LUTC PKT 07-21-1997City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
July 21, 1997
5:30 pm
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minute limit)
4. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Non -conforming Provision Action
(a code amendment)
B. Final Acceptance of 6th Avenue SW Action
& Campus Drive Construction
Contract
C. 1997 Asphalt Overlay Change Orders Action
5. OTHER ITEMS
6. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDAS
7. ADJOURN
Committee Members:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Ron Gintz
Mary Gates
I: \LU-TRANSUUL21 UT. AGN
City Hall
Council Chambers
McCormick/60 min
Miller/10 min
Miller/ 10 min
City Staff. -
Greg Moore, Director, Community Development Services
Sandy Lyle, Administrative Assistant
661-4116
June 16, 1997
5:30pm
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
SUMMARY
City Hall
Council Chambers
In attendance: Committee members Phil Watkins (Chair), Ron Gintz and Mary Gates; Mayor Skip Priest; Councihnember Hope Elder;
Director of Community Development Services Greg Moore; Management Services Director Iwen Wang; Deputy Director of
Community Development Services Kathy McClung; Assistant City Attorney Bob Sterbank; Street Systems Manager Ken Miller;
Surface Water Manager Jeff Pratt; Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; Senior Planner Greg McCormick; Water Quality Program Coordinator
Dave Renstrom; Code Compliance Officer Martin Nordby; Administrative Assistant Sandy Lyle.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:35 pm by Chairman Phil Watkins.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the May 19, 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. Downtown P ddng (a code anigWinent) -At the May 20, 1997, meeting the City Council expressed concerns about the
Downtown Parking code amendment. The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan sets several policies to implement a denser
downtown. One means is through different parking strategies. The proposed changes encourage structured parking, increase
compact stall ratios, shared parking criteria, and the ability to increase or decrease stalls based upon certain criteria. Staff
presented new information which recommends that retail parking ratios remain unchanged. The Committee wants office and
retail ratios to remain and decided that variations from minimum parking provisions would no longer be justified by a traffic
study. Structured parking does not mean reduced parking and shared parking will be encouraged where practical. The
Committee noted the different height limits of City Center Core and City Center Frame zones. The Committee discussed
compact parking stalls and decided that placement of compact stalls will be left to the discretion of the developer. Pedestrian
facilities would continue to be improved. On -street parking was unchanged.
B. Popilation/Household Forecast - Staff provided an update on revised household and employment targets for the City. The new
capacity analysis indicates that Federal Way does not have the ability to accommodate the household targets adopted in the
King County Countywide Planning Policies under the current zoning plan. A letter has been sent to the Urban
Center/Household and Employment Allocation Subcommittee requesting that the committee re-examine the household
allocations in general and Federal Way's in particular. It was the consensus of the Land Use/Transportation Committee that
staff was correct to continue to monitor population and employment targets.
C. Non -Conforming Provision (code amendment) - Discussion on the Nonconformance Code Revision was deferred to the July 7,
1997, Land Use/Transportation Committee meeting.
D. 21st Avenue SW at 325th Place SW Traffic Signal & Intersection Improvement Proiect - Tucci and Sons is the apparent lowest
responsible bidder for the 21st Avenue SW and SW 325th Place Traffic Signal & Intersection Improvement project contract in
the amount of $590,052.50. The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval of the contract to the Council at the July 1,
1997, meeting with approval of a 10% construction contingency of $59,005.25. Also recommended was approval of the
transfer of $115,058.02 ($61,058.02 + $54,000.00) from the SW Campus Drive and 6th Avenue SW Signal project savings
into the 21st Avenue SW and SW 325th Place Traffic Signal & Intersection Improvement project.
E. West Hylebos Stream Rehabilitation - Plans and specifications for a stream rehabilitation project on the West Fork of Hylebos
Creek are 85 % complete. This and additional future projects in the stream south of 356th street are intended to enable the
stream to accommodate increased flows, resist incisions, and allow recovery of aquatic habitat, including fish spawning and
rearing habitat. The reduction in sediment transport which will result from these projects will also decrease the recurring need
for channel dredging in the reach about South 373rd Street. Estimated total project cost is $83,081 which includes estimated
construction cost of $49,753 and design and surveying costs of $33,328. The project cost is budgeted within the Small Capital
Improvement portion of the Surface Water Management Capital Project Fund. The Committee m/s/c recommendation of
project approval to Council at the next meeting.
F. Applewood Annexation - This annexation area as proposed by its petitioners includes the Applewood subdivision and five
unplatted parcels between Applewood and Pacific Highway South to the east. Applewood is bordered to the south by South
284th Street, to the north at approximately South 281st, to the east by the eastern side of the Pacific Highway South right-of-
way, and to the west at approximately 14th Avenue South. There are a total of 38 parcels, 33 of which are in Applewood
proper. Staff recommends five additional parcels be included in this annexation. These extend the proposed annexation area
north along Pacific Highway South to South 279th Street. These parcels are included in Federal Way's Potential Annexation
Area (PAA) and are adjacent to Pacific Highway South. They are bordered on the west by the Des Moines PAA. Mr.
Michael Reid of the Granville Southern Corporation of Kirkland spoke about his concerns regarding one parcel he owns in the
Des Moines PAA and three others on which he has purchase/development options located in the Federal Way PAA. The
Committee indicated the possibility of annexation to Federal Way if he could obtain a release of his property from the Des
Moines PAA. The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval to Council to accept the 10 % petition for annexation of
Applewood including the additional parcels adjacent to Pacific Highway South, to require simultaneous zoning pursuant to
Federal Way City Code Section 19-103 regarding zoning, and assumption of the proportionate share of bonded indebtedness.
G. Brifffing on RTA Capital Improvements - On November 5, 1996, voters approved the RTA proposal to develop a rapid transit
system for the Puget Sound Region. Three express bus service routes will begin between 1998 and 2000. Improvements
totaling $8 million will also be made to the existing Federal Way Park and Ride lot. Between 2001 and 2003, a Federal Way
Transit Center will be sited and constructed for $4 million. Another $8 million in improvements will be made to improve the
Star Lake Park and Ride lot. Within the context of planned improvements to the 23rd Avenue South, improvements
recommended by the Downtown Committee, possible expansion of SeaTac Mall, and a 1000 space parking structure at the
Federal Way Park and Ride, the City will be working with RTA to site a Transit Center, improve the Existing Park and Ride
and create direct access ramps to the HOV lanes to I-5. The negotiation and acceptance of an interlocal agreement creates an
opportunity to request RTA funding to develop a plan to coordinate and implement these improvements. RTA will be
discussed further at the July 21, 1997, Land Use/Transportation Committee Meeting.
H. TImmportation Improvement Plan (TIPI - In accordance with the requirements of RCW 35.77 and 47.26, the City adopted its
original TIP and ASIP on July 23, 1991. The City is required to adopt a revised TIP and ASIP on an annual basis that reflects
the City's current and future street and arterial needs. The City is required to hold one public hearing on the revised plans
which is proposed for the July 1, 1997 Council meeting. The proposed plans do not significantly differ from the previous
year's plans. However, four new projects have been added to the 6 -year TIP and ASID, two of which reflect grant -funded
pedestrian safety projects and two which reflect concurrency requirements. The Committee m/s/c to set the public hearing for
July 1, 1997, and forwarded recommendation of approval of the revised TIP and ASID to Council for review and adoption.
I. Street Name Chanees - An update on the process of renaming South 320th Street and Pacific Highway South was heard by the
Committee on April 21, 1997. Six hundred five surveys were mailed out on April 18, 1997. A telephone hotline for citizen
input was set up. Ten newspaper articles have been published in the Federal Way News and the Tacoma News Tribune on the
potential renaming. The Federal Way Chamber of Commerce conducted a survey at a general membership luncheon, and
mailed and faxed surveys to their membership. The Committee referred further action on the street renaming to the
Downtown Revitalization Committee.
J. Regional Governance/Land Use - Staff presented an update on the planning, permitting, and code enforcement case study of
the Regional Finance and Governance Oversight Committee. The alternatives for handling land use issues in the Potential
Annexation Area (PAA) were presented. As an information item only, no action was required from the Committee.
5. OTHER ITEMS
There were no other items to discuss.
6. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDAS
The next meeting will be July 7, 1997.
7. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pm.
I:\LU-TRANS\JUN16LUT.SUM
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 17, 1997
TO: Land Use & Transportation Co C i ee
FROM: Greg McCormick, AICP !W
SUBJECT: Nonconformance Code Revisions
Attached are the nonconformance code revision packet materials provided in the
June 16, 1997, Land Use/Transportation Committee meeting. Discussion was
deferred to the July meeting and changes continue to be finalized. Updated
information will be distributed at the July 21, 1997, meeting for your review and
consideration.
To: Land Use & Transportation ommitt
From: Greg McCormick, AICP MEMORANDUM
Subject: Nonconformance Code !kevision
Date: June 10, 1997
The following are two examples of how the Planning Commission recommended
alternative of proportional compliance would affect development. Also included is
an alternative way of calculating the level of compliance required. The formula in
the Commission's recommendation uses a percentage based on the value of the
proposed improvements related to the value of the existing improvements on the
site. The alternative will use a percentage based on the square footage being
added to the site in relation to the size of the existing structures on the site,.
SCENARIO #1
Location: SeaTac Mall
Development: 10,000 square foot pad building along South 320th Street
Assumptions: 1. Value of new structure based on Uniform Building Code
valuation for Type V -N construction - $42 per square
foot.
2. For purposes of this example, the Bon Marche and
Sears stores will not be included for either square
footage or valuation, as they are on separate tax
parcels from the rest of the Mall.
3. Cost of bringing the Mall site into compliance with
current code requirements is $1,000,000. This does
not include water quality or street improvements that
may be required on the site.
4. Use latest King County Assessors information for
structure valuation.
Proposed Building: Cost - $420,000; Size - 10,000 square feet.
Existing Mall: Value of existing structure - $25,447,500; Size - 523,758
square feet.
Percentage by value calculation:
Q $24,447,500/$420,000 = 1.7%
Q $1,000,000 x 1.7% = $17,000 worth of improvements must be done
on the Mall site.
Percentage by size calculation:
Land Use & Transportation Committee
Page 2
June 16, 1997
11 523,758 sq.ft./10,000 sq.ft. = 1.9%
11 $1,000,000 x 1.9% = $19,000 worth of improvements must be done on the
Mall site compared to the $17,000 based on valuation.
SCENARIO #2
Location: Federal Way High School
Development: 860 square foot portable classroom structure
Assumptions: 1. Value based on Uniform Building Code valuation for Type V -N
construction - $64 per square foot.
2. Cost of bringing the Federal Way High School site has been
estimated by the District at $197,000.
Portable Classroom: Cost - $55,000; Size - 860 square feet
Existing School: Value of existing structure - $11,520,000; Size - 180,000
square feet.
Percentage by value calculation:
0 $11,520,000/$55,000 =.5%
0 $195,000 x.5% = $975 worth of improvements must be done on the Federal
Way High School site.
Percentage by size calculation:
0 180,000 sq.ft./860 sq.ft. =.5%
O $195,000 x.5% = $975 worth of improvements must be done to the Federal
Way High School site compared to the $975 under the valuation calculation.
As can be seen from the examples above, there are situations when small improvements
or relatively small improvements are being proposed, the resulting upgrade of the property
will be minimal regardless of the basis being used for calculating the amount to be spent
on compliance. What the LUTC may want to consider, that wasn't discussed at the
Planning Commission, is establishing a minimum proportional compliance level. A range
of between 10% - 25% would seem a reasonable starting point for discussion purposes.
In the examples above, SeaTac Mall would be required to provide between $100,000 and
$250,000 in improvements based on the suggested range, rather than the approximately
$17,000. The school district would be required to provide $19,500 to $48,750 in
Land Use & Transportation Committee
Page 3
June 16, 1997
improvements rather than the $975 indicated above, depending on the minimum
established. In situations where the minimum percentage was surpassed, the larger of the
two percentages should apply. Establishing a minimum level of compliance would provide
the city a mechanism to ensure some level of upgrading of nonconforming sites, at the
same time giving applicants some relief from the full compliance requirements now in the
city's code.
The formula proposed in the code amendments addresses only when additional square
footage is being added to a site that is nonconforming. What is not addressed is when
other nonconformance thresholds are exceed such as when a use has ceased for more
than 90 days or when a site is abandoned for more than 180 days or when a use has
changed. By establishing a minimum, when these thresholds are exceed there would be
a mechanism in the code to allow proportional compliance in these situations as well.
Another issue addressed to some degree with a minimum compliance requirement is that
of equity. The equity issue is that when an undeveloped site develops, all of the city's
code and ordinances must be adhered to. If a developed site which has nonconforming
aspects is allowed make improvements to the building and/or other upgrades and not have
to achieve some level of compliance with current code requirements puts the developer
of the undeveloped site at a disadvantage. Requiring a minimum upgrading of
nonconforming development would address this equity issue to some degree.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the following:
1. Use area calculation rather than valuation for determining level of compliance on
nonconforming sites where additional square footage is being added to the site;
2. Establish a minimum compliance percentage of 25% for sites that are adding
square footage. This would also apply to sites that are not adding square footage
but have exceeded a nonconformance threshold such as change of use,
abandonded site or discountivance of a use.
I:\GREG\NONCONFR\LUTCMEM.616
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
DATE: IMay 29, 1997
TO: FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROBERT VAUGHAN, CHAIR
FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO
VARIOUS CHAPTERS OF THE FEDERAL WAY CITY CODE
RELATED TO THE NONCONFORMING PROVISIONS OF THE
CODE.
SEPA STATUS: DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) ISSUED MARCH
28, 1997.
BACKGROUND
In 1992, a series of amendments to the nonconformance provisions of the Federal Way
City Code (FWCC) were adopted by City Council. These amendments included the
following:
A. Adding hew definitions to the code for change of use, normal maintenance
and tenant improvements;
B. The requirement for an MAI appraisal was removed and appraisals were
made optional for the applicant (source acceptable to the city);
C. Normal maintenance and tenant improvement costs were deleted for
calculations of all nonconformance thresholds; and
D. The threshold for nonconforming procedure was raised from 35% to 50% of
the assessed or appraised value of the structure(s) on the subject property.
In August of 1996, the Council put the nonconformance issue back on the Planning
Commission's work program for 1997. The major focus of this code revision was to
develop alternative compliance methods for nonconforming development. As detailed in
the attached staff report, staff proposed four alternative approaches to nonconformance
compliance including exceptions, proportional compliance, phased compliance and
1
deferred compliance. Other more minor, housekeeping type amendments were also
reviewed by the Commission.
H. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission held a workshop on the proposed code revision on April 16,
1997. On May 7th the Commission held a public hearing on the nonconforming code
amendment. This public hearing was concluded on May 21st. At the conclusion of the
hearing based on city staffs presentation of the staff report and analysis, public testimony
and Commission deliberations, the following recommendation is made:
A. Proportional compliance - this revision to the FWCC will allow less than 100%
compliance for nonconforming parking, buffers and landscaping. Proportional
compliance is not recommended to apply to nonconforming use, procedure, water
quality, street improvements or signs. The proportion of compliance is calculated
using the following method:
1. Divide the dollar value of the proposed site improvements by the value of the
existing structures on the site;
2. The percentage resulting from #1 above is multiplied by the dollar amount
that is necessary to bring the site into compliance with the current code
provisions identified in the required conformance plan;
3. The resulting dollar amount is then applied toward reducing the
nonconforming aspects of the site.
Refer to staff memorandum dated May 29, 1997 for recommended code language.
B. Water quality improvements - currently, the code requires immediate compliance
(FWCC Section 22-330) for a number of items, water quality facilities is one of
them. This provision would be extremely difficult to administer and has not been
administered by city staff in this fashion. In 1995, the city's public works staff
developed a working policy to help the department in administering this provision
of the code. his ed asp art of the staff report. The Planning
Commission is recommending that water qua i y e e eted from the immediate
compliance section (Section 22-330) and a new section be created that codifies that
public works departmental policy on this issue. Refer to the attached staff report
for proposed language on this proposed amendment.
C. Street improvements - Section 22-1473, FWCC is a section that addresses when
public improvements must be installed. This section essentially addresses
nonconforming public improvements. Planning and public works staff_
recommended that this section be moved into Chapter 22, Article IV -
Nonconformance which is the section of the code that addresses other
nonconforming provisions. The Commission agrees with staff recommendation that
a new section be created under the nonconformance article of the code to include
2
this provision.
D. Housekeeping items - other minor amendments are being proposed to address a
number of issues. A summary of those recommended changes include:
1. Consistency in language referring to time frames in the nonconformance
thresholds;
2. Amending sections to be consistent with recently adopted code amendments
related to Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1724 (ESHB 1724);
3. Clarifying the following definitions:
a. junk by adding junk yards to the definition;
b. buffer;
C. quasi judicial;
d. normal maintenance - signs;
e. abandoned.
5. Clarify gross floor area expansion;
6. Delete Section 22-1402 (overlooked during the landscape code revision);
and
7. Include "public" in the definition of "Nonconformance" in Section 22-1.
The language for these proposed amendments is contained in the attached staff report.
Ill. FINDINGS
The planning commission made the following findings in support of the above
recommendations:
1. Current nonconformance criteria and thresholds discourage upgrading, remodeling,
and bringing sites and structures into conformance, by not allowing options or much
flexibility. This in turn can encourage citizens to move to other less restrictive areas
2. Proposed nonconformance criteria and thresholds will encourage upgrading,
remodeling and bringing sites and structures into conformance, by allowing options
and flexibility.
3. Proposed "housekeeping" changes will clarify specified sections of the code by
adding new definitions, changing the process numbering system to the newly
approved system
4. Proposed nonconformance criteria will meet the Federal Way Comprehensive
Economic Development objectives to:
♦ Redevelop and improve the quality of the mixed use development along
3
Pacific Highway South from South 272nd Street to South 356th Street (1995-2020);
♦ Encourage quality development throughout the City to attract desirable
economic development in Federal Way;
♦ Maintain and improve the quality and character of the exi8ting residential
neighborhoods.
5 Proposed nonconformance criteria will meet the following Federal Way
Comprehensive Plan goals:
♦ Develop incentives to encourage desired development in commercial areas,
especially in the City Center Core and Frame (LUP55);
♦ The City will periodically monitor local and regional trends to be able to
adjust plans, policies, and programs (ED17);
♦ The City will actively work with representative groups of business and
property owners, including the Chamber and other local business associations, to
enhance citywide and subarea improvements and planning (ED18); and
♦ Focus on improving the existing character and image of the City Center
(CCG6).
ROBERT VAUGHAN, CH
FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION
DA E
Attachments
1AGREGW ONCONFRIPC-RECMN
11
To: City of Federal Way Planning Commission
From: Greg McCormick, AICP - Senior Planner MIMOMNDUM
Penelope Bell, AICP - Consultant
Subject: Non-conformance Code Revision - Supplemental Information _
Date: May 15, 1997
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum suggests modifications to nonconformance items discussed at the
Planning Commission meeting of 7 May 1997. The hearing was continued to 21 May
1997. This revised Proportional Compliance alternative deletes possible conflicts with
existing nonconformance thresholds in the zoning code. Additional housekeeping items
have been added to clarify that street improvement requirements and water quality
standards must be fully met when bringing a site, structure or use into compliance. Some
section numbers will be changed, as appropriate, to incorporate new sections. The
actual renumbering will be done at the time of codification.
ALTERNATIVE - PROPORTIONAL COMPLIANCE
Section 22- Proportional Compliance
M Purpose. Proportional compliance is a mechanism by which the city may allow less
than 100 percent conformance.
0 Who may apply. Anyone may apply who is required to bring a site or structure into
conformance with current regulations.
M Applicability. Proportional compliance may be applied when a nonconformance
threshold is met or exceeded, and expansion, remodel or use of, is not permitted without
meeting full requirements for:
a. parking (see Sec. 22-334)
b. buffers see Sec. 22-336
C. landscaping(see Art. XVII
Proportional compliance cannot be used for:
a. nonconforming use (see Sec. 22-332
b. nonconforming procedure (see Sec. 22-333
C. water quality (see Section 22- )
d. street improvements (see Section 22-
e. signs (see Sec. 22-335)
(�A Decision criteria. An application for roportional compliance may be approved or
approved with modification. if it satisfies all the following:
City of Federal Way Planning Commission
Page 2
June 5, 1997
a. A Conformance Plan shall be required to identify the site, structure and/or use
nonconformities as well as the detailed cost of individual improvement( s).
b. It is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and city code, and;
C. It is consistent with public health, safety and welfare.
d. The percentage of required physical improvements to be installed to reduce the
nonconformity(s) of the site or structure shall be established by the following formula:
1. Divide the dollar value of the proposed site improvements by the replacement
value of the existing structure(s) as determined by the Director, up to 100 percent.
2. That percentage is then multiplied by the dollar amount identified by the
conformance plan as necessary to bring the site and/or structures into compliance.
3. The dollar value of this equation is then applied toward reducing the
nonconformities.
Example:
Value of existing structure(s) excluding mechanical systems = $20.000
Value of proposed improvements excluding mechanical systems = $6.000
$20.000 divided into $6.000 equals 30%
Cost identified in Conformance Plan equals $4.000
30% times $4.000 equal $1.200
$.200 would be applied toward reducing the nonconformities.
4. The Director shall determine the type, location and phasing sequence of the
proposed site improvements, based on information provided in the conformance
plan.
fQ Applicable Procedure. Except as otherwise provided by this subsection the city will
process an application for proportional compliance for nonconforming structures through
Process III.
ADDITIONAL HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS
M. Based on the proposed codification of a Public Works policy developed in 1995 (see
Attachment A of the 7 May 1997 staff report), and the intent to clarify when public
improvements (streets, utilities etc.) should be installed, Section 22-330 (a) (6) should
be deleted.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
Planning Commission
DATE 7 May 1997
APPLICANT City of Federal Way
PROPOSED ACTION Amendments to Chapter 22, Article IV of Federal Way
City Code (Zoning - nonconformance) and other
sections relating to nonconformance
STAFF Greg McCormick, AICP - Senior Planner
Penelope Bell, AICP Consultant
SEPA Determination of Non Significance (DNS)
issued 28 March 1997
STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
review and approve the staff recommendations.
Attachments: A. Public Works memorandum re: Criteria for Water
Quality Retrofit, dated 31 July 1995
B. Nonconformance Thresholds - Existing
C. Alternatives Compared to Three Cases
I. INTRODUCTION
This -proposed code revision is a result of 1. Requests from the business community to
provide phasing of improvements so the applicant can generate revenue before all of
the improvements are completed, 2. Direction from Council members to provide
flexibility when small expansions are requested for a site, and 3. Requests from staff to
fine tune the nonconformance provisions and provide clarification.
There are an unknown number of potential projects with nonconforming site and
structure aspects that never get to the permit stage. Some applicants have stated that
their project is not feasible based on the nonconforming requirements. Other
applicants go through the preapplication meeting and decide not to pursue their project
due to the high cost of bringing a project or structure into conformance.
Situations have been identified, such as the Federal Way School District applying for
Sec. 22, Article IV. Nonconformance, revision
Page: I of 23
portable classroom permits, that have nonconforming aspects to them. The portable
classroom may be in place from a few months to a few years. Another example is a
single tenant's improvement requiring conformance for an entire shopping center. In
both cases, immediate full compliance for the entire site is required. `
II. BACKGROUND
In 1992, City Council approved modifications to the nonconforming provisions of the
zoning code. The following amendments were made during that zoning code revision
process:
A The following definitions were added to the Federal Way Zoning Code (FWZC)
-Change of Use
-Normal Maintenance
-Tenant Improvement
B. The requirement for a MAI appraisal was deleted. The provision of an appraisal
is optional for the applicant (from a source acceptable to the city) unless the
community development director feels an appraisal is needed.
C. Normal maintenance costs were deleted from the calculations on all
nonconformance thresholds. - .
D. The threshold for nonconforming procedures was raised from 35% to 50% of the
assessed or appraised value.
E. Tenant improvement costs were deleted from the threshold calculation for
certain nonconformances such as procedure, buffers, and parking etc.
F. Tenant improvements and normal maintenance costs were excluded from site
plan review requirements.
In August 1996, the Council determined that revisions to the nonconformance portion of
the zoning code would be done prior to the Comprehensive Plan update and that this
code revision should address the topic comprehensively, including the issues raised by
the School District when siting portables.
For the current proposed changes, city staff was interviewed to determine their
concerns when using the nonconformance section. There were many requests for
clarification of terms and use of the current code.
Sec. 22, Article IV. Nonconformance, revision
Page: 2 of 23
III DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
There is one key issue that should be determined prior to decision on a method of
compliance. Shall public property and its use be included in nonconformance
requirements? The question "to whom does the nonconformance section apply?" is
presented to staff frequently. Although the current definition of nonconformance refers
only to private property, staff has consistently applied the requirements to both private
and public situations. To clarify the current uncertainty, there are three options. 1. No
change - leave the language specifying only "private" property; 2. Amend the definition
to delete the word "private," thereby applying the nonconformance requirements to all;
or 3. Amend the definition to include the word "public," thereby applying the
nonconformance requirements to all.
Option 1 (no change)
The following definition of "nonconformance" would continue to read:
Chapter 22, Article IV - Nonconformance
ARTICLE I.
Sec. 22-1. Definitions
Nonconformance shall mean any use, structure, lot, condition, activity or any
other feature or element of private property or the use or utilization of private
property that does not conform to any of the provisions of this chapter or that
was not approved by the city through the appropriate decision-making process
required under this chapter.
Option 2 (delete reference to "private" property)
If the Planning Commission determines that all property, sites, uses and
structures should be included, the following definition of "nonconformance"
should be amended to read:
Chapter 22, Article IV - Nonconformance
ARTICLE I.
Sec. 22-1. Definitions
Nonconformance shall mean any use, structure, lot, condition, activity or any
other feature or element of private property or the use or utilization of Mete
property that does not conform to any of the provisions of this chapter or that
was not approved by the city through the appropriate decision-making process
required under this chapter.
Sec. 22-, Article IV. Nonconformance, revision
Page: 3 of 23
Option 3 (add "public" to definition)
If the Planning Commission determines that all property, sites, uses and
structures should be included, the following definition of "nonconformance"
should be amended to read:
Chapter 22, Article IV - Nonconformance
ARTICLE I.
Sec. 22-1. Definitions
Nonconformance shall mean any use, structure, lot, condition, activity or any
other feature or element of private or public property or the use or utilization of
private or public property that does not conform to any of the provisions of this
chapter or that was not approved by the city through the appropriate decision-
making process required under this chapter.
B. NONCONFORMANCE THRESHOLDS
Currently the thresholds for nonconformance vary. The varying percentages are a
reflection of the first City Council's determination of the relative importance of each
item. There has been discussion regarding the consideration of making thresholds that
are even or consistent, such as all thresholds at 50%. If this threshold percentage
were to be adopted, it would erase the original intent of weighting the degree of
importance of each type of threshold (e.g., a 25% threshold indicates a higher concern
for compliance than a 50% threshold). Public Works staff recommends that if there are
to be changes to some portions of the nonconformance chapter, there should be no
change in the existing thresholds for water quality standards and public improvements.
These should remain at full and immediate compliance. Attachment "C" shows the
"Nonconformance Thresholds - Existing."
C. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
To clarify when public improvements (streets, utilities etc.) should be installed, Public
Works and Planning staff agree that a new section should be added to Article IV,
Section 22.
1) The language regarding abandonment of property or ceasing of use is usually stated
as "The subject property has been abandoned for 90 or more consecutive days or the
use conducted on the subject property has ceased for 180 or more consecutive days."
Public Works staff recommends the Planning Commission consider extending the time
frame for street improvements, to 180 days and one (1) year respectively.
Sec. 22-. Article IV. Nonconformance, revision
Page: 4 of 23
2) Prior to 1995, FWCC Section 22-330 (which requires immediate compliance with
water quality standards of Sec. 22-1196 - effective 2/28/90) had been difficult to
enforce because it literally applied to every property in the city. To help -administer this
provision of the code, Public Works staff developed a policy, in 1995, which requires a
site to be brought into compliance when the proposed work on site meets certain
criteria. (See Attachment "A" - Public Works memorandum re: Criteria for Water Quality
Retrofit). This policy should be codified.
3) Sec. 22-1473 should be moved into the nonconformance section. Sec. 22-1473
should be deleted and moved:
-
-- --- --- --- - - -- --
_.. . - -
--- - ----- - -- -- - - -
- -- - -
--
- -
--
---
----------- -- --
- -- -- -- - -- - ------ --
LIP
--
- ---
- ------ --- - ----- - -
--- -
- -- --- --- Marlse-
_..
: -- -
-- ---- - -- -- -- -- - ----
....
- -- -- -- - R-1- - - ----
- ---
-- ---
- -
-- --- --- ---- -- -----
- -- - - - --- - - - --ILIL-
- -
-- ------ - - - ---- --
-- --- - -- - -- - --
- -- - - - - --- - ----- -
- - -- - ---- --- -- --- -
-
-
-
---
-- - --
- - -
- - -- ---- - ---
:IMA
- - - -- - -- --- ---- - --
11101
-
---
-- -
•
jL6
_ - • -
Article IV should be amended by adding:
Art. IV, Sec. 22- . When public improvements must be installed.
!a1. The applicant shall provide the improvements required by Article XVI, if the
applicant engages in any activity which requires a development permit, except
for the following:
Sec. 22-. Article IV. Nonconformance, revision
Page: 5 of 23
The applicant need not comply with the provision of Article XVI if the
proposed improvements in anyone consecutive 12 -month period do not
exceed 25 percent of the assessed or appraised value of all structures on
the subject property, whichever is greater. The appraisal must be from a
source acceptable to the city if the assessed valuation appears to be
inappropriate.
The applicant need not comply with the provisions of Article XVI if, within
the immediately preceding four years, public improvements were installed
as part of any subdivision or discretionary land use approval under this or
any prior zoning . code.
Right-of-way adjacent to and within subdivision and short subdivisions must be
dedicated and improved consistent with the requirements of Article XVI, unless
different requirements are imposed by the city as part of the subdivision or short
subdivision approval.
LcL For street improvements only, when the subject nonconforming property has
been abandoned for 180 days or more consecutive days or the use conducted
on the subject property has ceased for one () year. _
M Retrofit of water quality treatment facilities will be required for commercial
projects when the proposed work on site:
1) consists of all new construction or expansion of an existing building: or,
2) requires a land use action: or.
3) costs more than 50% of the assessed value of the existing buildings on
the site: or,
4) generates pollutants having potentially a significant impact on the
quality of the runoff from the site (i.e.. a gas station, parking lot greater
than three (3) acres in size, truck stop, chemical storage facility. etc.l
IV. ALTERNATIVES
The existing requirement is for immediate, full compliance. Four compliance
alternatives are addressed below. If more than one alternative compliance tool is
accepted, it should be made clear that an applicant may use only one compliance tool
per project.
A. Exceptions
B. Proportional Compliance
C. Phased Compliance
D. Defer Compliance
Sec. 22, Article IV. Nonconformance, revision
Page: 6 of 23
A. EXCEPTIONS
Exceptions to nonconforming requirements would be allowed only for public
(government) entities.
Threshold:
• Need for temporary additional buildings (increase in gross floor area) for public
schools or other government entity - which, if permanent, would require
immediate, full implementation of requirements for landscaping, parking, buffers
and street improvements and water quality standards?
PROS
CONS
Allowance for flexibility
A public entity cannot be bonded to
assure compliance
Establishes a different standard for
public projects which may be criticized by
the rest of the community
Public projects may never be brought up
to current standards
No Conformance Plan is required
If the "Exception" alternative is chosen, the following language should be added to
read:
Sec. 22- Exemption for portable structure
Applicability. This subsection applies to any portable nonconforming
structure for public use such as public schools or other government
buildings. which expansion or use of, is not permitted without meeting full
requirements for parking, landscaping, buffers, street improvements and
water quality standards.
Purpose. A portable structure exception is a mechanism by which the city
may provide relief from the effect of the parking landscaping, buffer and
possibly street requirement(s) when their enforcement would create a
hardship. Water quality standards are not excepted.
Sec. 22-. Article IV. Nonconformance, revision
Page: 7 of 23
(3) Who may apply. The property owner or public entity required to compiv
may apply for a portable structure exception.
Decision criteria. An application for a portable structure exception may be
approved, or approved with modification, if it satisfies all of the following
criteria:
LgJ_ the portable structure(s) would be in glace no longer than three
ears:
fW The portable structure should be compatible with the architectural
design and appearance of existing structures on the subject
property, to the extent possible:
U The site and existing structures on site are in compliance with the
parking and landscaping and buffer requirements for the land use
district in which they are located. Minor deviations from this parking
landscaping and/or buffer requirement may be approved by the
administrator if he or she concludes that the reduction meets the
needs of the use, during the temporary use of structure(s). without
significant impact to surrounding properties:
fM There is no other existing request for proportional, phased or
deferred compliance for this site:
LM It is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and city code:
and
It is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare
requirements: and
Lqj There is no exception for water quality standards.
Applicable procedure. Except as otherwise provided by this subsection
the city will process an application for a portable structure exception
through Process III of this code.
B. PROPORTIONAL COMPLIANCE
This proportional compliance alternative is similar to the City of Bellevue code, which
has been used frequently and successfully in that city for 3-4 years.
Sec. 22-. Article IV. Nonconformance, revision
Page: 8 of 23
Thresholds:
Value(s) during a 3 -year period for remodeling are 30% or greater and less than
100% of replacement value of existing structure.
Expansion of any structure or group of structures on a single site is less than
50% of the existing floor area. [If 50% or greater, full compliance is required.]
PROS
CONS
Time base for calculations = 3 years
Somewhat complicated formula
Uses percentages rather than dollars,
Requires appraisal of existing
which allows for changes in dollar value
improvements
such as inflation.
amount required toward reducing
$ 20,000
Requires estimate of cost of compliance
Bonding or similar assurance should be
Bonding is time and staff intensive and
required
can delay approval time 2-4 weeks.
Requires additional review of a
Conformance Plan
Tracking compliance is very time
consuming for staff and therefore costly
to the city
Public entities cannot be bonded
The following example is shown in the text of the proportional option:
Value of existing structure(s) excluding mechanical systems = $20,000
Value of proposed improvements excluding mechanical systems = $6,000
$20,000 divided into $6,000 equals 30%
Cost identified in Conformance Plan equals $4,000
25% times $4,000 equal $1,200
$1,200 would be applied toward reducing the nonconformities.
value of improvements
Resulting % multiplied by compliance
— -------------------------------- = X%
cost identified in Conformance Plan = X$
replacement value of existing structure
$ 6,000
30% x $4,000 = $1,200 (minimum
__---- _----------- _------- _- = 30%
amount required toward reducing
$ 20,000
nonconformities)
Sec. 22-. Article IV. Nonconformance, revision
Page: 9 of 23
If the "Proportional Compliance" alternative is chosen, the following language should
be added to read:
Section 22- Proportional Compliance
M Applicability This subsection applies to specified remodels or expansions when
value(s) during a three (3) year period is 30% or greater, and less than 100% of
replacement value of the existing structure or expansion of any structure or -group of
structures on a single site is less than 50% of the existing gross floor area, which
expansion remodel or use of is not permitted without meeting full requirements for
parking landscaping buffers street improvements and water quality requirements.
0 Purpose Proportional compliance is a mechanism by which the city may allow
less than 100 percent conformance.
Who may apply. Anyone may apply who is required to bring a site or structure
into conformance with current regulations.
W Decision criteria An application for proportional compliance may be approved or
approved with modification, if it satisfies all the following:
A Conformance Plan shall be required to identify the site, structure and/or use
nonconformities as well as the detailed cost of individual improvement(s).
a. The percentage of required physical improvements to be installed to
reduce or eliminate the nonconformity of the site or structure shall be
established by the following formula:
1. Divide the dollar value of the proposed site improvements by the
replacement value of the existing structure(s) as determined by the
Director, up to 100 percent.
2. That percentage is then multiplied by the dollar amount identified
by the conformance plan as necessary to bring the site and/or structures
into compliance.
3. The dollar value of this equation is then applied toward reducing
the nonconformities.
Example:
Value of existing structure(s) excluding mechanical systems = $20.000
Value of proposed improvements excluding mechanical systems = $6.000
Sec. 22, Article IV. Nonconformance, revision
Page: 10 of 23
$20.000 divided into $6,000 equals 30%
Cost identified in Conformance Plan equals $4.000
30% times $4.000 equal $1,200
$1.200 would be applied toward reducing the nonconformities.
4. The Director shall determine the type, location and phasing
sequence of the proposed site improvements, based on information
provided in the conformance plan.
b. There is no other request for exception,_ phased or deferred compliance
for the site
C. It is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and city code:
d. It is consistent with public health, safety and welfare: and
e. There is no proportioning for water quality standards.
Applicable Procedure Except as otherwise provided by this subsection, the city
will process an application for proportional compliance for nonconforming structures
through Process III
C. PHASED COMPLIANCE
With phasing, a level of compliance is established on an annual basis based through
an approved Conformance Plan. Unlike the proportional compliance approach, the
phasing approach would require full compliance, and allow improvements to be made
over a specified period of time. (E.g. 25% of the required improvements for each year
of a four-year phasing plan)
With phased compliance, an applicant could phase its Conformance Plan as follows
Phase (year) I
a) Move needed temporary structures in.
b) Planting and irrigation created or enhanced at entrance to school
property, or
c) Determine that, within a few months the site/situation no longer
requires portable structures, and they are removed. If all portable
Sec. 22-. Article IV. Nonconformance, revision
Page: I 1 of 23
structures are removed, the director shall make the determination if
remaining landscaping, parking or buffer requirements are still required.
Phase (year) 2.
a) Planting and irrigation created or enhanced around perimeter, to
enhance visual attractiveness from the neighborhood and from the site, or
b) Determine that the site/situation no longer requires portable structures,
and they are removed. If all portable structures are removed, the director
shall make the determination if remaining landscaping, parking or buffer
requirements are still required.
Phase (year) 3
a) Determine that the need for structure(s) at the site, is long term and
new permanent structures will be built to accommodate the need. Design
and get permits for permanent structure(s), or
b) Determine that the site/situation no longer requires portable structures,
and they are removed. If all portable structures are removed, the director
shall make the determination if remaining landscaping, parking or buffer
requirements are still required.
Phase (year) 4
Portable structure(s) could remain in place during construction of
permanent structures. Requirements such as landscaping are completed
according to original Conformance Plan and building and related plans for
new permanent structures.
Threshold:
• Need for portable buildings (increase in gross floor area) such as school
classrooms, which, if permanent, would require immediate, full implementation of
requirements for landscaping, parking and buffers, street improvements, and
water quality standards.
Sec. 22-. Ar icle IV. Nonconformance, revision
Page: 12 of 23
PROS
CONS
Require full compliance over an agreed
Full compliance delayed
period of time, i.e., 25% of the
improvements in each of 4 years.
At least partial compliance will happen,
Full compliance may not happen, if
based on Conformance Plan required by
threshold uses cease or structures are
permit.
removed, such as temporary school
buildings which are no longer needed at
a specific site.
Phasing landscape requirements could
Requires additional review of a
allow the most visually effective and
Compliance Plan
possibly least costly compliance first.
Phasing landscaping, parking and buffer
Bonding can delay approval time 2-4
requirements could allow adequate
weeks
budgeting of required conformance
Bonding could assure compliance
Public entities cannot be bonded
Time base for calculations is variable
Tracking compliance is very time
consuming for staff and therefore costly
to the city
Phasing for longer than two (2) years
becomes complicated to track, is staff
intensive, and difficult to enforce, thus
reducing the probability of full
compliance.
If the "Phased Compliance" alternative is chosen, the following language should be
added to read:
Section 22- Phased Compliance
01 Applicability. This subsection al2plies to any nonconforming site/structure, which
expansion or use of is not permitted without meeting requirements for parking,
landscaping buffers street improvements and water quality standards.
aL Purpose Phasing allows improvements and compliance to be made over a
specified period of time (e.g., 25% for each year of a four year period)
Sec. 22-. Article IV. Nonconformance, revision
Page: 13 of 23
(3) Who may apply. Anyone may pply who is required to bring a site use or
structure into conformance with current regulations.
Decision criteria. An application for phased compliance may be approved, or
approved with modification if it satisfies all of the following.
La,), A conformance plan which identifies the site nonconformaties, as well as
the cost of individual site improvements:
Phasing shall be specific as to what aspects of the project are to be
accomplished by when, and by whom. All items that are necessary to
provide conformance shall be addressed:
U— Phasing shall not exceed four (4) years from date of approval of the
conformance plan or the entitlement, which ever comes first:
L, There is no other request for exception, proportional or deferred
compliance:
U It is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan:
ffA It is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare: and
Lq). There is no phasing for water quality standards.
LU Apg icable procedure. Phased compliance shall be by Process III.
D. DEFERRED COMPLIANCE
When deferring compliance, full compliance would be delayed for up to two years,
based on an approved conformance plan. Like the phasing approach, deferred
compliance would require full compliance.
Thresholds:
Need for additional structure(s) (increase in gross floor area), which would
require immediate, full implementation of requirements for landscaping, parking
and buffers.
Change of use, ceasing of use, abandonment of 50% of assessed value
Sec. 22-. Article IV. Nonconformance, revision
Page: 14 of 23
PROS
CONS
Require full compliance over a two year
Full compliance delayed up to two years
period
Full compliance will happen, based on
Full compliance may not happen, if
required Conformance Plan
threshold uses cease, temporary
structures are removed or applicant
cannot complete Conformance Plan.
Bonding could assure compliance
Public entities cannot be bonded
Possible shorter compliance period than
Tracking compliance is very time
phasing option
consuming for staff and therefore costly
to the city
Bonding can delay approval time 2-4
weeks
If the "Deferred Compliance" alternative is chosen, the following language should be
added to read:
Sec. 22- Deferred Compliance
La Applicability. This subsection applies to any nonconforming site/structure, which
expansion or use is not permitted without meeting requirements for parking
landscaping, buffers, street improvements and water duality standards.
fes, Purpose. Phasing allows improvements and compliance to be made over a two
year period.
a. Who may apply. Anyone may apply who is required bring a site, use or structure
into conformance with current regulations.
i'h Decision criteria. An application for deferred compliance may be approved, or
approved with modification if it satisfies all of the following_
Ua, A conformance plan which identifies the site nonconformities, as well as
the cost of individual site improvements:
Deferred compliance shall be specific as to what aspects of the project
are to be accomplished by when, and by whom. All items that are
Sec. 22-. Article IV. Nonconformance, revision
Page: 15 of 23
necessary to provide conformance shall be addressed:
kM_ Deferred compliance shall not exceed two (2) years from date of approval
of the conformance plan or the entitlement which ever conies first:
There is no other request for exception proportional or phased
compliance:
W It is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and city code:
W It is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare: and
& There is no deferment for water quality standards.
,L, AgQlicable procedure. Deferred compliance shall be by Process III
V. HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS
A. On 3 March 1997, the Land Use Committee approved amending the Codes to
reflect the requirements of ESHB 1724. This includes the restructuring of the process
numbering through which an application is processed. Also clarification is needed to
specify the duration during which a change or alteration is made.
Section 22-333 Certain nonconformance specifically regulated - Nonconforming
procedure, should be amended to read:
If the subject property contains a use, aspect, activity or development requiring
approval through process +, 11 of-++ II. III. or IV whichwas not approved through any
quasi-judicial process under this chapter or any prior applicable zoning provision, that
use, aspect, activity or development must be reviewed and approved using the
appropriate process under this chapter if:
(2) The applicant is making additions, changes or alterations or doing work,
other than normal maintenance or other than tenant improvements, to the
subject property in anyone consecutive 12 -month period, the fair market
value of which exceeds 50 percent of the assessed or appraised value of
all structures on the subject property. The applicant may provide an
appraisal of the improvement which has been damaged. The appraisal
must be from a source that is acceptable to the city. The community
development director may require the applicant to provide an appraisal
Sec. 22, Article IV. Nonconformance, revision
Page: 16 of 23
from a source acceptable to the city if the assessed valuation appears to
be inappropriate. If an appraisal is provided by the applicant or required
by the city, the larger of the two amounts shall be used;
B. Clarification is needed to specify the duration during which a change or alteration is
made.
Sec. 22-336. Same --Nonconforming buffers, should be amended to read:
(3) Except as specified in subsection (1) of this section, the applicant is
making changes, alterations or doing other work, other than normal
maintenance or other than tenant improvements, in any one consecutive
12 -month period, to any structure on the subject property and fair market
value of these changes, alterations or other work exceeds 50 percent of
the assessed or appraised value of that structure. The applicant may
provide an appraisal of the improvement which has been damaged. The
appraisal must be from a source that is acceptable to the city. The
community development director may require the applicant to provide an
appraisal from a source acceptable to the city if the assessed valuation
appears to be inappropriate. If an appraisal is provided by the applicant or
required by the city, the larger of the two amounts shall be used; however,
the buffers adjacent to preexisting buildings on the subject property need
only be increased to the extent that the land is available for the increase;
C. Change to new process numbering designations.
Article IV, Sec. 22-340, should be amended to read:
(2) Other government regulations. Other than as specified in subsection (1) of
this section, the city may, using process * IV, exempt a property or use from any of the
requirements of this article if:
D. In 1996, Sec. 22-330 (9) -"Junk" was clarified to include "junkyard." Junk and
junkyard are now separately defined in Sec. 22-1. In order to clarify this change, Article
IV, Section 22-330, should be amended to read:
"Article IV, Section 22-330, Immediate compliance with certain provisions required. (a)
(9) nonconformance with the provisions in section 22-952 regarding junk and
junkyards";
E. There have been questions as to how "gross floor area" is defined and what is the
threshold for expanding gross floor area. Currently Ln
I expansion of a nonconforming
Sec. 22, Article IV. Nonconformance, revision
Page: 17 of 23
use triggers the requirement to bring a site, structure, or use into conformance. In the
Federal Way code, gross floor area is defined in two ways.
1)
"Sec. 22-1 definitions: Gross Floor Area - Gross floor area shall mean the total
square footage of all floors, excluding parking area, in a structure measured
from either the interior surface of each exterior wall of the structure or, if the
structure does not have walls, from each outer edge of the roof. Certain exterior
areas may also constitute gross floor area. " and
2)
"Sec. 22-1113 (e) Gross floor area. For the purpose of this chapter, an outdoor
use, activity or storage area will be used in calculating the gross floor area of a
use or development if this area will be used for outdoor use, activity or storage
for at least two months out of every year."
Additionally, the Building Division considers gross floor area to be any addition
to the exterior dimensions (outside wall) of a building. Building looks at the
addition of a bay window as an alteration, if it has no support to the ground.
To clarify when expansion of commercial and industrial uses should be considered in
the gross floor area, Article IV, Section 22-1113 should be amended to read:
Sec. 22-1113. Commercial and industrial uses.
(e) Gross floor area. For the purpose of this chapter, an outdoor use, activity or
storage area will be used in calculating the gross floor area of a use or development if
this area will be used for outdoor use, activity or storage for at least two consecutive
months out of every year.
F. To clarify the frequency of a consecutive 12- month period, Article IV, Sec. 22-337
should be amended to read:
Article IV, Sec. 22-337. Same -Any other nonconformance.
(1) The applicant is making any alteration or changes or doing any work, other
than normal maintenance or other than tenant improvements, in any one
consecutive 12 -month period to an improvement that is nonconforming or
houses, supports or is supported by the nonconformance and the fair market
value of the alteration, change or other work exceeds 50 percent of the
addressed or appraised value of that improvement.
Sec. 22-. Article IV. Nonconformance, revision
Page: 18 of 23
G. To clarify the meaning of buffer, Article IV, Sec. 22-1 should be amended by
adding:
Buffer shall mean a landscaped strip that may be required to be of a frequency.
width, length, location, density and height of planting, as specified by
regulations, conditions and/or recommendations of staff.
H. There has been some question as to the meaning of "abandoned" in referring to
property. Property is defined in Volume 1, General Ordinances, Chapter 1 General
Provisions Sec. 1-2 Definitions and rules of construction. "Personal property. The term
`personal property' includes every species of property except real property." Further,
the term property is defined as "The word `property' shall include real, personal and
mixed property." The term real property is defined as ... real property shall include
lands, tenements and hereditaments."
To clarify the meaning of abandoned, Article IV, Sec. 22-1 should be amended to read:
"Abandoned shall mean knowing relinquishment of right or claim to the subject
property or structure on that property, by the owner or lessee without any
intention of transferring rights to the property to another owner or of resuming
the use of the property [such as sale, loss of lease, eviction etc.l"
I. To clarify a reference to buffers in Sec. 22-1402 Buffer Requirements, which refers to
a nonexistent Sec. 22-1446, Article IV, Sec. 22- 1402 should be deleted.
NMI PUZ.A.
Sec_ 22, Article IV. Nonconformance, revision
Page: 19 of 23
J. To clarify the duration during which an alteration is being made and to provide
consistency with other sections, it is suggested that the word "one" be added to Sec.
22-337. Also, there appears to be unrelated wording about damage in the section. To
clarify that section, Sec. 22-337 (1) should be amended to read:
Sec. 22-337. Same --Any other nonconformance.
If any nonconformance exists on the subject property, other than as specifically
listed in sections 22-333 through 22-336, these must be brought into conformance if:
(1) The applicant is making any alteration or changes or doing any work,
other than normal maintenance or other than tenant improvements, in any
one consecutive 12 -month period to an improvement that is
nonconforming or houses, supports or is supported by the
nonconformance and the fair market value of the alteration, change or
other work exceeds 50 percent of the assessed or appraised value of that
improvement. The applicant may provide an appraisal_ of the
The appraisal must be from a
source that is acceptable to the city. The community development director
may require the applicant to provide an appraisal from a source
acceptable to the city if the assessed valuation appears to be
inappropriate. If an appraisal is provided by the applicant or required by
the city, the larger of the two amounts shall be used;
K. To clarify what is meant by normal maintenance for signs, it is suggested that
Section 22-1 be amended to add:
Normal Maintenance - signs may include but not be limited to: replacing light bulbs
painting faded or peeling paint replacing small pieces of a damaged sign This does
not include change of color, materials sign type size height or text except for that
specifically permitted for a new tenant change to a multi tenant sign."
L. To clarify what is meant by quasi judicial, it is suggested that Section 22-1 be
amended to add:
Quasi judicial shall mean the Hearing Examiner and the Hearing Examiner process
M. Ordinance 91-90 (codified as Article II, Electric, Division 2, Installation, Sec. 16-4)
addressing undergrounding of electrical or communications facilities, when read
literally seems not to require undergrounding of electrical or communications facilities
for non -single family development in single family zones. To clarify the section, it is
recommended that Chapter 16, Article II, Electric, Division 2, Sec. 47 (e) be amended
to read:
Sec. 22-. Article IV. Nonconformance, revision
Page: 20 of 23
Sec. 16-47. Same --Rebuilds, replacements and additions.
(e) The provisions of this section shall not apply to areas when constructing single
family homes in areas zoned for single-family residences, or in other zones if 75
percent of the affected parcels within the perimeters of the specific project is made up
of single-family residences.
(Ord. No. 99-90, § 3(B), 3-99-99)
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
There are three categories for review and determination. Staff recommends the
following actions:
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Public and private
Review and recommend to City Council one of the three options on inclusion of public
property in the requirement for nonconformance compliance, as shown on pages 3 and
4.
B. Nonconformance Thresholds (page 4)
1. Review with no recommendation, if it is determined that the current
varying thresholds represent the intent of the Planning Commission, or
2. Review and recommend to City Council change of thresholds to a
consistent number such as 50%, indicating that there is no desire to
weight the degree of importance of each type of threshold.
C. When Public Improvements Must Be Installed (pages 4 through 6).
Review and recommend to City Council deleting Art. XVI Div. 1, Sec. 22-1473, as
shown on page 5, and adding new section Art. IV, Sec. 22- - When Public
Improvements Must Be Installed, as shown on pages 5 and 6.
ALTERNATIVES
Review and recommend to City Council, one or more of the Compliance Alternatives
(exception, proportional compliance, phased compliance, defer compliance) addressed
on pages 6 through 16. If more than one compliance tool is recommended, the
Commission should clarify if it intends that an applicant can use only one compliance
tool per project.
HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS
Review and recommend approval to City Council of all 13 "housekeeping" items (A -M),
on pages 16 through 21, which do the following:
A. Change process numbering to match recent City Council approval, and to
Sec. 22-. Article IV. Nonconformance, revision
Page: 21 of 23
specify the duration during which a change or alteration is made°
B. Clarify duration during which a change or alteration is made
C. Change process numbering system reference
D. Clarify to add the word junkyard -
E. Clarify the term gross floor area - when expansion of commercial and
industrial becomes gross floor area.
F. Clarify timing of a 12 month period
G. Define buffer
H. Define abandoned
I. Delete reference to a non-existent section regarding buffers
J. Clarify duration during which an alteration is made, and to delete
irrelevant wording
K. Define normal maintenance - signs
L. Define quasi-judicial
M. Clarify what is exempt from undergrounding of utilities - electrical service.
FINDINGS
The following preliminary findings are provided to the Planning Commission in support
of the recommended code changes.
1. Current nonconformance criteria and thresholds discourage upgrading,
remodeling, and bringing sites and structures into conformance, by not allowing
options or much flexibility. This in turn can encourage citizens to move to other
less restrictive areas
2. Proposed nonconformance criteria and thresholds will encourage upgrading,
remodeling and bringing sites and structures into conformance, by allowing
options and flexibility.
3. Proposed "housekeeping" changes will clarify specified sections of the code by
adding new definitions, changing the process numbering system to the newly
approved system
4. Proposed nonconformance criteria will meet the Federal Way Comprehensive
Economic Development objectives to:
*Redevelop and improve the quality of the mixed use development along Pacific
Highway South from South 272nd Street to South 356th Street (1995-2020)
*Encourage quality development throughout the City to attract desirable
economic development in Federal Way
*Maintain and improve the quality and character of the existing residential
neighborhoods.
Sec. 22-. Article IV. Nonconfonnance, revision
Page: 22 of 23
5 Proposed nonconformance criteria will meet the following Federal Way
Comprehensive Plan goals:
*Develop incentives to encourage desired development in commercial areas,
especially in the City Center Core and Frame (LUP55) -
*The City will periodically monitor local and regional trends to be able to adjust
plans, policies, and programs. (ED17)
*The City will actively work with representative groups of business and property
owners, including the Chamber and other local business associations, to
enhance citywide and subarea improvements and planning (ED 18)
Focus on improving the existing character and image of the City Center (CCG6)
Sec. 22-. Article IV. Nonconformance, revision
Page: 23 of 23
l
SEATAC
M•A•L•L
June 16, 1997
Land Use and Transportation Committee
City of Federal Way
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6221
Dear LUTC Members:
Attached is the letter sent to the Planning Commissioners on May 7, 1997 regarding Non conforming
Codes. Verbal public testimony was also given on this day.
A quick review has been made of Dan Casey's June 10, 1997 letter by Ed Buffaloes. SeaTac Mall's
Architect and myself. We concur with Dan Casey's recommendations and specifically show support to the
following suggestions:
• Extending proportionality to water quality, street improvements, and signs.
• Eliminate phrase "It is consistent with public health, safety, and welfare".
• Revise proportional formula to be based on square footage.
• Eliminating outdoor square footage from consideration.
Additionally we support a cap to the formula including the costs incurred hiring consultants to do the
planning and developing of the Conformance Plan.
"The costs of providing non-conformance upgrades need not exceed 20 percent of the
overall costs of the alterations or addition, including the expense of developing the
Conformance Plan."
Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Elaine C. Mansoor
General Manager
1928 South SeaTac Mall -,. Federal Way, WA 98003 Fax (253) 946.1413
Management Office (253) 839-6156 Marketing Office (253) 94 1 -9238
0
l
SEATAC -
MzA4L5L
May 7, 1997
Planning Commissioners
City of Federal Way
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6221
Dear Planning Commissioners:
As described in the Findings section of the report, the current Non conforming Codes discourage
upgrading, remodeling and small expansions. We appreciate this review process to develop a fair and
beneficial code for all parties.
Four compliance alternatives are outlined in the report. SeaTac Mall supports the Proportional Method
of Compliance. This is the only method that will encourage small projects. This is the most fair and least
costly alternative which will invite improvements.
The hypothetical examples of attachment "C" are significant projects as a percentage of existing
construction. A hypothetical example for a project of 5% would demonstrate the unreasonable costs
associated with compliance through use of the other alternatives. In result, projects could be prohibited
based on costs even if distributed over a few years.
The Proportional Method of Compliance will be fair for a large or small project. The other alternatives
will only be beneficial for large projects.
SeaTac Mall has had to halt improvement projects requested by tenants since any increase in floor area
triggers non conformance. Implementing a threshold of 5% for parking, legal non conforming sign status,
buffers, water quality and codes' 22-337 and 22-339 would allow these minuscule but yet attractive and
sales generating projects to proceed.
The Seattle Land -Use Code defines "Gross floor area" as the number of square feet of total floor area
bounded by the inside surface of the exterior wall of the structure as measured at the foot line. We
recommend this definition for consideration.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Elaine C. Mansoor
General Manager
1928 South SeaTac Mall Federal Way, WA 98003 Fax (253) 946-1413
Management Office (253) 839-6156 Marketing Office (253) 94 1 -9238
DATE: July 14, 1997
TO: Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee
FROM: Ken Miller, Street Systems Manager KJA
SUBJECT: Final Acceptance of the SW Campus Drive and 6th Avenue SW
Traffic Signal Contract
Background
Prior to release of retainage on a Public Works project, the City Council is required to accept
the work as complete to meet State Departments of Revenue and Labor and Industries
requirements.
The final cost for the SW Campus Drive and 6th Avenue SW Traffic Signal project is
$515,936.24, which is $31,308.42 below the approved construction contract budget of
$547,244.66, including the 10% construction contingency.
Recommendation
Forward the following item to the August 5, 1997 City Council with the recommendation to
approve:
1. Acceptance of Active Construction Inc.'s, SW Campus Drive and 6th avenue SW Traffic
Signal Construction contract as complete.
KM:jg
kA1utc\6thcampAn
Meeting Date: 7/21/97
CITY OF G
�� FTV
DATE: July 11, 1997
TO: Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee
FROM: Ken Miller, Street Systems Manager
Y g
SUBJECT: The 1997 Asphalt Overlay Project - Change Ogler
At the May 20, 1997, the Council approved the 1997 Asphalt Overlay Project budget and awarded
the contract to Lakeside Industries. The following is a recap of the project costs and budget
presented at the meeting.
Summary of Project Funds
Total Available Budget
$1,954,000.00
Contract Amount
-1,597,987.89
10% Contingency
-159,798.79
Construction Administration
-85,000.00
Printing and Advertising
-7,500.00
In-house Design
-51,000.00
Unencumbered Funds $52 7
The project is approximately 50% complete, and the costs are within the original contract budget.
Therefore, at least 50% of the contingency funds will not be expended on the project. It is also
anticipated that there will be a savings of approximately $20,000 in construction administration,
combined with the unencumbered 1997 Asphalt Overlay funds, there is $152,612.77 ($79,899.45
(50% of contingency) + $20,000 (construction administration savings) + $52,713.32 (unencumbered
funds)) available for additional work.
At the March 4, 1997 City Council meeting, staff presented Council with a proposed list of projects
for the 1997 Asphalt Overlay program, which consisted of 13 schedules. Four of those schedules
were deleted at the cost estimating stage to keep the project within budget. Due to the excellent bids
received as well as the project costs being on budget, staff proposes to add schedules 7 and K (a
portion of arterial streets' Schedule E, and residential Schedule F, in the original proposal) back into
the program. Staff has received the bids for the two schedules based on contract unit prices from
Lakeside Industries, and they are as follows:
, 44
7 $43,414.77
K $75,972.75
The estimated total project cost for this additional work is:
Change order amount $119,387.52
10% Contingency 11.938.75
Total $131.326.27
Southwest 348th Street
Rainier Manor
There are sufficient funds available to complete this work, therefore, staff recommends adding these
two schedules to the 1997 Asphalt Overlay Project.
kelml-Diet�
Forward the following recommendations to the August 5, 1997 Council meeting for approval.
1) Approve adding Schedules 7 and K to Lakeside Industries' contract for the 1997 Asphalt Overlay
Project in the amount of $119,387.52.
2) Approve a 10% contingency of $11,938.75.
KALUT0970LYCO.MEM (PSK)
7/21/97 Mtg