 10, 1993, the Council held a public
hearing on the revised plat application for seven (7) lots, and the
resulting decision is hereby contained in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the city council of the city of Federal Way is
the governmental body with jurisdiction and authority to pass upon
the approval,
denial or modification of the wildwood Estates
Application using the substantive criteria of the FWCC; and
WHEREAS, the city Council having considered the entire
written
record,
pursuant
to
Chapter
20,
"Subdivisions"
FWCC,
Chapter 58.17 RCW and all other applicable City codes, ordinances
and regulations; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
section 1.
Record Before the Council.
The consideration
by the City Council was based solely on the record which includes
all staff presentations, Applicant's presentations, Appellants'
Challenges and all Hearing Examiner recommendations.
No other
evidence,
testimony,
or public comment outside the record was
RES #
93-150
- PAGE 4
EXHIBIT B
PAGE tOF_Vo
accepted by the City Council.
To the extent that any improper
submissions contained matters of an evidentiary nature, they were
disregarded by the Council.
The record consisted of the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Record and Exhibits from Hearing Examiner
Public Hearing.
Hearing Examiner Recommendation.
Request for Reconsideration.
Examiner's Decision Denying Request for
Reconsideration.
Letter of Challenge filed with the City.
Record and Exhibits from Rehearing held by
Federal Way Hearing Examiner.
Hearing Examiner Recommendation upholding original
determination to approve the preliminary plat and
rezone request.
Letter of Challenge filed protesting the Hearing
Examiner's Decision Issued on January 13, 1993.
The Council's decision to remand to the Hearing
Examiner to consider three specific issues.
The Examiner's Recommendation/Response to questions
submitted on remand.
staff Summary of Application of July 6, 1993, and
Applicant and Challenger Argument to Council of
July 6, 1993.
All testimony, evidence and exhibits submitted at
the Council public hearing of August 10, 1993.
Findinas of Fact and Conclusions.
section 2.
Pursuant
to section 22-490
FWCC,
the ci ty Council has considered the
wildwood Estates Application and, after full consideration of the
RES #
93-150
- PAGE 5
EXHIBIT D
PAGE 50f.__:!::._..
entire matter on the record before the Hearing Examiner and based
upon the record of its de novo public hearing, the city Council
hereby adopts by reference the Findings and Conclusions of the
Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner as contained in the Hearing
Examiner's Decision on Remand dated January 13, 1992; and Response
to
Questions
Submitted
on
Remand
dated
May
19,
1993,
which
documents
are
attached
hereto
as
Exhibits
"B"
and
"C,"
respectively, and those Findings and Conclusions contained in the
council's Findings of Fact and Conclusions attached hereto as
Exhibit "D."
section
3.
criteria
to Rezone:
Hearinq
Examiner's
Findinqs Re;ected.
The city Council rejects the Hearing Examiner's
findings of the specific criteria which an applicant must meet in
order to obtain a zone reclassification pursuant to Article III,
Division 3 of the FWCC, as contained in the Hearing Examiner's
Recommendation on Rezone and preliminary Plat dated October 6,
1992, including, without limitation, Finding No. 13 (A), (B), (C),
(D) and (E).
section 4.
criteria for Rezone: Council Findings.
The
Federal Way City council adopts the following findings with respect
to the specific criteria which an applicant must meet in order to
obtain a zone reclassification pursuant to FWCC section 22-299.
1.
FWCC section 22-302 requires that a city may approve an
application for a quasi-judicial project rezone only if it
finds that:
RES #
93-150
- PAGE 6
EXHIBIT 8
PAGE Þ OFU
(1)
the proposed rezone is in the best interests of the
residents of the city;
(2)
the proposed rezone is appropriate because either:
(a)
condi tions in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property have so significantly changed
since
the
property was
given
its
present
zoning
and
that,
under
those
change
conditions,
a rezone
is within the public
interest; or
(b)
the rezone will correct a zone classification
or a zone boundary that was inappropriate when
established.
2.
City Council finds that pursuant to Process III, FWCC 22-
484, applicable to this proceeding, the applicant has the
burden of convincing the City that, under the provisions of
this article,
the applicant is entitled to the requested
decision.
3.
The applicant has not met the burden of proof to show that
the proposed rezone is in the best interest of the residents
of the City.
The City Council finds that this site is
appropriate for single-family residential development.
The
site is bordered on the eastern boundary of the site by the
Westfair Apartments, and bordered on the north by the Shady
Tree duplex development.
21st Avenue Southwest provides the
separation line between multi-family development and single-
RES #
93-150
- PAGE 7
EXHIBIT g
PAGE Î OF ~b
family development in the immediate area.
single-family is
found on the west side of 21st Southwest and a multi-family on
the east side.
The site is currently zoned R.S. 9.6, which
will permit development of the site into seven (7) single-
family lots.
This lot size is consistent with the zoning
designation
for
the
lots
to
the
south
of
21st
Avenue
Southwest, zoned R.S. 9.6.
Due to the size and configuration
of the site, the proposed zone change to R.S. 7.2 would result
in the development of nine (9) lots, a difference of two (2)
lots.
Given the size and location of the lot, there is no
significant difference in the compatibility of R.S. 9.6 and
the requested rezone change to R.S. 7.2 with the single-family
lot size to the west.
There being no significant difference,
the applicant has not met the burden to show that the proposed
rezone is in the best interests of the residents of the city.
4.
The applicant has not met the burden of proof that the
rezone
is
appropriate
in
order
to
correct
a
zone
classification or zone boundary that was inappropriate when
established; or that conditions in the immediate vicinity of
the subject property have so significantly changed since the
property was given its present zoning and that under those
changed
circumstances
the
rezone
is
within
the
public
interest.
5.
The City council finds that the zoning classification for
this
site
was
established
at
the
time
of
the
City's
RES #
93-150
- PAGE 8
EXHIBIT B
PAGE ~ OF 2k
incorporation with the adoption of City ordinance 90-43,
designating for this site the zone classification of R.S. 9.6.
The proposed site
is
120'
wide strip of property,
with
proposed lots 60 '
in width.
No internal circulation is
proposed, and all plats will have access directly onto 21st
Avenue Southwest.
21st Avenue Southwest is classified as a
"residential collector" by section 15.25 of the FWCC.
There
is a curve in 21st Avenue Southwest at the south end of the
property.
Conditions of approval will require the applicant
to broaden the curve which will increase the sight distance.
21st Avenue Southwest is shared as an access point for lots
located in Lakota palisades across the street from the site.
The Lakota palisades site is zoned 9.6, consistent with the
current zoning of the subj ect site.
The current zoning
designation of 9.6 for the subject site is compatible as a
transition zone between multi-family and single-family.
The
applicant has not shown that a rezone to 7.2, resulting in two
(2) additional lots, will correct a zone classification or
zone boundary that was
inappropriate when this zone was
established in 1990.
6.
In addition, the applicant has failed to meet any burden
to show that conditions in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property have so significantly changed since 1990 when
the property was given its present zoning and that, under
RES #
- PAGE 9
EXHIBIT 5
PAGE q OF Jk,
93-150
those changed circumstances, a rezone is within the public
interest.
section 5.
Application Approval.
The Preliminary Plat
Application
SUB-90-0004
for
the
Property,
commonly
known
as
wildwood Estates, is approved as evidenced by the City Council's
adoption of this Resolution which shall permit the applicant to
subdivide and develop the Property, pursuant to the plans on file
with the city for this Application.
Section 6.
Conditions of Approval.
The approval for the
wildwood Estates Application shall be subject to the development of
the Property in conformance with the plans on file with the City,
SUB-90-0004, and further subject to the following conditions:
L
The applicant will be required to submit an appraisal of
similarly situated property so that the city may determine the
exact "fee in lieu of" to satisfy the open space requirement.
Payment of the fee shall be required prior to final plat
approval.
2.
Storm drainage detention facilities shall be designed in
accordance with Basin wide recommendation BW-2 of the Hylebos
Creek Lower puget Sound Basin Plan utilizing the 2-year and
10-year, 7-day storm events instead of the 2-year and 10-year,
24-hour storm events in the King County Surface Water Design
Manual.
The 30 percent factor of safety shall be applied per
the Manual.
RES #
EXHIBIT 13
PAGE~.._OF 1-h
93-150
- PAGE 10
3.
Upon installation of the retention/detention facility in
Tract A, the grading and vegetation and improvements shall be
installed to provide maximum site distance perpetually.
4.
Driveways
on Lots
6
and
7
shall
be
placed
in
the
northernmost location on each lot consistent with the FWCC.
section 7.
Effect of Approval.
The effect of the
approval of the Wildwood Estates Application shall be to allow the
applicant,
subject to all applicable codes and ordinances,
to
develop the Property
in conformance with this Resolution and
pursuant to the Preliminary Plat Application SUB-90-0004 approved
as part of this Resolution.
section
8.
Conditions
of
Approval
Intearal.
The
conditions of approval of the preliminary plat are all integral to
each other with respect to the City Council finding that the public
use and interest will be served by the subdivision of the subject
property.
Should any court having jurisdiction over the subject
matter declare any of the conditions invalid, then, in said event,
the proposed preliminary plat approval granted in this resolution
shall be deemed void and the preliminary plat shall be remanded to
the Hearing Examiner for the City of Federal Way to review the
impacts of the invalidation of any condition or conditions and to
conduct such additional proceedings as are necessary to ensure that
the proposed plat makes appropriate provisions for the public
health, safety and welfare and other factors as required by RCW
Chapter 58.17 and applicable city ordinances, rules, regulations,
RES #
93-150
- PAGE 11
EXHIBIT 13
PAGE 11 OF 2io
and shall such recommendation to the city council for further
action.
section 9.
Severability.
If any section,
sentence,
clause or phrase of this resolution should be held to be invalid or
unconstitutional
by
a
court
of
competent
jurisdiction,
such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase
of this resolution.
Section 10.
Effective Date.
This resolution shall be
effective immediately upon passage by the Federal Way City council.
RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
WASHINGTON, this
7th
day of
September
, 1993.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
~5s~
ANEY, CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~éAROL~N
~
A. LAKE
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-150
September 1,1993
September 7,1993
93-150
- PAGE 12
EXHIBIT B
PAGE /1" OF-)b
MAR YK\RES\ WILD WOOD. RES
RES #
1
i
J
I .
,
THAT PORTION OF THE SOU'I'HD.ST QUÞ-..RTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUp..RTER OF
SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RJ...NGE 3 EÞ-..5T, w~LI.J>..METTE MERIDIltN, IN KIN~
COUNTY, WASHINGTON, MORE PÞ-..RTICU~..RLY DESCRIBED }...s FOu..oWS:
BEGI~~ING AT THIS INTERSECTION OF TEE NORTE LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION
WITH TEE..EAST MÞ-..RGIN OF 2~ST A'Y""E S. W.'~ SAID POINT BEING SOUTH 88 DEGREES
35'07" EAST 30 FEET FROM THE NORTEWEST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION;
THENCE CONTI1'I"'UING SOUTH 88 DEGREES 35' 07" E.7!-..5T J.-LONG SAID NORTH LINE 120
FEET:
THENCE SOUTH 1 DEGREE 21' 4" E..1I..5T ï:3 à . S 9 FEET TO A POINT ON TEE
. -
NORTHE)...5TE1U.Y 1>fj...RGI~ OF 21ST A'\i'E S. W. ;
THENCE NORTBW'"ESTERLY }'..LONG. SAID 19.RGIN TO THE TRUE PC:Th~ 0: BEGI:t-I~:rnG.
EXHIBIT B
PAGE 13 OF 1-b
. .
.; .
EXBIB1T ( (1/ /1
-.
BEFORE T:1£ HE.-\.."?£\G EX.-\..\1T<L~ OF 11::1:.. em- OF ITDL-.:t.-U- WAY
I\" 1 :-<~.t.., \1..\. TTL..~ OF THE APPLJCA TIO~
of 3.c. Cc~-'r.;C:;'~':J Cc=;;::.:¡y
ì
I
fILE F'3t3.. 9D..OC\(\~"Rl.. 92 -0(1(12
F'i'"RE =9::..} 0
)
)
)
)
)
DECISIO~ O~
RECO~SIDE.RA nON
For PTE:l~7r;~"'.a~' P:2t Apprc'\al
of ,\VD¿...-ooò ~ç:t.2t~
0.., ,...""....--...",,-~., " '.:!; .. '-...--:_~ .....~ '-","'¡ ;.., -"'<::-¡,,--.. .~ ..'-", ---':"--'.5 -"-""'$. :':-,r
oj ~-:"_."--- --, ..;-~-, Co ,J-::"'-.:. ...~ .J_;- ...J ._-:~..::'- L- <:';-':-,...!_c..../L J~'-'- L ....
P~".i:"":,~-"",, -":::1 """,,~,,\,..1 :",- .. ,::) T ,,' S:-:-..._:.._:~., -:-,,-,:-'...-,-=:;:' '.'.J"'::.":S:O'" ?-JÒ 2 ZO~I~
..__..~.~: :--. c..-;-"" .:..¡ '-- c. ; ..........L -.':;'- .c....-.' .__JU....._~ -- -.'.. u ~
;~:~si5:¿-:o~ cf -:.~ s'.::-j=;:: :?;O~::-::-' :.c'::1:<.5 9.5 (S:.--;g1e-?ê....-:-.:::; ?::sióe::-:::2):o RS ï.2
(';-'~""-r-.._:1\, "...,:,~..-,"::::¡ì
---'::'- c...;.~~, -'\.--.--'.--.'
On Octo~~r 6, :992, L~~ ?..~~-;g Ex2...-m..-;::r :ss"J:;d 2. ;~OillI7Je:¡6.:j:):J :.a Üì:: Ci:y Council for
ê.'J-';0\.ë.1 of '..Ì"':= ê.~'J:iC2..:"1t' S ::-0"""'s.2l v.iili CO;¡Ö:5or:s. On O:lO~~r 13:::1. 1992. a R~u~st for
or .. 0 r- . . .
R""""""'S1r1"-~O'" ;n .";s ~-"""r W2.5 ru-l"'~ 'O'U J\!:t J\,f--n.7 ^ i'm""""'"' -;:"v,,""v"'r t!'-" R""'u"'st .':or
---'.. ---.....c.- .J -- i..:- .,.co.- l w...o .' - --. - _c..!.' .~ ......u.. -.1.' ... -, .:J- '""'i'" l
R~or.sièe:-c.rion w2..S not d:L~:)\)t~ to t.ì¡e p2.: ~es of rtCo;d C?.S ili2.:¡è.:a.~ by the Fed~r2.l "Nê.Y
ZoniI:g Code. The Office of Ü'le L2Ilò Use H:z.:5.:.-;g =_u..¡T~¡er co:U:2.c:::d :Ms. .AJlrr.2..nn reg2.1"dir:g
this oversight, ::..¡Ò proper dismbution of the Rtq'Jest for Reconsiåe:-c.'cion to ill pa..-¿es of recorà
.10""'0 "'l.'h -.., -ff=C.-\.l.t Of ......;:1i11"'0 "'2.5 ':'~~~s~ "'.1 on O-'o~"! Îl ì O:::¡
c..¡ "":' ... ... Co.a c..¡.l'::' . .. .~... l""l _.;;.u - ..........- - , --'-'-.
The R~1Jest zC'r R~o;).side:-c.:io!l 2..S1:s û~ê.t a condition of a:,.:>roy;:j .Je im'Dcs~ '~'hich WOLlld
- - - -
e~~jd slòe',:;.al1:s ~o;).g Û1e west side of 21st Avenue Southwest ë...¡d 21st v.,1zy Soutbwest to the
~Wes:fili s;,¡oppbg complex. However, S~:ion 110.25(1) of i;'¡e F:de~ V-hy Zonbg Cooe
re:ouiTes ë...¡ aD:;l1eG-":t to ms:ill roaå im'Drovème:::s i!On5~ û1e ;. on:2.£e 2::d width of each ri5!ht-of-
- -- - - - -
way ê.b1J~-;g Óe pror-:ry. A conåiri.on of ap:xo"ë.1 consistent wi::'1 ::.";e z.onbg code secrion h2.5
b~n im?Cse:d. Tne;e is no c..'Xie authority to :-~uire Û1e extension of siå~will3, ë...~à th~ Ciry
of Fede:-d \Vë.y en\"=.:onm~n:il officii! d1d not r~uire such a con6rion puzs¡:a..¡t to the Sta!e
E,¡¡\1.:0Dme!l:2l Policy Act. The decision by Òe environmen:2l o:..-=ic:21 i11 ù1:S ffi2.t"~er is fu..ë.l
smœ it W2..S not ê.ppe.2led. .
Tne Re{)u~st fer ~::cor.siåe:-2.:ion 2lso rë.ises ê.~ë.in ù1e issue of 'the Y-:""Y-:-~ E:Te:enbelt desiE:na:ion
- - -- - -
of the site ê.S set foru1 in L1e origin21 decision. Th~re c:e no re""...o;ës which subs~riate that L'1lS
pr°r-rty W2..S to rema:...'1 a ge:enbelt, ë.nd L1ere aTe no nota!ÌoT'.s on L~e ri-Je to the properLY
res'dc!L-;g itS use b 2.ny Iï.~'1..¡e!. Conu-c.ry to L1e. s:atern~nt of :Ms. ?2l;na..'1Il !hat th~ z.onL""lg map
snows no :w,;-;g for :he. si:e., it is t."t)e Ex2.1T:l.¡1er'S opirjon that L~e zoning map snows me site
cl2.!siñe.d 2..S RS96')J.
Tne Request for R~onsiòe:-c.!:ion is hereby D-=~lED.
EXHIBIT B
PAGE 1't OF 2b
DATED TElS 4TH DAY OF NOVE\fBER, 1992.
'"
EXHIBIT B
\\TI.DWOOD EST..\. ITS
FILE FSlb-9G-OOO~ Rl-92-0002; F\\tl£ ;'9~-}O
P.~_GE :;
ll. RJGHT TO CHALLE.'\'GE
Tr¡~ :-:;:OjT¡¡:JE;-,Ò:.::lO:1 of Lie H~-i~g Ð-..2...'T'~~:r ITlzy b~ ch2.l1eng~ by 2!'Jy person who is to
;te~\'~ a copy oÍ Ù',~t æ~oü,T7)en6.rion purs'.:2:.t to F\VZC 155.60.6. That chillenge, L., Ü1e
fo:D of 2. k::-:!;T of cr.illenge, must be òeli\'e:-~ t::> t,1-¡e ?l?JlI'.ing De?~;ent v.i.,hLT'l fO1.JJt~n (14)
C2Ì~Jb.r è2YS ë..~er 6~ issU2...~~ of 1.~e He¿f.i.:,;g Ex~jú.:ler's reœr:1i71enè:¿::ion or, if a rtquest for
rte.:)::s~óe:ë.:ion is fil::.d, then v,i1."-:.l.1"'l fou¡-~n (14) C2kné.u days of e::."-1er ù1¡e òteision of L"-1e
-::þ_"':~,O :::"._';'"",:~",~ O'..-\.~..,o- -".,þ -:-"'--;""st fo'!" ~""-i'1~.,:.':,..-.ii'1'" or .\.... ~",,-,",-,:";"-"'~ 'T"""""'mm"n";"'~on
...~_.::: .....,..c..: ~...... ~..~.L::: '-,~ '--:""~ .. ........U.._,'-'....G.-'-'. (.. ... .---v.._.~-.;:;.;J .---'-'.. ..., I.o.GU .
1"1-." 'Þ-"r of C......¡i.......c" """'5- con-.:n 2. C'l".T" -..:Þ-"'"",-" to -he ---Þ~ -""':"'(1 C""-i"""o"'~ .nd a
J..~ ~--- uc...... .....:::~ ,.. - L ¡ ;.c.J.¡ ~ "~..... .....~... U j.c.LL....! ""~.i...L'::> ¡.<::.~..h...u::>;:;.;J G.l
s~~;:¡e!lt of the ~~iñc fact"~ ~ldLlgs 2.11d co:1c1usio!'.s of t.'1e R~_lg Exê.mÌner dispute:d by
Ùle r--son filing L~e chillenge. TIle person fili.r.g Û1e ch211e~ge s1-.ill bc1uåe, v..i!h LÌ)e le:ter oÏ
ap?",...2l, L'-le f~ es:ablisbed by L'1e City. The chillenge v.ill not be acc-,,?t.ed unless it is
acco::rJêJ1ied bv L"-1e reauired Ïæ. The :re:::omme~d2.tion of the R~;nE!. EX2..111.iner mê.V be
. '" . - ~
chille:1ged -",'het:.~er or not there wê..S 2. request to r~nsiàer L1¡e He.ëi.J1g Exami...,er's
r~mme!1dG.rion.
EXHIBIT
PAGE 15
B
OF
'2(:;
BEFORE THE HEA..R.I'\G EX.~\ID-¡:-R. OF TrlE CITY OF fEDERAL \\"A Y.
~ THE !\1A TIER OF mE APPLICA TIO~
of B.C. Construction Company
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FILE #51.. ""B-90-0004/RZ-92-0002
F\\RE #92-10
RESPO~SE TO Ql.ETIO~S
SFB~UIIED O:S- RE..\L.\.."\"D
For Preliminary Plat Approval
of \\ïldwood Estates
1. Sl.~~f.A.RY
Rem2!1d of prelir;1ir.2..IJ' plat approval to E~.z:g Ex2...7.ì:-¡er purs:.:.?:.t to City Council de:ds10:1
issued on Much 2, 1993--Ll.¡e scope oÍ h~,.g 0:1 &¡e :~o"d s:-.2.ll be limited to consiåer o;:ly
LÌìe following issues:
1.
2.
...
:>.
4.
\\7'¡¡at cons:itutes legal recording L, 1966 a.'1d åoes Òe ~~;gu2.ge of t.Ììe resolution
incorporate ¡be Planning Comï:"¿ssion's conditio!".s to ò~ zone designation?
Factual ñndings which address the effective date 6e p:ese:1t owner acquired title.
Factual flndi..ïgS which address the S2.fery issue of prop;r access to úie property.
The Hearing Exarniner w2.S inst:"".Jcted to bring his re:coIT:::7)endation dire.ctly to the
City Council--not to a City CO'.l:1cil COIT:!7litt~.
11. PROCEDl.:""R.AL I?\TOR."\1A TION
ApiJ 27, 1993
M- 5 '::J"l3
- .Coy ,~;;;
M2Y 19, 1993
EXHIBIT B
PAGE /l, OF 1-a
Da~ of Hearing on Ré.ffi2..T'}ò:
R~ord Closed:
Date of Decision on Rema.Tìò:
At Lìe hw.J1g ÙJe fol1ov.ing prese:1te.d testimo::y ë...jd ev)åence:
1.
Mike Tnomas, Ass~iate Pla.'"!;)er, ClL)' of Federd \Vë.y
33530 - 1st v,"2Y SOUL', Fe.òe:-d W2Y, WA 98003
2.
Lonòi Linòell, Deputy City A:tomey, City of Fe.de:-2.1 \V2Y
33530 - 1st W2Y South, Fe.de:-d W2Y, WA 98003
3.
Ron Gê.ITOW, Senior Developme:-.t Eng:n:=.er, Ci:y oÍ FeÒerd \\.2Y
33530 - 1st v,72Y South, Feòe:-d \lhy, WA, 98003
4.
Barry Fisher
30482-22ïth PI SE, Kent, WA 98042
EXHIBIT C
COpy
\\TLDWOOD ESTA ITS
mE ;'Sl. ~90-000~:RZ92-0002; F\\ 11£ ;-92-10
PAGE 2
EXHIBIT f5
PAG E 11 OF ,~3Þ-_,_- .
5.
6.
7.
M2.ry Ann AHmê_nn
30817-21st Ave SW, Fe.òe:-d WGY, ',\.A 93023
Ron2Jd ..!I..r¡åersen
30807-21st Ave 5\V, Fe.de.:-c.l \\"'i:.Y, .,i;A ;'6023
Kê\'e K\"ê.m
..
30541-26~" A\~ S\V, F=-de.:-c.l \\.GY, ".:':A 9S:J23
.l..t tfJe beuing L'tJe fol1o',;..ir;g exhibi:.s w~:-~ Gd:r:::-.::d G..S :?ë..:"1 of ::.:: of5c:ë.l :;~o:;å of Lhese
p:o:~~.Œi;¡gs:
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
SŒff Addendum to Report
King County Boë..Td oi Commissio::s ~esohJ:5on :\0. :2460
King County Records 2J1d Ele:tions le.:ter to Më...)' A"n Allmë.;, dê.ted 2/24/93
Letter from Keren \Vihgë:d è.ë.t~ 4/23/93
Letter from former King County Pl2T:¿-:g Commissio:.er John T. O'Brien dated
4/29/93
Letter from attorney Robert Demo¡,¡y, Jr. dêted 5/5/93
Aõåendum to Strif Report d2të:i 5/5/93
6.
7.
ID. F1XDI'\GS
.A.t itS regu1u rn~ting on March 2, 1993, p:::-s'.:2..'1t to S~:50:ì 22-490 of Ù1~ Fe.ôenl \Vë.y
City Code th~ F~~ ë..1 V'hy City Co~ncil :e:T,ë.;,òed t.'tJe p:el::nbuy plê.t 2J¡d rezone of
\\7i1òwood Estates to Lie Feóe.ë..1 \\~ë.Y B:.a..-bg Exê..J'T.lner to hold a h~-ing for Li~ .
P"~os. of coT"\s1.a'..,.;~C' .'--- (':.) ~.,..::¡C ~tc:.'.s ~~a' .0 ¡:-:. '-". S"'O'~. of ~'-. '-"~,.;no to
""'"r'" .. .....,,~ u¡~- -' wr-~~ ._-~... ~, l .'¡..~~l ~¡... ... r'" UJ... ';J~J..~
sajd issues.
On April 27, J993, a pu~ljc he¿.zing .';"2.5 h~}d ë.Jjd L"~ :~o:d 1~ft op~n until May 5,
1993, to :~ei\'~ Exhibit 5, a 1:n:r f:¡a::¡ John T. O'3~:n, former King County
Commiss10ner, ê-S well 2.S responses Ù1e:~to from me ë.ppl)C2:it 2nd the City of Fedc:rd
Vhy.
The: issues iòentifie.d by the City Cou~ci1 ë..,jd respor;ses .~e:~:o ë.re ê.S follows:
A.
\\1:::.t consutu1es legë..1 re.coråing in } 966, a..,d àœs Ù'J: 1ê...T)guë.ge of the resolution
incorporc.te L~e Planning Comm:~sjo;)'S condj:jo;:s 10 ù,¡e zone àesjgnë.t.1on?
1)
The present recording S:E.ru:e RCW 65.08.070 was enacted in 1927 and
has not been ê.mended. S2..iò S'.2Hne re.aès ê.S :0110ws:
Wll..DWOOD ESTA TIS
TILE #Sl.D-90-000~/RZ9:-0CI(I:; F\\ 1-1 E =-~.:-: :1
PAGE 3
EXHIBIT B
PAG E ¡g OF 1¿
--
Real proptrlY C::-,\t: ~;jCtS to be fé-C ,otd. A co:-,\eYê.:"¡ce c,i
~b-' P~o'--""-" ""-'-""\ -;.,'.,-",...'....:""..,; "-.. ,'-.. -"".V"':1 "^"-'~.:"D ~'-.:>
,C..::.J 'r~":' ""~,J --.-""""""-',:""'" -;; -'- r-"""" ~ "'-"'-'-."0 -,-
<""'me C.;-e -r"'.--,..,.....":=-"'-t --..;-.;¡ -"'-:'-:..01 ':.<' -:"""",,;....~ 'oy ~-',J,)
.><;.J uJ G_._J~-,""-.::,.J~.. J~.J,o \..~,_.....-. '-> .........-~~ .G,
--y 'h" -..--_.:....: :... .'... C'::'c" C: ,'~.. -""-:ì-c':- D I"\:':;c"'r or- .'0...
¡..G ...... ,~.\.-.....J '--, _.- ',.J... 'l _.- ............... '.;';:> ....'~,- ~ ~.,-
CD"r""\.' ","'-",,-.. ,'-.. -'--,-,"'-' :5 ':~"'.""; -=.,""'-' S..,,-'..., '-u"-\'e)'ê.:"Jc" -)"t
-_J,,) n.,_,- -.-r'~r-.')" _..-.:.,~. - -.) --oj -., -. l.-
s'" -""':ì-":"'; :5 ."ì:'; ':.0 ---:-st --.. .........."",..-t '--"'-C""5,"- 1"\-
.., ....-.U.u....... - '-o,- c....;, Co:L.., L..: ~--~""",,--,J r-' ..G._~.I ......1
,.....,o-c--c-"'" :... -_..; :_:.-., --d :I"\r 2 \,-~.._"-'", Co-,:o'e-.:o'" :-:-0T:1 ."'-",
"'.Il.::G::--':"'J:~'....;_G.._,G..¡ .....' L..'::..- I..J ,G'-'-.,.,.-.-
s.ë..T:1e \'e:-J~~:ï, ~.:s :-.~::-S c:;- -:e\.:5::.-::S, C: -':.e s.ë..:7,¡e :;-e¿J ;:,:-ope:-:-:. OJ
. , " ,- ., '.J.
--iJ ,",""-:--',""" ._"'-"'-.~" ..-.. ~O-\""'--'-':>', '--:,t C")' -"'-0-0"'" -:1
c...J,) ¿l1..,-I..'" -.-.-.. V'.._~- - .. -::L.._- -. .... .- ,--. ~. ".
ir~SL-Ur: e:;t :s è:..:~.::j :-~:-è::.d .:,~ ::-':"-"':'.~ it :s f:Jt.d for :-e::co:-d.
-1 r-.. .e~ "co""\'e\.--'~"" :s C'",.::_",.; ....)' ~C',-7 c:: í;~ nc..oC;) .';"~':JC'h S'o;:.~"~..
.IJ- l .-" J. .c...,--o, -o,-.""""" :'<. " --.--.-1.. -, .. H -,.....-
W2S ejjacted in 1927 ë:¡:3 :-:~s :-Jot ~t.en 2. 77,e.;jè::.d , Còj'¡veY2.1jce is åefined
2S fol1o.,:,'s:
-1 n.. '..~ "CD" \"'. .--:- ~"," : ...-1" l..S ..\"";"'\.' ......: ~~...., :"'s~~'-:- "-l ...,y w~':ch
wl....." .. -;c...J- _J.........u- .. "",) "....--.... --.,-., ¡,; ,.J.
~.T1y estG.te. or b:~!'est i:1 Z"~ pro?,"-:7j is cr~ted, L'r"2J'lsfe.ITed,
rnort~-~-~ or -~t:-n"',; 0- ...,y ".'h)'cOn .\... .:.'.. .0 --y -..-, ""'-op"~
u "::':'::;;.J ~--~¡ -- l 1.1 n.j .I ..)- uU- l '-1. J~.:-.I ....IL,)
way be. affe.ct~, bc1uCl:;g 2.., bs:..¡;r:¡e::t i., executJon of a po.",'e.r,
ë.ltbou£h LÌJe. ')~..:..e. be o:;e of j'e\'C>:¿~O:1 0:11 V , ~jd ~, insû-urne.nt
- . ..
re1eëing in .';".::K'}e 0; ~"l p2..:1, ;>cs:;:':¡:1ir;g or subo:dir.atiz;g a
-~ C'... - .""..- ~:..-. """/"',, t ..:.\ - i",- ..; 2. ~.....,...,., of "'0'
mo. ..::2.':'" Ool O-,-ol -~_.:, ~^--? 2. v. -;.l, .:. ,~s- .or .......1,. _. L
""""-':"l.~cr "'.'0 \"'--1: --..; -.., :,:",'st'r""""'_. ~-"';'i"I~ - ""'ov."'- ~o co""vev
"""----'.::L'" .;;;.c.._,~i...c-.I...._¡,,:..__...::.&._..::4¿1 ...ol. .. '"
re.G.l property U Ú"Je ~gent or a!to:7;ty for Lr,e o.",'ne.r of me
"r',:",o')..rtv "To -"""'.'.'\'" :\: .0 exec11~" - r_,'"\':"IV"V2..T')C"" as ò..fined in
.:-'.-"..' --..'I.....L _.w':' 1,.0-""'", -- ... .
this subdlvisjo:ì.
2)
Leg21 recording in 1965 co:-:s:s:~ of stJbmi:ÜT.g a åoctJrne.nt for re.cording
to me. czhie.r at LÌJe Ki::g CO:':T)ry Office of ~~orès 2.1jd EJections. Tt)e
C2.shier StE.Jï1ped a ê?:~ 2:JÒ :-~ording f~ :;:;:;Jb~r on Lie face of the
. òocument 2..ïd accep:~ ::¡~ r=.,:o:"dlng f~. ~ext, the recording clerk
st2.mp~ me documeTJt .,;.ii;i ë. të.:: ~jd "dme of :-ecojding a..-¡d a volume 2.1jd
P-cr,. n"mb"r P-es"-I~\, O'n..-"-"--s """"":\'. - '"". ,.;¡.C"j.t -""'o"c.j."'cr ""'urn"-"r
.:.::-... ... , "'.:-.' 'I..'_....J_;.. .--.., "":'.-"-"': .......... J.o" JU....
If a document is not FoP:;:)' :-eco:-ded in Üh ;;:2.;1ner it is not re'u-)e\'2bJe
by a ti-1" com"'-'i"lY or ""..-~o;:r"r t~-o"oh 2 c;'o;:-,~."'d oJ'.'J" S"--ch ""'d is ..,ot
u. ... '¿It:.J. :-,..1.-....>- .J. -::- - -....<:..: . l - ~ , ~ , "
consiåered nojce 10 S'J":'se.q:.:::-¡t ;r.:rcr:2.st:ïS of ~y e7'Jcumbr-c:.nce or
con\'e)'2nce of the pro?:"y,
3)
In 1966 J(jng CotJn7)' ;-.ë.d 2. f;}:ng sys1e:-:ì for ;¡:23nwning the. county's
Jeg5s1a"d\'e records. T:-.: :-~o:-ès of zoning Gt.::sjons 2..'ìd Other reso)u:ions
of Lìe Board of King CC>J;J7)' Co;7)m:ssjo;¡e:s '.1,=:-: f:Jed 2..'ìd më..int2.5ned by
the King Counly .A.'.£:cr::1 0;): of two ;;;e::-;~::s: (1) Comm:ssjone:s'
WILDWOOD ESTA TIS
FILE #'.SCB-90-0004.'RZ92-000::; F\\"BE: =-~:-:o
PAGE -1
EXHIBIT B
PAG E , ~ OF 1-.b
.' . . ...., - . -, ,
pro:e:b::~r.gs .",e::::: ;::e:se:::-.:;.J ::; ':C:.S'::::::;Y.jO;-.S :;-. :':':'K JO:;::1 or ::::lC:-07:l:::-,e:.J
-r-CSi-'l.'P" (')) Cn--:".J"'-"'--' -"sn~".::î-" ""'-P ..,.._:,..,.;:;,.,~~ 1',., f-l...S
,G .... J..._. - \........._- ",.....:> .... "'.--'-... "'_.~ ,..£:...._. v..J .1 d....
-co-_: .....1: -----~---=- ...:..... ".~," ._~:_-' --.C'Þ-".' I _:.~
0,~c"'.:.z.;:;..J .:J '::......,-'._c"'J...- "".- 'c....JO_S l,-I:,~--=- c.....c...,~...,. ...;,.s. :l ZO.j~.,.:>
""",-~prs ,r-," CI'"\""""".':";"-"'-s' -"'r,~.";o'" 1'1:"O;.,'\, -n"",;I:""-; or- -,., O:¡-PO:¡ n-""\
J.,'::..... _.~ '-'.......--......-. . -,,-. -- . -- --,' -....._--.~ £:.., ............ .'.'::r
...ef\".,..":",o "',p 70"':"'~ -";:'C'" --,~ .,""t ':-'-,.."¡ .,.:,'_, n"""'r -"'sn"":o"" ~o~h
, '¡h._~..:> ....~ - ..-.= '-.._"::-' c...,- "<-> -..- ".-. ...-J- .... .......;..J ..-. "-> ..
.'\-.. Co""',.....,:,,;n"',".s' -,--.-......'::-:-s --"" -:-"-"'1,...:-- :'.,"s "1'."'-'" :--\.."....I""v 2-
,-J~ .. ....__.\....-. :-------.: c....- --~-'--'-.. ...... ....- _.h.....^~ v.!
-- 1'-'; .Þ ':-0 ,","'- f"::""":-":' '::ì .,.,-..:.-..",- .'-Þ Cn""'7)' C -_: S. ".5'
~;.c...j....:.J _na...).~;;- -' "...... -".",'.. -. "...--..... -.- ......;H O,J;,,;.5 )On...J
-. ' ,
P-r.-~"::"'-s -'i- ,...-....':,.":.- '::'..- --'i"-' ':"\ -~--_.::_~ "'t CO-'~-""-'ed -","
'.\"""""""';H.¡:' .J,-.I ,::':>.----'.1 ..~-; :"-.h.,~.;, h.. .--.,-,..:= <-> .H..'lJ.:-'¡~l ..)
"C\~T 6' O~ 07n '\':.---:',~ -...-o-.:~ r': -es'"""""""'-~ --,.; -'-O-~..-ii,.,C"S --e P,,'..,'i-
=" "Y ..l...., .... '.;-- - ~ . -- ....1. \,..1;'--"',,- c...J-:, ~"-""-""":: .:... '--.1.,1..
-~"'"'-c's -""d .-:-þ C..,...-...,~Þ ",:\..~:,'~ -~~n'Þ\",'Ì '-""'\,' ;-Þ not "'-:-o-"'-:-'.ly ':"~,-o-u~..,~
J......,...J c".¡ ~- ,:::,.::-"~,,,.I ,)-...::: ---.. """-, _J-. -- j :. :,...- ......... J ;:;..J
O'I"V""rnen'" "'hiC.!) 0-:\'" -""':J."" .0 - ?",.......:-, ..",--'..",.....,.
I"T-..J .u "".'..::' -.j.,.......l ~ '-'l_.n....::..lr-'-'.~""'.
4)
-1 r;,. -e,oh.~o"" 0.: ~"",p -"'-""11 Cf"\'1""~' """"'--0' 1'"\; CO,.,.,r-;r:1:10'!"ì""'S ~do"'~_~-I.,g
,J... . - .1.:..." J -¡~ '~": "'-"'.' ::>1.Jc.... ,-'. "..H___. ....." .... r -
R"sol"~o'" ~"L.60 ,";,..,. :~ ..,Þ-:..,......t .,...-~ "'.. ;r1.'~""'.'¡"".
-.... _u.¿ -- ' --.-- ..¿ :-- _.._.1 :,c....l "'-> "'-'- -.
"NO\V 'I'P"£REFORE 3E IT RESOLVED Ù'.ê.t Lie Board of
Couniy Comm:~sio::¡e:;s òoes. hereby ê.òopt t.Ì1e ñndL'1gs ~Jd
. -~"o':'T\~"""C:'-~;I"I-S or. ""'. ?'-""r::"'t7 A -"""'.y ".. :'S 0....... -"'d O'o"s
,¡....... ,.;........ '::~I.'.. wI.... "c.., al.::. '-'E.-.j... ~ J. ... H c:.;. ...
he:-:.:,\;' re.::~ss::\~ ce,;-.zi::¡ '¡)¡,opemr 'LQ :\2.1;-1800 ~s sl1own hereon
.;¡ '" ., '"
-""d l..C-'" i1\;' Ú. ,.S....:--...A "",~-..:." "
c..... ...~"-ó.";¡ - -.....:;:.J .........,¡J,... .
The -'1..... '...1 ,---...- ..;:- ,~.:I,' - ---- '-..' - f .h JCi...o
, c.¡.;¡O\... qUOl;;"'¡ .c..;;.:'-'::.:~ 'i.i""Pl~ i.n~ .. ::"'1.J.,WJenc:.,ùo".s 0 ~ e 'd::>
Co"nhl ?~""r'\n:"'c¡ Co---:~s;o'" ::ow.\,..~ -="""':~;t '::. '" 'J"""r r_om 't:'m:"
.. L.;¡ .¡;.¡.. .IJ.::> .1.;".- " H..... ......1, --^J'J.., -', co .....i... .1.1 J J-. J...
Do r"ld v: 11 C "-r\' A -r-"~: .; 1 ~-',. .\..- "". C ,h' Co ;S. ,,-s'
I'IlJ... ,.:-..:.!'.::> o":oJ;", .-..~ ....H;\.S., So.c.....s ~.4:.t ;...~ ounl.;¡ mID. Slon...J
resoJutlon \ls,;211v co:-.s:s:~ ,. of ~, ë.:e.a :;;~., ë..,'r)d t.i¡e zonl;; E ch~j Ee
. . --
ê.pproveå". In ::evk...i¡;g Resolution 3:460 it ê.pp~S tÌlê.t Ùìe only
prop~rty rezoned w2.S for t-Í)e '\\'es¡f~ Ap27lments, 2..!ld &.::.t L"Je 120 foot
strip w;,Jch Ù")~ appli;a:-¡t ::2.5 purchê.se.d "';"25 exc1uòe.d f:;om the zon~
~"""l""'Mfi"""'~;on r'" -Þ.",::",o "--.. -....",--...-,"':.';on of .h" V:nc¡ Co'u"ty
~...... ~~., ""OJ . ".-":":.1.':0 .. ~ ,~¡ ;;;._....,.. J l;... ."'>..J '::,
?lêJ'lning Comm:ss)on ::1 light of LÌ1e ê.~o\'~ it ë.pp:zs Ù¡at when Li¡e
Comm)ssion W25 r~o:7;::;endi,;g ::10 access "to ::;:5 propen)' f:;om the nann
ë.nd west", LÌ1e COITJjjÚslon W2.S :efemng 10 Ü.je p,op::rry actu2.})y rezoned
êJ'ld not to Li-¡e wester:y } 20 f~t of sajd p:-opt:-.y, which was to rem2Sn in
Ù'le RS 960a ZO:lt. T:::':5, wt:~e not 2.7Lfu;Jy è~fle.d, it appe.aJs that the
PlêJ'lning Comrn:ssio:1 ::-~0;nme;)d2tjon èid not address the exc]uòe.d
property. The ë.:e<. ;;;ë.p a!'~ch~ to Reso1u:ion 32460 h:ghlights Ù'le
\Vestfair Ap2JLment p::-operty onlY, and inèjca:e5 no acùon reguding the
excluded p2:cel.
\\1LDWOOD ESTA T£S
fTI..E FSl.1}..90-000~¡"RZ92-0CICI:; n\ ~ E K':.} 0
PAGE 5
EXHIBIT
PAGE to
B
OF 1&
5)
-~"C:""" .:-;=,..~..-1'1.-,,-. ,...:. 2.o",:"""C-':.. 1:..;"',. ,"'8 '0:\1
l..w "'; Co... .......w.c.J \.c..' G:JO?t.:l.~s ."'.E;, ~..;- 0:1.. -..;;;":~-) - , .1....1..
"~""\.""" S"c..., -o'~...,-:o""\ ::..":¡..-1 \ì.7-y's "'7...,_:_~ Co..:,.. ...,.,.......,........,~¡:..¡ -"'d
\..::"">;¡ "".j G \..r- '" - ;;....J1,...c.J'1:. L..-..:.....:; -- .t"---o r'~ G...
S"-""o;-s"":""":¡ -.l-k-i-,~ C:;..--v 70"':-'0' C.e':O"""~'~O-C Ci-y ,~-fl- -e\,ie',:,.""":¡ ;,¡-¡..
"'r-. :AJ~ c... ~~.';:' \.. ."'; - u,.,;:, -.;..-- .... .. -~ . . ¡;.(J."""
v:-O' CO""-V Zo"':-o \r..., Co\'e":"'o '-"'e «::""....:"'-1 """0..,..-:"\.7 -.."., 0'Þ1"-""':::1""';
-~;~ '-."'; .;.;.~ . ..::.:, "-.,;... ---.;- :" :'--~; G...... _.-l ..._J ....",¡
'r--t ;hÞo;-" --.. no 1_-JO. "S" -"s;n. r;;o~c:: ;:-0.' 'Þ\""" ÞV""'I :'1- S"c"" -"'s~""';c"';o"'s
L;.I:...........c...w..c... w-_wu_..;.......""...w."".....- ....;........u..
",.,-":¡ -""",,"'1 --:;-,....'\., :_-~...:.....:¡ 0'"' ,"'.. ",.:..,0' C"y,-.....' Zo-:.,.o \f,-.., .h" C;:-v's
;,.::.;,,¡ ;..>-.. :'."':-"J _:'-..._;;....J .j _!- ~.......~ 1..-.,.) ,u.;;:. - -G.:" '-' - _l;
Zo",;..,O' Co':,.. -"'d ~-.., ......,1_,.....S 'hÞ ",.;..,0' Co"--' --.., -1 ,",Þ Cl.~"S --..,
,.. .~ w- C-.j .j.:':, - -:-1:........ ..; - ~~"; _.J,.' ,.oG:,. ;j- ,; ; ¡I:.:,
0."""'5 not :-c'.":Þ --v S"_".. '.1-'-'0' "s" -es'ñc":"~,
IJ- J.;.J ;.Juw GJ'.T __,I ~, - w, U. ..J\...._.
-1"" ",.::""..":'\,.. C._," ."..-. '"".. ~-"'s~-' O"'-"r ?-~ 't: -=:s"-"r -nd C\.n';..,:;: ~ 1:1.s;..,Þr
'¡'... _.U.......¡",; - "::'1.... "",'::'l u - row -.'l ....;)- -,GJ, :; .0-. ... ~ ;J- l:.oI ;" ...,- .~..I. "-,
doing b~slness ~ 3C Cons:..-uc:5on Com:?2.nY, acq'..li¡-ej -j1Je to t.Ì1e property w~
-\..e d-.", Or -"""o-Q~;-o ~7'\7"i1 ìn 1. aDO
UI G.l_., ,--. ....:' .-r-,u --, .,.. .
3.
c,
Fact'.:2l fL¡åìngs w}-jch ad¿:~ss t:¡~ s2.fety issue of ?:O?~rty access to Ü1e property:
1)
21st Ave S\V is cl~si:i~ ~ a "resiåenti2.l c.ol1::ctor" by Sec:5on 15.25 of
the Fede~ê.l \Va)' Cit)' Code, Aburti!Jg prop--:-cies ue wowed åiTect access
to resiåen::ê.l colbctor StT~ts, Accor¿bg to Ron Ga..""TOW, Senior
Development E¡;gin~r, 21st Ave E is pro;>::l)' cl~sified é.S a resiåentiê.l
coDe.ctor,
2)
The only ::sL'Íction f::om ac.cess onto a resiåen::ê.l col1e.ctor a.re driveways
Closer tÌi2..1'l tV.'enty-5ve (25) f~t to '-, intersecrion. The 11eë.Test
bters::d.!'.g road to t.iis ?rope..~ is 30ïL"-l 51 5\V, which is mo:e th2J1
!\'.'enty-five (25) f~t from me n~est Jot.
3)
Concerns hve D~n :-¿sed reguding sight dis:znce problems caused by
L"'1ecurve in 21st Ave S\V at L'Je souLh end oÍ ¡J-¡e proper!)'. Conåitions of
approval ::t.quire Üì: app~C2..~t to broaåen 6e curve which will incre.2.se the
site dis!4..~ce. Condi'jons élso r~ui:re &.2.t drive\ì;ays for tÌle soutÌlern Jots
acCtSS ~ :u to ::.'Je ;-)0:-11 ~S possib1e D:'l s2.5d )o:s. Setbacks for a
driveway ë:e f:ve (5) f~t fjQm a sjòe pro?er.y line.
4)
The appljc~t emp1oye.d 2. tn.ff1c expert to p~rform a u-¿fic stuày. The
trc.ffic study W2.S accep:t.d by L'Je City ê.Jjd es:2blishes that L""2.ffic impacts
created by Ü' js de\'eJop!:1ent will be ins1g::~:Jca;-)t.
\\TI..D\\"OOD ESTATES
mE fSCB-90-000-1!RZ92-0002; F\\"HE t9:.10
PAGE 6
EXHIBIT B
PAG E 1-1 OF ~2G
IV. RECO:'-,ßfESTIA TIO~
It is hereby recommended that the City Council of L~e City of Federd \V2Y 2pprove the
proposed zone recl2.Ssiñc2tion request to RSï200, Q well as the pre1imin2.ry pJ~t of \ViJdwood
Est2.tes.
. DATED TF..lS 19Trl D.!..Y OF !.{A Y, 1993.
EXHIBIT B
PAGEl). OF 1&
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
of B.C. Construction Company
)
) FILE #SUB-9O-OOO"!
) RZ-92-0002
) FOE #92-10
)
) CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF
) FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
)
For preliminary Plat Approval
of wildwood Estates
I.
FINDINGS
1.
The applicant has a possessory ownership interest in a 1.91
acre parcel of property bordering the east side of 21st Avenue
S.W. in the Lakota neighborhood. The site is located within
the suburban residential classification of the Federal Way
Comprehensive Plan, and is zoned RS 9.6.
2.
The property is rectangular in shape, approximately 120 feet
wide and 700 feet in length. The site is bordered on the west
by the 21st Avenue S.W. right-of-way, and on the east by the
Westfair Apartment complex, a high density multi-family
development. On the north are the Shady Tree Condominiums, a
duplex development, while on the south across 21st Avenue S.W.
are mini-storage warehouses. East of the Westfair Apartments
is a small shopping center bordering SR 509 (Dash Point Road).
To the west of the site is the single-family residential
subdivision of Lakota Palisades with roughly 12,000 square
foot lots. Eight lots of Lakota Palisades border the proposed
subdivision including the drainage pond. The site itself has
not been improved, and has both understory and tree
vegetation. The vegetation is moderately thick with "peek-a-
boo" views of the apartment complex through the trees.
3 .
The applicant's preliminary plat plan proposes seven single-
family residential lots, 60 feet in width and varying in size
between 7,200 square and 7,280 square feet, commencing at the
north boundary of the property and extending south. At the
south end of the property where 21st Avenue S.W. curves from
north/south to northwest/southeast is Tract A, a 15,280 square
foot parcel which will contain the drainage pond. The
applicant is dedicating 2,820 square feet to the city for
right-of-way purposes to improve the said curve, and provide
site distance for the plat lots. No internal circulation is
proposed, as all plats will access directly on to 21st Avenue
S.W., as do lots in Lakota Palisades across the street.
RES #93-150, EXHIBIT D, Page - 1
COpy
4.
EXHIBIT B
PAGE 23 OF 26
In addition to the dedication of right-of-way to correct the
inadequate roadway radius at the south end of the site, the
applicant is required by the Public Works Department to
construct full-width street improvements to 21st Avenue S.W.
the full length of the plat, to include 40 feet of pavement,
sidewalks, curbs, street trees, and gutters on both sides of
the street. The applicant has objected to this requirement,
stating that the standard in all other jurisdictions is for
construction of half-width street improvements, and that the
Federal Way City Code ("FWCC") is excessive. section 22-1474
of the FWCC is entitled "Required Public Improvements." Said
section states in part as follows:
liThe applicant shall, consistent with the
provisions of this article, install all
improvements established in section 22-1524
and Section 22-1525 along the entire frontaqe
and width of each right-of-way. . that
abuts the subject property." (emphasis
supplied)
Thus, the Federal Way City Council has established that road
improvements are required for the entire width of the right-
of-way. However, there is an existing sidewalk already
located on the west side of 21st Avenue S.W., and if at all
possible, this sidewalk should be retained instead of a new
sidewalk constructed. If the existing sidewalk does not meet
City standards, the Public Works Director should strongly
consider granting a variance.
5.
Children residing in the subdivision will attend Adelaide
Elementary school, Lakota Jr. High, and Decatur Senior High
School. The improvements to the roadway system will enable
school children to walk to school or school bus stops. The
School District has adequate capacity and capability to serve
students residing in the plat.
6.
section 20-155 of the FWCC requires proponents of subdivisions
to dedicate land for open space. An exception is made for
subdivisions less than 5 acres in size by section 19-46(c) of
the FWCC, which allows the applicant the opportunity to pay an
open space fee in lieu of the dedication of property. The
Federal Way Parks Department has determined that a payment of
$22,182.00 in lieu of open space is acceptable. The nearest
park is Adelaide Park on 16th Avenue S.W. approximately one
half mile from the site, and it is anticipated that said funds
will be used for improvements to the park or in the immediate
neighborhood.
RES # 93-150 EXHIBIT D, Page - 2
10.
7.
EXHIBIT B
PAGE 24 OF 2G
The applicant has obtained a certificate of water availability
from the Federal Way Water and Sewer District which has
committed to provide both potable water and fire flow to the
site. The District also has capacity to provide sewer service
to the site subject to the applicant entering into a developer
extension agreement with the District. It is necessary to
extend the sewer trunk by 5 feet to reach the site.
8.
The site is impacted by drainage from the Westfair Apartments
to the east. The applicant proposes to provide compensating
storage for any off-site flows tributary to the site and an
infiltration system to handle such flows in accordance with
city standards. The applicant proposes to collect all on-site
drainage and direct it to the drainage pond at the south of
the site where it will then be piped under the road to an
existing culvert. Runoff generated from the site will be
released at a controlled rate in accordance with the King
County Surface Water Design Manual and the Hylebos Creek and
Lower puget Sound Basin Plan. A bio-filtration swale will
also be provided at the south end of the site. Because of the
additional pavement added to the west side of 21st Avenue
S.W., the applicant may also be required to provide additional
detention on the west side of 21st Avenue S.W. as well. If
so, this detention will occur within the drainage swale
itself, but will not result in water being pumped into the
plat detention pond. The proposed conceptual drainage plan is
adequate to serve the site without adversely impacting
downstream properties.
9.
Concerns were raised by both the applicant and the residents
of the area regarding the drainage pond. The applicant is
proposing a fence along the pond boundaries, and was concerned
with the requirements of landscaping as it is not proper to
plant trees or other vegetation within the pond itself. The
City responded by requesting a 5-foot strip of trees along the
fence line, which was acceptable to the applicant. citizens
concerns centered on the maintenance and beautification of the
pond. They pointed to a contrast between the well-maintained
pond to the north of the site, and the non-maintained pond on
the apartment property. This particular pond will meet the
requirements of the City, and will be maintained by the city
in a manner similar to the attractive pond to the north.
An additional concern raised by those in opposition to the
development were assertions that at a 1968 King county
Planning commission meeting considering the approval of the
Westfair Apartments, this site was designated as a perpetual
greenbelt. Residents testified that the Planning Commission
had approved the apartments subject to a screening buffer
which consisted of this parcel. However, the residents and
City staff have conducted an exhaustive search of King County
RES #93-150, EXHIBIT D, Page - 3
11.
12.
13.
EXHIBIT
B
PAG E l-r5 OF 4
records, and have performed a title search on the property.
There are no records which substantiate that this property was
to remain a greenbelt, and there are no notations on the title
to the property restricting its use in any manner. while the
city Council is sensitive to promises and commitments which
are made at public hearings, without written documentation it
is not legal or proper to require a parcel to remain as a
perpetual greenbelt based upon oral statements made at a
Planning commission meeting many years ago. The Planning
commission is a body which makes recommendations to the
legislative body, the ultimate decision-making authority.
The preliminary plat request is a decision which must be made
using Process III. section 22-490 of the FWCC contains the
criteria which an applicant must establish in order to obtain
a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Findings
required on each criteria are hereby made as follows:
A.
The project is consistent with the Federal Way
Comprehensive Plan. As previously stated the site is
located within the Suburban Residential classification
which allows both RS 7.2 and RS 9.6 zones. The plan
recommends a density range of four to six dwelling units
per acre in the Suburban Residential classification. The
applicant's proposed density conforms with that range.
B.
The proposed development is consistent with the FWCC, as
well as other applicable development codes and
regulations.
C.
Development of the site in accordance with the applicable
development codes and regulations and conditions of
approval will ensure that the public health, safety, and
welfare is maintained.
section 20-112 of the FWCC requires the Examiner to review a
preliminary plat request for compliance with section 20-2,
design criteria and development standards of sections 20-157
and 20-178 through 20-187, RCW 58.17 and other applicable
ordinances and regulations of the City. As previously stated,
this preliminary plat meets all requirements of all City
codes. The site, likewise, meets the requirements of the
State Subdivision Code, RCW 58.17.
FWCC Section 22-1157 provides sight-clearance standards for
driveways entering the right-of-way equal to 10 feet. The
challengers to the plat argue the more restrictive provisions
of the King County Road Standards requiring 490 feet should
apply to this plat pursuant to FWCC section 1516 (B) which
states that "until permanent standards" are adopted, the City
will use the King County Road Standards "except where
RES # 93-150, EXHIBIT D, Page - 4
1.
2.
EXHIBIT
B
PAG E 1-Σ: OF 2b
otherwise indicated in sections 22-1517 -uïrõUgh 22-1~2J.
Where there are conflicts, the provisions establishing the
larger or more intense requirements shall be followed."
The Council finds that the city's adoption of section 22-1157
consti tutes the city's adoption of a "permanent" sight-
clearance standard and therefore, the King County Road
Standards do not apply. In addition, section 1516 of the FWCC
deals with "construction standards" (physical improvements to
the property such as surfacing requirements, lighting) not
"design standards" such as required visibility distance from
a driveway. section 1516(A) lists the types of specifications
which are intended. They are construction specifications and
omit sight-clearance requirements.
14.
IV.
CONCLUSIONS
The applicant's request for a zone reclassification from RS
9.6 to RS 7.2 fails to meet the criteria for said zone
reclassification as set forth in the FWCC.
The proposed preliminary plat of wildwood Estates meets all
requirements of all applicable Federal Way codes and
regulations, as well as RCW 58.17.110. This preliminary plat
will serve the public use and interest by providing an
attractive location for single-family residential development
convenient to shopping and other retail services. This site
will continue to provide a buffer, albeit a residential buffer
as opposed to a natural buffer, for property owners in Lakota
Palisades from the Westfair Apartment complex.
DATED this
7th
day of
'COUNCILMEMBER, SKIP PRIEST
MARYK\PLDI WILDWOOD .CC
RES #93-150, EXHIBIT D, Page - 5
September
, 1993.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MA~~
Recused
COUNCILMEMBER, RON
/
lv
GINTZ
'L-
EMBER,
Recused
COUNCILMEMBER, RAY TOMLINSON
WILD WOO D ESTATES
12, Twp. 21 N., Rge. 3 E.,
City of Federal Way
King County, Washington
APPROVALS
DIRECTOR OF COUMUNITY 0
EXAMINED AND APPROIIED 1HIS - DAY OF
Sec.
LEr'T, DESCRIPTION
!H TlON OF !HE SOUTHEAST OUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST OUARTER OF SECTION 12. TOWNSHIP
21, ,i. RANGE 3 EAST, YtIllAI.tET'ΠMERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOlLOWS;
BEGINNING AT !HE INTERSEC11ON OF !HE NOR!H UNE OF SAID SUBDIVISION WITH !HE EAST MARGIN
OF 21st AVENUE SOUTH'ItEST, SAID POINT BEING SOUTH es.35'OT EAST 30 FEET FROU THE NORTH-
WEST CORNER OF SAID SUBDMSION:
!HENCE CONTINUING SOUlH 88'"J5'OT EAST ALONG SAID NORlH UNE 120 F1:ET;
!HENCE SOU!H 1"21'4" EAST" 738.99 FEET TO A POINT ON !HE NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF 21st
AVENUE SOUlHWEST;
!HENCE NORlHWESTERL Y AlONG SAID MARGIN TO THE lRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
(. SEE SUR'iEYOR'S NOTE No. 4, SHEEr 2 OF 2.)
DEDICATION
KNOW AlL PEOPI.£ BY THESE PRESENTS lHAT WE. THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS OF INTEREST IN lHE
LAND HEREBY SUBDIVIDED. HEREBY DEa.ARE 'lHtS PlAT TO BE THE GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF THE
SUBDIVISION MADE HEREBY, NIl) DO HEREBY DEDICATE TO !HE USE OF !HE PUBUC FOREVER ALL
STREETS ANO AVENUES NOT SHOWN AS PRIVATE HEREON AND DEDICATE THE USE lHEREOF FOR ALL
PUBUC PURPOSES NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE USE !HEREOF FOR PUBUC HIGHWAY PURPOSES. AND
AlSO !HE RIGHT TO IIAKE AU. NECESSARY SLOPES FOR CUTS AND FILLS UPON !HE LOTS SHOWN
HEREON IN THE ORIGINAL REASONABlE GRADING OF SAID STREETS AND AVENUES, AND FURTHER
DEDICATE TO THE USE OF THE PUBUC AlL !HE EASEMENTS AND lRACTS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT.
BUT NOT INa.UDlNG THE DRAIIIAΠRElEASE AREA (DRA) ON LOTS ONE THROUGH !HREE: FOR
AU. PtJBUC PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREON, INa.uDlNG BUT NOT UIllTED TO PARKs. OPEN SPACE,
Ul1I.JTIES ANO DRAINAGE UNU:SS SUOi EASEIIENTS OR lRACTS ARE SPEaFlCAlLY IDENTIFIED ON THIS
PlAT AS BEING DEDICATED OR CONVEYED TO A PERSON OR ENTITY OTHER THAN THE PUBUC, IN
~ CASE WE DO HEREBY DEDICATE SUOi S1RŒTS. EASEIIENTS. OR lRACTS TO THE PERSON OR
ENTITY IOENTlf'1ED ANO FOR THE PURPOSE STATED.
F\JRTHER. THE UNDERSIGNED ~ OF THE LAND HEREBY SUBDI\IIDED, WAI\Æ: FOR THEIISELVES.
1HEIR HEIRS AND ASSIGNS NIl) ANY PERSON OR ENTITY DERIVING TI1l£ FROM !HE UNDERSIGNED, ANY
AHD AlL CLAIMS F'OR IN.lJRY OR DAMAGES AGAINST !HE aTY OF FEDERAL WAY. ITS SUCCESSORS AND
ASSIGNs. WHtOi ARE BASED IFON THE DESIGN. ESTAllUSHIlENT. CONSTRUCTION. OPERATION, OR
MAINTENANCE OF ROADS AND/OR DRAINAGE SYSl'DAS WITHIN 'lHtS SUBDtVlSlON. OR UPON IMPROPER
DESIGN. ESTAllUSHMENT OR FAILURE TO OPERATE OR MAINTAIN ROADS AND/OR DRAINAGE SYSl'DAS
"THlN THIS SUBDIVISION.
FUR !HER. THE UNDERSIGNED o.IERS OF THE LAND HEREBY SUBDIVIDED. AGREE FOR THEIISEL\Æ:S.
THEIR HEIRS AND ASSIGNS TO INDEMNIFY AND HOLD !HE aTY OF FEDERAL WAY. ITS SUCCESSORS AND
ASSIGNS. HARIII.£55 FROM ANY IN.AJRY OR DAMAGE. INa.UDlNG ANY COSTS Of DEFENSE. a.AIMED BY
PERSONS "!HIN OR WITHOUT THIS SUBDI'IISiON TO HA\Æ: BEEN CAUSED BY: (1) ALTERATIONS OF THE
GROUND SURFACE, \Æ:GETATIOM. DRAINAGE. OR SURFACE OR SUB-SURFACE WATER F1.0WS WI!HIN THIS
SUBDIVISION; OR (2) BY DESIGN. ESTABUSHMENT, OPERATION. CONSlRUCTION. OR MAINTENANCE Of'
THE ROADS AHD/OR DRAINAGE SYSl'DAS WI!HIN THIS SUBOI'IISlON: OR (3) BY IMPROPER DESIGN.
ESTAllUSHIIENT. OR CONSlRUC1ION. OR FAILURE TO OPERATE OR MAINTAIN !HEßOADS AND/OR
DRAINAGE SYSl'DAS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION.
')I'IISiON. DEDICA TlOM. WAIVER OF CLAIMS' AND AGREEIIENT TO HOlD HARIlt.£SS IS MADE WITH
CONSENT AND IN ACCORONICE WI!H THE DESIRES OF SAID OWNERS.
!HIe-
THI
OOLORIS A. F15HER
WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS
UNITED STATES CORPORATION
ACKHO 1fLEDG EMENTS
STATE OF WASHINGTON
)
)55
)
COUNTY OF
I CERTIFY THAT I KNOW OR HA\Æ: SATISfACTORY E'IIOENCE THAT OOLORIS A. FlSHER
IS THE PERSON WHO APPEARED BEFORE liE. AND SAID PERSON ACKNOWLEDGED !HAT SHE SIGNED
THIS INSTRUIlENT AND Aa<NOWUDGED IT TO BE HER FREE AND VOUJNTARY ACT FOR THE USES
NIl) PURPOSE:S 1ÆN11ONED IN 1HE INSlRUMENT.
DATED
SIGNATURE OF
NOTARY PUBUC
IIY APPOINT\lENT EXPIRES
STATE Of WASHINGTON
)
)SS
)
COUNTY OF
I CERTIFY !HAT I KNOW OR HA\Æ: SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT
IS THE PERSON WHO APPEARED BEFORE 1otE. AND SAID PERSON ACKNOWLEDGED !HAT (HE/SHE)
SIGNED THIS INSlRUIIENT. ON OA!H STATED !HAT (HE/SHE) WAS AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THE
INSlRUIIENT AND ACKNOWI..EDŒD IT AS THE OF
TO BE !HE FREE AND VOLUNTARY ACT OF SUGH PARTIES FOR !HE USES AND PURPOSES MENTIONED
IN !HE INSTRUIIENT.
DATED
SIGNA TURE OF
NOTARY PUBUC
IIY APPOINT\lENT EXPIRES
DRAINAGE EASEMENT RESTRICTIONS
SlRUCTURES. FlLL OBSlRUCTlONS. OR IMPROVEMENTS Of ANY KINO (INCLUDING BUT NOT UIotITED TO
DECKS. PA11OS. OUTIIUILDINGs. SHEDS. OR OIlERHANGS) SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED WllHlN DRAINAGE
EAS'" 'TS SHOWN ON !HIS PlAT UNLESS O!HERWISE APPROIIED IN wRITING BY THE CITY OF
F1:f YAY PUBUC WORKS DEPART\lENT.
RESTRICTlO NS
NO LOT OR A PORTION OF A LOT IN !HIS PLAT SHALL BE DIVIDED AND SOLD OR RESOLD OR O\\tlER-
SHIP CHANCED OR lRANSF1:RRED WHEREBY !HAT O\\tlERSHIP OF ANY PORTION OF THIS PLAT SHALL
BE lESS THAN THE AREA REQUIRED FOR THE USE DISlRlCT IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED.
VOL/PC.
W.M.
EXHIBIT
I
~
OF
Z-
,19-
DIRECTOR. aTY OF FEDERAl WAY
DEPART\lENT or PUBUC WORKS
EXAMINED AND APPROIIED THIS - DAY Of
.19-
aTY ENGINEER. aTY Of f'EDERAL WAY
F1:DERAL WAY aTY COUNCIL
EXAMINED AND APPROIIED 1HIS - DAY Of'
.19-
MAYOR. CITY OF FEDERAl WAY
KING COUNTY DEPART\lENT OF ASSESSIIENTS
EXAMINED AND APPRDIIED THIS - DAY OF
.19-
KING COUNTY ASSESSOR
ACCOUNT NUIIBER
DEPUTY KING COUNTY ASSESSOR
FINANCE DIVISION CERTIFICATE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL PROPERTY TAXES ARE PAID. 1\iAT !HERE ARE NO OEUNOUENT SPEaAL
ASSESSIIENTS CERTIFIED TO THIS Of'F1CE FOR COLLECTION ÀIÏID !HAT AlL SPEaAL ASSESSI.IÐITS
CERTIFIED TO THIS ornCE FOR COUECTION ON ANY OF !HE PROPERTY HEREIN CONTAINED. DEDICATED
AS S1REETS. ALLEYS OR FOR OTHER PUBUC USE ARE PAID IN FULL
THIS - DAY Of
.19-
FlNANCE DIVISION
MANAGER. FINANCE OI'llSiON
DEPUTY
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT OF WILDWOOD ESTATES IS BASED UPON AN ACTUAL SURVEY
AND SUBDIVISION IN SECTION 12. TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST. W.M.. !HAT THE COURSES AND
DISTANCES ARE SHOWN CORREClLY HEREON. !HAT THE 1ot0NUIotENTS WILL BE SET AND THE LOT AND
BLOCK CORNERS WILL BE STAKED CDRRECll Y ON lHE GROUND AS CONS1RUCTION IS COMPlETED AND
!HAT I HA\Æ: FULLY COMPUED .",1H THE PROVISIONS Of THE PLAT11NG REGULATIONs.
PAUL E. MORROW P.LS.. CERTIFlCATE No. 22962
DALEY-MORROW-PO8L.ETE. INc.
1215 CENlRAL AVENUE SOU!H. SUITE 133
KENT. WA. 98032
(253) 854-9344
EASEMENT RESERVATIONS
AN EASEMENT IS HEREBY RESERIIED FOR AND GRANTED TO PUGET SOUND palER AND UQiT COWPANY
U.S. WEST COI.tMUNICATlONS COIIPANY. WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS COMPANY. ANY CABLE TELE\llSiON
COMPANY AND THEIR RESPEC11\Æ: SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, UNDER AND UPON THE EXTERIOR TEN
FEET PARALLEL WITH AND ADJOINING !HE SlREET FRONTAGE OF All. LOTS IN WHICH TO INSTALL.
LAY, CONSTRUCT. RENEW. OPERATE AND MAINTAIN UNDERGROUND PIPE. CONDUIT. CABt.£S AND WIRES
WITH NECESSARY FAaUTlES AND OTHER EOUIPMENT FOR !HE PURPOSE OF SER'IING THIS SUBDI'IISiON
AND OTHER PROPERTY WI!H ELEClRIc. ID.EPHONE AND O!HER UTIUTY SER'IICE TOGETHER 'MTH THE
RIGHT TO ENTER UPON THE LOTS AT ALL TIMES FOR THE PURPOSE:S HEREIN STATED. THESE
EASEMENTS ENTERED UPON FOR 1HESE PURPOSE:S SHAlL BE RESTORED AS NEAR AS POSSEU: TO
THEIR ORIGINAl CONDITION BY THE UTIUTY. NO UNES OR WIRES FOR THE lRANSIIISSION OF
ELEClRlC CURRENT OR FOR 1EL.EPHONE USE OR CABLE ltLEVISiON SHAlL BE PLACED OR PERWlfTEO
TO BE PLACED UPON ANY LOT UNLESS THE SAME SHALL BE UNDERGROUND OR IN A CONOIAT
ATTACHED TO A BUILDING.
RECORDING CERTIFICATE
FILED FOR RECORD AT !HE REQUEST OF THE FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNaL !HIS DAY OF
.19_, AT _MINUTES PAST _II. AND RECORDED
IN VOLUIotE Of PlATS. PAGES RECORDS Of KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON.
DIVISION Of RECORDS AND ELECTIONS
IotANAGER
SUPERINTENDENT Of RECORDS
/".. :.~~
:'-.-...~~
~3t
DALEHAOAROW-POBI...EI'E, N:.
1215 CENTRAL AVENUE SOUTH, sum: 133
KENT, WASHINGTON 98032
PHONE, (253)85"-934-4 (FAX)854-6663
ð
r-
"-
'V
f:)
PORTION or S.E.1/4. N.E.l/4
SEC. 12. T-2IN. R-3£. W.M.
'§b.."".~... [) ~ ~
o=:-J( M'"
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY SUB 90-0004
SHEET 1 OF 2
( 1/16 CORH£R ----...... N 8B"~' '~" W (M)
~~~/DH 1.4.' N 88'".,'.." 'II (P)
P£RADfL<ŒP- ~N 01'21'~
-/29HOW5 '1193.61' (u) Sec.
- 1193.6.' (P)
S.", 3O7th ST. 'N 88'"39'0'" W (u)
"./2..eRASS/l«JN/CASE ~
N ""39'0'. ., - 0.19' N 88'"~ 'II (P) \
or JN1IRSEC11ON 1<48.79 CM)
- 29 -.. 1<48.76' {P)
...f"OHlO-
'I' ã:' \. PUNCH/I. "..eRASS/l«JN/CASC
: ...,.... FND 29 H(N 95
;:; :;¡~ 'liES"
~ =~ DoNDO/59-90
- FtE, ,7 ..
"O~'FtI'C" I'
S 88"35'07" E:(D)
H 88"32'18" ..
VOL/PG.
WILDWOOD ESTATES
12, Twp. 21 N., Rge. 3 E., W.M.
City of Federal Way EXHIBIT e
King County, Washington
Nom: PAG E z, OF
I. OOWNSI'OUT NOTB AU. BUItDING ~ FOOT1NG - - - FROM AU. fMP£JMOIJS
SURFACES SUCH AS PAOOS - ORI'ÆIMYS SIW.I. II( CONN£C1£D 10 THE AI'PI!IMD P£RWAN£HT STORI<
ORA/N 0tIT\..ET AS SHOWN ON THE APPRO\IÐI CONSTRI,<;TI()H ORAWINGS No. SU8 OO-OO<U ON f1l£ WI'"
TH£ arr or F£D£RAl '/lAy PU8UC WORKS DtJ'ARTIEHT. THIS PI.N< SIW..l 8£ ~ ...... THe
APPUCAOON OF - 8lJIlDfNG PERtoIT. AU. COHN[C11ONS OF THE OIWNS MUST 8£ CONSTRUt1m -
APPR<MD PRIOR 10 THe ANAl. BUIlDING INSPECTION APPAOIIAL
2. AU. INOMOUAL """""""' OUI1EJ'S SIW.I. 8£ PRlVAm.y .-J) - """'-A/N£D 8Y THE LOT 0WNfJI.
D.,7
I.f~~
f'1' ..
-<;p. NO'..5
J"I'-°D\~' 1']./
-¡a.... ~o
z,
N£ 1/16 CORNER
SEe. 12-21-3
8
:t~~
8
0
co
7
'"
...
0 "-
Z "
..
6
...1
J
Z 0
0 >
iñ
:>
ã
£I~
. "-
ö ...
Z
II)
W
Q
0{
II)
J
0{
Q
5
~
0
~
:5
4-
MERIOIAN PER:
PlÁT OF
REDONDO WEST
VOl. "7/89-90
VERTICAl.. DATUM: KCAS
BÐlCHtAARK: RIM OF SS
. IAAHHOl£ AT SOUTH EDGE:
;:; AP~:OXJOI~ N. t:s~ OF
;.. 21ST AV[. S.W.
ELEVATION: 275.78
rJ
Å.Å.
I'"
Qv
.}.
~
3. TRACT .A. SIW..l II( D£IJICArm TO THE arr OF f'ED£RAL WAY FOIl STORW """""""' D£T[H1JON PIJRPOS(S
AS A RESULT or THE R£COROING or THIS "",r. vEG£TATION IOU. II( _TAlN( ) -.......y 10
""""0£ AD£OUATE SIGHT OISTANŒ THROUQf THE CUR\IE.
4. 11<£ 9£AR1NG "SOUTH 1'21',. EAST P£II IUD REIXJAŒD UNOOI R£COROIHG No. 9004201361 APP£N<S
TO BE .. ERROR. ADJO/HING D£EDS R£CORŒD UNOIJI R£COROING N<JNŒRS 751229OJ5J - 760427OJ9S
SPECIfY THe OIR£C1ION TO 8£ os 01.2""" .. """ ........ 0,.21'..' .-..sr. RESPECTIvElY. fNSTRUMEHT
R£COROfI) UNO£R R£COROING No. 8804""""'" SPEC1F1ES 'SOUTH 01.21'..' WEST. PARAU..EI. WITH TH£
WEST UNE: or SAID SU8OMSION" THE IHTDfT or WHICH - UTIUZ£I FOIl THIS SU8ÐMSION.
5. AOOR£5S[S SHOWN H£R£ON WERE PfIO\IIIJÐ If( THE arr OF f'ED£RAL WAY PRIOR TO THE R£COROIHG OF
THIS PlAT AND ARE SU8J£CT m crwa. £ACH LOrs AOOR£SS IOU. BE CONf1RJÆI) 8Y THE CtTY POIOR
TO TH£ 0CCtJPAHC'f or THE 0W£l.U' G ON tHAT LOT.
.. f1IlJ GATA FOIl THIS PlAT WAS OSTAHD If( COMIEHIIOHAl DfR£CT F1ElD 1'RA\o£IISE WETHOOS. IoNGUN/
- UH£AR REL411ONSH1P$ wERE IIfA5URED ...... A TEN SCCOHO TOTAl. STATION SIJPPL£1oÆHTED ...... A
STŒL rAPE
7. TH£ SURVEY roR THIS SUSOMSION WŒIS OR EXCEEDS THE FI£lD TRAI/Ð!SE STAHIWIOS FOIl lANO
8OUN0AIIY SUR1IÐS P£II .,11; JJ2-'JO-O!IQ.
8. FW. I!£UAHC£ HAS 8££N PlACfD .. 0tD II£PU8UC IITl£, LtD.PlAT C£RI1F1CATE 0R0fJI No.
305940, OArm AUGUST 7, 1997 AT 8:.30 All. FOIl DISCLOSUfiE OF ASSOCIArm £ASDÆHTS.
9. OURING THE COURS£ or CONSIRUCTION OF - LOT - THIS SUIIOMSIOH. srus-our IHvERT
El£VAIIOHS FROM STORJ 0R0\HIGE NIO/OII -- SEW£R SHOUlJ) BE \IERIAfD 8Y THE: "IJMOUAl
LOT 8IaD£R OR 0WNfJI TO PRO\IIŒ THE: ~ SI.OP£ FROM THE: PROPOSED HOUSE.
10. -- RElEASE AA£A FlOOD £LE\IIIoOOlO - 288.OJ.
I I. ()A V('oO A'IS FOIl LOTS . """ 7 SIW..l BE "'-"'ED P£II THE API'fIOvED aw. EHQNŒRING PlNIS
ON R£CORD ...... THE PU8UC WORKS DØWrTW£HT f1l£ I SUII9O-OOCU.
12. IJtJRIfC THE: COURSE OF COHSTRUCI1OH OF - LOT - THIS SU8OMSIOH. srus-our IHvERT E1.£VAIIONS
""'" STORJ DIiAINN:£ _/OR -/oR'( S£W£R SHOUlJ) II( 1ÆRIF1ED 8Y THE: INIJMOUAL LOT EIUfL.D£JI OR
"""'" TO PJ<O\IIO£ THE: N£CESSAIIY SI.OP£ FROM THE """""5m HOUSE.
1J. .... IJRAIHAG£ RElEASE AA£A C""j INOICATED ON LOTS 1-3. INCLUSIIiE. OF THIS PlAT IS LOCArm ........
A CLOSED O£PRESSIOH THAT HAS 8££N SET ASIO£ - RESÐMD ,OR fNf1LTRAT1OH OF STORI< ""TER FROM
ADJN;£N ' PROP€RTY, PURSt.IAHT TO THE: DRAINAG( Ra.£ASC 00CtJIEHT OArm NOvEW8£R 12. 1975 -
R£CORD£D UND£R KING COUHIY AIDTOR'S FI.£ No. 76QJ29OJðl. OU£ TO THE RES£J!VATION or THIS AA£A
FOIl 0_. AU. IIIPI!<MWENTS ON LOTS I-', IHClUSIIiE. COTH£R ""'" rn«:ING WUST 8£ COHSTRUCTm
AOOUT THE 100-'ŒAR, 7-OAY FlOOD EU:1OIJJJN D£TERtON£D 8Y T><£ STORW """""""' TECHNICAl. "",,--
R£POIIT roR WILDWOOO ESTATES. OArm .....Y 28. "" - - F£IIRUARY 20. 19"", ON f1l£ ...... THE:
CITY OF FED£RAI. '/lAy PU8UC -.s DE:J'MR £HT. FIJRTHEJI, OU£ TO THE R£SÐ!VATION or THE ORA - IT'S
EN\IIROHW£NTAI. S£NS/IMTY, STRIJC1UII£S. mJNG. GRADING, 08STRUCTI0H OR IWPAO\IÐIOß'S OF - KINO
CINC1.UOING sur NOT I.MTED TO FENC£S, DECKS. PAnos. CIUT9UfLDINGS. SH£DS. OR OVERHANGS) SIW.I. NOT
II( P£RMTTED ........ THE ORA INOICATED ON LOTS I-', IHClUSIIiE. or THIS PlAT, UM.£SS f'1RST ~
IN WRITING 8Y THE CtTY OF f'ED£RAL WAY PU8UC WORKS DtJ'ARTIEHT. - vEG£TATION REWOIIAL P!AHIWG.
""'IEHAHCE OR OTH£R N:;TMTY ........ THE: ORA REOUIRES PRIOR. wmTTEN .<PPRCNAI. or THE CtTY OF
f'ED£RAI. ""Y PU8UC -.s O£PARTIEHT. THIS SIW..l NOT II( COHSTRU£D AS m R£S1RICT ROU11NE
""'IEHAHCE Ce.... """""" OR .........., OF YAIIO$, OR OF tANDSCAf'WG ........ THE ~ IN<<>SCAP£
aUff£R.
14. .... FM: C5) roar PRIVATE ROOF - fUIIIWG ""-""'GE EASÐoI£HT THROUGH LOT . IS FOIl THE 8£NEFIT or
LOTS 5 - 6. WAINTENANC£ """ R£P- OF THIS S'ISIDI IS THE RESPOHSI8RJTY OF THE '-"""""'fI
USING THe SYSTDL
'5. THE FM: C5' roar PRIVATE ROOF - fUIIIWG ~ EASÐoI£HT THROUCH LOT 2-', INCWSIIÆ. IS FOIl THE
8£NEf1T OF LOTS 1 IHROUGH'. ~ - R£P- OF THIS S\'STÐI IS THE RESPOHSI8RJTY OF THE:
l..-RS USING THE SYSTDL
REFERENCES
KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S UN' OF HE. 12-21-3
PLAT OF REDONDO WEST IoOl. 117/89--90
PLAT OF AD£LAIOE PARK IoOl. 66-96
PLAT OF LMOTA PAUSADES DIV. No. 1
PLAT OF LMOTA PAUSADES DIV. No. 2
RECORD OF SUR1IEY 7710289001
RECORD OF SUR1IEY 7801069001
RECORD OF SUR1IEY 88101.9013
RECORD OF SUR1IEY 8811169013
RECORD OF SUR1IEY 9208'9004
KING COUNTY ENGINŒR1NG DEPARTIÆHT
SUR1IEY No. 12-21-3-1 ERCHIHGER ROAD
OŒD 900.201361
OŒD 760'270395
INSTRUUENT 880.290805
ORAINAGE REl.£ASE 760329OJ61
lEGEND
0 - STD. KING CO. MON. IN CASE:/SIT/TYP.
S. - MONUIÆNT FOUND AS NOTED
(P) : PlAT OF REDONDO WEST VOL 117/89-90
(0) ~ OE£O 900.201361 - SEE: NOTE: No. . ABOVE
(II) : UEASUR£O
(RD): J.M. ERCHINGER ROAD SURVEY
TACKS IN l.EAO SIT IN CURB ON LOT LlNE:S E:XTEND£O
R£BAR &: CAP PLS No. 22962 SIT 0 RE:AR LOT CORNERS
AREA OEDlCAT£O TO THE CITY OF FE:OE:RAL WAY FOR STORM
DRAINAGE: OETENnON PURPOS£S AS A RESULT OF RE:CORDING
THIS PlAT. (SEE NOTE 3)
CSHE '/64 CORNER
SEC. 12-21-3
I!RASS PlN/CONe -
ON. 0.5.
P£R lAKOTA PAUSAD£S
OMSION NO. I
f'NO I"""""
N 01'21'1.. E
9.03'
<u°
f:
Q.J
.J-f
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY SUB 90-0004
ADDRESSING
LOT 1 - 3072. 21st Av[. S.W.
LOT 2 - 3073. 21st AVE. S.W.
LOT 3 - 30806 21st AVE. S.W.
LOT. - 30816 21st AVE. S.W.
LOT 5 - 30826 21st AVE. S.W.
LOT 6 - 30836 21st AVE. S.W.
LOT 7 - 30B.6 21st AVE. S.W.
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 25 50
.. ' ,
( IN TEET )
¡¡Dab" 50 It.
100
I
SHEET 2 OF 2
£NO J2~59"0
--
E '/16 c~j
SEe. 12-21-3 "-
;;;:~""'~,
FND/2-":~fI'" ...
¿,~ ~
~:¡:: ~
~U.. -
---:,
~; F~ I~c'~k~f~ -1
~;; _N~"-
;; 1317.90'
>: . .
., ~,~ I
~ '" '" POSIT1ON 'OR RO. ¡ PI FROM "".
or: PT 13+52.64 STATIONING TO NORTIi ~ THE r...
\. FOu.O\OING CUlM: OATA: .. ;...
, 0-143.2'. ~.9
CSHE 1/64 CORNER .-/ o?, l-132.J'; !!;::
SEC. 12-21-3 .,. "1 T- 71..30 ~ Õ
~5~/CONe lION ~ ~ ,.r,..!;1~ >:
oo/i9JUL96 :g I ~ '1>,' '...,S' I
(NOT RO.Ct. P./.) '"I" '.r,~ ~
__~~7JI' _.UCRD)
N ""22"9' ., UI6.g;. ~
SUBOMSION OF ~/~2~
EAST 1/2, NORTHEAST 1/4 J../BRASS SUfF -
SECTION 12. T-21N. R-3E. IUI. ~I~'
NO SCAlL
-~"-ð
IJI8.87'
N£ CORNER
S£C. 12-21-J
PI< -.;ct)HC/'S1JRF lION
ON C2) ASPH UfTS I
_/1"""""
=Ii;;;
3 ~
DAlEf-MOl'flOW-POBLETE. INC.
1215 CENTRAL AVENUE SOUTH. SUITE 133
KENT. WASHINGTON 96032
PHONE: C253)654-9344 CFAX)654-6663
~
r-
"
"0
()
~~~
=::"Jr "'..
..
..
J
-So
\£)......::1
"'"""
~
s.w. 306th ~~
15th
PL.
S.W.
7th ST.
S.W. ~.
308th t/j
ST.
~
!:J S. W.
309th
CT.
/ ~-
Wildwood Estates Fi nal Plat
Vicinity Map
. ~ s.w.
u:) 313th ST.
-. ~~
N
Streets
NFREEWAY
N LOCAL
N MAJOR
. Fire Stations
- Parks
- Subject Property
D City of Federal Way
Scale: 1" = 420'
E
EXHIBIT D
PAGE_.L.OF -L
~ERFIL
~~
s
~~
G)::E:
m-
! m
-
"- -I
, ~
'~I~
& ~
.-:.
~~ .....
-- 1i -
..,.... ~-"-
- "':" -- -~--
....
~
LAKOTA
"AUSAOCS
OM.'ON No.1
""'- 87/"
"""'\.,
~
..
.
m
GO
~
II
. 0""'" r
~
.....
. ......
DOmII 0 '""'" JtHŒ
"""0'""""""'"
""""" r '"""'.......
.. 42/l- ct H ~ we~
le~Dr (.,~ðe...
WILDWOOD ESTA'
OWNER:
B.C. CONSTRUCTION
PO BOX 1086
WAPLZ VAUE'l. wA. 88038
- r . ,.,..,
-~ ......
.~ -
0
----
. '1IICII' '"" ... .-
--.----
=-t-
AD_a
IDf I - 1072< "" M. L8.
IDf . - JD7S4 ".. M. ..&
1Df' - - "...... U.
IDf . - ..... ".. .... "0.
IDf . - ..... ".. M. U.
IDf . - ..... ".. .... U.
IDf , - ..... ".. .... u.
!&O-
f: ::..:, :':,,"='m/T'fP.
(P -""""-"""""'-"'-
(0) - OIJD """,>1, -.. HI7II'" . -
""'" " WI> .. " .... II< IDf .- .........
..... .. C» '" No. -- .. .. ....,. IDf -
REVISION DATE
AU6201197
GU'IIII ICWI
't._.J U T
1--.
1_.- ..
~~
A116 ¡O 11!7
LANDSCAPE PLAN
..., ..
~~~:'
~Blue Sky Landscape Services, Inc.
~ 8014 '.0., --..... p,q.JIup. Y8IIIIoc\Ga ee:r71
- (-) -- ru (108) no_I
-
L-
ot
2
-
- Blue Sky-
LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC.
LICENSE HBLUESLS 152 JP
9014 V ALLEY AVENUE EAST. PUY ALLUP, WASHINGTON 98371
(253) 845-2222 FAX (253) 770-8891
8-27-97
Mr. Scott Williams
Planning and Land Use
City of Federal Way
33530 - 1st Ave. S.
Federal Way, WA. 98003
EXHIBIT £,
PAG E~__- OF
&
Re: Wildwood Estates Landscape Buffer
Mr. Williams,
Mr. Barry Fisher ofB.c. Construction contacted me recently and indicated that the
northern most group of screening trees in this development are within a low area. He
indicated that this area may flood at times during the rainy season and that you had a
concern that the fir trees may not live through the inundation.
.
I agree with tills observation. I would like to change the specified tree for tills group of
three trees to Thuja plicata - Western Redcedar. They should do better in this condition.
I hope tills letter and the direction of the owner to install this substitute tree will suffice for
your approval of this plan.
If you need further information, please contact me .
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
/
,~,~.~~
David B. Lowman - Landscape Architect
Blue Sky Landscape Services, Inc.
. ::~w -o:!) b
DATE:
October 15, 1997
TO:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer Rf
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Sounding Board Ordinance Package to King County Council
Background
This memo is to update the City Council of the development underway with King County
METRO's South County Sounding Board and seek City Council's input on new developments in
the process of implementing a revised transit route structure.
In Federal Way, service changes implemented in September 1997 include the following:
1.
Midday service on Route 181 was increased to 30 minute headways. Route 181 was
realigned between S 336th Street and Federal Way Transit Center from Weyerhaeuser
Way S to S 336th Street, 20th Avenue S, and S 324th Street.
2.
The new route to Kent (Route 183) was implemented. This replaced Route 902 and the
portion of Route 192 south of the Star Lake Park and Ride. This created a gap in transit
service on Military Road S between S 304th Street and S 288th Street, and requires that
commuters now using the portion of Route 192 south of Star Lake transfer at Star Lake
or Federal Way Transit Center to other commuter routes.
3.
Route 194 was realigned from Pacific Highway S and S 348th Street between S 336th
Street and the South Federal Way Park and Ride to S 336th Street and 9th Avenue S.
4.
Route 903 was realigned between S 336th Street and Federal Way Transit Center from
S 336th Street and 20th Avenue S to 1st Avenue S, S 320th Street, and 11th Place S.
This also modifies the DART service area.
It was recognized that other changes would be necessary to more fully implement the Sounding
Board's recommendations. Metro had planned for these changes to occur in February 1998, but
are now planned for June 1998.
Matt Shelden of Metro will present the proposed service revisions with public comment provided
at an Open House in September.
RP:jg
cc:
Project File - Day File
K:\LUTC\SBcrYREC.MMO
DATE:
October 13, 1997
TO:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee
'?"^
FROM:
Ken Miller, Street Systems Manager
SUBJECT:
Military Road So and So 304th Street Widening and Intersection Improvement
Project - 30% Design Approval
BACKGROUND
The Military Road So and So 304th Street Widening and Intersection Improvement Project was
financed as a part of the 1995 voter approved bond issue. Currently, this roadway and
intersection is very congested at peak traffic periods due to the lack of a left turn lane on
Military Road. This project will widen the roadway and instalileft turn lanes and shoulders on
Military Road and So 304th Street; install a mast arm traffic signal and lighting; and lower the
intersection at So 304th Street and 28th Avenue So to provide adequate site distance.
The project is approximately 30% designed and right-of-way acquisition has been identified at
the intersection. After approval of the 30% design plans, right-of-way acquisition and final
design will begin. The 30% complete project plans will be presented at the October 20, 1997
meeting for discussion.
RECOMMENDATION
Place the following items on the November 4, 1997 Council consent agenda for approval:
1.
Approve the 30% design plans for the Military Road So and So 304th Street Widening
and Intersection Improvement Project and proceed with final design.
2.
Authorize staff to proceed with right-of-way acquisition for the project.
KM\km
cc:
Project File
Day File
k:\lutc\MiI&304.30%
Meeting date: 1O/201<n
CITY OF -
- . - EJ:J~
~~~
DATE:
October 13, 1997
TO:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land U se/Transportation Committee
~~
FROM:
Ken Miller, Street Systems Manager
SUBJECT:
1998 Right of Way Landscape Maintenance Contract
Bac~ground
Upon incorporation, the City's Public Works Department contracted with King County for
landscape maintenance services. In 1993, the Parks Department contracted with a private
contractor for right of way landscape maintenance services and in late 1993, the Public Works
Department assumed management of the contract. In 1994, Vadis Northwest was the low bidder
for the work and the contract term was extended for one year through 1995. In 1996, Myer's
Master Lawncare was low bidder and the contract was extended through 1997. The contract for
right of way landscape maintenance pertains to maintenance of arterial streets only, and includes
So 312th Street, So 320th Street, So 288th Street, So 348th Street, So 336th Street, SW 320th
Street, 21st Ave SW, 1st Ave So, 1st Way So, and Library Lane (see attached map).
Action
Based upon the work performed under the previous contracts, staff is recommending revising the
scope of work and rebidding the contract. The revisions include adjusting the frequency of
mowing seasonally in certain locations, and increasing the limits of So 348th Street that are
maintained to include the medianllandscape strip next to the truck stop.
We anticipate bidding the contract in January, 1998 and bringing the results to Council in
February for award.
Recommendation
Staff recommends forwarding the following to the November 4, 1997 City Council meeting on
the consent agenda:
1)
Authorize City staff to publicly bid the 1998 Right of Way Landscape Maintenance
Contract;
If bids received are within budget, present results directly to the City Council for award.
2)
KM:jg
attachment
k:\1utc\98Iandsc.mem
1998 LANDSCAPE
~
MAl NTENANCE
CONTRA CT
SEA mE
KENT
PUGET
SOUND
'"
......
.';
¡"T.""
; ,.....;.
;............
\s:,;':;
~-.~
.,."
PßO.POS£P COH7'IUC7'
¥A/H7'A/H£P S7'ߣ£7'S
----5 288TH 5T - 30TH AIÆ 5 TO SR 99
----5 312TH 5T - 5R 99 TO 1ST AIÆ 5
----1ST A IÆ 5 - 5 350TH 5T TO 5 312TH 5T
----5 336TH ST - 5R 99 TO 1ST AIÆ 5
----215T A IÆ SW - SW 356TH TO SW 312TH ST
----5W 320TH 5T - 5R 99 TO 47TH AIÆ SW
----5 348TH ST - SR 99 TO HOYT RD
----5W 342ND 5T (LIBRARY LN) - MEDIAN
----5W 356TH 5T - 1ST AIÆ 5 TO 215T AIÆ 5W
~
TACOMA
DATE:
October 13,1997
TO:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee
~
FROM:
Ken Miller, Street Systems Manager
SUBJECT:
The 1997 Sidewelk Replecement Project - Chenge Order
BACKGROUND
At its June 17, 1997 meeting, the City Council awarded the 1997 Sidewalk Replacement
Project to Kodo Construction, Inc. The total approved project budget was $87,943.35, which
included a 10% construction contingency of $7,994.85.
The project is complete, and final costs were less than the original contract amount resulting
in total savings of $22,742.85 ($14,748.00 project savings + $7,994.85 unused contingency).
This amount could be used for additional sidewalk work proposed below:
Schedule C - Decatur
25th Ave SW, SW 319th Street to SW 32Oth Street
Portions of SW 319th Street, 24th Ave SW to
25th Ave SW
SW 328th Street, 35th Ave SW to 36th Ave SW
Schedule D - SW 328th Street
Staff received costs for the additional work, based on contract unit prices from Kodo
Construction, as follows:
Schedule C/Decatur
Schedule D/SW 328th Street
$ 8,820.00
$13.950.00
Subtotal of the two additional schedules
$22,770.00
Available funding from project savings
$22.742.85
Additional required (includes 10% contingency $2,277)
$
(2,304.15)
The additional $2,304.15 could be funded from the Structures account, and staff therefore,
recommends adding these two schedules to the 1997 Sidewalk Replacement Project.
RECOMMENDA TION
Forward the following recommendations to the November 4, 1997 Council meeting for
approval.
1) Approve executing a Change Order to add Schedules C and D to the Kodo Construction, Inc.
contract for the 1997 Sidewalk Replacement Project, increasing the original contract by
$27.15 to $87,970.50 and approving a $2,277 contingency.
KM:jg
K:\LUTC\97SIDEWK.CO
Meeting date: 10120/97
c~
@
1997 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CHANGE ORDER 1
SCHEDUlE C
SCtCDUlE 0
Vicin ity MaR
CITY OF -
-..- E:D~
~~ RY"
DATE:
October 14, 1997
TO:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee
Jeff Pratt, Surface Water Division Manage~ n ¡\II
David Renstrom, Water Quality Program Coordinator \)\1)1
FROM:
SUBJECT:
West Fork Hylebos Creek
Riparian Habitat Grant Program
BACKGROUND
The Surface Water Management Division Comprehensive Surface Water Facility Plan (1996)
included the West Hylebos Channel Stabilization and Habitat Improvement project, which was
originally identified in the Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound Basin Plan (1991). This project
is tentatively scheduled for implementation in 1999-2000 in the Facility Plan. The project area
generally includes the West Hylebos stream corridor from the southern edge of the West Hylebos
Wetlands State Park at S. 356th Street south to the culvert crossing under Pacific Highway South
at about 368th, just south of the Spring Valley Montessori School. Overall, the project area
includes about one mile of stream channel.
The project includes acquisition and restoration of this regionally significant resource, and serves
an ultimate goal of connection with West Hylebos State Park. The restored and protected stream
section will ensure fish passage to the State Park and will improve spawning and rearing habitat
for salmon. Preliminary estimates indicate that up to sixty acres on portions of 23 privately
owned parcels may be included within the project limits.
Two stream rehabilitation projects have already occurred in the area, one at Brooklake in 1996
and this year in the stream segment at the Spring Valley Montessori School. These projects were
funded from the Annual Programs portion of the Surface Water Management Capital Project
Fund.
The Surface Water Management Division is proposing to continue acquisition and restoration
efforts in the identified area during 1998 by completing a topographical survey and a habitat and
geotechnical investigation. This plan will identify specific stream improvements, provide
preliminary design and engineering cost estimates, and complete the SEP A checklist. This plan
will be funded by the Annual Programs portion of the Surface Water Management Capital Project
Fund.
It may be possible to supplement local funds with state and/or federal grant funds for property
acquisition and planning. At least two competitive grant funds with supporting goals are accepting
applications this Fall. With Council approval, the SWM Division is proposing to pursue one or
more sources of this supplementary funding, including:
The Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (lAC) is offering funds for
the Riparian Habitat Program. Approximately $4 million is available. A minimum 25 % matching
share is required. Projects and proposals are invited that protect riparian habitat through less-than-
fee acquisition methods (for instance, Conservation Easements). Our proposal will request up to
$500,000 for property acquisition. Our match to the potential grant opportunities will be provided
by the planning effort, Le., receiving credit for staff and contractor time spent in the preparation
of the Hylebos restoration planning.
An application may also be made to EPA's Wetlands Grant Program, if that program provides an
opportunity to fund these acquisitions or part of the planning effort A minmum 25 % matching
share is also required.
RECOMMENDA TION
Place the following item on the October 20, 1997 Council Consent Agenda for approval:
1.
Authorize the Surface Water Management Division of Public Works to apply for state
and/or federal grant funding in support of the West Hylebos Riparian Habitat Acquisition
and Improvement project.
K: \SWM\MINORCIP\RESTOREP\IACGRNT. WPD
I
N
R
T
E
MEMO
0
F
F
I
c
E
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Land Use Transportation Committee
Phil Watkins, Chair
Mary Gates
Ron Gintz lAAA 11
Greg Moore, AICP p:::J' V ,
Director of Community Development Services
Request for Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Map, Permitted Land Uses Chart change
October 13, 1997
Attached (Exhibit A) you will find a letter ITom Jim Vander Giessen, President of Pro
Remgeration, Inc., requesting Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Map and permitted land uses chart
changes for 1636 South 333rd Street. The Zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations are
depicted on Exhibit B.
ReQJlests:
Options:
1.
Current Comprehensive Plan designation: Multifamily.
Requested Comprehensive Plan Designation: Community Business.
2.
Current Zoning Map designation: RM 3600 (12 units per acre)
Requested Zoning Map Designation: BC, Community Business
3.
Request a change to the permitted land uses chart to allow assembly in BC,
Community Business, Zone.
1.
Direct that this request be considered in the Comprehensive Plan update scheduled
for later this year.
2.
Take no action and allow them to make application during next year's annual
update process.
PRI REIR/IERA T/III/Ilc.cOMMUN,~]~ã~~E~T ~&ARTMEm
P.O. Box 1528 Auburn WA 98071-1528 nCT ~ íæ'Y
PHONE:(253) 735-9466 FAX: (253) 735-2631
PAGE#10F1
Tuesday, October 07, 1997
City of Federal Way
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, W A 98003
TEL: (206) 661-4013
FAX: (206) 661-4024
EXHIBIT A
PAGE I OF
I
Attn.: Greg Moore
Director of Community Development
Ref.: Comprehensive Plan Update
I had the privilege of having lunch today with City Council Member Mary Gates. The
lunch meeting's purpose was to discuss the possibility of relocating my business to
Federal Way. Council Member Gates was very helpful in explaining to us the steps that
would be required to make this a possibility. The proposed location of the property,
1636 S. 333rd St., now has a zoning classification ofRM3600. We understand that a
change of zoning would be required. The western adjacent property, located on the
comer of State Highway 99 and 333rd Street is currently zoned Community Business
(BC). This leads us to two questions; the first being the possibility of having the zoning
on this property changed to BC, and the second being if my business could be properly
located with-in this listing.
Pro Refrigeration assembles and sells water chiller systems. The assembly involves;
mounting the components onto a welded steel frame, piping the components with copper
piping, mounting sheet metal panels over the exterior, and wiring the components to a
Listed Electrical Panel. We are currently leasing an 8,000 Sq. Foot facility in Auburn,
our expanding business has forced us to look elsewhere for a location which could
facilitate a 12,000 Sq. Foot Building.
I am not familiar with the processes of city government on issues such as this. Council
Member Gates explained that contacting you via this letter as the first step. If you feel
this request has a possibility of approval by the Land Use Commission. We would like to
attend and testify at the next scheduled meeting on October 20, 1997.
Please contact me with questions or comments.
S in.c......~~ / //. eI ~/
..,~k~
~~~d;~. s~n
// PreSident, Pro Refrigeration Inc.
"
"
"
"
"
B
I
,: (MUl TIF AM)
:'
"
"
¡:
:, PAGE I
-..-..-.-
B
~,
; en:;
en:'
M 1800
RM
2400
.
(j) ~ a:; , :
:J'CI)
CD ¡ '-<~
~.:~ :~
0 ;¡ uj~:
()
~
"
: ~
..1:..
... ..
"
.. ,
(MUL T~FAM)
j: ,. - - - - -, -. ----
[I
':
~ -C 16:6 S",3~rd St.
J: ~ '1
0:1 (COMBUS) ¡~
.-
~,:..........,....""""".."..",.,.,,......,.~. "",'""..., """-.'" ........'"..~ ..
~ '-""""""""...."..".""". ", S. 33'3ra~'$r~"""""""'-."~"""-'" """"""""""""""""'-ï
\U ,.,_." "" ,
a. '; .'" ,.."" """"(W'--""""""""'""""--.""""",-"""",, """.""', , ""---'1""""'""",., ...."~..,
RM18
M360
(COMBUS)
"
(MUL TIFAM)
¡
¡:
I:
: ~
:¡
..'
if"
Legend:
c=J Parcels
ProRefrigeration Site
Zoning and Comprehensive
Plan Designations
~
N
Zoning:
BC - Community Business
RM1800 - Multi Family, 1 Unit/1800 Sq. Ft.
RM2400 - Multi Family, 1 Unit/2400 Sq. Ft.
pl\t13600 - Multi Family, 1 Unit/3600 Sq. Ft.
mprehensive Plan Designations:
(COMB US) - Community Business
(MUL TIFAM) - Multi Family
Federal Way
CityMap
SCALE 1 :2001
Note: This map is intenteel for use as a graphical representation only.
The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy,
90
0
90
180 Feet