The URL can be used to link to this page

LUTC PKT 06-16-1997 June 16, 1997 5:30 pm City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee City Han Council Chambers AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minute limit) 4. BUSINESS ITEMS 5. 6. 7. A. Downtown Parking (a code amendment) Action McClung/I5 mill B. Population/Household Forecast Info McCormick/5 min C. Non-conforming Provision (a code amendment) Action McCormick/20 min D. 21st Avenue SWat 325th Place SW Traffic Signal & Intersection Improvement Project Miller/lO min Action E West Hylebos Stream Rehabilitation Action Renstrom/ 10 min F. Applewood Annexation Action Nordby/20 min G. Perez/15 min Briefing on RTA Capital Improvements Info H. Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) Info Perez/I5 min I. Street Name Changes Info PW/15 min J. Regional Governance/Land Use Moore/lO min Info OTHER ITEMS FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDAS ADJOURN Committee Members: Phil Watkins, Chair Ron Gintz Mary Gates City Staff: Greg Moore, Director, Community Development Services Sandy Lyle, Administrative Assistant 661-4116 I:\LU- TRANS\JUNL6UT .AGN City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee May 19, 1997 5:30pm City HaIl Council Chambers SUMMARY In attendance: Committee members Phil Watkins (Chair), Ron Gintz and Mary Gates; City Manager Ken Nyberg; Deputy City Manager Philip Keightley; Director of Community Development Services Greg Moore; Public Works Director Cary Roe; City Attorney Londi Lindell; 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; SWM Project Engineer Marwan Salloum; Senior Planner Margaret Clark; Administrative Assistant Sandy Lyle. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm by Chairman Phil Watkins. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the May 5, 1997, meeting were approved as presented. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT DonaI Veravick, a citizen who owns property in the vicinity of South 359th Street and Pacific Highway South expressed his concerns about the numerous down zones of his property while his taxes have increased. He questioned how rezoning could take place without his knowing it. He feels he was ignored by the City Council whose actions will eventually bankrupt him. Lakehaven, too, has promised sewers and those have never materialized. 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Downtown Parkin!: (a 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. Don Largen of the consulting firm McConnell Burke presented the draft Downtown Parking code amendment. The Committee discussed removal of the word equally on page 8, the word scheme also on page 8, and floor area bonuses. A recording requirement was suggested for inclusion. It was noted that parking maximums are not recommended and that minimums are slightly reduced. Following the above minor changes, the Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval to the City Council at their May 20, 1997, meeting. B. Award 1997 Aspha1t Overl1\y Contract - Four bids were received for the 1997 Asphalt Overlay Project. The apparent low bidder is Lakeside Industries, with a total bid of $1,587,987.89. The budget for the project is $1,954,000 which is comprised of the following: 1) $934,000 from 1997 budget; 2) $220,000 carry forward from 1996; 3) $800,000 from the Utility Tax. The estimated total project cost, including a 10% contingency, $51,000 for in-house design, $85,000 for construction administration, and $7,500 for printing and advertising is $1,901,286.68 and is within budget. The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval to the Council at their May 20, 1997, meeting. C. A¡wrove 1997 Sidewalk Replacement List/Authorize to Bid - The 1997 Sidewalk Replacement Project includes 1) 21st Avenue SW from Dash Point Road to SW 356th Street and 2) SW 34Oth Street from 30th Avenue SW to 35th Avenue SW. These streets were selected based upon sidewalk inventory data, complaints and field reconnaissance. The contract will be awarded within the sidewalk budget of $80,367. Quotes will be solicited from contractors on the Public Works Small Works Roster for submittal by June 10, 1997. The Committee m/s/c recommendation to Council on the consent agenda at their June 3, 1997, meeting of approval of the list of streets for the 1997 Sidewalk Replacement Project and to authorize staff to bid the project. D. South 356th Street Re&ional Surfacewater Facility - There were fourteen bids from various contractors for the South 356th Street Regional Storm Water Control Facility. Porter Brothers Construction, Inc., submitted the low bid amount of $1,738,701.47. The Council authorized budget is $284,830 less than estimated project costs. The shortfall is a result of a settlement agreement between the City and a property owner during property acquisition. The shortfall will require a Council approved budget adjustment. The Committee mls/c recommendation of approval of the amended budget increase and awarding of the contract to the lowest bidder, Porter Brothers Construction, Inc., including a 10% contingency totaling $173,870.15. The matter will be considered at the May 20, 1997, City Council meeting. E. Renewal of HEX Professional Services Contract - The City's contract with McCarthy, Causseaux and Rourke expires May 15, 1997. Staff feels the existing hearing examiner has been fair and equitable to all parties coming before him, and recommends extension of the contract for an additional one-year term, with an option to extend for a third year. There will be no increase in the total compensation for the ex8.IDÏner or related costs. The only changes extend the term of the current agreement and add an additional deputy hearing examiner to the existing list of attorneys. The Committee m/s/c recommendation of approval of the Hearing Examiner contract for two years rather than the requested one year to coincide with the City's biennial budget process. 5. OTHER ITEMS Committee member Gintz requested an update on the Enchanted Parks annexation. Staff outlined some Enchanted Parks history and stated that the owner/developer is satisfied with the speed with which the annexation is progressing. There are drainage and sewer problems, road issues, and a junk yard abatement being negotiated presently. The City is working now to develop a Public Utility District (PUD) ordinance. Appropriate standards can be set in the future concomitant agreement if there is adequate time for discussion. A 10 % petition for annexation has been received from the Applewood neighborhood. They are concerned that their corner of unincorporated King County will be all but forgotten. Their wish is to become part of the City of Federal Way. 6. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDAS The next meeting will be June 2, 1997. 7. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 pm . I:\LU- TRANS\MA Y 19LUT. SUM MEMO TO: Land and Transportation Committee ROM: Kathy McClung, Deputy Director CDS~ DATE: June 9, 1997 RE: Dan Casey's letter about downtown parking (copy attached) Due to a scheduled vacation, Don Largen, the consultant for this project is unable to respond. In his absence I have done some additional research and provide the following for your consideration. The intent of the downtown parking code amendments are to maximize the use of the land to intensify development in the downtown. The consultant estimates that there are 17,300 parking stalls in the downtown area which represents an oversupply. Reduction of required stalls for retail and office. The current code requires 1 stall per 300 gross floor area of retail or office in the city center. These standards were adopted with incorporation in 1990 and have not changed. Most of the current development in the downtown was developed under King County standards which required one stall per 200 square feet of office or retail prior to incorporation. We checked some other city center requirements: Office Retail Bellingham None None Everett 1/600 1/800 Kirkland 1/350 1/350 Tacoma None None Tacoma 2.5/1000 3/1000 Vancouver 1/1000 1/1000 Des Moines 1/350 1/250-300 Bellevue 2-3/1000 3.3-5/1000 Notes Have City lots Central District surrounding areas may pay into city parking Bellevue has minimums and maximums. The range depends on where in the downtown the property is located. The office range is higher for medical. Mark Hinshaw, Downtown consultant, recommends 3/1000 for office and 4.5 per 1000 for retail. Rick Perez, Federal Way Traffic Engineer, has experience with both the metropolitan Portland and Salem areas. He said that the proposed parking ratios for office at 1/350 or 3/1000 are reasonable and that traffic studies on specific projects will tell us whether the applicant is proposing enough parking. He believes that the requirements for large employers to have transportation management plans and telecommuting will reduce the demand for office parking. He felt that the retail parking ratio should be retained at 1/300 square feet. He commented that users such as Target, or K Mart may require as many as 5.5 per 1000 square feet. Representatives of Seatac Mall testified during the public hearing, that their tenants require 5.2/1000 gross leasable area. This is slightly different than the figures we use based on gross floor area. Under the Mall's formula, their development would require 3839 stalls. They have 4,572 stalls on site. The existing code would require 2797 stalls based on 100% retail. Additional stalls would be required for restaurant, theater, and entertainment at 1/100 square feet gross floor area. Based on their testimony, the Planning Commission eliminated the maximum requirement. This was satisfactory to the Seatac Mall representatives as long as they had the ability to ask for more if needed. Based on this research, it appears that the recommendation for office of 1/350 is in the ballpark. However, the recommendation for retail of 1/400 may be too low and should be retained at 1/300. Incentives for structured parking The consultant report recommended that a developer be able to reduce required parking by up to 20% if they provide structured parking. The goal was to provide incentives to build structured parking since it is very expensive. Mr. Casey is correct that the need for the parking will not be lessened because it is in structured parking. This provision can be removed by striking section 22-1377 (c) 2 and by amending section 22-1425 by removing the words, "or decreased up to 20%". On-street parking section 22-1377 (4) The provision to provide an option to developers to pay for on-street parking in return for not providing it all on-site is not intended to replace any efforts the city makes in other areas to improve the downtown or provide on-street parking during street improvement projects. It is only provided as an option to reduce on-site parking and help fund on- street parking more quickly where it is feasible. Conceptually, it would not be labeled for any particular user but if located adjacent to the property it is as likely as not they would receive some benefit. The consultant was not aware if this was being done anywhere else, however, the city of Vancouver has a similar program to fund construction and maintenance of city parking facilities. The Vancouver program not only requires up front costs for construction but annual rental fees. The trade off is the property owner can reduce the on-site parking required. Parkinq maximums The existing code provides parking ratios depending on use which are required minimums. In order to increase these ratios a parking study must be provided. Mr Casey suggests that the last sentence of this provision be removed. The sentence reads, "An increase in the number of parking spaces permitted under section 22-1377 may be permitted if a thorough parking study documents that the consistent or frequently recurring parking needs of the use exceed the permitted number of spaces." This language represents no change to the Code and was consciously left in tact by the Planning commission as a concession to not imposing stronger language on maximums. This is a language that we have experience administering and have used in projects such as Pavilion Center and Rainier Plaza. Pedestrian Facilities section 22-1422 (b) (ii) The provision for shared parking facilities requires "improved" pedestrian facilities. Mr Casey suggests removing the word "improved". This word is intended to clarify that the walkways cannot just be the left over asphalt that isn't needed for parking and maneuvering but must be designated in some way. The criteria in the design standards are not required for every project but certainly help to further clarify in the cases it does apply. Shared Parkinq The proposed language gives the Planning Director discretion to determine the amount of parking that can be reduced beyond 20% when shared parking is utilized in either the city Center Core or City Center Frame. Mr. Casey suggests limiting the city Center Frame to 20%, but providing the ability for a higher percentage in the City Center Core. No direction has been provided through the policies of the Comprehensive Plan or otherwise to look at these areas differently in regards to parking. Some of the properties in the city center frame include: Pavilion Center, Hillside Plaza, Ross Plaza, old K-Mart site, and the proposed Rainier Plaza site. However, the staff have no objections to this language being adopted. Heiqht bonuses for parkinq structures in the City Center Frame section 22- 1425 (b) Mr Casey suggests that the height bonus for structured parking should only be available to properties in the city Center Core area. When the downtown parking staff report was being prepared, one of the developers of the Pavilion Center contacted staff and requested that incentives be put in the code for building structured parking. The owners would like to put in structured parking in phase two. Adopting Mr. Casey's suggestion will reduce the likelihood of this happening. Compact stalls Mr Casey objects to the requirement that compact stalls be interspersed throughout the site. As Mr. Casey points out in his letter about the downtown vision, there are some developers who will plan their site well and others that do not. This requirement is intended to make sure that all of the compact stalls are not placed in the same area of the site. They do not have to be equally distributed. They can be grouped. I have seen parking plans that were not well thought out and usually, the applicant does not object to some minor adjustments. In response to Mr Casey's last remarks, I would like to point out that the staff can provide research, share experiences about administering code language, and may have some perspective about using the facilities within the study area. We do not and should not have the same perspective of the property owner/developer since we don't share those same experiences. However, the property owner/developer's perspective is crucial to a well drafted code. The public hearing is intended to incorporate comments from property owners, tenants, users, and citizens so that the end product is better than what the staff can generate on their own or with the help of a consultant. . GATEWAY CENTER Memorandum regarding City Center Parking..;' and proposed code changes If required parking minimums ar~ l?wered to? quickly,-~Rere will be some developers who will unw~tt~ngly or lntentionally underpark versus actual usage needs. City staff/consultants~ after lowering minimum pax king requirements throughout the c~ty a year ago, naively assume that by lowering City Center parking minimums they are somehow helping development. In fact, the staff/consultants recommendation which the planning commission correctly did not concur, was to establish these new lower minimums as maximums. The reality is that a retail establishment needs five stalls per thoüsand square feet (sf) (one stall per 200 sf) in suburban communities. A larger mixed-use project would. _qe-c DY Wml 4.:; ;:, LaJ:<r05 -pe~ t-hcu~n.d.-SF (f"Inp.. ~trt 11 "Der.2.50 sf). The city álready, unaer last' Y~~L~ çhBng~,-al~~~e 3.33 stalls per 1,000 sf (one stall per 300 sf). If Eagle hardware in the vicinity of 348th of QFC at Pavilion Centre were to be parked at this ratio it would be -a disaster. Now the city staff/consultants pro2ose to lower the retail parking to 2.86 cars per 1,000 sf (one stall per 350-sf)! Tlrl~5' almoa~-l/2 of reality. The same concerns apply to the office numbers. This creates several important problems: 1) Unsafe or illegal parking dramatically increases, regularly occurring in drive and fire lanes, handicapped and service access, island end caps, as well as double parking. This results in decreased building and pedestrian safety, increased vehicular accidents due to poor visibility and adequate maneuvering room, increased law-enÌorêement resources used for parking enforcement, contested ticketing/or towing and accident responses. 2) Underparked developments also slow down vehicular movement as a result of pollution from circling or idling cars which would otherwise be off if stalls are available. Lack of sufficient parking puts associated businesses at a sales volume disadvantage, and in our case, the City Center at a disadvantage. This means lower rents thus less added value for ~ality features and maintenance. If a particular area of town or business is inconvenient, then consumers will go elsewhere. If out of town, loosing tax revenues and causing more auto congestion, or other locations locally, meaning for the same sales and taxes dollars, we are committing duplicate land for two marginal businesses when one might serve well. Gateway Center, Inc. LAxation:, ~at("way ~ente~ Boulevard South and Sou~h 320th, Federal Way, Washington MaIling: 800 East DI~ond Boulevard, Sui~e 3-505, Anchorage, Alaska 99515 Anchorage: (907) 349-6478, tax (907) 349-8087 . S(.«ttl~: (206) 292.2211, F.\x (206) 382-9648 - -.. -- ,. Memorandum Re: City Center Parking Proposed code changes page 2 3) Underparked developments create cannibalization of adjùccnt business parking; ñ city created inequity. If an office building adjacent a restaurant is underparked, office workers will consume restaurant spaces. Since rnan~will leave their cars all day, the restaurant's lunch'trade suffers. Most restaurants cannot be successful without both a lunch and dinner trade. An underparked hotel adjacent an office building will cannibalize office spaces tenants need when they arrive in the morning. You create crossover parking wars between properties. This is especially so for longer stay uses like cinema and office. The longer the parkç='~ ct~'1 thQ furthPy--he/Rh~ is willinq to ~alk. Let us not forget, that it is exactly from these hard learned lessons that cities throughout have long set minimum parking requirements reasonably sufficient to cover actual needs. The point here is that, as densities evolve, so too will ride sharing, car pools/commuter van, bus service, etc, and the number of stalls needed will fall. It is, however, a ratcheting process over time. The city can lower the minimum in steps over many years. As the City Center matures we want to discourage new development which emphasizes car traffic, automotive repair, or requires large surface parking thereby cutting down on pedestrian flow potential (car sales lots for example). With infrastructure amenities and densities, City Center land values will exceed what these type of users can afford. It will be a self-selecting process. But an office building may start out with substantial surface parking and over time convert some of this space to an adjacent additional building as the parking ratio's necessary in the market place change. But let's get our first wave of office buildings first. We need that base to evolve to the end vision. In the interim though, City Center office buildings need to provide just as many parking stalls for office tenants as do office buildings in say West Campus, otherwise, the City Center is at a crippling competitive disadvantage. In fact, city staff/consultants are now proposing to lower the maximum stalls allowed to 1/2 what is required by tenants considering suburban office space! In fact, a major attraction of suburban locations versus downtown Bellevue, Seattle or Tacoma is that employees have plenty of parking and do not have to pay fees and scramble for space. If the existing City Center of Federal Way is limited to the same parking ratios folks envision for the future, (as now occurs in downtown Seattle) then no responsible quality development in our City Center will occur and we will never get to that vision. The code, as it does currently, should set forth a practical minimum parking requirement, only a little bit ahead of today's needs. This can be ratcheted down as densities JUN 03 '97 13:30 Q. C.!., INC. 117 P04 t, Memorandum Re: City Center Parking Proposed code changes page 3 evolve. There is a greater danger in setting these minimums too low too quickly. This is because the less experienced, cheap and/or short sighted developers will take advantage of this underparked option while more experience, higher quali~Î longer term outlook developers will not (and cannot because of their higher qualities tenants concerns too). The following changes are also needed to Article XV: Section 22-1377. (c). 2. should be deleted. The provisions for a parking structure by itself will not decrease the parking requirements. There are other means of decreasing requirements for parking due to shared parking, ride management, etc. These have been provided for elsewhere in this code section. Structured parking in and of itself does not cause a decrease in parking requirements. It is a different way to park the same number of cars. Therefore, providing structured parking does not, and should not result, in a decrease in the parking stall requirements. Section 22-1377. 4. The proposal for payment for the privilege of on-street parking in the City Center seems to be contradictory to the strategic public policy of providing for this as part of the incentives to raise the attractiveness of City Center development. The on-street parking provided as part of public infrastructure development for the City Center Core is needed as a way to facilitate downtown densities and development, but to ask people to pay for it undermines this tool and raises several problems. First, . how are you going to come up with consistent cost formulas to be applied equitably from development to development? Second, is this to be reserved parking only for those businesses? Does this prevent the city from in the future establishing parking meters or time use limits for on-street parking? The latter consideration is important because most people around the country are used to on-street parking being a free public access and not limited to one business or another. This is a dangerous road to go down as you loose the opportunity to provide on- street parking as an incentive in the development of City Center. You may find inequities in some people who park on the street, but do not pay for it as you try to facilitate development and other people who pay for it, but find that as densities grow next door neighbors are using "their stalls". Section 22-1398. (2) The last sentence of this section should be deleted so there is no administrative confusion -:' Memorandum Re: City Center Parking Proposed code changes page 4 that parking stall requirements are minimums and not maximums. Twice this has been stipulated in the last two years by the Planning Commission and City Council and we do not want to have any follow-on administrative con~~ion in that regard. Section 22-1422. b (ii). Shared parking facilities requires they "be connected with improved pedestrian facilities". The word "improved" should be deleted as nebulous and not defined. We already ha~e r~thcr ~ubstantially defined guidelines for walkways and access for pedestrians in other sections of the code, with the requisite detail for equal applicability and equ~l predictability on the part of designers and developers. Section 22-1422. b. (iii). The shared parking reduction limit of 20% for the City Center is not realistic in the sense there is some cross-over parking uses that have higher than 20% efficiency. A classic example would be cinema and office utilization. In contrast, cinema and retail utilization does not have nearly 20% of shared efficiency- If it is part of a grocery shopping center, most large grocers prohibit cinema's within a substantial distance because of the pile up in parking use by cinema patrons. Also there is concern throughout this code that there is no distinction between the City Center Core and the City Center Frame. We need to have incentives unique to City Center which facilitate that development first and not treat the Frame and the City Core equally regarding all of these tools and incentives. On the third line, after "spaces," insert the phrase for the CC-F. What this does is not limit the amount of shared parking in the City Center Core, but limits the amount of shared parking in the City Center Frame and gives incentive to the more intense cross uses which could readily exceed that 20% to first focus on development of the City Center Core. Maybe 20 years from now we could see that evolve outside the Core, but we need to keep those options focused at the Core which needs the most help. Also delete the "(optional)" paragraph at the end. We provided for flexibility in the City Center Core and the language above per the recommended changes. To allow that open-endedness elsewhere is dangerous and detracts from incentives for density in the City Center Core we are first trying to encourage. Section 22-1425.b. With regard to the increased height allowance for parking structures, my suggestion is that be limited to the "CC-C zone" only. After that, put a period JUN 03 '97 13:32 Q. C. 1., INC. 11'( t-'lðb r Memorandum Re: City Center Parking Proposed code changes page 5 and delete the balance of that last line "and ~ H\D.xiHU:HfI. of 100 feet in the City Center F EGR~II. This is again because we want to provide extra incentives for the City Center and we want the Frame to be more mid-rise and a step down function and not to provide close density incentives for the Frame beforê-Wë get the Core built up, otherwise we will defuse the focus we need to have on the Core first. Section 22-1425. c. This should be deleted. As discussed earlier, the existence of a parking structure itself does not change the parking stall needs and uses. Other things, such as ride management, shared parking, etc., do, but the parking structure by itself should not lead to less stall needs. It is just another way to bui+d the stalls. Section 22-1442. In the new paragraph the last sentence should be deleted requiring "compact stalls must be interspersed equally throughout the site". This is not good as compact stalls tend to be grouped so that people do not have to hunt and peck stall to stall. Additionally, some stores, such as grocery stores, require all parking in front of the grocery store to be full sized. This is because customers with carts and shopping bags need more elbow room and the fact cars move in and out more frequently. Other tenants are less sensitive to that, such as cinema's and offices, where people are there a long time and there is not as much movement in and out of the stalls. Another example may be that compact parking is more dense along the parameter of a parking lot where we tend to designate employee parking. Again because there is less use of those stalls during the day, therefore, the amount of maneuvering room needed is less significant than the stalls closer to the tenants' front entrances where there may be a higher level of rotation in and out of the stalls. , The staffs/consultants proposed code language is once again an example where they have a vision, not a bad one, for our City Center, but an incomplete understanding of how to get there. We need to raise the quality of our understanding of the mechanisms and phasing required. The hallmark of good leadership is not just having a vision. It is also knowing how to get there and the context of the real world. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, .&?~ve. ~~¿~, Daniel A. Casey President To: From: Subject: :cL' land Use & T ransportatio ommitt '/ Greg McCormick, AICP ,~11£ ~)t£'l- . . UPDATE: Revised Household & Employment Targets- City of Federal Way May 30, 1997 MEMORANDUM Date: -------------------------------------------- When Federal Way developed the capacity numbers for the comprehensive plan in 1994 and 1995, staff used the best available information at the time. In subsequent work on refining the city's capacity calculations, errors in earlier data were discovered mainly due to double counting of some parcels. 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 scheme. In response to this situation, the City of Federal Way sent a letter (attached) dated December 17, 1996 to Steve Cohn, Chair of the Urban Center/Household & Employment Allocation Subcommittee requesting that the committee re-examine the household allocations in general and Federal Way's in particular. The letter documents Federal Way's inability to accommodate the population that was been allocated through the King County Countywide Planning Policies and requested that the city's population allocation be lowered accordingly. Discussion at previous committee meetings with other members of the committee has indicated a reluctance by other jurisdictions to accept a shifting of any portion of Federa Ways' household target to their respective jurisdictions. However, with new cities and shifting boundaries the county is exploring what they might accept and the full discussion and recommendation to the Growth Management Planning Council has not been made. On May 1, 1997 the .subcommittee met in Bellevue with one of the items on the agenda being the discussion of population and employment targets. However, the committee did not complete the agenda and this issue was carried over to the next meeting. No specific date was set for the next meeting, however the committee targeted mid-June for the next meeting. This is an informational item only, no action of the LUTC is being requested. . :4" '. .s.-' CITY OF I' (206) 661-4000 FEDERAL WAY. WA 98003-6210 December 17, 1996 FILE Steve Cohn, Chair - Urban Center/Population Allocation Sub-Committee % City of Bellevue Planning Department Post Office Box 90012 Bellevue, WA 98009-9012 Re: Revised Population/Employment Targets - City of Federal Way Dear Mr. Cohn: Due to incorporations and large annexations that have occurred since the household and employment targets were adopted in the countywide planning policies (CPP's) in 1994, the Urban Center, Population and Employment Allocation Sub-Committee began meeting again to discuss revisions to the target numbers based on these recent events. As a part of that discussion we have indicated that Federal Way would be proposing a reduction in it's household allocation based on new residential capacity calculations that were being completed as part of the city's comprehensive plan update. That analysis has been completed and summary spreadsheets have been attached to this letter indicating the results of this analysis. When Federal Way originally developed the capacity numbers for the city's comprehensive plan and the numbers used in the CPP's 'a number of factors came into play: 1. Federal Way was behind schedule in adopting its plan and used the best data available at that time. This data had some inaccuracies mainly due to double counting of some parcels in the land data base; and 2. When calculating the capacity for the comprehensive plan the implementing zoning was not adopted, therefore a range of residential densities were used based on the comprehensive plan designation. These densities inflated the capacity estimates when reviewed in the context of the actual zoning that was adopted for implementation. The methodology used in this analysis is consistent with the methodology developed by the Land Capacity Task Force to calculate the household targets now adopted as part of the CPP's. As suggested in this methodology, Federal Way has utilized the King County f"'~ ( " Assessors data as a basis for this analysis. Federal Way's GIS was used to process this data and develop the information presented in the attached spreadsheets. These spreadsheets are a summary of very detailed parcel level data. This methodology incorporates a number of discounts for jurisdictions to apply to overall land capacity estimates to determine a reasonable household target. The revised household target for Federal Way is 8,314 new households. The following is a description of how the discounts were applied to the Federal Way data: RO.W.: A discount for new rights-of-way was applied to all categories of land. Typically, a right-of-way discount of between 10 and 15 percent was used. This discount is consistent with discounts used throughout the county by other jurisdictions. Public Purpose: This category includes a discount for land uses that are not likely to redevelop such as churches, schools, hospitals and other publicly or quasi-public facilities. It is also intended that this discount include lands that will be used for public purposes that are part of private developments such as required open space, park dedication, etc.. This discount ranges from five percent to zero percent. .Q..r.i!lç§j Areas (C.A.): Federal Way, as in most jurisdictions, has experienced most growth in areas that do not include constraints such as wetlands, steep slopes and other types of critical areas. However, the supply of unconstrained land is diminishing and we are now experiencing more pressure to develop marginal sites. Additionally, most of the infill or redevelopment that is or will be occurring in the future are more likely to have environmental constraints to deal with. The discount for critical areas in this analysis ranges from 15 percent in single family residential areas to zero in areas such as the city center where any new development will be in the form of redevelopment and a discount for critical areas is not needed. Market Factor: This factor is used to reflect effects of market forces on the development of land. Federal Way has used market factors ranging from 25 percent in the single family zoned areas to 30 percent in some of the non-residential zoning districts. After determining the land capacity in Federal Way based on this methodology, a "cushion factor" was applied to the results as suggested in the Task Force's recommendations. The recommendation was to apply a factor of at least 25 percent. Federal Way has applied a cushion factor ranging between 10 percent and 30 percent depending on the zone and whether the category was vacant or redevelopable land. Employment Tarqets: The employment targets were not discussed at the last committee meeting, however the City Council's Land Use and Transportation Committee has directed staff to pursue increasing the employment target for Federal Way. The City understands that the employment target is not a requirement of the Growth Management Act, however, being included in the Countywide Planning Policies does set a policy direction for the county in terms of future employment distribution. ";' -I .' Federal Way has completed a capacity analysis for employment. This study indicates that the employment capacity within the city is in excess of 60,000 new jobs. This capacity is located in virtually all zoning districts including commercial, office, professional and industrial. In addition to the available employment capacity, other factors including Federal Way's a designation as an urban center in the Countywide Planning Policies, inclusion in the voter approved Regional Transit Plan and located close to several major components of the existing transportation system including Interstate 5, State Route 18, SeaTac International Airport and the Port of Tacoma makes Federal Way a likely candidate for increase employment sector growth in the future. An employment target in the range of 25,000. This range would not be inappropriate given employment ranges for the cities of Bellevue, Redmond, Renton and Tukwila. Conclusion: Federal Way feels that the above proposed targets are much more realistic and equitable than the existing targets contained in the Countywide Planning Policies. The revised household target is based on the most up to date information available and the discounts applied are well within the ranges used throughout the county. In terms of the employment target, the city feels that this target is low for Federal Way given the circumstances noted in this letter and that a higher target is warranted. Federal Way respectfully requests that these revisions be taken forward to the Growth Management Planning Council with the Committee's support at the earliest opportunity. If you have any questions, please call Greg McCormick, Principal Planner at 661-4119. Best Regards, r!~:~ Director - Community Development Services / 7Jf¡:~ ~rmjck. AICP Principal Planner attachments cc: Federal Way City Council Kenneth E. Nyberg, City Manager Philip Keightley, Assistant City Manager Chandler Felt, Demographer - King County .. .. SUMMARY OF HOUSEHOLD TARGET ANALYSIS ZONE VACANT REDEVELOPMENT TOTAL TARGET TARGET HOUSEHOLDS SE 8 5 13 RS-35 382 5 387 RS-15 299 135 434 RS-9.6 449 34 483 RS-7.2 588 378 966 RS-5 27 34 61 SUB-TOTAL 1.753 591 2.344 RM 1800 120 34 154 RM 2400 377 25 402 RM 3600 314 197 511 SUB-TOTAL 811 256 1,067 BC 222 136 358 BN 55 19 74 BP 0 0 0 CC 1,593 1,624 3,217 CF 690 564 1,254 CP-1 0 0 0 OP 0 0 0 OP-1 0 0 0 OP-2 0 0 0 OP-3 0 0 0 OP-4 0 0 0 PO 0 0 0 SUB-TOTAL 2,560 2,343 4,903 .,. . . """.' TOTALS 5,124 3,190 .. . 8,?14' ", ""', TABLE 1 - RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY OF SINGLE FAMILY ZONED LAND - VACANT ZONE NO. OF RO.W, PUBLIC C.A. MARKET TOTAL CUSHION TARGET '. LOTS PURPOSE FACTOR LOTS FACTOR NUMBER . '~*,,;~¿'¡':,~éj:" SE 22 0.85 0.95 0.85 0.75 11 0.70 8 RS-35 1,059 0,85 0.95 0.85 0,75 545 0.70 382 RS-15 830 0.85 0,95 0.85 0.75 427 0.70 299 RS-9,6 1,245 0.85 0,95 0.85 0.75 641 0.70 449 RS-7.2 1,631 0.85 0.95 0.85 0.75 840 0.70 588 RS-5 74 0.85 0.95 0.85 0,75 38 0.70 27 ~W~;;~~{~Ø'1~áf!~: TOTALS - -- - TABLE 1 - RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY OF SINGLE FAMILY ZONED LAND - REDEVELOPMENT ZONE NO. OF RO.W. PUBLIC C.A. MARKET TOTAL CUSHION TARGET LOTS PURPOSE FACTOR LOTS FACTOR NUMBER SE 13 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.80 8 0.70 5 - RS-35 12 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.80 7 0.70 5 RS-15 333 0.85 1.00 0.85 0,80 192 0.70 135 RS-9.6 84 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.80 49 0.70 34 RS-7.2 935 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.80 540 0.70 378 RS-5 84 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.80 49 0.70 34 TOTALS - -- - .' , .' . . ,,',.' '.' :' ) ~ ,I :S' RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY OF NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS - REDEVELOPABLE ZONING TOTAL PERCENT RESIDENTIAL SIZE OF # OF DWELLING DESIGNATION SO. FT. RESIDENTIAL SO. FT. UNITS (SO. FT.) UNITS (MF) BC 1,292,393 0.15 193,859 1,000 194 BN 177,170 0,15 26,575 1,000 27 BP 754,579 0.00 a a a CC 2,907,998 0.45 1,308,599 725 1,805 CF 1,253,408 0.50 626,704 1,000 627 CP-1 973,688 0.00 a a a OP 237,868 0.00 0 a 0 OP-1 134,212 0.00 0 0 a OP-2 a 0.00 0 a 0 -' OP-3 0 0.00 a a 0 OP-4 0 0.00 0 a a PO 13,374 0.00 0 0 0 TOTALS -- CUSHION FACTOR 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.90 0.90: 0.70 0.70, 0.70 0.701 0.70 0.70 0.70 TARGET NUMBER 136 19 0 1,624 564 0 , g :"h;::~~?r:tW{;::?W~?~~titW~Ç;?}:-f;~;: 0' . a a a - ì"""':':"':""'.),~:'j.:::~~+~c:,;:':,;#~ .' ,.,' !f '. ' .' '. ~. RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS - REDEVELOPABLE ZONING TOTAL FAR SQ. FT. BC 4,798,639 0.25 BN 657,828 0.25 BP 2,801,740 0.25 CC 967,992 0.60 CF 876,172 0.50 CP-1 3,615,289 0.25 OP 883,201 0.25 OP-1 498,326 0.25 OP-2 0 0.25 OP-3 0 0.25 OP-4 0 0.25 PO 49,658 0.25 TOTALS - RO.W. C.A PUBLIC MARKET BUILDABLE FACTOR FACTOR FACTOR FACTOR SQ. FT. 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.70 646,197 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.70 88,585 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.70 377,289 0.85 1.00 0.99 0.85 415,428 0.85 1.00 0.99 0.85 313,352 0.90 0,90 0.95 0.70 486,844 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.70 118,934 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.70 67,106 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.70 0 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.70 0 0.90 0.90 0.95 0,70 a 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.70 6,687 NUMBER FLOORS 2 2 2 7 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 BUILDABLE SQ. FT. ,II', '"" 1 ,292,393 177,170 754,579 2,907,998 1 ,253,408 973,688 237,868 134,212 0 0 a 13,374 .,' I;~ ~{;fff% »ß~~f~~~: ~~ ~t~:~ it ~~~~~ ~TÆ~ß \ ~, It t., , "i\:;'~~::7~¡Y:ß:;;{~~:@:~~~;:~~ TABLE 2 - RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY OF MULTI FAMILY ZONED LAND - VACANT ZONE NO. OF UNITS RO.W, PUBLIC PURPOSE CA RM-1800 RM-2400 RM-3600 285 895 746 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.90 0.90 0,90 MARKET TOTAL CUSHION TARGET FACTOR UNITS FACTOR NUMBER 0,75 171 0,70 120 0.75 538 0.70 377 0.75 449 0.70 314 .. - . . . :' '~~:~1,~ TOTALS - .;:~ji:i~*~~~~ TABLE 2 - RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY OF MULTI FAMILY ZONED LAND - REDEVELOPMENT ZONE NO. OF RO.W. PUBLIC CA MARKET TOTAL CUSHION TARGET UNITS PURPOSE FACTOR UNITS FACTOR NUMBER - RM-1800 71 0.90 1.00 0.90 0.85 49 0.70 34 RM-2400 51 0.90 1.00 0.90 0.85 35 0.70 25 RM-3600 409 0.90 1.00 0.90 0,85 282 0.70 197 TOTALS - .. - ". ì .', '.U'."". .. ., ..~ ".; " ...." .c. . ". f~ :":}' , '~'~;':--:~",~~'" .:'X~':':',:,!':'Jf,i~;¡: -- ZONING BC BN BP CC CF CP-1 OP OP-1 OP-2 OP-3 OP-4 PO TOTALS RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS - VACANT TOTAL SO. FT. 7,835,154 1,938,881 6,407,159 949,081 1,071,981 5,284,224 5,812,796 5,082,252 0 257,377 0 557,380 .... FAR. 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.60 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 RO.W, FACTOR 0.90 0.90 0,90 0.85 0,85 0,90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 C. A. FACTOR 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 ..'.', PUBLIC FACTOR 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 MARKET FACTOR 0.70 0,70 0,70 0.85 0.85 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0,70 BUILDABLE SO. FT. 1,055,101 261,095 862,804 407,312 383,381 711,587 782,766 684,389 0 34,659 0 75,058 - NUMBER FLOORS 2 2 2 7 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 i' BUILDABLE SO. FT. 2,110,203 522,189 1,725,608 2,851,186 1,533,522 1,423,174 1,565,531 1,368,778 0, 69,318 0 150,116 .'.' : .í; ':'(~ :'.:} ,. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM DATE: May 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, -------------------------------------------------------------------- I. 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: D. Adding new definitions to the code for change of use, normal maintenance and tenant improvements; The requirement for an MAl appraisal was removed and appraisals were made optional for the applicant (source acceptable to the city); Normal maintenance and tenant improvement costs were deleted for calculations of all nonconformance thresholds; and 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. A. B. C, 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, . II. 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 21 st. 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; 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; The resulting dollar amount is then applied toward reducing the nonconforming aspects of the site, 2, 3, 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, This policy is attached as part of the staff report. The Planning Commission is recommending that water quality be deleted 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 0, this provision. 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; Amending sections to be consistent with recently adopted code amendments related to Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1724 (ESHB 1724); Clarifying the following definitions: a, junk by adding junk yards to the definition; b, buffer; c, quasi judicial; d, normal maintenance - signs; e, abandoned, Clarify gross floor area expansion; Delete Section 22-1402 (overlooked during the landscape code revision); and Include "public" in the definition of "Nonconformance" in Section 22-1. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, The language for these proposed amendments is contained in the attached staff report, III. FINDINGS The planning commission made the following findings in support of the above recommendations: 1. 2, 3, 4, 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 Proposed nonconformance criteria and thresholds will encourage upgrading, remodeling and bringing sites and structures into conformance, by allowing options and flexibility. Proposed "housekeeping" changes will clarify specified sections of the code by adding new definitions, changing the process numbering system to the newly approved system 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 existing 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), 5 !;¡9 )¡ "7 DATE / I Attachments I:\GR E G\NO NCON FR\PC-RE CM N 4 To: From: Subject: Date: City of Federal Way Planning Commission Greg McCormick, AlCP - Senior Planner Penelope Bell, AICP - Consultant Non-conformance Code Revision - Supplemental Information May 15,1997 MEMORANDUM -------------------------------------------- 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 ill Purpose, Proportional compliance is a mechanism by which the city may allow less than 100 percent conformance, ø Who may apply, Anyone may apply who is required to bring a site or structure into conformance with current regulations, Qì Applicability, Proportional compliance may be applied when a nonconformance threshold is met or exceeded, and expansion, remodel or use of, is not permitted without meetina full requirements for: 9... 11. c, parkina (see Sec, 22-334) buffers (see Sec, 22-336) landscaping (see Art, XVII) Proportional compliance cannot be used for: 9... b, c, Q.. ~ nonconforming use (see Sec. 22-332) nonconforming procedure (see Sec, 22-333) water quality (see Section 22- ) street improvements (see Section 22- ) signs (see Sec, 22-335) ill Decision criteria, An application for proportional 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), Q.. 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 followina 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. 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, The dollar value of this equation is then applied toward reducing the nonconformities, 2, ~ Example: Value of existing structure(s) excluding mechanica~ems = $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 $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 ~ @ 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. (6) Nonconformance vlith the water quality 3tandard3 in 3ection 22 11 ~6. et.3eq,; CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Planning Commission DATE 7 May 1 997 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 pröposed 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, Nonconfonnance, 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 MAl 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. Nonconfonnance, 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 prÎ9'ate 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. 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 Dublic 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.NONCONFORMANCETHRESHOLDS 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.PUBLICIMPROVEMENTS 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. See, 22-. Article IV. Nonconfonnance, 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: Art. XVI, Di..". I, Sec. 22 1473. \~Jhen public improvements must be installed. (a) The applicant 3hall provide the improvement3 required by thi3 article if the applicant engage3 in any activity 'which require3 a development permit, except for the follow'ing: (1 ) The applicant nced not comply "'Iith the provi3ion of thi3 article if the proposed improvements in any 12 month period do not exceed 2S percent of the a33essed or apprai3ed value (ba3ed on an MAl apprai3al provided by the applicant) of all structures on the subject property, whichever i3 greater, (2) The applicant need not comply with the provisions of this article if, within the immediately preceding four years, public improvements '¡¡ere in3talled as part of any subdivision or discretionary land U3e approval under this or any prior zoning code. (b) Right of way adjacent to and v~'ithin 3ubdivision and short subdivision3 must be dedicated and improv'ed consistent 'with the requiremcnt3 of thi3 article, unle33 different requirement3 are imposed by the city as part of the 3ubdivi3ion or short subdivision approval. . (Ord. No. ~O 43, § 2(110,20), 2 27 ~O) Article IV should be amended by adding: Art. IV. Sec. 22- . When public improvements must be installed. !& 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: . See, 22-. Article IV. Nonconfonnance, revision Page: 5 of 23 íQ). .(çL @ ill The applicant need not comely 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 subiect property. whichever is areater, The appraisal must be from a source acceptable to the city if the assessed valuation appears to be inappropriate, m The applicant need not comply with the provisions of Article XVI if, within the immediately precedina 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 adiacent 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. . For street improvements only, when the subiect nonconforming property has been abandoned for 180 days or more consecutive days or the use conducted on the subject property has ceased for one (1) year. 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 buildinas on the site: or. 4) Qenerates pollutants having potentially a siQnificant impact on the quality of the runoff from the site (Le.. a gas station. parking lot greater than three (3) acres in size, truck stop. chemical storage facility, etc,) 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, Nonconfonnance, 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 ill Apolicabilitv, 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. m 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, See, 22-, Article IV, Nonconfonnance, revision Page: 7 of 23 Ql Who may applY, The property owner or public entitv required to comply. may applY for a portable structure exception, . ill Decision criteria. An application for a portable structure exception may be approved, or approved with modification, if it satisfies all of the following criteria: Lê.L ill .(çl @ úù ill Í9l @ the portable structure(s) would be in place no longer than three years: The portable structure should be compatible with the architectural design and appearance of existing structures on the subject property, to the extent possible: The site and existing structures on site are in compliance with the parkinQ and landscaping and buffer requirements for the land use district in which they are located. Minor deviations from this parkina 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(st without significant impact to surrounding properties: There is no other existing request for proportional. phased or deferred compliance for this site: 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 There is no exception for water quality standards, Aoolicable orocedure, Except as otherwise provided...QDhis suþsection. 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. Nonconfonnance. revision Page: 8 of 23 Thresholds: . Value(s) during a 3-year period for remodeling are 30% òr 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. 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, Nonconfonnance, revision Page: 9 of 23 If the "Proportional Compliance" alternative is chosen, the following language should be added to read: . Section 22- Proportional Compliance L1l. Aoolicabilitv This subsection applies to specified remodels or expansions when ygJue(s) durina a three (3) year period. is 30% or greater. and less than 100% of replacement value of the existina structure. or expansion of any structure or aroup of structures on a sinale site is less than 50% of the existina gross floor area, which expansion. remodel or use of. is not permitted without meeting full requirements for parkina, landscaping. buffers, street improvements and water quality requirements, m Purpose. Proportional compliance is a mechanism by which the city may allow less than 100 percent conformance, ill Who mav applv, Anyone may apply who is required to brina a site or structure into conformance with current regulations, ill 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), §... 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: .L Divide the dollar value of the proposed site improvements by the rnQ)acement value of the existing structure(s) as determined by the Director, up to 100 percent. £. 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, ~ The dollar value of this equation is then applied toward reducing the nonconformities. Example: ~ing structure(s) exc!ill;!ing mechanical systems = $20.000 Value of proposed improvements excluding mechanical systems = $6,000 Sec. 22-, Article IV. Nonconfonnance, revision Page: 10 of 23 $20,000 divided into $6,000 equals 30% Cost identified in onformance Plan e uals 4 000 30% times $4,000 equal $1,200 iJ .200 wou!Q...be applied toward reducina 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, Q.. 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 citv code: Q.. It is consistent with public health, safety and welfare: and e, There is no proportioning for water quality standards, @l. Apolicable 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 fol.lows 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: II of 23 structures are removed, the director shall make the determination if remaining landscaping, parking or buffer requirem'ents 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-, Article IV. Nonconformance, revision Page: 12 of 23 PROS CONS Require full compliance over an agreed Full compliance delayed period of time, Le., 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 !1l Aoolicabilitv, This subsection applies to any nonconforming site/structure, which expansion or use of is not permitted without meeting requirements for parking. landscapina. buffers, street improvements and water quality standards, f.2.L Puroose, Phasina 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 Ql. Who mav aDD/v, Anyone mav apply who is required to bring a site. use or structure into conformance with current regulations, - !.1l. Decision criteria. An application for phased compliance may be approved. or approved with modification if it satisfies all of the following, w A conformance plan which identifies the site nonconformaties. as well as the cost of individual site improvements: .(Ql Phasing shall be specific as to what aspects of the proiect are to be accomplished by when. and by whom, All items that are necessary to provide conformance shall be addressed: &- Phasing shall not exceed four (4) years from date of approval of the conformance plan or the entitlement. which ever comes first: @ There is no other request for exception, proportional or deferred compliance: úù It is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan: ill It is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare: and !91. There is no phasing for water quality standards. @l ADD/icab/e Drocedure, 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. Nonconfonnance, 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 í1l A pDlica bility, This subsection applies to any nonconforming site/structure, which expansion or use is not permitted without meeting requirements for parking. landscapina, buffers. street improvements and water quality standards. m PufDose, Phasing allows improvements and compliance to be made over a two year period, Ql.. Who may apDIY. Anyone may apply who is required bring a site. use or structure into conformance with current reaulations, ffi Decision criteria, An application for deferred compliance may be approved, or approved with modification if it satisfies all of the following: Lêl A conformance plan which identifies the site nonconformities, as well as the cost of individual site improvements: ilù Deferred compliance shall be specific as to what aspects of the proiect are to be accomplished by when. and by whom, All items that are Sec. 22-. Article IV. Nonconfonnance, revision Page: 15 of 23 {çL @ lID ill !9l iliJ. necessary to provide conformance shall be addressed: Deferred compliance shall not exceed two (2) years from date of approval of the conformance plan or the entitlement. which ever comes first: There is no other request for exception, proportional or phased compliance: It is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and city code: It is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare: and There is no deferment for water quality standards. Apolicable 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 reqùiring approval through process I, II or II II. III. or IV which:::was 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 anvone 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, Nonconfonnance, 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 H 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 iunkyards"; E, There have been questions as to how "gross floor area" is defined and what is the threshold for expanding gross floor area. Currently any expansion of a nonconforming Sec. 22-. Article IV, Nonconfonnance, revision Page: 17 of 23 use triggers the requirement to bring a site, structure, or use into conformance. Federal Way code, gross floor area is defined in two ways, . In the 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. See, 22-. Article IV, Nonconfonnance, 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 I, 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,]" 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, Sec. 22 1402. Buffer requirements. The buffer requirements of sectioR 22 1446 may be modified if: (1 ) The existing topography of or adjacent to the subject property decreases or eliminates the need for visual screening; (2) The modification will be of more benefit to the adjoining property by causing less impairment of viev{ or sunlight; or (3) The modification will provide a '¡isual screen that is comparable or superior to the buffer required by section 22 1446, (Ord, No, ~O 43, § 2(105,11 5(2)(f)), 2 27 ~O) See, 22-, Article IV. Nonconfonnanee, 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 "ohe" 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: 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 improvement which ha3 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; K. To clarify what is meant by normal maintenance for signs, it is suggested that Section 22-1 be amended to add: (1 ) Normal Maintenance - signs may include but not be limiteq to: rep~ painting faded or peeling paint. replacing small pieces of a damaged sian, 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 iudicial shall mean the Hearing Examiner and the Hearina 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 area3 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, 91-90, § 3(8), 3-19-91) 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. 8. 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 8e 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 B. C. D, E. specify the duration during which a change or alteration is made Clarify duration during which a change or alteration is made Change process numbering system reference Clarify to add the word junkyard Clarify the term gross floor area - when expansion of commercial and industrial becomes gross floor area. Clarify timing of a 12 month period Define buffer Define abandoned Delete reference to a non-existent section regarding buffers Clarify duration during which an alteration is made, and to delete irrelevant wording Define normal maintenance - signs Define quasi-judicial Clarify what is exempt from undergrounding of utilities - electrical service. F. G, H, I. j, K. L. M. FINDINGS The following preliminary findings are provided to the Planning Commission in support of the recommended code changes. 1, 2. 3. 4, 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 Proposed nonconformance criteria and thresholds will encourage upgrading, remodeling and bringing sites and structures into conformance, by allowing options and flexibility, Proposed "housekeeping" changes will clarify specified sections of the code by adding new definitions, changing the process numbering system to the newly approved system 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 (ED18) Focus on improving the existing character and image of the City Center (CCG6) Sec. 22-, Article IV, Nonconformance, revision Page: 23 of 23 CITY OF - . ---- 1æC~ ~~FIY" DATE: June 10, 1997 TO: Phil Watkins, Chair Land U selTransportation Committee Jeff PIatt, Surfaœ Water Division Manage¡~ \ /ì:f¡j~ / David Renstrom, Water Quality Program ~tor \ 1-1- FROM: SUBJECT: SWM Annual Water Quality Improvement Project West Fork Hylebos Creek Rehabilitation BACKGROUND Plans and Specifications for a stream rehabilitation project on the West Fork of Hylebos Creek are at the 85 % complete stage. The project corrects stream stability problems in some 830 feet of stream, in a reach which was earmarked for rehabilitation in the Comprehensive Surface Water Capital Facilities Plan - Phase I (City of Federal Way, July 1994). This and additional future projects in the stream south of 356th Street are intended to enable the stream to accommodate the increased flows which now occur, 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 above S. 373rd Street. The property owner has agreed in principal to grant a no-cost easement to the City allowing construction and maintenance of the project. The final1anguage of the easement is currently being negotiated. The property also includes the owner's home and the Spring Valley Montessori School. This project will include cooperative work by the King Conservation District and World Conservation Corp, who will provide labor for noxious weed removal and control, revegetation, and hand placement of some stream features; and by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, who prepared the revegetation plan. The State and U.S. Departments of Fish and Wildlife and the Puyallup Tribe have also been involved since the project was first formulated. 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. RECOMMRNDA TION Place the following item on the June 17, 1997 Council Consent Agenda for approval: 1. Approve the 85 % complete plans and authorize the Surface Water Division to complete the contract plans and specifications and request bids to construct the West Fork Hylebos Creek Rehabilitation project. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Date: June 16, 1997 To: Land Use and Transportation Committee of the FederaI Way City Council Phil Watkins, Chair From: Martin Nordby, Code Compliance Officer Re: Applewood Annexation Request As you are aware, the City of Federal Way received a 10 percent annexation petition from severaI property owners in the area outlined on the attached map, The petition was submitted by 14 residential property owners of the Applewood subdivision located west of Pacific Highway South and north of South 284th Street. In response to this request, city staffhas assembled the following information: 1) general annexation process description; 2) FederaI Way Annexation Ordinance (#93-190IFWCC 19-100) options; 3) the time line for the annexation; and 4) an anaIysis of issues specifically affecting this annexation proposal, DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA The annexation area as proposed by the 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 281 st, 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 totaI of38 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 aIong Pacific Highway South to South 279th Street. These parcels are included in Federal Way's Potential Annexation Area (P AA) and are adjacent to Pacific Highway South. They are bordered on the west by the Des Moines P AA, Exhibits A and B are maps showing the annexation area as proposed by the petitioners and the annexation area as recommended by staff. The larger map, Exhibit B, includes the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area boundary for this area in relation to the Des Moines city limits, The City of Des Moines recently forwarded to the city a copy of their determination of non- significance for annexation zoning for the area up to our P AA. This is roughly the area from their eastern most corporate limits to our western most P AA boundary, from South 284th north to South 272nd, Applewood Annexation Request June 16, 1997 Page 2 GENERAL ANNEXATION PROCESS State law provides for six different methods of annexation. As with the Weyerhaeuser and Enchanted Parks annexations, this annexation will utilize the 60 percent petition method. The following is a general outline of that method. 1. The applicant meets with city officials and staff to discuss the annexation process and to discuss the boundaries of the area to be annexed. 2. The first petition called the Intent to Annex (10 percent petition) is prepared and circulated by the applicant among all affected property owners, 3, After the signatures on the petition are validated and found sufficient by the City Clerk, the City Council will hold a meeting (refer to Exhibit D), 4. The City Council will decide whether to accept the proposed annexation, and if so, under what conditions, 5. At the meeting, the City Council will decide the following: a. To accept or reject the annexation and whether to modify the boundaries of the proposed annexation; Adoption of zoning simultaneous with annexation; and Requiring property owners in the proposed annexation area to assume their proportionate share of existing city bonded indebtedness, b. c. 6. A second petition (60 percent) will be prepared for the applicant to circulate in the proposed annexation area if the City Council accepts the Notice of Intent. 7, After the signatures on the second petition are validated and found sufficient, the required public hearings on the 60 percent petition, proposed zoning, and comprehensive plan designations will be scheduled at least 30 days apart. 8. At the conclusion of the public hearings, staff prepares the appropriate information to forward the annexation request to the King County Boundary Review Board. The Boundary Review Board will hold a public meeting to decide if the annexation proposaI should be approved. 9. The city will prepare an annexation ordinance if the Boundary Review Board approves the annexation. The annexation area will become part of the City of Federal Way when the ordinance is adopted. Applewood Annexation Request June 16, 1997 Page 3 This annexation is currently at Step 4. At the July 1 meeting, the City Council must decide three things: . Whether or not the city will accept, reject, or geographicaIly modify the proposed annexation. Staff will prepare anaIysis of the entire area if the council accepts the annexation and authorizes circulation of the 60 percent petition, At the 60 percent petition meeting, council can reduce the boundary if appropriate at that time. . Whether the city will require the simultaneous adoption of a proposed zoning regulation. . Whether the city will require the assumption of all or any portion of existing city indebtedness by the area to be annexed. FEDERAL WAY ANNEXATION ORDINANCE The City of Federal Way has not previously established comprehensive plan or zoning designations for this portion of the PAA or annexation area. The City of Federal Way Annexation Ordinance (#93-190IFWCC 19-100) provides for three options in terms of zoning and comprehensive plan designations of annexed areas under these circumstances. The first option is to adopt interim comprehensive plan designations and zoning for the area to be annexed. The options for interim comprehensive plan designations are either the current designation of the county or designating the area as Urban Residential in the ordinance annexing the property. The options for zoning under this scenario are to retain the county zoning or a city designation ofRS-9.6 as interim zoning. Under the interim comprehensive plan and zoning alternative, the annexation ordinance requires permanent plan and zoning designations be established within 12 months of the effective date of the annexation. The second option is to set or predetermine the comprehensive plan and zoning designations for the property prior to, or in conjunction with, annexation. These designations, unlike the interim designations described above, are considered final in terms of the annexation, The last option for comprehensive plan and zoning is that of the concomitant zoning agreement (CZA). The CZA aIlows creativity in site design and is used to protect or enhance natural and community features, Applewood and two unplatted parcels located in the south east comer of the proposed annexation area are currently designated as residential single family (RS7.2P) under King County zoning. Seven of the eight unplatted parcels adjacent to Pacific Highway South are designated residential multi-family (RM-1800) under King County zoning. The northern most parcel at the comer of Pacific Highway and South 279th is zoned General CommerciaI (CG-P). Applewood Annexation Request June 16, 1997 Page 4 ANNEXATION BOUNDARY Annexation boundaries must be logical. This is one of the criteria used by the King County Boundary Review Board (BRB) when evaIuating annexations. The BRB can deny the annexation request ifit finds the proposed boundary does not meet this criteria, For example, if the unplatted parcels east of the Applewood subdivision adjacent to Pacific Highway were not included in the annexation, a strip or island only one parcel wide of unincorporated King County would be created and the annexation would likely be denied by the BRB. The expanded annexation area proposed by staff represents a 10gicaI boundary supported by the city's P AA and comprehensive plan, STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) REVIEW Annexations of territory by cities and towns are exempt from SEPA review (RCW 43,21C.222), however, annexation zoning is subject to review. SEP A review must be completed prior to any zoning action by the City Council. ISSUES EXAMINED UNDER A 60 PERCENT PETITION Several issues have been examined in conjunction with submittal of this 10 percent petition. Though not typically done at this point, it was believed the limited size, predominantly residentiaI zoning, and importance of certain issues necessitated more detailed anaIysis at an earlier stage. These include a cost/benefit analysis of the annexation in terms of revenue generated by the properties versus the cost of providing city services and a review of the drainage and surface water system, AnaIysis of the costs of providing services is based on existing costs for providing city services to similar residential neighborhoods plus the costs that may be associated with repair of the Applewood storm water detention system, Attached is a financial review (Exhibit C) of the proposed annexation area and the expanded annexation that includes the additionaI five parcels stretching north to South 279th Street along Pacific Highway South, In summary, the revenue/ expenditure analysis indicates that base year expenditures will exceed base year revenues by $13,757 for the area represented by the 10 percent petition. For the annexation area proposed by staff, base year expenditures will exceed base year revenues by $21,919. This anaIysis has been developed out to the year 2001. Historically, residential properties have not generated revenues commensurate with the cost of providing municipal services. In many cases, residential annexation decisions are made from a service delivery and representation standpoint. An issue of concern for this annexation area is surface water management. A review of surface water facilities shows the storm water detention pond and conveyance system for the Applewood development has not been maintained by King County Surface Water Management. The pond area is currently overgrown with vegetation. Surface Water Management staff for the City of Applewood Annexation Request June 16, 1997 Page 5 Federal Way estimate the cost of bringing the system back to post development condition to be $10,000-$15,000. This work would include removing the overgrowth of vegetation, replacing damaged or downed fencing surrounding the pond, and cleaning pipes and related systems. A couple owning property down slope from the Applewood subdivision have expressed concerns that runoff from the Applewood surface water detention system has contributed to erosion on their property. The couple's attorney notified the city, apparently on the belief the Applewood area was aIready within the corporate limits ofFederaI Way. Drainage from Applewood is conveyed to a detention pond, after which it flows through culverts into a tightline system installed apparently at King County's insistence, downhill along a right-of-way across the couple's property, The drainage identified by the couple is actually a stream whose headwaters are a large wetland area to the north of the Applewood subdivision in unincorporated King County (within the City of Des Moines' Potential Annexation Area), The drainage from the subdivision does not flow in the area of the identified erosion. The city would therefore not be responsible for the erosion if the annexation were to be approved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the following: 1. City Council accept the 10 percent petition for annexation, modify the boundaries as proposed by staff to include the additional parcels within Federal Way's P AA north of the petitioners proposal and adjacent to Pacific Highway South as designated on Exhibit A and authorize circulation of a 60 percent annexation petition. 2. City Council to require simultaneous zoning pursuant to Federal Way City Code Section 19- 103 regarding initial (permanent) zoning, 3. City Council require assumption of the proportionate share of bonded indebtedness, EXHIBITS Exhibit A Map of Proposed Applewood Annexation Exhibit B Map of Proposed Applewood Annexation including P AA Exhibit C Revenue and Expenditure Projections Exhibit D Federal Way City Clerk Certification for the Ten Percent Annexation Petition l:app1erpt. wpd r-------~------' : :. ¡ ,"'" ....-.. .../ i :! , cd . I ¡ I ?: I I ; ~ . I' I :r L ; I r.) . --:. "'" .. "'1 &!: : , a I en I ! æ: . ~ I I ,- I Ii I ..J :' ..., . >- I ! . l- I I . Õ : I 1>- J. .., I t ~ ORIGINAL. PROPOSED I I t ~ ANNEXA nON AREA I i ã,', W iI'...... : I'" C - I r..'..~...r.....!'..r.....r._.;;::, I w :' I I' I " . ..::r"'LL" i.. 1 .. ~....I ~' !,,:~':"""'" ..I ~ I' ..-'...-; I ~ I :. . 6. 121NO 81"'" """"" ~ ! .. ".""""; i :<, .' ! /,.....,- ,;';) I I ~ I : I ! I -, .. ".. .. ....s I - iL.._I.....l \ \./ ~\'.'-"-f!-"""'-'-l ,.; ! ~ t.........., {'!'ì<"""""r I . II . " ' ' , :.. ! (, ¡.._......; ¡In. 5""""",I.....J:"~ ....! i.......... i~' ... ~"Þ t'-"! ! "¡x: . ,...,. :! t. ,I ¡ i' . '" .,..., ¡"".. '" to) .'.. : "'.w;!'I"""""" ¡ü:' -/ ' ¡"', \ " . -, ""'" . . I! ¡ '.. ! ~ "'¡¡&'" . ..., J....I \. i ¡ ¡ I a.; I ---' '._.-...-_":'ii.tw.~T ' ...... . "" : --~.. ---------- EXHIBIT A Proposed Applewood Annexation . I . I . I . . ií . '. . I . I . I . I . I rtCl) . -. :e. ::iI ~i -. °1 (I). WI z. 01 :E. (I)! WI c. I . I . I en ' ui, >. . <I: ;¡: I- ,., To the City of Federal Way .- S "19n! S I ADDI1ION TO PROPOSED ANNEXA nON ARf-A Scale: 1 to 3900 , Inch equals 325 Feet 0 500 Feet ~ en LÚ Map Dato: May 16 1997 City of FodoraJ WaY . 33530 First Way S ' FoooraJ Way, WA 98003 (253) 661-4000. This map is intondod for uso as a graphical ropl'8Iiontation ONL V The City of FodoraJ Way makOG no ' warranty as to its accuracy. This proposed annexation is subject to acceptance by the Federal Way City Council. If accepted, signatures representing at least 60% of the assessed value must be gathered. Vicinity Map J Legend: Original Annexation Area Proposed Addition to Annexation Area ß N .t1Il'~ ~ ~~ = GIS DIVISION EXHIBIT B 1hls proposed annexation Is subject to acceptance by the Federal Way City Council, If accepted, signatures representing at least 60% of the assessed value must be gathered, To the City of Federal Way Proposed Applewood ,/\ nnexation '!7h M I JR-rlLllIT fill L J, H l, T 1 . DESIoIOINES CITY LIMITS l 2D II. """'IT. ~ I £~ / -\t ~i g¡ -~e-N--1 I 7 /' ~ ~ \! 5----1--1 §m y - f5 / i - '--1-. c r-- ~ W.~~?i} I E'~ 7 ~ :;r:: /fin I 'ï T \" 1ft- l f !I' " \ I ~-~ \ I I-~ I e-7 -" -r. -I ])~ N l I LLIL -- I-- j fi ~ rJ :i II: 1&1 C \ 'C I W1 -..~" l - iL T'1' - .1 T ì / ~Cc- f-- ",.""'IT. f-- r -I e- - - - - ~ ADDITION TO PROI'OSED ANNEXATION AREA ..~ ~~ 1== Ê- - ?1 I i .. I!J ---" ORIGINAL PROPOSEO ANNEXATION AREA 1 ^ //'~ 11 W J~ rlJ~ u Ih ~I J 1/1 l Map Date: May 16,1997, City of Federa Way 33530 First Way S ' Federal Way. WA 98003 (253) 661-4000, Legend: EJì] Original Annexation Area ~ N !II Proposed Addition to Annexation Area .011 ~ ~ -- = GIS DIVISION This map is intended for use as a graphical representation ONLY, The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy, Scale: 1 to 4680 11nc11equals 390 Flit I 0 500 Flit I ~ - ~ i -- EXHIBIT C CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM Date: To: Subject: June 10, 1997 Martin Nordby . \ Iwen Wang --l/{j~,\ Proposed App/ewood Annexation From: Attached is a copy of my fiscal analysis of the proposed Applewood Annexation. The analysis first looks at the Applewood Development as the 10% petition initially proposed, then a separate analysis contains area including the 5 parcels north of the Applewood Development and an extended Highway 99. In either of these analyses, the projected revenues fall short of the projected expenditures. However, if only the Applewood Development is considered, the deficit is around $15,000 per year, or $7,500 ifwe do not consider indirect support costs and reserves for debt service/capital as discussed below. Considering the margin of error on a projection of this kind, a $7,500 per year deficit is negligible. 1. Indirect Support Costs: The model assumes pro-rated increases to all support service costs of approximately $2,839 or approximately 8% of the direct service costs, 2, Reserve for Debt Service/Capita/: The model assumes utility taxes can only be used for debt service or capital purposes. Thus, the model includes the full utility tax amount as expenses under debt services. This overstates the expenses by $4,500, since the annexation itself does not increase the City's debt burden. Expanding the area by adding the northerly 5 parcels and Hwy, 99 would increase costs and deficits by approximately $8,000, primarily due to the street maintenance costs projected for the additional section of Hwy, 99, CONCLUSION: From a purely fiscal perspective, the Applewood Development area alone is marginally feasible, but when the additional Hwy. 99 is included, the deficit become significant. I am planning to attend the LUTC meeting on June 16, to answer any questions the Committee may have on the analysis. Please do not hesitate to call me should you have any questions. k:\annex\A W ANNX.DOC Applewood Annexation Revenue & Expenditure Summary, Without Northern Expansion Rev/Cost Growth Base Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 Item CityWide Unit Per Unit Rate Rev/Cost Projected Projected Projected Projected Revenues Property Tax $ 6,119,886 AV 1,545.4 1,5% $ 9,037 $ 9,173 $ 9,310 $ 9,450 $ 9,592 Sales Tax 8,222,457 maunal 109,3 2.0% - - - - - Local Criminal Justice Sales Tax 1,126,861 population 15,0 3.0% 1,498 1,543 1,589 1,637 1,686 Utility Tax (1) 3,950,000 housing 127.8 3.0% 4,474 4,608 4,747 4,889 5,036 Gambling Tax 347,438 population 4,6 2.0% - - - - - Leasehold Tax 7,210 maunal 0,1 2.0% - - - - - Motor Vehicle Excise Tax 880,306 population 11.7 2,0% 1,170 1,193 1,217 1,242 1,266 Camper Excise Tax 20,836 population 0.3 2,0% 28 28 29 29 30 Liquor Excise Tax 223 ,239 population 3.0 0,0% 297 297 297 297 297 Liquor Profits Tax 446,478 population 5.9 0,0% 593 593 593 593 593 Criminal Justice-Low Population 341,500 population 4,5 2,0% 454 463 472 482 491 Criminal Justice-High Crime 57,000 population 0,8 -100.0% 76 - - - - Sales & Use Equalization 409,800 population 5.4 -50.0% 545 272 136 68 34 Franchise Fees 396,059 housing 12,8 2.0% 449 458 467 476 486 Licenses & Permits 578,451 housing 18,7 0.0% 655 655 655 655 655 Fines & Forfeits 613,226 population 8,2 0.0% 815 815 815 815 815 Zoning Fees 72,475 parcel 40,2 2.0% 80 82 84 85 87 Plan Check Fees 174,413 parcel 96,6 2.0% 193 197 201 205 209 Recreation Fees 496,991 manual 16,1 2.0% - - - - - Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax 1,116,195 population 14.8 0,0% 1,484 1,484 1,484 1,484 1,484 Vehicle License Fee 613,031 population 8,1 2,0% 815 831 848 865 882 ROW Permits & Mise 79,200 parcel 43.9 0.0% 88 88 88 88 88 Plan Review Fees 126,910 parcel 70.3 0,0% 141 141 141 141 141 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax 521,635 population 6.9 0,0% 693 693 693 693 693 Refuse Collection Fees 148,315 housing 4.8 2,0% 168 171 175 178 182 CPG & Other Grants 103,546 na 3.4 2,0% - - - - - SWM fees 2,748,819 housing 72,0 0,0% 2,520 2,520 2,520 2,520 2,520 SWM fees-Street Fund 137,156 Inmile 207.8 0.0% 57 57 57 57 57 Miscellaneous 912,684 na - 0.0% - - - - - Total Revenues $ 30,992,317 2,458,5 -4.2% $ 26,328 $ 26,362 $ 26,616 $ 26,948 $ 27,323 Expenditures City Council $ 168,011 fIXed 0,0 2,0% $ 189 $ 193 $ 197 $ 201 $ 205 City Manager 468 ,409 fIXed 0,0 2,0% 528 538 549 560 571 Municipal Court Services 929,002 population 12.3 4,0% 1,235 1,284 1,335 1,389 1,444 Chril Legal Senñces 461,516 population 0.0 2,0% 520 530 541 552 563 Management Senñces 1,422,185 fIXed 0.1 2,0% 1,602 1,634 1,667 1,700 1,734 Community Development 2,429,175 parcel 1,345,8 2,0% 2,692 2,745 2,800 2,856 2,913 Jail Services 757,000 population 10.1 10,0% 1,006 1,107 1,217 1,339 1,473 Police Services (2) 9,781,179 population 130,0 4.0% 13,000 13,520 14,061 14,623 15,208 Parks & Rec 2,476,995 population 32,9 2.0% 3,292 3,358 3,425 3,494 3,564 Health & Environment 36 ,000 population 0,5 2.0% 48 49 50 51 52 Pay for Performance 442,467 population 5,9 2.0% 588 600 612 624 637 Debt Service (1) 4,523,199 uttax - 2.0% 4,474 4,564 4,655 4,748 4,843 PW Administrative Services 286,283 PWexp 0,0 2.0% 223 228 232 237 242 PW Development Services 426,025 parcel 236,0 2,0% 472 481 491 501 511 Traffic Senñces 810,311 traffic 1,227,7 2,0% 167 170 174 177 181 Street Systems 1,381,695 street 2,093,5 2,0% 2,m 2,m 2,788 2,800 2,812 Overlay Program 1,734,024 street 2,627.3 2,0% 3,485 3,485 3,500 3,514 3,529 Solid Waste 272,114 housing unit 8,8 2,0% 308 314 321 327 334 Snow & Ice 55,000 street 83,3 2,0% 91 93 94 96 98 Surface Water Mgmt 1,534,098 rev 72,023.4 2,0% 2,520 2,570 2,622 2,674 2,728 City Manager Contingency 100,000 population 1,3 2.0% 133 136 138 141 144 SWM Infrastructure Upgrade (10 yr amortization) manual - 0.0% - - - - - Average Annual Capital (3) 497,629 AV 125.7 0,0% 735 735 735 735 735 fotal Projected Expenditures $ 30,992,317 2,6% $ 40,085 $ 41,112 $ 42,204 $ 43 ,340 $ 44,519 I Net Revenue (Cost) $ - $ (13,757) $ (14,750) $ (15,588) $ (16,392) $ (17,197) (1) Adjusted for new utility tax and debt service. (2) Include $45Ok cops grant adjustment. (3) Assume any revenue exceeding operating expenses goes to capital on citywide basis. AWFINALB,XLS SUMMARY 6/10/971 :01 PM Applewood Annexation Revenue & Expenditure Summary Rev/Cost Growth Base Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 Item CityWide Unit Per Unit Rate Rev/Cost Projected Projected Projected Projected Revenues Property Tax $ 6,119,886 AV 1,545.4 1.5% $ 9,604 $ 9,748 $ 9,894 $ 10,042 $ 10,193 Sales Tax 8,222,457 maunal 109,3 2,0% - - - - - ICaI Criminal Justice Sales Tax 1,126,861 population 15,0 3,0% 1,498 1,543 1,589 1,637 1,686 ~tility Tax (1) 3,950,000 housing 127,8 3.0% 4.474 4,608 4,747 4,889 5,036 Gambling Tax 347,438 population 4,6 2,0% - - - - - Leasehold Tax 7,210 mauna! 0.1 2.0% - - - - - Motor Vehicle Excise Tax 880 ,306 population 11,7 2,0% 1,170 1,193 1,217 1,242 1,266 Camper Excise Tax 20 ,836 population 0,3 2,0% 28 28 29 29 30 Liquor Excise Tax 223,239 population 3,0 0,0% 297 297 297 297 297 Liquor Profits Tax 446,478 population 5.9 0,0% 593 593 593 593 593 Criminal Justice-Low Population 341,500 population 4,5 2.0% 454 463 472 482 491 Criminal Justice-High Crime 57,000 population 0,8 -100.0% 76 - - - - Sales & Use Equalization 409,800 population 5.4 -50,0% 545 272 136 68 34 Franchise Fees 396,059 housing 12,8 2,0% 449 458 467 476 486 Licenses & Permits 578,451 housing 18,7 0,0% 655 655 655 655 655 Fines & Forfeits 613,226 population 8,2 0.0% 815 815 815 815 815 Zoning Fees 72,475 parcel 40,2 2.0% 482 491 501 511 522 Plan Check Fees 174,413 parcel 96,6 2,0% 1,160 1,183 1,206 1,231 1,255 Recreation Fees 496,991 manual 16.1 2.0% - - - - - Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax 1,116,195 population 14,8 0.0% 1,484 1,484 1,484 1,484 1,484 Vehicle License Fee 613,031 population 8.1 2.0% 815 831 848 865 882 ROW Permits & Mise 79,200 parcel 43,9 0.0% 527 527 527 527 527 Plan Review Fees 126,910 parcel 70,3 0,0% 844 844 844 844 844 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax 521,635 population 6,9 0,0% 693 693 693 693 693 Refuse Collection Fees 148,315 housing 4,8 2,0% 168 171 175 178 182 CPG & Other Grants 103,546 na 3.4 2.0% - - - - - SWM fees 2,748,819 housing 72,0 0,0% 2,520 2,520 2,520 2,520 2,520 SWM fees-Street Fund 137,156 Inmile 207.8 0.0% 548 548 548 548 548 Miscellaneous 912,884 na - 0.0% - - - - - Total Revenues $ 30,992,317 2,458,5 -4.2% $ 29,895 $ 29,965 $ 30,256 $ 30,625 $ 31,037 cx:penditures City Council $ 168,011 fIXed 0,0 2.0% $ 281 $ 287 $ 293 $ 299 $ 305 City Manager 468 , 409 fIXed 0.0 2,0% 784 800 816 832 849 Municipal Court Services 929,002 population 12,3 4,0% 1,235 1,284 1,335 1,389 1,444 C~ILegalServices 461,516 population 0.0 2,0% 773 788 804 820 837 Management Services 1,422,185 fIXed 0,1 2,0% 2,382 2,429 2,478 2,527 2,578 Community Development 2,429,175 parcel 1,345,8 2.0% 3,172 3,236 3,300 3,366 3,434 Jail Services 757,000 population 10,1 10.0% 1,006 1,107 1,217 1,339 1,473 Police Services (2) 9,781,179 population 130,0 4,0% 13,000 13,520 14,061 14,623 15,208 Parks & Rec 2,476,995 population 32,9 2.0% 3,292 3,358 3,425 3,494 3,564 Health & Environment 36,000 population 0.5 2.0% 48 49 50 51 52 Pay for Performance 442,467 population 5,9 2,0% 588 600 612 624 637 Debt Service (1) 4,523,199 uttax - 2.0% 4,474 4,564 4,655 4,748 4,843 PW Administrative Services 286,283 PWexp 0.0 2,0% 875 892 910 929 947 PW Development Services 426,025 parcel 236,0 2.0% 2,832 2,889 2,947 3,006 3,066 Traffic Services 810,311 traffic 1,227.7 2,0% 697 711 725 740 754 Street Systems 1,381,695 street 2,093,5 2.0% 5,518 5,628 5,741 5,856 5,973 Overlay Program 1,734,024 street 2,627,3 2.0% 6,925 7,064 7,205 7,349 7,496 Solid Waste 272,114 housing unit 8,8 2,0% 308 314 321 327 334 Snow & Ice 55,000 street 83,3 2,0% 189 193 197 201 205 Surface Water Mgmt 1,534,098 rev 72,023.4 2.0% 2,520 2,570 2,622 2,674 2,728 City Manager Contingency 100,000 population 1.3 2.0% 133 136 138 141 144 SWM Infrastructure Upgrade (10 yr amortization) manual - 0,0% - - - - - Average Annual Capital (3) 497,629 AV 125,7 0,0% 781 781 781 781 781 Total Projected Expenditures $ 30,992,317 2,6% $ 51,814 $ 53,200 $ 54,633 $ 56,115 $ 57,650 ..,..t Revenue (Cost) $ - $ (21,919) $ (23,235) $ (24,377) $ (25,491) $ (26,612) Adjusted for new utility tax and debt service. (2) Include $45Ok cops grant adjustment. (3) Assume any revenue exceeding operating expenses goes to capital on citywide basis, AWFINAL.XLS SUMMARY6I1019712:41 PM CERTIFICA TION OF NOTICE OF INTENT I, N, Christine Green, City Clerk of the City of Federal Way, Washington, do hereby certify that on May 12, 1997, I received a Notice ofIntention to Commence Annexation Proceedings for the area known as "Applewood", which notice is attached hereto as Exhibit "I". I then proceeded to make a determination on the signatures submitted thereon, The petition contains fifteen (15) signatures, representing the owners of property whose value is not less than ten (10%) percent of the value of the property in the annexation area as a whole, according to the assessed valuation for .general taxation of the property for which annexation is sought. The signatures submitted on the Notice ofIntent represent an assessed valuation of $2,315,000, which constitutes 39.59% of the total area and exceeds the required ten (10%) percent. The total assessed valuation of the proposed area is $5,847,800, SIGNED and SEALED this 11th day of June, 1997, ClLi ( (- N, hristine Green, CMC City Clerk City of Federal Way, Washington annex, pet NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS RECEIVED TO: M/\'./ i <j 4Û""'" . :,""" ;.::. o,)~¡ crrv ('LP'v'" '- . CITY OF F~D"';j U¡-FiCB HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL VJ~f:tLWAY 33530 1 ST WAY SOUTH FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 98003 Council Members: The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten percent (10%) in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of property for which annexation is sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Federal Way that it is the desire of the undersigned residents of the following area to commence annexation proceedings: The property referred to herein is outlined on the map which is marked Exhibit "A" and is described :n Exhibit "B" attached hereto, It is requested that the City Council of the City of Federal Way set a date of not later than sixty (60) days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1 ) (2) (3) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation; Whether the City will require the assumption of existing city indebtedness by the area to be annexed; and Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation on the condition that the area proposed for annexation be zoned prior to the annexation of the proposed area, This page is one of the group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of this Notice of Intention to be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention, OWNER'S SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME ADDRESS DATE SIGNED ~.s(.¡. s- .3/9 ì \<\~f\er \ L\ \1 ~o L.~L",J r \ Ve'r~ 1. ::ie&LO/V\ /'IJJ. So.QF;;lP) 5/3 1'7 "' \ T (' '7 \...- L.( ,'-~.^ ( 1,/ V\.~.(¡ v\. ~ij ",-:J Ç; . - L- -.0 ? u~ l::> 1-\. v~ :->c) ì ~ ~.vic..¿ f? SII'JG~ ;( '30 Sr~ ¿/~Î j'o;, . . " .If., s-; 3/ M..On ". '-1:;::¡?¡:'.¡. ( .:xv /S - c: ~. lid «:;ir;: /2 cio ¡II'g 5- IIi f/9.J f ¡:: ;{!j 50 I - 157ÎI ¡f,j e 50 FE¡¡ «!.:;;; OR I GINAL "Yrr, 1 EXH!HIT PRINTED NAME ADDRESS DATE SIGNED 5-;- 9~7/ 10, 16. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. "'It:: L..J, 26, 27, 28. 29. 30. 31, . s-: ¿::2f{JU..-L ~ h--<> ~. ~gv 7/ , , ~ C1 ì7 -7(- <.. " -~ '" 0 --Of_:: .;:',. : - ~ ~ ~ ~ , 0 ~ . .1~ \3 ~ .¡ 'I. 4. @~.... i!i -\~ ..- rf\.\"" ~\~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~\~ ~ ~~ "6,s, h "'ò '" (.'- ('ð Z"Z"O. as ~"- @'.~ ;~",:~,i~-+ ;~~ ": .~ ~ ~'" -. ï :; 'ZI'?' '" " '" ~ ~.~ ... RECEIVED /.1,\'1; 0 c,< ': 1.?!J? c'Ty'o~'hU~;-~7:CE cI,~, W4Y '" < U> N '" " ~" ~'" ~ N CD N Z 0 ;;; "U r ~ ~ :5 ¡;¡ 0 .. ~-:':"" '-5 ./ '¡: '"' "5 ~ -~ ::: - ~ "'" ~'"' ~ ;¡">i"~ I I "'; Œi'\ ._-,...~.....,~--", '---'-'" ... .;Tq_. s. / = ,.>{4..- 3' IV. /-37- ¿,/Jrl: STATE RD. NO,I - PAc. HV\ z:z:z.m<sP) ---- -DO-JOE '+'.20 ~,"." ~ ... NOO-=-31!"- Z30.SS" rl![)ERÆL JØlY t11 ~ * , I. ~ ~ '" ,~ ~ 1" C '<: ~ ':' 0: ~ 1;. Mi <», ...~ ~>: ~ ¡¡; I ~ a~ '" ." "II¡, r 0 -; OJ ~ N ," iiI '" -.~ )-~~ '" ....-;.. ~<i\ 'eJ1'~ .~ ~...-" ""';;' '6, ~Ii> "'~-;;:... s. 7. "" ----'£.~.D=8y-",p~,% ~ cO> . ------UJ -fl1'M "< ~ ~ ~ .. I. ¿¡,,",IT'S " ~ &: ~ <I~ ~ B ~ 2°" K:¿ C, O£D, .>¡. @'>¡' (.¡ -. '" ". ~ "~-CV-3:;£ ""ON5"-U£' ",.?u'- ~i: ':1.: '~'ii' ,4.'1 £1',-" f ;;.~ """,,-oo-.?"',... ~88 8 79 "< !' 1: ~ ~ " ' ~ ~ !J. "" <;:(,,1;. .J! U9.08 r c ,~- f:¡' f,r;;j; ',' " I l ¡,. " x () <n \) ()) --.¡ \D ()) Q) ::0 I Q) t- O -; I\:) DATE: June 10, 1997 TO: Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer f<,f FROM: SUBJECT: Briefing on RT A Capital Improvements BACKGROUND On November 5, 1996, voters approved the RTA proposal to develop a rapid transit system for the Puget Sound Region. This lO-year initiative generates $3.914 billion to provide express bus routes, commuter service on existing railroad tracks, and light rail transit. The attached map shows the location and description of transit improvements approved. FEDERAL WAY BENEFITS The RT A represents significant expenditures on transit improvements for the City of Federal Way. Regional express bus service improvements will begin between 1998 and 2000. Three routes will serve Federal Way. One will connect Dupont, Lakewood, Tacoma Dome, Federal Way, Star Lake, Des Moines, Boeing Access, and Downtown Seattle. A second will connect Tacoma Dome, Federal Way, Star Lake, Des Moines, and SeaTac. A third will serve Federal Way, Auburn, Kent, Renton, and Bellevue. 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. Between 2004 and 2006, direct access ramps will be constructed between the HOV lanes on 1-5 and the Federal Way Park and Ride and the Star Lake Park and Ride, for $27 million each. Another $8 million worth of improvements will also be made to improve the Star Lake Park and Ride. The RT A will also be investigating future light rail alignments for potential implementation after 2006. It is anticipated that light rail service would be extended to connect the initial light rail service between SeaTac and Tacoma Dome. COORDINATION OF RTA AND FEDERAL WAY IMPROVEMENTS Analysis of the impacts of RT A investments in Federal Way should also be considered in light of other planned improvements in Federal Way, particularly in the City Center. The City's planned improvements include the 23rd Avenue S widening project and improvements recommended by the Downtown Committee. Major private developments may include expansion of SeaTac Mall (including structured parking) and Perini! ABAM' s proposal to provide an additional 1000 parking spaces in a 5-1evel parking structure at the Federal Way Park and Ride. Within this context, the City will be working with RT A to site a Transit Center, improve the existing Park and Ride, and create direct access ramps to the HOY lanes to 1-5. This will require the negotiation and acceptance of an interlocal agreement, creating an opportunity to request RT A funding to develop a plan to coordinate and implement these improvements. RAP: rp Attachment K:\LUTC\RTA_IMPL.MEM .. ,Sound Move Downtown EJ/erønde;all OECC . ) ! , 'J As adopted May 31. 1996 Note: Full implementation of the HDV Expressway requires partnership with the Washington State Department 01 Transportation. . Provisional station subject to funding availability from within the North King County subarea. Iftllftllfl Electric Light-Rail Service Electric light-rail trains in the region's most densely-developed areas. Dashed line indicates the portion of the light-rail system that will be built if additional funding is secured. ............ Commuter Rail Service Trains using existing railroad tracks between Everett, Seattle, Tacoma and Lakewood. til~ HOV Expressway A continuous system of HOV lanes with special access ramps for transit and carpools. Diamonds indicate direct access ramps or flyer stops. Regional Express Bus Service New express bus routes using the HOV Expressway, major arterials and expanded system of park- and- ride lots. Local Bus Service Network of bus routes provided by local transit agencies. @oe Community Connections Major points where local and regional transit services connect. "P" indicates park-and-ride enhancements or new capacity. CITY OF - - = . - EJ:] E.RRL- ~~ RY" DATE: June 9, 1997 TO: Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee FROM: Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer ~ SUBJECT: Proposed 1998 - 2003 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and Arterial Street Improvement Plan (ASIP) BACKGROUND In accordance with the requirements of Chapters 35.77 and 47.26 of the Revised Code of Washington, the City of Federal Way adopted its original TIP and ASIP on July 23, 1991. The City is also 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, at a minimum, one public hearing on the revised plans which is proposed for the July 1, 1997 City Council meeting. Once the revised plans have been adopted by City Council Resolution, a copy of the respective plans must be filed with the Washington State Secretary of Transportation and the Washington State Transportation Improvement Board. REVISED PLANS Attached for your review and comment are the proposed 1998 - 2003 TIP and ASIP. This plan has been revised to separate the 6-year TIP and ASIP from the 20-year Capital Improvement Program which reflects the City's future transportation system needs. The 6-year TIP and ASIP respond to Growth Management Act concurrency requirements and the 20-year CIP allows the City to plan for transportation system needs to the 2o-year planning horizon. 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 ASIP, two of which reflect grant-funded pedestrian safety projects and two which reflect concurrency requirements. RECOMMENDATION Authorize staff to schedule a public hearing for the July 1, 1997 City Council meeting and forward to the full Council, the attached TIP and ASIP for review and adoption. RAP Attachment K:\LUTC\98-2003.tip City of Federal Way TI P Project Locations Scale: 1" = 4,500' \ [ FJr / \"i. '-'- I I ~ £ -~lJl . \711, L I J ~ ~I ~ r'- P ,~ ,..-- ~ . Puget Sound iF '=~, rr'~~~ t +. "~I--~'~--\ ~ . ~ (~,.. ~ ~ I ~ th 5 , ~ ~\~ ~ L ~ ~ ~r\ !'1 ~~.~~31 - 'g=f 'I r, ~ "}fuel I S;U .--J ~ ~ <f I ~ ~ r ¡I ~ - ,,~liI c' CII ~?i':x~jJ~ r=~-In~ ~ FJ~ ~ ." ~= ~)Stl,1 I 11Ill-!1 -~ I. 'Œ 1c .-/jb -y;¡ m> z ï~ :J~ I _-I P!D E~ ~ -- V'-5 ~:::o, 'l 53"'. IM'r . ~-" ytnDrr:'" ~ v) 0 ~ '- ~~' ~ - , ,a:n~ ~ ~ f=LiÎ r m"J&¡ ~1f1" ~ ,~~ ~ ~ ~~ »[J , r II ~ . . w- , ;;i~ If! ~mUv' - ti' J ~ ./: ~ --.¡ ,; \ \ , ,~ ~ "< W . T~ t ~ I - '\ ~ ~-I'X~~~~ l~ ~~~.:~~guh J. ~ "q~ ) =-'-: Y ~ fl.J ,-,. ~ I ,," ¡ II \ ~ '7 ,,~ ) ST IS. I" T ~ 1) ~~ -/~"Í~i:- ~ \ ~ 1 r ~,. -. ~ , II ~ ~ -. J "T. W. ~ ~- 'í - ¡= I Î ~ -Wi '-'Ï lÎor!< .'¡¡:":;L' ~ ~. I f l ~ ~ '" ~ ~ ~ '-J ]- r~ ~ --s~ -F=<- ~fJ' \ t 5 kkth~,v r- ~ r / I ~~ ~~:(£l:j~~cl~ fi;]\)'.~ I' r ,,~-~ if Æ I ,,=:j'lJ j -_:?\<t-z¡ w II;] ~- J'+. - L r-- :::o, . ~~) ~ - } lIfc-nl .r+ ~ ~ LL =!' ~ L -=~ ".. ~~ . 3..,.. ST f~~~ -- ~ I ~~t ~Ë= }¡ , !if ~ .LW - !J4. f-" èj $'- 7- ~ ~ ~1< ~ ~~I 4J . ~ ~1> ~ , ~,.. (:) - j) T &,. n, - .0 \ ~ ~J.. 0 ~" V fj ~ k -= - [J ~ r-ò~. -: > - I ~~ ' 1;1 CITY OF - -:8- E[]~ ~~ FlY" DATE: June 9, 1997 FROM: Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use & Transportation Committee Cary M. Roe, Public Works Director ~ TO: SUBJECT: Renaming of South 320th StrHt and PacHic Highway South Summary /Backaround Public Works staff was directed to prepare a recommended process for potentially renaming South 320th Street and Pacific Highway South. At the March 4, 1997 City Council meeting, the Council approved the recommended process (with the exception of Step 9/15-day appeal period) and authorized staff to proceed. An update on the process was provided to the Land Use & Transportation Committee on April 21, 1 997. The following information outlines each step in the process approved by Council and provides a summary of the activity and/or input received to date: Step 1 (Completed) - 605 surveys were mailed out on 4/18/97 to residents and businesses on South 320th Street (1-5 to 1 st A venue So) and Pacific Highway South (So 310th to So 330th); Step 2 (Comp/eted) - A telephone "hotline" for citizen input was established 4/11 /97; Step 3 (Comp/eted) - Ten (10) newspaper articles have been published in the Federal Way News and/or the News Tribune on the potential renaming; Step 4 (Comp/eted) - The Federal Way Chamber of Commerce conducted a survey at a general membership luncheon, and mailed and faxed surveys to their membership (Attached is a copy of the Chamber's Questionnaire and response summary dated 5/22/97 from Chamber Chairman, Bob WroblewskI). Public Works staff attended the recent Korean community meeting to present the renaming topic and solicit feedback. The following pages summarize responses received by the City as of June 9, 1997: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Number of responses Written Survey Phone message Other Total 181 (72.7%) 67 (26.9%) 1 (0.4%) 249 (100%) Support for Changing the name of South 320th Street Yes No N/A Total 33 (13,3%) 215 (86.3%) 1 (0.04%) 249 (100%) Support for Changing the name of Pacific Highway Yes No N/A Total 24 ( 9.6%) 222 (89.2%) 3 (1.2%) 249 (100%) CMR:jg attachments k:\lutc\rename3,mem SOUTH 320TH STREET Suggested Names Ssgment Barker Street Cascade Boulevard Center Street Commerce Street Dash Point Way/Boulevard Dual name: 320th & Main Street Federal Way Federal Way Boulevard Gateway Boulevard Sesame Street Kings Boulevard Labrash Lane Main Street Martin Luther King Boulevard Peasley Canyon Puget Sound Drive SeaTac Mall 1-5 to 1 st A venue So No response Military Road to Hoyt Road 1-5 to 1 st Avenue So 1-5 to Dash Point Road No response 1-5 to 1 st A venue So Freeway - West No response No response No response No response No response Entire No response 1-5 to Sound Entire PACIFIC HIGHWA Y SOUTH Suggested Name Segment Federal Way Federal Way Boulevard Federal Way A venue Federal Way Center Federal Way Drive Main Street Federal Way Highway Hylebos Parkway International Boulevard Jade Pacific A venue So Pacific Boulevard So Puget Sound Blvd Federal Boulevard South King Highway So 272nd to Pierce County Line Entire Two miles either side of Mall So 272nd to 1-1 8 North to South City limits North to South City limits No response No response So 308th to So 348th No response So 31 2th to So 348th So 300th to So 336th So 31 2th to So 348th No response No response k:~utc\ren.me3,mem Survey Responses (by type) Property Type (by use) Phone (67 ) Mail (181 ) , Commercial (150 ) Renaming of South 320th Street (total responses) Renaming of Pacific Highway South (total responses) Other (1 )~ No (215 ) No (222 )-"" ./ \.:..~;d:~~ll Way. ~hamber of Commerce May 22,1997 I To: ,Mayor Skip Priest 34004 16th Ave, South, Suite 101 , .. You requested, the Ch!lJ11bèr's assistance in determining the ' , business community's opinion oJ the potential name change of , 320m and Pacific Highway South. Ihe Chamber agreed to assist. Federàl Way, WA98003 The followi~g results wert:: compiled from several sources: Chamber general memþership luncheon sUrvey a mail btlt survey arid also a fax survey. T~e Chamber received '77 r~ponses. ' PO Box 3440 , QUESTIONS #1 Changing the n~me of 320th & Pàcific Hwy would create a better sen'se of com , ' , , l1)unity for our downtown area and Federal Way ~ Federal Way, WA 98063 (206) 83~-2905 Strongly DIsagree 6 Strongly Disagree 18 Disagree 9 " Disagree: 5 Neutral 12 Neutral 3 Agree .. 13 Agree 2 Strongly Agreè ' 5 St(ongly Agree 2 (206) 927-2556 FAX: (206) 661-9050 QUESTION #2 Changing the name of 320th & Pacific Hwy South is an important change and th .' e expenses incurred in doing so would be acceptable E~mail: FWCC@nwrain.com "íiiti.ñ' .r ,¡.;: .ii?~ ~'i'."":'~;'!~':1E'.";"'::)9fi'!.": '~'~.' ~'ii":'~~'.\"!':'",; '¡., ..,,' 9 ~.. "", .. "",.01 , . '~'Unç~l\I, ¡ Rãtin ,~,:::~\".....1<Qi i;§!Jr!!~Y~:iI:;, , ." ,"'" ""1, ,........_, ".,..Ii h.,I"" Strongly Disagree 7 Strongly Disagree 21 Disagree , 11 Disagree 5 Neutral, 13 Neutral 1 " Agree 9 Agree 3 Strongly Agree 4 Strongly Agree 1 , I Our Vision Ie Greater Federal Way Chamber of Commerce provides dynamic leadership, for (he business community in economic, political, educational and social decisions Additionally, the general ~pinic>n expressed by our respondents .. was: "Ho~ does this fit into the overall image/vision for Federal Way's downtown?" We believe that withoUt a de~r image/vision, developed collectivelybý thé city, business and community, .. changing the nàmes ot our downtown streets does not make sense. ,. . ~~t Greater . . ~., ~Fedéral Way --,hamber of Commerce, 34004 16th Ave, South, Suite 101 Federal Way, VýA 98003 PO Box 3440 'Federal Way, WA 98063 , (206) 838-2605 " . (206) 927-2556 FAX: (206) 661-9050 E-mail: FWCC@ nwrain.com , . Our Vision '9 Greater Federal Way Chamber of - ..immerce provides dynamic leadership for the business community in economic, . 'political, educational and social decisions / The Chamber Board of Direcrors recognizes the City's Downtown ImageNision,Retreat on: May 9th and 10th provided a good' foundation for developing an overall ImageNision for Federal Way. However, they recommended further development' of the image/visionbe completed prior to making a decision that will affect the downtown core, i.e. street name changes, etc. ' , " If the City truly wants a downtown vision to be one of community partners, we support the foÌlowing rneasure.s: ' . Abstain nom any street name changes f~r' the d~wntown core àt this time. . . , ..: . Continue to deVelop the ImageNision for downtown. The Chamber is willingtotake.a lead~rship role in facilitating the comffiunigr towards a \jsion or provide sJ,lpport'to the City. (In I990,'the Chamber co:..sponsored a Vision Summit for Federal Way. This summit'ulti~ately provided the City with valuable direction for decision making.) .'" / . Once agreement on the vision has been achieved, reexarhine the strèet name change issue, . - ." . ... . A vision that everyone has an opporruniw to develop collectively is vital to support "real" economic development (or ~the Fed~ral Wáy downtown core. ' . We trust th!'= information the Chamber has compilêd will be helpful in your decision making process. We look forward-to. working ",ìth you,in partnership for a stronger downt()wn future, ~i~ ~ì Bob Wroblewski Chåirman of Board Gr~ter Federal Way 'Chamber of Commerce Attachment ' . - STREET NAME CHANGE Res ondents C: amc:committee:evc:street.doc 05/21/97 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEMORANDUM DATE: June 3, 1997 FROM: Land Use!Transportation Committee (LUTC) Phil Watkins, Chair Mary Gates Ron Gintz ~reg Moore, Director of Community Development Services . TO: SUBJECT: Regional Finance and Governance Oversight Committee (RFGOC): Planning, Permitting and Code Enforcement Case Study This cover memo and attached Phase I report constitute a status report on this activity. No action is requested unless the LUTC deems action necessary. PROCESS BACKGROUND: 1.9..9.1 : GMPC established under authority of GMA. 1.99.6 : RFGOC established by GMPC. 1997: RFGOC establishes staff study team to prepare case study on Planning, Permitting and Code Enforcement Study. May 1997: Study Team presents Phase I report on case study to RFGOC. RFGOC authorizes options 2 and 5b for further analysis. July 3. 1997: RFGOC will review study team transitions analysis of options 2 and 5b. ? . 1997: RFGOC recommends to GMPC. CASE STUDY BACKGROUND: Attached is the Planning, Permitting and Code Enforcement Case Study. The case study reviews options and pros and cons of controlling land use in urban unincorporated areas [including potential annexation areas (PAAs)]. The options analyzed are identified below with descriptions in the attachment: Option 1: City authority, City administration Option 2: County adopts Cities' plans and regulations and City administration. County has final discretionary authority. Option 3: County adopts Cities' plans/regulations and county staff administers them in appropriate PAAs. Option 4: City administers county regulations in PAAs. County has final discretionary authority. Option 5a: Status Quo Option 5b: Enhanced Status Quo As noted above the RFGOC gave direction for further analysis on Options 2 and 5b. Options 2 and 5b are described as follows: Option 2: County adopts Cities' plans and regulations and City administration. County has final discretionary authority. Description/Observations: The Metropolitan King County Council would adopt City plans and regulations for the nearby PAA, then by interlocal agreement or contract, City staff would be empowered to make many local land use decisions. However, discretionary approvals and legislative authority continues to reside with the County Council. Updating the county code to reflect the City development codes would not be a one-time process. Subsequent changes to any City's development plan or code would require the County Council to adopt the same change for it to be in effect in the PAA. Option 5b: Enhanced Status Quo Description/Observation: This option would enact a formal mechanism to ensure communications, transfer/enforce agreements, etc. In this approach, City staff would be brought in early to discuss development and design issues, standards, etc. Formalizing the communication flow would allow City and county staff to agree on a standard and a recommendation. The focus is on improved coordination between cities and county, which will become effective with the signing of an interlocal agreement between the City and the county covering the area within the City's PAA. The study team analysis on options 2 and 5b is tentatively scheduled to go before the RFGOC on July 3, 1997. The study team analysis includes looking at transition issues such as: . Legal Issues . Administrative Issues . How to handle discretionary permits . Fees . Handling of impact fees . Existing permits Summary No action is requested of the LUTC. The process by GMPC is continuing to move. . " ... RFGOC PLANNING. PERMITTING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE STUDY PURPOSE To evaluate the alternative methods of planning, permitting, and code enforcement services for each potential annexation area and to develop a detailed transition plan should a transfer of services be selected. INTRODUCTION The Regional Finance and Governance Oversight Committee (RFGOC) was appointed by the Growth Management Planning Council of King County to develop a draft Regional and Governance Plan for King County by May 1997. This plan will present a course of action and process that will produce a strategy for how regional and local services, facilities and infrastructure investments will be financed, coordinated and governed in the future. The RFGOC has identified service areas that have unresolved issues concerning governance, finance or service delivery. One task of the RFGOC is to identify and recommend resolution of these issues and evaluate the steps necessary to implement solutions. Within this broader context, the RFGOC has determined that case studies should be conducted to gain experience and test the feasibility of redirecting service delivery, if appropriate. These case studies could serve as prototypes for detailed transition plans. For many years, cities have wanted to directly affect the land use pattern and development in nearby areas that they are likely to annex. When cities annex an area, the municipal government becomes responsible for dealing with the direct impacts (Le. traffic, storm water runoff etc.) of the development in that area, as well as aesthetic issues (design issues, signage etc). Therefore, the RFGOC identified the provision of planning, permitting and code enforcement services in the urban unincorporated areas (including Potential Annexation Areas) as a topic for further copsideration. The Studv Team Team consists of Greg Kipp, Mark Carey, Paul Reitenbach and Kevin Wright of King County, Rob Odle and Steve Cohn of Bellevue, Paul Krauss of Auburn and Rebecca Herzfeld of Seattle. Schedule The team met five times to develop the report that follows. Further analysis will be conducted by the team as directed by the RFGOC. Description of Existine System (Status Quo) Under the status quo, the county administers land use within unincorporated urban areas. The cities annex areas as the residents and/or property owners determine to do so through the annexation process.. County and city land development standards are often inconsistent to varying degrees. Most cities have designated potential annexation areas in their comprehensive plans; however, no city has reaéhed an interlocal agreement with the County to define service delivery responsibilities and fInancing of capital facilities as called for by the Countywide-Planning Policies. A few cities, such as Auburn and Issaquah, are close to completing PAA agreements. ... Impact Analvsis Approximately 28 cities in the County adjoin unincorporated urban areas or rural city urban growth areas. In addition Covington and Maple Valley (which will incorporate in August 1997) and Briarwood, Kenmore, and Sammamish (with incorporation proposals not yet voter approved) could also be affected by a change to the status quo as their borders or projected bo,rders are adjacent to unincorporated urban areas. Adopting a change to the existing system will affect different jurisdictions in different ways. Some cities are adjacent to unincorporated areas with minimal pennit activity; other cities are adjacent to areas with a great deal of pennit activity. In the development of a transition plan, data will be collected to show which cities are most likely to be affected by a change and to what degree. CASE STUDY OPTIONS As part of the case study, the study team considered the following options for the delivery of planning, pennitting and code enforcement services in the Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs): I. City authority and administration 2. County adopts cities plans and regulations; city administration 3. County adopts cities' plans and regulations; county administration 4. City administers County regulations; county has final discretionary authority 5a. Status Quo 5b. Enhanced Status Quo (improved coordination between county and cities) Each option is described below, along with a list of pros and cons for each option. (In the following discussion, the phrase "City Code" means city zoning regulations, development standards, road standards, etc.) We view these options as being on a continuum, ranging from "City authority, city administration (Option 1)", the greatest change from the status quo, to Status Quo (Option 5a) and Enhanced Status Quo (Option 5b). Option 1: City authority, city administration Description/Observations: King County would develop and pass legislation to delegate all County land use authority (planning and development review/enforcement) to the cities for their unincorporated P AA. City Councils would be responsible for discretionary approvals and all subsequent legislative actions and decisions for the area within the PAA. Pro: Gives cities complete control over development in PAA. New development would be consistent wIthe rest of the city that will likely eventually annex and serve it. Residents of PAA probably gain a stronger association withe neighboring city than the County No question as to what entity is responsible for providing pennitting and planning services Potential catalyst for annexation . City staff that is familiar with adopted regulations will admínister them, making the regulations relatively easy to administer Con: This is likely to be unworkable. Cities have no jurisdiction of their own to take land use actions in unincorporated King County. Any actions cities take in unincorporated potential annexation areas must be taken on behalf of the County. Certain decisions may not be delegated by the County to a city such as discretionary, legislative-type decisions or decisions entrusted to the county legislative authority by state statute. P AA residents do not have electoral control over city decision makers which raises issue of governance without representation May result in confusion about which entity will be providing other than planning and permitting services Option 2: County adopts cities plans and regulations and city administration. County has final discretionary authority. Description/Observations: The Metropolitan King County Council would adopt city plans and regulations for the nearby P AA, then by interlocal agreement or contract, city staff would be empowered to make many local land use decisions. However, discretionary approvals and legislative authority continues to reside with the County Council. Updating the county code to reflect the city development codes would not be a one-time process. Subsequent changes to any city's development plan or code would require the County Council to adopt the same change for it to be in effect in the PAA. Pro: Gives cities better control over development in PAA. New development would be consistent wIthe rest of the city that will probably almex and serve it. Convenient to residents and property owners in more, though not all of, the permit process Cities have more control over development in future annexed areas Could be a catalyst for annexation City staff familiar with adopted regulations. Relatively easy to administer non discretionary permits. Con: May be confusing to residents as to who is in charge City staff will need to work with two legislative bodies: City Council and County Council. May be complicated administratively - could require two ordinances to implement discretionary decisions Cities may need to revise Plans/Codes to reflect county role in city processes in P AA Questions about maintenance standards if County maintains facilities built under city standards May reduce the desire on the part of PAA residents to annex if city development standards are met Unincorporated residents may not want to be subject to City codes because they have reduced control over the legislative body that initially adopts the codes. Option 3. County adopts cities' plans/regulations and County staff administers them in appropriate P AAs. Description/Observations: By adopting the nearby city plans and regulations for the PAAs, County staff would effectively be administering multiple city codes, as well as the County plan and codes in the rural areas, Discretionary approvals and legislative decisions would reside with the County Council. Pro P AA develops consistent/compatible with codes of city that will likely annex it eventually Con County staff would need to learn multiple sets of regulations, requiring additional training/ quality control Determination of setting fees might be complicated, If there is a subsidy, who pays? Some legal work needed to adopt regulations < . Multiple codes may result in confusion to residents and heavy burden on County staff No greater convenience to County residents/developers than today Option 4: City administers County regulations in PAAs. County has final discretionary authority. Description/Observation: King County would contract with cities through interlocal agreement to provide city staff to administer the County Plan and regulations in its P AA. This approach could most readily be used on a limited basis to address unincorporated islands that are difficult for the County to serve. However, this approach may not be feasible if used countywide or for unlimited period of time. Pro: Solves an increasing problem of service delivery by County to isolated and shrinking areas. Could be useful in areas like the Green River Agricultural District (if it remains unincorporated). May work as a precursor to annexation Added convenience to nearby residents/developers and property owners Potential new revenues for cities from permit fees Legally easier than most options. Con No added compatibility with city development because standards remain different Results in extra work for Cities; payback in terms of fees (Le., the amount of subsidy needed from the general fund) and/or political benefits may not be viewed as being worth the added expense. Cost reimbursement may become an issue Public confusion with which jurisdiction has responsibility City staff would be administering two codes so this option becomes relatively complex to administer . . Option Sa: Status Quo Description/Observation: King County administers King County codes in the PAAs. There is limited informal discussion/cooperation between city and county regarding development proposed in the nearby unincorporated PAA, except when cities respond to formal notices of development proposals. Perceived lack of communications at times. Current process works some of the time to deal with development/subdivision standards; but usually doesn't work for parks or traffic impact fees or for commitment for future road construction. Pro Relatively easy to administer and explain to public . . Con Continued conflict over differing standards in P AAs No added compatibility with City, Option Sb: Enhanced Status Quo < Description/Observation: This option would enact a formal mechanism to ensure communications, transfer ¡enforce agreements etc. In this approach, city staff would be brought in early to discuss development and design issues, standards, etc. Formalizing the communication flow would allow City & County staff to agree on a standard and a recommendation, The focus is on improved coordination between cities and county, which will become effective with the signing of an interlocal agreement between the City and the County covering the area within the city's PAA. Pro Increases the likelihood of development in P AAs that is consistent with city standards Added coordination reduces the potential for communication problems or for differing perceptions between City and County staff ÇQn More complicated administratively; requires cooperation of city and County May be more time consuming for developers to obtain decisions when working with two jurisdictions Will probably increase staff time necessary to process permits. ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS In addition to review the pros and cons of each option, the committee reviewed each option in light of the following criteria: I. Ease of administration, 2. Legal constraints, 3, Increased fees, . 4. Political acceptance, 5. Whether the process would likely encourage residents to annex, 6. Does this process result in consistent development standards within and outside the city? 7. Public understanding, 8. Public convenience, and 9. Whether it encourages cities to accept annexation. Our analysis showed that every option has positive and negative aspects. As the team discussed results further, we realized that some of the criteria are very important (Le., the question as to whether an option has legal constraints), and other criteria are inconclusive (fee structures among the cities are dissimilar, so it makes comparison extremely difficult. When direct comparisons are possible, no individual jurisdiction has the highest fees a majority of the time.) Though evaluations are an inexact science, it is our conclusion that Option 5b (Enhanced Status Status Quo) will benefit the cities and the County more than the Status Quo and that Option 2 (County authority, city administration) presents more benefits and fewer drawbacks that Options 1,3, and 4. ., Therefore our recommendation is to proceed with phase 2 (developing a transition plan) for Options 2 and 5b. Recommendation We request that the Oversight Committee direct us to do a detailed study of the implementation of the following options: . . 1) Enhanced status quo (Option 5b) and 2) County authority adopts city plans and regulations and contracts with cities to provide the staff work. County Council has fmal discretionary authority. (Option 2) It is our intention that the implementation study will analyze transition issues such as: 1) likely permit activity levels by PAA, 2) appropriate linkages, 3) costs, and 4) the mechanics of accomplishing the transition. After reviewing the issues of providing planning, permitting and code enforcement services in urban unincorporated King County, we have concluded that in general, annexation is the best way to deal with the provision of urban local services in the unincorporated areas. However, to assist the transition to annexation, we suggest the two above options could be phases leading to the annexation process - perhaps through a Memorandum of Understanding followed by a Service Agreement. Though we think that these options dovetail well, we are not asking the RFGOC to accept our conclusion at this juncture. Our recommendation is that we produce additional analysis of both options so that we can provide the RFGOC members with enough information on their implementation to aid the Oversight Committee in its decision as to what final recommendations to include in the overall Regional Finance and Governance Plan.