Council PKT 06-01-2004 Special/Regular
~ federal Way
City Council Meeting
AGENDA
CO UN CILMEMBERS
Dean McColgan, Mayor
Jeanne Burbidge
Jack Dovey
Eric Faison
Jim Ferrell
Linda Kachmar
Mike Park
CITY MANAGER
David H. Moseley
Office of the City Clerk
June 1, 2004
I.
II.
III.
1.
II.
III.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
IV.
AGENDA
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers - City Hall
June 1, 2004
(www.cityoffederalway.com)
* * * * *
SPECIAL MEETING -5:00 p.m.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT BRIEFING
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 p.m.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PRESENTATIONS
Planning Commission Introduction/Certificate of Appointment
Parks & Recreation Commission/Appreciation Plaque (outgoing)
Parks & Recreation Commission Introductions/Certificates of Appointment
Introduction of New Employees/City Manager
Emerging Issues/City Manager
CITIZEN COMMENT
PLEASE COMPLETE THE PINK SLIP & PRESENT TO THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO SPEAKING.
Citizens may address City Council at this time. When recognized by the Mayor, please come forward to the
podium and state your name for the record. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR REMARKS TO THREE (3) MINUTES.
The Mayor may interrupt citizen comments that continue too long, relate negatively to other individuals, or are
otherwise inappropriate.
Over please. . .
V.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
1.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
x.
XI.
CONSENT AGENDA
Items listed below have been previously reviewed by a Council Committee of three members and brought before
full Council for approval; all items are enacted by one motion. Individual items may be removed by a
Councilmember for separate discussion and subsequent motion.
Minutes/May 18,2004 Regular Meeting
City Center Access Study/Stakeholder Selection Apþroval
Lakota Wetland Regional Stormwater Facility Imþrovements ProiectlBid
Award
West Branch & Main Stem Lakota Creek Restoration ProiectlBid Award
Enterprise Neighborhood Traffic Safety/7th Ave SW
SR 99 at So 333rd/SO 332nd Streets/Median Break
Potential Brown's Point Annexation Area
Steel Lake Soccer Field/Final Acceptance & Release of Retainage
New City Hall/Use ofProiect Savings & Contingency Funds
PUBLIC HEARING
Potential Annexation Area Subarea Plan
.
Staff Report
Citizen Comment (3-minute limit)
Council Directive to Staff
.
.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
a.
b.
Middle School Forbearance Agreement
Mutual Release & Settlement Agreement between DPK & City/23rd Ave So
Road Improvements/ So 316th St to So 324th St Project
Amendments to the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan and Federal Way
City Code Chapter 22, Article XI/Adding a Freeway Commercial Zoning
Classification
c.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
CITY MANAGER REPORT
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Potential LitigationIPursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1 )(i)
ADJOURNMENT
** THE COUNCIL MAY ADD AND TAKE ACTION ON OTHER ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA **
THE COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT CITY HALL AND
ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE UNDER "PUBLIC DOCUMENT LIBRARY"
MEETING DATE:
June I, 2004
ITEM#
~(a)
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT:
CATEGORY:
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
BUDGET IMPACT:
[g CONSENT
D RESOLUTION
D CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS
0 ORDINANCE
D PUBLIC HEARING
D OTHER
Amount Budgeted:
Expenditure Amt.:
Contingency Req'd:
$
$
$
ATTACHMENTS: Draft minutes ofthe City Council regular meeting held on May 18,2004.
SUMMARYIBACKGROUND: Official City Council meeting minutes for permanent records pursuant to RCW
requirements.
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: nJa
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move approval of the draft minutes of the City Council regular meeting held May 18, 2004"
~~;~~~~~~:-~
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
D APPROVED
D DENIED
D T ABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION
D MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
COUNCIL BILL #
1 ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
REVISED - 05/10/2001
DRAFT
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers - City Hall
May 18, 2004 - 7 :00 p.m.
Regular Meeting
I.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Mayor McColgan called the regular meeting of the Federal Way City Council to order at
the hour of7:05 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Dean McColgan, Linda Deputy Mayor Kochmar,
Councilmembers Jeanne Burbidge, Eric Faison, Jim Ferrell, and Mike Park.
Staff present: City Manager David Moseley, City Attorney Pat Richardson, City Clerk
Chris Green.
II.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor McColgan asked Principal of Federal Way High School Randy Kaczor to lead the
flag salute.
IlL
PRESENTATIONS
a.
Life Saving A ward to Citizen/Public Safety Department
Chief Kirkpatrick was pleased to announce and present Federal Way High School student
Humberto Padilla the Life Saving Award for his efforts to assist a Federal Way High
School teacher during a explosion incident. She congratulated him, and thanked him for his
bravery and quick action.
b.
Introduction of New Employees/City Manager
City Manager David Moseley was pleased to announce Tiffany Jennings as the city's
newest Court Clerk. He welcomed Ms. Jennings to the city.
c.
Emerging Issues/City Manager
City Manger David Moseley announced there were no emerging issues to discuss at
tonight's meeting.
Federal Way City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
Mayl8, 2004 - Page 2 of 10
IV.
CITIZEN COMMENT
Barry Turnbull, Dick Gulbraa, Jim Lind, Jesus Boites, (written comments read by City
Clerk) commented on the proposal for the 20th Ave to 336th road connection where
sidewalks are not added on the Westside. They asked sidewalks be on the Westside be
included for the safety of school bus passengers.
Dini Duclos, spoke in support of the Human Services recommendations before Council this
evenIng.
Laurence M . DeShields II, spoke in support of the funding allocations for Human Services
on tonight's agenda.
Nikey Treat, spoke in opposition to the Christian Faith Center project.
Herbert Goessman, spoke in support of the Christian Faith Center project.
Rick Agnew, spoke in support of the Human Services funding allocations on tonight's
agenda.
Irene Neville, (comments read into the record by City Clerk) stated opposition to the
Christian Faith Center project.
Aloise McDonald, (comments read into the record by City Clerk) stated opposition to the
Christian Faith Center project.
Debbie Willis, spoke in support ofthe Christian Faith Center project.
Bob Hitchcock, spoke to support Federal Way's Festival Days.
Shelley Leavitt, spoke in support of the Human Services funding allocations on tonight's
agenda.
Bob Griebenow, spoke in support of the Commuter Trip Reduction Incentive on tonight's
agenda.
Ron Walker, Diversity Commissioner spoke regarding the proposed Korean Sports and
Cultural Festival, he noted the Diversity Commission would be interested in review of this
item.
Susan Mowrey, Director of Federal Way Youth and Family Services, spoke in support of
Human Service funding allocations on tonight's agenda.
Barbara Reid, spoke in opposition to the proposed tagline presented to Council.
Federal Way City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
Mayl8, 2004 -Page 3 of 10
Tom Madden, spoke in support of the Brittany Lane Annexation on behalf of his
community and homeowners association.
H. David Kaplan, spoke in support of the item regarding Lakota Park, spoke support of the
intergovernmental land transfer regarding the Hylebos, and he spoke against the short
timeline of the Korean Festival.
Juliet Sykes, spoke in opposition to the Christian Faith Center project.
V.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
1.
J.
k.
1.
m.
n.
o.
p.
q.
r.
s.
CONSENT AGENDA
Minutes/May 4, 2004 Regular Meeting -Approved
Vouchers-Approved
MontWv Financial Report/March 2004-Approved
Planning Commission Appointment (unexpired term) - Pulled and
Approved Separately
Addendum One/Valley Special Response Team Interlocal Coop
J\greell1ent-Approved
Funding Allocations/Human Services One-Time Allocation & 2003-2004
Human Services General Fund Balance- Pulled and Approved Separately
2004 Interlocal Agreement/Waterfowl Management Program-Approved
Thompson Property Neighborhood Park/Approve 85 % Design-Pulled and
Approved Separately
Armstrong Property Neighborhood Park/ Approve 85 % Design Pulled and
Approved Separately
Community Center/30% Design Status Report-Approved
Amendment to Conservation Futures Intergovernmental Coop Agreement
between King County & City/Open Space Acquisition Projects-Approved
Intergovernmental Land Transfer Agreement between King County &
City/Hylebos Acquisition Program-Approved
Branding Tag Line Pulled and Approved Separately
Tourism Enhancement Grants-Approved
Ad Hoc Committee/Provide Input to City Center Redevelopment
Strategies-Approved
Retail/Commercial Consultant Services/City Center-Approved
Potential Annexation Area/North Lake - Resolution/Approved Resolution
#04-413
Potential Annexation Area/Redondo East - Resolution/Approved
Resolution #04-414 ,
Potential Annexation Area/SW Parkway - Resolution/Approved
Resolution #04-415
Federal Way City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May18, 2004 - Page 4 of 10
t.
Proposed Korean Sports & Cultural Festival Pulled and Approved
Separately
Sewer Extension/Bellacarino Woods Bid Reiection/Request to Re-Bid-
Approved
Trip Reduction Performance Incentive for Federal Way Employees-
Approved
Amendments to Countywide Planning: Policies-Approved
u.
v.
w.
COUNCILMEMBER PARK MOVED APPROV AL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
AS PRESENTED; COUNCILMEMBER FAISON SECOND.
Deputy Mayor Kochmar pulled item (d)/Planning Commission Appointment.
Councilmember Burbidge pulled items (t)/Funding Allocations/Human Services One-
Time Allocation & 2003-2004 Human Services General Fund; (h)/Thompson Property
Neighborhood Park/Approve 85% Design; and (i)/Armstrong Property Neighborhood
Park/ Approve 85 % Design.
Councilmember Ferrell pulled items (m)IBranding Tag Line; and (t)/Proposed Korean
Sports & Cultural Festival.
The motion to approve items (a), (b), (c), (e), (g), 0), (k), (1), (n), (0), (p), (q), (r), (s),
(u), (v), and (w) passed as follows:
Burbidge
Dovey
Faison
Ferrell
yes
absent
yes
yes
Kochmar
McColgan
Park
yes
yes
yes
Consent Item (d)/Planning Commission Appointment:
Deputy Mayor Kochmar wanted to announce the appointment of current Planning
Commissioner Alternate Merle Pfeifer to the Planning Commission to fill the unexpired
of Marta Justus Foldi term through September 30, 2004.
COUNCILMEMBER PARK MOVED THE APPOINTMENT OF MERLE
PFEIFER AS A VOTING MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
FILL THE UNEXPIRED TERM THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2004;
COUNCILMEMBER FERRELL SECOND. The motion passed as follows:
Federal Way City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
Mayl8, 2004 -Page 5 of 10
Burbidge
Dovey
Faison
Ferrell
yes
absent
yes
yes
Kochmar
McColgan
Park
yes
yes
yes
Consent Item (O/Funding Allocations/Human Services One-Time Allocation & 2003-
2004 Human Services General Fund Balance:
Councilmember Burbidge gave a brief report and background on this item. She noted the
following agencies receiving funding are the Multi-Service Center - Food Bank Program;
Community Health Centers of South King County - Dental Services Program; Institute
for Family Development - PACT Program; and the Federal Way Youth and Family
Services - Laurelwood Gardens.
Councilmember Ferrell announced he would recuse himself from this item, as he is a
Boardmember for Federal Way Youth and Family Services.
COUNCILMEMBER BURBIDGE MOVED APPROVAL OF THE COUNCIL
COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO FUND THE MULTI-SERVICE
CENTER'S FOOD BANK PROGRAM FOR $35,000; COMMUNITY HEALTH
CENTERS OF KING COUNTY'S DENTAL PROGRAM FOR $20,000; THE
INSTITUTE FOR FAMLY DEVELOPMENT'S PACT PROGRAM FOR $10,000;
AND FEDERAL WAY YOUTH AND F AMIL Y SERVICES F AMIL Y SUPPORT
PROGRAM FOR $10,049, FROM THE ONE- TIME HUMAN SERVICES
ALLOCATION AND 2003/2004 GENERAL FUND BALANCE TOTALING
$75,049, ALL WHICH MUST BE FULLY EXPENDED BY THE END OF 2004;
COUNCILMEMBER FAISON SECOND. The motion passed as follows:
Burbidge
Dovey
Faison
Ferrell
yes
absent
yes
recused
Kochmar
McColgan
Park
yes
yes
yes
Consent Item (h)/Thompson Property Neighborhood Park/85 % Design:
COUNCILMEMBER BURBIDGE MOVED APPROV AL OF THE THOMPSON
PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 85% DESIGN AS PRESENTED; DEPUTY
MAYOR KOCHMAR SECOND. The motion passed as follows:
Burbidge
Dovey
yes
absent
Kochmar
McColgan
yes
yes
Federal Way City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May18, 2004 -Page 6 of 10
Faison
Ferrell
yes
yes
Park
yes
Consent Item (i)/ Armstrong Property Neighborhood Park/85 % Design:
COUNCILMEMBER BURBIDGE MOVED APPROV AL OF THE ARMSTRONG
PROPERTY NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 85% DESIGN AS PRESENTED;
COUNCILMEMBER FAISON SECOND. The motion passed as follows:
Burbidge
Dovey
Faison
Ferrell
yes
absent
yes
yes
Consent Item (m)IBranding Tagline:
Kochmar
McColgan
Park
yes
yes
yes
Councilmember discussed the proposed Tag Line "Federal Way - It's all within Reach"
COUNCILMEMBER FERRELL MOVED TO OPPOSE THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION AT THIS TIME FOR A TRIAL USE OF THE TAG LINE
"IT'S ALL WITHIN REACH"; DEPUTY MAYOR KOCHMAR SECOND. The
motion failed 4-2 as follows:
Burbidge
Dovey
Faison
Ferrell
no
absent
no
yes
Kochmar
McColgan
Park
yes
no
no
COUNCILMEMBER FAISON MOVED TO ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION FOR A TRIAL USE OF THE TAG LINE "IT'S ALL
WITHIN REACH"; COUNCILMEMBER BURBIDGE SECOND. The motion
passed 4-2 as follows:
Burbidge
Dovey
Faison
Ferrell
yes
absent
yes
no
Kochmar
McColgan
Park
no
yes
yes
Consent Item (O/Proposed Korean Sports & Cultural Festival:
Councilmember Ferrell noted he agreed with the concern expressed by citizens. He
supported sending the item to the Diversity Commission.
Federal Way City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May18, 2004 -Page 7 of 10
COUNCILMEMBER FERRELL MOVED TO SEND THE PROPOSED KOREAN
SPORTS AND CULTURAL FESTIVAL TO THE DIVERSITY COMMISSION
FOR REVIEW; DEPUTY MAYOR KOCHMAR SECOND FOR DISCUSSION
PURPOSES. The motion failed 5-1 as follows:
Burbidge
Dovey
Faison
Ferrell
no
absent
no
yes
Kochmar
McColgan
Park
no
no
no
COUNCILMEMBER P ARK MOVED TO APPROVE THE HOSTING OF A
KOREAN SPORTS AND CULTURAL FESTIVAL IN 2005, INCLUDING THE
EXPENDITURE OF UP TO APPROXIMATELY $176,000 IN LODGING TAX
REVENUE TOWARDS THIS EVENT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE
FINANCE/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTIREGIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE;
DEPUTY MAYOR KOCHMAR SECOND. The motion passed 4-2 as follows:
Burbidge
Dovey
Faison
Ferrell
yes
absent
yes
no
Kochmar
McColgan
Park
VI.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
yes
no
yes
a.
Parks & Recreation Commission Appointments
Councilmember Burbidge thanked all who applied for the Parks and Recreation
Commission.
COUNCILMEMBER BURBIDGE MOVED THE APPOINTMENT OF DON
DENNIS, GEORGE PFEIFFER, AND JOEL HOWITT TO THREE YEAR
COMMISSIONER TERMS EXPIRING APRIL 30, 2007; FURTHER MOVED THE
APPOINTMENT OF DAVID TALCOTT TO A TWO YEAR APPOINTMENT
THROUGH APRIL 30, 2006; AND MOVED THE APPOINTMENT OF FRED
KONKELL TO A ONE YEAR APPOINTMENT THROUGH APRIL 30, 2005; AND
THE APPOINTMENT OF MARIE SCIACQUA AND TOM MEDHURST TO
ALTERNATE APPOINTMENTS THROUGH APRIL 30, 2007; MAYOR
MCCOLGAN SECOND. The motion passed as follows:
Burbidge
Dovey
Faison
Ferrell
yes
absent
yes
yes
Kochmar
McColgan
Park
yes
yes
yes
Federal Way City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 18, 2004 - Page 8 of 10
b.
Community Center 2%-for-Art Exterior & Interior Artist
Recreation Superintendent Mary Faber gave a brief slide show and introduced the artist.
COUNCILMEMBER BURBIDGE MOVED APPROV AL OF THE COMMUNITY
CENTER 2% FOR ART EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR ARTIST AS PRESENTED;
COUNCILMEMBER FAISON SECOND. The motion passed as follows:
Burbidge yes Kochmar yes
Dovey absent McColgan yes
Faison yes Park yes
Ferrell yes
c. 23rd Ave So at So 314th St Project
Deputy Public Works Director Ken Miller gave a brief report on this item. He noted due to
miscellaneous delays and the requirement to award this project by the end of May, the
project did not go through the Land Use/Transportation Committee. He further added the
lowest responsive, responsible bidder is Potelco Inc in the amount of $214,373.18, which is
over the engineers estimate. He suggested funding the shortfall with unallocated CIP funds.
COUNCILMEMBER FAISON MOVED TO AWARD THE 23RD AVENUE S AT S
314TH STREET TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROJECT TO POTELCO INC, THE LOWEST
RESPNOSIVE, RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, IN THE AMOUNT OF $214,373.18 AND
APPROVE A 10% CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY OF $21,437.31 FOR A
TOT AL OF $235,810.50; AND FURTHER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE
TRANSFER OF $37,292.49 FROM THE STREETS DIVISION'S UNALLOCA TED
CAPITAL PROJECT BUDGET INTO THIS PROJECT'S BUDGET, AND
AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT;
COUNCILMEMBER PARK SECOND. The motion passed as follows:
Burbidge
Dovey
Faison
Ferrell
yes
absent
yes
yes
Kochmar
McColgan
Park
yes
yes
yes
VII.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Mayor McColgan reported on his attendance at various community events including the
Students of Distinction put on by the Federal Way Mirror, and the ground-breaking
ceremony ofthe EX3 which is a joint project of the Boys and Girls Club and the School
District. He further noted the Economic Development Committee has joined with the
Federal Way City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May18, 2004 - Page 9 of 10
Chamber's Economic Vitality Committee to become one meeting that meets the first
Thursday of each month at 7:30 a.m.
Councilmember Burbidge reported on her attendance at various regional meetings and local
transportation related items. She encouraged citizens to attend the many local performances
in the community.
Councilmember Faison thanked the Council for passing the annexation items on tonight's
agenda, noting those three items would be going to the ballot. He also reported meetings
will be set up in those areas to better inform citizens. He announced the next meeting of the
Finance/Economic Development/Regional Affairs Committee would be meeting Tuesday,
May 25th at 5:30 p.m. He also noted a special meeting will be held on June 3rd regarding the
downtown, the time has yet to be determined.
Councilmember Ferrell also noted his attendance at the Students of Distinction, and stated
it was a wonderful event. He encouraged citizens to come to the next Land
Use/Transportation Committee meeting and the upcoming Public Hearing regarding the
Christian Faith Center project. Both meetings are Monday, May 24th.
Councilmember Park also reported on his attendance at various regional meetings including
the South Sound Tourism Networking Summit. He further reported on the Sister City
Association who is currently looking to increase the number of members and increase
awareness of the Sister City. He announced there would be a meeting at the Borders Book
Store on May 22nd at 3:00 p.m.; anyone interested is encouraged to attend.
Councilmember Kochmar thanked staff members Kathy McClung and Grace Skidmore
who received a letter of appreciation from a citizen. She congratulated Wal-Mart for
receiving the Most Admired Company in America for the second year in a row. She
encouraged everyone to participate in Flag Day, June lzth at the Aquatics Center.
VIII.
CITY MANAGER REPORT
City Manager David Moseley reported the Public Hearing regarding the Christian Faith
Center project will be held Monday, May 24th at 7:00 p.m. Staff reports are available for
viewing at City Hall or on the city's website. He also noted there would be a Land
Use/Transportation Committee meeting preceding the Public Hearing at 5:00p.m.
Mr. Moseley reported on the various Public Works projects including the overlay at Pacific
Highway and 288th, Phase II at HWY 99; and the Weyerhaeuser roundabout project. He
asked citizens to please drive carefully during construction, and thanked them for their
patience.
Federal Way City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May18, 2004 - Page 10 of 10
He further reminded the Council of the need for an Executive Session for the purpose of
discussing Potential Litigation/Pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1 )(i); for approximately fifteen
minutes.
IX.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 9:22 p.m. Mayor McColgan announced the Council would be recessing into Executive
Session for the purpose of discussing Potential Litigation/Pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1 )(i)
for approximately fifteen minutes.
Potential LitigationlPursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1 )(i)
At 9:40 p.m. Assistant City Manager Derek Matheson extended Executive Session for
another five minutes.
Council returned to Chambers at 9:47 p.m.
x.
ADJOURNMENT
There being nothing further to come before the Federal Way City Council, Mayor
McColgan adjourned the regular meeting at 9:47 p.m.
Stephanie Courtney, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
MEETING DATE:
June I, 2004
ITEM# 1[( b )
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT:
CATEGORY:
City Center Access Study - Stake Holder Selection Approval
BUDGET IMPACT:
[g CONSENT
0 RESOLUTION
0 CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS
0 ORDINANCE
0 PUBLIC HEARING
0 OTHER
Amount Budgeted:
Expenditure Amt.:
Contingency Req'd:
$
$
$
ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated May 24,2004, stakeholder
criteria scoring sheet and final stakeholder candidate ranking sheet.
SUMMARYIBACKGROUND: The City of Federal Way provided a media campaign to solicit participation for
stakeholder team members for the City Center Access Study. A town Meeting was held on April 28, 2004 to present the
project and solicit participation.
Staff has received eleven requests and/or inquiries for stakeholder placement, which were scored using the Council-
approved selection process. Of the eleven candidates, nine were recommended for inclusion in the stakeholder team; one
of those nine has instead asked to be placed on a citizen infonnation list.
...............-..............
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: At its May 24,2004 meeting, the Land Use and
Transportation Committee recommended approval of the eight recommended candidates to the Stakeholder Team, based
on criteria and scoring previously approved by Council.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve the eight candidates represented on the attachment and further move to
request each Council member to appoint two individuals to the Citizen Committee.
................................G\t~
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: -~
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
0 APPROVED
0 DENIED
0 T ABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION
0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
COUNCIL BILL #
1 ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
REVISED - 0511 0/200 I
~
CITY OF ." ~
Federal Way
DATE:
May 24, 2004
TO:
Jack Dovey, Chair
Land Use and Transportation Committee
FROM:
Maryanne Zukowski, P.E., Senior Traffic Engineer
~/YIf(
SUBJECT:
David H. M~M Manager
City Center ACC~:5 S\UdY - Stake Holder Selection Approval
VIA:
BACKGROUND: The City Center Access Study is a project study to determine viable access feasibility solutions
to the congested access interchange at S. 320th Street, Interstate 5, and the Federal Way City Center. If a
successful and viable solution is found, Federal Way will proceed in developing an Access Point Decision Report
(APDR) to submit to WSDOT. With City and State approval, the report will go to Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). An APDR is the initial step required by the FHWA before changing an interstate highway interchange.
The City of Federal Way provided a media campaign to solicit participation for stakeholder team members for the
City Center Access Study. A press release was announced in eight newspapers, a legal notice was published in
the Federal Way Mirror, the City of Federal Way Web site carries a notice of the solicitation, a written article was
placed in the Federal Way Mirror, and a Town Meeting was held on May 28, 2004 to present the project and
solicit participation. Attached is a copy of the attendees at this meeting, also invited to attend were the News
Tribune and Federal Way Mirror.
Staff has received eleven requests and/or inquiries for stakeholder placement, which were scored using the
Council-approved selection process. Of the eleven candidates, nine were recommended for inclusion in the
stakeholder team; one of those nine has instead asked to be placed on a citizen information list. Attached to this
memorandum are the criteria scoring and final ranking sheets.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Committee forward the following recommendation to the June 1,
2004 City Council Consent Agenda:
Approval of the eight stakeholders as listed on the attached ranking sheet.
,A~ 5((~"~ yY\.u\,~ -tv '('fS(Vle~.:y eAL~ Cc-+'1.tìld ~_~(d- +0
j ~#\P,~ROV ALgfo~O~ MITTEE REPORT:
il',jê( ",, ,'" ,
,'l:"
, '
',', ,
w, ..'" '
,.,'~~j:t
.' ~: ?\t\...,,~ ...
Eric Faisòri, Member , .
.. , , /:~:,t". ;"." :'.>'
C\1?"'l'hi-f -1wu If\¿\~lIl~l5 -fo ~k C,'\<:-c" ~ ~1')1l\HC':e-
MAZ:kk
cc:
Project File
Central Ale
City Center Access Study
Citizen Contact List Stakeholder Member List
Sandy Paul-Lyle I Yes I 10 I 10 I 10 I 10 I 10 I 50 I Yes
H. David Kaplan Yes 10 I 10 I 10 10 I 10 I 50 I Yes
Larry Paterson Yes 10 I 0 I 10 I 10 I 0 I 30 I Yes
Charles O'Donnell I Yes 10 10 10 30 I Yes
Scott Chase I No; e-mail request at an earlier 10 10 6 26 I Yes
date
No - attended town meeting and
Mike Klingman I e-mail request at at an earlier I 10 I 10 I 6 I not given I not given I 26 I Yes
date
Hope Elder No; e-mail request at at an I not given I not given I 8 I 5 I 5 I 18 I Yes
earlier date
Geoffrey Converse Kelly Yes 10 I 0 I 5 I 0 0 I 15 I Yes
Barbara Reid No - attended town meeting 10 I 10 I 6 I 10 I 10 I 46 I NO**
Tom Barton* I No; asked for info but no I I I I I I 0 I NO
response
Carla LaStella* I No; asked for info but no I I I I I I 0 I NO
response
I
*Recommended for placement on citizen contact list
**Requested placement on citizen contact list - does not wish to be a stakeholder
City Center Access Study
. Process and Committee Structure
STAKE HOLDER SELECTION PROCESS
2-04-04
Revised per LUTC comments 4-05-04
Stakeholder Selection Criteria:
Low = 0 Medium = 5 High = 10
1.
Resident and/or Land Owner with in the City limits.
D
D
2.
Resident within the the Study Area (attached.)
3. Knowledge of the City of Federal Way. D
-History
-Land Use / Environmental
-Transportation
-Civic
-Economic
4. Represents Interest or Neighborhood Group. D
5. Previous Volunteer Act ivies in Civic Duty. D
C:\Documents and Settings\default\Desktop\Stakeholders.doc
MEETING DATE:
June 1, 2004
ITEM#
'IE (c )
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT:
Lakota Wetland Regional Stormwater Facility Improvements Project - Bid Award
CATEGORY:
BUDGET IMPACT:
¡g¡ CONSENT
0 RESOLUTION
0 CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS
0 ORDINANCE
0 PUBLIC HEARING
0 OTHER
Amount Budgeted:
Expenditure Amt.:
Contingency Req'd:
$
$
$
ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated May 24,2004.
SUMMARYIBACKGROUND: Council gave authorization to bid this project on March 16, 2004. Seven bids were
received and opened on April 26, 2004. The apparent lowest responsive, responsible bidder is Lloyd Enterprises, Inc.,
with a total bid of $239,461.20. This is approximately 80% of the engineer's estimate, a cost savings of over $57,000.00.
Reference checks by staff on the low bidder indicate that this contractor has successfully perfonned similar work. As a
result, staff believes Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. can successfully complete this project to the City's satisfaction. Therefore, the
lowest responsive, responsible bidder is Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of $239,461.20.
The total project costs are $917,055.20. Available funding, including the King County Conservation Future Grant, is
$961,370.00.
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: At its May 24, 2004 meeting, the Land Use and
Transportation Committee made the following recommendations:
.
Award the Lakota Wetland Regional Stonnwater Facility Improvements Project to Lloyd Enterprises,
Inc., the lowest responsive, responsible bidder; in the amount of $239,461.20, and approve a 10%
construction contingency of $23,946 for a total funded amount of $263,407.00.
.
Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract with Lloyd Enterprises, Inc.
..............
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to award the Lakota Wetland Regional Stonnwater Facility Improvements Project to
Lloyd Enterprises, Inc., the lowest responsive, responsible bidder; in the amount of $239,461.20, and approve a 10%
construction contingency of $23,946 for a total funded amount of $263,407.00. I further move to authorize the City
Manager to execute the contract.
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
~~
~
CITY OF , ~
Federal Way
DATE:
May 24,2004
FROM:
Jack Dovey, Chair
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Paul A. Bucich, P.E., SWM Manager ~
David H. MOS~ager
Lakota Wetland Regional Stormwater Facility Improvements project- Bid Award
TO:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND:
Council gave authorization to bid this project on March 16, 2004. Seven bids were received and opened on
April 26, 2004. The apparent lowest responsive, responsible bidder is Lloyd Enterprises, Inc., with a total bid
of $239,461.20. This is approximately 80% of the engineer's estimate; a cost savings of over $57,000.00.
Reference checks by staff on the low bidder indicate that this contractor has successfully performed similar
work. As a result, staff believes Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. can successfully complete this project to the City's
satisfaction. Therefore, the lowest responsive, responsible bidder is Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of
$239,461.20.
PROJECT FUNDING:
The project is funded as follows.
Design
Year 2004 Construction
10% Construction Contingency
Construction Management
Environmental Site Assessment
Appraisal
Acquisition
$116,039.00
239,461.20
23,946.00
44,100.00
4,100.00
11,600.00
477,809.00
$917,055.20
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
AVAILABLE FUNDING:
King County Conservation Future Grant
SWM Utility Fund
$194,000.00
767,370.00
$961,370.00
TOTAL AVAILABLE BUDGET
May 17, 2004
Recommendation to Award - Lakota Wetland Regional Stormwater Facility Improvements Project
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests that the Committee place the following project recommendations on the June 1, 2004 City
Council Consent Agenda:
.
Award the Lakota Wetland Regional Stormwater Facility Improvements Project to Lloyd
Enterprises, Inc., the lowest responsive, responsible bidder; in the amount of $239,461.20, and
approve a 10% construction contingency of $23,946 for a total funded amount of $263,407.00.
.
Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract with Lloyd Enterprises, Inc.
APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORT:
------
cc:
Project File
Central File
K:\LUTC\2004\RFBO4-102 LUTC BidAward- LakotaWetiand Drainagelmpr.doc
Unit Bid Tabulations Estimated Probable Cost
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
Capital Improvement Project
RFB#: 04-102 Project Title: Lakota Wetland Regional Stormwater Facility Impr.
Prepared by: J. Wolf Date: 4/29/04
Engineer's Unit Price
Estimate
Bid Plan Estim. Price Low Low Bid- Unit Price 2nd Bid- Unit Price 3rd Bid- Unit Price 4th Bid.
Item Description Unit Qty. Unit Price Extension Bidder Item Total 2nd Bid Item Total 3rd Bid Item Total 4th Bid Item Total
Harlow
Lloyd SCI Construction
Contractor Name and bid comments: Enterprises Infrastructure Inc. Americon Inc.
1 Mobilization LS. I 19,475 $ 19,475 $ 23,000.00 $ 23,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 17,151.78 $ 17,151.78
2 Clearing And Grubbing ACRE 1.89 4,500 $ 9,253 $ 7,400.00 $ 13,986.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 10,395.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 15,120.00 $ 6,625.98 $ 12,523.10
3 Removal Of Structure And Obstruction LS. 1 3,264 $ 3,264 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 88,000.00 $ 88,000.00 $ 1,656.50 $ 1,656.50
4 Unsuitable Foundation Exc. Incl. Haul CY. 610 25 $ 16,592 $ 20.00 $ 12,200.00 $ 30.00 $ 18,300.00 $ 10.00 $ 6,100.00 $ 13.09 $ 7,984.90
5 Ditch Excavation Incl. Haul CY. 370 30 $ 12,077 $ 11.00 $ 4,070.00 $ 19.50 $ 7,215.00 $ 10.00 $ 3,700.00 $ 16.88 $ 6,245.60
6 Crushed Surfacing Top Course TON 150 50 $ 8,160 $ 16.50 $ 2,475.00 $ 30.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 20.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 18.73 $ 2,809.50
7 Low Permeability Fill CY. 2,110 30 $ 68,870 $ 20.00 $ 42,200.00 $ 25.00 $ 52,750.00 $ 20.00 $ 42,200.00 $ 25.79 $ 54,416.90
8 Topsoil Type A CY. 735 45 $ 35,986 $ 26.40 $ 19,404.00 $ 24.00 $ 17,640.00 $ 16.00 $ 11,760.00 $ 38.75 $ 28,481.25
9 Shoring Or Extra Excavation CI. B S.F. 600 2 $ 1,306 $ 1.00 $ 600.00 $ 19.00 $ 11,400.00 $ 0.50 $ 300.00 $ 4.86 $ 2,916.00
10 Corrugated Polyethylene Storm Sewer LF. 26 30 $ 849 $ 20.00 $ 520.00 $ 55.00 $ 1,430.00 $ 30.00 $ 780.00 $ 37.74 $ 981.24
11 Corg. Poly. Storm Sewer Pipe 18" Dia. LF. 60 45 $ 2,938 $ 29.00 $ 1,740.00 $ 55.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 40.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 46.02 $ 2,761.20
12 Catch Basin Type 1 EACH 2 1,000 $ 2,176 $ 700.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 900.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 1,100.00 $ 2,200.00 $ 1,528.92 $ 3,057.84
13 Catch Basin Type 2 48 In. Diam. EACH 2 3,000 $ 6,528 $ 2,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 2,600.00 $ 5,200.00 $ 2,707.50 $ 5,415.00
14 Connection To Drainage Structure EACH 1 750 $ 816 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 800.00 $ 800.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ 1,038.45 $ 1,038.45
15 Temporary Water Pollution/Erosion LS. 1 6,528 $ 6,528 $ 12,450.00 $ 12,450.00 $ 26,000.00 $ 26,000.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 2,146.97 $ 2,146.97
16 Seeding And Establishment ACRE 1.71 2,000 $ 3,721 $ 1,500.00 $ 2,565.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 2,223.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 5,130.00 $ 6,562.02 $ 11,221.05
17 Straw Blanket Mulch S.Y. 2,960 1.50 $ 4,831 $ 1.32 $ 3,907.20 $ 1.25 $ 3,700.00 $ 1.30 $ 3,848.00 $ 1.96 $ 5,801.60
18 Landscaping LS. 1 8,160 $ 8,160 $ 13,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 1,745.24 $ 1,745.24
19 Control Structure LS. 1 20,128 $ 20,128 $ 17,500.00 $ 17,500.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 27,646.15 $ 27,646.15
20 Pile Cap And Piles LS. 1 11,424 $ 11 ,424 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 19,545.83 $ 19,545.83
21 Construction Geotextile S.Y. 2,350 3 $ 7,670 $ 1.00 $ 2,350.00 $ 1.20 $ 2,820.00 $ 0.90 $ 2,115.00 $ 3.44 $ 8,084.00
22 Crushed Surfacing Base Course TON 490 22 $ 11 ,729 $ 27.00 $ 13,230.00 $ 19.00 $ 9,310.00 $ 14.00 $ 6,860.00 $ 22.18 $ 10,868.20
23 Overflow Spillway LS. I 3,264 $ 3,264 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 3,473.30 $ 3,473.30
24 Cement Concrete Sidewalk S.Y. 7 25 $ 190 $ 82.00 $ 574.00 $ 105.00 $ 735.00 $ 40.00 $ 280.00 $ 247.12 $ 1,729.84
25 Cement Concrete Curb And Gutter LF. 12 20 $ 261 $ 50.00 $ 600.00 $ 62.00 $ 744.00 $ 25.00 $ 300.00 $ 110.41 $ 1,324.92
26 Trash Rack EA 3 250 $ 816 $ 290.00 $ 870.00 $ 475.00 $ 1,425.00 $ 200.00 $ 600.00 $ 1,779.87 $ 5,339.61
27 Track Cinder Replacement LS. 1 10,880 $ 10,880 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 29,442.25 $ 29,442.25
28 Temporary Construction Fence LF. 1,600 2 $ 3,482 $ 2.20 $ 3,520.00 $ 3.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 1.30 $ 2,080.00 $ 2.78 $ 4,448.00
29 Shot Put Pad And Landing Zone LS. 1 5,440 $ 5,440 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 7,326.66 $ 7,326.66
30 Force Account EST 1 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL: $296,812.92 $239,461.20 $282,287.00 $289,273.00 $297,582.89
K:\SWM\projects\Lakota Wetland\Bid File\RFB04-102 BidTabs (4-26-04 Bid) for LUTC.xls
Printed: 5/17/2004
Unit Bid Tabulations Estimated Probable Cost
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
Capital Improvement Project
RFB#:O4-102 Project Title: Lakota Wetlanl
Prepared by: J. Wolf Date: 4/29/04
Bid Plan Unit Price 5th Bid- Unit Price 6th Bid- Unit Price 7th Bid-
Item Description Unit Qty. 5th Bid Item Total 6th Bid Item Total 7th Bid Item Total
A-1
Landscaping & VLS Westwater
Contractor Name and bid comments: Constr. Construction Construction
1 Mobilization LS. I $ 28,900.00 $ 28,900.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00
2 Clearing And Grubbing ACRE 1.89 $ 5,000.00 $ 9,450.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 34,020.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 7,560.00
3 Removal Of Structure And Obstruction LS. I $ 7,800.00 $ 7,800.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00
4 Unsuitable Foundation Exc. Incl. Haul c.Y. 610 $ 29.00 $ 17,690.00 $ 30.00 $ 18,300.00 $ 25.00 $ 15,250.00
5 Ditch Excavation Incl. Haul C.Y. 370 $ 29.00 $ 10,730.00 $ 30.00 $ 11,100.00 $ 30.00 $ 11,100.00
6 Crushed Surfacing Top Course TON 150 $ 28.00 $ 4,200.00 $ 30.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 20.00 $ 3,000.00
7 Low Permeability Fill c.Y. 2,110 $ 22.00 $ 46,420.00 $ 50.00 $ 105,500 $ 65.00 $ 137,150
8 Topsoil Type A c.y. 735 $ 26.00 $ 19,110.00 $ 30.00 $ 22,050.00 $ 30.00 $ 22,050.00
9 Shoring Or Extra Excavation CI. B S.F. 600 $ 5.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 1.00 $ 600.00 $ 1.00 $ 600.00
10 Corrugated Polyethylene Storm Sewer LF. 26 $ 22.00 $ 572.00 $ 300.00 $ 7,800.00 $ 170.00 $ 4,420.00
11 Corg. Poly. Storm Sewer Pipe 18" Dia. LF. 60 $ 45.00 $ 2,700.00 $ 40.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 140.00 $ 8,400.00
12 Catch Basin Type 1 EACH 2 $ 1,800.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000.00
13 Catch Basin Type 2 48 In. Diam. EACH 2 $ 8,800.00 $ 17,600.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 6,000.00
14 Connection To Drainage Structure EACH 1 $ 880.00 $ 880.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
15 Temporary Water Pollution/Erosion LS. 1 $ 12,400.00 $ 12,400.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00
16 Seeding And Establishment ACRE 1.71 $ 6,500.00 $ 11,115.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,710.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 2,565.00
17 Straw Blanket Mulch S.Y. 2,960 $ 3.50 $ 10,360.00 $ 2.00 $ 5,920.00 $ 2.00 $ 5,920.00
18 Landscaping LS. I $ 48,700.00 $ 48,700.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00
19 Control Structure LS. I $ 6,800.00 $ 6,800.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 22,000.00
20 Pile Cap And Piles LS. 1 $ 7,890.00 $ 7,890.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 18,000.00
21 Construction Geotextile S.Y. 2,350 $ 3.50 $ 8,225.00 $ 2.00 $ 4,700.00 $ 1.00 $ 2,350.00
22 Crushed Surfacing Base Course TON 490 $ 27.00 $ 13,230.00 $ 25.00 $ 12,250,00 $ 30.00 $ 14,700.00
23 Overflow Spillway LS. 1 $ 6,100.00 $ 6,100.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00
24 Cement Concrete Sidewalk S.Y. 7 $ 60.00 $ 420.00 $ 50.00 $ 350.00 $ 100.00 $ 700.00
25 Cement Concrete Curb And Gutter LF. 12 $ 45.00 $ 540.00 $ 50.00 $ 600.00 $ 50.00 $ 600.00
26 Trash Rack EA 3 $ 800.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 400.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 400.00 $ 1,200.00
27 Track Cinder Replacement LS. 1 $ 4,580.00 $ 4,580.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00
28 Temporary Construction Fence LF. 1,600 $ 3.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 5.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 2.00 $ 3,200.00
29 Shot Put Pad And Landing Zone LS. 1 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
30 Force Account EST I $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00
$ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ -
$ . $ - $ -
IUIAL.: $323,712.00 $367,000.00 $375,765.00
K:\SWM\projects\Lakota Wetland\Bid File\RFB04-102 BidTabs (4-26-04 Bid) for LUTC.xls
Printed: 5/17/2004
MEETING DATE:
June 1,2004
ITEM# .YCd.)
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT:
West Branch and Main Stem Lakota Creek Restoration Project - Bid Award
CATEGORY:
l8J CONSENT
D RESOLUTION
D CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS
BUDGET IMPACT:
D ORDINANCE
D PUBLIC HEARING
D OTHER
Amount Budgeted:
Expenditure Amt.:
Contingency Req'd:
$
$
$
ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated March 24,2004.
SUMMARYIBACKGROUND: Council gave authorization to bid this project on April 6, 2004. Three bids were
received and opened on April 26, 2004. The apparent lowest responsive, responsible bidder is Wagner Development, Inc.,
with a total bid of $792,511. This is approximately 80% of the engineer's estimate and a cost savings of over $172,000.
Reference checks by staff on the low bidder indicate that this contractor has successfully performed similar work. As a
result, staff believes Wagner Development, Inc. can successfully complete this project to the City's satisfaction.
Therefore, the lowest responsive, responsible bidder is Wagner Development, Inc. in the amount of $792,511.
The total project costs are $1,271,213.00. Available funding totals $2,079,977.00
................................
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: At its May 24,2004 meeting, the Land Use and
Transportation Committee made the following recommendations:
.
Award the West Branch and Main Stem Lakota Creek Restoration Project to Wagner Development, Inc.,
the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, in the amount of $792,511.00, and approve a 10% construction
contingency of$79,251 for a total funded amount of$871,762.00.
Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract.
.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to award the West Branch and Main Stem Lakota Creek Restoration Project to
Wagner Development, Inc., the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, in the amount of $792,511.00, and approve a 10%
construction contingency of $79,251 for a total funded amount of $871,762.00. I further move to authorize the City
Manager to execute the contract.
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
(BELOW TO BE OMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
D APPROVED
D DENIED
D TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION
D MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
COUNCIL BILL #
1ST d.
rea mg
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
REVISED.... 05/10/2001
May 17, 2004
Recommendation to Award - West Branch and Main Stem Lakota Creek Restoration Project
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests that the Committee place the following project recommendations on the June 1, 2004 City
Council Consent Agenda:
.
Award the West Branch and Main Stem Lakota Creek Restoration Project to Wagner
Development, Inc., the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, in the amount of $792,511.00, and
approve a 10% construction contingency of $79,251 for a total funded amount of $871,762.00.
.
Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract.
",,*,APPROV AL OF. COM MITTEE REP,ORT:
.; '.. . "."" .'.
,. .. . . .
"'" IÞ
. .
~
: "', ri~F~iSOn,Member
PB:jw
cc:
Project File
Central File
K:\LUTC\2004\RFB04-1O4 LUTC BidAward- LakotaCreekRestorationlmpr.doc
Unit Bid Tabulations Estimated Probable Cost
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
Capital Improvement Project
RFB#: 04-104 Project Title: Lakota Creek Restoration Project
Pre¡ared bv J. Woff Date: 4/27/04
Oescrlptlon Engineer's
Engineer's Estimate Unit Price
Bid Plan Estimated Price Low Low Bid- Unit Price 2nd Bid- Unit Price 3rd Bid-
Item Unit Qty. Unit Price extension Bidder Item Total 2nd Bid Item Total 3rd Bid Item Total
Wagner
Development Westwater
Contractor Name and bid comments: Inc. Constr. Inc. CWWllllams
1 Surveying LS. I $29.376 $ 29,376 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10.000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 7,700.00 $ 7,700.00
2 Temp. Water Pollution/Erosion Control LS. I $62.560 $ 62,560 $ 50,000.00 $ 50.000.00 $ 15,00000 $ 15,000.00 $ 34,000.00 $ 34,00000
3 Utilities Locate and Protection LS. I $16,320 $ 16,320 $ 1,700.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 8,450.00 $ 8,450.00
4 Diversion and Care of Water LS. 1 $54,944 $ 54.944 $ 8.500.00 $ 8,500.00 $ 25.000.00 $ 25.000.00 $ 29.500.00 $ 29.500.00
5 Force Account DOL I $25,000 $ 25,000 $25,000 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25.000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00
6 Mobilization LS. 1 $67,456 $ . 67,456 $ 65,000.00 $ 65.000.00 $ 85,00000 $ 85,000.00 $ 65,200.00 $ 65,200.00
7 Temporary Traffic Control LS. 1 $117,373 $ 117,373 $ 35.000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 103,930 $ 103,930
8 Clearing and Grubbing ACRE 1.3 $8,700 $ 12,305 $ 21,000.00 $ 27,300.00 $ 15.000.00 $ 19.500.00 $ 34,600.00 $ 44.980.00
9 Removal of Structure and Obstruction LS. I $25,089 $ 25,089 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10.000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 18,200.00 $ 18,200.00
10 Exc. incl. Haul,Stockpile,Place&Dispose LS. I $65,498 $ 65,498 $ 76,000.00 $ 76,000.00 $ 248,000 $ 248.000 $ 90,400.00 $ 90,400.00
11 Compacted Imported Embankment Fill TON 615 $18 $ 12,044 $ 36.00 $ 22.140.00 $ 18.00 $ 11,07000 $ 20.80 $ 12,792.00
12 Streambed Gravel TON 537 $25 $ 14.606 $ 73.00 $ 39,201.00 $ 25.00 $ 13,425.00 $ 65.30 $ 35.066.10
13 Gravel/Cobble Mix TON 393 $35 $ 14,965 $ 12.00 $ 28,296.00 $ 30.00 $ 11,790.00 $ 65.25 $ 25,643.25
14 Cobble/Boulder Mix TON 1,300 $45 $ 63,648 $ 72.00 $ 93.600.00 $ 39.00 $ 50.700.00 $ 67.70 $ 88,010.00
15 12" Boulders TON 253 $70 $ 19,268 $ 72.00 $ 18.216.00 $ 80.00 $ 20,240.00 $ 67.50 $ 17,077.50
16 24' Boulders TON 26 $100 $ 2,829 $ 75.00 $ 1,950.00 $ 100.00 $ 2,600.00 $ 67.95 $ 1,76670
17 Rock/Branch Matrix LS. 1 $2,720 $ 2.720 $ 1,SOO.00 $ 1.SO0.00 $ 1.SO0.00 $ 1.SO0.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00
18 Geotextile S.Y. 1,195 $3 $ 3,900 $ 3.00 $ 3,585.00 $ 2.00 $ 2,390.00 $ 7.35 $ 8,783.25
19 Crushed Surlacing TON 1I3 $35 $ 4,303 $ 30.00 $ 3,390.00 $ 20.00 $ 2,260.00 $ 34.75 $ 3,92675
20 Asphalt Treated Base TON 225 $75 $ 18,360 $ 50.00 $ 11.250.00 $ 80.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 51.95 $ 11,688.75
21 Asphalt Cone. Pavement, Class B TON 158 $80 $ 13.752 $ 75.00 $ 11,850.00 $ 80.00 $ 12,640.00 $ 64.00 $ 10,112.00
22 Bed Retention Sill EA. 7 $1.200 $ 9,139 $ 3,500.00 $ 24,SOO.00 $ 900.00 $ 6,300.00 $ 225.00 $ 1.575.00
23 Stonn Drain Outfall riDing Mods. LS. 1 $3.264 $ 3,264 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00
24 Topsoil Type A C.Y. 448 $24 $ 11,698 $ 50.00 $ 22,400.00 $ 30.00 $ 13,440.00 $ 33.00 $ 14,764.00
25 Hvdroseed (Seeding, Fert., Mulch) S.Y. 6,290 $0.75 $ 5,133 $ 0.35 $ 2,20150 $ 0.40 $ 2,516.00 $ 0.40 $ 2.51600
26 Erosion Control Matting S.Y. 2,705 $3 $ 8,829 $ 3.00 $ 8,115.00 $ 2.00 $ 5,410.00 $ 2.05 $ 5,545.25
27 Compost c.Y. 215 $35 $ 8,187 $ 60.00 $ 12,900.00 $ 40.00 $ 8,600.00 $ 39.85 $ 8,567.75
28 Invasive Species Control S.Y. 8,350 $3 $ 27,254 $ 0.45 $ 3,757.50 $ 2.00 $ 16,700.00 $ 1.15 $ 9,602.50
29 Sod Installation S.Y. 295 $9 $ 2,889 $ 5.50 $ 1.622.50 $ 10.00 $ 2,950.00 $ 5.15 $ 1.519.25
30 PSIPE Douglas Fir (staked) EA. 104 $75 $ 8,486 $ 22.00 $ 2,288.00 $ 100.00 $ 10,400.00 $ 28.50 $ 2.96400
31 PSIPE Big Leaf Maple (staked) EA. 18 $75 $ 1,469 $ 22.00 $ 396.00 $ 100.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 22.80 $ 410.40
32 PSIPE Red Alder (staked) EA. 61 $75 $ 4,978 $ 22.00 $ 1,342.00 $ 70.00 $ 4,270.00 $ 20.50 $ 1,2SO.SO
33 PSIPE Hazelnut EA. 121 $18 $ 2,370 $ 8.00 $ 968.00 $ 13.00 $ 1,573.00 $ 12.00 $ 1,452.00
34 PSIPE Western Red Cedar (staked) EA. 65 $75 $ 5,304 $ 22.00 $ 1,430.00 $ 100.00 $ 6,SOO.00 $ 30.20 $ 1.963.00
35 PSIPE Vine Maple EA. 91 $18 $ 1,782 $ 6.00 $ 546.00 $ 15.00 $ 1,365.00 $ 6.55 $ 596.05
36 PSIPE Nootka Rose EA. 253 $18 $ 4,955 $ 6.00 $ 1,518.00 $ 15.00 $ 3,795.00 $ 6.25 $ 1,581.25
37 PSIPE Stink Currant EA. 16 $18 $ 313 $ 8.00 $ 128.00 $ 15.00 $ 240.00 $ 6.85 $ 109.60
38 PSIPE Osoberry EA. 143 $18 $ 2,801 $ 6.00 $ 858.00 $ 15.00 $ 2,145.00 $ 6.85 $ 979.55
39 PSIPE Red-Osier Dogwood EA. 41 $18 $ 803 $ 7.00 $ 287.00 $ 15.00 $ 615.00 $ 6.55 $ 268.55
40 PSIPE SnowbelTY EA. 161 $18 $ 3,153 $ 6.00 $ 966.00 $ 15.00 $ 2,415.00 $ 6.25 $ 1.006.25
41 PSIPE Salmonbem EA. 166 $18 $ 3,251 $ 7.00 $ 1,162.00 $ 15.00 $ 2,490.00 $ 655 $ 1,087.30
42 PSIPE Oregon Grape EA. 208 $18 $ 4.073 $ 7.00 $ 1,456.00 $ 15.00 $ 3,120.00 $ 6.85 $ 1,424.80
43 PSIPE Red Elderbeny EA. 45 $18 $ 881 $ 6.00 $ 270.00 $ 15.00 $ 675.00 $ 6.25 $ 281.25
44 PSIPE Ladv Fern EA. 77 $18 $ 1,508 $ 6.00 $ 462.00 $ 10.00 $ 770.00 $ 9.40 $ 723.80
45 PSIPE Sword Fern EA. 547 $18 $ 10,712 $ 6.50 $ 3.555.SO $ 10.00 $ 5,470.00 $ 6.85 $ 3,746.95
46 PSIPE Salal EA. 541 $.18 $ 10,595 $ 6.00 $ 3,246.00 $ 10.00 $ 5,410.00 $ 6.85 $ 3,705.85
47 PSIPE Red-Osier Dogwood Cuttin~ EA. 4,470 $2 $ 9,727 $ 3.25 $ 14,527.50 $ 2.00 $ 8,940.00 $ 2.30 $ 10.281.00
48 PSIPE Willow Cuttings EA. 566 $2 $ 1,232 $ 3.25 $ 1.839.50 $ 2.00 $ 1,132.00 $ 2.30 $ 1,301.80
49 Temporary Irrigation Svstem LS. I $21,760 $ 21,760 $ 20.000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 15,200.00 $ 15.200.00
50 Cement Concrete APproach Curb LF. 27 $6 $ 176 $ 45.00 $ 1,215.00 $ 24.00 $ 648.00 $ 20.00 $ 540.00
51 Cement Concrete Traffic Curb LF. 831 $8 $ 7,233 $ 6.00 $ 4.986.00 $ 24.00 $ 19,944.00 $ 9.00 $ 7,479.00
52 In-Kind Rep!. of Guardrail Posts EA. 40 $100 $ 4,352 $ 50.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 100.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 39.30 $ 1,572.00
53 Chain Link Fence, Type 3 Modified LF. 935 $15 $ 15,259 $ 14.00 $ 13,090.00 $ 18.00 $ 16,830.00 $ 8.70 $ 8,134.50
54 Chain Link Gate, T. 3 Mod. 3' Width EA. 4 $500 $ 2,176 $ 400.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 200.00 $ 800.00 $ 640.00 $ 2,560.00
55 Chain Link Gate, T. 3 Mod., 2-12' w. EA. 1 $1,500 $ 1,632 $ 1,000.00 $ 1.000.00 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 945.00 $ 945.00
56 Cement Concrete Sidewalk S.Y. 7 $90 $ 685 $ 100.00 $ 700.00 $ 60.00 $ 420.00 $ 55.80 $ 390.60
57 Light Std Relocation/Reconnection LS. I $6,528 $ 6,528 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 5.000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 7,45000 $ 7,450.00
58 Pavement and Curb Markings LS. I $2,176 $ 2,176 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2.000.00
59 Rockerv S.F. 720 $25 $ 19,564 $ 25.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 12.00 $ 8,640.00 $ 18.20 $ 13,10400
60 Streambank Logs EA. I $1,200 $ 1,306 $ 1.200.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 3,050.00 $ 3.050.00
61 Streambank Logs with Rootwads EA. 19 $1,500 $ 31,008 $ 1.300.00 $ 24,700.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 19,000.00 $ 1,935.00 $ 36,765.00
62 Rootwads EA. 12 $1,000 $ 13,056 $ 1,100.00 $ 13,200.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 1,730.00 $ 20,760.00
63 Revetment Logs with Rootwads EA. 6 $2,000 $ 13,056 $ 1,400.00 $ 8,400.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 6.000.00 $ 2,870.00 $ 17,220.00
64 X-Weir EA. 4 $4,000 $ 17,408 $ 2,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4.400.00 $ 17,600.00
65 Control Log EA. I $2,500 $ 2,720 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,SOO.00 $ 2.000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 4,400.00
66 Removable Bollard EA. 6 $500 $ 3,264 $ 700.00 $ 4,200.00 $ SOO.OO $ 3,000.00 $ 748.00 $ 4,488.00
67 Fixed Bollard EA. 4 $300 $ 1,306 $ 500.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 300.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 640.00 $ 2,560.00
TOTAL: $965,789.47 $792,511.00 $855,238.00 $905,688.05
K\SWMlprojectslLakota Creek RestorationlBid File1RFB04-104 BidTabs (4-2!HJ4 Bid) for LUTC.xls
MEETING DATE:
June I, 2004
ITEM# jJ l e')
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT:
Neighborhood Traffic Safety (NTS) Project - Seventh Avenue SW Corridor
CATEGORY:
BUDGET IMPACT:
~
D
D
CONSENT
RESOLUTION
CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS
D ORDINANCE
D PUBLIC HEARING
D OTHER
Amount Budgeted:
Expenditure Amt.:
Contingency Req'd:
$
$
$
ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated May 24, 2004.
.............mm.......m..
SUMMARYIBACKGROUND: Residents in the vicinity of the Seventh Avenue SW corridor between SW 356th Street
and SW Campus Drive have requested the installation of traffic calming devices in that area based on concerns of high
traffic speeds and cut-through traffic. Currently, adopted NTS installation criteria are based on a point system; installation
criteria are met if the severity score is equal to or greater than 3.0 points. The total severity score for this neighborhood
measures 3.0 points, which meets the 3.0-point minimum to qualify for the installation of traffic calming devices.
On March 26, 2003 staff conducted a neighborhood meeting whereby a consensus was reached to propose the installation
of four speed humps along the Seventh Avenue corridor. Staff sent ballots to property owners and occupants within 600
feet of the proposed speed hump locations and also to those with the proposal being on their sole access route. One of the
installation criteria requires a 50% majority approval of the returned ballots. Based on the ballot results, all locations met
the balloting criteria with a 78% average approval rate.
The estimated Cost of this project is $10,000; there is adequate funding in the 2004 NTS Program budget to fund this
project.
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: At its March 24, 2004 meeting, the Land Use and
Transportation Committee recommended to approve the installation of four speed humps, at a cost of $10,000, along the
Seventh Avenue SW corridor between SW 356th Street and SW Campus Drive.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve installation offour speed humps along the Seventh Avenue Southwest
corridor with an amendment to have a ballot done on the speed table and if there are enough funds at the end of the year
and the ballot supports a speed table, to proceed.
~TY~--=~~ =;P~O~=I":=~-
~
CITY OF"" -.-?
Federal Way
DATE:
May 24, 2004
FROM:
Jack Dovey, Chair
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Rick Perez, PE, City Traffic Engineer /0'
Raid Tirhi, PE, Senior Traffic Engineer
David H. M~Manager
Neighborhood Traffic Safety (NTS) Project - Seventh Avenue SW Corridor
TO:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND:
Residents in the vicinity of the Seventh Avenue SW corridor between SW 356th Street and SW Campus Drive have
requested the installation of traffic calming devices in that area based on concerns of high traffic speeds and
cut-through traffic. Currently, adopted NTS installation criteria are based on a point system as follows:.
)oints
,i,I,' ,
i, i;:. ,,+".Total
'Accidents/Year
/(S~yrhistory)
0.3-0.5
, ,'",", ,"'ii,'".,
'Injyry:'>; ,
Accidents/Year
(S~yr history)*.
0.1
AverageD~ily<'ry" :Šš~,PE!rCentile Speed
Traffic ',., , (mph in either
(2-way tò~ll"" '" . direction)
0.5
1.0
0.5-0.7
0.2
0.3
500-1100
1101-1700
26-29
2.5
3.0
1.1-1.3
0.4
0.5
1701-2300
2301-2900
29.1-32
32.1-35
1.5
2.0
0.7-0.9
0.9-1.1
2901-3500
35.1-38
38.1-41
More than 1.3
More than 0.5
More than 3500
More than 41
* Note: Fatal collisions will count as two injury collisions
Installation criteria are met if the severity score is equal to or greater than 3.0 points.
A traffic study indicated that the subject location had a total of one property damage accident reported in five
years. The average daily traffic volume was documented at 1,864 vehicles per day; the 85th percentile speed
was reported at 33 mph. The total severity score measures 3.0 points, which meets the 3.0-point minimum to
qualify for the installation of traffic calming devices.
On March 26, 2003 staff conducted a neighborhood meeting to discuss potential traffic calming alternatives that
might be effective in reducing speed within the neighborhood. After discussion between the neighborhood
residents, the Homeowner's Association and staff, and in an effort to mitigate the identified problems in the
neighborhood, a consensus was reached to propose the installation of four speed humps along the Seventh
Avenue corridor.
In accordance with established NTS policies, staff sent ballots to property owners and occupants within 600 feet
of the proposed speed hump locations and also to those with the proposal being on their sole access route. The
following table summarizes the ballot results:
[raffle Calming Device A B C D Total
Ballots Sent 34 30 163 187 414
Ballots Returned 13 38% 12 40% 67 41% 68 36% 160 39%
Returned w/o Response 0 0 8 7 15
Yes Votes 13 100% 12 100% 45 76% 43 70% 113 78%
No Votes 0 0% 0 0% 14 24% 18 30% 32 22%
One of the installation criteria requires a 50% majority approval of the returned ballots. Based on the ballot
results represented in the above table, all locations met the balloting criteria with a 78% average approval rate.
On May 12, 2004 staff conducted a second neighborhood meeting to inform the residents about the balloting
results and the remainder of the process.
The estimated Cost of this project is $10,000; there is adequate funding in the 2004 NTS Program budget to fund
this project.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests that the Committee place the following project recommendation on the June 1, 2004 City Council
Consent Agenda:
. Approve the installation of four speed humps, at a cost of $10,000, along the Seventh Avenue SW
corridor between SW 356th Street and SW Campus Drive.
W ~~ ,fh... ",^",-cJ~.y +0 kVt'- "- k \U- &ne. Çr\-t~ ~e<:( -J,;.b\"
~APpRõ¡,~~iio~;;;:E~:¡:¡;P~ri;'~ Ys - ~jk~ ~ ~ - of ~ i~ "".A ..
. Joe . a "V, Chair .~~~ ",UMember-'
cc:
"'-_n ....---. . .---- --~--._.., ..._~_. ._.~--_.. '"-". -_.,.~..-
.. tk--'-'" bAlCo~--&vlf?~~'?~ 9fe;;( *;;te.'~ -þ ?¡;J¿~--'- .-.-.
k:\lutc\2004\O5-17-04, nls . enterprise- 7 avo sw.doc
5/17/2004
MEETING DATE:
June l, 2004
. ITEM#
}ref)
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT:
SR 99 at South 333rd/South 332nd Streets - Median Break
CATEGORY:
BUDGET IMPACT:
~
D
D
CONSENT
RESOLUTION
CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS
D ORDINANCE
D PUBLIC HEARING
D OTHER
Amount Budgeted:
Expenditure Amt.:
Contingency Req'd:
$
$
$
ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated May 24,2004 and Exhibit A to
the memorandum.
SUMMARY /BACKGROUND: At the April 6, 2004 City Council meeting, the City Council approved a temporary
median break on SR 99 at South 333rd Street. Furthermore, Council directed staff to evaluate locating the westerly grid
road at South 333rd Street rather than South 332nd Street. The final location of the grid road will determine the
permanency of the median break at South 333rd Street.
Following this decision, the Federal Way School District (FWSD) provided input to the Council expressing their
preference to locate the westerly grid road at South 332nd Street rather than at South 333rd Street. This preference is due to
their interest in locating a new bus barn facility in the immediate vicinity. The FWSD is concerned that a future road
connection of SR 99 to Ninth Avenue South, and ultimately to First Avenue South, would bisect their potential site
between 13th Avenue South and Ninth Avenue South. The extension of South 333rd Street between 13th Avenue South and
Ninth Avenue South would significantly impact the School District's ability to maximize the use of the property for the
potential bus barn facility (see attached Exhibit A).
Due to the potential impact, the FWSD is requesting confirmation from the City Council that if chosen, the westerly grid
road of South 333rd will not bisect their proposed site between 13th Avenue South and Ninth Avenue South.
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: At its May 24, 2004 meeting, the Land Use and
Transportation Committee recommended to approve the FWSD's request to not bisect their proposed bus barn facility site
between 13th Avenue South and Ninth Avenue South by a westerly grid road at South 333rd.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve the FWSD's request to not bisect their proposed bus barn facility site
between 13th Avenue South and Ninth Avenue South by a westerly grid road at South 333rd.
~~~ ~:~~~~~:A~:~-
~
CITY OF ." '7
Federal Way
DATE:
May 18, 2004
TO:
Jack Dovey, Chair
Land Use and Transportation Committee
FROM:
Cary M. Roe, P.E., Public Works Director
David H. ~~Manager
SR 99 at SOUt~3Y3~r~south 332nd Streets - Median Break
tJ/111L
VIA:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND:
At the April 6, 2004 City Council meeting, the City Council approved a temporary median break on SR 99 at South
333rd Street. Furthermore, Council directed staff to evaluate locating the westerly grid road at South 333rd Street
rather than South 332nd Street. The final location of the grid road will determine the permanency of the median
break at South 333rd Street.
Following this decision, the Federal Way School District (FWSD) provided input to the Council expressing their
preference to locate the westerly grid road at South 332nd Street rather than at South 333rd Street. This
preference is due to their interest in locating a new bus barn facility in the immediate vicinity. The FWSD is
concerned that a future road connection of SR 99 to Ninth Avenue South, and ultimately to First Avenue South,
would bisect their potential site between 13th Avenue South and Ninth Avenue South. The extension of South
333rd Street between 13th Avenue South and Ninth Avenue South would significantly impact the School District's
ability to maximize the use of the property for the potential bus barn facility (see attached Exhibit A).
Due to the potential impact, the FWSD is requesting confirmation from the City Council that if chosen, the
westerly grid road of South 333rd will not bisect their proposed site between 13th Avenue South and Ninth Avenue
South.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests that the Committee place the following project recommendation on the June 1, 2004 City Council
Consent Agenda:
Approve the FWSD's request to not bisect their proposed bus barn facility site between 13th Avenue
South and Ninth Avenue South by a westerly grid road at South 333rd.
.-. --- '---. ..----
---- -------- -----.-.- -
-----.-.
. --_n.. -"-'.
..-....-----.-
-. _n .-----_.... I
APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORT:
-
-- -- J c - 0 --, Chair- -- ~~ ---- Eii~m¡;e,. --
-.... ..---.-... -~._~.,.,. ..~--==..
..===.--' . .---...
...,..~-
cc:
Project File
Central File
,I,
'00
------r---- >-
I ~ BUS IN! ~ p ~ R--K-:; ------- ~
, - .J I Y: - I I
I (1...; I 2 !; ~
" IL._.-u.".-,,-, "---..-- lL..
I I, .....,. "~. _. -~." ., ---- -
;----¡,Ql -_.. -_-1'9.01-_,,--- --- 1 ---, \ U
,;' 6 (--- " ..- ""~" -';'" JJ51 ¡' I ~
' 1 (! ) I . '.. . I ,'~ (1.
¡b~" -;;; ~ I::;~"AL"'~'(~ CAMPU: ::,: .1JI"", ,
~ ~ ~I oo<J'f.' ;,:.,' ,'J
CA~P~S I .., , IE¡)<"L . .' ,'-'- - I
.1. J: -'. ... S.P R37B062 I " I' I::: .' '
~DI ',;0'" ,00 ~ ~ Q ! ¡ ~ 0 f ~P A R(2)K, ,-~__~_~_I_-Y: ¡~~2GJ_~ i
W) c,s 60\ I I .. '. ' " ,..". .. "I .
. "r I." "1.'" U "'--4L:'" nrm", "; "".,.- WI""'" ..,' ~ . I
>oa..4 . ~~ 'J. ~~' "<, 1, \,. 4 .-1 _. - --. .,.. '10
~ ~ , ~ /7T'I&
-.-.---.-.-- - '-'-'-'-----'S.-.-. ---'-'-'336TH -- -----'-'-ST-' ---'---. -. ---'-'-'~..o(-
~ ~ . ~ 20~1
I I r
G I"LUI.("""~'-_."""""--'---"'- I ATLAS OF SEATTLE
V :::...---~-:.-:-..:=~-::.=::::;'= KROLL MAP COMPANY, INC.. SEATTLE
.-........--.---.-..-.
c-;,o.""""'--'""-:":':'".~......"~..:"':""":--__.. SCALE: 1 IN.-ZOO F'T. COPYRIGHT K. M (",.. ,...,..
~~ .s
.....r 1.>0- - - -1.1
~-~"11(': :
::), a: (J..\
0.';« '"
::E a.:<)" ~
.~1 I
ð"w ~ <J .J.
'L ~~o ,,)
t^....u. ,/
~"
':;: °00<'
,,4;
.I'
.I'
"
~'I.'9
13
OF
"
2 WEST
'FICE PARK
- "'\
r
LEGEND
~PPIIOX. STORIES
0
RAILROAD
BUILDIHa
HOUSt HUMBtR
.^"..... .'Y . A- ..A
"
£7<' ,,^,,~,,~ ~ ~
~~~
'?ZZ21
JJIII :¡
: ;:
. N
~ ::
~ I
, '1°
(I) ~
. ~ i
çw~\:) (Y'=~'N
~~ ~-r
S. 3~3..J., -Q<
'.
~
~
j
- ,
'.
11
.\¡
'::".
~
~ I
~'Io ,
~I:" 4.9.Ac.
- ~ @
ïi
. '
,
~
3
~ I
'00
~,
s~ ~~~ s.~
I
liS
I
c¡\
!
(2)
14õTi
11'0
'"
S.P 677160
J~
JJ.JOl
'.f
"¡."
i.i
6
5
~r~
(I)
JJ1)
'~
I £l-....:-..:....~-=--:-.:..--
~
{~¡f:;
. '.".
:,-t.~
-' '~r,
V'~I
2
2
..
...{;\
. "."
'J
'::-1
.-~~I'I':'
;.;,. ;.
,,:11:
0
cmJ
,
~
~
MEETING DATE:
June I, 2004
ITEM#
y(~)
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT:
Brown's Point Potential Annexation Area
CATEGORY:
BUDGET IMP ACT:
ø CONSENT
D RESOLUTION
0 CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS
0 ORDINANCE
D PUBLIC HEARING
0 OTHER
Amount Budgeted:
Expenditure Amt.:
Contingency Req'd:
$0
$0
$0
ATTACHMENTS: May 3,2004 LUTC staff report, Brown's Point Map, minutes from May 3,2004
meeting.
.............................
SUMMARYIBACKGROUND: Council asked staff to investigate the process, timing and cost
associated with annexing the Brown's Point/Dash Point area of unincorporated Pierce County. These
issues are addressed in the attached May 3, 2004 staffreport to LUTe.
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: On May 3, 2004 LUTC recommended to
Council to direct staff to take two preliminary steps in the process of extending Federal Way's Potential
Annexation Area (PAA) into the Brown's PointlDash Point area of unincorporated Pierce County.
Specifically the two items are: 1) aquire Geographic Infonnation System mapping and infonnation layers
for the Brown's Point/Dash Point area; and 2) prepare a submittal package for a Pierce County
Comprehensive Plan amendment to extend Federal Way's PAA (Urban Growth Area) into the
':l~~ll ~.?!P?~~~~~~~?~' s P ?in YJ?~s ~.r() ill t.. ~~~~:~~~~~~~~ç()':l~ ty '............
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to direct staffto acquire Geographic Infonnation System mapping and
infonnation layers for the Brown's PointlDash Point area and to prepare a submittal package for a Pierce
County Comprehensive Plan amendment to extend Federal Way's PAA (Urban Growth Area) into the
unincorporated Brown's Point/Dash Point area in Pierce County.
~~y~~~~~~~:~\ ..
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
0 APPROVED
0 DENIED
0 T ABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION
0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED - 05/10/2001
COUNCIL BILL #
1 ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
PugetSound
Federal
Way
Tacoma
City of
Federal Way
Browns &
Dash Point
Area
Legend:
/, / Municipal Boundary
~ Community Boundary
Vicinity Map
Scale:
0 1,000 Feet
~
~
N
Map Date: May, 2004
City of Federal Way,
33530 First Way S,
Federal Way, WA 98003
(253) 661-4000
WNN.ci.federal-waywa.us
This map is intended for
use as a graphical
representation ONLY.
The City of Federal Way
makes no warranty as
to its accuracy.
A ì=ëderal Way
../mikes/cd/annexlbr.aml
Â
CITY OF ~7'~""""<k~",'
Federal Way
MEMORAMDUM
April 26, 2004
To:
Jack Dovey, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTe)
David ~anage<
Isaac Conlen, Associate Planner
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Annexation into Pierce County
MEETING DATE: May 3rd, 2004
I.
BACKGROUND
This memorandum is in response to City Council's request for staff to look into the feasibility of annexing an
unincorporated area in Pierce County as shown on the attached map. This area is located within Tacoma's
Urban Growth Area (UGA). This memorandum will discuss process, timing! and cost of accomplishing
annexations in Pierce County.
II.
PROCESS
A. Pre-Annexation Steps
Based on conversations with Pierce County staff, there is nothing in the Pierce County policies or regulations
that would prohibit the City of Federal Way from annexing areas within Pierce County, i.e., it is not necessary
to extend Federal Way's Potential Annexation Area (P AA) into Pierce County prior to annexation. Staff
recommends, however, that we extend the Federal Way P AA (in Pierce County this is referred to as a UGA)
into the area we intend to annex. Staff recommends the following steps
1. Initiate discussion with City of Tacoma.
Again, this is not required, but because the area in question is within Tacoma's UGA, we recommend
coordinating with City of Tacoma Officials as a courtesy.
2. Request Pierce County Comprehensive Plan amendment.
The purpose of amendments to the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan would be to modify the County's
UGA boundaries to include a Federal Way UGA. Eitherthe Pierce County Executive or County Council
must request this amendment. The deadline for submittal of an amendment request is December I, 2004.
I At this point we do not have enough infonnation to provide a timeline for pre-annexation steps. The timeline for these
actions is tied to the timing of the Pierce County and Federal Way Comprehensive Plan amendment cycles, which will be
processed beginning in 2005.
3. Process Federal Way Comprehensive Plan amendments to identify new UGA, and address County-
Wide Planning Policies for Pierce County.
Amendments to the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan would establish a UGA in the subject area, address
the County Wide Planning Policies of Pierce County and address any policy issues specific to the new
area.
B. Annexation Process
F or the purposes of providing a rough timeline, we have assumed the election method of annexation will be
utilized (method proposed for pending North Lake, Redondo and S.W. Parkway annexations). The timeline
shown does not include a Boundary Review Board public hearing (which we understand is infrequently
required). If a hearing is required this could add 60-120 days to the timeline. Also note, several other
annexation methods are available.2
ELECTION METHOD OF ANNEXATION
Flow Chare
(Pierce County)
City submits legal description of annexation area to Pierce County Boundary Review Board (BRB) for
preliminary review.
(14-21 days)
~
City Council adopts resolution initiating annexation
(2-days)
~
City files Notice of Intent (NOI) to annex wi BRB
(2-days)
~
BRB reviews submittal
(45-50 days)
~
City Council selects election date - Set by Pierce County Council
(Minimum of 60-days)
2 The petition and double petition method of annexation are both available to citizens interested in initiating an annexation.
The island method may be available depending on the final boundary of the annexation area.
3 The time shown in parenthesis in each box is an estimate of time elapsed between the action shown in that box and the
action shown in the following box.
Page 2
Election held I
(7 -days)
~
County Canvassing Board submits statement of canvass
(14-days)
~
If approved by voters City Council adopts ordinance providing for annexation
(60-180 days)
~
Notice to state and annexation area survey
(Complete)
~
Total time elapsed from start of annexation to completion is between 200-335 days. As noted in footnote I
This does not include the time necessary to accomplish the pre-annexation steps cited in Section II(A).
III.
COST/RESOURCE ALLOCATION
Task Responsible Department Time (Calendar)4 CostS
Pre-Annexation Tasks
Initiate discussions w/ City of Tacoma Community Development One month 10 ills staff time/ $585
Services
Initiate Pierce County Comprehensive Community Development 1-2 months 40 ills staff time/ $2,340
Plan Amendment/follow-up Services
Process Federal Way Comprehensive Community Development 6 -12 months 220 ills staff time/
Plan amendments Services depending on $12,870
- SEP A review timing of Compo
Plan amendment
process
Gathering of data and acquisition of Geographic Information One month $300-$500 to purchase
GIS layers The GIS department Systems Department GIS layers and parcel
presently does not have any parcel information.
data for Pierce County. Therefore, this
data would have to be acquired. In Unknown for staff time.
addition, we would need to obtain GIS charges its time to
information and maps on service each department based on
providers. the work prefonned.
4 Time shown for individual tasks overlap with other tasks in some cases and is not meant to show cumulative time elapsed.
5 Staff hours and dollar amounts shown under the cost category should be considered a rough estimate. Some of these tasks
may be completed by outside consultants.
Page 3
Task Responsible Department Time (Calendar) Cost
Annexation Tasks
Prepare legal description and submit Community Development Two months Surveyor cost - $3,000
to BRE for preliminary review Services and Public 25 ills staff time/ $1,460
Works
City Council adopts resolution Community Development 1-2 months 40 ills staff time/ $2,340
initiating annexation Services
- Staff files NOI
- BRE 45-day comment period
City Council sets election date by Community Development 2 weeks 20 ills staff time/ $1,170
resolution Services
Election held Community Development Minimum of60- Not known
Services, City Clerk's days from date 30 ills staff time/ $1,755
Office election set
If approved by voters City Council Community Development One month 20 ills staff time/ $1,170
adopts ordinance providing for Services
annexation
Annexation notice and survey Community Development 3-5 months 150 ills staff time/ $8,775
Services
Public participation efforts with Community Development 12-24 months - 200 ills staff time/
annexation area residents Services Ongoing $11,700
throughout pre-
annexation and
annexation process
Total '= $47,665
IV.
POTENTIAL BOUNDARIES OF AREA TO BE INCLUDED
Map 1 (attached) shows the unincorporated areas of northeast Pierce County located adjacent to City of
Federal Way boundaries.
V.
EXPERIENCE OF OTHER CITIES WITH P AA's IN DIFFERENT COUNTIES
Several communities within the Puget Sound region have municipal boundaries that are located in two
separate county jurisdictions. Examples of cities with this type of jurisdictional governance include
Algona, Auburn, Bothell, Milton, and Pacific. Staff contacted several of these cities to understand how
municipal governance or operations change in a two-county jurisdiction. The following will provide the
LUTC with an overview of the experience other cities have had in administering municipal operations in a
two-county jurisdiction.
.
Duplication of Reporting: A nonnal part of municipal operations is the preparation of studies and
reporting of data to numerous state, county, and regional agencies. Examples of these studies or
reporting is the yearly Buildable Lands Study, which requires analysis of the amount of vacant and
redevelopable land, as well as achieved densities within a city's jurisdiction; the preparation of yearly
population estimates to the State Office of Financial Management (OFM); and the yearly Benchmark
Reports to the respective counties.
A municipality with corporate boundaries residing in two counties will typically be required to
prepare separate reports and studies for each portion of their city, in this case one to King County and
Page 4
one to Pierce County. Often times, staff members must use specific methodologies from different
counties in preparing these studies or reports. Many staff members from the above-noted
municipalities stated that the preparation of these separate reports or studies adds a significant amount
of time and effort to an already difficult process.
.
Representation in County and Regional Organizations: City of Federal Way staff and elected
officials currently provide representation on numerous King County boards and commissions. The
City of Federal Way also actively participates in numerous regional organizations and boards that
involve King County. Active participation in these organizations and boards helps facilitate regional
cooperation among neighboring municipalities, while ensuring representation of City of Federal Way
interests. If the City of Federal Way were to expand its corporate boundaries into areas of Pierce
County, City staff and elected officials would be expected to actively participate on boards or
commissions within Pierce County and provide representation on regional organizations involving
Pierce County. Many staff members from the above-noted municipalities stated that keeping abreast
of the issues within two counties, and providing representation on boards and commissions within
two counties, has added a significant amount of time and effort.
VII.
LAND UsE/TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee has the following options:
Recommend that the City Council give staff direction to initiate discussion with City of
Tacoma and begin research and preparation of Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
Direct staff to do no further research on this issue.
;£
lJ¿
" ~. ~ I~
~~
qe.c~ ",4 ~ /) ~~
MITTEE REpORT
~iCh e
Enclosed:
Map 1
Map of northeast Pierce County
Page 5
I ~:~;?1r' .' ~
I~ .-"
~<,.!#':'--
! kJtI4.. ,~; ~ ;f.1J;... j
~§V
:~!
I~!fil, "'0'./ ß'Jwns PòintQ
~j~~}~ "Y',;.:""v""'l---
.~. .:~"~ - ¡ ,.....,w~
",t~\.::i" . ';
I!!;~,..tii::.<".. ~ > j
,. ""iI,J n -
. "-~".~ ;
,f,:~:~~~ ~
it". ~:;r.. '~
:¡¡;i-
!~;~~:: ..
I.. ','" co,' . ...
i~ "'{.'fn'::~'"
¡~.ti\;):'. .".:.
Ilcfwg is2k/use rs/m ikes/cdlbrowns.aml
City of Federal Way
Unincorporated
Northeast
Pierce County
D
D
D
Legend:
City of Federal Way
City of Tacoma
Unincorporated
Pierce County
Park
Public School
.
.
Pleae Note:
Not all features are shown.
Federal Way does not routinely
update Pierce County boundaries
and as such, some boundaries
may have changed. The
unincorporated areas shown
on this map are within
Pierce County's Urban Growth
Area.
Scale: 1 to 21180
1 Inch equals 1765 Feet
a 1,000 Feet
~
6
N
~ í=ëderal Way
---
,'þ":.'¡';,~ .
~~¿:~~.~:: - .;'
~,~}-:'
;}{;-.-
-û-;
. "
~.,~ .
~-. '.
,0
--
..,;,.. -
-" ;>- .'
~<.r-'
~~r:.~~" ',¡'
~-.. - >
~F:" : --;; ':
&~~;
~;.~ ¡
~-~..
i.~?? .
i¿;o'!'
li~
Jii'-,,-..:-,
'f;{J.~:
~;
..~~. ~ ,'.
,---'--
,¡
" '.
Ilcfwg is2k/use rs/m i ke s/cd/brown s.a m I
City of Federal Way
Unincorporated
Northeast
Pierce Cou nty
D
D
D
Legend:
City of Federal Way
City of Tacoma
Unincorporated
Pierce County
Park
Public School
.
.
Pleae Note:
Not all features are shown.
Federal Way does not routinely
update Pierce County boundaries
and as such, some boundaries
may have changed. The
unincorporated areas shown
on this map are within
Pierce County's Urban Growth
Area.
Scale:1to 21180
1 Inch equals 1765 Feet
0 1,000 Feet
~
~
N
A í=ëderal Way
City of Federal Way
City Council
land UsefTransportation Committee
May 3,2004
5:30 p.m.
City Hall
Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
In attendance: Committee Members Jack Dovey, Chair, Eric Faison and Michael Park; Mayor Dean McColgan, Deputy Mayor
Linda Kochmar, Council Member Jeanne Burbidge; City Manager David Moseley; Community Development Services Director
Kathy McClung; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Parks, Recreation, & Cultural Services Deputy Director Kurt Rueter; Deputy
City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick; Community Development Services Deputy Director Greg Fewins; Senior Planner Margaret
Clark; Senior Planner Jim Harris; Associate Planner Isaac Conlen; Surface Water Manager Paul Bucich; Traffic Engineer Rick
Perez; Surface Water Project Engineer Fei Tang; Contract Planner Janet Shull; Jones & Stokes Gregg Dohrn; Jones & Stokes
Lisa Grueter; Anderson Young Company Randy Young; and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety.
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Dovey called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm.
It was mlslc to change the order of section 4, Business Items, of the agenda to B, D, F, G, H, I, E, C, and A.
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The summary minutes of the April 19, 2004, meeting was approved as presented.
3.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
4.
BUSINESS ITEMS
B. RFB 04-110; Sewer Extension Bellacarino Woods - Bid Rejection/Request to Re-Bid -The apparent low bidder
has requested authorization to withdraw their bid claiming that it did not include Washington State sales tax in accordance
with the contract specifications. Staff is not recommending awarding the project to any other bidders because: the second
lowest bidder incorrectly added sales tax as a lump sum; the third bidder did not enter a total bid amount on the bid form;
and the fourth bidder's total amount exceeded the authorized construction budget. The LUTC would like staff to include
clarifying language regarding the sales tax requirements in future request for bids documents. The LUTC mlslc to place the
following project recommendations on the May 18, 2004, City Council Consent Agenda: 1) reject all bids received on April
5, 2004, for the RFB 04-110 Bellacarino Woods Sewer Extension Project (located in the vicinity of SW 3561h Street and 6th
Avenue SW); and 2) authorize SWM staff to re-bid the project and return to the City Council for authorization to award the
. project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder within available funding.
D. Kitts Corner Development Plan & Development Agreement Update - Staff has a preliminary site plan and is
bringing this issue to the LUTC to make sure they are moving in the right direction and for initial feedback on the proposal.
Len Schaadt - He is the owner of two of the properties for this proposal and represents the rest. They began
this process in 1999. It started as a rezone, but with the City's request for a village concept, became much
more. The owners hired an architect and someone to prepare a market study on the proposal. As the project
developed, they hired additional experts (transportation engineer, land use attorney, etc.) in order to develop a
preliminary site plan acceptable to the City. The project has been scaled back from the original idea and will
have a softer impact. The owners are not developers and do not plan to do the actual development; therefore
the preliminary site plan is a conceptual design.
LUTC feels the preliminary site plan is very well done. It was stated that the market study prepared for this proposal shows
a demand for townhouses and not apartments. There is a parcel to the south that would make sense to include. The owner
had been approached in the past and has shown no interest in being a part of this proposal, but this was a long time ago.
Councilmember Faison suggested this owner again be approached to see if he may now be interested in participating
F. Overview of 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -Ms. Clark presented an overview because there are a
number of components to the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
K\LUTC Agendas and Summ""es 2004\May 3. 2004. LU T C M,nules doc
Cindy Cope - Why should 32nd Avenue South be extended to 3161h? The area is residential and getting in and
out via 3161h works fine. Extending the road would bring in traffic that has no reason to enter the area and
would open us up to crime.
Mr. Perez commented that the FWCP supports through roads because Federal Way does not have enough. There is a
planned extension of 312'" over 1-5 and west to Auburn, and the extension for 32nd would be needed for a link (this will not
happen for many years, but it is planned in the FWCP). This is a long-term project. The LUTC m/s/c to recommend that the
full Council accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and adopt an ordinance ap~roving the request by
Quadrant to delete the planned extension of Weyerhaeuser Way South, north of South 3201 Street, shown on FWCP Map
111-278 (2003-2020 Regional CIP); delete the project from FWCP Table 111-19 (Regional CIP Project List), replacing it with
32nd Avenue South; and amend (per the Planning Commission Recommendation) FWCP Maps 111-5, 111-6. and 111-278 as
set forth in the April 27. 2004, LUTC Memorandum.
E. Amendments to Countywide Planning Policies to Designate Downtown Auburn as an Urban Center - The
LUTC m/s/c the staff recommendation to move forward to the full Council approval of the amendment to the Countywide
Planning Policies to designate Downtown Auburn as an Urban Center.
C. Trip Reduction Performance Incentive for Federal Way Employers - Washington State's Commute Trip Reduction
(CTR) Law is intended to improve air quality and reduce fuel consumption and traffic congestion through employer-based
programs encouraging the use of alternatives to single occupant vehicles (SOV) for the commute trip. The trip reduction
performance incentive program is a six-month demonstration program designed to reduce commute traffic within the City
by converting SOV commuters to other commuting options. The program introduces trip-reduction strategies to smaller
employers not affected by the CTR program. Staff proposes to use the Traffic Division's operating fund to support this
project. The LUCT m/s/c placing the following project recommendations on the May 18,2004, City Council Consent
Agenda: 1) authorize staff to proceed with the Trip Reduction Performance Incentive Program for Federal Way Employers;
2) authorize staff to incorporate the incentive program into the next CTR contract with King County Metro (the existing
contract will expire June 30, 2004); and 3) authorize staff to use the Traffic Division's operating funds of $5,050 as a match
toward the project.
A. Potential Annexation Area Expansion - The City Council requested staff to look into the feasibility of annexing an
unincorporated area in Pierce County that is located within Tacoma's Urban Growth Area (UGA). The LUTC m/s/c directing
staff to initiate a Pierce County Comprehensive Plan Amendment and to gather data and acquire Geographic Information
Systems layers.
5.
FUTURE MEETING
The next scheduled meeting is May 17, 2004.
6.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
K ILUTC 1\<)('l1d",; ,11111 5l1 1111 11;11 1"0; :'OIJ.I\M;¡y 3. 2IJO.\. LLJl C MII1I!1«,; doc
MEETING DATE:
June 1,2004
ITEM# 1f(h)
~-------------
CITY OF .FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT:
Steel Lake Soccer Field Renovation: Final Acceptance and Authorization to Release thc Retainagc
CATEGORY:
BUDGET IMPACT:
~ CONSENT
0 RESOLUTION
D CITY COUNCIL UUSINESS
D ORDINANCE
0 PUBLIC HEARING
D OTHER
Amount Uudgeted:
Expenditure Amt.:
Contingency Req'd:
$
$
$
ATTACHMENTS: Committee Action Form dated May 18,2004; Steel Lake Soccer Field Renovation: Final Acceptance
and Authorization to Release the Retainagc
SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: The Steel Lake Soccer Field Renovation was performed by Athletic Fields, Inc. The
final cost for the construction contract (AG#O3-l62) is $773,294.78. This cost is $7,684.32 less than the approvcd
construction contract budget of$780,979.10, which includes contingency.
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Motion to recommend a "do pass" to place acceptance of
Steel Lake Soccer Field Renovation by Athletic Fields, Inc. and authorization of the release of retainage on the Council
Consent Agenda.
PROPOSED MOTION: "} move approval of the Final Acceptanc~ and Authorization to Release the Retainage as
presented."
~;~:::~;~;:;R:-:~~ ~
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY C1TY CLERKS OFP1CbJ
COUNCIL ACTION:
0 AI)I)ROVED
0 DENIED
0 T AULED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION
0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
COUNCIL nILL #
1 ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
REVISED - 05/10/2001
City of Federal Way
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICES
MEMORANDUM
Date:
May 18,2004
FEDRAC Council Committee
David Mo~anager
B Sanders, Pa~fp~a~n~g & Development Coordinator~
Steel Lake Soccer Field Renovation:
To:
Via:
From:
Subject:
Final Acceptance and Authorization to Release the Retainage
Background:
Prior to release of Retainage on any Public Works construction project, the City Council must
accept the work as complete to meet State Department of Revenue and Department of Labor and
Industries requirements.
The Steel Lake Soccer Field Renovation was performed by Athletic Fields, Inc. The final cost for
the construction contract (AG#03-162) is $773,294.78. This cost is $7,684.32 less than the
approved construction contract budget of $780,979.10, which includes contingency.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends placing the following item on the June 1,2004
Council Consent Agenda for approval:
Acceptance of the Steel Lake Soccer Field Renovation Project by Athletic Fields,
Inc. (AG#03-162), in the amount of $773,294.78 as complete, and authorization
to release the retainage.
Committee Recommendation: Motion to recommend a "do pass" to place acceptance of Steel
Lake Soccer Field Renovation by Athletic Fields, Inc. and authorization of the release of
retainage on the Council Consent Agenda.
APPROVAL OF COMMÏT'rEE REPORT:
e2:
r:/
MEETING DATE:
June 1, 2004
ITEM# 'J[{ì)
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT:
New City Hall- Use of Project Savings and Contingency Funds
CATEGORY:
~ CONSENT
0 RESOLUTION
0 CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS
BUDGET IMPACT:
0 ORDINANCE
0 PUBLIC HEARING
0 OTHER
Amount Budgeted:
$15964251.
00
$113143.00
$0.00
Expenditure Amt.:
Contingency Req'd:
.......m._m......_......_mm.
....'.'--"....'..........""-.'....-......"-"-"-'-"....'---_.._...mm_m..........._mmm....mmm_m.._......_.mmm.".
..m..__......."".._....m-'."""mm.._..."""'m..m.._....m
..'...._..mm.........-..-..-....-......__....._m...._........--.............._mm.
ATTACHMENTS: FEDRAC staffreport.
.,.,-,-"""'-"",-""......__m..___..mm..mm.",,.,,,,,
"""._"....mm.m..m"..mm..........m..m..........---__.._....m......._...._..__....___.mm"-_...mm.'."-.m..m.....-..-..............-...-.._.._.._m_............__m"...m._....... ..........m......'.-......-...""-""'.' m...._.m..m...........__._m_,,"._m_.m_m.".___m'-""....m..m.
SUMMARY /BACKGROUND: See attached FEDRAC staff report.
......._._..m........._..m...m..m..
.......-..-.-.-...._......mmm
....m_..__........_..m..
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the City Manager to construct phase two
parking and purchase phase two furniture using anticipated project savings and, if necessary, contingency funds.
.......m_m...._..._._..m..
.......-...........m_............mm_....... ....m___..........-.-....-...........-.......
....m_......._m.....m__.....'-"..m_m....-'-'m__.._.._m....
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to authorize the City Manager to construct phase two parking and purchase phase two
furniture using anticipated project savings and, if necessary, contingency funds."
CITY MAN A GER APPRO~ -F-
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
..m..mm........_..m_............._......m
COUNCIL ACTION:
0 APPROVED
0 DENIED
0 TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION
0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
COUNCIL BILL #
1 ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
REVISED - 05/10/2001
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
May 25, 2004
SUBJECT:
evelopment and Regional Affairs Committee
David Mose, ager rJ<\(
Derek Matheso Assistant City Managef\-->fV"
New City Hall- Use of Project Savings and Contingency Funds
VIA:
FROM:
Policy Question
Should the City Council authorize the use of New City Hall project savings and contingency funds to construct phase
two of the parking annex and purchase phase two furniture, both of which were not included in the base project budget
adopted by Council in December 2003?
Parking Annex
The New City Hall budget approved by the City Council in December 2003 includes funds to build phase one of the
parking annex. Phase one constructs 131 stalls on the east end of the parcel, as well as grades the central portion of the
parcel for phase two parking and the west end of the parcel for the evidence building. The budget does not, however,
include the $40,923 incremental cost of paving and landscaping the 46 phase two stalls. (The evidence building has its
own budget, separate from the New City Hall project.)
An August 2002 study concluded that the City's current parking demand is 407 stalls, which is roughly equivalent to the
289 on-site stalls (including eight motorcycle stalls) plus the 131 phase one stalls. The same study concluded that, due
to annexations and population growth that, in turn, translate into more customers and employees, the City would need
596 stalls in 2023 and, by extrapolation, 501 stalls in 2013. The 501 number is slightly larger than the 289 one-site
stalls plus the 177 phase one and phase two stalls. Therefore, one might argue that phase two is necessary to meet the
City's parking needs in ten years. That argument does not, however, take into account the ample parking available on
both sides of 8th Avenue South, South 333rd Street, and South 334th Street, or the community center parking lot opening
in late 2006.
Furniture
Similarly, the project budget includes funds for critical, or phase one, furniture. Phase one furniture is defined as
furniture necessary to conduct city operations in the new building. Examples are desks, cubicle components not
included in the Boston inventory, furnishings for the third courtroom, tables and chairs for some new conference rooms /
team meeting rooms, etc.
The project budget does not, however, include funds for additional, or phase two, furniture. Phase two furniture is
defined as furniture that would enhance city operations in the new building. Examples include furnishings for the new
police interview rooms and new emergency operations center (currently at the Fire Department but to be transitioned to
the New City Hall in the future), additional benches for the expanded police locker rooms, student-type desks for the
new police briefing room, filing systems for new storage areas, tables and chairs for all new conference rooms / team
meeting rooms, and enhancements to older furniture like the uncomfortable public seats in Council Chambers.
Our furniture consultant has prepared a list of phase one and phase two furniture, along with estimated costs. The
attached list is illustrative only; it will change as furniture needs and cost estimates are refined. The current cost
estimate for phase two is $72,220.
1) -1
Project savings and contingency
Current project savings are estimated at $225,284, although this figure will change as bids are awarded and change
orders are approved. Contingency funds in the amount of $640,881 have not been used.
Staff does not anticipate a need to set aside project savings or contingency funds for the evidence building unless
Council desires to do so. A combination of Police asset forfeiture funds and funds set aside for the Valley Com debt
service (but not needed due to the dispatch center's positive fund balance in 2003) should be enough to fund that
project. The evidence building's estimated cost will be refined during the design phase later this year.
Options
1. Construct phase two parking and
purchase phase two furniture using
anticipated project savings and, if
necessary, contingency funds.
2. Construct phase two parking using
anticipated project savings and
purchase as much furniture as
possible using remaining project
savings, but do not use any
contingency.
3. Purchase as much furniture as
possible using the remaining project
savings, but do not construct phase
two parking and do not use any
contingency.
4. Do not construct phase two
parking and do not purchase any
phase two furniture.
Positives
. Phase two parking would be built
and would not remain a graded
dirt "pad"
. The City's 2013 parking demand
would be satisfied without the use
of on-street parking.
. Most rooms in the building would
be usable.
. Phase two parking would be built
and would not remain a graded
dirt "pad"
. The City's 2013 parking demand
would be satisfied without the use
of on-street parking.
. Contingency funds would not be
used for phase two parking or
phase two furniture.
. Contingency funds would not be
used for phase two parking or
phase two furniture.
. Any project savings would be
returned to the General Fund.
. Contingency funds would not be
used for phase two parking or
phase two furniture.
l)-2
Negatives
. Reduces the amount ofproject
savings that could be returned to
the General Fund.
. Potentially reduces the amount of
contingency funds that could be
returned to the General Fund.
. Some rooms in the building may
not be usable.
. Reduces the amount of project
savings that could be returned to
the General Fund.
. Some rooms in the building may
not be usable.
. Phase two parking would not be
built and would remain a graded
dirt "pad"
. The City's 2013 parking demand
would not be satisfied without the
use of on-street parking.
. Reduces the amount of project
savings that could be returned to
the General Fund.
. Some rooms in the building would
not be usable.
. Phase two parking would not be
built and would remain a graded
dirt "pad"
. The City's 2013 parking demand
would not be satisfied without the
use of on-street parking.
Staff recommendation
Authorize the City Manager to construct phase two parking and purchase phase two furniture using anticipated project
savings and, if necessary, contingency funds. (Option 1)
Committee recommendation
Forward option - to the full City Council for approval.
APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORT:
-<&~ --
Cljrnmittcc Chair
])- 3
d
-L
1 of 1
New City Hall - Anticipated Furniture Needs and Cost Estimates
r Material Cost - Material Cost - Installation/ Total Cost
Phasen- QtY"---~n____Jtem ¡ Location Each Total Delivery Estimate
1 24 Benches-LockerRoom PSLockerRooms $ 500.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 1,412.00 $ 13,412.00
_1_- -~9- - Benches/Pews - 10' Courtrooms 1,2 $ 850.00 $ 24,650.00 $ 2,900.00 $ --27,550.00
1 3 Brochure Kiosks Main, Court, & Permit Lobbies $ 900.00 $ 2,700.00 $ 270.00 $ 2,970.00
1 25 Bulletin Boards (fabric) Throughout NCH $ 125.00 $ 3,125.00 $ 312.50 $ 3,437.50
1 2 Bunk Beds PS Bunk Rooms $ 800.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 200.00 $ 1,800.00
1 12 Chair - Attornevs Courtrooms 1,2 $ 150.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 180.00 $ 1,980.00-
1 1 Chair - Courtroom Clerk Courtroom 3 $ 150.00 $ 150.00 $ 15.00 , $ 165.00
1 1 Chair - Judge Courtroom 3 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 50.00 $ 650:00
1 1 Chair - Witness Courtroom 3 $ 150.00 $ 150.00 $ 15.00 $ 165.00
1 16 Chairs _2 Jury Rooms $ 300.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 200.00 ; $ 5,000.00
-- _1 -¡ _~¡Chairs - _------l~M Office lobby $ 250.00 $ 750.0~ $ 40.00 1$- 790.00
1 - 'u 16_.:f.h¡¡il"§- Sid~_(forJl!ry)_n_-- ---!fc>urtrooms 1 ,2_n____---L1- _~0()-t--!--_2,400.00 j~-~oo.oli~---~,~o.oo
1 . 80. . Chairs -Sid¡¡/Çonferenc;e___- n__: Ço.l'!fer~c:¡¡Rooms___,-L___150.00 I .t - 12,000.~.L~__700.0()_._!...---.12.',Z00.:.0()
1 3 Chairs -Stool -- _no_un __Court_Counter__- ----l~____22.?,()04 - 675.00_lJ----- 50.00. L$.____12.?"00
1 9 Cubicle Stations - Durable PS Report Writing , $ 750.00 I $ 6,750.00 ¡ $ 450.00 $ 7.200.00 ]
1 1.GlassorF?bric-StackonWorkst¡¡1ions_PS_Qetectives-1099 -_: $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00' $ 1,500.~ _16,500.00
1J-__1~p_tion Stati()n____- ~n Lobby - ' $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ - 375.00. $ 2,875.00
~- 3 'Shelving - Forms ¡Courtrooms 1,2,3 $ 450.00 $ 1,350.00 $ 75.00 $ 1,425.00
~--1 6 Shelving - Storage Court Storage Room $ 250.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 300.00 $ 1,800.00
1 5 Shelving - Tall Open PS Records Room $ 325.00 $ 1,625.00 $ 500.00 $ 2,125.00
! 1 - 2 Table 2 Jurv Rooms $ 750.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 200.00 $ 1,700.00
1 1 Table - ADA Lobby Court Lobby $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ 50.00 $ 350.00
1 1 Table - Conference PS Chiefs Conference Room $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 350.00 $ 2,350.00
1 3 Tables - 48" round Permit Center Lobbv $ 350.00 $ 1,050.00 $ 150.00 $ 1,200.00
1 4 Tables-Attornevs Courtrooms 1,2 $ 300.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 200.00 $ 1,400.00
Rooms 1046, 1093, 1124,2004,
2032,2048,2063,2073,2094
Throughout NCH
__1- --~--- - 9 -- ¡Tables - TMR - 4~,,-,"-ound
_1_Jn~Whiteboards -
!
$
350.00 $
350.00 $
-~ n¡__+=+~~:~P-~-~;0~~S~_1~~~=~---=--~~ ~~~~~er ~
~-l 6 - I Chair - AttorneyS- Courtrooms 3 $
_2 . 200 Chair mats Throuohout NCH $
2 110 Chairs Council Chambers $
2 14 Chairs Permit Center Lobby $
2 6 Chairs - Club PS Soft Interview Rooms $
2 8 Chairs - Conference PS Chiefs Conference Room $
2 20 Chairs - Student Style PS Briefing Room $
2 . 1 Elmo Stand - Elmo Council Chambers $
-~~_L_.1.._Hanging File Tub Public Works $
2 ---L-_3 I La~___~_~-~ PS Soft Interview Rooms $
2 - ___~__5_n_¡t;teral Files_-3 Drawer- I Court counterß
2 -_L:£'.o.<Jium__~___-~----- . Council Chambers --U
2 5 - Shelving - Open-Like ¡::xisting___- ¡Community Development ------L_.!
2 6 _.§helving---9pen_-"-Lik¡¡Existin.9 --___'PublicWorks_____-_: $
- 2 - 6 - _.,.§.helvif19..".Qpel'l" Lik¡¡ Existil1g~- - mc Works ~
n_L . 3 - ¡Tabl_e - End - ¡ PS Soft Interview Rooms I $
- --~~ ~Ies - (24" x 84" on plan) -] EOCrrraining Room H
2 . 2 ITables - Attornevs ,Courtroom 3 $
850.00 $
225.00 $
150.00 $
28.00 $
150.00 $
150.00 $
450.00 $
400.00 $
325.00 $
1,100.00 $
2,400.00 $
50.00 $
350.00 $
1,150.00 $
-'!QQ.QQ _!
850.00 I $
850.00 $
250.00 $
450.00 $
300.00 $
---
---
I--
3,150.00 $
8,750.00 $
450.00 ~
875.00 I $
3,600.00
9,625.0_Q.
PHASE 1
TOTAL I $ 126,O94~
-- 200.00 1-$- - 0.00
50.00 ' $ 5.00
90.00 ¡ $ - - 0.00
400.00 I $ 9.:.QQ
450.00 '$ 1 Qi>Q
140.00 $ O.OQ
180.00 $ -0.00
400.00 $ 0.00
400.00 $ 0.00
- $ .9.:QQ.
2~.- 0.00
~- 5.00
150.00 : $ 0.00
------t~ '.D.OO
500.00 I $ '().:.o.Q
600.00 I $ 10.00
6õ0:00jT io.õ6
150.00 ~_L IQi>.Q
~ - ~9j)()
100.00 I $ 10.00
1,700.00 $
225.00 $
900.00 $
5,600.00 $
16,500.00 $
2,100.00 $
2,700.00 $
3,200.00 $
6,500.00 $
1,100.00 $
2,400.00 $
150.00 $
1,750.00 $
1,150.00 $
2,000.00 - $
5,100.00 $
5,100.00 $
750.00 $
7,650.00 $
600.00 $
------
PHASE 2
TOTAL
$
72,220.00
OS/20/2004 4:58 PM
SW 1/4 OF SEC. 17, TWP, 21 N., RGE. 4 E., W,M,
8EHed ..o" DATA
ESM CON,.", PeM'IT NO '. TOP 0; B'ASS DISC IN MONUMENT
CASE 'OOATEO IN 1\<E CENTER"NE 0' SOUTH moo S,"«T, 09366
rEfT SOUTH,"",STERl' ,"OM TeE 'NTER$Een,!' " OTH A""NUE
s001\< 0'"""'0 USONe ces "" TO eIT' 0; "DERAL WAY
PUB""'ED eENCH "AR"S £lEVA nON '" " (NOVl) 29)
ËSM CONTROL ?eMNT NO, 2. TOP 0; BR'SS DISC 'N MONUME",
CASE LOCATED AT TH' "'TERSECnON 0' 8TH A""NUE souTH AND
Sou'" "'RD STREET. ELEVATION J46.53 (NCVI)
>0).
BASIS or ef"""NG$
eAS'S 0' BE"""'CS. Pl" 0' 'WEST CAMPUS eUSINESS AND o;fleE
p^",,' "'OROED IN vOLUME 96 OF PLATS, PACES 50 T"ROUGH 'J.
",COROS Co' KlNC COUNTY. ","""CTON.
,""UT)
,.". .. ,.
/
"£è~'U5-"'~~
ø ~~:\v~',~
¡¡. 3" "
GRAPHIC SCALE
~.J-1 ~ j
@ òI cF '" evc SO . I CO%
Co) 08#2 ,r ,
. GR- D' "
'Eo'" ,...
í -- ---
- "-
@ "L' '" p"'e >0 "'DO~
@ ,a"", ¡
,.."",
'c.",."
\Ð>ncAi. OA"""
OTY 0; 'EDER" WAY (NO"" 29) ,
á
"C'."".."","',"," ¡.;.. $'$,1."
.~-../A' -.(.; "'r,
..- -..---
cD 77 I.F ,,' ?V, $0 9 82C'
rG) ","'ASS "'NriOLE " ($EE DET'"
~ SO", e..I")
RiM.',""
""'" ¡¡
"dJD.V<! ,N-FOW^< "NCCKeU')
0 19"""P",,,SOOIOD%
0 ~~~~G~~;O¿~PARATD. (SE( DETAIL
R'M-m" .
'E(~)='2B.()8
"(~')o"',"
5' HIGH, 'LA" VlN\'\.
COATED ,"AJ' ',"K FENCl:
7,~-
I
I
. I
". """" "~m'"
"n . """~. ,...
'lio""",.""
.n. ,... ", ,-.. DO"'"
Y ..$J~\'tt,::;-. ., ..;i:!:,..¡,.,o
-- ..... -- ---- ì
ø 'L; 12" pve SO @ I.DOX
0 ,'".' LEAr COM'O5' 5'ORM"'1£"
VAULT (SEE OETAIL "'EO C-ID')
TOP-".',
'C('o)-.m ", "(ocl)-n> "
cD 32 Lf '2" pve So .. I.ODX
@ "'-"2'Pvc.'D"5"~
0 ~~s~~¡O::;;K~~~o COVER
R'M-JJ9.'"
1E'325 "
PARKING LOT STANnARn,
TOTAl STALLS. 115
STAlL WlD'IH - B.50'
STALL OEP1\1 - 'B,GO'
AISL£ WIDTH - 25. SO'
FOR HORIZONTAL CONTROL. PI£ASE
NOTE; CONTRACTOR SHAu. LAYOUT
SiTE PER ENGINEER PROVIDED
AUTOCADD FILE.
.\.
@ '5£ Lf '0' LOPE so G I.OD~
ø MH." ,r "-'B'O
,,/souo. ,OC"'Ne eovm
",.-J04', 1M"" EX GR'OE)
',.J24 "
@ 22 Lf 's" cCPE so G ",3'X
ø JOI" EX"""'; CA'CH 'A5IN
'E(,o,-m,'
~.. -- - --- -- - -
@ g~-~i,',rD'
"-»090
CD 28"""'",,,50"","
@ """ EX""NO ,," ~PE, 1E=(m,24)
0 2D Lf ,,' so (M"CH MAn. SLOP!)
@i ~~~o"',;ë.~Z;: CO"".
.,"""'"
"IS).029,Ol
'[«)-329.06(MIN) m NOTE 'or
ø '0 Lf ,,' so (MATCH MATL) .0,77'
G) JOIN 'XlsnNC >,P[, "'('2874)
REI
PHASE 1
tI.O1L AlL EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON WAS TAKEN FROM A SURVEY
PREPARED BY ESM CONSULTING ENG)NEERS, . Joe No, 191-6g-002-0001. DATED 0'-2'-0~.
SOUND CONSULTANTS. LLC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBIUTY FOR THE ACCURACY OR
COMPLETENESS OF THAT EXISTING INFORMATION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERifY. AS FIRST
ORDER OF CONSTRUCTION, THE HORI2ONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATIONS OF AlL CRiTICAL PO)NTS
OF CONNECTION AND IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE O""'ER AND/OR ENGINEER OF ANY SIGNIFICANT
DISCREPANCY WHICH WOULD PREVENT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THAT DEPICTED HEREON,
./fJ
PERMIT NO. 0""001104-000-'
Cd 2 Wor'<rG 0..,. ........ You DIg
1-800-424-5555
- ~ Location eer.tor
(I[)J,IT.NO.OfI.WA>
,.~
SW 1/4 OF SEC, 17, TW?, 21 N., RGE. 4 E.. W,M,
SENCH "ARK DATA
~;L~
0 CSI', T'"
011",',',10
iE'JJL"
"N"'RY S'WER ,,=
<y CL<"'OUT
>!"-"D,OD (.ArCH G'ACE)
'E-¡"',") ,JOt"
ESM ,:o,mOl POINT NO, 1 TOP or 9P'SS DISC IN .O""","
"" ,-,"""O IN TN' CENTERUN' 0' SOUTH "'RD S",EET. '9366
'EET 'OUTHWESfERLY "OM 'HE INTEOSECTION AT 8TH AV'NUC
S<')UTH D'RI""" "'ING oes "" TO CiTY 0' 'EOER" WAY
'US"'"'O BENCH .'RKS E"VA nON '" " ¡NcvD 20),
"" OCONTR"'- P"INT NO 2, TO? O' BRASS DiSO IN "ON"M"T
CAS( LOC""D ^' THE INTERSECTION Of RTH AVONUE soun; AND
SOUTH mRD Sf"ET (LEVAnoN 3<68' (NG,^,
29)
@ "",," eve '0 e LOD'
@ ce", TY ,
GRo"',IO
"-,,D,"
@ 86 '-, ,," P\~ SO ð 100.
@ ,~'N 'XiST "ANHOLE
"'.-°"'0)
IE'(""',33)
<i> '5 Lf 8' PVC 5DR" so .. JE"
<Y ~;i:~~~~o
I(-J275B
<3> .2 Lf 5' PVC SOR" SS 6 200"
<Y ~¡J~~~~.
'E-"","
BASIS Of SEARING>
','
"'SIS or SEARINGS PeAT CF .WEST C'MPliS BUSINESS AND ""'C'
e,RK' m,!Rom IN "O,U"E " or "^", P'GES ',0 THROUGH 5J,
0"°"0' "' KINO COU"'" WA'"'NOT')N
<y 87 LF '" p,o SOR35 55 0 200"
ð CLEANOuT
"'="5 75
1(-330,17
<y ,"OS~NG'"
CROWNC'"SS)-"B6T
!E(I2"SO- "'0'
'IE"'" CATUM
N' Ü'- FC""AL WAY (NGVO 29) ,
'$
;;.
..',;O" ""
,,$
"",;;:-$,; "
<'> ¿=;~~5'?i~i-3JOOB
IE(""'0-3"",40
d
~
.-- -- -- -
PARKING LOT STANDARDS
TOTAL STALLS. 62
STALL WIDTH = 8,50'
STALL DEPTH = '8 DO'
AISLE WIDTH = 25,50'
>OR HORiZGNTAL CONTROL, PLEASE
NOTE, C'JNTRACTOR SHALL LAY OUT
SITE PER ENGINEER PROVIDED
ELECTRONIC DATA >lLE.
..~'
':,
::..------
",,""',..,,-.......,,"",-
co"'",,'" S"'" """", ""ON
",..,,"', "" '" ,"""" .",'"
I'"~ or"" "AtON) ,. ",ON, .co'" .'"
","" "..,. ".. ~"'. ",.." w""
L_----",,--- -"""-(\;
" ,',
"':'"
I
"
c:(:::¡,
. c. ""
"",:;:;. '"
¡""
'""
-i~~~~~~:;~;~
'<-.oJ;¡>
,,'"
,"'-'
""'-¡,>
~ -- CH'iN UN< ,,"Co PER
./ """"SH'E1C-'0'
// ..
'EmDNE BLCC< ~ r- - ~j;Ef"':"X.;"
W'l' (STANDARD ..,¡,: '.- "J', '"',
BIGCK)1i-," ~" ".- ',.',',.".":,'~,' .,,'r-CABRIC PE'
i~ """, "~,,;,,y. // "'SIGN
I~" -,,"-~
< ' . ,
,~ >'. ,,0' "- :
I ....~~
~" '" "---O"'N'G'
. ,,' O'ML
, :,~,"'--"P'R")f"IT.,D
'-~~ OR,\lN p'eE
',-- OVEREXC'" '" AS N(CESS
TO "'RING SO"
DETAIL - KEYSTONE WALL
CCNTRACTO" TO ,"OVID' STRUCTURAL W'Ll OC"'CN
TO CIT'( Of' FEDERAL WAY "'0 "WRE AlL
NECESSARY PE".'rs e>!o;¡ TO CONS",U,"""
é,
/
(.", 'c
GRAPHIC SCALE
h.-_.u-o- ~ i
,. ",,)
on" - '" "
PHASE 2
tQJE; ALL EXISnNG TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMAnON SHOWN HEREON WAS TAKEN rROM A SURVEY
PREPARED BY ESM CONSULnNG ENGINEERS. , JOB No, 191-69-002-000), DATtD 04-24-03,
SOUND CONSULTANTS, LLC, ASSUMES NO RESPONSISIUTY FOR THE ACCURACY OR
COMPLETtNESS 0> THAT EXIS11NG INFORMA11ON, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIf'(, AS FIRST
ORDER 0> CONSTRUCnON. THE HORIZONTAL AND VERnCAL LOCA110NS 0> ALL CRIT)CAL POINTS
or CONNEcnON AND IIAIAEDIA TtL Y NonN THE OWNER AND/OR ENGINEER or ANY SIGNIFICANT
DISCREPANCY WHICH WOULO PREVENT THE CONSTRUCnQN 0> THAT OEPICr(O HEREON,
RE~
At,,",-
CoI 2 - Do.. Sokn You "'"
1-800-424-5555
.... ~ Loc;don Cent..-
<D,IIT,tÐ,OR.WAJ
PERMIT NO, 04-100904-000-
~""'"
,,~
MEETING DATE:
June 1,2004
ITEM#
°}lL
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT:
Potential Annexation Area Subarea Plan
CATEGORY:
BUDGET IMP ACT:
D CONSENT
0 RESOLUTION
D CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS
D ORDINANCE
[8J PUBLIC HEARING
D OTHER
Amount Budgeted:
Expenditure Amt.:
Contingency Req'd:
$0
$0
$0
ATTACHMENTS: May 3, 2004 LUTC packet (includes: staff report to LUTC dated May 3, 2004, staff
reports to Planning Commission dated February 25, March 29 and April 3, 2004, SEPA determination of
non significance, written public comments to Planning Commission and Planning Commission minutes),
LUTC minutes from May 3, 2004 meeting, May 24, 2004 LUTC memo. P AA Subarea Plan and
Feasibility Study provided prior to May 3, 2004 LUTC meeting.
SUMMARYIBACKGROUND: As a chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Potential
Annexation Area (P AA) Subarea Plan establishes pre-annexation Comprehensive Plan and zoning
designations, and general policies regarding land use, transportation, environment, capital facilities,
public services, annexation and other issues. The plan includes a fiscal analysis of annexation feasibility
within the PM. The PM Subarea Plan has been reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 3,
2004, March 17,2004, April 7, 2004 and April 21, 2004 and LUTC on May 3, 2004 and May 24, 2004
and forwarded to City Council for final action.
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: On May 3, 2004 and May 24, 2004 the
LUTC recommended the Proposed Final Potential Annexation Area (PM) Subarea Plan be approved as
proposed with the following recommendations regarding four site specific zoning requests:
A. Apply the Community Business plan classification and BC zoning with companion
Comprehensive Plan text amendment and development agreement (at time of annexation) to the
Jackson property analysis area (adjacent to northbound 1-5 freeway on-ramps on the north side of
S. 320th Street).
B. Apply the Neighborhood Business plan classification and Neighborhood Business (BN) zoning to
the Davis site located at 30682 Military Rd. S.
C. Apply the Single Family High Density plan classification and RS9.6 zoning (9,600 square foot lot
sizes) to the North Lake Frontage Lots on the east side of North Lake.
D. Apply the Neighborhood Business plan classification and Neighborhood Business (BN) zoning to
the Rabie site located at the intersection of 288th S1. S. and 1-5.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to direct staff to schedule a 2nd public hearing and prepare an
ordinance for first reading on July 6, 2004, adopting the proposed Potential Annexation Area Subarea
Plan as recommended by the LUTc."
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
................................................ ...................................
~
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
D APPROVED
D DENIED
0 T ABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION
0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
COUNCIL BILL #
1 ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
REVISED - 05/10/2001
City of Federal Way
City Council
land Use/Transportation Committee
May 3, 2004
5:30 pm
City Hall
Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
1.
CALL TO ORDER
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 19, 2004, meeting
3.
PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes)
4.
BUSINESS ITEMS
A.
B.
Potential Annexation Area Expansion
RFB 04-110; Sewer Extension Bellacarino Woods-
Bid Rejection/Request to Re-Bid
Trip Reduction Performance Incentive for Federal Way Employers
Kitts Corner Development Plan & Development Agreement Update
Amendments to Countywide Planning Policies to Designate
Downtown Auburn as an Urban Center
Overview of 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
PAA Subarea Plan
Proposed New Freeway Commercial Zone
Quadrant Site-Specific Request
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
1.
5.
FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS
6.
ADJOURN
Action Conlen/15 min
Action Bucich/10 min
Action Perez/15 min
Information Harris/20 min
Action Clark/15 min
Information Clark/5 min
Action Conlen/20 min
Action Clark/20 min
Action Clark/20 min
Committee Members
Jack Dovey, Chair
Ene Faison
Michael Park
City Staff
Kathy McClung, Director, Community Development Services
E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant
253-661-4105
K 1.l']c,\~,'"d.",¡ndS"""".""'_"'"'\~by\.è"O"I.l'J( Agendad",
City of Federal Way
City Council
land UselTransportation Committee
April 19, 2004
5:00 p.m.
City Hall
Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
In attendance: Committee Members Jack Dovey, Chair, Eric Faison and Michael Park; Mayor Dean McColgan, Deputy Mayor
Linda Kochmar, Council Members Jim Ferrell and Jeanne Burbidge; City Manager David Moseley; Public Works Director Cary
Roe; Deputy City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick; Public Works Deputy Director Ken Miller; Street Systems Manager Marwan
Salloum; Surface Water Manager Paul Bucich; Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; Street Systems Engineer Brian Roberts; and
Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety.
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Dovey called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm.
It was m/s/c to amend the agenda by adding Item E, Briefing on 288th Access, which will be an informational briefing by
Public Works Director Cary Roe.
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The summary minutes of the April 5, 2004, meeting was approved as presented.
3.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Rod Leland, Federal Way School District Facilities Director, commented that the School District supports a connection
between Pacific Highway South and 9th Avenue South. The District is considering consolidating school facilities on the land
that they are interested in this area and feel that a connection utilizing 332nd would work best for their proposed project. He
gave the Committee a copy of a map showing the parcels they are considering and how a connection utilizing 332nd would
work. The plans they have are conceptual at this stage, but they would like a commitment from the City that a connection
will be planned between Pacific Highway South and 9th Avenue South.
4.
BUSINESS ITEMS
A. 51st Avenue SW Storm Drain Improvements - Final Project Acceptance & Authorization to Release Retainage-
This project has been completed at a cost below the expected cost. The Committee m/s/c the staff recommendation to
place on the May 4,2004, City Council Consent Agenda, acceptance of the 51s1 Avenue SW Storm Drain Improvements
Construction Contract (AG No. 03-111), constructed by R. L Alia, Company, in the amount of 43,400.65 as complete, and
authorize staff to release the retainage.
B. West Hylebos Creek Restoration Project Bid Award - The bid came in below estimate and the contractor has
assured the City they can do the work for amount stated. The Committee m/slc the staff recommendation to place on the
May 4,2004, City Council Consent Agenda to award the West Hylebos Creek Restoration Project to Jansen Inc., the
lowest responsive, responsible bidder in the amount of $449,648.10 and approve a 10% construction contingency of
$44,964.81 for a total of $494,612.91; and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract.
C. 23rd Avenue South Road Improvements Project - Final Project Acceptance & Retainage Release - This project
was completed in late 2002. It is coming before the LUTC now due to disputes that have been resolved. The Committee
m/s/c the staff recommendation to place on the May 4,2004, Council Consent Agenda acceptance of the 23rd Avenue
South Road Improvements Project (South 316th to South 324th Street), constructed by DPK, Inc., in the amount of
$5,4 71,895.86 as complete.
D. Alternative Cross Sections for Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase III Project - Council Member Dovey
recused himself from this issue because he has property in the area. Council Member Park chaired this portion of the
meeting. The City has completed the first phase of the Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Project with the second phase
currently under construction, and the third phase in preliminary design. In the first two phases, the project was designed
consistent with Cross Section A of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. Numerous existing developments encroach into
the right-of-way required to construct Cross Section A. To minimize project impacts to adjacent businesses, the City made
minor modifications to this cross section, reduced the right-of-way purchased, and/or made some minor modifications
during right-of-way negotiations. Based on several of the right-of-way acquisitions and the impacts of implementing Cross
Section A in Phases I and II, the Council requested that staff review the possibility of reducing the width of Pacific Highway
K:\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2004\ApnI19. 2004. LUTC MInutes doc
South Cross Section A and to present their recommendations to the City Council for consideration. In response, staff has
developed two Cross Section alternatives. The proposed alternative, Cross Section A-1 (beginning on the west side of the
highway), plan elements include a three-foot utility strip, six-foot sidewalk, four and one-half foot planter strip, three lanes in
each direction (a 14-foot HOV lane, an 11-foot outside general purpose lane, and a 12-foot inside general purpose lane), a
12-foot landscaped median, a four and one-half foot planter strip, an eight-foot sidewalk, and a three-foot utility strip. Cross
Section A-2 plan elements would be identical to Cross Section A-1 , except the planter strip on the west side of Pacific
Highway South would be eliminated. With Cross Section A-2, the magnitude of right-of-way impacts on business would be
the same as Cross Section A-1 , but there would be no separation between pedestrians and traffic; a loss of aesthetic
continuity with the WSDOT project to the north and the Pacific Highway HOV Lanes Phases I & II; and there would be less
space to locate stormwater treatment facilities and underground utilities on the west side of the roadway. Even if Cross
Section A-1 or A-2 is adopted, there will be some sections of Pacific Highway South that will not have planter strips
because theywould neij,atively impact the businesses; namely at Dash Point Road, nextto the Nextel building, and at the
Shell gas station at 288 . The Committee asked If It would be possible to decrease the size of the landscape median. Mr.
Salloum replied that a smaller landscape median is possible, but it would not provide enough room for left-hand turn
pockets and would not be large enough to plant trees in. The Committee m/s/c the staff recommendation to place on the
May 4,2004, City Council Consent Agenda direction to staff to utilize Alternative Cross Section A-1 in designing the Pacific
Highway South HOV lanes Phase III Project and make planter strip modifications to the cross section at specific locations,
to avoid impacts on businesses.
E. Briefing on 288th Access - At the April 6, 2004, City Council meeting, staff was directed to consider alternatives for
this project. Staff will present this proposal at the April 20, 2004, City Council meeting. The major issue is sight distance.
For vehicles turning left from 288th into the Shell ~as station site, there are two obstructions on Pacific Highway South that
make it difficult to see cars turning right onto 288 . These two obstructions are the Shell sign and the signal controller
cabinet. The staff's proposal is for the owner (at his expense) to move the Shell sign in line with the controller cabinet so
there is only one obstruction. A gap will be made in the c-curb for left turns into the site. In addition, there will be signage to
prohibit left turns out of the driveways for the Shell station, animal hospital, and check cashing business. Staff recommends
they monitor and evaluate this situation for six months. The Committee asked if the previous discussion on the Cross
Section would require that the owner move the sign a second time? Mr. Roe responded that the owner would not be
required/requested to move the sign more than once. The Committee asked what is the threshold for the six-month
monitoring period? Mr. Roe replied that the staff have not considered all aspects of this proposal and would be prepared to
respond to this question at tomorrow's Council meeting. Since this project is almost completed, and the proposal is
contingent upon the owner moving the sign, it was recommended that the owner be given a certain date by which the sign
must be moved and if not, a gab in the c-curb for the left turn access will not be granted.
5.
FUTURE MEETING
The next scheduled meeting is May 3, 2004.
6.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
K\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2004\April 19.2004. LUTC Minutes doc
....~
~
CITY OF~""~'-~'
Federal Way
MEMORANDUM
April 26, 2004
To:
Jack Dovey, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTe)
FROM:
Isaac Conlen, Associate Plann~~
David M~~ Manager
\
Potential Annexation Area Subarea Plan
VIA:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE:
May 3, 2004
I.
Introduction
This memorandum transmits the Planning Commission recommendation regarding the Potential
Annexation Area (P AA) Subarea Plan to the Land Use and Transportation Committee. The report gives a
brief background and overview of the PAA Subarea Plan. The PAA Subarea Plan and PAA Annexation
Feasibility Study (attachments I and II respectively) have already been forwarded to the Committee.
The February 25,2004 Planning Commission staff report is also attached for review (Exhibit III). That
report gives a detailed overview of the P AA Subarea Plan including discussion of four site-specific
zoning requests received from property owners as part of the public involvement review process. Two
shorter staff reports dated March 29, 2004 and April 13, 2004 primarily provide responses to Planning
Commission questions and are attached for reference (Exhibits IV and V respectively).
Summary of Planning Commission Recommendation
On April 21, 2004 the Planning Commission recommended the Proposed Final Potential Annexation
Area (PAA) Subarea Plan be approved per the staff proposal (Exhibit III, staffreport dated February 25,
2004), except the following modifications to the staff proposal are recommended:
A. Apply the Office Park and Single Family High Density plan class and Office Park (OP) and
RS9.6 (single-family 9,600 square foot lot sizes) zoning to the Jackson property analysis area
(adjacent to northbound 1-5 freeway on-ramps on the north side of S 320lh Street).
B. Apply the Neighborhood Business plan class and Neighborhood Business (BN) zoning to the
Davis site located at 30682 Military Rd. S.
Planning Commission also discussed two additional site-specific zoning requests. The Commission
was unable to reach a majority decision regarding the Rabie site and therefore does not forward a
recommendation for this site. Planning Commissioners expressed support for a self-storage use on
the site (which the applicant has expressed interested in), but felt that City zones, which allow self-
storage uses, are too intensive for the area. Staff recommended the Single Family High Density plan
class and RS7.2 (single-family 7,200 square foot lot sizes) zoning.
With regard to the Northlake Frontage Lots site-specific request, the Planning Commission concurred
with the applicant's request and the staff recommendation and recommends the Single Family High
Density plan class and RS9.6 (single-family 9,600 square foot lot sizes) zoning. (See Table 1 on page
4)
II.
Background and Overview
The City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan identifies a 5,000-acre Potential Annexation Area (PAA)
largely east ofl-5. A smaller 40+ acre area is located along SR-99 near S 272nd Street in the Redondo
area. The boundaries of the P AA were established through a series of interlocal agreements between the
City of Federal Way and neighboring south King County cities. Consistent with the State Growth
Management Act and Countywide Planning Policies for King County, the City would ultimately annex
the P AA and provide City services. To review its P AA comprehensively and in advance of individual
requests, the City of Federal Way, with the support of King County, initiated a PAA Subarea Plan and
Annexation Feasibility Study. By evaluating the feasibility of potential annexations and planning for the
future delivery of services, residents of the P AA and the City can make more infonned choices about their
future.
The PAA Annexation Feasibility Study found that the City of Federal Way would experience a significant
negative fiscal impact on its operating budget if the P AA areas east ofl-5 were annexed to the City and
the City used the same revenue sources and rates, and provided the same level of services as it provides to
the residents and businesses in the CUITent boundaries of the City. The annual deficit would be just under
$3.6 million ($8.2 million cost; $4.6 million revenue). The Redondo area is estimated to have no
operating cash deficit.
In addition, the City of Federal Way would experience major costs for capital improvements in the PAA
totaling over $48.3 million. Dedicated capital revenue is anticipated to be $32.0 million through the year
2020, leaving an unfunded cost of$16.3 million.
To address the fiscal impact the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Annexation Feasibility Report,
December 2003 identifies six categories of strategies that could be pursued to address the significant
negative fiscal impacts of annexation, as follows, without a priority order:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
State and County Support
Local Taxpayers
Tax Base Expansion
Special Districts
Reduced or Phased Levels of Service
Phased Annexation
Some implementation strategies may be suitable for different portions of the PAA while others may not
be. Study of the alternatives prior to or at the time of annexation requests would be warranted. The
Feasibility Study Implementation Strategies are integrated into the Subarea Plan policies.
Page 2
The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan addresses required State and County topics, and would broadly
address the major concerns found in the PAA. The PAA Subarea Plan is intended to be a part of the
overall City Comprehensive Plan, and it would replace the current PAA Element. The PAA Subarea Plan
provides area-specific goals, objectives, and policies appropriate for the PAA, addressing a range ofbuilt
and natural environment topics. The area-specific issues emphasized in the P AA goals and po1icies,
include the following:
.
Support of Single Family Neighborhoods as the primary land use of the P AA.
.
Identification of neighborhood or community commercial centers along arterials, as appropriately
scaled nodes for local-serving retail, and multifamily housing styles.
.
Relationship of the PAA to the Federal Way City Center, such as different functions of
commercial centers.
.
Opportunities for subsequent detailed planning efforts such as master planning.
.
Area-specific environmental protection policies.
.
Capital improvements to meet levels of service for transportation, parks and recreation, and
surface water.
.
Annexation strategies addressing fiscal feasibi1ity, phasing, service de1ivery, and others.
As part of implementing the P AA Subarea Plan, the City has the option of adopting pre-annexation
comprehensive plan and zoning map designations (RCW 35.13.177), which would become effective upon
annexation. Pre-annexation comprehensive plan classification and zoning map designations could
provide more certainty to property owners and residents about the future character of the area should they
annex to the City. The PAA Subarea Plan includes both Pre-annexation Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Maps. The base or starting point for developing the maps was first to match the most similar City
classification to the current County classification. Although the basis of the P AA Subarea Plan is the
King County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the City proposed adjustments to the basic land
classification system in some areas as a result of a detailed review of existing land uses and future land
use/zoning classifications.
Through the P AA Subarea Plan public process, four requests were received to modify the associated
proposed Pre-annexation Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps. The four requests, staff
recommendations and Planning Commission recommendations are summarized in Table 1 (next page).
Page 3
Table 1. Summary of Site-Specific Land Use Plan/Zoning Requests and Recommendations
Applicant/Site King Proposed Applicant Staff Planning
County Federal Request Recommendation Commission
Plan and Way Recommendation
Zone PAA
Plan and
Zone
Richard and Louise DR 4-12 SFHD BN plan SFHD plan class BN plan class and
Davis - 30682 plan class plan class class and and RS9.6 zoning zone
Military Road South and NB and zone
ZOnIng RS9.6
zoning
Jerry Jackson, All COOC/UR OP and BC plan Apply a new OP and SFHD
American Assoc. 4-12 with SFHD class and BC proposed Freeway plan class and OP
320th Street just east 0 and R-4 plan class zone Commercial plan and RS9.6 zoning
of the NE zonIng and OP class and zone
interchange on- and
ramps RS9.6
zonIng
North Lake Zoning DR 4-12 SFHD SFHD plan SFHD plan class SFHD plan class
Petition Committee, du/ac and and class with with RS9.6 zoning with RS9.6 zoning
contact Lois R-6 zone RS7.2 RS9.6
Kutscha, North Lake ZOnIng ZOnIng
lots fronting
shoreline
Lee Rabie, Enerco COOC SFHD Commercial Apply SFHD plan No
Inc., SW "comer" of plan class plan class classification class and RS7.2 Recommendation
1-5 S 288th Street and NB and for proposed zonIng forwarded
east of 1-5, parcels ZOnIng RS7.2 self-storage
032104-9066-00 and with P- zonIng use.
042104-9045-05 Suffix Equivalent
(FW-P29) City
condition designation
linriting that would
use to self- allow self-
storage storage are
BC and BP
Key
BC = Community Business
UR
Residential
Urban
BN or NB = Neighborhood
Business
COOC = Commercial Outside of 0 = Office
Centers
R = Residential - number are SFHD = Single Family High
units/acre or lot square feet Density
OP = Office Park
Page 4
III
LAND USE/TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The committee has the following options:
~ Recommend to City Council adoption of the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan as t ...:1-
modi led and forwarded by Planning Commission; '&JU"'11 :?c'-l.\t3r-y\ ~S~.ie- 'Sf~--<..CL fCh:""féctL
u,}u'c\-.- l1J I \ l be J.ec \C~~C, {;'(\. tY1Mf If
Modify the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan and recommend to City Council adoption of
the Plan as modified;
Recommend to City Council that the Proposed Final PAA Subarea Plan not be adopted.
ApPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REpORT
~
¿~P
~ 9ft
mber Ene faison, Member
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit I:
Exhibit II:
Exhibit III:
Exhibit N:
Exhibit V:
Exhibit VI:
Exhibit VII:
Exhibit VIII:
Potential Annexation Area Subarea Plan, Proposed Final December 2003
Potential Annexation Area Annexation Feasibility Study, December 2003
February 25, 2004 Staff report to Planning Commission
March 29, 2004 Staff Report to Planning Commission
April 13, 2004 Staff Report to Planning Commission
SEPA Detennination of Non Significance
Written public comments (submitted to Planning Commission)
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 5
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
'. .
""""""""""""::!!'!'
EXHIBIT ~
PAGE-LCF 35
February 25, 2004
. "",;,'
To:
John Caulfield, Chair of the City of Federal Way Planning Commission
FROM:
Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services
Greg Fewins, Deputy Director of Community Development Services
SUBJECT:
Federal Way Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Subarea Plan
I.
Recommendation Summary
It is recommended that the Proposed Final Potential Annexation Area (P AA) Subarea Plan be
approved. The following amendments to the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan are also
recommended:
.
Apply the Freeway Commercial Plan class and zone to the Jackson property analysis area
(adjacent to northbound 1-5 freeway on-ramps on north side of S 320th Street).
.
Amend the North Lake frontage lots to have a Pre-Annexation zone ofRS9.6.
II.
Background Summary
The City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan identifies a 5,000-acre Potential Annexation Area
(P AA) largely east ofI-5. A smaller 40+ acre area is located along SR-99 near S 272nd Street in
the Redondo area. The boundaries of the P AA were established through a series of interlocal
agreements between the City of Federal Way and neighboring south King County cities.
Consistent with the State Growth Management Act and Countywide Planning Policies for King
County, the City wouldultimately annex in the PAA and provide City services. To review its
P AA comprehensively and in advance of individual requests, the City of Federal Way, with the
support of King County, initiated a P AA Subarea Plan and Annexation Feasibility Study. By
evaluating the feasibility of potential annexations and planning for the future delivery of
services, residents of the P AA and the City can make more infonned choices about their future.
The P AA Annexation Feasibility Study found that the City of Federal Way would experience a
significant negative fiscal impact on its operating budget if the PAA areas east ofI-5 were
annexed to the City and the City used the same revenue sources and rates, and provided the same
level of services as it provides to the residents and businesses in the CUITent boundaries of the
EXHIBIT 3
PAGE ;) OF ~~
Page 2 of 24
February 25, 2004
City. The annual deficit would be just under $3.6 million ($8.2 million cost; $4.6 million
revenue). The Redondo area is estimated to have no operating cash deficit.
In addition, the City of Federal Way would experience major costs for capital improvements in
the PAA totaling over $48.3 million. Dedicated capital revenue is anticipated to be $32.0 million
through the year 2020, leaving an unfunded cost of $16.3 million.
The City would undoubtedly continue City policy that Surface Water Management (SWM) costs
would be covered by Surface Water Fees within the structure of the Surface Water Enterprise
Fund. This would reduce the operating cost gap to $3.0 million and the èapital deficit to $11.6
million. In addition, the City will undoubtedly receive mitigation payments or impact fees from
development in the P AA, which were not possible to estimate at this time, but they would further
reduce the size of the capital deficit.
To address the fiscal impact the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Annexation Feasibility
Report, December 2003 identifies six categories of strategies that could be pursued to address the
significant negative fiscal impacts of annexation, as follows, without a priority order:
1. State and County Support
5. Reducèd or Phased Levels of
Service
2. Local Taxpayers
6. Phased Annexation
3. Tax Base Expansion
4. Special Districts
Some implementation strategies may be suitable for different portions of the P AA while others
may not be. Study of the alternatives prior to or at the time of annexation requests would be
warranted. The Feasibility Study Implementation Strategies are integrated into the Subarea Plan
policies.
The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan addresses required State and County topics, and would
broadly address the major concerns found in the P AA. The P AA Subarea Plan is intended to be
a part of the overall City Comprehensive Plan, and it would replace the current P AA Element.
The P AA Subarea Plan provides area-specific goals, objectives, and policies appropriate for the
P AA, addressing a range of built and natural environment topics. The area-specific issues
emphasized in the P AA goals and policies, include the following:
.
Support of Single Family Neighborhoods as the primary land use of the PAA.
.
Identification of neighborhood or community commercial centers along arterials, as
appropriately scaled nodes for local-serving retail, and multifamily housing styles.
.
Relationship of the P AA to the Federal Way City Center, such as different functions of
commercial centers.
EXHIBIT -3
PAGE ~ OF ;5
Page 3 of 24
February 25, 2004
.
Opportunities for subsequent detailed planning efforts such as master planning.
.
Area-specific environmental protection policies.
.
Capital improvements to meet levels of service for transportation, parks and recreation, and
surface water.
.
Annexation strategies addressing fiscal feasibility, ph~sing, service delivery, and others.
As part of implementing the P AA Subarea Plan, the City has the option of adopting a pre-
annexation comprehensive plan and zoning map designations (RCW 35.13.177), which would
become effective upon annexation. Pre-annexation comprehensive plan classification and zoning
map designations could provide more certainty to property owners and residents about the future
character of the area should they annex to the City. The P AA Subarea Plan includes a both Pre-
annexation Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps. The base or starting point for developing the
maps was first to match the most similar City classification to the current County classification.
Although the basis ofthe P AA Subarea Plan is the King County Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
the City proposed adjustments to the basic land classification system in some areas as result of a
detailed review of existing land uses and future land uselzoning classifications.
Through the P AA Subarea Plan public process, four requests were received to modify the
associated proposed Pre-annexation Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps. The four requests
and staff recommendations are summarized in Table I.
Table 1. Summary of Site-Specific Land Use Plan/Zoning Requests and Recommendations
Applicant/Site King Proposed Applicant Staff Recommendation
County Federal Req uest
Plan and Way
Zone PAA Plan
and Zone
Richard and Louise Davis - 30682 UR 4-12 SFHD BN plan class SFHD plan class and RS9.6
Military Road South plan class plan class and zone zoning
and NB and RS9.6
zoning zoning
Jell)' Jackson, All American Assoc. COOC/UR OP and Community Apply a new proposed
320th Street just east of the NE 4-12 with SFHD Business plan Freeway Commercial plan
interchange on-ramps 0 and R-4 plan class class and BC class and zone
zoning and OP zone
and RS9.6
zoning
North Lake Zoning Petition UR4-12 SFHD and SFHD plan class SFHD plan class with RS9.6
Committee, contact Lois Kutscha, dulac and RS7.2 with RS9.6 zoning.
North Lake lots fronting shoreline R-6 zone zoning. zoning.
EXHIBIT 3
PAGE t.f OF 33>
Page 4 of24
February 25, 2004
Applicant/Site King Proposed Applicant Staff Recommendation
County Federal Request
Plan and Way
Zone PAA Plan
and Zone
Lee Rabie, Enerco Inc., SW "comer" caac SFHD Commercial Apply SFHD plan class and
ofl-5 S 2&8th Street east ofl-5, plan class plan class classification for RS7.2 zoning.
parcels 032104-9066-00 and 042104- and NB and RS7.2 proposed self-
9045-05 zoning zonmg. storage use.
with p- Equivalent City
Suffix designation that
(FW-P29) would allow
condition self-storage are
limiting BC and SP.
use to self-
storage.
Key
BC = Community Business BN or NB = Neighborhood BP = Business Park
Business
COOC = Commercial Outside of Centers 0 = Office OP = Office Park
R = Residential - number are units/acre or lot square SFHD = Single Family High UR = Urban Residential
feet Density
Additional infonnation regarding the site-specific requests, plan and zone options, and
recommendations is provided later in this memo.
III.
Proposed Review Schedule
The P AA Subarea Plan has been reviewed by a P AA Steering Committee made up of
representatives from the City Council, Planning Commission, P AA residents, Chamber of
Commerce, School District, and Lakehaven Utility District. It has also been the subject of
several public open houses as identified further below in this memo. The P AA Subarea Plan will
now be fonnally reviewed by the Planning Commission, the Council's Land Useffransportation
Committee, and the City Council as a whole. The following table identifies potential meeting
dates.
Table 2. PM Subarea Plan Proposed Review Schedule
PAA Subarea Plan Activity Estimated Date Meeting Purpose
.
Planning Commission Public 3/3/04 Study Session
Meetings/Hearings
3/17/04 Hearing: Testimony on Four Site Specific
Requests & Freeway Commercial Zone
4/7/04 Deliberations
4/21/04 Back-up meeting continuation date
EXHIBIT ~
PAGE 6 OF ;:s
Page 5 of 24
February 25, 2004
PAA Subarea Plan Activit
Estimated Date
Meetin Pur ose
LUTC Public Meetings
5/3/04
5!l7/04
Discussion
Recommendation
City Council Hearings
6/1/04
Hearing
Cit Council Action
7/6/04
7/20/04
Second Hearin and First Readin
Second Readin
IV.
Potential Annexation Area Study
In anticipation of the Planning Commission's March 3, 2004 Study Session regarding the
Proposed Final Potential Annexation Area (P AA) Subarea Plan and Final Annexation
Feasibility Study this memo describes:
A. PAA Study Purpose
G. Subarea Plan Land Use Plan
B. PAA Study Area
H. Private Amendment Requests
D. P AA Background Studies
1. P AA Subarea Plan - Compliance
with Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Criteria
C. Public Participation
E. P AA Annexation Feasibility
Study
J. Conclusions and Recommendatio
Planning Commission Action
and Staff Recommendations
F. Subarea Plan Goals and Key
Policies
Each topic is addressed below in summary form. The Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan and
Final Annexation Feasibility Study should be consulted for more detailed infonnation.
A. PAA Study Purpose
The City of Federal Way Potential Annexation Area (PAA) was established through a series of
interlocal agreements between the City of Federal Way and neighboring south King County
cities. See Map 1 (P AA Subarea Plan Map I). Based upon the State of Washington Growth
Management Act (GMA) and King County Countywide Planning Policies, the City would
ultimately annex and provide services within its designated PAA.
Over time, property owners in the P AA have made annexation requests to the City of Federal
Way, which requires a thorough City analysis of service/capital expenditures, revenues, and
other issues. To review its P AA comprehensively and in advance of individual requests, the City
EXHIBIT ;
PAGE ~ OF ~;
Page 6 of 24
February 25, 2004
of Federal Way, with the support of King County, initiated a P AA Subarea Plan and Annexation
Feasibility Study. By. evaluating the feasibility of potential annexations and planning for the
future delivery of services, residents of the P AA and the City can make more infonned choices
about their future. Specific Subarea Plan purposes include:
.
To act as an infonnational resource for the City and County staff, elected officials, residents,
property owners, and business owners;
.
To identify the P AA-specific goals, policies, pre-annexation Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Map designations and capital plans; and
.
To provide the City with a framework to guide future annexations.
In coordination with the City's overall Comprehensive Plan, the PAA Subarea Plan provides a
Year 2020 long-range land use and policy plan to guide pre-annexation planning efforts and
annexation requests. It provides for pre-annexation Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Designations, capital facility plans for transportation, surface water, parks, and other facilities,
and policies for a variety of natural and built environment topics.
When adopted in final fonn, the P AA Subarea Plan will be a component of the overall Federal
Way Comprehensive Plan focusing upon the 5,000-acre future annexation area, and will replace
the Potential Annexation Area Element of the Comprehensive Plan currently in effect. It is
intended that the City's Comprehensive Plan Elements provide the general goals and policies for
land use, housing, capital facilities, utilities, transportation, economic development, and parks
and recreation for the P AA as well as the City. However, the P AA Subarea Plan is intended to
address unique characteristics or situations relevant to the P AA. Future annexation proposals
will be evaluated, and, if approved, implemented in accordance with the provisions of the
Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, that will include the PAA Subarea Plan.
B. PAA Study Area
For purposes of data collection efficiencies and resources, the P AA has been divided into three
Major Subareas as well as seven smaller Community Level Subareas. The Major and
Community Level Subareas are as follows (see Map 2; P AA Subarea Plan Map II):
.
The Redondo East Community Level Subarea is in the Redondo East Major Subarea (both
with identical boundaries), west of 1-5 and is approximately 43 acres in size.
.
Star Lake, Camelot, and North Lake Community Level Subareas comprise the Northeast
Major Subarea, east of 1-5 and north of SR-18, and total approximately 2,527 acres in size.
.
Lakeland, Parkway, and Jovita Community Level Subareas comprise the Southeast Major
Subarea, east ofl-5 and south of SR-18, and total approximately 2,470 acres in size.
EXHIBIT .3
PAGE 7 OF 33
Page 7 of 24
February 25, 2004
The subarea boundaries are based upon City-defined Transportation Analysis Zones which align
with Census Tract geography, neighborhood affinities as expressed in prior County planning
efforts, and the ability of the County to provide information within existing resources, as well as
input from the P AA Steering Committee in December 200 I.
C. Public Participation
Key to the development of the P AA Subarea Plan and Annexation Feasibility Study has been and
will be public participation. Public participation methods for the P AA Subarea Plan and
Annexation Feasibility Study are described in detail in the Subarea Plan, and are summarized
briefly below:
.
Articles in City and Utility District newsletters, and City and County website pages.
.
A PAA Study webpage on the City's website containing PAA publications and allowing
interested citizens to comment.
.
Coordination of draft work products with neighboring jurisdictions and affected agencies.
.
City facilitation of public neighborhood meetings with several Homeowner's Associations in
the P AA.
.
Mailing public meeting announcements and document publication announcements to a
comprehensive stakeholder list.
.
P AA Steering Committee meetings. The Steering Committee was formed to act as a
"sounding board" reviewing products of the Subarea Plan and Annexation Feasibility Study,
and assessing the direction of the project, particularly the Subarea Plan. The P AA Steering
Committee consists of officials from the Federal Way City Council, Planning Commission,
School District, Chamber of Commerce, King County, Lakehaven Utility District, and P AA
Resident representatives. Steering Committee Meetings were held in December 200 l,
January and February 2002, and January, April and September 2003.
.
Public open houses held in February 2002, and January and September 2003. These
meetings were held at local public schools in the PAA and at the City of Federal Way City
HalL At the meetings, the public could review the P AA inventory, land use concepts, levels
of service and fiscal analyses as well as provide comments and ask questions.
.
Planning Commission and City Council public meetings and hearings. Following the
Planning Commission Study Session on March 3, 2004, Planning Commission meetings are
scheduled through April. Council meetings, including the LUTC, are scheduled for May
through July at this time.
EXHIBIT 3
PAGE % OF 3~~ru:::;~ ~~~:
D. PAA Background Studies
The P AA Subarea Plan has been prepared in accordance with an established work program that
included reviews by the City of Federal Way, King County, and working committees, as well as
general public input. The key steps in this planning process have included:
.
Inventory: The inventory identifies current environmental and public service conditions.
See Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Inventory, Final, March 18, 2002.
.
Analysis: Several analyses have been undertaken including land use and population review,
levels of service (roads, surface water, police, etc.), and preliminary cost and revenue
estimates. (Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Level of Service Analysis, July 11, 2003;
Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Land Use Analysis Compilation, March 5,2003.)
.
Draft Plan: The March 2003 Draft P AA Subarea Plan contained draft policies and plans, and
was the basis for a fiscal analysis.
.
Final Plan: Based on public input and the fiscal review of the Draft Plan, a Proposed Final
Subarea Plan has been prepared. It is coordinated with the P AA Annexation Feasibility
Study including strategic alternatives such as annexation area phasing and service provision
phasing. Envirorunental review has been prepared addressing the Proposed Final P AA
Subarea Plan in confonnance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A).
.
Adopted Plan: As part of the City's public hearing process, the Federal Way PlalUling
Commission will review and make a recommendation to the Federal Way City Council Land
Use and Transportation Committee (LUTC) regarding the adoption of the Subarea Plan. The
LUTC will review the Subarea Plan and the Planning Commission recommendation and
issue a recommendation to the Federal Way City Council regarding the adoption of the
Subarea Plan. The City Council will review the Subarea Plan and the PlalUling Commission
and LUTC recommendations in its consideration of adopting the Subarea Plan.
As the P AA Subarea Plan and Annexation Feasibility Study have progressed to date, key
concepts have been elicited about the P AA:
.
The City of Federal Way recognizes annexation as a citizen-based process. The Federal
Way P AA Subarea Plan and Annexation Feasibility Study are intended to provide for
advanced plalUling of the PAA allowing both citizens and the City to make informed choices
about their future.
.
The PAA is part of the larger Federal Way community, but is distinct in its own right. Given
its proximity, inter-dependent transportation network, shared school district/utility
districts/emergency service providers, and the City's subregional economic role, the P AA is
inter-related with the City of Federal Way. However, the P AA has its own unique
characteristics - residential neighborhood variety, natural features including headwaters to
EXHIBIT 3
PAGE / OF 3~
Page 9 of 24
February 25, 2004
several significant streams, a road system functioning with rural standards in an urbanizing
area, some economic nodes such as in Redondo, and many other distinct features.
E. PAA Annexation Feasibility Study
An Annexation Feasibility Study (December 2003) has been prepared to estimate the long-term
fiscal impact annexation would have on the City of Federal Way. As a baseline assessment, the
Feasibility Study looks at the net fiscal gap the new, expanded City of Federal Way would face if
the City were to annex any of the identified P AAs while trying to maintain current levels of
services and current levels of taxation and fees.
To account for the differences between the fiscal impacts associated with the day-to-day
operation of the City and the impacts associated with needed capital investments, the Feasibility
Study takes a three-pronged approach to assessing impacts:
1. Estimate the incremental operating costs introduced by annexation of the P AAs on an
annual basis, and compare those costs to the incremental revenues the City would receive
from the same areas.
2. Discuss how the balance of operating costs and revenues would be likely to change in
future years.
3. Estimate the additional capital investments that the City would take on with annexation
and compare those costs to the additional capital revenues the City could expect to
receive from the P AAs.
To provide the most intuitive and up-to-date information about estimated impacts, this analysis
provides a snapshot of what the operating impacts would be if the City were in the position of
fully governing each P AA in 2003. The assessment of operating impacts is based on 2003 costs
of service and 2003 tax and fee structures, as outlined in the City of Federal Way 2003/2004
Adopted Budget, and is intended to represent a picture of fiscal impacts under steady-state
operation. In essence, these estimated steady-state operating impacts reflect the ongoing "costs"
that the City would face each year, beginning perhaps, in the third year after annexation and
extending into perpetuity.'
Estimated costs of capital improvements are based on the most recent avqilable data (2002) and
reflect estimates of the combined investments that will be necessary through the planning
horizon of2020 (all presented in 2002 dollars). There is no material effect on this fiscal analysis
from using 2003 operating costs impacts and 2002 capital costs, primarily because the capital
improvement costs are expressed in current (2002) dollars regardless of when the projects may
be built in the next 20 years.
, In the initial years of annexation costs could be either higher or lower than the estimated steady-state impacts,
depending on how the City chooses to manage annexation. Among the detenninants of transition-period costs will
be the direct and indirect costs of managing the transition and the pace at which the City chooses to ramp up certain,
discretionary service levels in the annexed area.
EXHIBIT ~
PAGE ) b OF ;5 5 Page 10 of24
February 25, 2004
The purpose of estimating the hypothetical gap that would be created if the City were to try to
extend current service levels to the P AAs without increasing taxes is to present decision makers
and the public with a picture of the true "cost" of annexation.
Ultimately, any such gap between costs and revenues is hypothetical. Cities have no choice but
to cover their costs of operation. Consequently, if Federal Way were to annex any of the P AAs,
any estimated "cost" associated with annexation would have to be made up through some
combination of (I) stretching City resources through decreased levels of service and/or (2)
increasing City revenues.
The Feasibility Study provides fiscal analysis and annexation strategies that are integrated into
the Federal Way P AA Subarea Plan, particularly in terms of:
.
Identifying public services and capital improvements that would need to be in place to serve
the Subarea Plan current and future land use pattern over time, and
.
Incorporating into Subarea Plan policies the strategies regarding agency coordination,
funding sources, future land use amendments, levels of service, and others, that could
improve the financial feasibility of annexations in the P AA.
Feasibility Study Results
The City of Federal Way would experience a significant negative fiscal impact on its operating
budget if the Southeast and Northeast Major Subareas (Southeast: Lakeland, Jovita, Parkway
neighborhoods; Northeast: Star Lake, Camelot, and North Lake neighborhoods) were annexed to
the City and the City used the same revenue sources and rates, and provided the same level of
services as it provides to the residents and businesses in the current boundaries of the City. The
annual deficit would be just under $3.6 million ($8.2 million cost; $4.6 million revenue). The
cost of providing the City's levels of service in the P AA would exceed revenues from the P AA
by 78 percent annually.
The net operating revenue (or net costs) presented here represent the gap between operating
revenues generated in each of the P AAs under the City's 2003 revenue structure and the costs of
extending 2003 levels of City services to the same areas. In order to present a full picture of
operating impacts, this presentation combines fiscal impacts across a number of disparate City
Funds. The City would undoubtedly continue City policy that Surface Water Management
(SWM) costs would be covered by Surface Water Fees within the structure of the Surface Water
Enterprise Fund. Such a strategy would require increased SWM fees and/or decreased levels of
SWM services by $538,000 [the difference between estimated SWM operating costs ($823,000)
given current service levels and estimated revenues ($285,000)]. The remaining $3.0 million gap,
then, would be bridged through some combination of other strategies.
Another way of understanding the fiscal impact of the approximately $3.6 million deficit is to
see how it compares to the combined revenue of the City of Federal Way and the combined
tSXHIBIT ~
PAGE ) I OF ;3>
Page II of 24
February 25, 2QO4
Northeast/Southeast P AA subareas. If Federal Way and the Northeast and Southeast P AA
subareas are viewed as a single City of over 105,000 population, the annual deficit of $3.6
million equals six percent of the combined operating revenue. It would be lìke running a
business that loses six percent every year.
In addition, the City of Federal Way would experience major costs for capital improvements in
the P AA totaling over $48.3 million. Dedicated capital revenue is anticipated to be $32.0 million
through the year 2020, leaving an unfunded cost of$16.3 million (which averages $0.9 million
per year through 2020). As noted for operating costs above, City policy for surface water (and
other enterprise activities) is to cover costs with fee revenue. Assuming that the City would use
enterprise policy to cover the $4.7 million cost of stonnwater capital, the remaining deficit would
be $11,564,520 (which is an annual average of$642,473). In addition, the City will undoubtedly
receive mitigation payments or impact fees from development in the P AA, which were not
possible to estimate at this time, but they would reduce the size of the deficit.
To address the fiscal impact the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Annexation Feasibility
Report, December 2003 identifies six categories of strategies that could be pursued to address the
significant negative fiscal impacts of annexation, as follows, without a priority order:
1. State and County Support: With this option, the City could indicate that its
ability to annex the Southeast and Northeast Subareas is contingent upon the State of
Washington and/or King County providing new resources to offset the significant cost
of such annexations. Examples could include a new local option sales tax per State
Law that authorizes King County to submit such a tax for voter approval, State grants,
and unexpended County impact fees being provided to the City. The County's ability
to continue to service urban unincorporated islands has decreased over the last several
years, and the County has been cutting back services. Accordingly, in August 2003, it
was reported that King County will offer a total of $10 million to a number of cities that
annex unincorporated areas in their P AAs. Details were not announced, and will
depend on the County's budget decisions.
2. Local Taxpayers: With this option, the City could use one or more general taxes
to have all taxpayers in Federal Way and the combined annexation area share in paying
the annual operating deficit. The City could ask voters to approve long-term debt in the
fonn of a general obligation bond that is used to build capital improvements. Of
particular interest are enterprise funds. Like many cities, Federal Way has a policy that
costs of enterprise funds, such as Surface Water Management and Solid Waste are to be
covered by user fees. Such a strategy would require increased fees and/or decreased
levels of services. Federal Way could increase user fees throughout the City and P AA
for its stormwater utility and/or solid waste utility and use the proceeds to offset the
increased cost of providing those services in the P AA.
3. Tax Base Expansion: A long-term strategy for Federal Way could be to increase
City revenue by increasing the tax base in the P AA and/or in the City limits. Some
businesses, like automobile dealerships, generate significantly more tax revenue than
EXHIBIT 3
PAGE J d-- OF ~ ~
Page 12 of 24
February 25, 2004
the cost of the public services they receive.. These strategies could be pursued
independently by the City of Federal Way, but King County could make annexation
more attractive if it were to take the lead in rezoning selected parcels in the P AA in
accordance with provisions of the approved Subarea Plan and assisting in the economic
development strategies to develop those areas. A caveat would be that the City of
Federal Way and the P AAs currently have vacant and underdeveloped land to absorb
decades of anticipated commercial growth.
4. Special DistrÌcts: One strategy to generate revenue to pay for Federal Way's
level of service in the annexation area would be to create a special district and charge a
property tax levy in that district. Washington law allows the creation of limited special
purpose districts for a number of purposes, such as roads, parks, transportation, and
"local improvements." Voter approval is required to create special districts that have
taxing authority. Property owner approval is required to create special districts that use
special assessments. There is some risk associated with using special districts as a
strategy to pay for providing urban levels of service the P AA. A vote on creating a
special taxing district would occur subsequent to an annexation vote. If voters approve
annexation, but do not approve the creation of the district(s), the City would be left with
insufficient money to provide its level of service.
5. Reduced or Phased Levels of Service: Another way for the City to address the
difference in levels of service between Federal Way and the County would be to
permanently provide a lower level of service for one or more services, either broadly
citywide or only within specific areas. A second strategy for addressing the difference
in level of service would be to phase-in the increases in level of service in the
annexation area.
Phasing would reduce costs during the transition, and it would provide Federal Way
with time to recruit and hire personnel and acquire facilities and equipment. However,
eventually, phased levels of service will grow to equal the standards achieved by the
City of Federal Way. When that occurs, service levels will be the same throughout the
City, and the City will experience the full fiscal impacts of those levels of service.
A variation on phased or reduced levels of service could include alternative service
delivery strategies or customized strategies for specific neighborhoods tailored to the
needs or characteristics of the P AA location. For example, crime prevention programs
could vary by neighborhood depending on the type residential dwellings, commercial
uses, and previous crime rate statistics.
6. Phased Annexation: This strategy would involve annexing those areas that are
financially self-supporting first and then annexing other areas later, perhaps in
conjunction with other strategies to improve fiscal impact of these subsequent
annexations. Phased annexation based on fiscal impacts could be accomplished by
annexing Redondo first because it has no operating cash deficit. The Northeast P AA
subarea, or portions thereof, could be annexed next because its operating costs exceed
EXHIBIT 3
PAGE J 3 OF 33
Page 13 of 24
February 25, 2004
revenues by 61 percent. Last to be annexed could be the Southeast P AA subarea,
because its costs are estimated to be more than double the revenue it would generate
(i.e., the deficit is 105 percent). Phasing can also be accomplished by smaller areas,
such as community subareas. For example, if community subareas were annexed in
order of their fiscal impact, from least to most net operating cost, the following would
be the phasing sequence: Northlake, Lakeland, Star Lake, Jovita, Camelot, and
Parkway. If other Implementation Strategies are considered and employed to determine
phasing for annexation, the order might be different than the preceding list. It should
be noted that phasing annexation emphasizes differences among the areas, and misses
the opportunity to mitigate the apparent differences among areas by taking them all at
the same time, thus effectively averaging the "highs"and "lows" of both revenues and
costs.
Some implementation strategies may be suitable to different portions of the P AA while others
may not be. Study of the alternatives prior to or at the time of annexation requests would be
warranted. The Feasibility Study Implementation Strategies are integrated into the Subarea Plan
policies.
F. Subarea Plan: Goals and Key Policies
The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan addresses required State and County topics, and would
broadly address the major concerns found in the P AA. The Subarea Plan is intended to be a part
of the overall City Comprehensive Plan and address area-specific goals, objectives: and policies
appropriate for the P AA. The proposed Subarea Plan Goals and Policies were developed based
upon:
.
State Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements, Countywide Planning Policies, and
City Policies.
.
P AA Inventory and Level of Service analyses.
.
Fiscal reports prepared for the P AA.
The area-specific issues emphasized in the preparation of P AA Goals and Policies, include the
following:
.
,Support of Single Family Neighborhoods as the primary land use of the PAA.
.
Identification of neighborhood or community commercial centers along arterials, as
appropriately scaled nodes for local-serving retail, and multifamily housing styles.
.
Relationship of the P AA to the Federal Way City Center, such as different functions of
commercial centers.
.
Opportunities for subsequent detailed planning efforts such as master planning.
EXHIBIT .3
PAGE J'-I OF s;S F~b¡;::~ ~;, ;~~:
.
Area-specific environmental protection policies.
.
Capital improvements to meet levels of service for transportation, parks and recreation, and
surface water.
.
Annexation strategies addressing fiscal feasibility, phasing, service delivery, and others
The proposed goals are listed below. Policies are included in the PAA Subarea Plan and provide
more detail.
.
Environmental Goal. Practice environmental stewardship by protecting, enhancing and
promoting the natural environment in and around the P AA.
.
Land Use Goal. Respect the character, integrity, and unique qualities of P AA neighborhoods
in land use planning efforts.
.
Housing Goal. Promote the preservation and enhancement existing residential
neighborhoods, and allow for new housing developments meeting future needs in the P AA.
.
Parks Goal. Maintain current facilities and acquire new lands to meet P AA community park
and recreation needs.
.
Surface Water Goal. Promote a P AA surface water system that protects the environment and
property, and allows for efficient operation and maintenance.
.
Transportation Goal. Establish a safe, coordinated, and linked multi modal transportation
system serving local and area-wide travel needs.
.
Private Utilities Goal. Facilitate provision of electric, natural gas, telecommunication, and
cable services to the greater Federal Way community.
.
Public Services and Capital Facilities Goal. Provide effective, efficient, and quality capital
facilities and services at the level necessary to meet community needs and support allowed
growth.
.
Public Participation Goal. Actively seek public involvement in P AA planning efforts.
.
Governance/lnterjurisdictional Coordination Goal. Coordinate PAA plarming efforts with
other neighboring jurisdictions andagencies.
.
Annexation Goal. Provide a framework for processing annexation requests.
G. Subarea Plan: land Use Plan
The predominant character of the P AA consists of single-family residential with several nodes of
commercial and multifamily uses, principally along arterial roadways. The King County land
EX!iH3~T 3
Pft.GE J ç; OF S 3>
Page 15 of 24
February 25, 2004
use plans governing the P AA have generally recognized this character. For the Federal Way
PAA Subarea Plan, the base or starting point for developing a comprehensive land use plan was
first to match the most similar City classification to the current County classification.
Although the basis of the PAA Subarea Plan is the King County Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
the City conducted a detailed review of existing land uses and future land uselzoning
classifications to detennine if adjustments to the basic land classification system were warranted
in certain locations of the P AA. Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis produced a series
of maps to help identify:
.
Nonconfonning Uses: Existing uses that either under the King County classification/zoning
system or the City potential classification/zoning system may be considered nonconforming
- i.e. legally established land uses that do not confonn to existing zoning regulations.
.
Mobile Home Parks and Units: Mobile home parks and single manufactured homes that may
or may not meet Federal Way manufactured home park design standards.
.
Parcel Size and Minimum Lot Size Requirements: Parcels smaller than the minimum lot size
associated with potential zoning categories.
Additionally, other issues and locations were reviewed, including:
.
King County R -I Zoning areas were reviewed to detennine if environmental characteristics
warrant Federal Way equivalent zoning (RS-35.0) to King County's R-I (one residential
dwelling per acre) zoning.
.
Potential Incompatibilities: The P AA Subarea Planning team reviewed sites where there
could be a potential for incompatibility with City policies/codes, or other concerns.
The result of the land use and zoning analysis is a Land Use Plan that:
.
Recognizes and supports the predominant single-family suburban character of the P AA.
.
Recognizes the need for neighborhood or community level business goods and services at
key nodes in the P AA such as at the intersection of arterials.
.
Creates a consistent, compatible long-term land use pattern recognizing the predominant and
unique character of P AA neighborhoods.
As part of implementing the P AA Subarea Plan, the City has the option of adopting a pre-
annexation comprehensive plan and zoning map designations (RCW 35.13.177), which would
become effective upon annexation. Pre-annexation comprehensive plan classification and
zoning map designations could provide more certainty to property owners and residents about
the future character of the area should they annex to the City. As part of the Federal Way P AA
Subarea Planning Process, a more specific PAA Pre-Annexation Zoning Map shown in Map 4
E)(HIBIT 3
PAGE )(p OF 53
Page 16 of24
February 25, 2004
(P AA Subarea Plan Map V/l-2) has been prepared to correspond to the proposed P AA Pre-
Annexation Comprehensive Plan in Map 3 (PAA Subarea Plan Map V/l-I).
The process of adopting a pre-annexation land use plan and pre-annexation zoning would follow
these steps in accordance with RCW 35.13:
After a proposed comprehensive plan or ~oning regulation is prepared, the legislative
body of the city must hold at least two public hearings on it. These hearings must be held
at least 30 days apart. Notice of each hearing must be published in a newspaper of
general circulation in the annexing city and in the area to be annexed. The notice must
give the time and place of hearing. A copy of the ordinance or resolution adopting the
proposed plan, any part of the proposed plan, or any amendment, together with any map
referred to or adopted by the ordinance or resolution, must be filed with the county
auditor and the city clerk. The ordinance, resolution, and map must be duly certified as a
true copy by the clerk of the annexing city. The county auditor is to record the ordinance
or resolution and keep the map on file. (Municipal Research & Services Center of
Washington, Annexation Handbook, Revised December 2001 - Report No. 19)
The adopting ordinance for the pre-annexation plan and zoning should specify the time
interval following an annexation during which the ordinance adopting the pre-annexation
plan and zoning, must remain in effect before it may be amended, supplemented or
modified by subsequent ordinance or resolution adopted by the annexing city or town.
Any amendment to the pre-annexation land use plan that is adopted as part of the
Comprehensive Plan is subject to the general GMA limitation that the comprehensive
plan may be amended no more frequently than once a year, unless exceptions are met.
(Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington, Annexation Handbook, Revised
December 2001 - Report No. 19)
The Steering Committee has held public meetings in preparing the Subarea Plan. Planning
Commission and City Council public hearings are planned as part of the remainder of the
Subarea Plan process to fulfill local City public participation requirements and the requirements
to ultimately establish a Pre-Annexation Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map designations.
Land Capacity
The Federal Way P AA has an estimated Year 2003 population of 21 ,460 with most of the
population residing in the Northeast Subarea. The GMA and Countywide Planning Policies for
King County require that King County and its cities accommodate their fair share of the future
growth projected for King County. The P AA has been found to contain a large supply of vacant
and underdeveloped land, with the capacity to accommodate significant future development.
Consistent with regionally established methods that are tailored to reflect King County
conditions, the total vacant and underdeveloped acres were discounted for critical areas such as
wetlands, streams, and steep slopes, rights-of-way and public purpose lands, and market factors
(i.e. not all property owners would want to sell or develop). These acres were then multiplied by
EXHIBIT :3
PAGE 17 OF 3~
Page 17 of 24
February 25, 2004
density factors based upon achieved densities in developed projects over the period 1995-2000.
The results for the 20-year period of 200 I to 2022 are a potential dwelling capacity of 3,754
units and an employment capacity of 134 jobs calculated by King County. The City of Federal
Way conducted a similar residential capacity analysis with results of 3,717 dwelling units, very
close to the County's analysis since similar land use classifications are assumed.
Future development "targets", expressed in the number of housing units, are determined through
an interactive, multi-jurisdictional process between King County and cities located within,
considering land capacity, market factors, and other parameters. Through this ongoing regional
process, the PAA growth target for the years 2001 to 2022 is established at 1,320 units. The
employment target is established at 134 jobs. The buildable land capacity exceeds the residential
"target", and isthe same in terms of jobs.
It should be noted that a capacity analysis may make adjustments or discounts to the amount of
available land, but does not estimate the time or rate that growth will occur, only the capacity of
the land for additional development. To help identify potential market demands, the City
conducted a market analysis for the P AA with the Puget Sound Regional Council forecasts as a
starting point. The outcome of the market analysis is a year 2000 to year 2020 projection of
2,223 dwelling units and liS jobs, which for dwellings exceeds the P AA housing targets, and for
employment approaches the employment target, in a nearly similar time horizon. For the
purposes of capital facility planning the market analysis figures are used in the P AA Subarea
Plan analysis to ensure that facility planning efforts do no overestimate facility demand, capital
needs, and funding requirements.
H. Private Amendment Requests
Through a public review process, four P AA Study Pre-annexation Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning requests were submitted by private property owners for consideration by the City
Council prior to adoption of the Subarea Plan (see Maps 6 - 9):
.
Richard and Louise Davis - 30682 Military Road South - Request for Neighborhood
Business Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning (BN) instead of Single Family High
Density/RS9.6 proposed in the P AA Subarea Plan.
.
Jerry Jackson, President, All-American Associates, Coldwell Banker on behalf of seven
properties located at 1-5 and S 320(11 Street just cast of the NE interchange on-ramps. P AA
Subarea Plan designations are Office Park along S 320[11 Street and Single Family High
Density on the northern two thirds of the property. The request is for Community Business
(BC) class for the whole property. The applicant is willing to restrict commercial uses to
those that would not compete with City Center commcrcial areas, such as car dealerships.
The analysis area includes the applicant requested sites (seven parcels) along with an
adjacent parcel, not part of the request, because it is similarly situated (addressed as 3126 S
320111 Street).
EXHIBIT 3
PAGE ) 75 OF ~3
Page 18 of 24
February 25, 2004
.
North Lake Zoning Petition Committee, facilitator Lois Kutscha. The request is for lots
fronting the North Lake shoreline. The request is to retain the proposed Single Family High
Density class but apply RS9.6 zoning instead of RS7.2 zoning. The analysis area includes the
40+ petitioners' properties as well other similarly situated lakefrontlots.
Lee Rabie, Enerco Inc., SW "corner" of 1-5 and S 288th Street east of 1-5, King County parcel
identification numbers 032104-9066-00 and 042104-9045-05. The request is to apply a
commercial classification to the property similar to King County, for purposes of a proposed
self-storage use, rather than the P AA Subarea Plan Pre-annexation single-family
classifications (Single Family High Density/RS7.2). The property owner is pursuing a permit
for a self-storage use with King County. Equivalent City designations allowing self-storage
include the Community Business Comprehensive Plan classification with either Community
Business (BC) Zoning or Business Park (BP) Zoning.
.
The four P AA designation requests are summarized in the following Table and identified on
Maps 6- 9:
Table 3. Four P AA Designation Requests
ApplicanUSite Current Use Surrounding King County Proposed Applicant
Uses Plan and Zone Federal Way Request
PAA Plan and
Zone
Richard and Financial Office Single Family UR 4-12 plan SFHD plan BN plan class
Louise Davis - class and NB class and RS9.6 and zone
30682 Military zoning zoning
Road South
Jerry Jackson, All Single Family Single family to COOCIUR4-l2 OP and SFHD Community
American Assoc. the north and with 0 and R-4 plan class and Business plan
320lh Street just east, vacant to zoning OP and RS9.6 class and BC
east of the NE the east, office zoning zone
interchange on- to the south, and
ramps freeway to the
west
North Lake Single family Single family UR 4-12 duJac SFHD and SFHD plan
Zoning Petition on lots 9,600 to and vacant. and R -6 zone RS7.2 zoning. class with
Committee, over 35,000 RS9.6 zoning.
contact Lois square fee
Kutscha, North
Lake lots fronting
shoreline
EXHIBIT 3
PAGE4-°F 33
Page 19 of 24
February 25, 2004
ApplicanUSite Current Use Surrounding King County Proposed Applicant
Uses Plan and Zone Federal Way Request
P AA Plan and
Zone
Lee Rabie, Vacant Surrounding COOC plan SFHD plan Commercial
Enerco Inc., SW sites to the north class and NB class and RS7.2 classification
"corner" ofI-5 S and east contain zoning with P- zoning. for proposed
288th Street east existing and Suffix (FW- self-storage use.
ofI-5, parcels proposed P29) condition Equivalent City..
032104-9066-00 churches. On limiting use to designation that
and 042104-9045- the south is a self-storage. would allow
05 single-family self-storage are
subdivision, and BC and BP.
to the west is I-
5.
Key
BC = Community Business BN or NB = Neighborhood Business
COOC = Commercial Outside of Centers 0 = Office
R = Residential - number are units/acre SFHD = Single Family High Density
or lot square feet
BP = Business Park
OP = Office Park
UR = Urban Residential
Davis Request
The Davis financial office is an existing use. Applying a Neighborhood Business plan/zoning
class would recognize the current use, location along a principal arterial, and maintain the status
quo for the neighborhood. However, the site's improvements, such as landscaping, parking, and
other features would not meet City development standards and would be nonconfonning. While
a detailed review of the site development has not been completed, given the size of the lot, it is
unlikely that City development standards could be met in the future. Applying a single-family
class would make the use nonc<?nfonning, and site improvements would continue to be
nonconfonning. A single-family class would recognize the predominant character of the
neighborhood. Options to respond to the request include:
.
Per the Proposed Final PAA Subarea Plan apply the Single Family High Density plan class
and RS9.6 zone similar to that applied to the surrounding properties. At a Comprehensive
Plan level this matches King County's long-range vision.
.
Apply the Federal Way Neighborhood Business plan class and BN zoning. At a zoning
level, this would be consistent with the current King County zoning of NB.
The staff recommendation is to continue with the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan pre-
annexation classifications of Single family High Density with RS9.6 zoning similar to that
applied to the surrounding properties.
Jackson Request
The Jackson property is immediately adjacent to 1-5 and the principal arterial S 320th Street. It
has two easements BP A power lines and Olympic Pipeline. It is located across from office uses.
EXlifBIT 3>
PAGE ?-O OF 33
Page 20 of24
February 25, 2004
Immediately to the east and north are single-family uses, and to the east there is also vacant
property identified for future office uses similar to the frontage of the Jackson property. A
portion of the site contains a wetland (greater than 5 acres), primarily along the freeway.
Changing the site to the Community Business land class and BC zoning forthe whole property
would recognize the location of major roads and highways and easements that reduce the
desirability of residential subdivision on the property. Reviewing the request in a larger context,
if commercial uses are not limited, additional commercial uses could compete with the Federal
Way City Center (a proposed Freeway Commercial plan class and zone is under analysis in a
Staff Report which summarizes some P AA land use and market information; when complete,
this Staff Report will be provided). The reclassification also could affect immediately adjacent
uses in terms of changes in activity levels, noise, aesthetics, and traffic if access is not controlled,
such as requiring access from the arterial. It is likely that commercial uses would be clustered
away from the single-family areas to the north due to the wetland and wetland buffer, which may
help reduce some compatibility concerns.
Broader and area-specific compatibility issues could be controlled by regulations, such as
limitations on uses, landscaping, lighting, noise, and access (access via the principal arterial
rather than through the residential neighborhood). Such regulations are proposed in the Freeway
Commercial zone.' The applicant has also indicated in the application materials a willingness to
sign an agreement to limit competitive uses with the Federal Way City Center. Such an
agreement could become a development agreement addressing uses, landscaping, lighting, noise,
and access.
Options to respond to the request include:
.
Continue with classifications of the Proposed Final PAA Subarea Plan Pre-annexation plan
and zoning classes for Office Park/Single Family High Density and OP and RS9.6 zoning.
.
Apply the Community Business plan class and BC zoning as requested.
.
Apply the Community Business plan class and BC zoning as requested, but with a
development agreement identifying limitations on uses, landscaping, lighting, noise, and
access. A development agreement would require a public hearing with the City Council.
.
Apply a new Freeway Commercial class and zone, which contains regulations regarding
lim-itations on uses, landscaping, lighting, noise, etc. The regulations could be written to
indicate that where the zone is applied the City may condition access to avoid impacts to
residential areas or such a condition could be applied at the time of a site-specific proposal.
! Some City development standards regarding landscaping, lighting, and others would also apply in any case when
noncommercial projects are proposed in the or zone (currently the classification is applied only to a portion of the
site).
EXfilBIT '3
PAGE-LLOF ~ s
Page 21 of24
February 25, 2004
The Staff Recommendation is to apply a new Freeway Commercial class and zone. Further
analysis of a proposed Freeway Commercial plan/zone class will be provided in a Staff Report
under separate cover; it will be distributed when complete.
North Lake Zoning Petition Request
The North Lake Zoning Petition would amend the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan Pre-
annexation class and zoning of subject lake front properties to RS9.6 instead ofRS7.2. Since
nearly all current lots range in size from 9,600 to 35,000 (see Map 5), there would be no
significant impact. Generally, lots would be conforming in terms of size. There may be a
lessened potential for future lot yields due to larger minimum lot size requirements. Since the
properties are largely developed, this change is not considered significant to land capacity.
Options to respond to the request are:
.
Apply the proposed P AA Pre-Annexation Subarea Plan class and zone of Single Family High
Density and RS7.2. This matches the current King County class and zoning essentially
resulting in about six units per acre.
.
Incorporate the petition request for a Subarea Plan Pre-Armexation class and zone of Single
Family High Density and RS9.6 (resulting in about four+ units per acre). The current lot
sizes meet or exceed the minimum lot size of9,600. See Map 5.
The Staff Recommendation is to incorporate the petition request for a Pre-Armexation Subarea
Plan class and zone of Single Family High Density and RS9.6.
Rabie Request
The Rabie site on S 288th Street just east ofl-5 is a vacant property surrounded by non-
residential uses to the north (church), east (vacant future church site) and west (1-5). To the
south lies a single-family subdivision. The subject lots may be less desirable for low density
residential due to the freeway and nearby institutional uses. The two subject lots are under a
single ownership.
Generally land classes and zoning are applied to more than one property in a given area. Current
County zoning of Neighborhood Business is limited in application to the two parcels due to a
property condition limiting uses to self-storage; the property owner has indicated he is seeking a
permit with the County to construct a self-storage use. The effects of applying a commercial
class to the property were studied and considered by the County at the time the zoning was
applied.
The City's equivalent zone to the County's NB zone is also Neighborhood Business (BN).
However, if the object is to allow for a self-storage use as is limited by King County P-sufíìx
conditions, City classes that allow self-storage are Community Business (BC) and Business Park
(BP) zones, but these are fairly intense in the array of possible commercial uses, and they are
generally applied to more than one parcel. If the P AA Subarea Plan is modified to match a
fEj{Hn3~r 3
r.~GE J? OF ~ 3
Page 22 of 24
February 25, 2004
commercial class to the Rabie property, potential effects upon the residential areas to the south
could include changes in activity levels, noise, and aesthetics. These potential effects could be
mitigated by a development agreement limiting use to self-storage. Application of City
development standards regarding landscaping, lighting, and other design standards in the City
Code would also help reduce compatibility concerns.
Options to respond to the request include:
.
Continue with the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan Pre-annexation plan and zoning for
Single Family High Density and RS7.2 zoning.
.
Apply a Neighborhood Business and BN zone to the property similar to King County,
although this would not accommodate a self-storage use.
.
Apply the Community Business plan class and BC zoning or BP zoning to accommodate the
proposed self-storage use.
.
Apply the Community Business plan class and BC or BP zoning, but with a development
agreement identifying limitations on uses, landscaping, lighting, noise, or other concerns. A
development agreement would require a public hearing with the City Council. A commercial
class with limitations on uses is similar to the current King County commercial class and NB
zonmg.
The Staff recommendation is to continue with the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan Pre-
annexation plan and zoning for Single Family High Density and RS7.2 zoning. The character of
the area is primarily residential with some religious facilities, and is not an existing or future
commercial node.
I. PAA Subarea Plan - Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Criteria
The Federal Way City Code includes Process VI that identifies requirements for City
consideration of Comprehensive Plan Amendments and associated legislative rezones. The PAA
Subarea Plan would amend the City Comprehensive Plan and replace the current Potential
Annexation Area Element. The Subarea Plan also proposes a Pre-annexation Comprehesnive
Plan and Pre-Annexation Zoning, similar to a preliminary areawide rezone. The Process VI
criteria for general Comprehensive Plan amendments and legislative rezones are generally as
follows (FWCC 22-526, 527 and 530):
1. The proposal bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare; and
2. The proposal is in the best interest of the residents of the city; and
3. The proposal is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the
portion of the city's adopted plan not affected by the amendment.
E}{lrnB~r 3
P~Q~GE J ~ OF ; ~ Page 23 of24
February 25, 2004
Additionally the City may consider other factors (FWCC 22-529): environmental effects, land
use compatibility, impacts on infrastructure and community facilities, benefits to neighborhoods,
city, and region, land use density/type/demand, population density, and similar factors.
The proposed P AA Subarea Plan meets the above critieria:
Criteria 1 and 2. The P AA Subarea Plan provides for advance planning which benefits
the public health, safety, and welfare and the interest of City and P AA residents. By
evaluating the feasibility of potential annexations and planning for the future delivery of
services, residents of the P AA and the City can make more informed choices about their
future.
Criteria 3. The proposal has been evaluated with respect to consistency with the State
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the related Countywide Planning Policies, and
the City's Comprehensive Plan. A detailed matrix was prepared in March 2003, but the
P AA Subarea Plan can be summarized as consistent with the following State, Regional,
and City "indicator" policies:
.
Growth Management Act: The Subarea Plan applies urban densities to accommodate
growth, avoid sprawl, and provide services efficiently within the Urban Growth Area.
The predominant land classification would support urban level densities except in
areas with significant environmental or infrastructure limitations. Public service
capital and operational needs and improvements are identified to support the P AA
land use plans.
.
Countywide Planning Policies: The land capacity of the P AA would accommodate
the PAA housing target of 1,320 units and employment target of 134 between 2001
and 2022. Public service capital and operational needs and improvements are
identified to support the P AA land use plans. The phasing of services and annexation
areas is encouraged in Subarea Plan policies.
.
City Policies: Proposed Subarea Plan designations and policies support the
Comprehensive Plan such as the hierarchy of Commercial Centers by providing for
local-serving commercial and mixed-use nodes, and by supporting the predominant
residential character of the P AA.
Regarding other factors that may be considered, the City has prepared extensi ve studies of the
PAA environment, capital needs, capacity, etc. in the PAA Inventory, LOS Study, and SEPA
review as identified in Section IV. D of this Staff Report.
J. Planning Commission Action and Staff Recommendations
Consistent with the provisions of FWCC Section 22-539, the Planning Commission may take the
following actions regarding thc Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan, as a Comprehensive Plan
amendment:
(EXliIBIT 3
PAGE ~Y OF ~¿
Page 24 of24
February 25, 2004
1 Recommend to City Council adoption of the Proposed Final PAA Subarea Plan
as proposed;
2. Recommend to City Council that the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan not be
adopted;
3. Forward the Proposed Final PAA Subarea Plan to City Council without a
recommendation; or
4. Modify the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan and recommend to City Council
adoption of the Plan as modified.
The Proposed Final PAA Subarea Plan would help the City of Federal Way and PM residents
and businesses to understand the implications of annexation and the future vision for the area as
a part of the City of Federal Way. It is récommended that the Subarea Plan be approved. The
following amendments to the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan are also recommended:
.
Apply the Freeway Commercial Plan class and zone to the Jackson property analysis area.
.
Amend the North Lake frontage lots to have a Pre-Annexation zoneofRS9.6.
List of Exhibits
Map I (P AA Subarea Plan Map I) Federal Way P AA ,
Map 2 (P AA Subarea Plan Map II) Community Level Subarea Boundaries
Map 3 (PAA Subarea Plan Map VII-I) PAA Pre-Annexation Comprehensive Plan
Designations
Map 4 (pAA Subarea Plan Map VII-2) PAA Pre-Annexation Zoning Map
Map 5 Existing Lot Size
Map 6 Davis Request
Map 7 Jackson Request
Map 8 Northlake Request
Map 9 Rabie Request
>-1-s> I! . I
'~~ \~L
"?ð~
y'\\.I"
/ \?)
\'.'~
\,~
/ '\1"
I \, '"
, II'
,\ ~
-.-r;.,. , r-'
. .
I I
'oJ .
!
(J
ill
>
<{
.c
;;;
N
I
-ì
Milton
~~dSL
-\
"'-
\
\
I_.
I
.
I
.
! I
\.f~
en
""C'
r. - - -\1...,-
, ,
~, , ,
I paèii¡c
~ "-'n-, ',';'
I
! I I
t- ~L "'1- - I
...
'.....
Auburn
--,
1- ..
,.~
:r
>-
'"
~
...,
0(
>
I;;
IU
~
...
City of
Federal Way
Potential
Annexation Area
Federal Way
P AA.~,.~ ~~~, "~,' 2
:,~,'.~. ":¡,-_.",.¿_-
, '.L:'~Å!2,,_C,"_.~3.~~
Legend:
Federal Way
[:~J Algona
=:J Auburn
Des Moines
Kent
~J Milton
Pacific
Federal Way, P.AA
D Algona, P AA.
Auburn, P.A.A.
~ Kent, P.AA
~ Milton, P.A.A.
Pacific, PAA.
Vicinity Map
I
.¿,r\ì
---~ I j
FEDERAL /1 ~
w A ~ (5)
,rJ-
,.-v
Scale:
~
N
0
1/2 Mile
---
Map Date December, 2003
City of Federal Way,
33530 First Way S,
Federal Way, WA 98003
, (253) 6614000
I \NWIN.ci.federal-waywa,us
Please Note
This map is Intended for use
as a graphical representation
ONLY. The City of Federal
Way makes no warranty
as to its accuracy.
A F~-deral Way
Mapl
/mlkesJpa aIdoc4/genma paml
~~d SL
-
'?"'1-s> I
\~-1-. II
"¥.\'-
'~Ó~r
/\~;
I \\~ S[O}" I,o}.;('
\ 'Ii
! '-f. . S288thST
\~ Î.
\; ! I
\:13 : .
,.< I f
\~Ó Ii'
'\:.s- Ii ¡
\ i¡li
,f
/-
If
ii
N edril/dll
f:'u ,\ I
CW!J cI () /
J:
0
¡¡:
õ
« S 32Oth ST
:-.- !:..(Jrkw~JY
I ¡
-.
'-----'-----'
-,,' , , ,'"
!
i
~r-~
«,
~I
r-
I
-- ------
,
'.....
I
Auburn
I-.
...
..,
I - .A
8
,
,
, I
.
I
.
! I
\-t~
.fori/o
.~
:r
)-
U
u
J
c(
>
~
~
~
I Pacilie
.
I
r--¡-"'-
I
I
"
I
City of
Federal Way
Potential
Annexation Area
Community
Level
Su barea
Bou ndaries
EX]-iIEHT' 3
~:~:¡fAGEatio~ ifea -õ F 3> ~.~-_.
Community Level Subareàš: -
[_J Redondo East (Redondo East)
Star Lake (Northeast)
Camelot (Northeast)
D North Lake (Northeast)
D Jovita (Southeast)
[']
D
Lakeland (Southeast)
Parkway (Southeast)
Other Areas:
D Incorporated Area
D Unincorporated Area
Source: City of Federal Way, GIS Division &
Department of Community Development Services,
BWR, ECONorthwest, PM Steering Committee,
December 2001
Vicinity Map
'v-
I
I
rEDER'.,Ai )- I
WA) J
~~~ ,('if f
~"'~ '~
Scale:
0 1/2 Mile
~
~
N
Map Date December, 2003
City of Federal Way,
33530 First Way S,
Federal Way, WA 98003
(253) 661-4000
WWN.ci.federal-waywa.us
PI case Notc,
This map is intended for usc
as a graphical representation
ONL y, The City of Federal
Way makes no warranty
as to its accuracy,
A Fëderal Way
Map II
,.1m IkesJpa aJdoc4/commap.aml
-"
S 3O4th ST
St..,
to"
..
~"
I
Auburn
,_,
..
--.
,
I
,
I
,
I
I - .J
(/ r,~,
"'~'"
r-----
,
I
,
I
Milton
City of
Federal Way
Potential
Annexation Area
Federal Way PAA
Pre-Annexation
Comprehensive
Plan
Designations
EXHIBIT .~
PAGE J 7 OF 33
Legend:
. Community Business
. Multi family
. Neighborhood Business
. Parks and Open Space
111 Office Park
D Single Family, Medium Density
D Single Family, High Density
Source: City of Federal Way
a..
cd
::Ë
Æ?
c:
u
:>
0
Scale:
1/2 Mile
ß
N
~
Map Date: December, 2003
City of Federal Way,
33530 First Way S,
Federal Way, WA 98003
(253) 661-4000
WWN.ci.federal-way.wa.us
Please Note:
This map is intended for use
as a graphical representation
ONL Y. The City of Federal
Way makes no warranty
as to its accuracy.
~ FèNderal Way
MapVII-1
.. Jus. '" m ik.slpaaldoc4l!woom p. 1m I
-
~<9
~ ,<
"{.t
~1~;"'" P. ~:~rulo Ì'\
(.~,"í - tjl (\~ Star Lake, ~
~ .g LS288t11.Sr-1 18 ~
\ \\ r~u~~
\S' \~ I '. ;!
\~c ¡ "'i
\S' I r--~~c--
I . I
! . , J
I J
I I
I
~ ~;.o,." .
ooJ>--~
J3
,;,~
~,
Q
'"
,', .
..
'.....
I
Camelot
Auburn
'-.
-,."
i...!
I I
... - -'
.
, I
. I
/ J I
\.....~~
.
'i
t
~
J. ~
__::l~_j
Milton
- . . .
'. .' ...:
i-~ ¡ I [j~if~;~.<\.â~;//: ;
i ParkW".",.", .aY:j~j/ / I,'
ï -'r-/ ; - ;"1, -
- , .:/,
a....:_------
""
Pacific
.
I
City of
Federal Way
Potential
Annexation Area
Federal Way
Pre-Annexation
I Zoning Map
i.-~ A;~ è'~. ~ ~:"':~ ~ -3___~_,..
1" .c.
"'. .
LegerfcÎ'
~: '10 ti, G. 2, 2
..n ,.A.Q,.__"",i." _._¿~-.-..
~ BC (Community Business)
I BN (Neighborhood Business)
DP (Dlliee Park)
[J RS3S.0 (1 UniU3S.000 SF)
r- RS9.6 (1 Un1U9.600 SF)
¡--I RS7.2 (1 UnlU7.200 SF)
RSS.O (1 UnIUS,OOO SF)
RM3600 (1 Unlt/3600 SF)
[J RM2400 (1 UnlU2400 SF)
II RM1800 (1 Unit/1800 SF)
Source: City of Federal Way
<'.' .~. F.' :A,\ ;~:(.-vF
'" '. C>?
), "" -J
~~~,,~ (
1\ ~-", \. '<----.....
~ 1/ .,.-
a.
cu
¿
è
c
u
:>
Scale:
a 1/2 Mile
~
~
N
Map Date December, 2003
City of Federal Way,
33530 First Way S,
Federal Way, WA 98003
(253) 661-4000
www.cifederal-waywa.us
Please Note
This map is intended for use
as a graphical representation
ONLY. The City of Federal
Way makes no warranty
as to its accuracy.
~ Fè~deral Way
Map VII-2
IUSð~m'..slpaaldoc4~Wlon. ami
\.~' IIíJ~ll I/ä 72h~ I :f( / ";~"" <:, '; , ;
'. ~ß','. )Of-' ~' "'87'\--""-;-';¡~.o:':"'.""r":"""'i:'---'--
~~~1Fit¡?~ "//'~ (~1Y/: /.~~:Æ' s: '^:,;;~:'I~;:;" ~ '
~.,'fr!,ð:..~.é?ÆJ.;~,'i!if§;';¡::,;:, ~'~',',~J,Æ. '..,(Íl,'.~.:,~,'~..':':,:¡ l~~.",'.:,',h.... L....:~;l?:"""'.:.í!!U.,,I}.,L~:..,: '.
;JE1}O'iifC'""f'"' , ; :*~~~~;'1BY~;? ~- ,;/) ¡;'" '" ¡;,~':!1i ' fit", ,"~-,
= c"MQih"è~',{ ':RiföJiiiiJó /, <> 14 _.,;'.~- t' -..~ tk,t1" \
31i~;i~Jr;~L E~Yf¥f;.;< \ 'J1;. ~'¡r ~ :-'è' L / i :
"",;',: ....1££1 '.,,)"'>/',' ~ s'arLake~;it,:t'f
'~¥ÎJLt~i,..lr\~\£j','15i~[l~f.;,I,~~..~.ø ..~';~~~;'. ",'
, II', '~~,",&~\'-, "_:'~,,' (f ,fá¡":"",~""::,,.'f',,~,""',',,'",:"~""",~,""",,",.L,,,',ff, ~,',' "~i",',í',~.~r' t',',,',,/,',',',',:"'.'
, ,; " ~i:"I' r~~'<;/: 1',)~"::,,,¡;,«~;~,..;~;~,,~"" "o",¡;;{ ,.1<
" " ,-jU' ,<> ".-¥t....',<. ~,,¡;~,.;,; ""n' -0" ~ tc ':',
:~-il, ,~1JL, I i:C¡:~IW~,O~, ',.c, -,-¥E!,'b,-~ ff~~,",C,,~,',.~,' ~,';,~'.,.',:,.',L,"'"" .",,',.,~il, f;,.,'c,~',,;, '~~,/"'Z-~A~L~
!~~,~]rJ: n,: ,:',::=":,¡ _.~~~~, ,'".~,':,o":;!,"""':~,~,',,.,:",~".:,; ~""','.,::',"~r,;"~,ë",' '~~,;#,.,"",,~<,:,",:.~,:. :::t-.-.,-.,c,
Çffi1Jrm.. ~: , :""j ,~:';j1~ "~~"?:':-/::;":'~Gãine,lok~1=','.'1
¡fJjl~J;W~WI:j' ,U1,~..~I2t~~~,:; -~JkJ J~,J+:~~"_c"~~r~.;' ..:(~~~'è" ~;-:\":_¡_.. -"", ,
Il~~l';'~'" , ~~~ '0 , " lfl, , ,F, --':' :'~:r /~-"o..' '~"':":iAulíui1íj
~~j~æ~¡i~.~,~~~.~,I+~~!j-ii II n :f,:_:r,",-,'."~",::~,..,.,,.,,.,..':,';r,,",~i~, ~:,~:J,i~3....~it
:~~i1~ is'320ttb1it:rtf.,n è-{Y'" ~ 'i I: ",¡'," ,':.-CCC--~r;3~ ' ~-cc:--:--u.."'í 1fß.
\c::;::;J '.<§' ,/JfT1, lúi--=-iyrr,':C: r;';{::I~I~,'" ~~~,'"n¡¡'~ I ,-,,- ," ,I, --'-:',',"
J¥~'~'Wi ,Ii ',~, ' ¡'-,.::j /,'--.',~T ""J If~~~;:-,.,'"" ,,',',": "',"',',d, ..i~_,-
IL..J,' ), ',;,___<n'-'","","'iH¡;1t""'-'¡-" ',' ,~ë.:.'- "'~.::
- ~ "1, ~3,f-~'H!~.~i1__! IF eû' e"'a)r'l-'--;;; li:1n\., ,", ~.4.':,--":'+"....:-:':-:,',,' i:-::=::"':
. ,L'rLlJ'-/": ' I '- ""7""":'-' ",","';"n~'(1',-.....,':"'" ":,"; ----"
, 'E;:,r~~'~ " /Way" /,F'=",7:'-':'"»;;;~,.;",):ì",,";~,'-" .;.",," , -,-,"::'.~,"'"
I ¡cjl 'r~- I ! I / \ ~~~!~'~Y;",," L :- <,j -I
~Dlì' II /¡ ("u-','~~".',-""L'\'þ""/,¡""--,,,,..è'"r-..I
~r' ""'--------11 \ .LE?":""-~ c~,- \Yt-':'~~"",," :?" ",c,"! u-
mË3JllJj~; / t ~:7jI-;;; N(irih\'t~,'~~j\:(7~'id "::è-¡ ",¡~~r-
'~¡ il -.: /, L". ,,';;'p , ~\~ " è"il,¡;:.",tL-nt 1. ¡ ¿
~ - [Tn, " ~llV ~, ,',iLX~ ,~~,:,~,f.!lkeë."',:,'c.:'\,'"f~,\j>',,t',~-,.~,::".~'~,",~:w"Y~~¡
~êi=J ,.gJ¡riEJI= tf:¡I~[l7 "q~ï~~i-~/:'tc'r~. . -¡-:~:-'
il~ =" , ,j~l,:,I, ~Wí3t7m\~~,','~', i ,~,18,\" EF,'"t"',,.',t==-,,:..ì,!..~.,",I,"¡;"
"~j~J~i51/ ' 'I )~1~;~"f~~~,~1r
Yr:43+TI1f1~[f1-J e- ~ V'=!.i:~: . -,' 7¡~t~ffri
}-1~~T8J . ¿. ---.Jr-~t'~¿~ ~',h,-:;::: ~'" ;-T - ¡¡~~~..~.:..'i.i;~:
J,11,,'. 0 rJ.%Jj. ~~"J,'~ "-"""",rØ1,r",l,~,j""~,,,,:"":",.','-.'.",'~,:,..ì.".,,"-.",~,'..,~,~,,~,~,~,,iL..,.~,:,b.',.I,',.,,~,'"'.,',,:~,;,:.ff,~,'.".,""-'~'~".,'.:,:,.-:"',',.,r,.".,.,f,:,,.~,,'~,.:".'.~."',:'.H:,,:,,-....,,~,",:.,
~:t~.~~~rçl /,' J'~~.',¿,'.~La..,.ke."Jß.:nil,:, ':,~,.:..ßt.:..,'",Æ1~.-.~.",f.'......f,.i',,=,~~'
'~~JrlJ~iJ í " ." 'Ì .~:..;'... ,"'.' '=.~'".:',.<,:t--.~,'~~~~"i,.~:~. '.É..-.j~J
11 .1Tjfi~~;~~~;i~Q,f.JF-,>f.,,;..,~.','C"'" F,'~.'.-,,-,'~~,!'.:',;,:,.,f,:',~,',i,',~','","iio"t:,,',.~,r',,!t,~,"',:, t.!j,~~.':
~Jí~ll~;~" = f r<.~"'.L~f rø. ."." "',""':"~"-~-~ !I!!
, "v,r ¿=:L 1\% ":ffi;1Jt" ~t.:-".<"..F" '/,~,,' ~i:;,'".""",:":¡,,:,¡::,,I,¡~,¡¡i",'!,'"~-',.'.',.~~~i,,
,; Q~.;~ r:ILILli.~,l~', (~."~.",t,"-.:~:'..:,¡~~ ~') iii.liil ¡iiil}:::' it! ~ ~¡.r~~J;~:
1JJ7 " P, a ~ 161.i:-1Jr:.~L=-~t ,ø ,/I' .. '..'" '"", ' ,~' : /.;..:
" ar.,. ':.; - '.--r ,li': ","" , :. '. l'a~ific/1""I'U(/'
" . " ,,' 1\ "" "...,.
, " ~!II I'" , .>,.' " .. .". ...
~'=;\"-'-(1""-: ~'""
". "yn\" ,,', """. ". "
.......-~..":'_--"~ ,$".('" :'.. " I,
,,-~ .~~;! _._~.. !,\'.~-, ",:,. ~":' ,-, '~'",:' ,- - - ,_I.. -'" ""-1 ~~~,~:--
City of
Federal Way -
Potential
Annexation Area
Existing
Lot Size
EXfilBrr
PAGE 19
~
OF .3, ~
Legend:
. <5,000 Sq Ft.
.5,OOO-7,199SqFt.
D 7,200 - 9,599 Sq Ft.
. 9,600 . 14,999 Sq Ft.
D 15,000, 34,999 Sq Ft
D > 35,000 Sq Ft.
D Incorporated Area
D Unincorporated Area
Note: Some open space areas are excluded,
0..
«1
~
ç
c:
u
:>
0
Scale:
1/2 Mile
6
N
~..~
Map Date: January, 2002
City of Federal Way,
33530 First Way S,
Federal Way, WA 98003
(253) 661-4000
www.ciJederal-way.wa.us
Please Note:
This map is intended for use
as a graphical representation
ONLY. The City of Federal
Way makes no warranty
as to its accuracy.
GIS OMSION
IIdwgis2l<l...../mikos/paaldoc1I1otsí18 ,ami
I
_u.!
I
J
l
I
C/
....
:g
-J
~
ë3
>.
11:1'
~
Œ
(þ
'0
(þ
LL.
-
z
rri
'.~
en
~
rri
.CJ'I
RS9.6
RS9.6
Citizen Requested Change:
Comprehensive Plan:
Neighborhood Business
Zoning: BN
Final Staff
Recommendation:
Comprehensive Plan:
Single Family, High Density
Zoning: RS9.6
RS9.6
RS9l6
'" ,,-
\
\
~~
..
~o
City of Federal Way
P AA Subarea
Plan,
December 2003
Davis
Key:
0 Proposed Zoning Boundary
C Federal Way City Limits
~ Wetlands (1998 CFW Study)
D Wetland Buffers
: Applicant Properties
Recommended Proposal
200
~m
G»<
m:I:
~m
I~ ~
0
"'TI
f'W
400 F~et A
1 N
This map is a graphic representation only,
and is accompanied by no warranties.
(MS )c:\mikes\av\paassrO4 .apr
S I 1,-.-..-
~
-~~ Citizen Requested Change:
Comprehensive Plan:
Community Business
Zoning: BC
~
, ,
.-J {)
:,:nn.
: r_:lt,.~ Òd
1 rCJ---.- .
I ,
: ~ C~L rf:
. I 0:-
ICJ
'I!
, i--
~
/..
ð
RS9.6
1- .
RS9~6: ' .
I , ,I
.C".,
Original Staff
Recommendation:
Comprehensive Plan:
Office Park &
Single Family, High Density
Zoning: OP & RS9.6
OP
RM2400
Federal Way City Limits ,
0, Non-applicant included
in Final Staff Recommendation
Final Staff
Recommendation:
Comprehensive Plan:
Freeway Commercial
Zoning: FC (Freeway Commercial)
BN
City of Federal Way
P AA Subarea
Plan,
December 2003
Jackson
Key:
0 Proposed Zoning Boundary
C City of Federal Way
~ Wetlands (1998 CFW Study)
0 Wetland Buffers
~ ¡ ; Applicant Properties
~I Recommended Proposal
;gm
G»(
m:I:
~~
0
"
~I~
0
200 400 Feet A
I N
This map is a graphic representation only,
and is accompanied by no warranties.
(MS )c:\mikes\av\paassrO4 .apr
Final Staff
Recommendation:
Comprehensive Plan:
Single Family, High Density
Zoning: RS7.2
Note: Some non-applicant
parcels are included in Final
Staff Recommendation
RS9.6
,/
if:
---_/
Original Staff
Recommendation:
Comprehensive Plan:
Single Family, High Density
'I Zoning: RS7.2
RS9.6
\
'.
-~
~
~
Citizen Requested Change: I ~
Comprehensive Plan:
Single Family, High Density
Zoning: RS9.6
\ ,
" I-
I .
I
, !'
! "
/ \',
--- ------', \'" --, '\1'"
\ .. :'
. ¡~ Ii'
\ ,
'....... ..""" ..
'. "",-...-:; 1;i
/
North Lake
Key:
D Proposed Zoning Boundary
t:J Federal Way City Limits
~ Wetlands (1998 CFW Study)
Rs9.e 0 Wetland Buffers
Applicant Properties
Recommended Proposal
~m
)i.ä
e»(
m:J:
L:J ~~
0
þ
0 200 400 F~et A
N
This map is a graphic representation only,
and is accompanied by no warranties.
(MS )c:\m ikes\av\paassrO4.apr
/
//
Original Staff
Recommendation:
Comprehensive Plan:
Single Family, High Density
Zoning: RS7.2
RM3600
//
Citizen Requested
Change:
Comprehensive Plan:
Neighborhood Business
Zoning: BN
RS7 ~2
28Ini ST.
oj
~
~
ijS~ .2
Final Staff
Recommendation:
Comprehensive Plan:
Single Family, High Density
Zoning: RS7.2
a. 2IOTH ST.
¡ RS7.2
0321 all JO45
J
r
a. 2I1ST ST.
RS7.2'
oj
~
j!:
:II
oj
~
¡!;I
I I
R~7.2 I )
, i i .
RS7.2
oj
~
51
~
City of Federal Way
P AA Subarea
Plan,
December 2003
Rabie
Key:
D Proposed Zoning Boundary
I:J Federal Way City Limits
~~ Wetlands (1998 CFW Study)
D Wetland Buffers
f ! Applicant Properties
Recommended Proposal
~m
jþ
G»(
m:¡:
þ~
0
~I~
0 200 400 Fe:t t¡¡..
I
This map is a graphic representation only,
and is accompanied by no warranties.
(MS )c:lmikeslavlpaassrO4 .apr
~
CITY OF ~
Federal Way
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
EXHIBIT L/
PAGE I OF E;
March 29, 2004
John Caulfield, Chair
Federal Way Planning Commission
Isaac Conlen, Associate Planner ::Ç.- c--
Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner, Jones and Stokes
P AA Follow-Up 3/17/04 Meeting
At the Public Hearing of March 17, 2004, the Planning Commission asked staff a number of questions.
We also noted several common questions or concerns raised by citizens during the public comment
portion of the meeting. Responses to Commission and public questions are provided below.
Planning Commission Questions
1. What is the intent of policy statements in the P AA Subarea Plan that direct or mandate the
County to perform certain actions?
A number of these policy statements reflect actions that the County already routinely performs
and/or is required to perform. There are, however, several policy statements, which direct the
County to perform some action, which at this point they are not obligated to do. We have asked a
King County staff member to attend our next meeting and address this issue.
2. What authority does the City have to adopt pre-annexation Comprehensive Plan and
zoning designations in an area where the residents are not represented by the City Council.
Why did the City and King County choose to initiate preparation of the P AA Subarea Plan
and associated land use designations prior to annexation?
The authority to prepare the P AA Subarea Plan. including pre-annexation Iand use and zoning
plans is found in three sources:
.
The Wasltington State Growtlt Managellte1lt Act (GMA). GMA indicates that counties in
consultation with cities shall establish urban growth boundaries, which shall contain cities
and areas adjacent to cities that are urban in charaC1er. Cities are to be the primary
provider of services in urban areas. (RCW 36. lOA. I IO) The efforts to jointly establish urban
growth areas (UGAs) and potential annexation areas (PAAs) within such UGAs are
described in Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan Section 3. I. In GMA Comprehe/lSive Plans,
Iand use plans pIay the central role in capital facility, public service, and growth
management planning since it is the driver for such supporting elements: "... The plan shall
be an illternaffy consistent document alld all elements shall be consistent with the future land
use map... "(RCW 36. lOA.OlO).
.
Tlte Countywide Pia/wing Policies for Ki/lg COU/lty (December 2003). The GMA requires
countywide planning poIicies. to which each comprehensive plan must conform. The
Countywide Planning Policies for King County require growth phasing plans in UGAs
including PAAs. Cities are to adopt criteria for annexations. See policies LU-29 to 32 in
Section 2.2 of the Proposed Final PAA Subarea Plan.
.
EXHIBIT
PAGE d
Annexation Laws, RCW 35.13.177. Jurisdictions may prepare comprehensive land use
pIans to become effective upon annexations. Land use plans may address a variety of topics
as noted in the law, including land uses, zones, development standards, and other features. A
summary of the process to establish pre-annexation land use and zoning districts is provided
in Section 6.2 of the Proposed Final PAA Subarea Plan
y
OF
£;
The City and County decided to initiate the PAA Subarea Study and Plan prior to annexation to
facilitate annexation decision-making and Iand-use planning within the PAA. The planfurthers
the purposes and intent of GMA. Pursuant to GMA the City is the appropriate provider of urban
level services to areas within the PAA. This plan provides guidance to citizens, Planning
Commissioners, CounciI Members and stafffor consideration offuture annexation requests. The
alternative would be to consider each annexation request on an individuaI basis absent the
context provided by a comprehensive land use pIan and policy framework, as is the current
circumstance.
3. How many parcels would be rezoned from commercial use to residential land use
designations if the P AA proposed land use designations are adopted?
Three parceIs would be rezoned from commercial to residential designations if the proposed P AA
land use designations are adopted. These are the Davis property, the Rabie property and the
vacant Sutherland Grocery and Gas Station property located at 34051 Military Rd. S.
4. Of the acreage proposed to be zoned multi-family, what percentage is
develo ped/undevel 0 ped?
235-acres within the PAA are proposed for multi-family land use designations. 77-acres or
approximately 33% of this total is currently undeveloped.
5. With regard to the Jackson private amendment request what water body feeds the on-site
wetland? Does City code allow off-site wetland mitigation? What type of development
restrictions are associated with the on-site easements.
The on-site wetland is located within a closed depression. A culvert running under the 1-5 on-
ramp discharges into the south end of the wetland. In addition, surface runoff and possibly
subsurface springs may feed this wetland. No identified stream is in the vicinity. City code
section 22-I358 (e)(2) does allow off-site mitigation under certain circumstances where
development activity affects on-site wetlands.
The BP A easement prohibits placement of structures within easement boundaries. Certain types
ofagricuIturaI uses are permitted. Other uses are subject to BPA approval, including parking
lots, roads and landscaping. Likewise the Olympic Pipeline easement prohibits structures within
the easement. There are no required setbacks from the edge of the easements. Please see the
attached aeriaI photo (Olympic Pipeline easement /lot available on attached aerial. The pipeline
itself is located within the BP A easement).
6. What is the rationale for the staff recommendation regarding the Davis request?
The Davis financial office is an existing use. King County zones it as Neighborhood Business,
although the County Comprehensive Plan applies an Urban Residential category. The proposed
P AA Subarea Plan proposes pre-annexation classifications of Single Family High Density with
RS9.6 zoning similar to that applied to the surrounding properties. Applying a single-family class
would make the use nonconforming, and site improvements would continue to be nonconforming.
A single-family class would recognize the predominant character of the neighborhood.
2
EXHIBIT t.f
Options provided to the Planning Commission in the February 25, 2004 staff£A~frchtde? OF ~
.
Per the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan appIy the Single Family High Density plan class
and RS9.6 zone similar to that applied to the surrounding properties. At a Comprehensive
Plan level this matches King County's long-range vision.
.
Apply the Federal Way Neighborhood Business plan class and BN zoning At a zoning level,
this would be consistent with the current King County zoning of NB. Site improvements,
however, would remain nonconforming to city code requirements.
Additional information about the history of the Davis site was provided by the proponent at the
March I7, 2004 public hearing, and can be considered along with the February 25, 2004 staff
report. Specifically, it was observed that a note on the face of the original plat states that the
property shall be restricted to business use. The Planning Commission has the prerogative to
consider the information and analysis and select an option accordingly.
7. With regard to the Rabie private amendment request why did staff recommend denial of
the Rabie request outright rather than proposing conditions of development or some other
approach more similar to the Jackson recommendation?
The Rabie site on S 288'h Street just east of 1-5 is a vacant property surrounded by non-residential
uses to the north (church), east (vacant future church site) and west (1-5). To the south lies a
single-famiIy subdivision. The two subject lots are under a single ownership. The current
County land use and zoning class is Neighborhood Business with a property condition limiting
uses to self-storage: the property owner has indicated he is seeking a permit with the County to
construct a self-storage use.
The City's proposal is for Single Family High Density and RS7.2 zoning. The character of the
area is primariIy residential with some religious facilities, and is not an existing or future
commerciaI node. PIanning Commission may consider any of the following options as provided
in the February 25, 2004 Staff report:
.
Continue with the Proposed Final P AA Subarea Plan Pre-annexation plan and zoning for
Single Family High Density and RS7.2 zoning
.
AppIy a Neighborhood Business and BN zone to the property similar to King County,
although this would not accommodate a self-storage use.
.
AppIy the Community Business plan class and BC zoning or BP zoning to accommodate the
proposed self-storage use.
.
Apply the Community Business plan class and BC or BP zoning, but with a development
agreement identifjling Iimitations on uses, Iandscaping. lighting, noise, or other concerns. A
deveIopment agreement would require a public hearing with the City Council. A commercial
class with Iimitations on uses is simiIar to the current King County commercial class and NB
zontng
The Jackson request evolved into the creation of a proposed new Comprehensive Plan and zoning
designation (Freeway CommerciaI). This allowed stajfto tailor specific development standards
within the new zoning regulations to address concerns related to the Jackson site and similarly
situated sites. The proposed deveIopment reguIations for the Freeway CommerciaI zone were
drafted to address compatibility issues with surrounding land uses. Staff did not feel a similar
approach to the Rabie request was warranted or would Iead to a satisfactory soIution.
3
EXHIBIT Y
PAGE Lj OF £:
Public Questions
1.
Would adoption of the P AA Subarea Plan cause property to be annexed to the City.
Adoption oj the P AA Subarea Study will not annex any property to the City oj Federal Way.
Once adopted the P AA Subarea Study will become a part oj the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The purposes oj the P AA Subarea Study are to provide early inJormation to citizens and
decision makers, provide pre-annexation zoning designations and plan for areas within the
P AA appropriate Jor annexation, including an analysis oj the fiscal impacts.
In most cases, to accomplish an annexation, citizens within a particular neighborhood or
area must approach the City, and request annexation. If the City supports the annexation
request, a number oj annexation options are available. Typically, methods oj annexation
include petition or election methods, both controlled by either property owners and/or
registered voters. As noted at our last meeting. three annexation requests have been
submitted to the City and will be considered after adoption of the PAA Subarea Plan using
the election method.
There is another method oj annexation involving islands oj unincorporated area at Ieast 60%
oJwhich is contiguous to city limits. In these instances, a city may initiate annexation by
adopting an ordinance. Area residents then have 45 days to file an objection to the
annexation. If I 0% of the qualified electors, based on the total number of votes cast in the
last state election, within the annexing area object to the annexation, the matter goes to
election oj residents within the annexation area.
2. What land use designations and zoning would control development activity in the P AA
after adoption of the P AA Subarea Plan but prior to annexation of a particular area or
neighborhood.
After the City adopts the P AA Subarea Plan, zoning designations within the P AA will not
change. King County zoning will.remain in effect. Zoning and land use designations will not
change to the City classifications unless a particular area is annexed to the City.
3. Is the City promoting annexation in order to gain tax revenue generating property to
improve the financial position of the City.
Our analysis shows that as a whole the P AA wouId not generate revenues adequate to pay Jor
City services. ThereJore, the City has no financíaI incentive to annex the entire P AA. InJact
the P AA Subarea Plan contains policies that direct the City to only consider annexation oj an
area when a strategy has been developed to balance costs and revenues.
Attachments
Jackson Aerial Photo
4
City of
Federal Way
Jackson
Ammendement
Site
Il/usecslm,keslcdlcplan/¡ackson ami
Map Date March,2004
City of Federal Way,
33530 First Way S,
Federal Way, WA 98003
(253) 6614000.
This map is intended for use as a
graphical representation ONLY The
City of Federal Way makes no
warranty as to its accuracy
Please Note:
Wetlands were identified
in a 1998 City of Federal
Survey. The 200' buffer
show on the map is based
on a preliminary wetland
inventory. The final buffer
will be determined by a
future wetland analysis.
é(
. ""°.......,...
.0$ ~
Vicinity Map
I ( '\
--./. ;1,-J !
~' I
,~ I
~j i
'.~ FEDERAL I)
'\ ~ WA Y (
~~~~ .
~.'. ""\-'. ..
, ""
,,' J
Scale: 1 to 3720
1 Inch equals 310 Feet
0 250 Feet
. -,,¡'I¡.
..
6
N
~ F~deral Way
~
CITY OF ~
Federal Way
EXHIBIT 6
PAGE ) OF G
DATE:
April 13, 2004
TO:
John Caulfield, Chair
Federal Way Planning Commission
FROM:
Isaac Conlen, Associate Planner ~ .v-
SUBJECT: PAA Follow-Up to 4/7/04 Meeting
At the Public Hearing of April 7, 2004, the Planning Commission asked staff to follow-up on
several questions. Staffalso has follow up comments on some of the Planning Commission's
general discussion. Questions and responses are provided below.
Planning Commission Questions
1. What is the County's position regarding the appropriate zoning of the Jackson site?
In 2003, King County budgeted funds for a 'subarea plan' to study the feasibility of
revisions for land use designations and zoning for parcels at the intersection of 1-5 and
South 320\h St. (Jackson site). The subarea plan, however, was not completed. Paul
Reitenbauch, of King County Dept. of Development and Environmental Services
indicated that the County has not taken a position, formally or informally, with regard to
the appropriate zoning of the Jackson site, rather deferring to the ongoing P AA subarea
planning process.
The property owner's agent indicated that he has submitted a rezone request for
Community Business zoning to King County. King County DOES staff indicated they
have not received a rezone request for the Jackson site. Once a request is submitted it
would be placed on the docket and reviewed by the King County Hearing Examiner and
then go to the County Council for a final decision.
2. What type and location of access would the City allow to the Jackson property?
Rick Perez, City Traffic Engineer, has prepared a preliminary analysis to clarify the type
of access that would be pern1itted for the Jackson site, recognizing that without a specific
proposal and supporting studies, a number of variables remain undefined.
To summarize, he indicates that one access point directly to/from South 320lh St. meeting
intersection separation requirements would be pern1Ìtted, but a full signalized intersection
without turning restrictions is unlikely to be permitted.
A signal is already in place at South 320\h St. and 32nd Ave. S., so signalized access could
be provided in this location by way of 32f\d Ave. S. Mr. Perez's email is attached-
EXHIBIT r¿;
Pl~GE J OF C;;
3. What are the details of the concomitant agreement on the property to the east of the
Jackson site within Federal Way City limits?
When the property, known as Res. North originally annexed to the City in late 1998/early
1999 with a multi-family zoning designation, the City and the property owner entered
into a concomitant agreement limiting the development of the property to single-family
uses. The property was subsequently rezoned to Office Park at which time the
development agreement became non-applicable to the site. The current zoning of the
property is Office Park with no development agreement in place.
4. With regard to the Sutherland Grocery and Gas property why was the site
designated as a landmark site? Is the current recommendation of RS9.6 single-
family the most appropriate land use designation given the site's Landmark status?
Anders Victor Sutherland originally built the Sutherland site in the 1930's as a roadside
grocery store with gas pumps out front. The family originally live above the store, which
was in operation until 1986. The site has been included in the King County Historic
Resource Inventory. At the time our consultant prepared the land use inventory as a
preliminary step in preparation of the P AA Subarea Plan, the Sutherland property was
under consideration by King County as a Landmark site. Since that time the site has been
designated as a King County Landmark.
Given the historic character of the site we considered several options including retention
of a commercial designation for this site. A City Building Inspector visited the site and
concluded that due to the dilapidated condition of the building, renovation of the existing
building to meet current code is not a realistic option. It was felt that given the condition
of the buildings and the extreme nonconfonnance of the site with regard to setbacks and
other development standards, redevelopment or re-use of the existing improvements for
commercial purposes is unlikely. Therefore, retention of a commercial designation
would not serve to preserve the historic nature of the site.
Staff recommends a High Density Residential Comprehensive Plan designation and
RS9.6 zoning. Surrounding properties to the west and south are also zoned RS9.6. Staff
feels that if the site is re-developed, which is considered to be a likely scenario,
residential use would be more compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with
the overall land use pattem than commercial use in this location.
General Discussion - Staff Follow Up
1. Rabie Zoning Request
Based on discussion at the Planning Commission's last meeting it appears there is some
interest by the Planning Commission in applying a Community Business Comprehensive
Plan classification and BC zoning designation to the Rabie property. The BC zoning
allows a wide variety of intensive commercial uses including bulk hardware and garden
sales, "big box" retail, health clubs, oversized commercial vehicle facilities and service
2
EXHIBIT [;
yards, truck stops, taxi lots, tow lots, self-storage units and hospital facird\P~1m)'?f OF S
these uses could be incompatible with suITounding single-family zoning and uses.
The Land Use Chapter of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan contains locational
criteria for each land use designation. The Community Business section of the plan
states, in part:
"The Community Business designation encompasses two major retail areas of the
City: It covers the "strip" retail areas along SR-99 and the "bulk" retail area
found near the South 348th Street area, approximately between SR-99 and 1-5."
The Rabie property is not consistent with Comprehensive Plan locational criteria for
Community Business zoning. In addition, the intensity of potential uses permitted in the
BC zone may create compatibility issues with the suITounding residential land uses.
The following are options the Planning Commission could consider related to this site
specific request:
a. Apply the staff recommendation of Single-Family High Density classification and
RS7.2 zoning.
b. Apply a Neighborhood Business classification and Neighborhood Business (BN)
zoning to the site per the applicant's request and consistent with the CUITent
County designation. This would allow a less intensive commercial use of the
property, more compatible with sulTounding single-family zoning and uses, but
would not allow the self-storage use, in which the owner has expressed interest.
Additionally, Comprehensive Plan Policy LUP48 in the BN section states that the
City shall limit new commercial development to existing commercial areas to
protect residential areas. Considering that the County has designated this site as
Neighborhood Business, but the property is undeveloped, it raises a policy
question as to whether we consider a BN designation of this site inconsistent with
the above referenced policy.
Review ofthe BN zone is on the Planning Commission's work program for this
year. A request to allow self-storage as a permitted use in the BN zone has been
made and will be considered when this item comes before the Planning
Commission.
c. Apply the Community Business classification and Community Business zoning
(BC). This designation would allow self-storage in addition to a number of higher
intensity commercial uses, but is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan locational
criteria and suITounding single-family zoning and uses.
2. Jackson Zoning Request
When staff originally reviewed the site-specific request, staff concluded that Community
Business (BC) zoning at this location would be inconsistent with the intent of the City's
Comprehensive Plan. First, the site is not consistent with locational criteria for BC
zoning. Second, policies in the plan call for commercial redevelopment of the city center
rather than expansion of new commercial areas. The BC zoning would allow uses that
3
EXHIBIT
ç;
directly compete with the types of uses the Comprehensive Plan encour~~q~~OF
center, as opposed to the Freeway Commercial (FC) zone, which limits uses to categories
that are under provided and not planned for the city center.
,..-
~
The following are options the Planning Commission could consider related to this site-
specific request:
a. Apply the staff recommendation of the proposed Freeway Commercial
classification and Freeway Commercial (FC) zoning.
b. Apply RS9.6 single-family zoning on the north portion of the site and Office Park
zoning on the south portion of the property fronting on South 320th St. This
would match existing King County zoning designations for the site.
Under this option, the applicant could always approach the City in the future with
a conceptual site plan and request a zoning change. A conceptual site plan would
allow decision makers to better understand the future impacts associated with a
zoning change on the property, and potentially lead to a developer agreement to
restrict uses or impose additional mitigation.
c. Apply the Community Business classification and Community Business (BC)
zoning to the site. This would satisfy the applicant's request, but would allow a
wide variety of intensive commercial uses on the site, including those that
compete with city center businesses, which is inconsistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Attachments:
Perez Email
4
Page 1 of 1
Isaac Conlen - Jackson Property access
EXHIBIT ~
PAGE 6' OF ç;;
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
Rick Perez
Isaac Conlen
04/08/2004 10:01 AM
Jackson Property access
Greg Fewins; Margaret Clark
In response to the Planning Commission discussion last night:
Access from S 320th Street to the subject site is limited by WSDOT's access standards for interchange areas
and FWCC Section 22-1543.
Per WSDOT design standards, if access is provided (via a new street) within 350 feet of the 1-5 northbound
ramp terminal, access restrictions would be required 130 feet from the intersection of S 320th Street on the new
street.
Per FWCC 22-1543, access onto S 320th Street would be limited to one per 330 feet of frontage. A right-in/right
out access would be permittted 150 feet from any other interec tion. A left-turn-in movement would be permitted
only 330 feet from any other intersection. Full access would only be permitted at a signalized intersection, which
would have to have sufficient side-street volume to meet warrants for signalization, and not create anyadverse
imapcts from queuing into any other signalized intersection or signal coordination.
After required right-of-way dedication for the extension of 32nd Avenue S, the subject property would have
617.92 feet of frontage, based on assessors maps. Since this is less than 660 feet, only one access point would
be permitted. This could be a right-in/right-out, and a left-in may also be possible (depending on how far into
WSDOT right-of-way the ramp terminal interection is), but it is very doubtful that a full signalized access would
be permitted.
f11e://\.:'f)oclJments%20and%20Settim~s\default\Local%20Settings\ Temo\GW} 0000 I.H...
041l4/2004
'"-----
. ì
. t
~~
CITY OF ~
Federal Way
EXHIBIT ~
PAGE ) OF J
DETERMINA TIONOF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA (P AA) SUBAREA PLAN
Federal Way File #O4-100482-00-SE
Description of Proposal: Adoption of the P AA Subarea Plan prepared in coordination with the overall Federal
Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP). The PAA Subarea Plan provides a Year 2020 long-range land use and policy
plan to guide pre-annexation planning efforts and annexation requests. It provides for pre-annexation
comprehensive plan and zoning designations; capital facility plans for transportation, surface water, þarks, and
other facilities; and policies for a variety of natural and built environment topics.
When adopted, the plan will be a component of the overall FWCP focusing upon the 5,OOO-acre future annexation
area, and will replace the current Potential Annexation Area Chapter. While the FWCP provides the general goals
and policies for land use, housing, capital facilities, utilities, transportation, economic development, and parks and
recreation for the P AA as well as the City, the P AA Subarea Plan is intended to address unique characteristics or
situations relevant to the P AA.
Proponent: The City of Federal Way Department of Community Development Services
Location oCProposal: Federal Way Planning Annexation Area (PAA) located in South King County and
generally east of 1-5 between South 272nd Street and the King/Pierce County boundary, including an area near
South 272nd Street at Pacific Highway South.
Lead Agency: The City of Federal Way
City Contact: Greg Fewins, Deputy Director, Community Development Services, 253-661-4108
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that is does not have a probable significant adverse impact on
the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 c.030(2)(c). This
decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the
lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.
This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the
date below. Comments must be submitted by March 3, 2004. You may appeal this determination to the Director of
Community Development Services (address below), no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 17,2004, by a written letter
stating the reason for the appeal of the determination. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections.
Responsible Official: Kathy McClung, Director, Department of Community Development Services
Address: 33530 First Way South, PO Box 9718, Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
Date Issued: February 18. 2004
Sógnature: ~
~o
Doc. to. 26<JJ8
.+.
Puget Sound
I ¡U
1\ ~~
,-~\
, '" "
II 'Tl\ '" \
\
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
COMPREHENSIVE Pu\N
POTENTIAL
ANNEXATION AREAS
POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREAS ELEMENT
)
Legend:
/",/ Federal Way City Limits
/,-/ Potential Annexation Area
- SCALE-
1 Inch equals 4,100 Feet
;gm
e»<
m:I:
t~
0
~
)
J
¡q!.' =
A- e:o~
~~ FtY OISOIV1S1""
MAP VIII-1 0
NOTE: This map Is Intended tor use as a oraphlcal representation only.
ne Cily ot federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy
M.. .'"", """"1"'00
IN_,~""",
COM RECEIVED BY
MUN/TY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MAR 1 5 2004
William and Sally Skaflestad
3226 S. 316th Street
Auburn, WA 98001
March 11, 2004
City of Federal Way
Planning Commission
PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
RE: Federal Way File #O4-100482-O0-SE
Dear Sir or Madam:
After reviewing the City of Federal Way Memorandum dated February 25,2004, we
are pleasantly surprised to read that the Community Development Services staff is
making an attempt to look out for the "little people". One of the specific areas of
concern listed in the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area (PM) Subarea Plan is
the support of the Single Family Neighborhoods as the primary land use of the PM.
As homeowners residing within the PM, our main objective is to protect the
character, integrity, and unique qualities of our neighborhood as it currently exists.
We want to specifically address the Private Amendment request of Jerry Jackson.
The property description includes a brief statement that the property "is located
across from office uses." To our knowledge, the only currently practicing office uses
are on the south side of 32Oth Street. In our opinion, the statement should accurately
read, "...it is located across from office uses on one side along 320th street." In
addition, the vacant property identified for future office uses is to the southeast corner
rather than "to the east".
We respectfully request that whatever zoning classification is chosen, please include
the following regulations to protect our neighborhood:
ACCESS. Our biggest fear is increased traffic on South 316111 Street. This includes
the fear of allowing South 316111 Street to be used as a shortcut from Military Road to
320111. Will the main access to the Jackson property be 32nd Avenue South off of
320111 Street? A 4-way traffic light is already functioning at that intersection.
DRAINAGE. Because of the large wetlands area we ask that future development
plans meet strict drainage requirements so that existing homes do not suffer
increased runoff, standing water, or flooding.
EXHIBiT_'
PAGELOF~
. Page 2
-March 11,2004
NOISE and AESTHETICS. There must be buffers between our neighborhood and
1-5 to protect our privacy and contain noise levels. We also need an aesthetically
pleasing buffer between our neighborhood and future development to the Jackson
property. We want to keep as many trees as possible. The trees serve as a buffer
as well as helping to protect the wetlands and the wildlife that we enjoy in our
neighborhood. -
PROPERTY VALUES. We will hold the City of Federal Way liable for any adverse
affect zoning and development have on our property values.
RESTRICT DEVELOPMENT to the southwest area of the Jackson property and
away from our neighborhood.
RESPECT and PROTECT the existing property uses in our neighborhood, including
pasture for horses and other farm animals.
Thank you for providing us the opportunity to express our concerns. We look forward
to reviewing the staff reports when they become available.
Sincerely,
E-- \1 t.-í ! C - 1
",!t~--~.,.
P..... /\ ¡--. C 2. . - ,. _I. -.. --
r\ '-.j \_-- . ---
em . . RECEIVED BY
""vfMUNITY OEVErnof~fl\'T í)FP4RTH¡::--
M!lf <
March 16th 2004
As I am unable to attend the city council meeting in person, please let me take
this opportunity to add my voice to those protesting any re-zone of the property now
occupied by 0 and 0 Accounting, 30682 Military Road, in the event of any
annexation by the city of Federal Way-
This business is located on a natural commercial comer and has been in use
since at least 1942- It provides a valuable service to our community, lends a
pleasing character to the neighborhood, and should not be forced to relocate, which
in my opinion would only result in the stale, monotonous, homogenization that is
now the benchmark of Federal Way, the epitome of strip mall sprawl.
Respectfully,
( l_/
í.../,.?/I/I
>-- - :. ~ L;:J--,~
-- - /?
(;/~~
/ ./
'"
,f)( ,: ';1
v1-j'1 f..../
¡// I - jL'{-)/1.¿} ,/
¿--
-~/
EXHIBïl- .
PAGE-3
1
, ; 1---11___-
RECEIVED BY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MAR 1 7 2004
RECEIVED BY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1 7 7001;
March 17, 2004
Larry N eether
37322 Milton RD South
Federal Way, W A 98003
To Whom it May Concern,
Mr. Greg-Fewins & City of Federal Way in reference to FWCP on Annexation & Zoning,
the property that lies along 1-5 to the west, 375th & Pierce county line & Lloyds proposed
development to the South and Six Flags Park to the North. All of these property owners
approximately (12) property owners with acreage that is currently zoned & I believe Y2
Ac per single family dwelling, considering the development that has happened & will be
done in future, it would be an ideal area to have zoning changed to multi use commercial
with the exposure to 1-5 & Six Flags & Lloyds ETc. With present, future and planned
developments, could you please consider this in your plans for future development.
Thank You
LatTY N eether
I~vw~ (;, )It v7Z 1
EXHIB!1" - 7------
PAGE___q. '~-_}l
.;
Smith
Alling
Lane
A Professional Services Corporation
Attorneys at Law
Douglas V. Alling
Grant ß. Anderson
Joseph R Cicero (1957-2oo1)
Barbara A. Henderson
Edward G. Hudson
Edward M. Lane
Linda Nelson Lysne. CPA
Robert E. Mad<
\>.1ichael E. McAleenan
Robert L. Michaels
Timothy M. Schellberg
Daniel C. Smith (ReI.)
1102 Broadway Plaza, #403
Tacoma, Washington 98402
Tacoma: (253) 627-1091
Seattle: (425) 251-5938
Facsimile: (253) 627-0123
Brian L. Dolman (also admitted
in Oregon)
Thor A. Hoy1e
March 17,2004
City of Federal Way Planning Commission
33530 1st Way South
PO Box 9718
Federal Way, W A 98063-9718
Re:
Davis Rezone at 30682 Military Road South
Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission;
Richard and Louise Davis request the proposed zoning designation ofRS 9.6 (Single
Family 9,600 sq. feet), as ~plied to their property under the Proposed Annexation Area plan, be
amended to BN (Neighborhood Commercial).
FACTS
Mr. and Mrs. Davis have been the owners ofthe subject property since 1988. At the time
of their purchase, the Davises believed the property was zoned for neighborhood commercial
uses. An examination of the approved subdivision bears out this belief. In the "Restrictions"
language of page 2, Lake Dolloff Tracts, the Davises' lot is "hereby restricted to business use."
(Exhibit 1.)
The property was used for various commercial pursuits since its original platting in 1942.
Barney Lucas, Jr., son of the original owner of the Davises' parcel, declared that the tract was
used for commercial purposes continuously between 1946 and 1978. (Exhibit 2.) It should be
noted the use was for a construction business.
Preston Johnson, Esq., declared that he, too, recalls business uses on the Davis property
since at least 1955. (Exhibit 3.) However, for an unknown reason, the zoning reverted to a
Single Family designation in approximately 1962. The Davises and all of their predecessors in
interest treated the parcel as a commercial property, expanding and changing the use on the
parcel.
When the Davises became aware of the inconsistent zoning they sought a Conditional
Use permit for their business. King County determined that a Conditional Use permit was not
the proper vehicle to make their existing business "legaL" In 1993 a rezone request was entered
by the Davises. (Exhibit 4.) Despite the continuing presence of a small business on the p(operty
C~T 1
EXH1Dt ,-
P AG E --5--) ~_JL
Federal Way Planning Commission
March 17, 2004
Page 2
for the preceding 50 or so years, the King County Hearing Examiner recommended denial of the
request despite signatures from 24 local residents attesting to the asset a business is on that
parcel. (Exhibit 5.)
On March 17, 1994, an Appeal Statement was submitted on behalf of the Davises.
(Exhibit 6.) In the Appeal Statement, the Davises make many of the same points they make
today. Mostly, the neighbors along that stretch of Military Road South did not see the adverse
impacts of zoning tlw property according to its long-held use: neighborhood business.
Moreover, the Davises submit that a neighborhood business on that parcel is crucial to the
character of the area.
King County Ordinance 12824, dated July 29, 1997, modified the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation for denial. (Exhibit 7.) The King County Council found the original plat
restrictions to be dispositive. Furthermore, the Davises' reliance on the original plat, the
continuous use ofthe parcel as a neighborhood business for 45 years prior to the purchase ofthe
parcel, the subsequent de facto treatment of the parcel as a commercial property since 1979, and
overwhelming approval by the neighbors, made the denial of the rezone inequitable and
untenable.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 8, is the site plan drawn for a building permit application
made with and approved by King County for the addition of a second story to the existing
building. That second story has been built. The site plan more or less reflects the current layout
of the lot. It is important to note the constraints of the 9,325 square foot lot.
First, the business is not on sewer, and uses a designed and approved septic and
drainfield. The drainfield drastically limits development of the property. It is not inconceivable
that a residential use on the property would require an expansion of the current drainfield.
Second, the legal lot is much smaller than one would perceive from a casual
investigation. The jagged fence line along the rear of parcel, the required parking for the
business (currently seven spaces), and the inability to impact the drainfield and septic, makes the
lot fully built out with a building footprint of only 989 square feet.
It is inconceivable that this lot would make a desirable single family residence lot. An
appraisal done on October 30,1998 by C. J. Munson and Joseph W. Harris on behalf of Key
Bank, bears out this contention. (Exhibit 9.) In the excerpt from the appraisal, it is clear that
although theoretical planning concepts dictate that this particular parcel should be designated
single family residential, the reality of the parcel's location, size and history is something else. .
The highest and best use for this parcel is what it currently is: neighborhood business.
EXHIß!T
PAGE. "
,_.
1 , -._-...
Federal Way Planning Commission
March 1 7, 2004
Page 3
ZONING CONCERNS
Typically, to withstand a challenge, a rezone requires a showing of a substantial change
in conditions. That is exactly what cannot be shown here. The parcel has always been in
commercial use. King County recognized this and correctly rezoned the parcel to its original
use. Washington courts have determined that the main inquiry in spot zone cases is whether the
rezone bears a substantial relationship to the general welfare of the affected community. Here,
the affected community is the Davises as the property owner and the citizens in and around that
section of Military Road South. The community has shown its support in the past for a local
business on that parcel. Additionally, that section of Military Road South has a Montessori
School, a church, and other small commercial activity. It is the character of the neighborhood
that is being preserved, not challenged, by maintaining the Oavises' neighborhood business
zonIng.
Zoning the parcel single family triggers the nonconformance chapter of the City of
Federal Way zoning code (FWMC 22-325 et. seq.). The City of Federal Way has contended that
zoning the Davises' property RS 9.6, would do them no real harm because they would be unable
to meet the requirements of the BN zone, presumably in terms of design guidelines requirements.
It appears this belief is predicated on the notion that the CUITent structure could be turned into a
single family residence. Ironically, the City's proposed designation ofRS 9.6 would make the
parcel nonconforming as to lot size.
It is inconceivable the CUITent building could be turned into a single family- type
structure. It was built to be a shop, and was converted into a small office. The second floor
permitted by King County, and built in approximately 2002 contains additional office space.
The building looks like a business. Its signage is understated. The property is likely built-out
completely short of a sewer line being installed along Military Road South. However, the BN
zone would allow the Oavises to continue their business without the threats of the
nonconforn1ance provisions of the Federal Way code. lfthe Oavises wished to adapt their
building for another type of neighborhood commercial use, or level it and build a type of
building, the Oavises would likely be able to conform to the design standards Federal Way has
enacted. With the small lot size, BN zoning gives the Oavises more opportunity to fully use their
land to its highest and best use.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONCERNS
The City of Federal Way's Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) recognizes King County's
development patterns. The City adopted a land use element to its Comprehensive Plan that
reflects the history of King County development in the area, and tries to merge that history with
good growth ideas. As a result, FWCP delineates certain Land Use Concepts.
EX\-tlB¡ . ~-- --1
PAGE-LOE
VI
Fed,eral Way Planning Commission
March 17, 2004
Page 4
One such concept is existing neighborhoods should be preserved and enhanced.
Rezoning the Davises' land to RS 9.6 fails to either preserve or enhance the existing
neighborhood.
The FWCP calls for the provision of community and commercial services to residential
communities. The Davises' business certainly serves the local area and beyond, and is
appropriately placed in an area where there is moderate car traffic, and outside the commercial
core of Federal Way.
The FWCP calls for the promotion of the development of well designed commercial and
office developments. The subject parcel would benefit from the Federal Way design guidelines
upon commercial redevelopment. Commercial development on that site arguably provides better
opportunities for the City to coax attractive and functional design to the site than does single
family development on a small lot.
SUMMARY
The Davises' property has been used as a commercial property since its inception in
1942. Maintaining the parcel as a neighborhood business zone is not a spot zone per se.
Designating the parcel RS 9.6 makes the parcel nonconfonning as to lot size, and considering the
constraints of the site, makes single-family residential construction unlikely. Furthennore, the
continued operation of a neighborhood business on that parcel is in confonnance with the
comprehensive plan.
Very truly yours,
or A. Hoyte
Attorney for Richard and Louise Davis
T AH:sI
encl.
EXHIB¡T__H__-7
P AGE -j-~-~, f= - --11--
-
'.
.. '
~,.- ...,~.~*..,~......-v<., ~~
~;~'fI'~,,~..~'
;." ;.--I""""~" ;""'1'7"""~')"":'~"""""'~:-""""""
::~~'"
-"'q'...................""...~..r,.I"'~'~ ,r... ""'>:"""""~--.,"":","' I
.
1
1
1
t
1
,
1
i "
j
I
I'
I '
t . ' ~.o c.~' >~ :~'~~:~~~-'~"-,-::-:'~ '~'-~~'=-~-~'~-:':E-~fffBT'
--,-'---"-'-"'~ - ,,',-,_.,,_..,~- . --- -, i
-: C';"c:--<:~,.'~'---"--~" , ,,' " , -PAGE'!
.
':,=:;::":::-, .;:;::::::. -. ;;~ri::';",'::';~,: '::;2:.-:,~.:.:;:;:¡,,::z.;;¡'-:";j~íi ~;;;:;::ìJ:L.L
. .
._-~.
~'
~.-',
..."-~"':'-----"
i .
t
I
l
¡
;.
"
!.
. """, .
"
.. - .
..~-"-~'
~-'~ -
~-"_.~ . _."". ..~¿...
-'
~
~
'1
tØOK~"~&~~'"'~'¡Z~1: 't~ K Ê:' D 0 Liö F ~. o. fE ~c 15
r SECTION OJ.AND NW
. flANGE 41 ~AS T.W-Iot,
'. ,.
I ~c~" ',-' .'" :,
~
~==-.~~'~-.
\
\\
IN N[V4 O("NC V"
TOWI-ISHtP 2~
-,-, ",
I .
....,,'0"
", "', N/"'(O<040
.~...,..
U"f'LATT!:C
,
\ ': ~~,.~,'"
~~~~..
\ ;.
\ \ ~
\ \ .
\ \0
\ ~'~ .
\ :I.: ..
\ '=\;. "
\ ~
\ \
\ \
, \ ~
C. \ \ '
\ I
1. \ \
']A- . 3
~ ; \ \ ,.t OEOICA1IOII
C ' , ;. O(..ow..u.\oO(".""~I'OU"",-~
..,.' \ - '. ",(.00.<"-""""......<00'-;"-0-
'... .. ~' 0""""""0 #<0 u.n'"" "'."u NLÞ< ,..~,
,..t. ,; , " .J.'~' of. ....n",w#.$+"""'O".OW""."'f(U.v'c!"""
..t. ':- . 4 :"'".~~ S(,=~.?'c:'~=:::'~~~~:;':.':::'
~', ......c. ..', ~",4JC"""......,"...,wvc:"tIO1...'t"'-n:>.!'.",
<- ' . '.:. . \ S"",,""""'C.IoHOCo-.0"-~fOOO."OJO5("'~'-"
;', ~ }. ..,..~' .. ,.>< .d::.'f~:¿;'~;:'~~'~«~"::~.:':~:~:~';~~;~
'-' ~, :. 5 ..... -- A'" "",nowOf5A'0<.A"0"««8Y"""""CO"""'w,"'",st"",~>
-.è', . ,: ....... SNO~S..,~""oo.."",t««(""()(Q.MO(-HC'H""O(O<V"!~"':
""', '............ ( ""ory... ~"(.J< f.,.,CVC" -n<c """"",0..." "'.""CO<, ."","" ,..:-:¡ :L
....'" . .11 """'0 "',.,0-. "" - PAAK""O ..."'...,,""... ...u~ -"'.""'4HC".""- x..
"---':1 . r. "..,. ""CS'-fO(VUlGAH""",on,,"C«U'o<O,CACO1Ot>-{US'CY"""."":
',.:!. - --- - ---. """ .....;."" ,,'Q<W'" rv./'Osu N4:) N.I. ""'C" ~1Je\." usu NOt """""St,., -:. ." :
"--- -~""'J, ~" ""'PVe<.I("""-"'J""OS...A\.SO1t<C"tCMT"'D"""c..u.""ass""~""'-"";'
--- ""~('~ -----. f«.U """,_urn #<0"'-0""""""""""0""ntC"C.uow_(OOl""""-""""""">-'
DESCRIPTION ----'::"---~jy ., ""'::'.:;;';"""uS~~~or,ntC""0(J)f\<'OMY""""",^"S'0~K""U("5JOO(tr-=:""
, - - -.~- ..-... -"'0"'" ."OS(CIIC"""""'O,rsc.oo""""1CSCA\. 'tO8CttCAevwTO .<f",.o,-~""
.-...s1'<.A1or '<.AO(C OO<Lorr "'..'n- ,ovc", ,,"" "'(.UJOC5 "tI( -- - . --. "". OOt..,,(......O Yto..n "-tIOtHSt(... ."0 row."O "-=«0"0 1'#40 ""$l""'w(CJ'~'"",
'0I.."--OCS<"'8<O1~TSOf .."""..."""",S ""'<'01 ."O1(..,oo',,~ ..,o'U""O ,('1-'" ......OS <u<0S(AU nt.S~.'!j ""',Of_~Lls.V:;J. ",0. ~~,
-_..,~"""..T'<.""" U.._nt",..w(.( """",.u.sT.".". - 8"""""'" -:...----
:::~~-;"'f~~';""':::~-:O:::~~~~.¡::'~':~;:;,~"7<u<~O ~: O. """"'."""""<.ow-
"""""'H1Ot>\(.""t""0..u-rt:.CWtOl"""O<K<:t1O'<1("(fO..""010"""-:-' ." ""~VB.TJ~~!-...HI1-L--' MY.s:Rm..lJj~J()~L ---
"""1oHO "'00<;«"'""""" "'"",0 "..t'O ..",. 8<"'" "".", ."4S'.O' U . """".-.,
u.sT S..- """.."";..,"" """"'14-4""'-OST -'",n:et, ....."" :.'~ , .nuT. CLINTON S,REYNOLpS ' VIOLET M,ROll-lST(IW --
.ou.... "'o............oo«et.....",,, -... «- "",. %'O oon:n"o<w(.( ;.:: --- m-oc<';¡';;'--- - - - - - ---- - ---
-'" "'00' u.s, n4~'«n. 1-<"" """'tI"""",,; .......,( """T"'S'" CQ\'1A,BQ f-.,ÇI..IU'QIiQ. - - '
~~<:~~~':;<:Ot:,~;~,;<;.~~~~:~~;~~~O:::~~.;;.~....~~of " '-l.Q.~~~JtI.Lç~.ffQ~Q--
""""',,'oo'WCSt '05,oo«n,10<"""'o«""4>-00""$1'""oon:£1,"""«2
..,...,. ."07-(5' lOO,oo'(n. -""( wUT "',ooo:n. -"« ""....... --<>00-
:;":;':(:;~:,~'~~~~~~~:. ':::~~'o~.., ~.::~, ACKN(M'L( OGMENT
..""u.. ,..'" ",to..... """<OJ -0""("""'0"_<-< """110« """"O
"-"o~ 10 ",.._, _"".00""'.'._'0"""""'00'.""'0 'D""-
-.............. """""""""""14-(ASt.o<s""",or"',tJ('((t;1-<"',
'-""-'~"'OO""" U%,Uft(t 'SO't><C: """""""""""'0<""
"'U1<Uh' <00#.0;-"" JOV""""t("""~""'--.c.<'" "....~
..... '-SU 0' '0<, ,"",..... -0 ""....., "$1U,-, ....""" 0""'0'"""010
1... Pt."'" or """"""""".7("" """"~".10 #< (;>."""""" ""'" ""0 """""
1t«_"- 0' ""0 sc,...""..(.. ,to. &8OYt: OCS"',"0,,««1O<OOI< """"( 0
10 tof' .......« 'I(\.tr-.",,( ...., 1(\.«.<1- c.ou~.... -0""""0(0... ""'-""(
"., or 0«05........ ,n. "'«>«010<""'" GOV"-"."""""""""'.....oc. ...,0.
""".. f..., '<: "'HO..
......""""0-0""("'.0", -.... """""'-""fU:<"""( ......,.
lULL' .oo«<f ro . ........
"- f I ...
.,.
r
, ~""..,.,
IU
....."-f'
......
2
"""'0"""""""'100<)
"""""0<""" U. ,
1MS U1\HU'hn- -""'tH<"'" ....,'" ""=11. "-0- 104%.8(""",\00(.- .....O(.."""".~
-..c.. 0".... c.ou.".."",(O ""'""""" ....o.so-......, ..~..,,'O <..<t":U~U.."'~""O (,.!'!'.P!'_t!~..
"""OOO-1O8C ,.., "'U'o('" ""'......n.....IIU""'NOr,"""" <-OO1'OIl"""-""'" ,«<.".0",",'" -...c
"-""""""'Sf"""'{"'. -0"'(0"""",... """VfO\.U """"...nC"'.I«SWtfC. "..0 '0""°' ",.n<o::..
=_.., úJf'OOIO,"S""'(.1O... """"""SO... "" """Vtov"u 0..""6(0......o....o(0«,,t(0"" '....
nouu(..y""", (IoU\ 10(.\(-<.(0<:(0 10.,. ""'-t...o """'0 ""0 lCA\.'O - """'.. ",(,.fO« .""":-;::".
~'~~1,O.~~:;( ~S ::-:, ";,":~~l~-: ~';.~:;:~o¿:<gi..~~u~~~~':::~~~~i...°.~::4 ..:
--..u 0( """'....0..,.",....."",
""""'U, -(0(0<. ""'1( """,uom> sn wY "....0....'" ..,f.."O"" O<f("""(." ",( -.""<1'"
..... a.""'.T( nUT """'" -TI'"
JEAN 8ELL
-;;~~,,';;-..r;.."i><-¡¡-;.C;; -
-'-"""-",u"""
"
--", '
,.1"-';'
A
~
~
7-~-~ ,
\ ::','l-,~~--.
,.. .
~'~':~ :-:~ '~.::c.: ~- ;
~,~~,::;':"""~"~",,:~I'-.:"! - '~""":~';r~~~
.. . ,", ,,' ~,.', "
.
ø.\::--.....-. "~¡'.=~',~"I\:JI'_~.~..~~,....""I\"",
."!,":II:Y"'~"~<:'> ~..:":.'" ',r,,:, ..;n:"';-:'~""",~." o:."",~~..
~'HO <o«AC<.o«O A' ,HC MQ<1(ST CYNoK. COJom' .....-,..C <ou""'SO<>«
,...S,l!""" ",,%.],A.O. "'.1.' A',~..! ....."ne> """-"-""" """ «(Co«<XO
... VOL""'C_U 0< rLA", rACC'1. .!:-l' A«:'O"'" or~....c <OVO<n,-.......<""".
i
CHHlflCAìC
'",-0(0'««<"'" <-T"'" "L'T "-'LA'" OOLLcyr T«.cT>' U ."[0 Vf'ON"" «T""'-
'V"""" N<O sve......""" 0< S(CUOH' . , '0- """"""" "..oonH, A.H« , C"-'" w.",
'....T T"C o<"....CU AHO<-OVA'U"" ""'.... <.ooO<C"-V, ,""', 'HC '"""V U C.." H'YC e({"
«T A"""" N<OOUX" <.oo..[A' "u(O COO"(OLV"""'C CAO<.f"O. ,..,T I "",vC rVLL'
.00.<"'-' CO WI"" TH(r..ovU'OH"'- 'HI ".w'U 'HOor..... ACCULA"OO<' """CI'~HC "'-^",
-~~. r r'
I :.......,..co""O ..,.""OVCO ""',",,!, ......or 9<--~9!<..~"'C>- ..~,
i 1
.. ,......" <1....(A ,,- 0«_0-<
11 .J ~=.;:-::""" -
- --~_.
-.-:f .
.... '
....
r .
\
L
t.
L
P
{ ..
\\ I-,;
- I -,
:.
j '.
i
¡
,
L_' ,
-,- f,
--10( _1
.........., .
>-- .
---'
.....,..."..
- wn«
....(- '
J:"""'"
:>0-«"
:._.,...
'...:" co''
>v«( ow-
--<fVtU<
..,Wf" w:
"'" QITS ..
_or"".
,oo:cAnØ> i
.......
.. ....
i-
I-
i "
....-~
r:- :t. ':. i
--:
s---
",-"'"
-""" .
_4~
~ .'. .. ~',
-~-~- .'~~:'~ '
........ .. ....:...-
L'., ~
,.....-.':...s...,~_:..........~-~.
~. ,
~
. .
, ;.
- -",
.. 0" '...'
'. - .....' , "
, -
"
,<;
SH(('T 2 '
'2; ,
Q>
-:.\
"'.,'~
"'~
--Z~
'~...
.'.~
\\
'. " / <",:\
~~" .' ',"":"',-'< ~.;~~:~..:.I<A-\
,"'" 'If-""
'.:""X<\.$S '.
\\
\\
'\
~~\.-.
~~::
,\
\'.
\...
\.
"\
:Î
:'.
~.
1/:
f'
. /(.,-:,
".¡-...
.._.,f'"
-I'
. -(-
4
(.
1,
-<\
{"
'."
/.
,<--
()
(Q
" ..
,"
(,
", VOL "..
~'- ~-
-~~;'I ..~~
r--,~ 'ñ-- ""-
\v;~ -ì~',_"'" !-....;'
~\ ,} --'--, (, /
\~' '!,. -',
c '.
Z /'
'" (;
... '-2..
:....-CO_OA.......,.,.0.....""'_m<""'-or.J:l(;1QOO\. '"'f
(" r_¿~=--- rr:Þ
:U:STRICTIONS V
';::j
~
,
~
,
/
..
~
e
'" LDT."""')"'OOH"- A WT'" THIS ..... ,""U oc o.v.oc~-=o..,.
'(~<.Q.O<I_"(U"'" C"""'«O o......sr...(o.-COCOV""C
"",COtS",.. or A'" ronlOO< 0' TH" "LAT, (XC(....."'" LOT .. .LO<.L
........ DC LUS "'... noC ""[' .,:<)<,,"[0 ro"~C uS( o<S1AKT
,..."0"" ,"" "<AT, ......c<v, S'. 'I1<OuS"'O ",00<>,"""'.( rct:'C.
,,-<DU"""'" ",AT ,OC(""'C""O LO", ðLOU<" ,.....coC.,
;oTA,<.T1:0 TO ..."o<"C( v$C CO<[A~(O .' «(."OoCT""". AVL(S
..... ACCUL"""" 0< Cl>J"" OUOLVT<OH .......,-_wo.><Q
-«.... Co<A~CU ...O( ,H(""'" OV "-'K'A< <-O./-m-"u.-x.v"""
<.OT . ,au>c." , ,.,..coCO'( «U'<"oCno'" "",'HUS use.
~
'"
v
~
."
c;
y
--
,.
j
~
(,,(A(O c.<ATlf'Y"""""( ..,....... ~L" or -LA"[ OOLLOH ,ova.,
. O<JLY"""'OOVCO ev,,"'CCOOHTY f'LAW""'C c"""""""...." JQ-'"
"',"k1. A.O- "~,~.
4 . _~~.fl-c.L Q1YLU~R.DEL
l.~ ~!;l~V.~r'.2>~;r.a.
, --<>00-
-000-
?>272189
ROß~RT A.MORRIS
--....r.;;"..;ö;i'...- -
,
"
~~¿~~'~..- .
-------0 0 0 -
W.7,l7"~ J:( ~~;.~1hro..'Wk<..~+'-
-000-
" \
'~" .
'~" -4
0," . ":"'" ~' ,//
" " , "-¿ ¡
, . ",r~-J", /
, '),... ..
,'" ( " ">., ¿1:.. /
' , ,.!~-
',-t -", ~ '
,/, ""'....' .
...:-':... """ ../..
¿u¿"_M<.._......d.,~~.~ -.-¡r, ,t
.,_. ~~:~-::'; , , , 8:-::::-':: , . ,
'..".M<~-Y'- ";,.:-.::-:-",,, .-..2-
=-",.........!~,~~~.,-
-v
-'/
^
^
'<
Q"
<-
..:)
0
>.
-- .-.-,.......~ ... -- ,.='-"'~-,.. ...~~'"'...........,- --:- ,-,.~=-r.~~~;:::'-. ..P.. .
;.
L
EXH\~\"'i__1---.---- -
.~
~::'~'.¡-;,~;;~':~.~:L=:~~ . .~. .' , . ,"-: '..r,:. ~.:,.. .'"J;
" .."-"'~-~
, ;. " ~~.~ . " ~ _r
~....' ....,-..;_.- ,-. -,,-" . ,,"..........~ . .,. - . ~....s..¿.-w.-oJ/,..;..:"" ',:
AFFIDAVIT OF BARNEY LUCAS, JR.
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
)ss.
COUNTY OF KING
BARNEY LUCAS, JR., being duly sworn, says:
1.
I make this affidavit based on personal knowledge.
2.
My father purchased the property legally described
as Lot 8, Block 1, Lake Dolloff Tracts, in 1946.
At the
time, the zoning allowed us to use the property as business
property and he and I used it as such until I sold it in
approximately 1978.
3.
We operated a construction business out of the
property.
4.
On this
/:3 [1,-
day of September, 1991, at
1- -'L6~ tL)Cl-< 1 ' Washington, I declare under
penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington
that the foregoing affidavit is true and correct.
~~~,
Affiant
AFFIDAVIT -1-
, EXHIBIT 7
~ 0/ (¡J&J¿;¡k- PAGE-1LOF-1L-
{j;{M1/~ ýl)-l'j . r i:t .
~ß J~oU- A7tk- ~ /3 ~ ~
);fð1'y 62 D~ I - Z.
n;r--~~ )/-1
aw off ices of preston
johnson.
"
." ,"'"
DECLARATION
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
)ss.
COUNTY OF KING )
LANORA CHURCHILL, b~ing duly sworn, says:
1.
I know on personal knowledge that the property
currently belonging to Richard and Louise Davis, commonly known
as 30682 Military Road South, Auburn, Washington, has been used
as business property since 1955.
2.
In 1955, I knew the owners of the property, lived near
the property, and witnessed the commercial use.
3. On this ~ day of September, 1991, at Camano Island,
Washington, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of
the State of Washington that the foregoing statements are true
and corr~ct.
.
Subsc bed nd or lOt v::¿ -- - ~ U
~CHILL
this" yo' 9q r "
,,1I'ff,1590 N. Arrowhead Road
. "., "~"""'.~:.~&Jt~no Island, WA 98292
: Notary ~ublic in a~d. for. t .~~.\ \ ¡ "
of Washington ResIding m"~~t ~ EXHIBIT 7
.. ï). ..v1-, ".. ~:: PAG E-l2. -
\.. ~o...f..~~¡.\f..'ÁO~¡ 0 F
;; 'f:' ~',
I
33838 pacific highway south. f.ederal way. washington 98003
(206) 838-3454/927-3344
-
-
EXHIBIT
"----.. " -,--,"'----'.'-
1. - 3
j' .
~
ÀPPüëÄTIONF~R ZONING CUP OR ACUP (Continued)
EXHIBIT D-3
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Project descrit>tion:
uses):
2. Existing Zone:
3. Acreage:
4. Water District:
(Include a statement describing tbe compatibility with surrounding
SR 5. Sewer District: FEDERAL WAY
.21 6. Fire Pistrict: FEDERAL WAY #39
FEDERAL WAY 7. School District: FEDERAL WAY 11210
8.
Address of Property: 30682 MILITARY R~ S AUBURN WA 98001
9.
Has an Environmental Impact Statement been prepared for this proposed development'!
Yes ( ) No (x). If yes, submit with this application.
10.
Development existing on subject property:
One story frame structure
11.
Development on adjoining properties:
Lot 7 two story frame-North side
Lot 8 parcel B one story frame
12.
Neighborhood land use characteristics:
Residential use with a few commercial businesses located along Military
Rd S. Two blocks North is Cartland Alarm, next door is Powers Hardwood
"Floors, across the street is Velmas Signs, one block south is st Nichol
Mqnstery School & daycare, two doors south of that is a church.
Name the" road(s) which provide legal access to the site:
,
13.
Military Road and South 308TH Place
-
14.
Is this an expansion or renewal of an existing operation? Yes (x) No ( ). If yes,
provide file numbers and dates of previous related County approvals for construction and
operation:We are asking for a continuation of nonconforming business use.
History of business use goes back 1946 purchased by Barney Lucas at tha
time it was zoned as business, he used the lot for his construction
activities. The existing office was built in 1979 as a shop and small
retail store. In 1986 Vilma Signs was rented the building. In 1988 we
What area do you plan to serve with the proposed use? Please describe: purchased the bui
Federal Way and Auburn ing for òur account
practice, and have
been here ever sinct
15.
16.
Number of employees: Part-time
Full-time
17.
Number of daily customers: 4 per day April 15th to Jan 1 st,
10 per day Jan 1st to April 15th
EX\-HBIT_J-:: --
P AGE 1-1--- _'~~3 \-~
18.
Hours and days of operation:
Monday thru Friday 9:00am to 5:00 pm
Page 7 of 9
.
EXHIBIT
t
!
If
..'- . - .. 1 ~ ',- ,~--,-,- ---"'-"---"" .-- .--- .'--
APPLICA TION FOR ,ZONING CUP OR ACUP (Continued)
EXHIBIT D-3 (page 2)
19.
Number of round-trip vehicle movements anticipated at this facility per day:
employee automobiles 1
trueD - 0
customer automobiles
4 to 1 0
20.
Schools Information:
a.
Is the subject property dose to a school or to a pedestrian or vehicular access
route to a school? Yes () No t< ).
If yes, will the proposed use have an .effect on transportation and traffic safety of
school children? Yes () No (X).
b.
c.
Will the proposed. development present an "attractive nuisance"to children?
Yes ( ) No (X). Explain any of the above:
d.
Have you consulted with school officials regarding tbis matter?
Yes () No ~ ).
21.
Have you made your plans known to potentially interested community groups in the
vicinity of tbe property or to neig~borin.g property owners? Yes () No ( ). If yes,
who has been contacted and what IS their reaction?
There has been a business operating out of this building since 1979.
0 & D Accounting has been there for three years, and the property
has been used for business since 1946. The original land use map
showed business only.
Is the water district or distributor capable of serving the property adequately to meet -
County fire protection standards and to meet tbe demand created by the proposed
conditional use?
Yes
22.
23.
Is the subject property shown within a local service area in the King County Sewerage
General Plan adopted by Ordinance No. 4035?
We do not know
24.
Is the subject property served by sanitary sewers? If not, how do you propose to serve
the proposed development? -
No, we plan on using septic
Explain how the proposal complies with tbe zoning code standards listed for the specific
use proposed and applicable KIng County Comprehensive Plan policies:
The building is designed as a little store and would be unadaptable
to a home. (See attached pictures) We need to pu~ in a septic tank, we
have designed a system, and it's&pproved for a small office. Our designe
told us there would not be enough room for a residence system. The
You may submit any additional information (e.g. sketches, engineering reports, petiti~ns, .
pbotographs, etc.) which you believe will justify, clarify, or explain your request or w1l1 assist
in assessing the potential environmental impact of ~rantin~ your requested CUP I ACUP.
Further, tbe Building and Land Development DivisIOn staff or tbe Zoning Adjustor may at any
time requeSt further information or studies for these purposes. Other evidence which supports
this application should be attached (on legal-sized 8-112" x 14" paper),
25.
1
pageE*HIBiT --7---
PAGEJJf-°¡~
z.
~
v
^
I ~
f~ 1P
J ~1~q:
< If) ~}1
~ ~ v -~ -¡::
"-~~)
""\!J{)\-6
~ > ~ l.r)¡Ù
....... N ('1\ ~V ~
r-..
"-
'-,
:ra44ËXHIBi1 -7 -
c;z# ' f'f1Þ ' ."
PAGE~_~.JF~
£-0.LI8IHX3:
'sn ]0 s~~oTq ~a] e UT44T~ p~ Á:re4TTTW uo sassauTsnq
,
,
dr,
"/~ë7
"'i: '
','/ "J',
,'; ~" ,
, -,",:-
'. . ~"- '
',',:,-..».".¿.it~~~.
,:-,_:_",:,,-,,~,,~'Iæ-,~..¡
.'..- --A')}..,.--...,.
, . " ~
'--"--""~"'.J:-
- ,,"'-'
- .
,.',
"' ,:)': :- h
'ò'~U
"': ,',"--
;-', ~,
"
,>
:co',:
"0 .--
"
t~.
~. ~
~ ¡Ii
..
.. .
.,~.
#25
EXHIBIT 0-3
-, L .. .:¡.
. -:::~':iJ ,. .
Building designed as a
little store not adaptable
to be a hoû1e.
~1
11
11
'!
"
, .
~,
"September 29, 1993 EXHIB¡~' -,', ,j ¡1" /
We "'auld like to let you kOOlv ho'" "'e l£)eA~h^ lØ:.-..r: ~ .17'- 7 ¿
located at 30682 Mililory l<mid soulh~¡Jb;)~\mt~;þ,V~ ~_Ifcounting
As yo~ kno'" the structure that Louise Div' , '
a bu~lness loog before she purchased the l~ Account1ng office is located, was
Ð pr1vate residence. p operty and 1S not very desirable as
D ~ D,Accounting does not create any more
a resldence ",auld. traffic Rnd probably less, them
1he Davis family has lived in this nei hborh ' ,
308th Pl. longer than most of d ,g ood at~,theH residence 3420 S
bettp f us an are a1",ays inv01 d' ' 0,
~rl11en~ 0' our conUTIunity, They have Ie t ve 1n everything for the
me~tlngs 1f necessary, One of the meet' us use the ofhce for neighborhood
~~~ldre~, co~cerning the increased traf~7~so~eM~~~~a"'asRfo~ the safety of our
, nap¡nng a a child near the school bus sto 1 ry oa and an attempted
, ,pcosetoD&DAccounting,
If g~ves the parents of these school'
onelS always in the office so help a~~l~d~:îepalsecuire feeling, knowing some-
10ne s close at hand.
We feel D & D Accounting is a definite asset t
it to remain as a business, 0 our neighborhood and "'ould like
SIGNATURE ADDRESS & PHONE
l- //. -,/}¡J ,," ,COMMENTS ( if any)
, /./a~L/ø. 4'J.;'"". .:16('7,/' 3'/ tt¡}:s: aI",,;. ¡{¡"'IS'" !
;¡ - '77(.:.w... ¡,'" 7J/:.¿i ,'" ~ 4'1 - ,,<I ,£ pO, Ú -«.þ"", II! "" , Y" "c I
_?'- '~~ T~ 5'0 <ô (S; ~ l( c<- ()L 5 ~~ W'Z- 7Y: éJ()(
1/- ~1i-<2Llh,~3øfo/~- ~ y~ 62/.( " 0 Þo /
.r ,~~ ,- « (0 (I
~. ~~)t}<:-"d' "5,;9" ~'~ S:, f\,cQ.,,^ ',¡ 1;. c
" /;) '(/,(',c'«.....----- -,\'{I~, "::;,:';r3,'3:'1/l'C ¡¡((fJ,.({if.) (¡)/¡'. '7J'1'-'/
) - / /,Ù,.JCfIL-d1 lctf: ( nl ! ,(- J . k) (1 ~ .:.1 11
C' . -,.-' I {( Y c.', í'\.l-\...\!.( (,1.L l U....V-\- ý"f} (t-, {
Ô,' j",,/,,:v.:,\~"\\.'\\'L~'\\~,\~\~)At\.~ bc:\..\c\ iì\.~, ~ \~\ }, L~tcJ'I-' l\.'c..... L\ ~,UC I
Ý 6. 'Tt ~ 9.~i ,\~ , :5' '7;7/¡;;:;~/'1 / !i ¡;. )
.. /t; .1..07'1 ~).~c:.;;~¿"() - .. C'S:2!-- /',~-¿~,~~.Yd~(," at ,:¿¿i../!-/II/7,.., 4//"';""---
,ù J f't¿.¿~/ II, ~,-<j(,/ 3d:Jl Ik_t..~" I¿¡,l,;, [ìÍLj~lU'\ ;/I ¡J 9 t (J(J
¡/ '-1/J.t/I.'¿.f¿/,~-'-i C).'I'~v-f<./ .3t'¿:1{- .0 //~ !¡-:(..Jo c(.¿Uz...d' (L'l .<--' /
( .. v" . 'L.-^-- ,"( (' cc' I
/.;;¡ #~.-:- 3N ~ l' 3+ ¡: .¡¿ '$, ~ ,'uk 9 e6ð)
/ -:J, .9--9: '<'""/1. . j).'/,:¿ :5 06 <; ,., '5 'r jþ .Á. d~/ ,,""- ¿¿J./r ? J'/,,' /
J 'i: íZ ~,~......... J" (, J ( .5 y ., i! Ø- S '" ([<Lt.~ fv.o.. 9 """ I
IS. ÇZ¡J.L /Í)a;k'71 ( 3°0,",0 jg)ÝJ Øi s CL~'tJJ,t.u~ c¡ ÝÚOI
J b ~} <)1~ 3ùé,GO 3'1'" }'l 5 ¡jck",~ ,J~ rJY<5(
þ? ,:,~j:¡:"'d-~ 3,"';1(, ~';L.rAC~ Rci~n. A"ßoc..o <Jß.!":"¡
(J' - ;? ¿WJéU' ~~ .-i 'II Ÿ /j 'Jòj;7; t"L /: {14,¡ó"l, it} ft <, rv< Î
I q, tJÞM1 ¡J,'}- ~i "],rlft' 111 ¡~M 1('1 f? ¡J )', 12 ä If u /i' IV W j} J ~~'" I
. ("'~~~ ec~ñ7,.~ 3<'II/ú Wc~. ¡~ ç^ (Iv b~<~ (~1 5" I
)...'-' . \j
¿ \. Î)~"-- :)jJiuJ 3 ~ ;¡,' SJ 3,1 ~ 1- PI- ~'c':-'~ 'i ~l, I
?--.z, i(jl"11L_~L(..'-1.'"...J1' ~¿"^í.'./ ,jL'6/t; -3tjJ/I r/'5.J!:J-(v111~~,'J,ì,.<1~L.C/
z>. . C!!l.f'I j". ~ J 3('t..7(, 3'1'" N:" """,Ilt6J è~""> ¡ EXHIBIf
¿2 'I. ~~, '&Ii', ¡j¡.. ,,':(,AS""- ~c#i'( '; cr12' ¡{, C;, Lh¿", Co ",L Q f .s
- _..:"1--'
. '-.
.. . '. """',,,"'" ..'...' """ . ..
.. .'
.. .
.
~
.
, ~ L-/ .:z.
~dZ-~4-.3~~/L
.:,~~ I 3;:Z 0 .,,¡.,.¡ );;l";1l9;¿ ---t ~ <h) ~ ~
¿2Lf2- ?5 ~~ ~ ð'-7--<-/ J7/ ~7 }!:/--Iv
~~ :3 0 çL d z-- ;;;;< 0 ~ (h<.ß-- ¿I-i;IL~ ~~
~~. A./~ k¿¿Þ<-<f'~ ,?V~. r-Æ f- ~
~~'~'~'~7~é~
á/L 7 ~~ .~ ~Z-z>--t-/
9 ~L:j -k~~ ~~J ?L/ ~ ~¿
~/ ~~ z;(~ /'~/
. ~/ h/L~ ~ ~ /¿;:Þ. ~
.--4,-, .-..L# . .-L-<-'t--:t= tLiJ -6 Æ a~¿c<-u/_~;?:
r~ ~~:-¿~ ~ ~/~~
. wk ~ ~~~~7 / b /-5- .J!~
~ ~ ~7----?~z~/ y¿~~
~~~v 7 ~ ~ ?r ..-¿U
)/ -é-LoU ~~~ J~ ~ d,¿ ~~
~ --/~ #-V¿~~ -
'r~k 7~/~Yd-~Z~
~~ 2;: ~
0206.- 83'7-:5 37'><
EXHIBiT__1 ..-
P AGEl1-_oF~
'::;,:::"\~f'~{~:;;~;'
:;'.i;:~~.~~.~~g~';'
SUBJECT:
March 17~ 1994
APPEAL STATEMENT
Land Use Services Division File No. L92RZOOl
Proposed Ordinance No. 94-4
Proposed Zone Reclassification of
D & D ACCOUNTING
Northeast corner of South 308th Place and
Military Road South
The applicant~ D & D ACCOUNTING~ makes the following
statement with regard to the findings and recommendations of the
examiner.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The current use of the property is already adequately served
by public water service, an on-site septic system, and
existing roads. The proposal has no adverse impact upon the
environment and is supported by the neighborhood and King
County Land Use.
KCC 2~.06.900 would classify this use as a professional
office. The City of Federal Way's comment that more control
is required of this site is met by the response dated
January 27~ 1994 by Lisa Pringle~ the Supervisor of the Site
Plan Review Section of King County Land Use Services
Division~ defending this rezone and stating that no more
intensive use than is occurring currently will be allowed by
the proposed rezone. .
The sale objection, other than the objections of the City of.
Federal Way, does not come from a neighbor, but from Les
Akers, who lives over a mile from the site.
The owner has documented business use of this property since
1946. The records of the King County Assessor show that the
property has been treated by King County as commercial
property since at least 1979.
Only one complaint, in 1990, has ever been made against the
commercial use of this property. The maker of that com-
plaint did not file an objection to this reclassification.
Indeed, 24 neighbors publicly supported this request.
The current owner bought the property in good faith and has
operated the business in good faith. No conditional use.
permits, nonconforming use permits, or special use criterion
are allowed under KCC 2Lh.O8.060 for professional offices.
EX\-tH3r-r '1
PAGE~~r.
l
. j EXHIBIT
-1.< ->/
! '4~\~§Vj~~~-~=t~,;.. .
." .
I
l
.
.,
7.
The owners have complied with and agree to comply with the
B-N-P classification recommended by the Department of
Development and Environmental Services.
Equitably and morally, the County should permit this use to
continue. The owner is using this property appropriately,
fully within all codes and statutory requirements. Since
1925, this property has been treated as commercial property.
Without this rezone, the property has no economic value
since it is not suitable for a single family home.
For the reasons stated, the applicant respectfully requests
that the County Council approve this application.
DATED this 17th day of March, 1994.
ON WSBA 11526
D & D Accounting
2
, EXHIBn"- 1 ',"
P AGE ~- ~~) FjL
. .
July 29, 1997
Introduced by:
Pete von Rekhbauer
Christopher Vance
kn:ac 96-263.suo
Proposed No.:
96-263
1
2
ORDINANCE NO.
12824
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.21
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
39
39
40
41
AN ORDINANCE relating to comprehensive planning
and zoning; completìng the zoning còde conversion
process fTom Title 21 to TItle 21A by repea1ing all p-
suffix conditions adopted pursuant to Title 21 and
adopting property spocific development standards (p-
suffix conártio03) ~uant to Tide 21A; amending
Ordinance 263, Section I, and KCC. 20.12.010;
Ocdinance 11653, Section 6, and KC.C. 20.12.017;
Ordinance 8846 md KC.C. 20.12.170; Ordinance 7746
.and KC.C. 2O.l2.180; Ordinance 107Q3 and KCc.
20J2.210; Ordinance 2883, Section I, and KC.C.
. 20.12.240; Ordinance 10197 Sections 1, 3, and Kc.c.
20.12.270; Ordinance 5080, Sections I, 2, and KC.C
20.12:300; Ordinance 7837, and KC.C 20.12.320;
Ordinance 11166, Section 2, and K.C.C. 20.12.337;
Ordinance 10847, and KC.C. 20.12.340; Ordinance
91LO, and KC.C. 20.12.345; Ordinance 6422 and Kc.c.
20.12.350; Ordinance 6986, and KC.C. 20.12.360;
Ordinance 9499, and KC.C. 20.12-440; Ordinance
10870, Section 4, and KC.c. 21A.0 1.040; Ordinance
10870, Section 36, and KC.C. 21A.04.150; Ordinance
10870, Section 576, and Kc.c. 21A.38.030; amending
p-suffix conditions ~ablished in Ordinance 11349,
Ordinance 11389, Ordinance llS68, Ordinance 11653,
Ordinance 11694, At1B.clunent A to Onlinance 11747,
Ordinance 11774. Ordinance 11898, Ordinance 11935,
Appendix: A to Ordinance 12061, Ordinance 12065,
Attachment A to Ordinance 12093, Attachment A to
Ordinance 12170; repealing Resolution 25189 and Tide
21, Chapter 21.02 through Chð.pter 21.80; repealing
Ordinance 8848, Sections 1,6-8, and KCC. 20.12.390;
repealing Resolutions, 3W72, 32219,33817,33999,
34493,34639,35137, and 37156; repealing Ordinances
43, 118, 148,255,633, 1483, 1543, 1582, 1584, 1728,
1188,2487,2508,2548,2608,2677,2701,2703,2765,
2781,2840, 2884, 2940,2958, 2965,2991, 3239, 3262}
33t3,336~ 3424,3494,3496,3501,3557,3561,3641,
3643,3744,3779,3901,3905,3953,3988,4008,4043,
4051,4053,4082,4094,4137,4289,4290,4418,4560,
P¡F\ {~~, '\ 1.
""\ '-.1 L... A .
7
..,' 1. -
- - ---. -i- EXHIBIT
£ >
p Z -
.II '". ,';,co,' -'.
~/..T;,':Ø'¿;: ~fB;
~
r'-'\.!\I~,;,T
-' ')t '-¡ "-',
L /'\! . f '-,r ¡
;. " ~
11/04/%001 JG:O4 fA! 10e Ie. 18ð4
~.C.Be4r1n, Examiner
~ 00.&
D ~ D Accounting
L92RZOOl
Page. 2
TINÐINGS.
1.
2.
GGn~ral Iofo~tionl
EXHIBIT. '1
Imlif~gsE--U-OE '1
Or.ffier:
Richard and
30682 Military ~a.ð South
Aub'Utn, ¡fA 9800~
1m 10-21-'
North.oat corner of south 308th
Pb.C(I anð Military Roe.ð South
s-~ , .
B-N-P .
9..325 square 'fe~t
Federal ~ay
Urba.n
STR~
LoO«.tion:
wst1nq ~oninq:
Requestad%oningl
sizli.:
community Plan.Area1
comprehensive Plan
Dcsiqnation:,
3.
ID<cept a.s modi tied be.1ow, tha fact.. set ~o:rth in the. King
county Land Use S~rvic.s Diviøion'8 Preliminary Report to
the fioninq ð11d 61.Wd.tvision ExaminEit' for the. Jan~ry 13, 1.~93
public háð.ring aX'(\. found to be correct and are incotpora.ted
he~1n by this reference;. Copies Qf the "c..id. ~~pQr1;. v1.U. ba
atb.cbed to the copies of this report sUbm.itteð. to the
County council.
The subject. property "as identified aG lIr(¡,stricte.ð. tc .
):Jut;Íl\QSIi: USUitll. when platted in 19 ~2. it has be-en used. tor
businQ&s and CO1IU:1e.rcia.l purposes ðinOe. 194G. Had the. King.
County CoW1c11 boon madG aware' ot thOGQ fa.Cttl at the: tiMe of
thè araa 'LoniN¡, it is likely thðt a cla6dt'ication .
pendttinq th. present USQ vould have. be-en applied at that
tiao..
4.
The applicants purchas~d th~ fiubject ¡>roperty in 3-9Se, wi.th
the be1ièf that ~e ~tin4:J OOIII11..r----1e.l 'Uss w&a . 1Gqa1 use
ot tlw proparty. In te.ct, the property has b'um %oned for
5int¡1ê-~a.m.ilY residential use since 1962. and the current
S-P., ~on~ "a.e renevad by t;hQ 1.986 }Pe4l~ way ea.œa.uni1::y
Plan a.n4 Are. Z()ni.n9. :rn 1993 the. App1.1cartts ~irst 1.arn*<1
that thQir «xiating use of the property W~5 in viol~tion of
th. 1ting county Code.
The appliCânt currantly utilize.G the a'U'ucture. on the
proparty 4.S an ~e.. Thia structure vas built.
, pur8uant to II. 197!) p..r:mlt i.sued to .. prior owner tor an
accessory storAge usa in conjunction with an ~5tinq
re..idence. 'I'hj.8 buildlnq il!l not. lJuita.b1ø for ua. a. a.
raaidenc., ~ tho iot is not desirable ~orralid.ntial
dQve1op11Wnt, due to its 1ocation on a corner o.djo.ce.nt to
Military Rol1d South, an art4rial road.
5.
6.
support tor the r~clas8ificatiofi 1~ .tðted by ð.. petition
.iQced by 2~ ~arby residents Vho as.~rt ~t tn. property
is not vetY du1rDbl. tor USQ ac & ru-.idG1'\04: the cu.rnnt
\me docu; not create any .O~ traffic than .. re81ðen~ would,
and that the e.ppl1œnt8, their buaines& and ta1Ú.ly ex.'
e.sð6ta to. the n4iC¡¡hborhooð..
~e current us. ot tho pro~rty i. a~Qqua~lÝ ~erved b~ .
p\Ú)lio \latar ...rvioe, -.n on.dto ..ptlc ayctuJ., and 8xlatin.g C
ads. The ro oad has no advent' impðct:. upon the p~.ioal
~I1vironment..
7.
Oppoc1~lon to the þropoced rGcl.a~ific&t1on bas ~Qn
exprQ£"d by tt\e city at l'ed.=al w~y, the Kinq County
planninq.6nd Community Oe.velopuent Divis1on, community
Planning- sectibn, the Feder8.l Way water and Sewer District,
and on. are~ citizen.
.,
EXHIBrr____7
PAGEUt.~r_:1l
._- - - --,
11/00/Z0el1G:OS FAX foe 28e 10$4
K.C.Re.rta« E1ðCtner
IliOO$
~
.
"
D , 0 Aocounting
L92RZOO~
EXH I Bf';ð.q8__J--~l
PAGE-U_C.;'-~I
----
Tb* city of Fed~ðl Way furth~r states that it'King County
de~s it n~Q..ary to ~uthorl~e continu~tion of the pres~t
us'r 1 t should ~ penni tted throuÇ1h aomc proces It other than
a reclassification, auch aa conditional ~Ge approval, ho~
occ~p~tión, or continuation 01 ~ non-conforming UG~. Tn the
City's v1æ\f, re.cle..lu; itication would conetitute llpót zoning.
and b. a pQt*D.thlly ille.gtù. action by the county. :It could
also oonðtitute a preceðent tor additional action. viol~tive
ot t,bQ CoDmunity 1'la.o. Hov.ver, the condition. r&commendeð
by tlw Land Ua- Se.rvi
1~lt Q Q subject property ~o prot~.~ioñA1 otfice
\l only t 'and prohib1tinq IU1)" "xp«nsion of the uiatinq
ui1 din<¡ .
CONCLUSIONS:
, '
l.
Kinq County Code Section 20.24.190 limits the circumstances
UI\der which the Zoniru¡ o.nd Suhdivi5ion ~aminQ.r can
recomttQnd a r~ol~GGirication'to thQ King County Council.
As applicable to thi~ ca5e¡ it is incunbant upon the
applicant to demooGtrate 'wii.th GublJuntia.l evid.enoe that; ,
"2..
since the la~t previous ~rea zonin9...oon61tion£
or ci~~tano.s att.ctinq th~ subject property
have undergone ~I!ta.ntial and lIlaurial chb.n~ not
anticipated or oontenpl~ted in tn- Community Plåh
or are8, I:oninqf
~h~ impacts froæ the ch~Qd conditione or
Q~stancetJ atf'lCt th4 sw:.rJeçt prope.rty in a
Unne.r and to a degree difh-re.nt thAn other
propðrtie.s in the vicÙ\ity &uc.h that ~ rQzoning
or r$d"1qn&t1on. 16 not .pproprl8.t~1 ~
"l.
83.
Th. ~5tad r6Qlaus1f1cat1on or ~dQ~iqnation iç
requtrad in 'th. pUblic interest".
J:CC 20.2.4.190.D.
The evidQnc.. in this caso. h that s1nc~ thQ 1ut previous
aru. zoning, the. Applicants learned that their current use
Q! the ßubjoot property i. in violation ot ~é prQsQnt ~on~
cl~ø.itlcation. Tht6 is a change 10 con~itiOn& or '
ci~cuastanC4& wh1~h ~G not contemplated at th~ ti~ or thQ
last &reI!. l:on1n<], and sffects tho subj6ct property in a
~nn8r and to a d.gre~ different than nther proparti8g in
tbe. 'V ioini ty .
2.
Tho proposed r.cla~~ifiC&tion 18 in th~ pUblic 1ntere.t.
ACTION:
M'PROVE rtolQ5Gitioa.tion of the 9ubjoot property to B.-H-P,
QubjQct to tn. following poat-.ffoctivc condition5; .
1.
u~ of the property aha.ll ~ lb1itGd. to protuc.lon.l office
only.
c..
The ø1tQ .hall ~~ ~evQlop.d and m~intain.d .. ~.ner&lly
c t's site lan dated Juno 10, l~~l.
~ .; ..
:3 .
No expan6ion of the «;xist1r.9' bulld.i~ ~hðU Da 411o,..ed.
'-
EXHIB~1 .- 7 .--- -
PAGE 2.1- ~.)f~
. ,~. ~,
--11Ln~/tQQll~:G6 fA! ZQ~ Z'. 1834
I.Ç.H~&r1n& Exac1ner
~OOt
,
.'
D 'D Acoountirtg
L92RZOOl
Paç44
SUBMITTED thi. 18th day of Kðy, 1994.
.0 Connor -
anð SUbdivi.ion.Bxaminer
TRANSMITTED this 16th day of Hay, 1994, to the following ~rti~s
of reccrd1
IRs Akers
Ke.ry Duty
Gary Ki~
Audrey 'Wilson
Riçh~d I( Louise ~,,'i.£
!)Qbcrah & ,,"olm Horne
Greçory HooI:'éjCity of Fede.t"Al Way
TRANSM:1'I"t'ED this 1.8th day of ~y, 1994,. to thQ following:
Gt"~ Borba, Land Use s.r:vices Division
ELi~ab~th Deraitua, Land Us. Scrvioea DiviGion
Tanany Johnlion, Lahd Ua~ services Division
v&U9han Norri.., Het.:t'°¡:J°lits.n King county Council
Paul Reitenbach, Community PlanninQ
'1'~dy Satte.rle_, I.41\<1 use s.rv1.c.~ Divt~10tl
JfOTIa Of RIGHT.
to l-P~AL AND ADDITiONAL AC']IOR RJ3OUl~D
In ord.~r to ~ppe.a.l thQ t'QOOJamQnd.&tion ot the .Exudner f written
notic@ ot appe41 must be :r1l~ with th« Cl~k. of the Kin<¡ County
Council with eo feo. ot $125.00 (check. payable 'tQ ~inq county'
Otti~ of Finanoe) 9.-~ or b8t~ra D'Una 1, 1"'. Xi.. notice ot
apPfl-al is titedl thQ oric¡ina1: and 6 CQpl&8 of a written appeal
state.uent .pecifyin~ t.hé ba.a for the. e.ppea.l aM argument. in
8upport of the !lppe.tl Jm&t Þe tiled with tl:¡Q C1uk ot th. nng
County council ~ or before hn. e. Uti. Appea1 8tð.t:e1nalU m4Y
r.1fe.r only to facta contalna4 in th~ hearing re.OO~: nev facts
may not be- pr..cted on appø&l.
Filing' r~ir.. actual ðell"ITCkry to the Ottlce of the C1.~k of th6
Council, Room ~a3, King County CourthOUðG, prio~ to th~ Qlos~ at
bu.in~a (4-230 p.bI..) on th8 date du.. Prior m.a.i1.inq 1& not
8ufficÍ4mt it a.ot\1.a.lrQ~tpt by the Cluk doa6 not occur within
the t\PPlico.blo ti~ period. The Exwd.n~ ðOQC not ha.v. e.uth.ority
to .xt.nd tb.Ð tiJ1a PQr1Od unl.e5. the Ott1oQ óf the Clerk is not
op_n en ~e ßpecified olosin( date~ in wbioh .vc.nt delivery prior.
to the cl(s~ of buG-tn.... on the next lnainu& day is 8uttiohmt
to Jloet'tho rilinq r.qu1~t:..
It ~ vr~tten notice of appeal and filinq te..re not filed vith1n
14 day. ctleOOar dA.ya ot tht c1at«. of this .report. or it Þ written
appQal cte.te.ø.ent o.nd ~.nt are not tiled v1th1n. 21. 061en4u'
day. of th4 dat4 Qf this ~por1:, the cluJ\: of thQ COUncil lull
þu.ce a propoaoo oJ:dina.ac.e. \/hlch a1'lu.entø the I!:~e.r' ß
rccom!l.8M.cd &.etion on th41 0. onð.a of the nett a~1Ub1.. CoUD.oil
0 Jll.8.V ado tl1a Itxe.min«r' &¡
---......-...._.~---. "-"""'"",~"'J64i........~.,.~."..,.......u#""""~""";"';"""""IN-~;«.......:.v."","'~"^.4;'¡¡ij¡w¡.",~""._._. '.-
\
\ ..-1' ~
\ ~
\, g'
\ \ 66.1.~",.""
\ ~ ~ \ \ ~
\~ \ ~-- \~t
, ~ ---------
\ ---------
--\
---
,
,
SITE
PLAN
ADDRESS: 3°'82 MILIT ARY ROAD S., AUBURN, WA ~800
OWNER: A. LOUISE DA VIS DiD, LLC. 1-253-83'1-"18'1
81vm1lorj No. 51"
-om
»x
G)I
moo
\t'.=~
~
,"""\ '
" I I
'~¡í ~
L..
--
j
I
:¡'. .:,.;
. -- r
~
~
- - ------- ~
----
v tUJ v"'-
NORTH
I ~ <. ..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
,
,
-
-
-
~
L r M I TED S U ¡'vI MAR Y ,-\ r P R A [ S :\ L
D & D Accounting Building
30682 ìv[ilitary Road South
A.uburn, Washington 98001
Client: KeyBank
Date of Appraisal: October 30, 1998
By
C.]. tÆunson,t~~1
&
] oseph \V. Harris
'.-x' ". ,-. .'--.- 1
- ,"j,
c. Hit>,; --~ --
PAGE~'_(J~
J¡&21WJ~~k,~¡
" .' ','
SUBJECT HISTORY AND HIGHEST & BEST. USE
HISTORY
Sales History
Assessed Value
Real Estate Taxes
THE FOUR HIGHEST &
BEST USE CRITERIA
Legally Permissible Uses
Most Likely/Physically Possible
Use
Financial Feasibility Discussion
Productivity Maximization
and Optimal Use
The property has not been tran$ferred in the past five years
land Value:
Improvement Value:
Total Value:
$40,000
$30,000
$70,000
1998 Taxes: $1,082,04
The most probable legally permissible use for the subject
improvements is office space. The site as vacant would
support a variety of neighborhood commercial uses.
The most likely use is continued office use. The building is
configured as an office building. The site as vacant would
support a variety of neighborhood commerciàl uses.
Based on the on financial feasibility, based on the current
office market trends, the highest and best use of office is
supported.
Consequently, productivity maximization and optimal use is as
office space.
HIGHEST & BEST USE CONCLUSION
Highest & Best Use As If Vacant
Highest & Best Use As Improved
CJM
Neighborhood commercial use
Office use
EXHIBiT _1. -_L_-
PAGE~~O "-\'-:.1/.---
098-222
13
Drl'):" :
¡:Oa'~'ClJ S'1';~'l':aS~ ;:";,, r,','1:~ê'\, ?"ad SO""l
I:==.
,,:=
u
- -
(':~
~; :; EXHIBiT
~ ~
~¡ /0
~\.i
'~"'---"'~
., .
f)fl:Jto 3 Fê;
nJC[~l':/est from South 308'" Place
-----------------
-- ------------- u-
- -- -- --- - - -
--------
-- - - ---
- -
-- --_CC_-'c_- -, -"-c -==:c=.:.==c-=:--=::::::: =-=~:-
-- ~--------,,--- --------- -
-------~---- ------
- - - -- -- ---
- -- ---
------ -----
, '.
Ii<.õ,~
,f";' ¿/,'
,"J "'"
M~þ t
£" t,
Members of the Federal Way Planning Commission:
We represent a group of residents with property on North Lake. When the Potential
Annexation Area Study was completed, we noticed that our lakefront properties were
zoned six houses per acre by King County, although the non-Iakefront properties in the
neighborhood were zoned four houses per acre. This is using the old King County zoning
designations.
We submitted a petition to the Federal Way Planning Department asking it to recommend
a change in our zoning from six to four houses per acre. The Planning Department agreed
with our request and we are here this evening to thank the people in the Planning
Department for recommending this change.
Just a little background on our petition requesting a zoning change: there were 56 owners
of lakefront property on North Lake. Of these 44 households signed in favor of changing
the zoning; 4 households did not sign the petition; and 8 households were not available to
sign at that time.
We would like to ask you, the Federal Way Planning Commission, to vote in favor ofthis
petition request. It is our belief that this change will make our neighborhood more
homogeneous in its character. A more dense zoning designation for part of this
established neighborhood is not desirable.
Thank you for considering this request from the lakefront residents of North Lake.
The North Lake Zoning Petition Committee
Chuck Gibson, spokesperson
Julie Cleary
Debra Hansen
Lois Kutscha
Gary Mingus
Eleanor Vandenheuvel
EXHIBfT 7
-- -._--=----
PAGEHOF~
~
1iii
Friends of Waslúngton
1000 Friends of Vhshingwn
1617 Boylston Avenue, Suite 200
Seattle, 'IN A 98122
(206) 34 3-0681 phone
(206) 709-8218 fax
www.IOOOfriends.org
Aaron Ostrom
Executive Director
Dave Russell
President
Board of Trustees
Fran Abel
Langley
Dia Armenra
Bainbridge Island
Jay Arnold
Kirkland
Nancy Ball
Walla Walla
Margot Blacker
Bellevue
David Bricklin
Bainbridge.!sland
Vance Corum
Vancouver
Jeff Eustis
Seattle
Ray Gould
Edmonds
Barr Haggin
Spokane
Bruce Lorig
Mercer Island
Mary McCumber
/ Seattle
Henry McGee
Seattle
Barbara Mcintosh
roulsbo
Bill Russ
Seattle
Dave Russell
Kirkland
Will Stelle
Seattle
Margaret Studer
Anacorres
Nancy Tosta
Burien
Jodie Vice
Seattle
Daryl Williams
Tulalip Tribe
Advisory Board
James Ellis
Dick Ford
Virginia Gunby
Joe King
Lucy Steers
Evere~t \Nilcock
RECEIVED BY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
.4PR 0 2 :~OO4
March 29, 2004
Ms. Kathy McClung, Community Development Director
City of Federal Way
P.O. Box 9718
Federal Way, Washington 98063-9718
Dear Ms. McClung:
I am writing to ask that you carefully examine your city's densities as you prepare
to update your comprehensive plan. 1000 Friends of Washington urges cities and
counties to provide for development intensities that wisely and efficiently use
land to avoid the negative impacts of sprawl. The negative impacts of low-
density development include increased capital facility costs and traffic, lack of
affordable housing to all income segments and destruction of critical areas.
The Growth Management Act (GMA) goals encourage development inside urban
growth areas (UGAs) and the reduction of low-density sprawlingdevelopmenL I
Further, urban growth at urban densities shall be encouraged within the UGA?
To address these issues and carryout the goals and requirements of the GMA, the
Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board has adopted a 'bright
line' rule that comprehensive plans and development regulations must have a
maximum density of no less than four residential dwelling units per net acre for
all lands within the UGA.3 This density "is clearly compact urban development
and satisfies the low end of the range required by the [Growth Management]
ACt.,,4 "Any new residential land use pattel11 within a UGA that is less dense is
not a compact urban development pattel11, constitutes urban sprawl, and is
prohibited."s The board has recognized a limited exception for"...
environmentally sensitive systems [that] are large in scope (e.g., watershl~d or
drainage sub-basin), their structure and functions are complex and their rank order
value is high, ...." Then a local govel11ment can apply densities of less than four
I RCW 36.70A.O20(l) & (2). .
2 RCW 36.70A.I1O(l).
3 Master Builders Association of Pierce County, Terry L. Brink, et al. v. Pierce COll/II)'
(MBAlBrink), CPSGMHB Case No. 02-3-00 to Order Finding Partial Noncompliance and
Continuing Invalidity p. "'8,2003 WL 22896415 p. *7 (September 4,2003) & Bremer/on, et at. v.
Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No.: 95-3-0039c Corrected Final Decision and
Order p. *33 (October 6, 1995).
4 Brelllertoll, et al. v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No.: 95-3-0039c Corrected
Final Decision and Order p. *33 (October 6, 1995).
51dand RCW 36.70A.IIO(l).
EXH H3~-~ 7 - -
PA(',F 3u J"~
housing units per net acre.6 All three of these criteria must be met to qualify for
the exception and generally few lands in the UGA will qualify for this limited
exception.
To assist cities and counties who are required to review and update their
comprehensive plans and development regulations to comply with the goals and
requirements of the GMA by December 1,2004, 1000 Friends of Washington has
reviewed the densities for zones within the urban growth areas for large cities and
counties. This initial review has identified the City of Federal Way's RS 15 and
RS35 zones as having densities of less than four units per net acre and are,
therefore, in violation of the GMA. We urge you to bring these low-density zones
and the comprehensive plan designations that provide for the zones into
compliance with the GMA as part of the 2004 comprehensive plan and
development regulations update.
We also encourage your city to adopt higher density zones. While the four
dwelling unit per acre minimum helps, it is not sufficient in itself. Higher
densities are necessary to support transit service and provide affordable housing
to all income levels. Generally, a minimum density of 7-12 units per acre is
necessary to support transit. Increasing densities can be a difficult issue, but
density is percei ved and good design can make high density development
extremely attractive.
1000 Friends also recognizes that changing zoning densities can be controversial
in many communities. We stand ready to publicly support the necessary changes
during the 2004 comprehensive plan and development regulations update. Please
contact Sydney McComas or Tim Trohimovich both at (206)343-0681 or e-mail:
sydney@ 1O00friends.org or tim@ 1O00friends.org to let us know of hearings or
other public involvement opportunities where this support would be helpful.
We have enclosed a supporting document with more detailed information about
urban densities and the 'bright line' rule establishing four units per acre as the
legal minimum under GMA. If you have any questions or believe we have
misidentified any zones, please contact Sydney McComas or Tim Trohimovich at
the telephone numbers and e-mails above. Please include this letter and the
enclosed report in the record of the 2004 update.
EXHIi::j-' 1
-: !t....J! . -- ------
P AGE --3S- C) f=-:J.I
6 Master Builders of Pierce COU/lty & Brink (MBAlBrÙzk), et of. v. Pierce COUllty, CPSGMHB
Case No.: 02-3-0006 Final Decision and Order p. * 10,2002 WL 31998487 p. * II (February 4,
2002).
Thank you, city staff, the community, and your city's elected officials for your
continuing efforts to successfully carry out the Growth Management Act and to
ensure that Washington remains a great state in which to live and operate a
business.
Sincerely,
~Ò4'v-J lY[ (;l'\~Y-------
Sydney McComas
Urban Policy Advocate
Enc:
Cc:
Greg Fewins, Deputy Director and Principal Planner, City of Federal Way
Ike Nwankwo, Technical and Financial Assistance Program Manager, CTED
Anne Fritzel, Associate Planner, CTED
EXHIß¡". 7
P AGE -3-"-~) '~~J
-----
\1MCh 29, 2(1(11
1ii
Requirements for Compact Urban Development,
a Minimum of Four Net Housing Units Per Acre
Flil'llCL; lif \V,dlinoton
0
Why Sprawl is Bad and Density is Good
I\)orly f)IJJ1IlCd 10\\ dclhll\ ~1)r()\\I"ì~~ dc\C'o¡'IììCJ1l rC'>ullc, 1J11ìì,-ln\ ¿ìd\'CI>c' Iml"let'-, 111
\Vashington;s residents, IC)C,ll gc)\'crIìmenlS, and eIì\'lronment.i ^ parlial list of llw
adverse impacts includc
. Higher public facility cJ!,ital and maintenance costs,
. Higher housing costs and the exclusion of minorities and lovv-income tamil ies
. More traffic because nwre peo¡lle dri\'l' alone and must drive longer distances to
\vork and to lììeet the needs of their families, Sprawling places are likelv to haIL'
more traffic [¿¡talities per capitêl thêln more comp¿lCl legions due to higher ICileS 01
vehicle usc,
Sprav\'l converts more prime Clgriculturalland from farming to urban uses than lììurl'
contract forms of developnìent,
Spra\vl destroys more critical areas and other environmentally sensiti\'e areas than
compact develo['ment S¡lra\\l results in fish and wildlife habitat losses and habd,ll
fragmentation, the separation of habitats by development, Sprawl's dispersed
development pattern l(,(lds to the degradation of water quality by increasing rulloff
volume, altering regular streÒ!ìl flow and \vatershed hydrology, reducing
groundwater recllêlrge, ¿lIlÔ increasing stream sedimentation, Scientists atlhe
University of vVashington h.:ìVe concluded that although impacts on salmon habiLll
from urbanization occur in ¿¡ linear fashion, changes to the physical ¿\!ld biologic.l!
factors nccessarv for high Cjualitv salmon habitat occurs most rapidl\' \\'hen fiH' t~)
tcn ¡'l'rc~'lll (If ¿¡ rivl'r b,)-';!iì Ie; (o\'~'rL'd hI' impervic111c; SUrLlCl'S (roilds, bLlildiIl~>, ,lnd
pi1rkiIlg lots)
.
.
Assuring thdl Url)¿lIl ,ìI'<-',1e; I\,)\'c' c.:ullll'I<-'Ilt dC'IlSilil':-> [II \\lse'l\ lIc,L' tIlL' I,llld ,1ddrl'c.:c.:l'-';
l'¿¡ch of l!h'c,l' ¿¡Ch~'t'c,l' ,1íll','h ,111d \1[I1\'rc" j()()() FriL'n<.b ,II \\':!"hI11\'lull Llr~'~':-> citlL'~ ,ìl\~J
, " ' ,) , '
I For a cumpl('l1eli~I"l: ~tlldy of l!h.' .1d\'l'I~~' \'fleets oj ~pl,l\\'1 see !\OblT( \V 1>1I1c!1l'11. :-¿,l\",('d 1\ 5h,¡d,
f),wid LI~I('¡'II¡, 1111.11'\' l'I\111q)-;\11l1h\ll,' 1)\1I\'ll~, '<1Il1Ll(' C;I~~k¡'1,llId\' S, ),1\Î~, 1'('11\' \1,1(11'(', I),l,'¡d
I klt<'1I1, ,l11l! \1Id1l'lk (;.111 I//l' l 1'<, ¡I! ,";!'lIiid" I'<":'I.;II,"; (1l.lIbll C"l'P('I.lll\'l' I'c'~"drcll 'rc)gl ,)11\ ¡'~'¡'\I:;
3'), TI,1I\~f),)rLìliul1l\'è~~',1I~'111;lI.lId, I',LillllI1,d 1\l'~eal,'11 C"LlI1~¡: 1\)\jS) ,\,',¡dablc.ll.
!.!.!JVil\\'\\'\\'4[Llllll[1,¡,1l,'ddl'mll",1I~l)í\1Idil1l'!,Llb,I1~lí\\'c~l{l~l\l~,J;~~k i\I~\1 ,l'C Hll'¡!I(I!"!I, ('I 'il :'
l'.ìf:'IIJ' ClIHU/I;, (>.'1111,11 l'lIè;d C;\ILI11d C:nl\\'lh Ì'\'Llll,1)~":lH.'11t 11",11'::1,> ¡)u,Hd (CI'c;C;\1¡¡U) CI1ibi\lld.1lù!
C;lSl' No 'i:-;'~()()Y¡l' C'IITc'l'kd I 11\.1I I ),','¡Sll'11 ,1,Hi ()rdl'r f'!' "I;' '22 ((ì,'lub(,1 (\, 1\)<):-;) (,¡ list 111,:; llllh,'
,1li\'c'r~,' ('lll'd'; c)f SI'[,lIc':)
Urb,1111)c"1Slti<.',S,1IC' ¡'C'ljlll:,'¡j 1()L1l',111,(',bl hH11
r=Y~ I R(-:' 7_~-
I Jz 'lIc,i¡~ tll~ ds P"l'r ~'ja\CI:C-, ., I I
Þ AGE ~ -" '--1-1---
counties to provide densities that \visely and efficiently use land. While the four
dwelling unit per net acre rule helps, it is not sufficient in itself. To provide transit
supportive densities, at least seven homes per acre is necessary'" [n most communities,
to provide housing affordable for working famllies also requires higher housing
densities. These needs must be considered in planning for sustainable communities
Minimum Urban Densities
The Four Dwelling Units per Net Acre [hight Line Rule
To add ress these adverse impacts the Gro\vth Management Act goals encourage
development \\'ithin the urban grovvth area. (UGA) and call for reducing sprawling low
density.development.3 Urban growth must be encouraged in UGAs."
To meet these goals and requirements, The Central Puget Sound Growth Management
Hearings Board (Central Board) adopted a 'bright line" rule that a residential pattern of
four net dwelling units per acre or higher "is clearly compact urban development and
satisfies the low end of the range requ ired by the [Growth Management] Act."S "Any
new residential land use pattern within a UGA that is less dense is not a compact urban
development pattern, constitutes urban sprawl. and is prohibited."6
In subsequent cases, the board has clarified that all properties that do not meet limited
exceptions have to be designated and zoned at four or more housing units per net acre
As the Central Board recently vI/rote:
In LMIIChevro1l, the Board held, "the GM!,- requires every city to desig1late ~
lands within its jurisdiction at appropriate urban densities." LMIICheurGll, [Final
Decision and Order], at 23; (underlining in original, italics supplied). This
concept of desigllating lands at. appropriate urban densities within
unincorporated UCAs \vas extended to counties and zoning designations in
2 Goris I'ushkarcv & Jeffrey Zupan. euhlic T!"ilJl'IJorio/ulI1ll1ul Land Usc Policy (Indiana University {'ress,
Bloomington, Indiana, 1977) (public transit LlSC is minimal below a net residential density of seven
dwelling units an acrc)
.1 I\CW 36.70A.O20(1) & (2)
¡ RCW 36.70A.11O(1).
) Brcmer/oll, cI at. u. KilS1l1' COUIl/y, CI'SCMI1B Consolidated Case No 95-3-(lO39c Corrected Final Decislè1n
and Order p. *33 (October Ó, 199')).
(, /d
Urban Dcnsities are Required t() be Z1[ !.e-ast Four
EXH¡8:"T>
I {Dusing unitR,!:}GërAcS ,
1
...--..--
l'
Forster Woods Homeowners Association, et al.,II. King County (Forster Woods),
CrSGMHB Case No. 01-3-008c, Final Decision and Order, (Nov. 6, 2001), at 32.7
The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board used four dvvelling
units per acre as a minimum urban density for determining if land was characterized by
urban growth for the purposes of establishing an UGA.S The Eastern Board has not
adopted such a rule as of this date.
Limited Exceptions
The Central Board has recognized two exceptions to the bright line rule requiring all
urban residential properties to have minimum density of four dwelling units per net
acre. First, if part of the UGA contains "... environmentally sensitive systems [that] are
large in scope (e.g., watershed or drainage sub-basin), their structure and functions are
complex and their rank order value is high, ..." then a local government can apply
densities of less than four housing units per net acre.9 All three of these criteria must be
met to qualify for the exception. Examples of areas found to meet this test have been
the "large environmentally sensitive system [that] includes overlapping flood hazard
areas, wetlands, critical fish and wildlife habitat areas and corridors..." and wildlife
habitat diversity areas in MBA/Brink, a wetlands system adjacent to Hylebos Creek in
Litowitz, and the overlapping seismic hazards, floodplains, wetlands, a,nd aquifer
recharge areas in Benaroya.1O
In contrast, in MBA/Brink four areas had "isolated, sporadic and scattered occurrences
of flooding, wetlands, or priority habitats that can be appropriately addressed through
7 Master Builders Association of Pierce COUl1ty, Terry L. Brink, ct al. u Pierce Colmty (MBAIBrink), CPSGMHl3
Case No. 02-3-0010 Order Finding Partial Noncomplianèe and Continuing Invalidity p. *8, 2003 WL
22896415 P *7 (September 4, 2003).
S Fred K Klcln u. San/Uall County, Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
(WWGMHß) Case No 02-2-0008, Miclzael Durland, e/ al v. San ¡uan County, WWGMHß Case No. 00-2-
0062c, & Town of fruiay Harbor, Frcd R Klein, ¡ohn M. CalnplJcll, Lynn Balzrych, ct al u. San ¡uan Coun/y,
WWGMHB Case No. 99-2-0010c Final Decision and Order Compliance Order, 2002 WL 31405482 p. *7
(October 15, 2002)
9 Master Builders of Pierce County & Brink (MBAIBrink), et al v. Pierce COLI/lty, CPSGMHB Case No.: 02-3-
0006 Final Decision and Order p. *10,2002 WL 31998487 p. *11 (February 4,2002). This exception is
sometimes referred toas the Litowitz test because the three part test was first enunciated in Litowitz v. CIty
of Federal Way, CPSGMHB Case No 96-3-0005 Final Decision and Order p *12,1996 WL 678415 p. *9 Quly
22, 1997).
10 MBAIBrink, Final Decision and Order p. *13,2002 WL 31998487 p. *13, LitowÍtz p.*12, 1996 WL 678415 p.
*9, & Bcllaroya v City of Rcdmond, CPSGMHß Case No. 95-3-0072c Finding of Compliance p. *10 -.11
(March 13, 1997). .
Urban Densities are Requi,'ed to be a> Least Four Housing U ,~~~ ~~ _1
4-
", 3
7/
existing critical areas regulations."11 So these areas did not qualify for densities of less
than four dwelling units per net acre. Similarly, in LMI/Chevron a 2.4-acre part of a
wetland and pileated woodpecker and banded pigeon habitat on a 60.8-acre property
did not meet the Litowitz test. 12
Second, in Bremertol1 the Central Board also indicated that a major equestrian facility
surrounded by "horse-acre lots" may also justify densities less than four dwelling units
net acre.13 However, this potential exemption was in dicta which is not all. essential part
of the decision and is not legally binding. So this potential exemption should be
carefully evaluated before it is used.
In footnote 6 of the MBA/Brink Order Finding Partial Noncompliance and Continuing
Invalidity, the Central Board included this note of caution against using applicant
initiated rezones or' planned unit developments (PUDs) to reach the minimum four
dwelling units per net acre density.
It should be the exception, rather than the rule, that lands within UGAs do not
yield a minimum density of 4 du/acre. Insuch exceptions, a variety of flexible
regulatory mechanisms are available to local governments to accommodate new
development when challenged by difficult topography, parcel shapes or other
localized constraints. Nevertheless, the Board cautions against reliance on
certain pre-GMA tools, such as planned unit development permits and site
specific rezones, as the primary mechanism to enable developers to reach the
GMA-mandated minimum urban densities. The growth accommodation
mandate of RCW 36.70A.llO and the permit processing guidance of RCW
36.70A.020(7) would be th warted if, in order to meet these mandates, all.
applicant would also be required to show "changed circumstances" (pre-GMA
rezone criteria) or "public benefit" (classic POD criteria). 14
Indeed, the four housing unit per acre minimum should be allowed as of right. Also, to
meet the other requirements of the Growth Management Act and to wisely use our
limited land resources, most residential zoning should have maximum densities much
higher than four dwelling units per net acre.
1\ MBA/Brink, Final Decision and Order pp. *12-13 2002 WL 31998487 p. *13.
IZ Lawrellce Michaellllves(/IIell(s. LLC & Chevroll (LMl/ChevrGlI) I'. TolI'lI of Wood way, CPSGMHB Case No.
98-3-0012 final Decision and Order p. * 17 (January 8. 1999).
13 Bremer/on at p. *33.
11 Master Builders Association of Pierce COU/lty, Terry L. Brink, et at. u. Pierce COU/lty (MBA/Brillk), CPSGMHB
Case No. 02-3-0010 Order Finding Partial Noncompliance and Continuing [nvalidity ~q~. te 6 p. *12, '1
2003 WL 22896415 p. *11 (September 4,2003). EXH \ b è '--. ',--
PI1GE ..110
Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing Unifs rdr Net AJe
~ 4
1t-
The Central Board has also addressed the issue of whether capital facility deficiencies
affect the duty to accommodate growth. The board answered no:
Notwithstanding maintenance backlogs, RCW 36.70A.110 clearly imposes a duty
upon local governments to accommodate urban growth. There is no question
that the Act requires local jurisdictions to plan for and accommodate new growth
-- that projected by OFM and allocated by the County. [FN 15] Thus, capital
fàcilities plans must certainly identify, locate, and take steps to finance those
capital facilities that are needed to accommodate new growth. There is no
provision in the GMA to suggest that the Act allows a jurisdiction not to
accommodate new growth because it has a capital facilities maintenance backlog,
or it has not guaranteed funding to remove any maintenance backlog, or it is
postponing indefinitely its duty to accommodate new growth until its
maintenance backlog is removed or reduced. To do so would fly in the face of
one of the cornerstones of the GMAI5
This same reasoning would indicate that a lack of capital facilities in the urban growth
area would not allow densities lower than four dwelling units per net acre. Rather, the
city or county is required plan for and finance the capital facilities needed to
accommodate compact urban development at a minimum of four dwelling units per net
acre.
The Central Board has also addressed the issue of whether RCW 36.70A.020(4)'s goal of
encouraging the preservation of the existing housing stock and RCW 36.70AO70(2)' s
requirement to "ensur[e] the vitality and character of established residential
neighborhoods" affects the duty to designate and zone residential areas at a net density
of at least four dwelling units per"acre. Again, the board has answered no.
)5 West Seattle Defense Fund and Neighborhood RIghts Campaign (WSDF lV) v. City of.Seatllc, CPSGMHB Case
No. 96-3.0033 p. "32, 1997 WL 176356 p. "27 (March 24, 1997). CTN15. [n Hensley v. City of Woodlllviflc,
CPSGMHB Case No 96.3-0031, Final Decision and Order (1997), at 9, the Board held: The GMA creates
an affirmative duty for cities to accommodate the growth that is allocated to them by the county. This
duty means that a city's comprehensive plan must include: (1) a future land use map that designates
sufficient land use densities and intensities to accommodate any population and/or employment that is
allocated; and (2) a capital facilities element that ensures that over the twenty-year life of the plan, needed
public facilities and services will be available and provided throughout the jurisdiction's UGA. In
Benaroya, et af. v. City of Redmond, CPSCMHB Case No. 95.3.0072c, Finding of Compliance (1997), at 8, the
Board clarified that this affirmative duty means that cities are to: 'give support to: 'foster' and 'stimulat:'
urban growth throughout the jurisdictions' UGAs within the twenty-year life of their co, mprehen~.' , .
plans.") EXHIBIT. . ~I_.--"
Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing tpA 61í-:Net ~ ", ;11 '.'
The GMA clearly encourages the preservation of existing housing stock (See
RCW 36.70A.O20(4))and provides for ensuring the vitality and character of
established residential neighborhoods (See RCW 36.70A.O70([2). Hovvever, as the
Board stated supra, "any opportunity to perpetuate an 'historic lovv-density
residential' development pattern, in the Parkland 5panavvay Midland area,
ended in 1994 when the County included the area within the UGA." It is clear
that existing housing stock and neighborhoods may be maintained and
preserved, however existing low-density patterns of development cannot be
perpetuated.lf>
The Meaning of Net
For properties that do not qualify for the linlÌted exceptions, the definition of net may be
an issue in crafting comprehensive plan policies and development regulations. The
Central Board defined "net" in Bel1aroya v. City of Redmond:
As applied to GMA planning exercises, "net" has the same general meaning as
"buildable." Most cities within King County determined what their "net" land
supply was for purposes of the County's UGA allocation exercise. From the
record in Vashon-Maury, the Board is aware that various cities in King County
deducted, for example, public rights-of-way and environmentally sensitive lands
in order to determine the "net supply" of buildable land. Generally speaking, the
concept of "net" remains the same when applied to a specific parcel of land -
that portion which is encumbered with rights-of-way or certain critical areas
would not be available for the placement of housing, for example. Ii
50 in calculating net densities, the unbuildable land may be deducted from the gross
acres to determine the net acres.
Additional Growth Management Act Provisions that Require Higher
Residential Densities
It is important to remember that the four dwelling Unit per net acre rule is a floor.
There are other Grovvth Management Act provisions that \\'ill require higher residentlòl
densities. They include:
. The Grovvth Management Act goals to encourage grovvth in the UGA, reduce
sprawl, protect natural resource based industries and protect the environment.ls
II. MBA/Brillk, Final Decision and Order p. *10, 2002 WL 31998487 P '10
17 ßcnaroya, cI al. v CIty of l~cdI1IOlld, CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No 95-]-0072 p. *2.1. 19% WL 650317
p. '25 (March 25, 1996).
IS RCW 36.70A.020(1), (2), (8), & (9). EXH 1 B tT 7.'
Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four I-Iousing LPA~'ŒJcl A~ .1"
--- --.
. The Growth Management Act goal to encourage the availability of affordable
housing to all economic segments of the population of this state and promote a
variety of residential densities and housing types.19
. The requirement that the housing element, and its implementing development
regulations, shall include mandatory provisions for the preservation, improvement
and development of housing.2O
. The requirement that the housing element, and its implementing development
regulations, shall identify sufficient land for housing, including, but not limited to,
government-assisted housing, housing for low-income families, manufactured
housing, multifamily housing, and group homes and foster care facilities.21
. The requirement that the housing element, and its implementing development
regulations, shall make adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of all
economic segments of the community.22
. The requirement that the UGA shall include" areas and densities sufficient to permit
the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or city for the succeeding
twenty-year period."B
Also, if most of our cities and towns are zoned for four housing units per acre, the land
needed to accommodate our future growth will be much greater than if we
accommodate more homes per acre.
Practice Tips
In planning for urban densities, consider the following recommendations:
. Almost all of the land within the UGA will require a density of four housing units
per net acre and most will require greater densities to achieve community goals and
to comply with all of the goals and requirements of Growth Management Act.
Remember four units per net acre is "the low end of the range required by the
[Growth Management] ACt."24-
. If an area has extensive critical areas, do not add it to the urban growth area in the
first place. If it is not annexed, move it outside of the urban growth area. That will
provide the land with the most protection since it will not be subject to urbanizing
19 RCW 36.70A.O20(4).
20 RCW 36.70A.O70(2) & RCW 36.70A.O40(3) &(5) (counties and cities shall adopt development regulations
that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan).
21 {d.
22 (d.
23 RCW 36.70A.llO(2). '0 IT
2~ Bremertol1, et al. v. Kitsap COUllty, CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No.: 95-3-00:Ei~Þ1<1t@' fiha~.
Decision and Order p. *33 (October 6, 1995) (underlining added). P A G E~'
, .'
Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing Units Per Net Acre
,
., l_- =1 1-
,- 7 .
~
pressures. Both the Central and Western Boards have held that extensive critical
areas should not be added to the UGA.25
. Build a good record showing why the less than four housing units per acre density
is needed and that you have enough land elsewhere to meet your adopted growth
targets. Maps showing the critical areas are very helpful and were specifically
referred to in MBA/Brink. Aerial and ground photos help too. In both Litowitz and
Benaroya, the fact that it was undisputed that both cities had adequate land for their
growth targets impressed the board.
. The more critical areas the merrier. In both Bcnaroya and MBA/Bl'ink, the areas that
were upheld for less than four housing units per acre zoning had multiple critical
areas.
. The critical areas should cover the whole area or almost entirely the whole area if
you want to apply the Litowitz rule. This was important in Litowitz, Benaroya, and
MBA/Brink.
. The critical areas should be serious natural hazards or important habitats.
For Additional Information
Contact Tim Trohimovich, ACIP, JD, Planning Director 1000 Friends of Washington.
Telephone (206) 343-0681 or e-mail tim@lOOOfriends.org
Copies of the Growth Management Hearings Board decisions referenced in this report
are available at their website: http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/index.html The boards' also
have excellent digests that summarize their decisions. The digests are also available at
their website.
F:\ 1000 Friends Reports\Compact Urban Devclop'ment 4 DU pcr acre for Dcnsity LcttcLdoc
EXHIBtT- -:1
PAGE..-lfQ 'Þi=.~j
25 Brclllcrtoll, ct aI. v. Kitsall COUllty, CrSCMHß Consolidated Case No.: 95-3-0039 Final Decision and Order
p. *33 - 34 (October 6,1995)& Alicllrot/l v Skagit COUllty, WWCMHß Case No.: 97-2-0060 Final Decision,
and Order p. *11 of 63, 1998 WL 1985337 (January 23, 1998).
Urban Densities are Required to be at Least rour Housing Units Per Net Acre
.- 8
Smith
Alling
Lane
A Professional Services Corporation
Attorneys at Law
Douglas V. Alling
Grant B. Anderson
Joseph R. Cicero (1957-2001)
CO"'~lt".., R£CEfV BartaraA.Henderson
W/U/¥!Ty DEI/,£ ED By Edward G. Hudson
LOPMENT Edward M. Lane
DEPAFlTMI-iJ1~a Nelson Lysne. CPA
.1 p" lM/tJert E. Mack
Ii rl (} f{ ? () Michael E. McAleenan
. .1 (ltO~ Robert L. Michaels
Tlmolhy M. Schellberg
Daniel C. Smlh (Ret)
1102 Broadway Plaza. #403
Tacoma. Washington 98402
Tacoma (253) 627-1091
Seattle: (425) 251-5938
Facsimile: (253) 627-0123
Brian L. Dolman (also admitted
in Oregon)
April 5, 2004
City of Federal Way Planning Commission
33530 1st Way South
PO Box 9718
Federal Way, W A 98063-9718
Re:
Davis Rezone at 30682 Military Road South
Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:
We would like to take this opportunity to submit further testimony on behalf of Richard
and Louise Davis regarding the above-named matter. The Davises have requested that the
Commission modify the proposed zoning under the P AA from RS 9.6 (single family residential
9,600 square feet) to BN (neighborhood business).
The City planning staff contends that the Davis parcel cannot meet the development
standards under BN zoning. It is our understanding that the planning staff has determined that
there is no advantage to the Davis property being zoned BN rather than RS 9.6.
The assessment that the Davises' property would be non-confom1Íng as to either RS 9.6
or BN zoning is conjectural. We have been advised by Mr. Fewins that, based on his experience
with the Federal Way Municipal Code ("FWMC"), the Davis property could not meet the
rigorous development standards of the code. This assessment was accomplished without "a
detailed revic\\! of the site d~velopment." City of Federal Way A1emorandll/11 dated February 25,
2004 to John Caulfield, Chair of the Planning Commission from Kathy McClung, Director of
Community Development Services, p. 19.
In addition, Mr. Fewins invited the Davises to submit a site development plan that would
show the city staff that development on the site could occur in a manner confonning to the ßN
zoning. However, the Davises have no current plans for redevelopment of the property.
Therefore, they have no future site development plan-
The Davises expended considerable resources in the initial rezone under the King County
ordinances and are continuing to do so in light of the City's potential alU1exation of the area.
Essentially, the City would require the Davises to attempt to do again what they accomplished in
King County, i.e., zone their property properly to match the existing and historic use.
EXHIBIT_H] ~
P AGE-!S-~F ~ J
Planning Commissioner
April 5, 2004
Page 2
Here, the Potential Annexation Area encompasses urbanized King County and those
development patterns should be respected. Changing the underlying zoning will not change the
uses on the property to meet the theoretical demands of the underlying zone.
A theoretical concern was expressed to the Davises by City staff that a BN zone in an
area generally zoned RS 9.6 would be a spot zone. That concern is unwalTanted. The zone is
existing under King County ordinance and adopting the City of Federal Way comparable zone of
BN would not place the City of Federal Way in a position of having approved a spot zone.
The State Supreme Court has described spot zoning as follows:
Spot zoning is a zoning action by which a smaller area is singled out of a larger
area or district and specially zoned for a use classification totally different from,
and inconsistent with, the classification of sulTounding land and not in
accordance with the comprehensive plan.
Citizens for Mount Vernon v. Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861,875,947 P.2d 1208 (1997).
This situation is inapposite to a traditional spot zone challenge. Here, the city would only
be adopting the existing zone and would face no exposure in doing so. The subject business at
this intersection existed for over 40 years. It is "in accordance with the [existing] comprehensive
plan." !d. It does not meet the criteria of a spot zone.
City staff has also made clear that they feel the parcel would be non-confonning either as
a BN zoned parcel or as an RS 9.6 zoned parceL In essence, the City proposal would foreclose
any opportunity for the Davises or their successors in interest to develop the property in
accordance with the BN zone and to maintain historic business uses on the property.
The rezone of a parcel by amunicipality should recognize historic uses and consistent
potential development on a parceL The Davis parcel is not so large that its development as a
commercial property would have impact outside of its immediate neighborhood.
EXHIBIT
PAGE_~
7___-
1'- ---
Planning Commissioner
April 5, 2004
Page 3
Finally, as the Davises and many of the neighbors have testified, the Davises have gone
through all the required steps to make their property confonuing. We respectfully submit that, to
require that the Davises revert to 1962 in tenus of the zoning of their property, the City would do
a great injustice to the Davises.
REM:cjs
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Richard Davis
Sincerely,
SMITH ALLING LANE, P.S.
Q~~
1----
£.)(\-\\6\1". :.;--11-
p ~ G E.-If'
Bryan R. Co~e
3228 S. 314 h PI.
Auburn, Wa 98001
253-529-1352
Planning Commission
City of Federal Way
33530 1 st Way South
P.O. Box 9718
Federal Way, Wa 98003-9718
April 6,2004
Dear Planning Commission,
Recently it has come to my attention that there has been a request to rezone ap
area that is adjacent to my neighborhood. A Mr. Jackson made this rezoniLg
request for 23 acres located east of 1-5 and north of South 320th to be changed
from Residential to Commercial. This change would potentially attract busìnesses
such as car dealerships and other retailers.
I am concerned that the Commission is not taking into consideration the effect
that changing the zoning will have on my property value, and on the quality of life
for me and my family. Our private neighborhood will be exposed to traffic that
would otherwise not be coming in to the area, opening us up for the potential
problems with theft, vandalism and other possible crimes. If the trees are
removed, which serves as a buffer from 1-5, what impact will it have on the wet
lands and the wild life living on the property in question?
I am very upset that I did not receive any notification from the City of Federal
Way regarding the proposed rezoning. I feel that the people who will be effected
the most, the people in the adjacent neighborhoods, have a right to be involved
in this rezoning process.
I request the City of Federal Way address my concerns in writing and I request
new hearing$ to give me the opportunity to fully participate in this decision
making process, since this will have such a significant impact on my properly
value and the quality of my life.
Sincerely,
GJ~c~ ~~
EXHIBIT_- '1
PAGE_C18 -;:_---,,-
--
Cindy J. Cope
3228 S. 314th PI.
Auburn, Wa 98001
253-529-1352
Planning Commission
City of Federal Way
33530 1 st Way South
P.O. Box 9718
Federal Way, Wa 98003-9718
April 6, 2004
Dear Planning Commission,
Recently it has come to my attention that there has been a request to rezone an
area that is adjacent to my neighborhood. A Mr. Jackson made this rezoning
request for 23 acres located east of 1-5 and north of South 320th to be changed
from Residential to Commercial. This change would potentially attract businesses
such as car dealerships and other retailers.
I am concerned that the Commission is not taking into consideration the effect
that changing the zoning will have on my property value, and on the quality of life
for me and my family. Our private neighborhood will be exposed to traffic that
would otherwise not be coming in to the area, opening us up for the potential
problems with theft, vandalism and other possible crimes. If the trees are
removed, which serves as a buffer from 1-5, what impact will it have on the wet
lands and the wild life living on the property in question?
I am very upset that I did not receive any notification from the City of Federal
Way regarding the proposed rezoning. I feel that the people who will be effected
the most, the people in the adjacent neighborhoods, have a right to be involved
in this rezoning process. .
I request the City of Federal Way address my concerns in writing and I request
new hearings to give me the opportunity to fully participate in this decision
making process, since this will have such a significant impact on my property
value and the quality of my life.
Sincerely,
LlvJj
CindyJ. cia
~~
EXH!B!T l--
PA.GE ~, 11
Mike A. Tischler
3227 S. 314th Place
Auburn, WA 98001
253-529-1185
Planning Commission
City of Federal Way
33530 1st Way South
. PO BOX 9718
Federal Way, WA 98003-9718
April 7, 2004
RE: Jackson Application
Honorable Commissioners,
During the Public Hearing that this Commission had on March 17th, 2004 I found out, by chance, that the
Staff of the City of Federal Way had put forward a "final" recommendation for the rezoning of the properties
referred to by the "Jackson Application".
Without having yet consulted with a legal advisor, I believe that this application has not been handled as
required by the Municipal Code, neither in time nor in shape. According to the Law, a request to rezone
needs to be communicated in writing to the owners of Residential properties located within 300 feet of such
property. Signs should also be posted in locations where they are easily visible.
I base the claim that this application was improperly handled on the following arguments:
1.
The written notification.
a. I live within the 300 ft of such property and have not received any written notification in
such regards, statement that I wilting to put in writing and under oath, if necessary.
b. None of the neighbors I communicated with recalls receiving such notice.
c. When I approached City Staffers, I was informed that a written notification was actually
sent out (which I claim I did not received as specified above). I was provided with a copy
of such letter, and a list to which this letter was supposedly mailed to. I am attaching a
copy of this letter as Exhibit A. Please note that this letter is just a Notice of Public Hearing
regarding, in general, to the Potential Annexation Area, the Freeway Commercial Zone,
and the Quadrant Request, and secondly a notice for the Adoption of the City of Federal
Way, Potential Annexation Area Subarea Plan. At any time, was there a notification of the
specific Application submitted by Mr. Jackson, listing a date of submission, and a deadline
to challenge this application in writing by the Public.
2.
The Signs.
a. No signs were ever present at or near the property in question.
It is on these grounds that I request this honorable Commission to use its authority to:
1.
Thoroughly investigate the legality of the process followed both by the Applicant and the City
Staffers on the handling of this application, including the proper communication to the public, as
required by law. More precisely, this Commission should specifically determine what Section/s,
Article/s, and Subsection/s of the City Code describe the process currently in place.
2.
Reject this application if this process followed by the Applicant and/or the City Staff did not follow
the requirements specified by the Law.
Best Regards,
J.1~(~~~
Michael Tischler
Property Owner
3227 S 314th PI
, ,
EXHIBiT 7
PAGE~5Þ
----...-
,,-
Ana M. Tischler
3227 S. 314th Place
Auburn, WA 98001
253-529-1185
Planning Commission
City of Federal Way
33530 1 st Way South
PO BOX 9718
Federal Way, WA 98003-9718
April 6, 2004
To whom it may concern,
Last week it came to my attention that there's been a proposal to rezone an' area that is very close to my
property. This proposal was presented by a party identified as Jackson to change the zoning of currently
empty lots from Residential to Commercial. This change could potentially attract businesses such as car
dealerships and other retailers.
I'm concerned that the following items are not being addressed in the proposal:
Preservation of the wet lands and wild life located in the property in question.
How increased noise and traffic resulting from the establishment of a large business, will affect the
residential area that surrounds the property proposed for rezoning.
I'm also extremely concerned that I didn't receive any notification form the City of Federal Way regarding the
proposed rezoning. I believe that public participation should be an essential part of this process as any
changes to the zoning will deeply affect my property value and quality of life.
I expect the city staff to address my concerns in writing and set up new hearings to discuss the Jackson
proposal plenty in advance, to give me the opportunity to fully participate in the decision-making process.
Anything less would be unacceptable and a reason for me to consider legal action.
Regards,
P\W1 PI
Ana Tischler
EXHIBiT
PAGE- _SI
7 ----
11
Karen Bush
3218 S. 316th St.
Auburn, WA 98001
April 7, 2004
Planning Commission
City of Federal Way
33530 First Way South
P. O. Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
RE: Opposition to change of zoning designation at 1-5 and S 320th St., as proposed by Jerry Jackson
Dear Planning Commission Members:
I am writing to protest the proposed zoning changes for the seven properties located on approximately
23 acres, north of S. 320111 Street, and east of 1-5. I fear that this change will have a detrimental impact
on my neighborhood. This neighborhood includes the eighteen houses in the Courtney Downs
development, plus neighbors that border either side of South 316111 Street.
I am opposed to this zoning change as proposed for the following reasons:
1) Property Values and Quality of Life
I am concerned about the impact this change may have on property values in our neighborhood.
Property on the east side of 32nd Avenue is currently zoned as single-family, residential. It seems that
an abrupt difference may be created by changing the zoning on the facing properties, west of 32nd
Avenue, to a Commercial or Freeway Commercial designation. The requested change would allow for
placing commercial concerns, such as car dealerships, in close proximity to the current neighborhood.
This would likely introduce a high risk of unpleasant noise, traffic, light, and safety issues.
2) Wetlands
The properties in question overlap with an area of more than 5 acres that has been designated as
wetlands. Therefore the zoning change seems inappropriate, and may interfere with efforts to restore
the Hylebos waterway and salmon runs.
Initially, I supported incorporation of our neighborhood under the Federal Way Potential Annexation
Area Plan. However, now I am worried that the City of Federal Way is more interested in increasing tax
revenues by encouraging this type of commercial development, than it is concerned about the impact
on its potential citizens. .I hope that this is not the case. I thank you for the opportunity to make my
concerns known. I would appreciate receiving any notifications concerning future events that will take
place as part of the zoning review process.
Sincerely,
~'*-~
Karen M. Bush
EXH\ßn. .1
PAGES.2 r~.-1L-
L¡ - /}- If
RD'f 12um¡{V
;¿O¡Gj I b ¿) I~ 0 At) S 1//
~W6ßAL wAY wA--
n.___.'-----_u_---------'-----' I -
O¡ ?;OJ,:]
- ;;) Db - c¡ 1f9 - $1 ?fS.-/
EXHIBIT_7
P AG E-~5 ~ ,: -'11
nnn.__- TO --1l~__~L1Y o-f-_fÇtft2~~A(~AY- -
- _-.._n __n__--
..:C D PlODS£ --í¡..h{ f2;¡¿ZO¡{/I:-1&- ~ -r}~ ~CkSÒN
- --A fv1r:1_f~~f1 ~~I S i -n£ -' <$.Q}nt.{ ç - ..QE -, \.'( 'f? ~~5 .fI:}ß~
- ~5ALLùWS
_(f)dA£-I15. r¿.J: 1S'T7(~ (,- W-S'I ¡) £{'<J.. T);:1 L CC5}vf IV u/,<:C T.Y
-~--'{_/!,\cr¿~rf-:n- o--?-- _N¡)/~¡{efZ-oH ?¡¿~bwAY í!~ TV
p'~~j _T?~Iif!4't1lV /J.¿ c5?- /'4.- A7UfZ~ L I U1'f S -d- C5T7~
V f.~*í761' ,
ø. Jt£o Po (2-Dï-Z~ 5$'/6 f'J...I ¡::,cA'*.' w£-rcA/J...OS U:'/-t/C/~ ISA<:so
11~ 1~up.TI1fi-,yq T}J;r{ ¡-fVL£-ßòS VVA--rI£/LS/~fl
-- -r[-l(G¡z.¡{ !?fIS¡3 !l-tk pD"%kí7fJL ALSO t7'-t --r/~ ¡JÆ-S'/fZ~
'1V V1Þ-/i--l ¡Y:~ -í7>-x rp----r£Vh ¡-lv¡:¿ --r7~ C I ¡ Y L-ú/ éé
~(JuG-¡{ --nJ:1£ ~.- or: ~7 L-Â--Nt/ ¡.:?u¡:::¡:::¡;¿¡Z
-- ~l~n_n--o~ -l-C).-C; g~I_1 ~ P&2tf/t(¡jC ~ÁY
-- ~,-(L-At-l Y SJf-LI ¡¿ý
~,"'Í H~ - _ß¡f- --Z_<?J~¡K &- ~_T1-.US P'f7--pptúZ- (YWL~{-~K)J
--- ---- ----- ____0- .--- j'Q--__~-J_LLf~~__--__n~t..D ~T"¿ n_n LlAn_flÞ£__~_~~_n~------ -
- - ------ _n__O --- --_--f!u._L~~t£..----~--~ 6KAL¿O {J.--nP- LA t~5_q-_E__-Jj-j:J;Ç___SL--C_'!. n~un
- __un_un n______nn&~'2__--L?___clÞ--r___~_§:Q_9Q__~Y--]7¿-- ~_~n_-o-{ç; ----
n- _n__n___,_--_P~fQ~_f!ft:-__'----_mnum__________n_.._~_~------____n_- ..-- ..n-_um
IN ê-LOStNb- ANt
en:: "11NS' P{<;ofkß. '11/ S HDU¿ 0 [fr; 00/--.1£
~coS~~y W¡TM- P(ZopìÚ2ìY DlÁ/H..,wLJ IN ~ ~4-
",\0 - tZ:¡-\~~. ç AI gl'{bSS
EXHIBIT_u _1
~ 5~ '0. -, ... ,
---- :, ""'.,---1-1-
P:UI¿,J:f~ 70 11'\ G.-
~-Li.'Z'\.~~r~~- ~ ~.!øð7"
ßy ~~j T 1.~ ,;jjI 1'-'- ¡ù~ D£VkCù-pÆ('LJ
17~;r~OCþ.-P£~É~i¿V ~-(~",~ U-~ J~n~
,__u,CcðI'd'¡>~-C1£- lV,"(7-!. ¡;:¿-~¿/->..~C? ŒItY' .rgu.--£D-{~SS'¡£s,
_nr~1
-,..----.,---'.-.,---,',,-.----..-,.- "
---- 'PÐ i ~Ur:Hf'\ 'D
___.m/Ji{:S ,?//!!ç tf~/~n J~G- iZ9J Æ.:s-T(ê J AAt CofZ-õH£ð¡::-
- -'- ~YAßz,/ sff tV/k;-t y ¡~ -;-t/£ 0 N L Y D N ¡¿ Ò ¡:::.
J-C$ K/KD -r~r / KN.[)V~ ð-¡:::'- - I)~ ¡HI S
- - - &/fZ4.
~ ïD f{ / 11 ~1tf. j}AIL/rf Tò L.Jç/sí/¡-i &-
I~H~-!' L! ¡v! t , Ð(t/h¿DP;1jÞ¡-{y TV
~ [) U fN1Ç(L I'i po f?-V cr1 OJC-. P MY ¡£¡z T Y
------------~~~--~~~----j~-(~--~------_..}-~~~ ____miA_? ¿_o~-~-_S .___l_¿~_:_~--<[_~__f3_f___, --
, ---- ..__.._m_________nm~~~¿~_--_~____m__n~_:1_~n~_~_~r - -O¥LA/ 3 ;¿~ A~ .
-- ,_n .-_nn- -- -----____n___n-m-
------- ------------------------___.__mm, n.- ,------------ __n . n-_nm m-n--__- _u_------_--_m___n_-- .--- --'
_m- _m____- _m- -.. ,n ---,-----------------'-- ~
- - -- ---- --_. ------------ -----.-mm----m,---.--, -, ------ ----- 'm_n_-__- ..' _"n_-
..
EXHIBIT A
,!!L___A
, ' r-~ff/
---- .'
TO;
-&-;
(J)!
lJ..!
'-i- .
0
; ;
-.
-;:!,-, ,
ê3
!! I,
/"--_nlIL53!14 i h P Ii
, In; . .. /'! ¡
" I . ' :
"" ::' ,d ' :
/
¡to i
n,
,-,,'
'-"'"
r' ,
',' ,
,,-~
.' : ""
,',,'
, ",
3J~6tbS!t
i
,
f'
I.
i -
!
I
-- ,
i ¡
)Cily Of
FetJeral V\fay
! !
'N)~i,~~~;~~~;r
i
- L
"""~{)o.c-g2Dth.tStre-@t
,. _om_. . -, ,'--
------'
EXH\B\T
PAGE SS
1
.. --~--
11
PETITION To THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY REGARDING THE
PROPOSED REZONING OF THE JACKSON PROPERTY
---------
We the undersigned consider that there has been no significant effort by the (;t; oi
Federal Way to infonn of the proposed zoning change of the parcels kno\vn as L¡h" /_1:
American 1-5 and So, 320lh Assemblage" shown on EXHIBIT A, to the owners of'¡h,'
adjacent properties,
Therefore, WE THE UNDERSIGNED, being PROPERTY OWNERS oftb" ,\rl~i,
adjacent to the properties in question under the Jackson Application, HEREBY
PETITION FOR:
I) the posting of Land Use signs at the property in question,
2) the mailing of written communications to owners of properties located within (,()(: C~~l
of the said property,
3) the submission of a report by the City Staff to the Planning Commission and to the
Public commenting on the impact that the proposed rezoning will have on:
ì) The single family residences adjacent to or near the Jackson properly. We
consider that issues such as (but not limited to) property values, reduced
quality of life, noise and light pollution not appropriate for a residelllii'¡ a;'CJ,
safety and security of residents in the suITounding properties, need to be
explicitly addressed and planned for.
The class II wetlands (10 2404 under the 1990 King County Wetland Sur'~y)
The buffer zone surrounding such wetlands
The road suITounding the Jackson property, There should also be an ir.diunion
to the improvements that are needed to accommodate the increased traffi(
4) a Public Hearing to be held with the opportunity for the Audience to comment on tbe
report mentioned above, no sooner than 30 days after the release of such report te th,:
public, -
SIGNATURE
ii)
iii)
iv)
PRfNTED NAME
ADDRESS
DATE SI(ì\LD
---------
. L
'I ,J .//
/- '- ,~{/
'0: 2-':~
5/ ;'1/:'2'/'[
~ I.' ..
::;-' /_'~. -""
-"
" I
-'í )-:'
" , '
¡'
'-/',"-/,"-j",,
--'- ,;
':-/-<1-,'/
Ei ":-':í!: > {/
'~I -~, "',
~ -, 1<, : ~
f~ ~", ¡'T' ',./ ;;
/,,'x i
(, "
./.,{;;j,~,:);"'..¿'/ ,',
'> \" / "tRo°
,.,.-,/,'- '...,J/',
..'
Y"""."- -,~- '\,\"" J\-.
,/
, '.1_, -.._n-
\. \,"""
"-
~.-.'
\,'\)¡') 5, "7r.~ j!J-
(.uL.",'",
I-./~
I '-( - \' - '?L --
,/-1 r;
-"";" :"'; -:-: ~ 1,;;1':-' f i
1-\'4'_0'- 1.;/' I.XCI;! ¡ 4--,_,-- (II
7) 'Z? '¡ ~, ;; I¿ tJ.
I'!... ,q \ r b....: ,,~ ¡--; , '
,í Co S- (/' \
~)",:~ ':;. ,\\l.\1\ I
ì
1'\r,t.Gu.._CIJ-""'\'"
...'-' ,\ < ';{O.J
(( - 'c> - C '. /
Y - <;l.>1
'7 -,-\ - () {
AM,n(tn'Jb<;
<--{- (,,-otf
I¡ /-J(I~.',1
-11
¿¡ 1(/(/1
SIGNA TORE
PRINTED NAME
ADDRESS
DATE SIGNED
l/NbY J CDP£
,-./'
"":':.i) 1 Î: ',' ,J<' /- ¡ L
Ii .I
./ I? / C<
./
L-'
4(7/(;4
q - 1/C{)L{
4 -( --cA
é-\-l-OY
é( --' 1 --0 Y
V~-7- Y
EXH\ß1; 1-------
PAGE__~1 ~ 1'-
SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME ADDRESS DATE SIGNED
llt&1Ci xiI (il\ ~11(11-\¡¿l ~)(j1U:'(l 5'dJ.7 f5/~,-tt,f[ ¿,lL¡ /OCf
tqrî1 f -, A\\Iti 'T15C H LER ~21Î -s, YI'-1nt eL A{ L¡ ! ot¡
¿-Q~~ X (;\j îN '-.. l~ w~}L - )):A-J s~, 5lJ.-A 1-()'- Oc:/
EXHIBIT- 7
PAGESt ,11, ~
SIGNATURE
PRINTED NAME
ê)/ ¿ ¡/'{ /11 .
73 {<sh
4:&-;;>,,---(-
Ldúýf::/L
rl/ €/7,2
/-(;1~r
~tw~
ADDRESS
DATE SIGNED
3éJ-18 s. 31¿ z~ <1locdo,1
&1,' . 4Lbut'11 I .
-.3 'ê~ C) ~3/ Gr7Z-" ,
T ~~;KûÍJ' ¥--f'-cjl
3;;10 S. 316~
S-t. ~ 6 ù rrJ
}' é) ;;¿ ~-:5 ;¡ / )<i-Ls
3 ~, :3 ~ 5'. -3f}fJ¡
At/ btlftl{ '19!Jtfl
3z'l1 5, 31&t'- 5t.
A.. bl1r N wA 1 '¿DD /
.3i/O7 S. 3ft.:,
t4vbJ/f1 It/J1- (1 &.V{
'-
3'1 (~ ~ ~í é.
Kj - ~~ - (J
1-~-Q{
'i '- )~- tJ 9
1-~-or
t./- 5-0<1
~ i
tj- .-ç: tJ £
y. --0(/
. .i t-
. 3~) ì 5. 3ib -t~ /1 - 5- 0, i 1
JVû.-t"'~~ Le-'.~"",,(,. '-1 - 7
.3'-13~-S 3J&H'\.
IE fl.E~ R A\.¡b v'<. f\) \.) - ó v- ':J--- útf
Ë I.-LQ..' - \.
-=So l-t N D-.- -. <-I } ':J- /¿ ¿ i ~ ~-5o1
v I
{u?lÅ.~N
PAíl j LiA-- 3 (,.)-5 5. 3 f ~::ð- Lf - 6-ó,-!
C.AL-DEIL Au'~
\'v\~ \<~ 31" S J/ Cd Y-Sr-O'-{
-S- -.I ~ v~.. ~ .r-/
~~
{'r
EXHIBIT 1
PAGE $.1 ..~J
<j-:)--O
4- 7~ý4
q
-J
32 t¡c¡! It
7b/2- J¡]/ c¿jv...
.. n.. ~ ,\-0 ~ . (~~~ - \\-. /~~ q 9c 0\ [. :- {l - {-J{ (
vcu.-'Vldtu¿' ; 3J-ð7 5. 1.çrfi)( 4 7 /t1
Ù t'fz11/Æ- 31 &ri1-9-.t+~ - ~ - u
!-1'- ;: l)C-
EXH\B\~ 1
P A G E-~ : Ç-..:ll-
~L
PETITION AGAINST REZONING JACKSON PROPERTY
To:
Planning Commission City of Federal Way
33530 151 Way South
Federal Way, W A 98003
WE THE UNDERSIGNED, being a majority ofthc PROPERTY O\VNEH,:; (If.,
area adjacent to Jackson property, shown on EXHIBIT A, hereby petition agaimt thl
proposed rezoning of such property. We request that the zoning to be included in the
Comprehensive Plan for the Potential Annexation Area (P AA) be as follows:
i) The areas currently designated as OP by King County be zoned as Office Pari:
ii) The areas currently designated as R-4 by King County be zoned as Single Fwnii) t::gi¡
Density
I EXHIBi, :7_-------
I PAGE.1T-,-:'c-~"],-,J-
1- nu_,_-
SIGNATURE
PRINTED NAME
ADDRESS
,-,-~¿, ,n/!,,'£.
","('L ¡
¿:,o
{i",j",:~ /-)~j,.", ¡-',1 '/'¿<'/
(
,'~ ,h ,':;
.. -- -",
/,. j (
'J " /
~" ""////
,-. I L( / ,-"
-' /
\, ..
-' , '
,j:+:,
'~;;. >, ',. '> :, / t.rj í-..
'~"(":"-' L--//,
-<-,::",?-~-- '--0,-:""";:
'--
'- -') '\ "
'\' l. -- ;, l,\
f\Iu'í,,\¡. t..-.,.j'.'",' ,,;;'j,(,/i
)'-l'i')-~/-r\
t'l.¡"h"',"\L ~-
,,/ -¡ ">, L I
:>:.J,) 'j '-" ",II \1-
¡JÎ",", (',.-l,.. ,'-
",1\ "', ¿-\,', ,
?~J~ ,;" >~lj: fl
Lj "'-, :..,,:.-frol...JA,.-,
rTV.."'U-"~ . í~I:/.J\
.:ij),~' -) 51.:',/.,:;
"./' '::~(\"I
He.'\r 1), K,ykW
\ ' \
\~, L\\ '~")
?;t3r S 3/21
Avb..."" c..J'A- 1 (3
J;J\l j .3\2 \~ ,~;\'
'~tÁ ,;\ \,{'>. thl(,\
I
-I
DATE SIGNED
LfA t ¡
i I. (I. (./
L{:. ~-/J
'---
LI- fj- i/
----- - --
//-I-~I
~, '-'\ - \~~----
L - (,,/f ,-~.:[--_u
u- ,C < cj
l-j - '" - I,~:' I
u_,- - -----
U' î\- ,(
. .- ,
'í - " <; ,
---..----
/. ¡ '/
7 ( '. / " I
l-{-b'- Olj
----,~
4-[
rci
,,----,----
PETITION AGAINST REZONING JACKSON PROPERTY
To:
Planning Commission City of Federal Way
33530 1 st Way South
Federal Way, W A 98003
WE THE UNDERSIGNED, being a majority of the PROPERTY OWNERS of the
area adjacent to Jackson property, shown on EXHIBIT A, hereby petition against the
proposed rezoning of such property. We request that the zoning to be included in the
Comprehensive Plan for the Potential Annexation Area (P AA) be as follows:
i) The areas currently designated as OP by King County be zoned as Office Park
ii) The areas currently designated as R-4 by King County be zoned as Single Family High
Density
EXHIBIT A
III--~
'!i--~
; " :::$. I
¡ -~-)
: ,,' J'ty í
! ¡ 1.'::1
¡ I (])!
, I b! I
¡ I æ/ /Í.D
¡ L- t,..> / (f)
! ,: Ö 7 ! 'f-.,
' Ä! 1 CD' '
[. .i::/ I~'
II u/ ,,/(f)':
¡ ¡ ! ~ ¡
i' ' ,1 (f)!
I í l'Ël
/-f ,( ~l¡
"
! ! 'I! ¡ \ ¡
~í ,I;¡,J.T ,;,---1
¡ , Ii ; / ¡__m -¡
/ ,;II-s\i14th PI!
tfYfr-¡"<""" I f
;" (f : : ',' I, I
"" I '1 "I
, I i,l ; ,i: ; I
A S 3 1 6tb~~t
~ !
;e
¡ ì
< ' ! i
I (I,,',', /,',,/ i
,<"l': / í
,J
.<
", ,
¡
I:¡'"I (,.'i
! ,::¡>':dt..'ay
',":',':" "',' "
':'¡'... ¡":";
--,---'
m_- ,~- ---
t.XH~ß~T
PAGE. ,&
l'
';', '-- ,-1J-
SIGNA TORE
PRINTED NAME
}'t :h / b;:..({ .5;ru IJIV~I\J "
~~ ~ b~~f
32iS 5. '3/l
<5Ý-
(3Z/U -S.-3/b
()/~ 'i"~ij-cd
1-5' - 01'
ADDRESS
3 ,j 1 0 5,. 3 /6 .
() ~ '
3;J-;;2!>- 5 :l/~
DATE SIGNED
Lf/ifof
- -S--c]
'i-s--p
ý -s-ój
3'107 s. 3/~ Sri-
I4ubvm ¡J/f 'If[OI L('- S- - 0'-/
~-
~ ,
, ,
lf - <5 - f) tj
¿ / -17- -- c /
t+ - '5 -oL{-
- /'0 ~Ni\. ELU: 3 '/3"-")'7' ~ l'j':) Ù'--/
I\(\ ~(¿ -::, (~ '3 '1 '::> <0 ~3 \ V \ l
,\ \,\\)\) lLt'- \)J ~ ~- ~ - - (/ '-1-.
3&.)3 5 3/~~a
h!r(¡tr---
81 ¡-15. ?)h ){
EXH\B~T.
PAGE "
7
,'. ..,J
, SIGNATURE
PRINTED NAME ADDRESS
DATE SIGNED
L\-~-O
l \
/,
EXHIBIT__- 1
PAGE_-ft~J~~
PETITION AGAINST REZONING JACKSON PROPERTY
To:
Planning Commission City of Federal Way
33530 I sl Way South
Federal Way, W A 98003
WE THE UNDERSIGNED, being a majority of the PROPERTY OWNERS of the
area adjacent to Jackson property, shown on EXHIBIT A, hereby petition against the
proposed rezoning of such property. We request that the zoning to be included in the
Comprehensive Plan for the Potential Annexation Area (P AA) be as follows:
i) The areas currently designated as OP by King County be zoned as Office Park
ii) The areas currently designated as R-4 by King County be zoned as Single Family High
Density
EXHIBIT A
I I--.ð
; I..'----~!. .
. ::ii>.1
I ._,---.J
i riYí
.' ~I
(})!
<::;1
I (C/
f-__":t,..L,
. 0 j
IÄ /
.. ~....
I Ûi
!
í
/
!_--_.¡
/ /,
. "
:j :,
,í'//
) "'., / /
, ., !
,
i
í
i
!
!
¡
I,
! í
í ì
.í- /
/'1 J I
! í
I n\ í
i.f:!:: !
f,rtY'
/....'v,'
"""'" I
/f!?!
Î(])/
:' .':i--J ¡
,/$/
," ,
_-...Jl
,
I I
I'
, i .
, -ìL- ----¡-:
',i I
" IlloI I
i
! 'i:,<:;:¡IWay ;
I
I I
0;.,::,' ':,;;,~;~r
, "! i
L___--L- J ,
r"'-'-'.
- H\BYT
EX ¡ !:, ,-
PAGE.._"
ì
" ~~~-I-
SIGNATURE
PRINTED NAME
ADDRESS
23/ S;,' 3F/a:¿¡ßL-
Ly,(,/~/7' ß 1'-1Ìk& /1£-16w~ VA '7foo f
t/ =»)1 ( S 3/41q PL
( Ú-- -JA4¡3 ~, ~e: Wßt4UJ Q2w I
t' Æ, Ì'Y.-n".t (V" JLl)-..s. 31yfL,
~(T>ttà -4-/" '(, r\.1-{°ntt Pú..au.~ 1ötm(
\)~O:L~ 32-\\ ~. :3\L\-\\--¡ p)
\')l\: <e~\\ ~6ç(-\vjRqà
5 y.yL:)¡'Z1Z\ 'L.> /) 2. \ Î ~ 3 (4" h t? I
7~\(~ ~\>~@ ~
C H1- Lí-t 3 J- )~ :-; J i
LA~-kll(,--, f1ùB~K-i.J LJ!' /[¡:
/é:'.1) 1
( Q u t::/i-i-o
DATE SIGNED
Lf /--7 ~y
+( Î {Ocr
¡1-Î- ü<{
L\-l-()L\
.4 --¿ ~
L¡ - '7 - LY-(
L/~/j - 51'
i- 'x' H",; r ':--:'
C.'\ ¡¡Ó' '
PA,GF.'c.
1 .
-,,;, -t.
-~ ,'- ---1-L-
SIGNA TORE PRINTED NAME ADDRESS DATE SIGNED
tjr'~ '/) 'i' , --- )~~7 ç 114f~ PL ~í4/ O~
' \/1-- (, '\' j/ ~n I' ,\.\ '\ ';_,--- i<HlLl~
-J 'J )~" .--'-/'-":'¿' \
AMP, AtvA T i 'SC H tT:-K 327.1 S. ?iiTl{ PL L¡ 14/04
,¿~ {} t:rrLQ «,f CN '--- ~)~JL WS- ,Çc- ~\J.. d- 4- 6'- C) (l-
.
EXH\ßfT 7-
P A G E-~7 Jc--=1J
~ . ---~- .. . . . -. -- . '. . .' -- . . --. . . .
Isaac Conlen - Fwd: LAST CCAFW e-mail! Community announcements -- . Page 1
-~---~~~._--~~-------_._--_._-----~~-~--~~--.~---- -- . . "_.---------~-----~_..~--~-~----~----------~----~~--------------------------------_.~~
FYI re community organizing on the freeway commercial zone.
Derek
»> "Lisa Ziccarelli" <I.ziccarelli@comcastnet> 04/15/2004 2:35:02 PM »>
Hello CCAFW supporters -
As you all know, Peasley canyon won the fight against the State when DSHS selected a site in a
commercial area near Spokane Street in Seattle to place their level 3 Sexual Predator housing.
Thank you to all that supported and helped Peasley Canyon win that battle. It was truly a
community effort and a pleasure working together with you.
CCAFW would like to make TWO announcements (below) for the community that so diligently
helped in our fight. **CCAFW is not directly involved in these issues.
This WILL be the lAST CCAFW e-mail, as we will be deleting the groups from my address book.
==============================================================================AN
NOUNCEMENT #1 Skip's Priest would like to invite you to his Campaign Kickoff event, Sunday,
April 25 from 4 to 7 PM at the Federal Way Marriott. Attaching is a jpg of his kickoff invitation. Perhaps
some of you would be interested helping the campaign. His website, www.skippriestcampaiqn.com has a
sign up sheet for volunteer activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=ANNOUNCEMENT #2
Issue: Rezoning of area immediately east of 1-5 northbound on ramp from 320th, from Office
Park/Residential to Freeway/Commercial to accommodate a car dealership or large retail business.
This would include 32nd Ave S being built through to S 320th St.
Planning Commission Meeting: April 21, 7:00pm @ Fed Way City Hall, 336th and 1st Ave S
You may attend the meeting to give public testimony, or you may send in written testimony to:
Planning Commission of Federal Way, 33530 1st Way S, PO Box 9718, Federal Way, WA
98003-9718. You may e-mail comments to: Margaret Clark, Senior Planner,
www.citvoffederalwav.com, or call her 253-661-4105.
Anyone who wishes to support us, please do so by commenting in person or in writing. Our little
neighborhood greatly appreciates it! (Military Rd S, west down 316th St)
Thank You,
Pam Ditzhazy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------.-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
-------------
EXHiBIT- 7;
p AGE-'-'-~)F ~
All-American Homes, Inc.
622 S. 320th Street
Federal Way, WA 98003
(253) 765-2255
April 21, 2004
Planning Commission
City of Federal Way
33530 151 Way South
P.O. Box 9718
Federal Way, W A 98063-9718
Re:
[-5 Jackson Parcels
Dear Planning Commission:
Building a solid foundation in the community starts with bringing people and businesses
together. The Jackson [-5 parcels will do just that.
These parcels of land are impacted by Freeway noise and congestion, which make them
already unsuitable for residential property. History shows us that property such as this, that
is both visible and accessible, serves communities by being Business Commercial. This
property is no exception, though it is an exceptional property.
It has always been felt that this property, with commercial usage, would serve as the lynch
pin to bridge the gap between the existing city and the Potential Annexation Area.
This property is the logical first step for the people on the East Side to feel a kinship to the
City of Federal Way. Because this property will inevitably be joined to the city, it should be
Business Commercial to allow full citizenship rights to those people making their home East
of the Freeway.
[t is the request of All-American Homes, Inc that this commission suggest the Jackson [-5
parcels be recommended onto the LUTC as Business Commercial Zoning.
Sincerely,
A~'
~ ý/
~. Me?/
Steve McNey }
Project Manager .
All-American Homes, Inc
~B'iT '7
i::XH i I ~ -- .
PAGE~'L~F~
Area Facts:
. People will begin to feel like part of the
City if these conveniences are provided.
. The average income East of the freeway
is greater than $68,200.
. There are no grocery stores East on-5.
. There are no dry cleaners East of 1- 5.
. There are no drug stores East of 1- 5.
+ There are no neighborhood restaurants
immediately East ofT-5.
+ This property is more suited for
commercial use.
. The area is in need of these service
Items.
+ This is a perfect tìt and is ofbendìt to
the surrounding neighborhoods.
+ This will bring convenient shopping to
the community East ofI-5.
....J
0
-.J
.....
À
.J acl{souParccls
~teve McNey
~
Project Manager
All American Home!, Inc.
622 S. 320th Street
Federal Way, WA 98003
Phone: 253.765.2255
Fax: 253.946.0559
Emall: !tephenmcney@aol.com
:::~
Just Inlagi9~i
All the City has to offèr, '. '.::
Without the inconveni~nt~tó'(
City Traffic!' .
I--~ -- ---
A Sense of CommunitY
,'/h,,"'~
~
So MUCH MORE...
By having a neighborhood shopping center, not only do
you have convenience at your fingertips, but a variety of
services can be provideq as well.
Cornerstone of convenience located near your
neighborhood.
More than Just a grocery store, It can be a neighbor-
hood center too.
It is the goal of All American Homes, Inc, to bring
tne community together, We feel that this
property would be better suited to provide a
service to the community east of 1-5,
Building a solid foundation in the community starts with
bringing people and business together, The
neighborhoods and businesses have a mutual benefit
Business Commercial zoning would allow tor
service-oriented businesses, such as: a grocery
and dependence upon each other, For example, a
drive-through coffee shop located near a shopping
center and a neighborhood allows for you to have a cup
l of coffee on your way
I to work or it can be a
¡,J great place for
neighborhood
outlet. drugstore, dry cleaners, sandwich !;hop, or
neighborhOod restaurant, etc", all of which could
make the citizens east of 1-5 feel like they are ,.,..
particiPating in the snapping convenience o~e ~
City, without the Intimidation of traffic conge.~n.4""', .
, . }~\....
..1 r~'
All American Homes believes in the "heart" òrï1 rr:
meetings.
Federal Way and the potential we all share as a
growing community. We want to welcome the
We are striving to
encourage quality businesses to entertain the growing
needs of your community. Whether it's a grocery outlet
or drug store, we understand that time with your family
is important and should not be spent sitting in traffic.
citizens of the Potential Annexation Area into the
. City providing essential services to enhance t~
quality of life in this area, ....
~'
r'--\
I-- --. : ,
H,C,"',SO."':<,",',',',',«TI. /' ; ~~
'-5'~'>u,,",J211'" ¡ I
"" 1'1." /
~~ ,~ E
"'m'",' r,II,1I1I1I SI, /
U",..,I \ ""'"' SI
,»,.., ,;-'(iiõ"'¡' , ,r-'--~-~ Is
'"","'c / /
UII,IIIIII,'I '<2,; ;/ /
/ ~ ! / 5." ' '
,^","" "',' -11/ ' : L
! I 1,- /' - n__?,
/' , ' "" 31~n+
/ / """,,' ~r' " r-~Io' ~ r---
/ ! .5 I i ~ !
I(~ /; I ,~ i
I ! ~ II ¿; ,
¡vcr/,f-)',':; :
/ I I ~ ....""~ I
¡,, ,~ I
I ,I I
,: II, / .: /",,1 j ,/...
,\ , (;' / ,'" r
< \,"'- U'cI', ' ,_E,,/ /1/ ,/
... .. I"'~ // .....'"
~ /--1,.. ,//
, / I ' ..... <
", / '" -- ~!/ /:;. ... /'" ø..... ,..'/
" / - ,~""" / ~-«"..
" // -<'" /»",/
.' /~ I / .,,~'" ,.. #1<0/ I
. / r "'~ .'"
,../'/ /'I<?'/'.;<// , '
/ / /' I
/
!
1/
As you can see, the area adjacent to the neighborhood will
be low Impact business buffer and a holding pond. The
neighbors will also have easier access to So. 320th St & 1.5.
City of Federal Way
BC Zoning
S, 320th Street
City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
March 17, 2004
7:00 p.m.
i7"'f¡1It.. !o!." 1:'-'~ fj"'"';'"
b;: #tJIi š bí u it
- ~
~f.,",
~ .~'i\Ãb
~~
r=UF --1.L-
City Hall
CoLlncd Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: John CaulfIeld, I-lope Elder. Dave Osaki, Dim Duclos, BilJ Drake. and Marta
Justus Fold!. CommIssIoners absent: Grant Newport (excused). Alternate Commissioners present:
Christine Nelson Lawson Bronson, and Merle Pfeifer. Altell1ate Commissioners abscnt: Tony Moore
(excused). City CoLlncil present: Mayor Dean McColgan, Council Members Enc Faison and Jeanne
, Burbidge. Staff present: Community Development Services DIrector Kathy McClung, Community
Development Services Deputy Director Greg Fewins, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Associate Planner
Isaac Conlen, Assistant City Attorney Karen Jorgensen, Management Services Director Iwen Wang,
Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Surface Water Manager Paul Bucich, Parks, Recreation, & Cultural Services
Director Jennifer Schroder, Parks, Recreation, & Cultural Services Deputy Director Kurt Rueter, Contract
Planner Janet Shull, Jones & Stokes Gregg Dohl11. Jones & Stokes Lisa Grueter, and Administrative
Assistant E. Tina Piety,
Chair Caulfield called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ArrROV AL OF MINUTES
It was III/sic to adopt the March 3, 2004, minutes as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADMINISTRA TlVE REPORT
None.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
('UBLIC HEARING - Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Subarea ('Ian
M r. Dohrn delivered a presentation on the background of the P AA. He stated these hearings address: I) the
draft P ^^ Subarea Plan; 2) amendments to that plan (site-specdlc requests); and 3) the new Freeway
Commercial zoning designation. These hearings do not address the annexation process. Ms. (ìrueter
delivered a presentation on the purpose and process of the I'^¡\ Subarea I'lan. The CommisSIon discussed
annexations. The current City Council polIcy is to \\alllo hear from citizens if they have an Interest In
annexation. Sll1ce lllcorporation, the City has annexed three areas: two resulted in a net surplus to thc City
and one in a net loss, with an altogether net surplus. There would be an increase 1l1 taxes to areas that
choose to annex to the City because of the City'S utility tax, but they would gain a higher level of serViCC.
It was noted that the I' ^^ Subarea Plan IS not a mechanism to annex areas, but desIgnates the future
zoning for areas if they choose to annex to the City.
K "'bnnong ('nnu"os"on\2004lMeel "'g Summ",y 0\. I 7 ~II~ <I",
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
March 17,2004
EXHIBIT ~
PAGE :2 OF---LL
PUBLIC HEARING - New Freeway Commercial Zoning Classification
Ms. Shull delivered the staff presentation. This new zoning classification is being considered to: provide
unique development opportunities along the 1-5 and SR 18 coITidors; capture retail markets not cuITently
strongly represented in Federal Way; and capture significant tax revenue. An owner of property in the
P AA requested Commercial Business (BC) zoning, but staff felt it was inappropriate. Reasons for this are:
Federal Way already has a lot of land designated commercial, adding to these could work against the City's
plans for the City Center, and the proposed Freeway Commercial zone has fewer uses. New signage
designation is proposed for this new zone. If the Freeway Commercial zone were adopted, goals and
policies would have to be added to the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Shull noted that the height
for pole signs was coITected and changed from 20 to 15 feet.
Commissioners expressed concern that this new zone would draw businesses away from Pacific Highway
South. Ms. Shull commented that the trend seems to be to have enough land available so a number of
different auto dealerships can congregate in an "auto-mall" setting. The Commissioners asked if that is
really the image we want to haveat the entrance to our City. The Commissioners asked if we are lacking in
other retail areas, why not pursue them, as opposed to a new zone. The Commissioners asked if the staff
has a map with all the parcels in the City that would be eligible for this new zone. The Commissioners
want to be sure that this proposed zone would not allow "big-box" retaiL The Commissioners would like to
know if signs are allocated by parcel or use.
P AA Site-Specific Req uests
Ms. Grueter went over the four site-specific requests.
Commissioner Osaki asked that the record reflect that he works for the City of Auburn. Public Testimony
was opened.
Thor Hoyle - He represents the Davis site-specific request. He also submitted written comments.
He feels this request is different from the other site-specific requests because there has been a
business on this parcel since 1946. It has been an office use since 1979. The CUITent King
County zoning is almost the same as Federal Way's Neighborhood Business (BN) zone. It is his
understanding that part of the reason for zoning this residential is the belief that the property
would not be able to meet Federal Way BN requirements. He feels the property can meet these
requirements. He stated there is no way the CUITent building could be turned into a home (it is
only 900 square feet). There is no sewer and the lot is built-out. It is a comer lot, on a road that is
not very busy. It has minimal signage, no parking problems, no egress or ingress issues, and no
retrofit problems. It will stay as it is for the foreseeable future.
Louise Davis - She purchased the property in 1998 and soon ran into legal problems with King
County because it was not zoned for a business. It took a lot of time and effort, but the parcel
was rezoned and she is now legal. It upsets her that she would again be illegal if the staff
recommendation is adopted.
Chuck Gibson - He spoke in regards to the Northlake request and represents the owners. Of 56
owners, 44 signed a petition in favor of RS 9.6, four did not, and eight were not available. The
RS 9.6 zone better fits the neighborhood.
Alan Ulnyg - He spoke in regards to the Davis request. He has known her for several years and
watched her go through the legal hassles. He supports her request. He feels it is better for the
community.
K:IPbnning Commissoonll0041Mceting Sununary 03.17.04 doc/Last printed 4/28/2004 1023 AM
Planning CommissIon Minutes
Page :\
March 17,2004
n;,..:. ~ :'..~ ,. ,_.. :;'~',' 3
./ ,., c; ,.,';:i ~
-~'-~"-' ".~-"'-
GmT Anderson - He spoke In regard~ to the Davlsrequest. He feel;'t~; 'gOv~illïe~t l;làklnU, .
her property rIghts. He reels the land \alue of her property wIll go down if it is zoned resIdential.
He knows the City wants to annex thcm and he doesn't want the City to take her property rights
by downzolllng D&D Accountillg. They arc good for the community. She already went through
the step~ to be legal and now the CII) \\ants to change it back. It would close the busIness. ruIn
then retIrement and put employees out of work.
Christ,. Field - She asked Ifit was true that King County wants to have thcm annex to Federal
V'-/ay and they have no choIce') She ha~ lIvcd herc 40 years and docs not want to be part ofthc
City
The CommissIoners wanted to make It clear that annexatIon \vould happen only i r some citizens 111 the area
ask the City to be annexed.
BJ McMasters - He commented that he has 900 feet on tì-eeway (on Military) and is happy wIth
it. He wants to be in the County, not the City. He has a surface water problem that no one
(county or state) has helped him with
Nei/ Gu/dingm' - He IS not Impressed \\lIh the proposed Freeway Commercial zone. He IS open
to the idea of annexatIon. He feels KlI1g County has done a good job. He would love to see the
City improve Military Road like PacJtìc I-lighway South and make it a safer road. He also stated
that the intersection of 288tl1 and Mllitary needs work in regards to trash, empty buildings. and
vandalism.
Lee Rohic .. He feels the City is taking the Davis property and his property. This will cost him ~/~
million dollars. He feels the City staff IS mean-spirited and deceitful. King County staff is tàlrer
and has more experts. He stated that the City's pcrmitting process is broken and gave the
example ofa church. He stated that he \\'ould tìght if the City attempts to take his property.
Norm Ingersoll - He stated that the map of the Rabie property is inaccurate because it shows a
road that does not exIst. Land is set asIde for the road, but currently it is trees and open space
He is not bvor of the proposed Frec\\ay Commercial zone or annexation. We should not
compete wIth Auburn. but work with them. Whatever happens. the 320([\ bridge over 1-5 needs to
be fIxed. It IS too conge~led. In addItIon. Military Road needs to be made sarer. Hc feels the
mai IlIlgs on thIs Issue \Vcre sporadIc and few people knew of this meetlllg. He knows the CIty
needs more money, but they should not seck more retaIL but other kinds or businesses.
Rick Rccsc. I Ie thanked the COmI1l1S~ll)n for listenIng to the comments. He said ¡hat cars make
no ,c;ense 1'01' a bedroom conlillunlty. I Ie commented that the City should not think Il1 the short-
terill. lIe reels the CIty doesn't rÒlkm the mandate or the voters and cIted Celebration Park as an
example. The CIty needs to look at the earrYlllg capacIty of essential SCTV¡CCS. S¡dc\\'alks, water.
etc. need to bc In place before the ('It\ eontll1ues to develop.
Mie/wc/ /i,d/lcl' [Ie spoke 111 re~;lrd" to the Jackson request. lie II ve~ near the proposal. Thc
topography l!l;\[ surroullds those !ot; h \ery dilìì:rent lrom the Ilortheastern side. The proposed
new I'recway ('ommerelal/.one would he better I~lelllg -'20th: hut not near the Slllgle-LlIl1Ily lots
Oil the northcast.
/llo(Jl'c She commented that an anlck In the paper s;lId that annexlI1g these areas would cost
more than it IS worth. She feels large signs by the highway would distract drivers.
K 1't."""",C""""""""è"""\h"",S"""".","'t7.".d""t.""t""""¡'>è",,.l<lè\"M
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
..~ rf'...ti.:.r:',r;er-, 0 March 17.2004
.~ .~.~:' L i; L~.; i! ij __--1l'_m_~"~'
,-.. "';~~ u fï JU
.. -- .--.---:,¡..--.-- ---. 'w.~..,
Lawson Bronson. A Ilemale Planning Commissioner ~ Does the staff know how many parcels 111
the P AA have been rezoned from commercial? He feels the proposed Freeway Commercial zone
is a separate issue and asked why are we creatll1g a specIal classification for one request
(Jackson), but not another (DavIs)? He feels the PAA study should deal with the financial
aspects but not the zomng. until such tIme an area actually annexes to Fedcral Way. He feels that
this way we are imposll1g zomng on people who cannot vote for Federal Way CouncIl Members.
He asked If this IS Implemented, what would be the impact on people who want to change their
zoning before their area annexes to Federal Way (if it ever does)?
Ann Blackwell - She lIves near the Davis property. She commented that the traftìc IS heavy on
Military Road. There are times she feels she risks her lIfe when pullll1g out of her driveway.
Jackie Moore - She spoke to the impact on the N0l1hlake area. She said it would cost more
money to annex and it would come out of our pocket book (property owners).
There was no further pubJic testimony. Since the pubJic hearings will be continued, further pubJic
testimony will be allowed. Challl11an Caulfield read three letters Illto the record.
The Commissioner;; asked about the way in which policIes are stated. Some say, "City shall do this" and
others say, "County shall do this," what does this mean? The Commissioners asked who is and is not the
governing body of the PAA? They asked that a representative from the County be invited to the next
public hearing. They would like to know how many multI-family parcels are developed and undeveloped.
They requested that the Freeway Commercial proposal be "tightened"; taking into account the issues raised
at this meeting. They would like to know what water body feeds the wetland on the Jackson property and is
there any opportunity for off-site mitigation? They would like an aerial photo of the Jackson site and BP A
easement in order to gain a feel for how much of the site could be developed.
It was ill/sic to continue the pubJic hearings to Wednesday, April 7, 2004, in the City Council Chambers at
7:00 p.m.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
None.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADJOURN
The mcctll1g was adjourned at 9:53 p.m.
K I'L"""n,Cn""n""""2<H'4,\1êClin,Su""n."yll\.17-04d,,,/l.asll'nnlnl4'" 20114 102.\.\\1
City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
~_. L
PAGE 6 OF -JL~
April 7, 2004
7:00 p.m.
City Hall
Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Hope Elder, Dave Osaki. Dim Duclos, and Grant Newport.
Commissioners absent: Marta Justus Foldi and Bill Drake (excused). Alternate Commissioners present:
Christine Nelson Lawson Bronson, Tony Moore. and Merle Pfeifer. Alternate Commissioners absent:
None. City Council present: Council Members Eric Faison and Jeanne Burbidge. Staff present:
Community Development Services Director Kathy McClung. Community Development Services Deputy
Director Greg Fewlns, Associate Planner Isaac Conlen, Assistant City Attorney Karen Jorgensen,
Management Services Director Iwen Wang, Traffic Engineer Rick Perez. Contract Planner Janet Shull,
Jones & Stokes Gregg Dohm, Jones & Stokes Lisa Grueter. and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety.
Chair Caulfield called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
ApPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was ¡¡¡Islc to adopt the March 17,2004, minutes as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None,
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Ms. Wang deltvered a presentation on the City of Federal Way 2005 ~ 2006 Blcnnial Budget. She noted
that while the City's tax burden is $63 higher than King County's, the City provides more services, and a
tax break for low-ll1come senior citizens is available.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ~ Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Sllbare~1 Plan
Mr. Conlen went over thc stairs responses to thc Commission's and public's questIons from the last
. meeting. The Commission questioned where access would be for the Jackson request. Mr. Perez responded
that the prImary access would probably bc from 32"" A vcnue South. The Washington [)epaI1ment of
Transportation would have to approve any access to/lì'om 320111 Street and If they allowed any access, it
most ltkely would be nght-m/nght-out only.
Mr. Dohrn addrcssed the Kl11g County polielcs question raised at the last meetIng. lie statcd that the stall
had spokcn to KlI1g County about provldll1g a represcntative for this meeting, but ncgotiations fell through.
One concern King County has about providll1g a representative is that they arc working with the City
Manager's ollíec on this issue and want to be sure no miscoml11unication occurs. King County will not
adopt the City's PAA Subarea Plan, but would view it, and the policies contained therein, as advisory, If
K IPbnnmb c,,""""""n\2004\Mwmb S"""""'y (407.(4 (k,c
Planning Conunission Minutes
Amil 7, 2004
PAGE
(p
OF --LL
the City feels strongly about any of the policies, they can enter into negotiations with King County to
encourage King County to adopt said policies.
PUBLIC HEARING - New Freeway Commercial Zoning Classification
Ms. Shull went over the staffs responses to the Commission's questions and comments from the last
meeting. The staff had removed SR 18 from the recommendation and the Commission asked if staff had
considered including SR 18 east of 1-5.
Michael Tischler - He showed a PowerPoint presentation of the area with aerial and ground
photos of the single-family homes on 32"d and 3161h. He commented that the last report said one
of the goals of the change is to make adjacent parcels more alike. He feels his presentation
shows the change will actually make adjacent parcels more different.
Del Carlino - He lives on Lake Ooloff and asked if the City was planning to annex the area.
The Commission explained that this process only adopts future comprehensive plan zoning designations
for the area that would take effect only if citizens in the area request that they be annexed to the City.
Roy Ruffino - He spoke on the Jackson request. He stated it seems to be an adversarial issue and
most neighbors are against it. He commented that off-site mitigation would not do any good in
this area. He requested the City consider future relations with neighbors in the area when making
their decision.
Karen Bush - She stated her opposition to the Jackson request.
James Awarado - He stated his opposition to the Jackson request. He commented it would
decrease the quality of life in the area. There would be more traffic and more lights at night.
Steve McNey - He is with All American Homes and represents the Jackson request. He
commented that the Freeway Commercial zone is a compromise for them. They did not request
this zoning from the City; rather they want Community Business (Be) so they can build a
grocery store. A grocery store would decrease the traffic traveling west on 320'h. A grocery store
in this area would also capture traffic going to Auburn. They want to do a development that
would be good for the neighborhood and the City. He stated they have been negotiating with
King County and the County supports the BC zoning. He stated they have spoken with car
dealerships and the dealerships say the sign code would be a deterrent. They have heard from
grocery chains wanting to locate in the area. He commented that this side of 32"d would not
make good residential property. One reason is because of the freeway noise.
Gary Anderson - He stated his opposition to the Jackson request. He said that due to Mr.
McNey's comments, most of what he had to say has gone out the window. He commented that
he wants to keep auto dealerships out of the area. He lives only 60 feet away from the Jackson
property. Planning philosophy denotes a gradual change from one use to another. This would be
a sharp change. It would reduce the value of the homes in the area. He gave the Commission a
petition signed by 52 people opposed to the zoning change. It would impact more than just his
neighborhood. It would make traffic on 320'h much worse. He feels it is not right that
representatives that people in the neighborhood cannot vote for are making this decision.
Louise Davis - She is the applicant for the Davis request. She asked if there are any other
properties comparable to hers (staff replied the Sutherland Grocery and Gas property is similar,
but it is abandoned). She challenged the Commission to consider that property; it hasn't operated
KIPlann;ng Convn;ssoon\2oo4\M«t;ng Summary 04-O7-O4dodLast printed 4/28/2004 1023 AM
Planning Commission Minutes
April 7, 2004
7 OF-LL
in years while hers is a thriving business. She spent a lot of money to re-establish her property as
commercial with King County and does not want to do again for the City. It would not be
possible for this to be a residential lot.
PAGE
Bryan Cope - He spoke on the Jackson request. He lives nearby. The City should keep
businesses together and not place them out here. An auto mall should go along Pacific Highway
near the other auto dealerships. There is no visibility of the property from 1-5 from the south and
it would be a distraction from the north. Freeway Commercial zoning would change the City's
"curb appeal." The City should work with SeaTac Mall to get more businesses to locate at the
mall. Because of the wetlands, developing the Jackson property would be more trouble than it is
worth. There is already a lot of noise in the neighborhood due to 1-5 and this would increase the
nOIse.
Lois Kutscha - She spoke in favor of the Northlake request. She wants to see the zoning
changed from six to four houses per acre.
Carla Laslella - She spoke on the Jackson request. She had figured it would be office park, like
other properties in the area. She is concerned for the children in the area who ride their bikes
along 32od and 3161h. She is concerned auto dealerships would bring in transients who have no
feeling for the community. She feels access to the site would make more sense if it were from
the freeway as opposed to 32od.
Steve Charles - He spoke on the Davis request. As a small business owner, he knows the
Davis's look upon this business as their retirement and it would be very detrimental to them to
lose it. He commented that the building would not work as a home. Because 308'h Place is in the
wrong place, according to the title insurance, the property is in the road. Because of this when
they remolded, they had to change the setback on the second floor. There is only one bathroom
and no place to put a second. There is no place a garage could go. The current building would
have to be demolished in order to have a residential use on the property.
Pam Ditzhazy - She spoke in opposition to the Jackson request. She lives on the comer of 32nd
and 316'h. She is concerned about the noise and light auto dealerships would bring. She is also
concerned about the safety of the children and the increased traffic.
Lawson Bronson, Alternate Planning Commissioner - If the Jackson applicant does not want
Freeway Commercial, what other uses would be good for this area? Since they don't want it,
why pursue the Freeway Commercial zoning? The City needs to communicate more clearly
about the P AA issue because miscommunication has caused unneeded stress.
The Commissioners commented that the P AA Subarea Plan has been in the works for 1 Yz to 2 years.
Numerous public meetings have been held that have been mailed to various citizens and agencies within
the PAA, and advertised in the paper and on the City's TV Channel.
Doug Parter - He spoke on the Davis request. He commented that community members do not
have the ability to fight policy and that is what this is about.
Val Caulder - He spoke in opposition of the Jackson request. A through street to 320lh would
increase traffic on 3161h because people would use it to avoid the intersection of 320'h and
Military. It would be a faster way to 1-5. Currently they ride horses on 316(h and would no longer
be able to do that.
K:\Planning Commission\2004\Meding Summary G4.07-O4.doclLast printed 4/28/ZOO4 10.23 AM
(E}{li I B ~T
PP¡~H: ?3
<6
OF -1L
April 7, 2004
Planning Commission Minutes.
Page 4
Lisa Fritz - She spoke in opposition of the Jackson request. The streets in this neighborhood are
currently wonderful to walk along, but this would increase the traffic and they would no longer
be safe.
The Commission discussed the site-specific requests. The Commission would like to know King County's
plans for zoning on the Jackson property and clarity on the access for the Jackson property. They would
like to know the uses allowed by the concomitant agreement for property to the east of the Jackson request.
They would like to know what properties could be zoned Freeway Commercial. The Commission would
like to know why the Sutherland Grocery and Gas property is identified as a cultural resource. It was m/s/c
to continue the Public Hearings to Wednesday, April 21, 2004, in the City Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
None.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
KcIPlanning ColTß\Íssion\2OO4\Meeting Summary ()4.07.04.dodLast printed 4/28/2004 1023 AM
City of Federal Way k£XHiBrr
PLANNING COMMISSION. '.' .'
'"",<'4 A- J
Regular Meeting ~"',~{;jt "'" .
y
fñ.. ;$ ~ I I
Vi---LL-
April 21, 2004
7:00 p.m.
City Hall
Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Dini Duclos, Bill Drake, and Grant
Newp0l1. Commissioners absent: Marta Justus Foldi (excused). Alternate Commissioners present: Lawson
Bronson, Tony Moore, and Merle Pfeifer. Alternate Commissioners absent: Christine Nelson (unexcused).
City Council present: Deputy Mayor Linda Kochmar and Council Member Jeanne Burbidge. Staff present:
Community Development Services Director Kathy McClung, Community Development Services Deputy
Director Greg Fewins, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Associate Planner Isaac Conlen, Assistant City
Attorney Karen Jorgensen, Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Contract Planner Janet Shull, Jones & Stokes Lisa
Grueter, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety.
Chair Caulfield called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
ApPROV AL OF MINUTES
It was ill/sic to adopt the April 7,2004, minutes as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HE^RING - Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Subarea Plan
Mr. Conlen delivered a presentation on questions raised at the last public hearing. It was stated that a
development agreement is an option for the RabIe property.
PUBLIC HE^RING - Ncw Freeway Commcrcial Zoning Classification
Ms. Shull delivered a presentation on questions raised at the last public hearing. Because the Commission
wanted to know what parcels this proposed zonlllg could be applIed to, she showed a map of the current
zoning in the areas considcrcd for this proposed zoning classification. Ms. Shull commented that if this
zoning classi ¡¡cation IS approved, any owner \\ishll1g to apply thIs proposcd zone to their property would
have to go through thc City's Comprehensiw Plan Amendment process.
PUBLIC III'~^{ING - 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amcndmcnts - Quadrant Sitc-Spccific Rcqucst
Ms. Clark delIvered the staff report. CommissIoner Newport recused himself from the Quadrant site-
specific request. ThIs IS a request to delete a proposed road from the Federal Way Co/ll¡Jre!te/lsive Pla/l
(FWCP). The road in question is an extension of Weyerhaeuser Way. The City Council required the
K \1'1;o"""'g C..n"n""",,\2004\Mcet;,,~ Suu""uy 04.21-04 d..,
Planning Commission Minutes
Page EXHIBIT
<:6
April 21, 2004
applicant to prepare a traffic study analyzing the effects of de~~n9~iS sJe~l ftoQ~~ensive
plan. The study concluded that no roadway improvements would be needed by 2020 as a result of the
proposed action. Due to this proposal, Mr. Perez asked the Commission to consider amending the
comprehensive plan to make 32nd Avenue South a principal collector from South 320lh Street to
approximately South 3161h Street.
The meeting was opened to public testimony. Commissioner Duclos infonned the Commission that she
had spoken to Steve McNey and encouraged him to bring his comments to this public hearing.
Wally Costello - Applicant for the Quadrant request. He explained their proposal for the parcels
the road would pass through and showed how the road would be detrimental to the proposed
project. There are wetlands on the property that will restrict development and a road would
restrict it further.
Joanne Kirkland - She spoke in opposition of the Jackson request. She stated that the map in the
staff report shows 3121h as a through street (from 32nd to Military), but it is not. The report also
says that a grocery store would decrease the amount of traffic in the area, but how could adding
retail decrease the amount of traffic? She also commented that she recently learned that the P AA
process has been going on for some two years, but this is the first she has heard about it. She is
concerned that annexation would raise taxes and services would go down. This is a safe area for
children and she is concerned that will change.
Chainnan Caulfield asked if King County mailed a notification of the PAA Subarea Plan to those within
the PAA? Ms. Grueter replied thatthe issue was on the King County website, but for the most part, the
City of Federal Way mailed the notifications. A notification had been sent in the utility mailings.
Charles Gibson - He spoke his support of the Northlake request and said he was available ifthe
Commission had any questions.
Cindy Cope - She spoke in opposition of the Jackson request. She feels there is no need to bring
more retail into the area. There is a lot of available retail space in Federal Way, such as the
vacant theater and empty spaces in the Mall and Ross Plaza and SeaTac Village, etc. This area is
a very private neighborhood that is safe for children to ride their bikes. Opening 32nd would
bring more traffic, which would make it more dangerous for children to ride their bikes and
would bring in more crime.
Steve McNey - He is the Jackson property manager. They want Community Business (Be)
zoning because they feel they can best serve the neighborhood and the City with that zoning.
They are not trying to compete with the downtown core. A grocery store in this area would
decrease traffic on 320tll, would proved a tax base to the City, and would provide a service to the
neighborhood. They have submitted a docket to King County asking for a zoning change to
commercial business.
Kristen Wynne - She spoke in opposition of the Jackson request. She feels the proposed Freeway
Commercial zone is not compatible with existing uses. If a car dealership were to go into the
area, it would mean more lights and noise. She commented that 320lh is already a disaster area
on the weekends. A more intense traffic study should be done before a decision is made. In
addition, in tenns of aesthetics, a car dealership at the entrance to Federal Way is a step in the
wrong direction.
KIPlanning Corrmission\2004lMwing Sunmary 04-21-04.doc
Planning Comnússion Minutes
Apri121,2004
Page EXHIBI1 ~
PAGE---U-OF --1L
Public testimony was closed. It was m/s/c (unanimous) to recommend adoption of the Neighborhood
Business comprehensive plan designation and Neighborhood Business (BN) zoning for the Davis P AA
site-specific request. It was m/s/c (unanimous) to recommend adoption of the Single Family, High Density
comprehensive plan designation and Single Family 9.6 zoning for the Northlake P AA site-specific request.
The Commission discussed how the owner of the Rabie P AA sit-specific request could utilize a
development agreement. Mr. Fewins infonned the Commission that annexation of this area is not
anticipated in the near future and the owner plans to develop soon. It was m/s/f(one yes, four no, one
abstain) to recommend adoption of the Neighborhood Business comprehensive plan designation and
Neighborhood Business (BN) zoning for the Rabie P AA site-specific request. The Commission expressed
concern over downzoning the property. It was m/s/f(three yes, three no) to recommend adoption of the
Single Family, High Density comprehensive plan designation and Single Family 7.2 zoning for the Rabie
P AA site-specific request; with the stipulation that the Planning Commission feels strongly that a self-
storage/mini-storage use would be an acceptable use on this site. After further discussion, it was concluded
that the Rabie P AA site-specific request would go forward with no Planning Commission recommendation.
It was m/s/f(one yes, five no) to recommend adoption of the Community Business comprehensive plan
designation and Community Business (Be) zoning for the Jackson P AA site-specific request. It was m/slc
(four yes, two no) to recommend adoption of the Office Park comprehensive plan designation and Office
Park (OP) zoning to the south part of the Jackson P AA site-specific request, and Single Family High
Density comprehensive plan designation and Single Family RS 9.6 zoning to the north part of the Jackson
P AA site-specific request.
It was m/s/c (five yes, one no) to recommend adoption of the staff recommendation for the New Freeway
Commercial Zoning Classification. It was m/slc (unanimous) to recommend adoption, with the
aforementioned changes, of the staff recommendation for the PAA Subarea Plan. It was m/s/c (four yes, one
no, one excused) to recommended adoption of the staff recommendation for the Quadrant site-specific
request with the amendment that 32od Avenue South, from South 320th Street to approximately South 3161h
Street, would be reclassified from a minor to a principal collector, it would use Cross Section "0," Map III-
6 would be modified to reflect this, and 32od A venue South from South 320lh Street to approximately South
3161h Street would replace Weyerhaeuser Way as Map ID #35 on Table III-19.
The Public Hearings were closed at 8:55. These items will be scheduled for the May 3, 2004, City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee, which will meet at 5:30 p.m. in City HaIJ Council Chambers.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
None.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
KIPlanning Commissionl2004lMeeting Summary 04 -21-04 doc
City of Federal Way
City Council
land Useffransportation Committee
May 3, 2004
5:30 p.m.
City Hall
Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
In attendance: Committee Members Jack Dovey, Chair, Eric Faison and Michael Park; Mayor Dean McColgan, Deputy Mayor
Linda Kochmar, Council Member Jeanne Burbidge; City Manager David Moseley; Community Development Services Director
Kathy McClung; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Parks, Recreation, & Cultural Services Deputy Director Kurt Rueter; Deputy
City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick; Community Development Services Deputy Director Greg Fewins; Senior Planner Margaret
Clark; Senior Planner Jim Harris; Associate Planner Isaac Conlen; Surface Water Manager Paul Bucich; Traffic Engineer Rick
Perez; Surface Water Project Engineer Fei Tang; Contract Planner Janet Shull; Jones & Stokes Gregg Dohrn; Jones & Stokes
Lisa Grueter; Anderson Young Company Randy Young; and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety.
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Dovey called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm.
It was mlslc to change the order of section 4, Business Items, of the agenda to B, D, F, G, H, I, E, C, and A.
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The summary minutes of the April 19, 2004, meeting was approved as presented.
3.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
4.
BUSINESS ITEMS
B. RFB 04-110; Sewer Extension Bellacarino Woods - Bid RejectionlRequest to Re-Bid -The apparent low bidder
has requested authorization to withdraw their bid claiming that it did not include Washington State sales tax in accordance
with the contract specifications. Staff is not recommending awarding the project to any other bidders because: the second
lowest bidder incorrectly added sales tax as a lump sum; the third bidder did not enter a total bid amount on the bid form;
and the fourth bidder's total amount exceeded the authorized construction budget. The LUTC would like staff to include
clarifying language regarding the sales tax requirements in future request for bids documents. The LUTC mlslc to place the
following project recommendations on the May 18, 2004, City Council Consent Agenda: 1) reject all bids received on April
5, 2004, for the RFB 04-110 Bellacarino Woods Sewer Extension Project (located in the vicinity of SW 356thStreet and 6th
Avenue SW); and 2) authorize SWM staff to re-bid the project and return to the City Council for authorization to award the
. project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder within available funding.
D. Kitts Corner Development Plan & Development Agreement Update - Staff has a preliminary site plan and is
bringing this issue to the LUTC to make sure they are moving in the right direction and for initial feedback on the proposal.
Len Schaad! - He is the owner of two of the properties for this proposal and represents the rest. They began
this process in 1999. It started as a rezone, but with the City's request for a village concept, became much
more. The owners hired an architect and someone to prepare a market study on the proposal. As the project
developed, they hired additional experts (transportation engineer, land use attorney, etc.) in order to develop a
preliminary site plan acceptable to the City. The project has been scaled back from the original idea and will
have a softer impact. The owners are not developers and do not plan to do the actual development; therefore
the preliminary site plan is a conceptual design.
LUTC feels the preliminary site plan is very well done. It was stated that the market study prepared for this proposal shows
a demand for townhouses and not apartments. There is a parcel to the south that would make sense to include. The owner
had been approached in the past and has shown no interest in being a part of this proposal, but this was a long time ago.
Councilmember Faison suggested this owner again be approached to see if he may now be interested in participating
F. Overview of 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -Ms. Clark presented an overview because there are a
number of components to the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
K\lUTC Agendas and Surnmanes 2004\May 3. 2004. LUTC Mnutesdoc
G. P AA Subarea Plan -This is a component of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The Potential Annexation
Area (PM) Subarea Plan assigns Federal Way Zoning to parcels in the City's PM, in anticipation of a time the area is
annexed. The Federal Way Zoning would not take effect until the area is annexed and annexation would occur only if the
citizens of the area request it.
Steve McNey, All American Homes - He represents the Jackson request. They want a commercial type zoning
and have requested Business Commercial zoning from King County. They had originally supported Freeway
Commercial zoning for the site, but they discovered that car dealerships have no interest in the site. They
would like City zoning of Community Business (BC) so that they can build a grocery store. They do not support
the Planning Commission recommendation of a split of Office Park and residential zoning. They feel it would
reduce the value of the property and would mean a smaller amount of the property could be developed due to
the large wetland buffer. They propose to have a grocery store near 320lh Street with parking under the power
lines and a public park close to the neighborhood. They want to be a part of Federal Way and intend to annex.
Louise Davis - She is the owner of the Davis property. This is a thriving business. She worked with King
County to have the property zoned commercial and to have it rezoned back to residential would be a tragedy.
Mr. Dohrn delivered a presentation on the background of this project and Ms. Grueter delivered a presentation on the
process, purpose, key elements, and the plan itself. Mr. Young delivered a presentation on the financial aspects of the plan
and of annexing the PM. The overall picture is negative from simply a cash outlook, but he stated that the decision to
annex is about more than just the financial issues. The City should ask if it is important to the City to be a cohesive whole
by including the PM. There are three assumptions critical for understanding the PM Feasibility Study: 1) the level of
service in the PM would be the same as currently in the City; 2) the level of service in the future would remain the same as
now; and 3) the study is based on current state law and City practices. There are six strategies in the PM Feasibility Study
for how to address the negative fiscal impacts
Ms. Greuter went over the site-specific requests and explained the staff and Planning Commission recommendations.
Discussion was held on each of the requests. It was m/s/c to recommend Neighborhood Business (BN) zoning for the
Davis Site-Specific Request. It was m/s/c to recommend Single-Family High Density zoning (RS 9.6) for the North Lake
Site-Specific Request. It was m/s/c (two yes, one no) to recommend BN zoning for the Rabie Site-Specific Request.
The Jackson Site-Specific request was tabled until the next LUTC meeting. It was felt this request could not be adequately
addressed without an understanding of the proposed Freeway Commercial (FC) zone; therefore, Ms. Shull delivered a
presentation on the proposed FC zone. The intent is that this zone would capture retail markets not currently locating in
Federal Way, and would thereby increase the City's tax base.
Steve McNey - He likes the FC zone. At first they were considering a car dealership for the Jackson property,
but car dealerships are not interested in the Jackson area. We don't want to negatively affect the
neighborhood, which is why we are proposing a park, and maybe residential, to the north and a grocery store
to the south. We feel a store in this area would lessen the traffic congestion going into Federal Way.
Cindy Cope - She lives in the neighborhood near the Jackson request and has signed a neighborhood petition
that the northern part of the Jackson request should be zoned residential. Anything else would negatively
affect property values and the quality of tife for the neighborhood. We don't need additional retail space in
Federal Way; there are a number of spaces that are currently vacant, such as the former theater. Currently,
the neighborhood is safe for children and their bikes, but that would change with commercial zoning. She
commented that the neighborhood thought the Planning Commission decision/recommendation was a "done
deal" and didn't realize there would be further meetings on the matter.
The LUTC would like to see a comparison of the proposed FC zone with comparable zones in other cities. They would like
to see a comparison of the proposed FC zone with the City's Community Business (BC) zone. The LUTC asked staff to
research whether to allow pole signs in the FC zone and whether a 25-foot tall sign would be tall enough to be visible from
the freeway. The LUTC m/s/c to recommend the City Council adopt the PM Subarea Plan with the Davis, North Lake, and
Rabie Site-Specific Requests as modified, and to table the Jackson Site-Specific Request to the next LUTC meeting.
H. Proposed New Freeway Commercial Zone - This is a component of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
The issue was tabled to the next LUTC meeting.
I. Quadrant Site-Specific Request - This is a component of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. This is a
request to delete the planned extension of Weyerhaeuser Way South, north of South 320th Street, as shown on Map 111-278
(2003-2020 Regional Capital Improvement Plan [CIP]) from the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) and to delete
this project from FWCP Table 111-19 (Regional CIP Project List). It was mls/wto approve the staff recommendation in order
to allow public testimony.
KILUTC Agendas and Summaries 2004\May 3. 2004. LUTC Minutes doc
Cindy Cope - Why should 32nd Avenue South be extended to 3161h? The area is residential and getting in and
out via 3161h works fine. Extending the road would bring in traffic that has no reason to enter the area and
would open us up to crime.
Mr. Perez commented that the FWCP supports through roads because Federal Way does not have enough. There is a
planned extension of 312'" over 1-5 and west to Auburn. and the extension for 32nd would be needed for a link (this will not
happen for many years, but it is planned in the FWCP). This is a long-term project. The LUTC m/s/c to recommend that the
full Council accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and adopt an ordinance ap~roving the request by
Quadrant to delete the planned extension of Weyerhaeuser Way South, north of South 3201 Street, shown on FWCP Map
111-278 (2003-2020 Regional CIP): delete the project from FWCP Table 111-19 (Regional CIP Project List), replacing it with
32nd Avenue South: and amend (per the Planning Commission Recommendation) FWCP Maps 111-5, 111-6, and 111-278 as
set forth in the April 27, 2004, LUTC Memorandum.
E. Amendments to Countywide Planning Policies to Designate Downtown Auburn as an Urban Center - The
LUTC m/s/c the staff recommendation to move forward to the full Council approval of the amendment to the Countywide
Planning Policies to designate Downtown Auburn as an Urban Center.
C. Trip Reduction Performance Incentive for Federal Way Employers - Washington State's Commute Trip Reduction
(CTR) Law is intended to improve air quality and reduce fuel consumption and traffic congestion through employer-based
programs encouraging the use of alternatives to single occupant vehicles (SOV) for the commute trip. The trip reduction
performance incentive program is a six-month demonstration program designed to reduce commute traffic within the City
by converting SOV commuters to other commuting options. The program introduces trip-reduction strategies to smaller
employers not affected by the CTR program. Staff proposes to use the Traffic Division's operating fund to support this
project. The LUCT m/s/c placing the following project recommendations on the May 18, 2004, City Council Consent
Agenda: 1) authorize staff to proceed with the Trip Reduction Performance Incentive Program for Federal Way Employers:
2) authorize staff to incorporate the incentive program into the next CTR contract with King County Metro (the existing
contract will expire June 30, 2004): and 3) authorize staff to use the Traffic Division's operating funds of $5,050 as a match
toward the project.
A. Potential Annexation Area Expansion - The City Council requested staff to look into the feasibility of annexing an
unincorporated area in Pierce County that is located within Tacoma's Urban Growth Area (UGA). The LUTC m/s/c directing
staff to initiate a Pierce County Comprehensive Plan Amendment and to gather data and acquire Geographic Information
Systems layers.
5.
FUTURE MEETING
The next scheduled meeting is May 17, 2004.
6.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
K ILU] e /\iJ"l1d,"; ,HId SlII11111dliCS 2001\M;ty:\. 200.1. Lure MaWI",; doc
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
May 3, 2004
5:30 p.m.
City Hall
Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
In attendance: Committee Members Jack Dovey, Chair, Eric Faison and Michael Park; Mayor Dean McColgan, Deputy Mayor
Linda Kochmar, Council Member Jeanne Burbidge; City Manager David Moseley; Community Development Services Director
Kathy McClung; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Parks, Recreation, & Cultural Services Deputy Director Kurt Rueter; Deputy
City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick; Community Development Services Deputy Director Greg Fewins; Senior Planner Margaret
Clark; Senior Planner Jim Harris; Associate Planner Isaac Conlen; Surface Water Manager Paul Bucich; Traffic Engineer Rick
Perez; Surface Water Project Engineer Fei Tang; Contract Planner Janet Shull; Jones & Stokes Gregg Dohrn; Jones & Stokes
Lisa Grueter; Anderson Young Company Randy Young; and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Dovey called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm.
It was m/slc to change the order of section 4, Business Items, of the agenda to B, D, F, G, H, I, E, C, and A.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The summary minutes of the April 19, 2004, meeting was approved as presented.
3.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
4.
BUSINESS ITEMS
B. RFB 04-110; Sewer Extension Bellacarino Woods - Bid Rejection/Request to Re-Bid -The apparent low bidder
has requested authorization to withdraw their bid claiming that it did not include Washington State sales tax in accordance
with the contract specifications. Staff is not recommending awarding the project to any other bidders because: the second
lowest bidder incorrectly added sales tax as a lump sum; the third bidder did not enter a total bid amount on the bid form;
and the fourth bidder's total amount exceeded the authorized construction budget. The LUTC would like staff to include
clarifying language regarding the sales tax requirements in future request for bids documents. The LUTC m/slc to place the
following project recommendations on the May 18, 2004, City Council Consent Agenda: 1) reject all bids received on April
5,2004, for the RFB 04-110 Bellacarino Woods Sewer Extension Project (located in the vicinity of SW 356th Street and 6th
Avenue SW); and 2) authorize SWM staff to re-bid the project and return to the City Council for authorization to award the
project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder within available funding.
D. Kitts Corner Development Plan & Development Agreement Update - Staff has a preliminary site plan and is
bringing this issue to the LUTC to make sure they are moving in the right direction and for initial feedback on the proposal.
Len Schaadt - He is the owner of two of the properties for this proposal and represents the rest. They began
this process in 1999. It started as a rezone, but with the City's request for a village concept, became much
more. The owners hired an architect and someone to prepare a market study on the proposal. As the project
developed, they hired additional experts (transportation engineer, land use attorney, etc.) in order to develop a
preliminary site plan acceptable to the City. The project has been scaled back from the original idea and will
have a softer impact. The owners are not developers and do not plan to do the actual development; therefore
the preliminary site plan is a conceptual design.
LUTC feels the preliminary site plan is very well done. It was stated that the market study prepared for this proposal shows
a demand for townhouses and not apartments. There is a parcel to the south that would make sense to include. The owner
had been approached in the past and has shown no interest in being a part of this proposal, but this was a long time ago.
Councilmember Faison suggested this owner again be approached to see if he may now be interested in participating.
F. Overview of 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments -Ms. Clark presented an overview because there are a
number of components to the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
K:\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2004\May 3, 2004, LUTC Minutes.doc
G. PAA Subarea Plan -This is a component of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The Potential Annexation
Area (PM) Subarea Plan assigns Federal Way Zoning to parcels in the City's PM, in anticipation of a time the area is
annexed. The Federal Way Zoning would not take effect until the area is annexed and annexation would occur only if the
citizens of the area request it.
Steve McNey, All American Homes - He represents the Jackson request. They want a commercial type zoning
and have requested Business Commercial zoning from King County. They had originally supported Freeway
Commercial zoning for the site, but they discovered that car dealerships have no interest in the site. They
would like City zoning of Community Business (BC) so that they can build a grocery store. They do not support
the Planning Commission recommendation of a split of Office Park and residential zoning. They feel it would
reduce the value of the property and would mean a smaller amount of the property could be developed due to
the large wetland buffer. They propose to have a grocery store near 320th Street with parking under the power
lines and a public park close to the neighborhood. They want to be a part of Federal Way and intend to annex.
Louise Davis - She is the owner of the Davis property. This is a thriving business. She worked with King
County to have the property zoned commercial and to have it rezoned back to residential would be a tragedy.
Mr. Dohrn delivered a presentation on the background of this project and Ms. Grueter delivered a presentation on the
process, purpose, key elements, and the plan itself. Mr. Young delivered a presentation on the financial aspects of the plan
and of annexing the PM. The overall picture is negative from simply a cash outlook, but he stated that the decision to
annex is about more than just the financial issues. The City should ask if it is important to the City to be a cohesive whole
by including the PM. There are three assumptions critical for understanding the PM Feasibility Study: 1) the level of
service in the PAA would be the same as currently in the City; 2) the level of service in the future would remain the same as
now; and 3) the study is based on current state law and City practices. There are six strategies in the PAA Feasibility Study
for how to address the negative fiscal impacts
Ms. Greuter went over the site-specific requests and explained the staff and Planning Commission recommendations.
Discussion was held on each of the requests. It was m/s/c to recommend Neighborhood Business (BN) zoning for the
Davis Site-Specific Request. It was m/slc to recommend Single-Family High Density zoning (RS 9.6) for the North Lake
Site-Specific Request. It was m/s/c (two yes, one no) to recommend BN zoning for the Rabie Site-Specific Request.
The Jackson Site-Specific request was tabled until the next LUTC meeting. It was felt this request could not be adequately
addressed without an understanding of the proposed Freeway Commercial (FC) zone; therefore, Ms. Shull delivered a
presentation on the proposed FC zone. The intent is that this zone would capture retail markets not currently locating in
Federal Way, and would thereby increase the City's tax base.
Steve McNey - He likes the FC zone. At first they were considering a car dealership for the Jackson property,
but car dealerships are not interested in the Jackson area. We don't want to negatively affect the
neighborhood, which is why we are proposing a park, and maybe residential, to the north and a grocery store
to the south. We feel a store in this area would lessen the traffic congestion going into Federal Way.
Cindy Cope - She lives in the neighborhood near the Jackson request and has signed a neighborhood petition
that the northern part of the Jackson request should be zoned residential. Anything else would negatively
affect property values and the quality of life for the neighborhood. We don't need additional retail space in
Fede.ral Way; there are a number of spaces that are currently vacant, such as the former theater. Currently,
the neighborhood is safe for children and their bikes, but that would change with commercial zoning. She
commented that the neighborhood thought the Planning Commission decision/recommendation was a "done
deal" and didn't realize there would be further meetings on the matter.
The LUTC would like to see a comparison of the proposed FC zone with comparable zones in other cities. They would like
to see a comparison of the proposed FC zone with the City's Community Business (BC) zone. The LUTC asked staff to
research whether to allow pole signs in the FC zone and whether a 25-foot tall sign would be tall enough to be visible from
the freeway. The LUTC m/s/c to recommend the City Council adopt the PM Subarea Plan with the Davis, North Lake, and
Rabie Site-Specific Requests as modified, and to table the Jackson Site-Specific Request to the next LUTC meeting.
H. Proposed New Freeway Commercial Zone - This is a component of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
The issue was tabled to the next LUTC meeting.
I. Quadrant Site-Specific Request - This is a component of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. This is a
request to delete the planned extension of Weyerhaeuser Way South, north of South 320th Street, as shown on Map III-27B
(2003-2020 Regional Capital Improvement Plan [CIP]) from the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) and to delete
this project from FWCP Table 111-19 (Regional CIP Project List). It was m/slw to approve the staff recommendation in order
to allow public testimony.
K:\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2004\May 3, 2004, LUTC Minutes.doc
Cindy Cope - Why should 32nd Avenue South be extended to 316th? The area is residential and getting in and
out via 316th works fine. Extending the road would bring in traffic that has no reason to enter the area and
would open us up to crime.
Mr. Perez commented that the FWCP supports through roads because Federal Way does not have enough. There is a
planned extension of 31ih over 1-5 and west to Auburn, and the extension for 32nd would be needed for a link (this will not
happen for many years, but it is planned in the FWCP). This is a long-term project. The LUTC m/s/c to recommend that the
full Council accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and adopt an ordinance ap~roving the request by
Quadrant to delete the planned extension of Weyerhaeuser Way South, north of South 3201 Street, shown on FWCP Map
111-278 (2003-2020 Regional CIP); delete the project from FWCP Table 111-19 (Regional CIP Project List), replacing it with
32nd Avenue South; and amend (per the Planning Commission Recommendation) FWCP Maps 111-5, 111-6, and 111-278 as
set forth in the April 27, 2004, LUTC Memorandum.
E. Amendments to Countywide Planning Policies to Designate Downtown Auburn as an Urban Center - The
LUTC m/s/c the staff recommendation to move forward to the full Council approval of the amendment to the Countywide
Planning Policies to designate Downtown Auburn as an Urban Center.
C. Trip Reduction Performance Incentive for Federal Way Employers - Washington State's Commute Trip Reduction
(CTR) Law is intended to improve air quality and reduce fuel consumption and traffic congestion through employer-based
programs encouraging the use of alternatives to single occupant vehicles (SOV) for the commute trip. The trip reduction
performance incentive program is a six-month demonstration program designed to reduce commute traffic within the City
by converting SOV commuters to other commuting options. The program introduces trip-reduction strategies to smaller
employers not affected by the CTR program. Staff proposes to use the Traffic Division's operating fund to support this
project. The LUTC m/s/c placing the following project recommendations on the May 18, 2004, City Council Consent
Agenda: 1) authorize staff to proceed with the Trip Reduction Performance Incentive Program for Federal Way Employers;
2) authorize staff to incorporate the incentive program into the next CTR contract with King County Metro (the existing
contract will expire June 30, 2004); and 3) authorize staff to use the Traffic Division's operating funds of $5,050 as a match
toward the project.
A. Potential Annexation Area Expansion - The City Council requested staff to look into the feasibility of annexing an
unincorporated area in Pierce County that is located within Tacoma's Urban Growth Area (UGA). The LUTC m/s/c directing
staff to initiate a Pierce County Comprehensive Plan Amendment and to gather data and acquire Geographic Information
Systems layers.
5. FUTURE MEETING
The next scheduled meeting is May 17, 2004.
6.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
K:\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2004\May 3, 2004. LUTC Minutes.doc
~
CITY OF ~¡;""="~í#"
Federal Way
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
May 18,2004
TO:
Jack Dovey, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC)
Via:
Isaac Conlen, Associate Planner ;:fL-.
Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services
David MO~anager
Jackson Site Specific Zoning Request
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Meeting Date: May 24, 2004
At the LUTC meeting of May 3, 2004, the Committee discussed the Jackson site as a component of the
Potential Annexation Area Subarea Plan. More information regarding the Freeway Commercial zoning
option was requested. Please see your May 3, 2004 packet for background information and Committee
options. A map showing the King County zoning and staff and Planning Commission recommendations
is attached for quick reference.
.- ~u~ ~ ~ ';) 13L r <r .;;bÆ ç;J~
~~.~La~
~
-~#/~
"\
~)
(~1 Citizen Requested Change:
-, Comprehensive Plan
Community Business
Zoning: BC
S32DTJ; ST S 3.2O'TH Sì
/r---¡ 1 {-
Final Staff ',~-,- /
Recommendation: -~1'
Comprehensive Plan' ./
Freeway Commercial ----1-/'-
Zoning: FC (Freeway Comm ercial)
¡
I~ .
,I I
"
,I
;:
Planning Commission
Recommendation:
Comprehensive Plan: Office
Park and SFHD
Zoning: OP & RS9.6
--, City of Federal Way
PAA Subarea
Plan,
Decem ber 2003
Jackson
Key:
ÂþWetland Buffers
l'-.:rJ Wetlands (1998 CFW Study)
.\ . Federal Way City Limits
0 Proposed Zoning Boundary
[,(/:..1 Applicant Properties
ri~1 Staff Recommendation
_6. -. 1\Nay
~... Federa
0
200 400 Feet
Il
N
Ti ~ m~p Is ~ gr:3pllC r@pr@sOItHI:II oil/.
~Id Is~coomp~'I@drJo{ 10VJ~rra't~s,
(M S)o:1m ike s\"'-"p ~~ SSIÛ 4bw,~ p r
MEETING DATE:
June I, 2004
ITEM#
1Z1I (a)
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT:
Proposed Middle School Forbearance Agreement
CATEGORY:
BUDGET IMPACT:
0
0
rg]
CONSENT
RESOLUTION
CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS
0 ORDINANCE
0 PUBLIC HEARING
0 OTHER
Amount Budgeted:
Expenditure Amt.:
Contingency Req'd:
$
$
$
ATTACHMENTS: The proposed Forbearance Conditions Agreement for the Federal Way School District's middle
school.
SUMMARYIBACKGROUND: The proposed development is located within the City of Federal Way Potential
Annexation Area (P AA), south of S 360th Street between 32nd A venue S and Military Road. The FWSD proposes to
construct a new middle school on approximately 48 acres. The FWSD's detennination of mitigated determination of
nonsignificance failed to adequately address traffic issues in relation to the project. Council directed staff to attempt to
negotiate an agreement with the School District, or, if settlement was not possible, to appeal the SEP A detennination.
City staff and the District were able to negotiate an agreement.
The proposed agreement provides the following:
The District agrees to construct street lighting along the South 360th Street frontage of the site as part of the
project's street improvements prior to occupancy. The lighting shall be subject to County approval.
In order to fully mitigate the proposed development's traffic impact at this location, the District agrees to reserve,
a $20,373 contribution toward intersection improvements at the intersection of 28th Avenue South/South 360th
Street for a period of ten years from the date of this agreement. If no development circumstance arises in the
County or the City to prompt construction of these improvements prior to the ten-year limitation, the District is
released from holding these funds.
The District agrees to construct a north-bound left hand turn lane on Military Road South at South 360th Street and
an east-bound right hand turn lane on South 360th Street at Military Road South in order to fully mitigate the
proposed development's traffic impact at this location prior to occupancy.
The District has provided to the City an April 19, 2004 memo with a bus transport and walking route map
depicting recommended bus transportation and walking routes to the new middle school.
. When available, and prior to issuance of the building pennit, the District agrees to provide the City with a copy of
engineering plans for right-of-way improvements.
In consideration of full compliance with this agreement, including payment of identified impact mitigation fees and
satisfaction of all conditions, the City of Federal Way agrees to:
. Forgo filing a SEP A appeal;
. Urge King County to add the aforementioned intersection improvements to the six-year TIP and/or make
improvements at the two intersections referenced above; and
.
.
.
.
.
Actively work with King County to address cumulative impacts of development in this area.
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: This item did not go before the Land Use and
Transportation Committee.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve the Forbearance Conditions Agreement for the Federal Way School
District's new middle school and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL, ~~
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
D APPROVED
D DENIED
D T ABLEDillEFERRED/NO ACTION
D MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
COUNCIL BILL #
1 ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
REVISED - 05/10/200 I
:;;:----. ---
-. ...........
c:..of=)Y
~
CITYOF \.¡;:~---~--~
Federal Way
FORBEARANCE CONDITIONS AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is dated effective this 28 day of April 2004. The
parties ("Parties") to this Agreement are the CityofFederal Way, a municipal corporation of the
State of Washington ("City"), and Federal Way Public Schools, a municipal corporation of the
State of Washington ("District").
A. The District owns certain real property located within Unincorporated King
County ("County"), and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated by this reference ("Property").
B. The District has applied to King County for approval of construction of a new
middle school, pursuant to King County File No. B04CO031 ("Permit Application").
C. The proposed school project is approximately 48 acres in size and includes on-site
and off-site improvements consisting of roadway and storm drainage improvements, which
development is more particularly described in the documents and records on file with King
County in connection with the Permit Application ("Proposed Development").
D The Property is located within the City's Potential Annexation Area ("P AA"). No
interlocal agreement exists between the City and King County for proposed developments lying
within the City of Federal Way's PAA portion of Unincorporated King County.
E. The District prepared an expanded environmental checklist ("Checklist") dated
December 2003 and distributed it to appropriate agencies, including King County and the City,
to determine if significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment resulted from the
Proposed Development, as required by the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEP A").
F. As lead agency under SEP A, the District performed its environmental review and
issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ("MDNS") for the Proposed Development
on February 12,2004.
G. Pursuant to the SEP A process, which requires notice to affected agencies, the City
received copies of the Checklist, a Traffic Impact Analysis dated December 2003 prepared by
The Transpo Group for the Proposed Development (the "TIA"), and other related information
concerning the Proposed Development. Further, the District issued a notice of consultation on
December 22,2003 and the SEPA threshold determination ofMDNS on February 12, 2004.
H. The City has had an opportunity to review the plans of the Proposed
Development, and the other related information concerning the Proposed Development. The City
has also had an opportunity to review the TIA prepared by The Transpo Group, which contains
assumptions and calculations regarding trip generation, trip distribution and assignment, level of
service, and project generated traffic impacts.
I. Because the Property is located within the P AA, and eventually will be annexed
to the City of Federal Way, the City has determined that the Proposed Development will, without
mitigation, result in adverse impacts to the transportation network and should therefore provide
street lighting along the project frontage and mitigate for adverse impacts as described in this
agreement. The District is willing to work with the County and the City to mitigate its share of
improvements.
J. The City and the District, wishing to avoid uncertainty and consequent delay of
the King County approval process concerning the Proposed Development and of any subsequent
appeal process, voluntarily entered into a Letter of Understanding ("LOU") dated March 11,
2004, the terms of which are incorporated into, and superceded by the terms of, this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
1.
District's Duties:
The District agrees to construct street lighting along the South 360th Street
frontage of the site as part of the project's street improvements prior to occupancy. The
lighting shall be subject to County approval.
The District agrees to reserve for a period of ten years from the date of this
agreement, a $20,373 contribution toward intersection improvements at the intersection
of 28th Avenue South/South 360th Street in order to fully mitigate the proposed
development's traffic impact at this location. If no development circumstance arises in
the County or the City to prompt construction of these improvements prior to the ten-year
limitation, the District is released from holding these funds.
The District agrees to construct a north-bound left hand turn lane on Military
Road South at South 360th Street and an east-bound right hand turn lane on South 360th
Street at Military Road South in order to fully mitigate the proposed development's
traffic impact at this location prior to occupancy.
The District has provided to the City an April 19, 2004 memo with a bus transport
and walking route map depicting recommended bus transportation and walking routes to
the new middle school I .
I Exhibit B - Transport and walking routes to new Middle School
New Middle School Forbearance Conditions Agreement
April 28, 2004
Page 2
Doc. 1.0. 27035
Federal Way File #04-100301-IA
When available and prior to issuance of the building permit, the District agrees to
provide the City with a copy of engineering plans for right-of-way improvements.
2.
City's Duties
In consideration of full compliance with this agreement, including payment of
identified impact mitigation fees and satisfaction of all conditions, the City of Federal
Way agrees to:
a) Forgo filing a SEP A appeal;
b) Urge King County to add the aforementioned intersection improvements
to the 6-year TIP and/or make improvements at the two intersections referenced above;
and
c) Actively work with King County to address cumulative impacts of
development in this area.
3.
Modifications to Project
If the District seeks (in accordance with all applicable federal, state, or local laws)
to modify the Proposed Development in a manner so as to warrant or require reevaluation
under SEP A, or should modification to the Proposed Development result from any
administrative determination, quasi-judicial, or judicial determination issued as a result of
any appeal of the SEP A determination, the District shall immediately provide notice of
said modifications to allow the City to provide its comments to be incorporated into any
new or modified SEP A determination issued by the District and to be incorporated into
this Agreement; provided that no modification affecting the Conditions shall be requested
by the District unless mutually agreed upon by the Parties and evidenced by written
amendment to this Agreement in accordance with section 6.2 of this Agreement.
4.
Term.
The term of this Agreement commences upon its execution by both parties, and
terminates upon the completion of all of the provisions of this Agreement.
5.
Indemnification.
The District agrees to indemnify and hold the City, its elected officials, officers,
employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, demands, losses,
actions, and liabilities (including costs and all attorney fees) to or by any and all persons
or entities, including, without limitation, their respective agents, licensees, or
representatives, arising from, resulting from, or connected with this Agreement, except to
the extent caused by the sole negligence of the City.
The City agrees to indemnify and hold the District, its elected officials, officers,
employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, demands, losses,
actions, and liabilities (including costs and all attorney fees) to or by any and all persons
New Middle School Forbearance Conditions Agreement
April 28, 2004
Page 3
Doc. 1.0. 27035
Federal Way File #04-100301-IA
or entities, including, without limitation, their respective agents, licensees, or
representatives, arising from, resulting from, or connected with this Agreement, except to
the extent caused by the sole negligence of the District.
6.
General Provisions.
6.1 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains all of the agreements of the
Parties with respect to any matter covered or mentioned in this Agreement, and no prior
agreements or understandings pertaining to any such matters shall be effective for any
purpose.
6.2 Modification. No prOVISIOn of this Agreement may be amended or
modified except by written agreement signed by the Parties.
6.3 Assignment. The District may not transfer or assign, in whole or in part,
any or all of its respective obligations and rights hereunder without the prior written
consent of the City, whose consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
6.4 Successors in Interest. Subject to the foregoing Subsection, the rights and
obligations of the District and the City shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon,
their respective successors in interest, heirs, and assigns.
6.5 Attorney Fees. In the event any Party defaults on the performance of any
of the terms of this Agreement, or places the enforcement of this Agreement in the hands
of an attorney, or files a lawsuit, each Party shall pay all its own attorneys' fees, costs,
and expenses. The venue for any dispute related to this Agreement shall be King County,
Washington.
6.6 No Waiver. Failure of the Parties to declare any breach or default
immediately upon the occurrence thereof, or delay in taking any action in connection
therewith, shall not waive such breach or default. Failure of the Parties to declare one
breach or default does not act as a waiver of either party's right to declare another breach
or default.
6.7 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be made in and shall be governed
by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington.
6.8 Authority. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of the
Parties represents and warrants that such individuals are duly authorized to execute and
deliver this Agreement on behalf of the Parties.
6.9 Notice. Any notice required to be given by the Parties shall be delivered
to the Parties at the addresses set forth in this section. Any notices may be delivered
personally to the addressee of the notice or may be deposited in the United States mail,
postage prepaid, to the address set forth below. Any notice so posted in the United States
mail shall be deemed received three (3) days after the date of mailing.
New Middle School Forbearance Conditions Agreement
April 28, 2004
Page 4
Doc. I.D. 27035
Federal Way File #04-1O0301-IA
City of Federal Way
Attention: Greg Fewins
Deputy Director, Community Development Services Dept.
PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
(253) 661-4019
Federal Way Public Schools
Attention: Rod Leland
Director of Facilities
31405 18th Ave S.
Federal Way, W A 98003-5433
(253) 945-5934
6.10 Captions. The respective captions of the Sections of this Agreement are
inserted for convenience of reference only and shall not be deemed to modify or
otherwise affect in any respect any of the provisions of this Agreement.
6.11 Performance. Time is of the essence of this Agreement, and each and all
of its provisions in which performance is a factor. Adherence to completion dates is
essential to performance under this Agreement.
6.12 Remedies Cumulative. Any remedies provided for under the terms of this
Agreement are not intended to be exclusive, but shall be cumulative with all other
remedies available to the City at law, in equity or by statute.
6.13 Compliance with Ethics Code. If a violation of the City's Ethics
Resolution No. 91-54, as amended, occurs as a result of the formation and/or
performance of this Agreement, this Agreement may be rendered null and void, at the
City's option.
6.14 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, which counterparts shall collectively constitute the entire Agreement.
6.15 Signature. The Parties agree that their faxed signatures and notary
shall be valid and binding for purposes of executing this Agreement.
6.16 Full Force and Effect. Any provision of this Agreement which is declared
invalid or illegal shall in no way affect or invalidate any other provision hereof and such
other provisions shall remain in full force and effect.
DATED the day and year set forth above.
New Middle School Forbearance Conditions Agreement
April 28, 2004
Page 5
Doc. J.D. 27035
Federal Way File #04-100301-IA
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
ATTEST:
David Moseley
City Manager
33530 1st Way South
PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
City Clerk, N. Christine Green, CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Patricia A. Richardson, City Attorney
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
STATE OF Wtl~~ \ \L3-m Y\- )
) ss.
COUNTY OF \.z~^j )
On this day personally appeared before me \h.,Oy\\"'(;t ~ R. M()..rp!i, to me known to be the
S l V\.-+ of F lC $ s that executed the
foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said. strument to be the free and voluntary act and
deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that
he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed, if any, is the corporate
seal of said corporation.
GIVEN my hand and official seal this .~ 0 ~day of --ÅfLu-1
~~~
(typed/printed name of notary)
Notary Public in and for the State of tV A
My commission expires 0 ót II ';.L( os
,200~
New Middle School Forbearance Conditions Agreement
April 28, 2004
Page 6
Doc. I.D. 27035
Federal Way File #04-100301-IA
Exhibits:
A: Legal Description
B: Memo and Map Depicting Transportation and Walking routes to new Middle School
K:\NewMiddle School\ForbearAgrmtFinalA
New Middle School Forbearance Conditions Agreement
April 28, 2004
Page 7
Doc. 1.0. 27035
Federal Way File #04-100301-IA
New Federal Way Middle School
Forbearance Conditions Agreement
Legal Description:
PARCEL A:
THE EAST THREE-OUARTERS OF THE NORTH 23 FEET OF THE SOUTH HAlF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF 11-E
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 7:1. TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH. RANGE 4 EAST. W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
PARCEL B:
TI-IE NORlHEAST QUARTER OF mE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF TI-IE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF &ECTION 'll, TOWNSHIP 21
NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST. W.M.. IN KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON; .
EXCEPT THE NORTH 30 ÆET THEREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING
NO. 2613173;
AlSO EXCEPT ROADS.
PARCElC:
TI-IE EAST HAlF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOlJTliI.VEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 27. TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST. W.M.. IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON;
EXCEPT 30 ÆET ON 11-E NORTH SIDE RE&ERVED FOR PUBlIC ROAD PURPOSES;
AlSO EXCEPT ROADS. .
PARCEL D:
A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION'll. TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH. RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY.
WASHINGTON. DESCRIBED AS FOlLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT 1425 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE CONTINUE NORTH
0"13'Or WEST AlONG THE WEST UNE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 529.17 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION WITH A lINE THAT IS
PARAllEl WIT\:i AND 23 ÆET SOUTH OF THE SOUTH UNE OF THE NORTH HAlF OF 11-E NORTH fW..F OF SAID SUBDIVISION;
THENCE NORTH 89"31'47" EAST AlONG SAID lINE. 1300.12 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF GOVERNMENT lOT 2 IN SAID
SUBOMSION; THENCE NORTH 0"01 '07" WEST AlONG SAID WEST LINE 685.89 ÆET TO THE NORTH lINE OF SAID
SUBDMSION; THENCE NORTH 89"21'40" EAST AlONG SAID NORTH lINE 235.01 ÆET; THENCE SOUTH 0"01'07" EAST.
PARAllEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF GOVERNMENT lOT 21N SAID SUBDMSION, 1227.31 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION WITH A
lINE THAT IS PARAllEL WITH. AND 1425 ÆET NORTH OF, THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION;
THENCE SOUTH 89"5T41" WEST AlONG SAID lINE, 1533.22 ÆET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
EXCEPT 30 ÆET ACROSS THE NORTH UNE OF SAID SUBDMSION FOR ROAD PURPOSES;
AlSO EXCEPT THE WEST 30 FEET OF SAID SUBDIVISION DEEDED TO KING COUmY FOR ROAD PURPOSES BY INSTRUMENT
RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 2677722;' .. ... . .. ... .. . . . .
AlSO EXCEPT ROADS.
PARCEL E:
AU. THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT lOT 2. SECTION 27. TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY.
WASHINGTON. lYING WEST OF A LINE DESCRIBED AS FOlLOWS:
STARTING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 2;
THENCE WESTERlY AlONG THE NORTH UNE OF SAID GOVERNMENT lOT 2 A DISTANCE OF 660.8 ÆET TO THE TRUE POINT
OF BEGINNING OF SAID LINE; THENCE SOUTH 2"38.5' EAST A DISTANCE OF 1045.6 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO FIVE MILE
lAKE;
EXCEPT THAT PORTION lYING SOUTH OF A LINE P ARAU.El wrrn AND 1425 ÆET NORTH OF THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID
SECTION'll;
EXCEPT THE WEST 235.01 ÆET THEREOF;
AlSO EXCEPT ROADS.
EXHlb. h
P AGE--LOF---'--
. -------
.~i.",.-:;,~:!..;,...:
,:,.;¿f¡.'
-
. ..
Memo
To:
Rod Leland
From: Rick LaBoyne
Date:
Cindy Wendland, Sally McLean
4/19/2004
cc:
Re:
WalkingfTransportation Boundaries for 7th Middle School
On April 7th, 2004, the Assistant Transportation Director, Cindy Wendland and I conducted a survey of
the area surrounding the site of the 7th Middle School, located on S. 360th St, east of 3200 Ave South in
Auburn. The purpose of our survey was to determine preliminary walking and transportation
boundaries. Resources used in determining the below recommended boundaries included our existing
transportation services data, Safe Walking Evaluation tools developed by the Washington State Office
of the Superintendent of Instruction and the current School Administrators Guide to School Walk
Routes and Student Pedestrian Safety, Washington Traffic Safety Commission and the Washington
State Department of Transportation, July 2003.
The District provides bus serVice to students living one or more radius miles away from their
neighborhood school and will provide bus service within the one mile radius when the there is
inadequate infrastructure to provide students with an adequate walking route as determined by use of
the resources listed above.
The survey resulted in a determination that students living west of and along 28th Ave South and north
of South 360th Street will be provided with bus transportation. This is consistent with current service to
Lakeland Elementary, located at the intersection of 3200 Ave. South and S. 360th Street.
Students living along the 3200 / 34th /37th Ave. South corridor north of South 360th Street, south of 34Sth
Street and west of Military road will not be provided with bus service and are expected to walk along the
South 3200 /34th /3ih Streets corridor to get to the new school. Bus service will be provided for students
that live north of South 345th, as this is consistent with our current service to Lakeland Elementary.
Students living east of and along Military Road South will be provided with bus service.
Students living west of Enchanted Parkway will be provided with bus service.
Students living south of South 360th and east of Enchanted Parkway (except for the community that
can only be accessed via Enchanted Parkway) will not be provided with bus service and will be
expected to utilize a combination of 28th Ave. South, South 368th Street and 3200 Ave. South to walk to
and from school.
Students living south of South 360th and east of 28th Ave. South will also use South 368th Street and
3200 Ave. South to walk to and from school.
1 have attached a map that indicates where bus service will be provided and the recommended walking
routes for students not offered bus service.
a
l.1.J
Installation of a sidewalk or paved shoulder and curbing to separate the walking path along South 360th 1=
Street between 26th Ave South and 3200 Ave. South would allow the district to eliminate or reduce the ~
level of bus service to students living within the one mile radius for Lakeland Elementary and the new .c::::::
school.. Walkway improvements on South 360th would result in onlYththos.e students livif)g a~nd co.
east of Military Road South, north of South 345th along the 3200 / 34 /~ ~~lc<1rrid~ west ::>
of Enchanted Parkway (except for the community that is only accesseJv¡! ~~cMfñ'ea Parkw~Oetng (f)
bused. PAGE-L-uF--'ii!
'<t"
D
D
C"l
N
C'J
0:::
Q
"<::1::-
~}4f"" ',I .'( :::
co -. a.
> ",", ú. ,. 3',
;:::.. -,,~':c"""".T1 J.-
a... ' ::J ':
~ ,_.- :; ,.
~Q)I 18,:1,51 :~4.::nd ~~"o ~" ' I)
ro. r- '..~~ t', ::t. . -.. \\
,.:;> ~ " \;'u"
~t'/-. "."~ ~46th :~, ':-'
Q) i¡ ,0 .. ~ ...;>.;J '"
?:I: c' -:Z:Pth s- i;
.... " oJ ---~ 0 ~, '0
Š¡: .:¡.:¡J~ P! :3 :34Ç'th 3f °.
J <,::;::::::;:=i,' 3 - .r .' L"
;1 ... ~. -~. d ". "
- .- .1 ¡;. .:.:...,..;:n .:, ;1
:,;.' ~:C.J ' ,: ,............. ,It
---.,'-r::/¡ ÌIt'~ ,,' , '
- ~I '. o'h 0' >
' of J. :-j" :3~eth Sit LiI
¿ ::: ;::c.-:7-th. S~ rnf(ê1åñ~§;tÂh ~. "TeL.' ...,
.- . Ii It., \1'i.'Jh Sf c
S 360tliSt:! 1. . I, '1,'> g
,L.('F~ ';:-=-"" ' 'J!f c::J L, ;;:J."'5-' ' q:
r";~, . I '-}'f4tt- ". ,/" , ,::,f' '
~':"'-Skjutll!)/ ':;"..;" I~~:,: ,9:. r'" ,~ .}
, Q,\' S :1~;.t!1 f .fl. FiV~\)'M~'Iy:,eßÇ~ ~~Ô~r\ S~ I!,
,AI':'::":v. '~'~'."hr::. t"k" /,' ~'
..- f \~,- - ,;. ~t'Et ¡"'" a ~.;/ \ ." '., '~.5'-C.
('::; (:J. "S ::: ( f'lth f; : "',', /t' '" .:~
..ti,- ," ,', ........... 0.1' "'- '-'7'-" d... - '. -y-
o {<,"~' \', " ~,~-,,:,,'.:..n.:. 10",
, :::. .... ':.,' ',-";; ".- I .
<J:,~ ' ~./ \" " '1. ~7 ¡; {< oJ>
£; ""b \'- I ~ ~/, (,1) ¡It'but', (:' -'-'7fith P j
t'-, roo c/ \\ J (I t'ti... ':'~ , &. L""t.4 ~. .:0.. "" . 0
r,J ,;, ,Y, '~, -. ,::,. .,,"K~ ,"
"; \. ¡ ".i¡f/ :¡'¡--'~f - ,-. "':~ðth1--......
r'~' ~ì i'" ';'.:0/0 1,Jo.
:::3 Icf p,r:. ~\:;. {t' ;:,--' -g, r- or :- -'Ìlg(]~h ::"1.
.. '::. ',\"<-/:.,,,/ ,.=.. ,..,' , . ;."".-
HvIEtH):i !\','f;.'- \, 1..:%-'" :iJ:," IJ,-¥ '~Jovita '--16";-'1
I ' , r ." , '. I_,
I J . ..., . '~'ô-
. '0.5 mi "';"'O"" 5/ jO" @2003 NJi\VTEQ
@ 2004 Yahoo! nc
YJ(IiOOr0
S 3313th St
UJ
11'
>-
,1.
0 (jtt s
r,
~¡
:1
.-
+:i
cr..
(1~..t)
m
~
:::r
Q.)
~
-
([r
a.
"
~
S 35f~1 h $t en
~
~
--
co
¡
,_,-,
~
,~
<...J
Ct~
(~9)
(.')
11'
,-..
'i.
.-
+:;
iX.
~~
r
;~'.
-.
....
~'
'J?
'~
I.,J)
À\ \ ~~Vd¿V\.~ ~ +r~(\~-por* ~c\
. .; HII:SI ¡ b
~<.)\
P AGE.-2....0F J
H...' ~~e. w~\l
~ ud.e '" -t ~
C<, 're.GL
route ~
-?o~
"0 '" :+V-a.V\5f'ðri~d
.. .-
RESUBMITTED
APR 2 2 2004
MEETING DATE:
June I, 2004
ITEM# 3l1t (b ")
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT:
Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement between DPK, Inc. and the City of Federal Way for the
23rd Avenue South Road Improvements, South 316th Street to South 324th Street Project.
CATEGORY:
BUDGET IMP ACT:
0 CONSENT
0 RESOLUTION
IS! CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS
0 ORDINANCE
0 PUBLIC HEARING
0 OTHER
Amount Budgeted:
Expenditure Amt.:
Contingency Req'd:
$N/A
$
$
ATTACHMENTS: Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement between DPK, Inc. and the City of Federal Way for the
23rd Avenue South Road Improvements, South 316th Street to South 324th Street Project.
SUMMARYIBACKGROUND: The 23rd Avenue South Road Improvement project was awarded to DPK, Inc. on
May 2,2001 in the amount of $5,657,122.56. There were five change orders issued throughout the project. Substantial
completion was granted on August 23, 2002 within the working days required.
On March 10, 2003, DPK, Inc. submitted a claim in the amount of $633,337.40. The basis for the request was delays,
inteITUptions and conflicts with pre-existing conditions resulting from design errors. The request for equitable
adjustments includes costs for extended job supervision and management, extended field office overhead, extended home
office overhead, consequential labor inefficiency, tools and supplies and additional equipment expended.
Negotiations between DPK, Inc. and City staff have resulted in a settlement of $75,000.00. Project expenditures
including the $75,000.00 settlement are within the original project budget and 10% contingency.
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to authorize the City Manager to execute the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement
with DPK, Inc. in the amount of $75,000.00.
.................. ....... .. . ...... ......................................................................................... ......... . ............................................................................................................. ........... ... .....................................................
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~
(BELOW TO BE 'MPLE~ED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
0 APPROVED
0 DENIED
0 T ABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION
0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
COUNCIL BILL #
1 ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
REVISED - 05/ I 0/200 I
MUTUAL RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into this
/.5tfway of YJ1~, 2004, by and betweeo the City of Federal Way ("Federal Way") and
DPK, Inc. ("DPK").
1. Settlement and Mutual Release of Claims. For and in consideration of Federal
Way's payment of the Settlement Amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), DPK
and its agents, insurers, bonding companies, successors and assigns (hereinafter collectively the
"DPK Parties"), hereby release and forever discharge Federal Way, its project managers, architects,
consultants, and their subconsultants, subcontractors and its and their agents, representatives,
officers, partners, insurers, attorneys, assigns and employees (the "Federal Way Parties"), from any
and all contract balances, claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses, actions or causes of action,
whether known or unknown, accrued or unaccrued, present or future, liquidated or contingent
(hereafter referred to as the "DPK Claims"), in any way related to the design and/or construction of
the 23rd Avenue South Road Improvements, South 316th Street to South 324th Street, RFB Number
01-102 ("Project"). The $75,000 Settlement Amount is the total sum payable and includes without
limitation within that sum sales tax and all other taxes, markups, contract adjustments or liabilities,
and claims for costs, services, consultants and attorneys fees and interest; and DPK agrees to
defend, indemnifY and hold harmless Federal Way against claims that any additional sales taxes,
other taxes or adjustments are owed or payable. DPK acknowledges that it has specifically
contemplated and bargained for the extinguishment of the DPK Claims even to the extent they may
arise from the sole negligence of any or all of the Federal Way Parties. DPK agrees to defend,
indemnifY and hold harmless the Federal Way Parties from any and all claims by DPK's contractors,
subcontractors or their subcontractors (of whatever tier), suppliers or third-parties arising out of or
related in any way to the Project.
1 ~cral ~Way shall pay the Settlement Amount by delive¡y of a check payable to DPK, Inc.
by ¡, , 2004.
Upon the effective release of the DPK Claims by the DPK Parties, Federal Way releases the
DPK Parties from any and all contract reimbursements, claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses,
actions or causes of action known to date, in any way related to the project, except that all rights
conferred by the contract documents and related to insurance coverage, including, but not limited to,
the claim of Lany Reynolds, the plaintiff in King County cause number 03-2-02196-2 KNT. Also
preserved are manufacturer warranties until they expire under the contract terms, other warranty
obligations for items that are unknown or arise after the date of this agreement, punch list work
and/or claims arising out of unknown latent defects in construction or performance as granted under
the contract terms.
2. Covenants Not To Prosecute. For and in consideration of payment of the Settlement
Amount, and the promises and covenants hereiIl, the Parties acknowledge full and complete
satisfaction of and hereby agree that they will not pursue, institute or aid in any suit or action at law
or equity against the other or the other's respective directors, officers, constituent partners,
114336.0003/1075568.1
employees, agents, representatives, trustees, insurers, attorneys, successors and assigns, past, present
and future, and each of them, for any Claims released herein.
3. No Admissions. The Parties vigorously deny liability or responsibility for any and
all Claims, and the Parties to this Agreement understand that, by execution of this Agreement, no
Party acknowledges or admits to any liability, culpability or responsibility for any acts or omissions
concerning the subject herein, and that this Agreement is entered into solely for the purpose of
resolving disputes without resort to litigation and is in no way to be construed, and is in fact not, an
admission of liability or responsibility of any Party hereto.
4. Additional Documents. The Parties agree to cooperate fully and execute any and all
supplementary documents and take all additional actions or dismissals that may be necessary or
appropriate to give full force and effect to the terms and intent of this Agreement.
5. Enforcement. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with,
and governed by, the laws of the State of Washington. This Agreement has been drafted jointly by
the Parties following negotiations between them. It shall be construed according to its terms and not
for or against any Party.
If any provision of this Agreement is deemed by law to be void, invalid or inoperative for
any reason, or any phrase or clause within such provision is deemed by law to be void, invalid or
inoperative, that phrase, clause or provision shall be deemed modified to the extent necessary to
make it valid and operative, or if it cannot be so modified, then such phrase, clause or provision
shall be deemed severed from this Agreement, with the remaining phrases, clauses and provisions
continuing in full force and effect as if the Agreement had been signed with the void, invalid or
inoperative portion so modified or eliminated.
In the event that any Party hereto shall institute proceedings to enforce any provision hereto,
venue shall lie exclusively in King County, Washington and the substantially prevailing party or
parties shall be entitled to be reimbursed for reasonable costs, expenses, expert witness fees and
attorneys' fees incurred.
6. Authority. The Parties acknowledge and represent that they are effecting this
settlement and executing this Agreement after having received full legal advice as to their rights
from legal counsel, and hereby warrant that they have the sole right and exclusive authority to
execute this Agreement and receive the benefits specified herein, and that no other person or entity
has or has had any interest in the Claims, nor have any of the Claims referred to herein been sold,
assigned, transferred, conveyed or otherwise disposed of
The Parties acknowledge that they have carefully read this Agreement and know the
contents thereof, including the fact that this Agreement is a release of all Claims, that no promise or
agreement not expressed in this Agreement has been made, and that they have signed this
Agreement as a free act. This Agreement incorporates and supersedes any and all prior
understandings, contains the entire agreement between the Parties, and shall be binding upon and
inure to the benefit of the representatives, successors and assigns of each.
2
114336.0003/1075568.1
Any amendments of this Agreement shall be by written agreement between the Parties.
7. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, and
each such counterpart hereof .shall be deemed to be an original instrument, but all such counterparts
shall constitute one agreement.
DPK, INe.
fŒ~~
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
'- ~/1A ~- ) ss.
COUNTY OF~ )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory
evidence that is the person who appeared
before me, and said person acknowledged
that he/she signed this instrument, on oath
stated that he/she was authorized to execute
authorized to execute the instrument and
acknowledged it as the authorized
representative ofDPK, Inc. to be the free and
voluntary act of such parties for the uses and
purposes mentioned in this instrument.
\\\,"'1111',,//
s.\~ OLYN /11.1;
~ ..:.~.o .... SA~ ~
~ of.!.~o.t':'7~
;::: .cP":_.'t ~;'..-<'~
.... .~ -..\.0 "A #to ~. ,,1>" ~
::*:.." "'#1;~.. ::
- . - ~.-
=: ~.. :*=
~ ~.~ .o¡",UQ .:~ ff
~~.~ 'tJf!:.~,~
~~O..~~\.'ß'-~
~""/~WAS""~\\\'~
K:\Public Works\DPK Clai~«tm~~ent 02.04.04
114336.0003/1075568.1
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
By
David H. Moseley, City Manager
P.D. Box 9718
Federal Way, W A 98063
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Patricia A. Richardson, City Attorney
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF
)
) ss.
)
I certify that I know or have satisfactory
evidence that is the person who appeared
before me, and said person acknowledged that
he/she signed this instrument, on oath stated
that he/she was the instrument and
acknowledged it as the authorized
representative of the City of Federal Way to
be the free and voluntary act of such parties
for the uses and purposes mentioned in this
instrument.
DATED:
NOTARY PUBLIC for the State of Washington,
residing at
My appointment expires:
3
MEETING DATE:
June 1, 2004
ITEM#
1lI1 (¿)
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FEDERAL WAY CITY CODE
CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE XI, TO ADD A FREEWAY COMMERCIAL ZONING CLASSIFICATION
CATEGORY:
BUDGET IMPACT:
0
0
~
CONSENT
RESOLUTION
CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS
0 ORDINANCE
0 PUBLIC HEARING
0 OTHER
Amount Budgeted:
Expenditure Amt.:
Contingency Req'd:
$
$
$
.............................................................................................................................. .................... . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... ................................... .............. ................................................................
ATTACHMENTS: 1) May 19,2004, Memorandum to the Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTe) with Table 1 and Exhibits
A-N. 2) April 27, 2004, Memorandum to the Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTe) with Exhibits 1-20.
.................................................................................................................................... .................. .... ... .... ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ........ ............ ....................................................................................
SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: The City of Federal Way has hired consultants to prepare two market studies, one for the entire City
in 2000 and one for the City Center in 2002. The City also hired a consultant to prepare a Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Subarea Plan
and Annexation Feasibility Study. These studies found that there is adequate supply of vacant and underdeveloped commercial land in the
City and in the P AA. However, they recognized the potential of zoning for certain categories of retail development not currently being
captured in Federal Way as a way to increase the tax base within the City and the P AA. The proposed Freeway Commercial (Fe) zoning
classification is intended to capture the type of retail development that is presently locating outside of Federal Way, while not competing
with the existing zones that already allow retail uses. Any parcel five acres or more that borders the 1-5/SR-18 or 1-5/South 320th Street
interchanges, and is both visible and accessible from these interchanges, would be eligible to apply for the FC zoning designation. This
zoning designation could be applied to parcels within the P AA or within the City. The Planning Commission conducted public hearings
on March 17, April 7, and April 21, 2004, and recommended to the council that the amendments as proposed by staff and amended by the
Planning Commission be approved (Exhibits 7-20 of April 27, 2004, Memorandum to the LUTe).
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ....................... . ................. .....................................................................................
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The LUTC discussed the Planning Commission's recommendations
during public meetings on May 3, and May 24, 2004. At the May 24, 2004 meeting, the LUTC made a motion to forward the proposed
amendments to add a new Freeway Commercial zoning classification to the City Council with a recommendation to table it. Pursuant to
Federal Way City Code (FWCe) Section 22-541, the City Council has the following options:
1. Approve the proposal by adopting an appropriate ordinance;
2. Modify and approve the proposal by adopting an appropriate ordinance;
3. Disapprove the proposal by resolution; or
4. Refer the proposal back to the planning commission for further proceedings.
PROPOSED MOTION: Option 1: "I move to direct staff to prepare an ordinance approving the proposed Freeway Commercial
zoning designation for first reading on July 6, 2004."
Option 2: "I move to direct staff to prepare a resolution disapproving the proposed Freeway Commercial zoning designation for action on
July 20, 2004."
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
~
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
0
0
0
0
APPROVED
DENIED
T ABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION
MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
COUNCIL BILL #
1 ST READING
ENACTMENT READING
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
1:\2004 Code Amendments\Freeway Zone\City Council\052004 AGENDA BILLdocl08/25/2003 10:55 AM
~
,.~
CITY OF .-
Federal Way
MEMORANDUM
May 19,2004
To:
Jack Dovey, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC)
David t>1,û'éi~ger
Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services
Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner t,jI¥.
Janet Shull, Planning Consultant
¡/Rv
\-
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Follow-up Research for Amendments to the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan
(FWCP) and Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 22 to add a Freeway
Commercial Zoning Classification (File No. 04-100812-00-UP)
MEETING DATE: May 24,2004
I.
BACKGROUND
This is a follow-up to the May 3,2004, Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) meeting during
which a proposed new commercial zoning designation, Freeway Commercial Zone (FC), was
discussed. During this meeting, staff presented the Planning Commission's recommendation, which
was to adopt the proposed FC zoning designation and amend the FWCP and FWCC as necessary to
implement the new zone. The LUTC discussed the proposed FC zoning classification and requested
staff to research and respond to the following:
.
Compare the proposed FC zone allowable uses and development standards with those of
other jurisdictions that allow freeway commercial uses.
Compare the proposed FC zone allowable uses and development standards with those of the
Community Business (BC) zone.
Research whether to allow pole signs in the Freeway Commercial zone and whether a 25 foot
tall sign would be tall enough to be visible from the freeway.
.
.
II.
DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS
A.
How does the proposed FC development uses and standards compare with those of
similarly zoned areas in other jurisdictions?
Staff compared the codes for comparable freeway oriented zones for Renton, Olympia, Fife,
Bellingham, Issaquah, Burien, and Sumner relative, to the proposed FC zone. A summary of the
permitted uses and development standards for these cities is shown in Table 1. The following
highlights how the development standards compare to each other.
1.
Permitted Uses: Most communities allowed a wider range of uses than the FC zone as
presently drafted. The range of aJlowable uses in other cities was more similar to Federal
Way's BC zone than the proposed FC zone. Please refer to Table I for a complete list of
allowable uses in the Federal Way BC zone. Renton, Olympia, and Issaquah allow uses
similar to Federal Way's BC zone. Comparable zones reviewed in Bellingham and Burien
are more similar to Federal Way's Business Park (BP) zone in that the focus is more on
business park type uses.
2.
Minimum Lot Size: In the proposed FC zone, there would be no minimum lot size except
for a five-acre minimum if the proposed use is new vehicle sales. Most of the communities
surveyed have no minimum lot size established for comparable zoning districts. The City of
Burien requires a minimum two-acre site size for application of the special planning area
zone. and a minimum I5-acre site size with a minimum of three dealers for auto sales.
3.
Lot Coverage: Most communities reviewed established a maximum lot coverage ranging
from 65 to 85 percent. The proposed FC zone establishes no maximum lot coverage; it is
determined by application of development standards. (This is consistent with other
commercial zoning districts in Federal Way.)
4.
Maximum Building Height: Maximum building height ranged from 35 to 50 feet for
similar zones. The average hovered around 40 feet. Issaquah has a base maximum of 35
feet, but will allow up to 65 feet under certain conditions. Bellingham listed no height limit.
The proposed FC zone would allow a maximum of 35 feet with up to 55 feet allowed under
certain conditions. The height limit would be 30 feet within 100 feet of a residential zone.
While none of the other communities identified a reduction in height limit for buildings
near a residential zone, the proposed height requirement for the FC zone is consistent with
height regulations for other Federal Way non-residential zones.
5.
Setbacks:
Minimum front yard setbacks ranged from none to 30 feet. The proposed minimum for the
FC zone is 20 feet.
Minimum side yard setbacks ranged from none to 20 feet. The proposed minimum for the
FC zone is five feet.
Minimum rear yard setbacks ranged from none to 20 feet. The proposed minimum for the
FC zone is five feet.
Special Requirements When Adjacent to Residential: Three out of the seven communities
reviewed provide for an increased setback when development is adjacent to a residential
zone. The increased setback requirements ranged from IS to 50 feet. The proposed FC zone
requires a minimum 20-foot setback from an adjacent residential zone. For new vehicle
sales, the minimum would be 50 feet. Of the cities examined, only Burien requires a 50-
foot setback when abutting an existing residential area. I .
I Burien's setback requirement is enforced through its landscaping requirements.
Amendments to FWCP/FWCC - FC Zone
Follow-up Research
File #O4-100812-00-UP
Page 2
6.
Landscaping:
Adjacent to Right-of Way: Most communities required a lO-foot wide landscape area
adjacent to public right-of-way. Renton and Burien require up to 15 and 25 feet
respectively, depending on the road classification. Burien had no landscaping requirements
along a property line abutting a freeway. The proposal for the FC zone is 10 feet of Type III
landscaping.2
Perimeter When not Adjacent to Right-of- Way: Some communities did not identify any
perimeter landscaping unless adjacent to a right-of-way or residential area. For those that
did, either five or ten-foot wide landscaped areas were specified. The proposal for the FC
zone is five feet of Type III.
Adjacent to Residential Zone: The range was quite varied with anything from five to 50
feet. Some communities require a combination of plantings with wood or masonry fences
when adjacent to residential. The proposal for the FC zone is 20 feet of Type 1.3
7. Signs: Staff focused on the comparison on whether or not freestanding pole signs were
allowed and the maximum height allowances.
Renton and Fife allow pole signs up to 40 feet tall. Bellingham allows a maximum height
of 35 feet, except where development is adjacent to 1-5 and then the height is limited to 20
feet. Olympia, Burien, and Sumner allowances fall into an overall range of 15 to 35 feet.
Issaquah only listed allowances for monument signs. The proposal for the FC zone is a
maximum of 15 feet if the subject property is above the freeway elevation, and 25 feet
above the elevation of the freeway if the subject property is lower in elevation than the
freeway. Please refer to Table I for comparison of allowable sign area.
8.
Parking: Parking in most communities is determined by use rather than zone. There were
no great differences in how parking requirements were addressed.
9.
Design Review: Most communities, like Federal Way, require administrative design
review of commercial development. Staff did not review the specifics of the different
programs.
10. Noise, Light, and Glare: Most communities have adopted standard guidelines to address
noise, light and glare. There wére no specific requirements for development within the
zones that were reviewed. New vehicle sales in the FC zone can potentially have noise
impacts associated with the maintenance shop and outdoor speaker systems. In addition,
based on the locational criteria, FC zones can potentially locate adjacent to residential
areas. As a result, specific language is proposed to prevent noise associated with these uses
from being heard on adjacent residential areas.
2 Type III landscaping is described as a "visual buffer," which is intended to provide visual separation of uses from streets and
main arterials and between compatible uses so as to soften the appearance of parking areas and building elevations.
3 Type I landscaping is described as a "solid screen," which is intended to provide a solid sight barrier to totally separate
incompatible land uses.
Amendments to FWCP/FWCC - FC Zone
Follow-up Research
File #O4-100812-00-UP
Page 3
B.
SUMMARY OF COMPARISON WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES
Overall, the proposed standards for the FC zone fall within the range of development standards
reviewed for other communities. The primary differences staff found are as follows:
.
Number of Uses Allowed: With the exception of Bellingham and Burien, which focus more
on busmess park type development, most of the comparables reviewed allowed a wider
range of uses similar to Federal Way's BC zone, but broader than those proposed to be
allowed in the FC zone.
.
Minimum Lot Size: Most communities did not specify a minimum lot size, or if so, it was
minimal. The FC zone would require a minimum five-acre lot size for a vehicle sales use
(otherwise no minimum). Burien was one exception that had more stringent requirements
than Federal Way for vehicle sales.
.
Minimum Setback From a Residential Area: In the case of new vehicle sales, the proposed
50-foot setback for the FC zone is about double what other communities require (with the
exception of Burien, which also requires 50 feet). However, for all other uses in the FC
zone, the 20-foot setback is similar to the other communities' requirements.
.
Noise, Light, and Glare: No other community that was studied was found to have a noise
requirement similar to that proposed for the FC zone for new vehicle sales.
How do the proposed FC development standards compare with development standards for
the BC zone?
The LUTC was most interested in how the proposed FC zone compares with the existing BC zone.
Table I provides a comparison of the FC and BC zones.
1.
Permitted Uses: All of the uses proposed to be allowed in the FC zone are already allowed
in the BC zone. Although outlet malls are specifically called out as an allowable use in the
FC zone, it would also be allowed in the BC zone as a general retail use.
2.
Minimum Lot Size: The BC zone does not have a minimum lot size. The proposal for the
FC zone is no minimum lot size except for new vehicle sales, which would require a five-
acre mmlmum.
3.
Lot Coverage: All the commercial zones, including the BC zone, do not have maximum
lot coverage. Lot coverage is detennined by application of the other development
regulations.
4.
Maximum Height: The height limit of 55 feet for the FC zone is consistent with what is
currently allowed in the BC zone.
5.
Setbacks: Uses in the BC zone that are adjacent to a residential zone must maintain a
minimum 20-foot setback. The FC zone proposes a minimum 20-foot setback from
residential areas unless the development is new vehicle sales and then it is 50 feet.
Amendments to FWCP/FWCC - FC Zone
Follow-up Research
File #O4-IOO812-00-UP
Page 4
c.
The proposed minimum front, side and rear setbacks for the FC zone is 20 feet, five feet,
and five feet, respectively. Setbacks established in the BC zone depend on the specific use
and ranges from none to 50 feet, depending on the use. For example, in the BC zone, a 40-
foot minimum front yard setback is required for vehicle service stations.
6.
Landscaping: The proposed landscaping along a right-of-way within the FC zone is 10
feet of Type III. The existing requirement for the BC zone is five feet of Type III. The
requirement along a property line abutting a residential zone is 20 feet of Type 1 for the FC
zone and 15 feet of Type I for the BC zone. Perimeter landscaping for other lot line
conditions is five feet of Type III landscaping for the both the proposed FC zone, as well as
the existing BC zone.
7.
Signs: The BC zone allows for a pole sign up to 25 feet tall, with a maximum sign face of
400 square feet (200 square feet per side) under specific circumstances. If these
circumstances cannot be met, then a medium profile sign is allowed up to 12 feet in height
with a maximum sign face of 80 square feet (40 square feet per side) for single-tenant sites
and 128 square feet (64 square feet per side) for multi-tenant sites. The proposal for the FC
zone is to allow one highway profile sign (pole sign) per subject property. This sign could
be a maximum of 15 feet if the subject property is above the freeway elevation, and 25 feet
above the elevation of the freeway if the subject property is lower in elevation than the
freeway. The Freeway Commercial sign could have a maximum sign area of 600 square
feet (maximum of 300 square feet per face) if the elevation of the site is below the elevation
of the freeway, and 400 square feet (maximum of200 square feet per face) if the elevation
of the site is above the elevation of the freeway.
8.
Parking: Parking requirements are determined by use rather than zone and there is no
difference between the proposed FC and the existing zone.
9.
Design Review: All non-residential development must comply with the City's design
review requirements regardless of zone.
10. Noise, Light, and Glare: The BC zone has a noise requirement for veterinary clinics that
is similar to that proposed for new vehicle sales and related uses in the FC zone. The BP
and OP zones state that truck maneuvering and similar noise generating activities be
located as far away from adjacent residential zones as possible. The BC zone requires that
for auto body, painting, service, and repair uses, "... building layout and design mitigate
impact of dust, fumes, noise, glare, odor, or any other discharge on neighboring uses and
natural systems...." The BC zone states that the hours of operation of commercial uses may
be limited to reduce impacts on residential areas. The proposed noise-related requirements
for the FC zone incorporate a combination of language from all of these zones.
Research whether to allow pole signs in the Freeway Commercial zone and whether a 25
foot taU sign would be taU enough to be visible from the freeway
1.
Sign Height: As discussed above in Section II.B.7 above, the proposal for the FC zone is
to allow one highway profile sign (pole sign) per subject property. This sign could be a
maximum of 15 feet if the subject property is above the freeway elevation, and 25 feet
above the elevation of the freeway if the subject property is lower in elevation than the
Amendments to FWCP/FWCC - FC Zone
Follow-up Research
File #O4-100812-00-UP
Page 5
freeway. The FC sign could have a maximum sign area of 600 square feet (maximum of
300 square feet per face) if the elevation of the site is below the elevation of the freeway,
and 400 square feet (maximum of200 square feet per face) if the elevation of the site is
above the elevation of the freeway. The following pictures show a freeway-oriented sign in
Bellingham that is approximately 50 to 60 feet tall. The Bellingham sign code allows the
sign to have a total sign are of 600 square feet (300 square feet per sign face) and be 20 feet
taller than the freeway elevation at the closest driving lane. Therefore, a sign that exceeds
the freeway elevation by 25 feet would be visible from the freeway.
CITY OF BELLINGHAM
¡
¡
I
Sign height above street level, will depend on the
difference between elevation of the site and the freeway.
2.
Whether Pole Signs Should be Allowed: When preparing the proposed Freeway
Commercial sign provisions, staffresearched a number of other cities' freeway-oriented
sign codes and chose the City of Bellingham's sign ordinance as a model. Bellingham
allows signs to be visible from the freeway and allows the maximum sign height to be
based off the elevation of the freeway.
The original language proposed for the FC zone sign provisions required the design of the
posts for a pole sign to be compatible with the architecture of the primary structure on the
site. This is similar to existing language for freestanding signs in the "High Profile"
category, which allows 25-foot tall pole signs. In the "High Profile" category, the base must
be designed to complement the architecture of the primary structures on site or to use some
kind of textured material.
However, after meeting with sign contractors to discuss the new FC sign provisions, this
language was taken out due to the response we received regarding this requirement. Sign
Amendments to FWCP/FWCC - FC Zone
Follow-up Research
File #O4-1008l2-00-UP
Page 6
contractors commented that the base would have to be custom designed, which is not a
problem for a 25-foot pole sign, because the base itself is usually 10 feet tall or less.
However, the freeway commercial signs could potentially be as tall as 50 to 70 feet due to
the topography of the land adjacent to the freeway. As a result the base for a freeway
commercial sign could be 50 feet or taller. In this circumstance, the base would have to be
pre-textured and custom designed into various sections just to complete the installation.
Special engineering would be required to complete a step down for the wind load. Such a
requirement would warrant a significant cost to the client, as well as pose significant
maintenance challenges, since a boom truck would be required. After these discussions, it
was decided to allow pole signs without the requirement for architectural compatibility for
freeway commercial signs.
During the May 3,2004 meeting, some members of the LUTC voiced a concern about
allowing pole signs in the FC zone and asked staff to look at some of the signs in Fife. As a
result of this research, and as shown in the following pictures, it appears that 40-foot tall
signs can be designed in such a way to be architecturally compatible with the primary
structure on the site.
. . '. .
. .s
. ':-:~:. ...
Both of the signs are located along 1-5 in Fife. They are 40-feet tall and 250 square
feet per sign face.
Based on the research, staff proposes to add similar language that currently exists in the
design criteria for sign bases. Please refer to Page 3 of Exhibit A (shown as double
underlined). In addition, staff proposes to add a cap of 60 feet for the height of pole signs.
As currently drafted, there is no cap on the height for the FC (pole) signs. Consequently,
the Costco site, which is the lowest known elevation at 62 feet below the freeway elevation
at the closest driving lane, could have an 87-foot tall sign. However, there are other higher
elevations on the Costco site (31 feet below the freeway elevation), which could
accommodate a pole sign. This would result in a 56-foot tall sign. Please refer to Page 3 of
Exhibit A (shown as double underlined) for the proposed new language capping the
maximum sign height at 60 feet.
Amendments to FWCP/FWCC - FC Zone
Follow-up Research
File #04-1 00812-00-UP
Page 7
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that a New Freeway Commercial zone be adopted with the amendments as
proposed by the Planning Commission, and with the two additional changes recommended above
pertaining to architectural compatibility and maximum sign height.
IV. COUNCIL ACTION
The Committee has the following options:
1. Recommend that the full Council adopt an ordinance approving the proposed code
amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission.
2. Recommend that the full Council modify and then approve the proposed code
amendments as recommended by the LUTe.
3. Recommend that the full Council disapprove the proposed code amendments.
4. Recommend that the full Council send the proposed code amendments back to the
Planning Commission for further review.
Staff recommends that the LUTC recommend to the full Council Option No.2 above, that is,
adoption of the Planning Commission's recommendations with the two changes.
V.
LAND USErrRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The LUTC forwards the proposed amendment to the full Council for first reading as follows:
As recommended by Planning Commission.
As recommended by Planning Commission and amended by the LUTC.
.~ 'T~k- - t?e4'~ ~~ ~ ~~.,
APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE ACTlON:
~~
Eric Faison, Member
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit A
Exhibits B-N
Comparison Chart of City of Federal Way Proposed Freeway Commercial Zone, Existing
Community Business Zone and Selected Other Cities
Proposed Changes to Freeway Commercial Sign Code
Planning Commission Recommendation
Table 1
I:\DOCUMENnFreeway Commercial Zoning District\LUTC\O51404 Staff Report.doclO51l9/2004 9:53 AM
Amendments to FWCP/FWCC - FC Zone
Follow-up Research
File #04-1008 I 2-00-UP
Page 8
FREEWAY COMMERCIAL SIGNS EXHIB'"T
PAGE ---,
22-1601 Signs in nonresidential zoning districts.
(a) Freestanding signs. Permit applications for freestanding signs shall be designated as
qualifying for a high profile, medium profile, er low profile sign, or highway profile category A
based upon criteria regarding both the size and zoning designation of the development. The sign
profile designation shall control the sign types, sign height, sign area and number of signs
allowed.
Separate parcels or pads for single-tenant buildings that comply with all zoning requirements
for single-tenant parcels, excluding access, and are not otherwise tied to an adjacent multi-tenant
center by virtue of architectural style or theme, are permitted one freestanding monument or
pedestal sign not to exceed a maximum sign area of 80 square feet for the total of all sign faces
with no one sign face exceeding 40 square feet.
(1) High profile sign. .
a. Criteria. A subject property meeting all of the following criteria is permitted a
high profile freestanding sign:
I. A minimum of 250 feet of frontage on one public right-of-way;
2. A zoning designation of city center core (CC-C) or city center frame (CC-F), or
community business (BC);
3. A multiuse complex; and
4. A minimum site of 15 acres in size.
b. Sign types. The following sign types are allowed for a high profile sign:
1. Pylon or pole signs; provided, however, that any pylon or pole sign must have more
than one pole or structural support;
2. Pedestal signs;
3. Monument signs;
4. Tenant directory signs; and
5. Kiosks.
Sign content for any pylon: or pole sign, or for any pedestal or monument sign in lieu of a
pylon or pole sign, may include electronic changeable messages, center identification signs and/or
changeable copy signs. Any high profile sign may be an electrical sign, an illuminated sign,
and/or a neon sign.
c. Sign height. A high profile sign shall not exceed the following maximum heights:
I. Pylon or pole sign: Twenty-five feet;
2. Pedestal or monument signs: Twelve feet if in lieu of a pylon or pole sign.
Otherwise, pedestal and monument signs shall not exceed five feet;
3. Tenant directory or kiosk signs: Six feet unless the sign is set back a minimum of 50
feet from any public right-of-way, in which case it may be 10 feet.
d. Sign area. A high profile sign shall not exceed the following maximum sign areas:
I. Pylon or pole sign: 400 square feet for the total of sign faces with no one sign face
exceeding 200 square feet;
2. Pedestal or monument signs: 128 square feet for the total of all sign faces with no
one face exceeding 64 square feet;
3. Tenant directory or kiosk signs: 15 square feet per sign face.
e. Number of signs. A subject property qualifying for a high profile sign may have the
following maximum number of signs:
Page I
A
, _5
FREEW A Y COMMERCIAL SIGrGXH I B rr
PAGE___2
A
~- .-5
1. Pylon or pole sign: One sign unless the subject property has an additional 500 feet
of street frontage for a total of 750 feet of aggregate frontage on any public rights-of-way, in
which case the subject property will be allowed one additional high profile sign, not to exceed a
maximum of two such signs per subject property;
2. Pedestal or monument signs: If the pedestal or monument sign is in lieu of a pylon
or pole sign, the number of signs allowed shall be determined pursuant to subsection (e)(1) of this
section. In addition, two monument signs which identify the name of any multiuse complex are
allowed, per entrance from a public right-of-way, not to exceed five feet in height; and
3. Tenant directory or kiosk signs: One sign per frontage on a public right-of-way.
(2) Medium profile sign.
a. Criteria. A subject property that does not qualify for a high profile sign pursuant to
subsection (a)(l) of this section and is not a low profile sign by being zoned office park (OP) or
professional office (PO) pursuant to subsection (a)(3) of this section is permitted a medium
profile freestanding sign.
b. Sign types. The following sign types are allowed for a medium profile sign:
1. Pedestal signs; and
2. Monument signs.
Sign content for any medium profile sign may include electronic changeable messages,
center identification signs and/or changeable copy signs. Any medium profile sign may be an
electrical sign, an illuminated sign, and/or a neon sign.
c. Sign height. The height of a medium profile sign shall be calculated at the rate of 0.75
feet in the sign height for every 10 lineal feet of frontage on a public right-of-way; provided,
however, that sign height shall be calculated at the rate of one and one-half feet in sign height for
every 10 lineal feet of frontage on a public right-of-way for any multi-tenant complex; and
provided further, that such sign shall not exceed a maximum height of 12 feet and every applicant
is entitled to a minimum height of five feet.
d. Sign area. For any multi-tenant complex, sign area allowed for a medium profile signs
shall be calculated at the rate of two square feet per lineal foot of frontage on a public right-of-
way not to exceed a maximum sign area of 128 square feet for the total of all sign faces on each
permitted sign with no one sign face exceeding 64 square feet. For other uses, sign area allowed
for medium profile sign shall be calculated at the rate of one square foot per lineal foot of
frontage on a public right-of-way not to exceed a maximum sign area of 80 square feet for the
total of all sign faces on each permitted sign with no one sign face exceeding 40 square feet.
Notwithstanding the foregoing sign area calculations, every applicant is entitled to a minimum
sign area of 50 square feet for the total of all sign faces with no one sign face exceeding 25 square
feet.
e. Number of signs. A subject property qualifying for a medium profile sign may have
one pedestal or monument sign for each street frontage. Each street frontage exceeding 300 linear
feet and containing more than one vehicular access is permitted one additional freestanding sign.
No subject property may contain more than three freestanding signs regardless of total linear
street frontage and no one street frontage may have more than two freestanding signs.
Freestanding signs shall be located a minimum distance of 200 feet from other freestanding signs
on the same subject property.
(3) Low profile sign.
a. Criteria. A subject property located in the office park (OP) or professional office (PO)
zone is permitted a low profile freestanding sign.
b. Sign types. The following sign types are allowed for a low profile sign:
Page 2
FREEWAY COMMERCIAL SIGNS
1. Pedestal signs;
2. Monument signs; and
3. Tenant directory signs.
Sign content for any pedestal or monument sign may include center identification signs
and/or changeable copy signs. Any low profile sign may be an electrical sign, an illuminated sign,
and/or a neon sign.
c. Sign height. A low profile sign shall not exceed the following maximum heights:
1. Pedestal or monument signs: Five feet.
2. Tenant directory signs: Six feet unless the sign is set back a minimum of 50 feet
from any public right-of-way, in which case it may be 10 feet. .
d. Sign area.
1. Pedestal or monument signs: Sign area allowed for a low profile sign shall be
calculated at the rate of one square foot per lineal foot of frontage on a public right-of-way;
provided, however, that a low profile sign shall not exceed a maximum sign area of 80 square feet
for the total of all sign faces on each permitted sign with no one sign face exceeding 40 square
feet, and every applicant is entitled to a minimum sign area of 50 square feet for the total of all
sign faces with no one sign face exceeding 25 square feet;
2. Tenant directory signs: 15 square feet per sign face.
e. Number of signs. A subject property qualifying for a low profile sign may have the
following maximum number of signs:
1. Pedestal or monument signs: One sign per frontage on a public right-of-way; and
2. Tenant directory signs: One sign per frontage on a public right-of-way.
LXH P:'.)I ¡!ï'-
I:::.. .1_"
PAGE. S
A
~.-5
(4) Highway Profile Category A signs.
In addition to the categories available in FWCC Section 22-1601(a)(1-3), a subject
property may be permitted one of the following freestanding signs if it meets the criteria listed in
highway profile category A below.
a. Highwav Profile Category A
1. Criteria. A subject property is permitted an additional highway profile category A
freestanding sign i[the subject property meets all of the following criteria:
a. Abuts the right of way of Interstate 5;
b. Is located in a zoning designation of freeway commercial (FC).
2. Sign types. A pylon or pole sign is allowed, provided, that any pylon or pole sign
must have more than one pole or structural support~ and its design must be compatible to the
architecture of the primary structure on site. or to the primary sÙm( s) alreadv permitted on the
subject property and subject to the administrator's approval.
Sign content for any pylon or {'ole sign, may include center identification signs, provided,
however, that all font sizes used are a minumum 2.5 feet tall. Trademarks or copy write svmbols
are exempt from the font size requirement. Any highway profile category A may be an
illuminated sign, and/or a neon sign. Electronic changeable copv and/or changeable copv signs
are not permitted.
The sign must be oriented toward the freeway (not the off-ramps) and be located near the
property line closest to the freeway and be visible from the freeway.
3. Sign height. A highway profile category A sign shall not exceed 25 feet above the
elevation of the nearest driving lane of the freeway at a point nearest to the proposed location of
the sign and shall be no taller than 60 feet above the averaQ:e finshed IITound elevation measured
at the midpoint of the sign base. The sign height shall be measured by a licensed surveyor and the
applicant shall be responsible for providing the survevor.
Page 3
A
4- .~~
If the subject property has an elevation that is higher than the nearest driving lane of the
freeway, then the sign shall be no taller than 15 feet above the average finshed ground elevation
measured at the midpoint of the sign base.
4. Sign area. A highway profile category A sign shall not exceed 600 square feet for
the total of sign faces with no one sign face exceeding 300 square feet.
If the subject property has an elevation that is higher than the nearest driving lane of the
freeway, then the sign area shall not exceed 400 square feet for the total of sign faces with no one
sign face exceeding 200 square feet.
5. Number of signs. A subject property qualifying for a highway profile sign may have
only one (1) highway profile category A sign per subject property.
6. The applicant shall be responsible for coordinating any such sign with the State of
Washington Scenic Vistas Act.
FREEWAY COMMERCIAL SIGNS
l-x H \ !.~. ~ ".
L-.. I " - .
PAGE
-{41ill Combined sign package for adjacent property owners. The owners of two or more
properties that abut or are separated only by a vehicular access easement or tract may propose a
combined sign package to the city. The city will review and decide upon the proposal using
process III. The city may approve the combined sign package if it will provide more coordinated,
effective and efficient signs. The allowable sign area, sign type, sign height and number of signs
will be determined as if the applicants were one multi-tenant complex.
(b) Building-mounted signs.
(1) Sign types. The following sign types may be building-mounted signs and are allowed in
all nonresidential zoning districts:
a. Awning or canopy signs;
b. Center identification signs;
c. Changeable copy signs;
d. Civic event signs;
e. Directional signs, on-site;
f. Electronic changeable message signs;
g. Instructional signs;
h. Marquee signs;
i. Projecting signs;
j. Tenant directory signs;
k. Time and temperature signs;
1. Under canopy signs; and
m. Wall-mounted signs.
Any building-mounted sign may be an electrical sign, an illuminated sign, and/or a neon sign.
(2) Sign height. No sign shall project above the roofline of the exposed building face to which
it is attached.
(3) Sign area. The total sign area of building-mounted signs for each business or tenant,
excluding under canopy signs, shall not exceed seven percent of the exposed building face to
which it is attached; provided, however, that no individual sign shall exceed a sign area of 240
square feet and every applicant is entitled to a minimum sign area of 30 square feet. A multi-
tenant complex which does not use a freestanding sign may have two additional wall-mounted
signs. No one sign may exceed seven percent of the exposed building face to which it is attached,
to a maximum of 240 square feet per sign. This sign is in addition to any other tenant signs on
that building tàce.
Page 4
FREEWAY COMMERCIAL SI{i~; b ' -,'
PA,GE
A-
S
5
(4) Number of signs. The number of building-mounted signs permitted each user is dependent
upon the surface area of the largest single exposed building face of his or her building as follows,
excluding wall-mounted center identification signs:
Largest Exposed Maximum
Building Face Number of Signs
Less than 999 sq. ft. 2
1,000 - 2,999 sq. ft. 3
3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft. 4
4,000 and over sq. ft. 5
Buildings with more than 4,000 square feet on any exposed building face, with several clearly
differentiated departments, each with separate exterior entrances, are permitted one sign for each
different department with a separate exterior entrance, in addition to the five permitted.
No sign or signs may exceed the maximum area permitted for that building face except as
may be specifically permitted by this code. However, an applicant is allowed to move allotted
signs, as calculated in subsection (b)( 4) from one building face to another.
Each business or use shall be permitted under canopy signs in addition to the other permitted
building-mounted signs subject to the size and separation requirements set forth in FWCC 22-
1 599(c)(2)(w).
(c) Sign area multipliers. The sign area and sign number allowed, as set forth in subsection
(a)(l)(d) of this section for high profile signs, (a)(2)(d) of this section for medium profile signs,
and (a)(3)(d) of this section for low profile signs and subsection (b)(3) of this section for
building-mounted signs may be increased in the following instances; provided, however, that in
no event shall the sign exceed the maximum sign area allowed:
(1) If no signs on the subject property have internally lighted sign faces, then the total sign
area allowed may be increased by 25 percent.
(2) If all signs, other than center identification signs, are building-mounted signs, the total
sign area allowed may be increased by 25 percent.
(3) A time and temperature sign may be included with any sign and such time and
temperature signs shall not be included for purposes of calculating maximum sign area or
maximum number of signs. (Ord. No. 95-235, § 4, 6-6-95; Ord. No. 96-270, § 3(F), 7-2-96; Ord. No. 99-
348, § 5,9-7-99; Ord. No. 99-357, § 6,12-7-99)
I:IDOCUMENTIFreeway Commercial Zoning DístrictlLUTCIFreeway Commercial Signs.doc
Page 5
FWCP - Chapter Two, land Use
EXH I B IT_-
PAGE____'
Figure II-2
The Concept Plan Diagram
Concentrate new development in d1e
H¡gh~y 99/1-5 comd«.
O<!:vdop infrasbucture to support'
conid<X" devetopment.
TnI\sfocm reta.il core into a. new
mix<:<i-use Gty Centet".
Preserve and enhance ~ting single-
family neighbomoôds.
Create a ttetwoc\: of parks and o~
,-(pal a>nidoß-
Oiv~rsify emptoyment base by
creating distinct employment areas
"'~~ . -
Create new intensive residèntiaf .
communities supported by t(a.ltsít.
Provide community "nd co~merciaJ
services t,O residential communities.
1-
~ ¡: 7
\
2003 Comp Plan Update
11-3
FWCP-ChapterTwo, Land Use
EXHIBIT~_._--2 .
PAGE~:)Fj
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAND USE CHAPTERS
-
2.2
The land use concept set forth in this chapter is consistent with all FWCP chapters.
Internal consistency among the chapters of the FWCP translates into coordinated growth
and an efficient use of limited resources. Below is a brief discussion of how the Land Use
chapter relates to the other chapters of the FWCP.
Economic Development
Federal Way's economy is disproportionately divided. Based on PSRC's 2000 Covered
Estimates by jurisdiction, retail and service industries compose more than 70 percent of
Federal Way's employment base. Covered estimates are jobs that are covered by
unemployment insurance. Dependence on retail trade stems primarily from the City's
evolution into a regional shopping destination for South King County and northeast Pierce
County. Increased regional competition from other retail areas, such as Tukwila and the
Auburn SuperMall, may impact the City's ability to capture future retail dollars. To
improve Federal Way's economic outlook, the economic development strategy is to
promote a more diverse economy. A diversified economy should achieve a better balance
between jobs and housing and supports the City's quality of life.
In conjunction with the Economic Development chapter, this Land Use chapter promotes
the following:
.
A City Center composed of mid-rise office buildings, mixed-use retail, and
housing.
.
Community Business and Business Park development in the South 34Sth Street
area.
.
Continued development of West Campus.
.
Continued development of East Campus (Weyerhaeuser Corporate and Office
Park properties).
.
Redevelopment and development of the SR-99 corridor into an area of quality
commercial and mixed use development.
.
Continued use of design standards for non-singleJamily areas.
.
Freeway commercial development focusing on attracting and capturing those
retail dollars presently being lost to other communities and complementing
existing retail uses in the community.
2003 Comp Plan Update
11-4
FWCP - Chapter Two, land Use
EXHIBIT__-$,
P AGE-30F ~
The land use map designations support development necessary to achieve the above (see
the Comprehensive Plan Designations Map II-]). A complete discussion of economic
development is set forth in the Economic Development chapter.
Capital Facilities
Capital facilities provided by the City include: transportation and streets, parks and open
space, and surface water management.
Infrastructure and Urban Services
The amount and availability of urban services and infrastructure influences the location and
pace of future growth. The City is responsible for the construction and maintenance of
parks and recreation facilities, streets and transportation improvements, and surface water
facilities. Providing for future growth while maintaining existing improvements depends
upon the community's willingness to pay for the construction and financing of new
facilities and the maintenance of existing facilities. As outlined in the Capital Facilities
Plan, new infrastructure and services may be financed by voter-approved bonds, impact
fees, grants, designated capital taxes (real estate excise tax, fuel tax, utility tax), and money
from the City's general fund.
To capitalize on the City's available resources for urban services and infrastructure, this
Land Use chapter recognizes that concentrating growth is far more cost effective than
allowing continued urban sprawl. Concentrating growth also supports the enhancement of
future transit improvements.
Water Availability
Based on reports from the Lakehaven Utility District, the estimated available yield from the
underlying aquifers is 10.1 million gallons per day (MGD, 10-year average based on
average annual rainfall). The District controls which well to use, thus which aquifers are
being pumped from, based on a number of considerations including water levels and
rainfall. In order to reduce detrimental impacts to its groundwater supplies in the recent
past, the District has also augmented its groundwater supplies with wholesale water
purchased from the City of Tacoma through water system interties. In addition, the District
has entered into a long-term agreement with the City of Tacoma and other South King
County utilities to participate in the construction of Tacoma's Second Supply Project (a
second water diversion from the Green River), which will provide additional water supplies
to the region. As a result, the water levels in the aquifers have remained stable, and the
District's water supply capacity will increase to 14.7 MGD on an annual average basis
when Tacoma's Second Supply Project is completed in 2004. Concentrating growth, along
with conservation measures, should help to conserve water.
Water Quality
Maintaining a clean source of water is vital to the health and livability of the City.
Preserving water quality ensures a clean source of drinking water; and, continued health of
the City's streams and lakes. Maintaining water quality is also important for maintaining
2003 Comp Plan Update
11.5
FWCP-ChapterTwa, Land Use
Exr-HBII ":1-
PAGE_-'1 ,~;;::_-'1-
LUP36
Develop business parks that fit into their surroundings by grouping similar
industries in order to reduce or eliminate land use conflicts, allow sharing of
public facilities and services, and improve traffic flow and safety.
LUP37
Limit retail uses to those that serve the needs of people employed in the area.
Commercial
City Center Core
The intent of establishing the City Center Core is to create a higher density, mixed-use
designation where office, retail, government uses, and residential uses are concentrated.
Other uses such as cultural/civic facilities, community services, and housing will be highly
encouraged.
City Center Frame
The City Center Frame designation will have a look and feel similar to the Core and will
provide a zone of less dense, mixed-use development physically surrounding a portion of
the City Center Core. Together, they are meant to complement each other to create a
"downtown" area. A more detailed description, along with goals and policies regarding the
City Center Core and Frame, can be found in the City Center chapter.
Community Business
The Community Business designation encompasses two major retail areas of the City. It
covers the "strip" retail areas along SR-99 and the large "bulk" retail area found near the
South 348th Street area, approximately between SR-99 and 1-5. Community Business
allows a large range of uses and is the City's largest retail designation in tenTIS of area.
The Community Business designation generally runs along both sides of SR-99 from
South 272od to South 348th. A wide range of development types, appearance, ages,
function, and scale can be found along SR-99. Older, single-story developments provide
excellent opportunities for redevelopment.
Due in part to convenient access and available land, the South 348th Street area has
become a preferred location for large bulk retailers such as Eagle Hardware, Home Depot,
and Costco. Due to the size of these facilities, the challenge will be to develop these uses
into well functioning, aesthetically pleasing retail environments.
To create retail areas that are aesthetically and functionally attractive, revised development
standards, applied through Community Business zoning and Community Design
Guidelines, address design quality, mixed-use, and the integration of auto, pedestrian, and
transit circulation. Site design, modulation, and setback requirements are also addressed.
Through regulations in the Community Business land use chart, the size and scale of
hotels, motels, and office uses have been limited in scale so as not to compete with the
City Center.
2003 Camp Plan Update
11-21
FWCP-ChapterTwo. Land Use
Goal
LUG6
Policies
LUP38
LUP39
EXHIBJT_- .
PAGE_S
:B
': ,
Transform Community Business areas into vital, attractive, mixed-use areas
that appeal to pedestrians and motorists and enhance the community's image.
Encourage transfonnation of Pacific Highway (SR-99) Community Business
corridor into a quality mixed-use retail area. Retail development along the
corridor, exclusive of the City Center, should be designed to integrate auto,
pedestrian, and transit circulation. Integration of public amenities and open
space into retail and office development should also be encouraged.
Encourage auto-oriented large bulk retailers to locate in the South 348th Street
Community Business area.
Freeway Commercial
The Freeway Commercial designation is intended for areas that border the 1-5/South 320th
and I-5/SR 18interchanges with convenient freeway access and visibility. Freeway
Commercial areas are typically large in size (five acres or greater). The range of
commercial land uses pennitted in these areas is limited to uses that are difficult to site in
the city's other commercially designated areas due to their large site size requirements
and/or difficulty in adapting to pedestrian-oriented areas. Freeway Commercial areas are
particularly suitable for automobile sales. home furnishings centers. and related retail and
service uses that require large tracts of land, convenient freeway access and visibility.
Goal
LUG?
Policies
LUP40
LUP41
LUP42
Encourage the development of limited areas with high levels of freewav access
and visibility as suitable locations for freeway-oriented businesses to locate
within the city in a cohesive development pattern that also meets the
community's product and service needs.
Encourage freeway oriented uses to locate in Freeway Commercial-designated
areas.
Encourage quality regional destination retail development through the
utilization of appropriate design guidelines and development standards.
The development of freeway commercial areas should respond to the needs of
consumers by providing for ease of access and circulation and convenient
grouping of complementary uses.
2003 Camp Plan Update
11-22
FWCP-ChapterTwo, land Use
LUP43
EXHIBIT_-
PAGE_'-_.
3-
~)'~ 1
Create additional development standards to mitigate impacts to neig~boring,
residential uses.
Neighborhood Business
There are a dozen various sized nodes of Neighborhood Business located throughout the
City. These nodes are areas that have historically provided retail and/or services to adjacent
residential areas. The FWCP recognizes the importance of firmly fixed boundaries to
prevent commercial intrusion into adjacent neighborhoods.
Neighborhood Business areas are intended to provide convenient goods (e.g., groceries and
hardware) and services (e.g., dry cleaners, dentist, bank) at a pedestrian and neighborhood
scale close to adjacent residential uses. Developments combining residential and
commercial uses provide a convenient living environment within these nodes. In the future,
attention should be given to design features that enhance the appearance or function of
these areas. Improvements may include sidewalks, open space and street trees, and parking
either on street or oriented away from the street edge. The function of neighborhood
business areas can also be enhanced by safe pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections to
surrounding neighborhoods.
The need to address expansion or intensification may occur in the future depending on
population growth. Future neighborhood business locations should be carefully chosen
, and sized to meet the needs of adjacent residential areas.
Goal
LUG?
Policies
LUP40
LUP41
LUP42
LUP43
LUP44
LUP45
Provide neighborhood and community scale retail centers for the City's
neighborhoods.
Integrate retail developments into surrounding neighborhoods through attention
to quality design and function.
Encourage pedestrian and bicycle access to neighborhood shopping and
services.
Encourage neighborhood retail and personal services to locate at appropriate
locations where local economic demand and design solutions demonstrate
compatibility with the neighborhood.
Retail and personal services should be encouraged to group together within
planned centers to allow for ease of pedestrian movement.
Neighborhood Business centers should consist of neighborhood scale retail and
personal services.
Encourage mixed residential and commercial development in Neighborhood
2003 Camp Plan Update
11.23
FWCP-ChapterTwo,LandUse EXHIBfT__- _S'~'
PAGE ., ~)E::t '
the PAS will not have to go through prolonged environmental review~an be a
powerful incentive for private development in the City Center.
Subarea Plans
Over the years, citizens from various areas of the City have come forth to testify before the
Planning Commission and City Council regarding their neighborhood or business area.
Development of subarea plans can lead to area specific visions and policies. This type of
specific planning, developed with citizen input and direction, can lead to improved
confidence and ownership in the community. Areas where subarea planning should be
considered include: SR-99 Corridor, South 348th Street area, and Twin Lakes
neighborhood.
Incentives
Develop an incentives program, for both residential and commercial development.
Incentives should be substantial enough to attract development and should be used to
create affordable and desired types of housing and to encourage development within the
City Center.
Table II-3
Land Use Classifications
Comprehensive Plan Classification Zoning Classification
Single Family - Low Density Residential Suburban Estates (SE), one dwelling unit per five acres
Single Family - Medium Density Residential RS 35,000 & 15,000
Single Family - High Density Residential RS 9600, 7200, 5000
Multiple Family Residential RM 3600, 2400, 1800
City Center Core City Center Core
City Center Frame City Center Frame
Office Park Office Park, Office Park 1,2, & 3
Professional Office Professional Office
Community Business Community Business
Business Park Business Park
Freeway Commercial Freeway Commercial
Neighborhood Business Neighborhood Business
Corporate Park Corporate Park-l
Commercial Recreation Office Park-4
Open Space & Parks A variety of zoning is assigned.
2003 Comp Plan Update
11-55
FWCP - Chapter Four, Economic Development
EXHIBrr
PAGE__-I
c
.~-
_I
Retail Areas
.
SeaTac Mall and other regional retailers within the City redevelop/reposition to meet
changing consumer demand and become more competitive with other regional
retailers.
.
High-volume retail in Federal Way increases faster than population.
.
Growth in resident-serving retail occurs in the City Center, existing commercial
nodes~ and in redevelopment areas along SR-99.
.
Neighborhood scale retail development keeps pace with population growth and to an
increasing extent, is accommodated within mixed-use buildings in more concentrated
neighborhood villages.
.
Pedestrian-oriented retail development emerges gradually in the redeveloped City
Center.
.
SmaIl amounts of retail use occur on the ground floor of offices, residential buildings,
and parking structures.
.
Neighborhood scale retail development in concentrated neighborhood villages
emerges in response to growth in multiple-family concentrations in the 1-5/SR-99
corridor and new single-family development on the east side ofI-5.
.
Old, outdated strip centers along the SR-99 corridor redevelop as a mix of retail,
office, and dense residential uses.
.
The large truck-stop facility at the intersection of Enchanted Parkway and South
348th Street is redeveloped into a retail or mixed-use commercial center.
.
Freeway oriented commercial development providing for automobile sales, home
furnishings centers, hotels and related retail and service uses are located in areas
bordering the 1-5/SR-18 and 1-5/S 320th St interchanges within areas of appropriate
size and with convenient access and visibility.
Office Development
.
Offices of regional, national, and/or international firms locate in West Campus, East
Campus, and the City Center.
.
Garden, high-rise, and mid-rise office space, and modern light-industrial buildings
increase rapidly in areas with land assembled for business parks and in redeveloped
retail areas.
2003 Camp Plan Updates
IV-15
22-XXX New vehicle sales.
The following uses shall be permitted in the freeway commercial (Fe) zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this section:
~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. .. THEN, across for REGULATIONS
::2 Minimums
1;;; ~ Required Yards
,..¡ "
;:¡ is
" ""~
~ ,,~
Q:; .::"
::>.-
0">
" "
IX IX
USE
Retail
establishment
providing for
new vehicle
sales including
boats,
motorcycles
and
recreational
vehicle RY
sales
Process
1Il
"
N
Ü'3
Õ
....¡
,.....,
,¡::,
u
"
~
"
""
Ü'3
ë:
0
~
acres
Process I, II, III and IV are described in
§§ 22.351 - 22.356,
22.361 - 22.370,
22.386 - 22.411,
22.431 - 22.460, respectively.
03
"
IX
'-
0 "
- :;
-@¡t
oj 2
::r:cñ
35 ft. above
average
building
elevation
See notes 2
and 3
'"
"
u
"
Q.
""r/1
" on
.:: c:
::> .-
O"~
" "
IX"-
USE ZONE CHART
ZONE
FC
SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
Retail I. The hours of operation may be limited to reduce the impacts on nearby residential uses.
facilities: I 2. Ifany portion ofa structure on the subject property is located less than 100 ft. from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the structure
for every 300 shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of 50 ft. from the property line of the
sq. ft of residential zone.
gross floor 3. The height of that portion ofa structure located 100 ft. or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft above average building elevation to a
area maximum of 55 ft., if all of the following criteria are met: .1
a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and
b. That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft. for each one ft. the structure exceeds 35 ft. above average building elevation; and'
c. An increase in height above 35 ft. will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and
d. The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan.
4. Used vehicle sales, gasoline service stations, service, maintenance and body shops, car washes, auto supply stores, hazardous waste
treatment and storage facilities, and coffee shops are only permitted as an accessory use to a new vehicle sales establishment.
5. Gas pump islands, canopies, and covers over pump islands may not be closer than 25 ft. to any property line, unless located adjacent to a
residential zone, in which case the setback shall be 50 ft. Outdoor vehicle display areas and service areas may not be closer than lOft. to any
property line, unless located adjacent to a residential zone, in which case the setback shall be 50 ft.
6. Auto and boat body repair andlor painting may be permitted under this section only if:
a. Building layout and design mitigates impact of dust, fumes, noise, glare, odor, or any other discharge on neighboring uses and natural systems;
protects neighboring uses and natural systems from accidental spillage, leakage, or discharge of hazardous material and pollutants;
b. All storage, operations, service, painting, and repair are conducted within enclosed buildings.
7. Truck parking, loading, and maneuvering areas; areas where noise generating outdoor uses and activities may occur; and vents and similar
features must be located as far as possible from any residential zone and secondarily, from any public right-of-way.
8. Hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities must comply with state citing criteria adopted in accordance with Chapter 70. iõ(1cm
9. No use or activity shall be conducted that involves the release oftoxic or noxious gases, fumes, or odors. ~ ~
10. No use or activity shall be conducted that results in the contamination of storm water, surface water, or groundwater pursuant hap,
Article IV.
II.The site must be designed so that noise associated with public address systems; vehicle repair or maintenance; and truck parki adlRg«
maneuvering; will not be audible off the subject property, based on a certificate to this effect, signed by an acoustical engineer an .1 d '&Jhe
development permit application. . I -
12. No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be detennined by other site development requiremetlts, Le., re'lIJ.lred
buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc. : ,'-/
13. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIX. Areas where vehicles are displayed are not subject to the parking lot
design requirements of Section 22.1634(b). --
14. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII. Areas where vehicles are displayed are not subject to the parking lot
landscaping requirements of Section 22.1567. .
15. Areas where vehicles are displayed are not subject to the provisions of Article XIll, Section 1113, Outdoor Activities and Stora1e~
16. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII. I j L..I
17. For noise standards that apply to the project, see Chapter 10, Article II. 1 V
18. Refer to § 22-946 et se . to determine what other rovisions of this chaPter may apply to the subject property. ..
For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq.
Otherwise:
determined
on a case-by-
case basis
For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq.
For details regarding required yards, see § 22.1131 et seq.
22-XXX Retail.
The following uses shall be permitted in the freeway commercial (FC) zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this section:
~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. .. THEN, across for REGULATIONS
sa Minimums
~ ~ Required Yards
,..¡ ..,
;:.J g
" .,,¡:\:;
¡.¡ .., ¡!:
IX .::..,
'" .-
CT>
.., ..,
¡:<:¡:<:
USE
RetãTI
establishment
selling
household
goods and
furnishings,
household
appliances and
home
electronics
(excluding
bulk and big
box retail)
Retail Outlet
centers
(excluding
bulk and big
box retail)
..,
N
ëi3
Õ
,....¡
2
u
""
~
..,
."
ëi3
æ
..,
¡:<:
'- ..,
0 ....
- '"
i},ü
.- 2
.., -
:I:eI)
ë
0
.t
'"
..,
u
""
0-
."eI)
.., OJ)
.:: '"
'" .-
¡¡~
¡:<:,,-
USE ZONE CHART
ZONE
FC
SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
1. The hours of operation may be limited to reduce impacts on nearby residential uses.
2. ¡fany portion of a structure on the subject property is located less than 100 ft. from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the
structure shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of20 ft. from the property line of
the residential zone.
3. Ifapproved through Process III, the height of that portion ofa structure located 100 ft. or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft.
above average building elevation to a maximum of 55 ft., ifall of the following criteria are met:
a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and
b. That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft. for each one ft. the structure exceeds 35 ft. above average building elevation;
and
c. An increase in height above 35 ft. will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and
d. The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan.
4. Assembly or manufacture of goods on the subject property is peITllitted only if:
a. The assembly or manufacture is clearly accessory to an allowed use conducted on the subject property and is directly related to and
dependent on this allowed use; and
b. The assembled or manufactured goods are available for purchase and removal from the subject property and are for sale only to retail
purchasers; and
c. There are no outward appearance or impacts from the assembly or manufacture.
5. Restaurants, not exceeding 7,500 square feet in gross floor area, are allowed as an accessory use to the outlet center. -n ~
6. Truck parking, loading, and maneuvering areas; areas where noise generating outdoor uses and activities may occur; and ven~ si i a
features must be located as far as possible from any residential zone and secondarily, from any public right-of-way. p
7. Outdoor use, activity, and storage is regulated by Article XIII, Section 1113. t"""\ ..,..
8. No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be determined by other site development requiremeðtt Ie., ~red
buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc. m -
9. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIX. OJ
10. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII. I -,
11. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII. ....C~
112. Refer to § 22-946 et seq. to deteITlline what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property. ~ ¡
-,- For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq.
Process IIINone 35 ft. above Retail facilities:
average 1 for every 300
Possible I building sq. ft of gross
Process elevation floor area
III
See Note
3
See notes 2
and 3
Process I, \I, III and IV are described in
§§ 22.351 - 22-356,
22-361 - 22-370.
22.386 - 22.411,
22-431 - 22-460, respectively.
I for each 100
sq. ft. of gross
floor area for
restaurants
",.1
For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq.
For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq.
: l' i
¡ 1'11-
I-I
22-XXX Entertainment, etc.
The following uses shall be permitted in the freeway commercial (Fe) zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this section:
~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use... THEN, across for REGULATIONS
s: Minimums
3 ~ Required Yards
;:¡ g
r..:J "C,:c:
¡.¡ 0) ~
Q:: .= 0)
:> .-
cr'>
0) 0)
Q::~
USE
Retail
establishment
providing
entertainment,
recreational or
cultural
services or
activities
Golf driving
range
Process II I None
Possible
Process
!II
See Note
2-3.
Process 1, II, III and IV are described in
§§ 22.351 - 22.356,
22.361 - 22.370,
22.386 - 22.411,
22.431 - 22.460, respectively.
0)
N
Vi
Õ
...J
::ê'
u
co
~
0)
"C
Vi
=
0
It
20 ft.5 ft. 15 ft.
See notes 2, 3
and 6
æ
0)
~
..... 0)
0 -
- :>
-@,g
oj :::
:tC/1
'"
0)
u
co
0..
"CC/1
0) 01)
.= c:
:> .-
cr'~
0) co
~~
USE ZONE CHART
ZONE
FC
SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
1. The hours of operation may be limited to reduce the impacts on nearby residential uses.
2. Ifany portion ofa structure on the subject property is located less than 100 ft. from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the structure
shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of20 ft. from the property line of the
residential zone.
3. Ifapproved through Process Ill, the height of that portion ofa structure located 100 ft. or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft. above
average building elevation to a maximum of 55 ft., if all of the following criteria are met:
a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and
b. That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft. for each one ft. the structure exceeds 35 ft. above average building elevation; and
c. An increase in height above 35 ft. will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and
d. The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan.
4. No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead. the buildable area will be determined by other site development requirements, i.e., required
buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc.
5. Truck parking, loading, and maneuvering areas; areas where noise generating outdoor uses and activities may occur; and vents and similar
features must be located as far as possible from any residential zone and secondarily, from any public right-of-way.
6. Outdoor use, activity, and storage is regulated by Article XIII, Section 1113.
7. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIX.
8. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII.
9. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII.
10. Refer to § 22-946 et seq. to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property.
11. Minor and supporting structures constructed as a functional requirement of golf driving ranges may exceed the applicable height limitation
provided that the director of community development services determines that such structures will' not significantly impact adjoining properties.
35 ft. above I Determined
average on a case-by-
building case basis
elevation
See notes 2,
and 3 and 8
L For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22.1376 et seq.
U III
ÞX
G)I
1T1õJ
For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22.1046 et seq.
For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq.
I ¡--f
'-.. ;
~"
22-XXX Hotel.
The following uses shall be permitted in the freeway commercial (Fe) zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this section:
~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. .. THEN, across for REGULATIONS
g Minimums
S ~ Required Yards
;:¡ ~
e
~ ""A.
\r.1 .. ~
c:: .:..
::> .-
CT>
.. ..
¡:,::¡:,::
USE
Hotel
..
N
Vi
Õ
....:¡
2
u
co
~
..
""
Vi
æ
..
¡:,::
'- ..
0 ...
- ::>
"&,ü
.- 2
.. -
:I:C/)
ë
0
~
'"
..
u
co
0-
""C/)
.. OIJ
.: c
::> .-
¡r"g
¡:'::A.
USE ZONE CHART
ZONE
FC
SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
1. If any portion of a structure on the subject property is located less than 100 ft. from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the structure
shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of20 ft. from the property line of the
residential zone.
2. Ifapproved through Process III, the height of that portion ofa structure located 100 ft. or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft. above
average building elevation to a maximum of 55 ft., if all of the following criteria are met:
a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and
b. That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft. for each one ft. the structure exceeds 35 ft. above average building elevation; and
c. An increase in height above 35 ft. will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and
d. The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan.
3. If this use includes accessory meeting, convention or other facilities that will be used by persons other than ovemight guests at the hotel, the city
may require additional parking on a case-by-case basis, based on the extent and nature of these accessory facilities.
4. Truck parking, loading, and maneuvering areas; areas where noise generating outdoor uses and activities may occur; and vents and similar
features must be located as far as possible from any residential zone and secondarily, from any public right-of-way.
5. Outdoor use, activity, and storage is regulated by Article XIII, Section 11 t 3.
6. No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be determined by other site development requirements, i.e., r.equired
butTers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc.
7. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIX
8. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII.
9. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII.
10. Refer to § 22-946 et seq. to detennine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property.
ProcessIINone 120ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 35 ft. above lOne for each
See notes I, 2 and average guest room.
Possible I 18 building
Process elevation
III
See Note
2
See notes 1 -
2
Process 1, II, III and IV are described in
§§ 22-351 - 22-356,
22-361 - 22-370,
22-386-'22-411,
22-431 - 22-460, respectively.
Se'e note 3
L For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq.
For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq.
For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq.
-om
J>X
G) :r:
mEl
-
,~
--
<.)
~
~
22-XXX Public utility.
The following uses shall be permitted in the freeway commercial (FC} zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this section:
~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. .. THEN, across for REGULATIONS
2 Minimums
5:::¡ ReQuired Yards
~ g
~ -o&:
¡..:¡ u:=
t:t: .: u
::s .-
'3'>
U u
01:0/:
USE
U
N
èi5
Õ
...J
:è
¡¡J
~
U
"'0
èi5
ë
e
I.:..
Public utility ¡Process II INane
Possible
Process
III
See Notes 1,2 and
7
See note
2
Process I, II, III and IV are described in
§§ 22-351 - 22-356,
22.361 - 22.370.
22-386-22-411,
22-431 - 22-460, respectively.
a
u
01:
.... u
0 ....
- ::s
~ü
,. .s
:I: V')
Public
Utilities:
35 ft
above
average
building
elevation
See notes
I and2
O!I
c
:.;t
l:a
Q"
"'0
~ II)
.- u
:> U
'3'",
U 0..
IXV')
Determined on
a case-by-case
basis.
USE ZONE CHART
ZONE
FC
SPECIAL REGULA nONS AND NOTES
I. Ifany portion of a structure on the subject property is located less than 100 ft. from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the structure
shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of20 ft. from the property line of the
residential zone.
2. If approved through Process III, the height of that portion of a structure located 100 ft. or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft., if all of
the following criteria are met:
a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and
b. That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft. for each one ft. the structure exceeds 35 ft. above average building elevation; and
c. An increase in height above 35 ft. will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and
d. The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan.
3. May be permitted only iflocating this use in the immediate area of the subject property is necessary to permit effective service to the area to be
served.
4. If determined necessary to mitigate visual and noise impacts to surrounding properties, the city may require additional landscaping or buffers on a
case-by-case basis.
5. No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be determined by other site development requirements, Le. required
buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc.
6. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIX.
7. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII.
8. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII.
9. Refer to §22-946 et seq to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply 10 the subject propeny.
CFor other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1316 et seq.
-om
»x
G)I
m -~
. OJ
I,F
Of
",
....
I
For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22.1046 et seq.
For details regarding required yards, see § 22-113 I et seq.
22-XXX Public Transit Shelter
The following uses shall be permitted in the freeway commercial (fe) ZOfle subject tothe regulations and notes set forth in this section:
~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. . .
g Minimums
S ~ Required Yards
;:¡ g
" "Oi:\:
~ ~ ~
.... .-.,
'" .-
cr;>
., .,
IX IX
USE
.,
N
Ci3
Õ
....¡
ë
0
It
Public transit I Process I INane ¡Public Transit
shelter Shelter
õ"ft]õitlõ ft.
Process I, II, !II and IV are described in
§§ 22-351 - 22-356,
22-361 - 22-370,
22-386-22-411,
22-431 - 22-460, respectively.
:;::
~
~
.,
"0
Ci3
THEN, across for REGULATIONS
USE ZONE CHART
~
.,
¡:,::
'õ ~
- '"
..c:-
olJU
'4) .s
;r:(/)
Transit
Shelter:
15 ft. above
average
building
elevation
olJ
<::
:;;:
~
p..
"0
~ '"
.- .,
'" u
cr",
., Co
IX(/)
None
ZONE
FC
SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
I. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIx.
2. There are no landscaping requirements for this use. The larger site on which it is located is subject to the landscaping requirements of Article XVII.
3. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII.
4. Refer to §22-946 et seq to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property.
L For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq.
For details of what may exceed this height Jim;t, see § 22-1046 et seq.
For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq.
u fT¡
þ ><
CJ) I
m --~
I ~
I~~
I
U'
1ï1 !ti
--
22-XXX Personal wireless service facility.
The following uses shall be permitted in the freeway commercial (Fe) zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this sectlOn:
~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. .
:2 Minimums
~ ~ Required Yards
,.¡ OJ
;:¡ g
~ -cP:
¡..¡ OJ ~
~ .= OJ
'" .-
cr>
OJ OJ
¡:,::¡:,::
USE
OJ
N
Ci3
Õ
..J
1:
0
tt
;;::
u
eo
~
OJ
-c
r;)
Personal
wireless
service
facility
See note INone I See I See I See
2 note I note note
I I
See note 5
for allowed
types of
PWSFs
Process I, II, III and IV are described in
§§ 22-351 - 22-356,
22-361 - 22-370,
22-386 - 22.4 II,
22-431 - 22-460, respectively.
is
OJ
¡:,::
'õ ~
- ::
-§¡ü
.- ::
:J:ð5
Refer to
§22-967
for
maximum
heights
for
allowed
types of
PWSFs
See note 3
THEN, a\:ross for REGULATIONS
USE ZONE CHART
OJ
0.
eo
u
U'>
-c
<:
eo
..J
See INot
note allowed
4 on a
PWSF
~
r;)
I
ofJ~
<:
~
is
¡:,.,
-c
.g 8
creo
"
¡:,:: (I),
ZONE
FC
SPECIAL REGULA nONS AND NOTES
N/ A II. For developed sites, the setback requirements shall be those of the principal use of the subject property. For undeveloped sites, the setback
requirements for new freestanding PWSFs shall be 20 ft. for front, side, and rear yards.
2. Subject to meeting all applicable development standards, the review process used shall be Process I, except for the following proposals:
a, Process III for the following proposals:
(1) The PWSF is located within 300 ft. of a residential zone;
(2) The PWSF is located on a structure that is a residence or school or contains a residence or school; or
(3) The PWSF is a new freestanding PWSF.
b. Process IV if the PWSF is a lattice tower accommodating four or more providers.
3. Maximum allowed height for a new freestanding PWSF shall be the minimum necessary to provide the service up to 100 ft., plus any
height granted under § 22.1047. A PWSF shall be allowed up to 120 ft. if there are two or more providers, except that a lattice tower of
between 120 ft. and 150 ft. will be allowed under a combined application of four or more providers.
4. All PWSFs shall be landscaped and screened in accordance with Article XVII of this chapter, and the provisions of the PWSF development
regulations. At a minimum, a five ft. type III landscaping area shall be required around the facility, unless the community development
services director determines that the facility is adequately screened.
5. New freestanding PWSFs are allowed subject to height limits and collocation provisions. PWSFs are allowed on existing towers, on private
buildings and structures, on publicly used structures not located in public rights-of-way, on existing structures located in the BPA trail, and on
existing structures in appropriate public rights-of-way. Refer to § 22-967 for development standards applicable to allowed types ofPWSFs.
6. For all other development standards, see Article XIII, Section 22-966 et al.
For other information abollt parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq.
um
»X
G)J:
miJj
-
"'-'4
I
"1
0
I"
For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq.
For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq.
;4
....
10-26 General prohibition. .
It is unlawful for any person to cause, or for any person in possession of property to allow to
originate from the property, sound that is a public disturbance noise. (Ord. No. 90-37, § leA), 2-
20-90)
EXHIBiT_- ~
PAGE_~-.JE I
10-27 Illustrative enumeration.
The following sounds are public disturbance noises in violation of this article:
(1) The frequent, repetitive or continuous sounding of any horn or siren attached to a
motor vehicle, except as a warning of danger or as specifically permitted or required by law.
(2) The creation of frequent, repetitive or continuous sounds in connection with the
starting, operation, repair, rebuilding or testing of any motor vehicle, motorcycle, off-highway
vehicle or internal combustion engine within a residential district, so as to unreasonably disturb or
interfere with the peace and comfort of owners or possessors of real property.
(3) Yelling, shouting, whistling or singing on or near the public streets, particularly
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. or at any time and place as to unreasonably disturb
or interfere with the peace and comfort of owners or possessors of real property.
(4) The creation of frequent, repetitive or continuous sounds which emanate from any
building, structure, apartment or condominium, which unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the
peace and comfort of owners or possessors of real property, such as sounds from musical
instruments, audio sound systems, band sessions or social gatherings.
(5) Sound from motor vehicle audio sound systems, such as tape players, radios and
compact disc players, operated at a volume so as to be audible greater than 50 feet from the
vehicle itself.
(6) Sound from portable audio equipment, such as tape players, radios, and compact disc
players, operated at a volume so as to be audible greater than 50 feet from the source, and if not
operated upon the property of the operator.
(7) The squealing, screeching or other such sounds from motor vehicle tires in contact
with the ground or other roadway surface because of rapid acceleration, braking or excessive
speed around comers or because of such other reason; provided, that sounds which result from
actions which are necessary to avoid danger shall be exempt from this section.
(8) Sounds originating from construction sites, including but not limited to sounds from
construction equipment, power tools and hammering between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00
a.m. on weekdays and 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends.
(9) Sounds originating from residential property relating to temporary projects for the
maintenance or repair of horns, grounds and appurtenances, including but not limited to sounds
from lawnmowers, powered hand tools, snow removal equipment and composters between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends. (Ord.
No. 90-65, § 1(8),7-3-90; Ord. No. 99-341, § 3, 5-4-99)
«:>2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 1
EXHIBIT___t.
PAGE_I- ~)F-2-
Federal Way City Code
Chapter 22, Article XIII, "Supplementary District Regulations"
22-966 Personal wireless service facilities (PWSF).
(a) Purpose. This section addresses the issues of location and appearance associated with
personal wireless service facilities. It provides adequate siting opportunities through a wide range
of locations and options which minimize safety hazards and visual impacts sometimes associated
with wireless communications technology. The siting of facilities on existing buildings or
structures, collocation of several providers' facilities on a single support structure, and visual
mitigation measures are required, unless otherwise allowed by the city, to maintain neighborhood
appearance and reduce visual clutter in the city.
(b) Definitions. Any words, terms or phrases used in this section which are not otherwise
defined shall have the meanings set forth in FWCC 22-1.
(c) Exemptions. The following antennas and facilities are exempt from the provisions of this
section and shall be permitted in all zones consistent with applicable development standards as
outlined in the use zone charts, Article Xl of this chapter, District Regulations:
(1) Wireless communication facilities used by federal, state, or local public agencies for
temporary emergency communications in the event of a disaster, emergency preparedness, and
public health or safety purposes.
(2) Industrial processing equipment and scientific or medical equipment using
frequencies regulated by the FCC; provided such equipment complies with all applicable
provisions of FWCC 22-960, Rooftop Appurtenances, and Chapter 22 FWCC, Article XIII,
Division 5, Height.
(3) Citizen band radio antennas or antennas operated by federally licensed amateur
("ham") radio operators; provided such antennas comply with all applicable provisions of FWCC
22-960, Rooftop Appurtenances, and Chapter 22 FWCC, Article XIII, Division 5, Height.
(4) Satellite dish antennas less than two meters in diameter, including direct-to-home
satellite services, when used as a secondary use of the property; provided such antennas comply
with all applicable provisions of FWCC 22-960, Rooftop Appurtenances, and Chapter 22 FWCC,
Article XIII, Division 5, Height.
(5) Automated meter reading (AMR) facilities for the purpose of collecting utility meter
data for use in the sale of utility services, except for whip or other antennas greater than two feet
in length; provided the AMR facilities are within the scope of activities permitted under a valid
franchise agreement between the utility service provider and the city.
(6) Routine maintenance or repair of a wireless communication facility and related
equipment excluding structural work or changes in height, dimensions, or visual impacts of the
antenna, tower, or buildings; provided, that compliance with the standards of this chapter are
maintained.
(d) Prioritized locations. The following sites shall be the required order of locations for
proposed PWSFs, including antenna and equipment shelters. In proposing a PWSF in a particular
location, the applicant shall analyze the feasibility of locating the proposed PWSF in each of the
higher priority locations and document, to the city's satisfaction, why locating the PWSF in each
higher priority location and/or zone is not being proposed. In order of preference, the prioritized
locations for PWSFs are as follows:
(I) Structures located in the BP A trail. A PWSF may be located on any existing support
structure currently located in the easement upon which are located U.S. Department of Energy/
Bonneville Power Administration ("BPA") Power Lines regardless of underlying zoning.
(i;)2002 Code Publishing Co. Page I
EXHIBIT.L
PAGE~':)F~
(2) Existing broadcast, relay and transmission towers. A PWSF may be located on an
existing site or tower where a legal wireless telecommunication facility is currently located
regardless of underlying zoning. If an existing site or tower is located within a one mile radius of
a proposed PWSF location, the applicant shall document why collocation on the existing site or
tower is not being proposed, regardless of whether the existing site or tower is located within the
jurisdiction of the city.
(3) Publicly used structures. If the city consents to such location, a PWSF may be located
on existing public facilities within all zoning districts, such as water towers, utility structures, fire
stations, bridges, and other public buildings, provided the public facilities are not located within
public rights-of-way.
(4) Appropriate business, commercial, and city center zoned sites. A PWSF may be
located on private buildings or structures within appropriate business, commercial, and city center
zoning districts. The preferred order of zoning districts for this category of sites is as follows:
BP - Business Park
FC - Freeway Commercial
CP-l - Corporate Park
OP through OP-4 - Office Park
CC-C - City Center Core
CC-F - City Center Frame
BC - Community Business
(5) Appropriate public rights-of-way. For the purposes of this section, appropriate public
rights-of-way shall be defined as including those public rights-of-way with functional street
classifications of principal arterial, minor arterial, and principal collector. A PWSF may be
located on existing structures in appropriate public rights-of-way. Structures proposed for
location of PWSFs shall be separated by at least 330 linear feet. Within any residential zone,
neighborhood business (BN) zone, or professional office (PO) zone, there shall be no more than
one PWSF located on an existing structure. Location of a PWSF on an existing structure in an
appropriate public right-of-way shall require a right-of-way permit in addition to the required use
process approval.
The preferred order of functional street classifications for this category of sites is as follows:
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Principal Collector
If the PWSF is proposed to be located in an appropriate public right-of-way and the
surrounding uses or zoning are not the same, that portion of the right-of-way with the most
intensive use and/or zoning shall be the preferred location.
If the PWSF is proposed to be located in an appropriate public right-of-way and surrounding
uses or zoning are the same, the preferred location shall be that portion of the right-of-way with
the least adverse visual impacts.
(6) If the applicant demonstrates to the city's satisfaction that it is not technically possible
to site in a prioritized location, the city reserves the right to approve alternative site locations if a
denial would be in violation of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, as determined by the city.
(Ord. No. 97-300, § 3, 9-16-97; Ord. No. 00-363, § 14, 1-4-00; Ord. No. 01-399, § 3, 8-7-01)
<1)2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 2
EXHIB\~\
Federal Way City CüdPAGE-
Chapter 22, Article XVII, "Landscaping"
t1.
2.
l
22-1566 Landscaping requirements by zoning district.
(a) Suburban Estates, SE.
(I) Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all property lines of
nonresidential uses in the SE zoning district, except as provided in FWCC 22-1567 of this article.
(b) Single-Family Residential, RS.
(1) Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all property lines of
nonresidential uses in the RS zoning districts, except as provided in FWCC 22-1567 of this
article.
(c) Multifamily Residential, RM.
(1) Type III landscaping 20 feet in width shall be provided along all public rights-of-way
and ingress/egress easements.
(2) Type II landscaping 20 feet in width shall be provided along the common boundary
abutting single-family zoning districts.
(3) Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines,
except as noted in subsections (c)(I) and (c)(2) of this section.
(d) Professional Office, Po.
(1) Type III landscaping eight feet in width shall be provided along all property lines
abutting public rights-of-way and access easements.
(2) Type I landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter property
lines abutting a residential zoning district except for schools which shall provide 10 feet of Type
II.
(3) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines,
except as noted in subsections (d)( I) and (d)(2) of this section.
(e) Neighborhood Business, BN
(1) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all properties abutting
public rights-of-way and ingress/egress easements.
(2) Type I landscaping 15 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property
abutting a residential zoning district.
(3) Type III landscaping five feet in width along all perimeter lot lines except as noted in
subsections (e)( I) and (e )(2) of this section.
(t) Community Business, Be.
(I) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all properties abutting
public rights-of-way and ingress/egress easements.
(2) Type I landscaping 15 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property
abutting a residential zoning district.
(3) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lots lines
except as noted in subsections (t)(I) and (t)(2) of this section.
(g) Freewav Commercial, Fe.
(1) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of
parking areas abutting public rights-of-way.
(2) Type I landscaping 20 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property
abutting a residential zone.
(3) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines,
except as noted in subsections (g)( I) and (g)(2) of this section.
~2002 Code Publishing Co. Page I
Eg1 Qù City Center, Cc. : ~
(1) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of
parking areas abutting public rights-of-way.
(2) Type I landscaping 15 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property
abutting a residential zoning district.
(3) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines
except as noted in subsections (g)( 1) and (g)(2) of this section.
W ill Office Park, OP; and Corporate Park, CP-I.
(1) Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all property lines
abutting public rights-of-way and access easements.
(2) Type I landscaping 15 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property
abutting a residential zoning district.
(3) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines,
except as noted in subsections (h)(I) and (h)(2) of this subsection.
(i) },/anufacturing Park, UP. (i) Business Park. BP.
(I) Type II landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all property lines
abutting public rights-of-way and access easements.
(2) Type I landscaping 25 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of the
property abutting a residential zoning district.
(3) Type II landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of the
property abutting a nonresidential zoning district, except MP zones.
(4) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines
except as noted in subsections (i)(l), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this section. (Ord. No. 93-170, § 4, 4-20-93;
Ord. No. 96-270, § 3(E), 7-2-96)
EXH\B\T
PAGE._-.2.
M
~#_--&
~2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 2
EXHIBIT
Federal Way City CodePAGE._- I
Chapter 22, Article XIX, "Community Design Guidelines"
N
" _...~
22-1638 District guidelines.
In addition to the foregoing development guidelines, the following supplemental guidelines
apply to individual zoning districts:
(a) Professional office (PO), neighborhood business (BN), and community business (BC»
and freeway commercial (FC).
(1) Surface parking may be located behind the building, to the side(s) of the building, or
adjacent to the right-of-way; provided, however, that parking located adjacent to the right-of-way
maximizes pedestrian access and circulation pursuant to FWCC 22-1634( d).
(2) Entrance facades shall front on, face, or be clearly recognizable from the right-of-
way; and should incorporate windows and other methods of articulation.
(3) Ground-level mirrored or reflective glass is not encouraged adjacent to a public right-
of-way or pedestrian area.
(4) If utilized, chain-link fences visible from public rights-of-way shall utilize vinyl-
coated mesh and powder-coated poles.
For residential uses only:
(5) Significant trees shall be retained within a 20-foot perimeter strip around site.
(6) Landscaped yards shall be provided between building(s) and public street(s). Parking
lots should be beside or behind buildings that front upon streets.
(7) Parking lots should be broken up into rows containing no more than 10 adjacent stalls,
separated by planting areas.
(8) Pedestrian walkways (minimum six feet wide) shall be provided between the interior
of the project and the public sidewalk.
(9) Lighting fixtures should not exceed 20 feet in height and shall include cutoff shields.
This shall not apply to public parks and school stadiums.
20.
fig.., <: ! (. . $¡.'C.. 12. I (,.\.<¡ (",)
(10) Principal entries to buildings shall be highlighted with plaza or garden areas
containing planting, lighting, seating, trellises and other features. Such areas shall be located and
designed so windows overlook them.
<Þ2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 1
Lh~XJ" 'I" 0'-,..-
c ri~t.;;'
PAGE ~
N
--~
fï::,\'(?S(\O 22. «..\.<1.(".)
(11) Common recreational spaces shall be located and arranged so that windows overlook
them.
./"'" .'
.,----
F¡rUt~ I ¡.. . M:..'. 12 - I()~ (aì
(12) Units on the ground floor (when permitted) shall have private outdoor spaces
adjacent to them so those exterior portions of the site are controlled by individual households.
Fí¡:\Í!\: l<)'S<~~.2:-¡(¡'~:~)
(13) All new buildings, including accessory buildings, such as carports and garages shall
appear to have a roof pitch ranging from at least 4: 12 to a maximum of 12: 12.
<Þ2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 2
rí¡;\l1X 20 - ~. .n - :~.,.~ 1,';
EXH! Jj ~-~
PAGE 3
\
-~
. .1.1-
(14) Carports and garages in front yards should be discouraged.
(15) The longest dimension of any building facade shall not exceed 120 feet. Buildings
on the same site may be connected by covered pedestrian walkways.
(16) Buildings should be designed to have a distinct "base", "middle" and "top" The base
(typically the first floor) should contain the greatest number of architectural elements such as
windows, materials, details, overhangs, cornice lines, and masonry belt courses. The midsection
by comparison may be simple. (Note: single-story buildings have no middle.) The top should
avoid the appearance of a flat roof and include distinctive roof shapes including but not limited to
pitched, vaulted or terraced, etc.
rip", 21 - 'X'I:". 1.2. 1638 ("')
(17) Residential design features, including but not limited to entry porches, projecting
window bays, balconies or decks, individual windows (rather than strip windows), offsets and
cascading or stepped roof forms shall be incorporated into all buildings. Window openings shall
have visible trim material or painted detailing that resembles trim.
(b) Office park (OP), corporate park (CP), and business park (BP).
(I) Surface parking may be located behind the building, to the side(s) of the building, or
adjacent to the right-of-way; provided, however, that parking located adjacent to the right-of-way
maximizes pedestrian access and circulation pursuant to FWCC 22-1634(d).
(2) Buildings with ground floor retail sales or services should orient major entrances,
display windows and other pedestrian features to the right-of-way to the extent possible.
(3) Ground-level mirrored or reflective glass is not encouraged adjacent to a public right-
of-way or pedestrian area.
(4) If utilized, chain-link fences visible from public rights-of-way shall utilize vinyl-
coated mesh and powder-coated poles.
For non-single-family residential uses only:
(5) Subsections (a)(5) through (A)(17) of this section shall apply.
(c) City center core (CC-C) and city center frame (CC-F).
(I) The city center core and frame will contain transitional forms of development with
surface parking areas. However, as new development or re-development occurs, the visual
<Þ2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 3
EXHIBIT
-/I
dominance of surface parking areas shall be reduced. TheretPreA~~ park~ are'~s' shall-#
located as follows:
a. The parking is located behind the building, with the building located between the
right-of-way and the parking areas, or it is located in structured parking; or
b. All or some of the parking is located to the side(s) of the building; or
c. Some short-term parking may be located between the building(s) and the right-of-
way, but this shall not consist of more than one double-loaded drive aisle, and pedestrian
circulation shall be provided pursuant to FWCC 22-1634(d).
Large retail complexes may not be able to locate parking according to the above guidelines.
Therefore, retail complexes of 60,000 square feet of gross floor area or larger may locate surface
parking between the building(s) and the right-of-way. However, this form of development shall
provide for small building(s) along the right-of-way to break up and reduce the visual impact of
the parking, and pedestrian circulation must be provided pursuant to FWCC 22-1634(d). For
purposes of this guideline, retail complex means the entire lot or parcel, or series of lots or
parcels, on which a development, activity or use is located or will locate.
(2) Entrance facades shall front on, face, or be clearly recognizable from the right-of-
way; and should incorporate windows and other methods of articulation.
(3) Building facades that are visible from a right-of-way and subject to modulation per
FWCC 22-1635(b), shall incorporate facade treatment as follows:
a. The facade incorporates modulation and/or a landscape screening, pursuant to
FWCC 22-I635(b); and
b. The facade incorporates an arcade, canopy or plaza; and/or one or more
articulation element listed in FWCC 22-I635( c )(2); provided, that the resulting building
characteristics achieve visual interest and appeal at a pedestrian scale and proximity, contribute to
a sense of public space, and reinforce the pedestrian experience.
(4) Drive-through facilities and stacking lanes shall not be located along a facade of a
building that faces a right-of-way.
(5) Above-grade parking structures with a ground level facade visible from a right-of-
way shall incorporate any combination of the following elements at the ground level:
a. Retail, commercial, or office uses that occupy at least 50 percent of the building's
lineal frontage along the right-of-way; or
b. A I5-foot-wide strip of Type III landscaping along the base of the facade; or
c. A decorative grille or screen that conceals interior parking areas from the right-of-
way.
(6) Facades of parking structures shall be articulated above the ground level pursuant to
FWCC 22-1635(c)(I).
(7) When curtain wall glass and steel systems are used to enclose a building, the glazing
panels shall be transparent on 50 percent of the ground floor facade fronting a right-of-way or
pedestrian area.
(8) Chain-link fences shall not be allowed. Barbed or razor wire shall not be used.
For non-single-family residential uses only:
(9) Subsections (a)(5) through (a)(17) of this section shall apply.
(d) For all residential zones.
(l) Non-residential uses. Subsections (a)(5) through (a)(lO) and (a)( 13) through (a)(17) of
this section shall apply.
(2) Non-single-family residential uses. Subsections (a)(5) through (a)(1 7) of this section
shall apply. (Ord. No. 96-271, § 3, 7-2-96; Ord. No. 99-333, § 3, 1-19-99; Ord. No. 01-382, § 3, 1-16-0I)
~2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 4
~
CITY OF ~
Federal Way
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
April 27, 2004
FROM:
Jack Dovey, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTe)
Dav;d M~anag.,
Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services
Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner
Janet Shull, AICP, Planning Consultant
To:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
Amendments to Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) and Federal Way City
Code (FWCC) Chapter 22, to add a Freeway Commercial Zoning Classification
(File # 04-100812-00-UP)
MEETING DATE: May 3,2004
I.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years the City of Federal Way has hired consultants to prepare two market studies, one for
the entire City in 2000 and one for the City Center in 2002. In addition, the City hired a consultant to
prepare a Potential Annexation Area (P AA) Sub-Area Plan and Annexation Feasibility Study, which
is being presented to the LUTC concurrently with the proposed Freeway Commercial (Fe) Zoning
Classification.
All of these studies found that there is adequate supply of vacant and underdeveloped commercial
land in the City and in the P AA. However, these studies also point to the possibility of zoning for
retail development not currently being captured in Federal Way as a way to increase the tax base
within the City and the P AA.
All of the studies identified automobile sales as a retail category that generates significantly more tax
revenue than the cost of the public services they receive and also as a retail market that is not
currently strong in Federal Way. Additional potential markets identified in the March 2002 study
included Furniture, Furnishings and Equipment. The trend in these categories is to locate in
destination-type regional retail centers.
A.
Proposed Freeway Commercial Zoning Designation
The intent of the proposed Freeway Commercial Zoning designation is not to compete with the
existing zones that already allow retail uses, but to capture the type of retail development that is
presently locating outside of Federal Way.
Any parcel five acres or more that is located bordering the 1-5/SR-I8 interchange or I-5/South
320th Street interchange, and is both visible and accessible from these interchanges, would be
eligible to apply for the Freeway Commercial zoning designation. This zoning designation could
be applied to parcels within the P AA as well as in the City.
B.
Concurrent Review of the Proposed Freeway Commercial Zoning Designation and the
P AA Plan
As part of the P AA Sub-Area Plan process, property owners within the P AA were given the
opportunity to apply for a different pre-annexation and zoning designation. One applicant applied
for Community Business (BC) zoning for approximately 23 acres located east of 1-5 and north of
South 320th Street. The staff recommendation for this property was Freeway CommerciaL!
Consequently, this new Freeway Commercial Zoning designation is being reviewed concurrently
with the P AA Sub-Area Plan.
II. BACKGROUND
The proposed amendments were presented to the Planning Commission at their March 17, April 7,
and April 21, 2004, public hearings. The staff reports to the Planning Commission and minutes of
these meetings are attached as follows:
Exhibit I
Staff Report for the March 17, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting (includes Tables I-III
and Exhibits A-N)
Minutes of March 17, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting
Staff Report for the April 7, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting (includes Exhibits A-C)
Minutes of the April 7, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting
Staff Report for the April 21, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of the April 21, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
III. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
February 18, 2004
Issuance of Determination of Non significance pursuant to the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
March 3, 2004
End of SEP A Comment Period
March 17,2004
End of SEP A Appeal Period
I The Planning Commission, in their April 21, 2004, deliberations of site-specific zoning change requests to the P AA Plan, did
not vote in favor of application of the FC zone to this particular property
Staff Report to the Land Useffransportation Committee
Freeway Commercial Zone
April 27, 2004
File #04-100812-00-UP
Page 2
March 17, 2004
April 7, 2004
Planning Commission Public Hearing
Planning Commission Public Hearing Continued
April 21, 2004
Planning Commission Public Hearing Completed
May 3, 2004
May 17,2004
July 6, 2004
Presentation to LUTC
LUTC Follow-up
City Council Meeting
IV. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The proposed amendments as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission are
summarized as follows and shown in Exhibits 7-20:
A.
Proposed Changes to the Comprehensive Plan
1.
Amend Chapter Two, Land Use to identify the Freeway Commercial concept and provide a
general location in Figure 11-2, the Concept Plan Diagram (Exhibit 7, Page lof7).
2.
Amend Section 2.2 Relationship to Other Land Use Chapters to add a bullet that states:
"Freeway commercial development focusing on attracting and capturing those retail dollars
presently being lost to other communities and complementing existing retail uses in the
community" (Exhibit 7, Page 2 of7).
3.
Amend Section 2.8 Land Use Designations - Commercial Designations to add locational
criteria, and goal and policy statements for the Freeway Commercial designation (Exhibit 7,
Pages 5 and 6 of 7).
4.
Amend Table 11-3 Land Use Classifications to add the Freeway Commercial designation
(Exhibit 7, Page 7 of 7).
5.
Amend Map II-I Comprehensive Plan Designations at the time areas are designated
Freeway Commercial, subject to Federal Way City Council consideration.
6.
Amend Chapter Four, Economic Development to incorporate freeway oriented commercial
development in the Economic Development Vision for Federal Way (Exhibit 8).
Staff Report to the Land Useffransportation Committee
Freeway Commercial Zone
April 27, 2004
File #04-100812-00-UP
Page 3
B.
Proposed changes to FWCC, Chapter 22, Zoning Code
1.
2.
3.
Permitted Uses
The following uses are proposed to be allowed in the Freeway Commercial zone. Use Zone
Charts have been prepared for each use:
.
Retail selling new vehicles~oats, recreational vehicles, and motorcycles (Exhibit 9)
Retail selling household goods and furnishings (Exhibit 10)
Retail selling household appliances (Exhibit 10)
Retail selling home electronics (Exhibit 10)
Retail outlet centers (Exhibit 10)
Retail providing entertainment, recreational or cultural services, and activities
(amusement parks, movie theaters) (Exhibit 11)
Golf driving range (Exhibit 11)
Hotel (Exhibit 12)
Public utility (water supply, electric power, telephone, cablevision, natural gas,
transportation for persons/freight, commercial broad-cast towers, commercial
antennas) (Exhibit 13)
Public transit shelter (bus stop) (Exhibit 14)
Personal wireless service facilities (Exhibit 15)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Accessory Uses
Accessory uses are defined in FWCC Section 22-946, as a use, facility, or activity that is
clearly secondary to the permitted use.
a)
For vehicle and boat sales, accessory uses would include the following (Exhibit 9,
note 4):
. Used vehicle sales
. Gasoline service stations
. Service, maintenance, and body shops
. Car washes
. Auto supply stores
. Coffee shop to serve customers and employees
b)
A restaurant with a maximum gross floor area of7,500 square feet would be permitted
as accessory to a retail outlet center (Exhibit 10, note 5).
Review Process
The majority of the permitted uses in the Freeway Commercial zone are proposed to be
reviewed under Process II, Site Plan Review, except for New Vehicle Sales, which would
be reviewed under Process III. Process II review would be used for buildings up to 4,000
square feet gross floor area with up to 20 parking spaces or a parking lot up to 20 parking
spaces. If these thresholds were exceeded, Process III would be used.
Staff Report to the Land Userrransportation Committee
Freeway Commercial Zone
April 27, 2004
File #04-100812-00-UP
Page 4
4.
5.
Development Standards
The following is a summary of the proposed development standards for the Freeway
Commercial zone:
a)
Minimum lot size: Automobile sales uses must be located on at least five acres. Other
permitted uses would have no minimum size requirements.
b)
Maximum lot coverage: Consistent with existing Federal Way use zone charts for
non-residential uses, no maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, lot coverage is
determined by other site development standards, such as landscaping, requirement for
on-site detention, and parking.
c)
Height limits and setbacks when adjacent to residential zones: Maximum height of
35 feet unless the structure is located less than 100 feet from an adjacent residential
zone. If a structure is located less than 100 feet from an adjacent residential zone, then
that portion ofthe structure shall not exceed 30 feet above average building elevation,
and the structure shall be set back a minimum of20 feet from the property line ofthe
residential zone. In the case of new vehicle sales, the setback would be 50 feet versus
20 feet due to the potential intensity of the uses conducted. The height of that portion
of a structure located 100 feet or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 feet
above average building elevation to a maximum of 55 feet, if certain criteria are met:
d)
Noise, light and glare: Noise, light and glare can be associated with any non-
residential use. The FWCC includes regulations that address all of these impacts.
1.
Noise - Noise is addressed in Chapter 10, Article II (Exhibit 16). In addition,
Note 11 was added in the Use Zone Chart for New Vehicle Sales (Exhibit 9).
This note states that the site must be designed so that noise associated with
public address systems; vehicle repair or maintenance; and truck parking,
loading, or maneuvering; will not be audible off the subject property.
11.
Light and Glare - This is addressed in FWCC Sections 22-950 and 22-954.
Existing code language was determined to be adequate to address these impacts,
so no additional language was added.
e)
Hazardous waste, toxic or noxious gasses, water contamination: Automobile service,
body shop, and maintenance facilities can generate odors or hazardous wastes, which
can end up in surface or ground water. Consequently, notes to address these potential
impacts are included in the Use Zone Chart for New Vehicle Sales (Exhibit 9, Notes
6, 8, 9 and 10).
Amend FWCC Section 22-966 to include the FC zoning district in the list of zones where
personal wireless facilities may be located (Exhibit 17).
Staff Report to the Land Useffransportation Committee
Freeway Commercial Zone
April 27, 2004
File #04-1008 I 2-00-UP
Page 5
6.
Amend FWCC Section 22-1601, Signs in nonresidential zoning districts to add a new category
- Highway Profile Category A signs - to apply to properties designated with FC zoning
(Exhibit 18).
This new sign category will allow one free-standing pylon or pole sign that is oriented towards
1-5, be located near the property line closest to 1-5, and be visible from 1-5, not the freeway
ramps. This freestanding sign would be allowed in addition to the other typically-permitted
signs in the City's commercial zoning districts.
7.
Amend FWCC Section 22-1566, Landscaping requirements by zoning district to incorporate
reference to the new FC zoning district (Exhibit 19). The following landscape standards are
recommended:
.
Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of parking
areas abutting public rights-of-way.
Type I landscaping 20 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property
abutting a residential zone.
Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines,
except as noted above.
.
.
Language has been added to the Use Zone Chart for New Vehicle Sales (Exhibit 9) to
clarify that areas where vehicles are displayed are not subject to the parking lot landscaping
requirements of Section 22-1567 (Note 14). A note has also been added to state that areas
where vehicles are displayed are not subject to the provisions of Article XIII, Section 22-
1113, Outdoor Activities and Storage, which also require screening and landscaping of
outdoor storage (Note 15).
8.
Amend FWCC Section 22-1638 District Guidelines (Community Design Guidelines) to
incorporate reference to the new FC zoning district (Exhibit 20).
V. LAND UsEffRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE OPTIONS
The Committee has the following options:
1.
- Recommend that the full Council adopt an ordinance approving the proposed
comprehensive plan and code amendments as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
- Recommend that the full Council modify and then approve the proposed
comprehensive plan and code amendments.
- Recommend that the full Council disapprove the proposed comprehensive plan and
code amendments.
- Recommend that the full Council refer the amendments back to the Planning
Commission for further proceedings.
2.
3.
4.
Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends that the LUTC recommend to the full Council Option No.
1 above, that is, adoption of the Planning Commission's recommendations.
Staff Report to the Land Userrransportation Committee
Freeway Commercial Zone
April 27, 2004
File #04-100812-00-UP
Page 6
VI. COUNCIL ACTION
Pursuant to FWCC Article IX, "Process VI Review," any amendments to the comprehensive plan,
comprehensive plan designations map, or zoning text must be approved by the City Council based on
a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Per FWCC Section 22-541, after consideration of
the Planning Commission report, and at its discretion holding its own public hearing, the City Council
shall by majority vote of its total membership take the following action:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Approve the amendments by ordinance;
Modify and approve the amendments by ordinance;
Disapprove the amendments by resolution; or
Refer the amendments back to the Planning Commission for further proceedings. If this
occurs, the City Council shall specify the time within which the Planning Commission
shall report to the City Council on the amendments.
APPROVAL OF COMMmEE ArnON:
Jack Dovey, Chair
Eric Faison, Member
Michael Park, Member
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9
Exhibit 10
Exhibit 11
Exhibit 12
Exhibit 13
Exhibit 14
Exhibit 15
Staff Report for the March 17, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting (includes
Tables I-III and Exhibits A-N)
Minutes of March 17,2004, Planning Commission Meeting
Staff Report for the April 7, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting (includes
Exhibits A-C)
Minutes of the April 7, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting
Staff Report for the April 21, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of the April 21, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting
Chapter Two, Land Use of the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan
Chapter Four, Economic Development of the City of Federal Way Comprehensive
Plan
Use Zone Chart - New Vehicle Sales
Use Zone Chart - Retail
Use Zone Chart - Entertainment, Etc.
Use Zone Chart - Hotel
Use Zone Chart - Public Utility
Use Zone Chart - Public Transit Center
Use Zone Chart - Personal Wireless Service Facility
Staff Report to the Land Useffransportation Committee
Freeway Commercial Zone
April27,2004
File #04-1 00812-00-UP
Page 7
Exhibit 16
Exhibit 17
Exhibit 18
Exhibit 19
Exhibit 20
FWCC, Chapter 10, Article II, Sections 10-26 and 10-27 (Noise)
FWCC, Chapter 22, Section 22-966, Personal Wireless Services Facilities
Freeway Commercial Sign Language
FWCC, Chapter 22, Article XVII, Landscaping
FWCC, Chapter 22, Article XIX, Community Design Guidelines
1:\2004 Code Amendments\Freeway Zone\WTC\050304 Staff Report.doc/04/27/20042:58 PM
Staff Report to the Land Useffransportation Committee
Freeway Commercial Zone
April 27, 2004
File #04-100812-00-UP
Page 8
~
CITY OF ~
Federal Way
EXHIBIT I
PAGE-LOF -5'&
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Amendments to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapttr 22
Addition of Freeway Commercial Zone
Planning Commission Meeting of March 17,2004
I.
INTRODUCTION
1.
Why a New Commercial Designation?
In recent years, the City of Federal Way has hired consultants to prepare two market studies, one
for the entire City in 2000 and one for the City Center in 2002. In addition, the City has hired a
consultant to prepare a Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Subarea Plan and Annexation
Feasibility Study, which were completed in 2003 but have not yet been adopted.
All of these studies found there is adequate supply of vacant and underdeveloped commercial
land in the City and in the P AA. Given that developable land is not a constraining factor in
attracting development, the only way that land use actions would result in an incremental
increase in development would be if the action created a specific opportunity for development
that does not currently exist in the City or P AA. For instance, parcels that are highly visible from
1-5 may provide unique development opportunities.
Sales tax revenues are the single largest source of tax revenue for most cities. In any given year,
most Washington residents typically pay more in city sales tax than they do for any other city
tax. This means that it is in every city's interest to capture as many retail dollars as possible.
However, from a fiscal perspective, some retail uses are more attractive than others.
The City of Federal Way is not a major destination for all types of retail; however, the City does
dominate a large market area for many retail categories. Federal Way is particularly dominant in
the general merchandise category (department stores), but the City also serves as a regional
center for building material/hardware; eating and drinking establishments;food (grocery stores)
and miscellaneous retail stores.
The retail categories in which Federal Way is less competitive include auto sales,furnilure,
furnishings and equipment, and to a lesser extent, apparel and accessories. Each of these
categories are dominated by destination-type regional retail centers, including cities like Tukwila
for apparel and furniture, and cities like Renton or Puyallup for auto sales.
These studies point to the possibility of zoning for retail development not currently being
captured in Federal Way as a way to increase the tax base within the City and the PAA. The
studies make it clear; however, that the key to generating increased tax base is to identify and
capture retail markets that are currently underrepresented in Federal Way.
EXHIBIT'
PAGE 2.:JES2.
All of the studies identify automobile sales as a retail category that generates significantly more
tax revenue than the cost of the public services they receive, and also as a retail market that is
not currently strong in Federal Way. Additional potential markets identified in the March 2002
study includedfurniture, furnishings, and equipment. The trend in these categories is to locate in
destination-type regional retail centers.
There is potential to capitalize on these findings by creating a new Freeway Commercial zoning
designation that can be applied to properties that are located adjacent to, and visible from, 1-5 or
SR-18, and are easily accessible from the freeway interchanges.
The intent of the new Freeway Commercial Zoning designation is not to compete with the
existing zones that already allow retail uses, but to capture new dollars that are presently leaking
to neighboring jurisdictions. In addition, the Freeway Commercial zone is intended to allow uses
that complement and support existing retail uses in other zones, such as outlet centers, as well as
uses that attract people to Federal Way, such as entertainment facilities (movie theaters and
amusement centers).
2.
New Freeway Commercial Designation
Any parcel five acres or more that is located adjacent to and visible from 1-5 or SR-18, and is
easily accessible from the freeway interchanges, is eligible to apply for the Freeway Commercial
Zoning designation. This zoning designation can be applied to parcels within the PAA as well as
in the City. As part of the PAA subarea planning process, parcels within the PAA have been
given City comprehensive plan and zoning designations, which will become effective upon
annexation to the City. For the most part, the proposed designations are very similar to the
existing King County designations. In some cases, the proposed designations are intended to
make zoning of adjacent parcels more consistent with each other. As part of the P AA Subarea
Plan process, property owners within the P AA were given the opportunity to apply for a
different pre-annexation and zoning designation. One applicant has applied for commercial
zoning for approximately 23 acres located east of 1-5 and north of South 320th Street. This
property may be a candidate for the new Freeway Commercial designation. Consequently, this
new Freeway Commercial Zoning designation must be reviewed concurrently with the P AA
Subarea Plan.
3.
Existing Commercial Zoning
The City of Federal Way currently has the following four commercial zoning designations
(please refer to Table I for the allowable uses in each zoning district):
.
Neighborhood Business - BN
Community Business- BC
City Center-Core- CC-C
City Center-Frame- CC-F
.
.
.
Of the four existing zoning districts, the BC zone is the most automobile-oriented. The BN zone
is intended to serve surrounding neighborhoods with pedestrian-oriented retail and services. The
CC-C and CC-F zones, while allowing more intensive development and serving an area with
greater automobile traffic, are also intended to provide a pedestrian-oriented environment.
Planning Commission Staff Report
freeway Commercial Zone / File #04-100812-00-UI'
March 17,2004
Page 2
EXHIBIT__- -1_-
PAGEJh: 52.
The BC zone allows for a wide variety of commercial, office, and service uses. The existing BC-
zoned areas are extensive, with many older developments that have potential for upgrading and
re-development. While simply applying the BC zoning designation to additional large tracts of
undeveloped land would allow for those retail uses identified by the market studies as under
represented in Federal Way, it would potentially dilute private investment that otherwise might
be concentrated in the older often under developed BC-zoned areas. In addition, this could
create increased competition with the CC zoned areas.
-
These circumstances led to the decision to consider a new zoning designation that would allow a
focused range of commercial uses that require large tracts of land and a freeway-oriented
location. For example, automobile dealerships and home furnishings centers are uses that
typically require large tracts of land. Therefore, locating automobile dealerships and home
furnishings centers in the existing BC zone would likely require the assemblage of multiple
smaller parcels that for the most part are not located within easy access to the freeway.
II.
RESEARCH OF OTHER CITIES' CODES
Staff researched codes of other jurisdictions that have freeway-oriented commercial zoning districts.
Specifically, permitted uses and development standards were reviewed for potential applicability to
Federal Way's proposed Freeway Commercial Zoning designation. Tables II and III summarize those
cities reviewed in Washington and California, respectively.
Characteristics that were considered in selecting allowable uses and development standards for the
Freeway Commercial zone were:
.
Freeway orientation/proximity to freeway/major highway
Uses that are freeway-oriented (need visibility and/or convenient access)
Retail categories in which Federal Way is less competitive
Uses that need large tracts of land and have outdoor display of product (i.e. are not
compatible with pedestrian-oriented or higher intensity commercial use districts)
.
.
.
III.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS
1.
Permitted Uses
The following uses are proposed to be allowed in a Freeway Commercial zone:
.
Retail selling new vehicles, boats, recreational vehicles, and motorcycles
Retail selling household goods and furnishings (floor coverings, draperies, glass, and
chinaware)
Retail selling household appliances
Retail selling home electronics
Retail outlet centers
Retail providing entertainment, recreational, or cultural services and activities (amusement
parks, movie theaters)
.
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Staff Report
Freeway Commercial Zone / File #04-100812-00-UP
March 17,2004
Page 3
EXHIBIT I
PAGE~ ,jf:"5L
.
Golf driving range
Hotel
Public utility (water supply, electric power, telephone, cablevision, natural gas,
transportation for persons/freight, commercial broad-cast towers, commercial antennas)
Public transit shelter (bus stop)
Personal wireless service facilities
.
.
.
.
2.
Accessory Permitted Uses
Accessory uses are defined in Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22-946, as a use,
facility, or activity that is clearly secondary to the permitted use.
(a) For vehicle and boat sales, accessory uses would include the following:
. Used vehicle sales
. Gasoline service stations
. Service, maintenance, and body shops
. Car washes
. Auto supply stores
. Coffee shop to serve customers and employees
(b) A restaurant with a maximum gross floor area of7,500 square feet would be permitted as
accessory to a retail outlet center.
3.
Review Process
Any new commercial development in Federal Way is subject to one of six land use processes
(Process I -VI). The majority of the permitted uses in the Freeway Commercial zone are proposed
to be reviewed under Process II, Site Plan Review. Except for new vehicle sales, which would be
reviewed under Process III, Process II review would be used for buildings up to 4,000 square
feet gross floor area with up to 20 parking spaces or a parking lot up to 20 parking spaces. If
these thresholds were exceeded, Process III would be used. Process II is an administrative review
with no public notification. Process III requires a public notice of application to be published in
the paper, posted on the City's official notice boards, and posted on the site. In addition, if the
project is located within 300 feet of a residential zone, a copy of the notice would be mailed to
property owners within 300 feet of the boundary of the property. This means that any new
vehicle sales or other permitted use in the Freeway Commercial zone, which is 4,000 square feet
or more with 20 or more parking spaces, or a parking lot with 20 or more spaces, would be
reviewed. under Process III.
4.
Development Standards
The following issues were considered when drafting the Freeway Commercial development
standards. Use zone charts have been prepared for all of the proposed permitted uses (Exhibits
A-G)l:
I A change was made in FWCC Section 22-966 to add Freeway Commercial to the prioritized list of zoning districts (Exhibit H).
Planning Commission Staff Report
Freeway Commercial Zone I File #04-100812-00-UP
March 17,2004
Page 4
EXHIBIT-1
PAGEJ- .~)~--S&
(a) Minimum Site Size - A survey of other communities found that minimum lot sizes for a
permitted use ranged in size from none to five acres. The Freeway Commercial zone is
intended to apply to an area that is large enough to accommodate a mix of uses that would
attract a large customer base. The minimum size of five acres was chosen because this
would accommodate one auto dealership, or a number of smaller retail uses. Language has
been added to Page II-22 of Chapter Two, "Land Use," of the Federal Way Comprehensive
Plan (FWCP) to implement this goal (Exhibit I). At the time that an application for a
comprehensive plan amendment and rezone to the Freeway Commercial zone is being
considered, the parcel would have to meet both the minimum area size and locational
requirements found in that section of the FWCP.
(b) Maximum Lot Coverage - The range in maximum lot coverage allowed was broad in the
other Washington communities reviewed, ranging from 85 percent in Olympia to no
maximum requirements in Marysville and Oak Harbor. Consistent with existing Federal
Way use zone charts for non-residential uses, no maximum lot coverage is established.
Instead, lot coverage is determined by other site development standards, such as
landscaping, requirement for on-site detention, and parking.
(c) Height Limits and Setbacks When Adjacent to Residential Zones - Height limits for other
jurisdictions' zoning districts that are similar to the proposed Freeway Commercial zone
range from 30 to 50 feet, with most jurisdictions having a maximum of 35 feet. Issaquah
allows an increase to 65 feet if certain criteria are met. When crafting the height limits for
the Freeway Commercial zone, we relied on those standards in the Federal Way Community
Business zone, since it was the most similar to the Freeway Commercial zone. A larger
setback is required if the site is adjacent to a residential zone.
The following summarizes how height and setbacks will be addressed (notes I and 2 of the
use zone charts [Exhibits A-E):
Maximum height of 35 feet unless the structure is located less than 100 feet from
an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the structure shall not exceed 30
feet above average building elevation, and the structure shall be set back a
minimum of 20 feet from the property line of the residential zone. In the case of
new vehicle sales, the setback would be 50 feet versus 20 feet due to the potential
intensity of the uses conducted. The height of that portion of a structure located
100 feet or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 feet above average
building elevation to a maximum of 55 feet, if all of the following criteria are met:
(i)
The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use
conducted in the building; and
(ii) That portion of the structure is set back an additional one-foot for each one-
foot the structure exceeds 35 feet above average building elevation; and
(iii) An increase in height above 35 feet will not block views designated by the
comprehensive plan; and
Planning Commission Staff Report
Freeway Commercial Zone I File #04-100812-00-UP
March 17,2004
Page 5
EXHIBIT I
PAGE--'--OF 5'2.
(iv) The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of
the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan.
(d) Noise, Light, and Glare - Noise, light, and glare can be associated with any non-residential
use. The FWCC includes regulations that address all of these impacts.
(i)
Noise - Noise is addressed in Chapter 10, Article II. This section states that it is
unlawful for any person to cause, or for any person in possession of property to allow
to originate from the property, sound that is a public disturbance noise. A list of those
noises considered public disturbances are attached as Exhibit J. This language is
adequate to address noise associated with the majority of the allowable uses in the
Freeway Commercial zone; however, public address speakers are frequently used in
car dealerships to communicate with employees moving throughout large outdoor
areas. In order to address this impact, note 10 was added in the use zone chart for new
vehicle sales. This note states that public address speakers (PA systems) shall not be
audible from an adjacent residential zone (Exhibit A).
(ii) Light and Glare - This is addressed in FWCC Sections 22-950 and 22-954.
22-950 Glare regulation.
Any artificial surface which produces glare which annoys; injures; endangers the
comfort, repose, health, or safety of persons; or in any way renders persons insecure
in life or in the use of property is a violation of this chapter.
22-954 Lighting regulation.
(a) Efficient light sources. The applicant shall utilize energy efficient-light sources.
(b) State code. The applicant shall comply with the state energy code with respect to
the selection and regulation of light sources.
(c) Glare from subject property prohibited. The applicant shall select, place, and
direct light sources both directable and nondirectable so that glare produced by any
light source, to the maximum extent possible, does not extend to adjacent properties
or to the right-of-way.
Automobile sales lots are brightly lit to showcase the merchandise. However, existing
code language was determined to be adequate to address these impacts, so no additional
language was added.
(e) Signage - All of the Washington jurisdictions surveyed had provisions for both
freestanding and wall mounted signs. However, the regulations that are proposed to be
adopted for the signs allowed in the Freeway Commercial zone (Exhibit K) were patterned
after the City of Bellingham, because they seemed most appropriate for Federal Way.
For the Freeway Commercial zone, FWCC Chapter 22, Article XVIII, "Signs," will be
amended to provide a Highway Profile Sign Category A. This will allow one free-standing
pylon or pole sign that is oriented towards the freeway, located near the property line
closest to the freeway (not the off-ramps), and visible from the freeway. The allowable
height shall not exceed 25 feet above the elevation of the nearest driving lane of the
Planning Commission Staff Report
Freeway Commercial Zone I File #04-1 00812-00-UP
March 17,2004
Page 6
EXHIBIT I
PAGE__'_l.C" --51-
freeway at a point nearest to the proposed location of the sign. If the subject property has an
elevation that is higher than the nearest driving lane of the freeway, then the sign shall be
no taller than 20 feet above the average finished ground elevation measured at the midpoint
of the sign base.
If the elevation of the site is equal to or lower than the elevation of the freeway at a point
nearest to the proposed location of the sign, the allowable sign area shall be 600 feet, with
no one sign face exceeding 300 feet. If the subject property has an elevation that is higher
than the nearest driving lane of the freeway, then the sign area shall not exceed 400 square
feet, for the total sign faces with no one sign face exceeding 200 square feet.The Highway
Profile Sign would be in addition to the already allotted freestanding signs.
(f)
Hazardous Waste, Toxic or Noxious Gasses, Water Contamination - Automobile service,
body shop, and maintenance facilities can generate odors or hazardous wastes, which can
end up in surface or groundwater. Consequently, the following notes have been added to
the use zone chart for new vehicle sales (Exhibit A, Notes 5, 7, 8 and 9):
(i)
Auto and boat body repair and/or painting may be permitted under this section only if:
a. Building layout and design mitigates impact of dust, fumes, noise, glare, odor, or
any other discharge on neighboring uses and natural systems; protects
neighboring uses and natural systems from accidental spillage, leakage, or
discharge of hazardous material and pollutants;
b. All storage, operations, service, painting, and repair are conducted within
enclosed buildings.
(ii) Hazardous waste treatment and storage facìlities must comply with state citing
criteria adopted in accordance with Chapter 70.105 RCW.
(iii) No use or activity shall be conducted that involves the release of toxic or noxious
gases, fumes, or odors.
(iv) No use or activity shall be conducted that results in the contamination of stormwater,
surface water, or groundwater pursuant to Chapter 21, Article IV.
(g) Landscape Screening - Requirements for landscaping screening should ensure that
commercial uses are adequately screened from adjacent residential areas. In addition,
landscaping along street frontages should reflect the desire of the business owner to display
merchandise for sale. In order to accomplish these objectives, the following landscape
standards are recommended (Exhibit L):
.
Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of
parking areas abutting public rights-of-way.
Type I landscaping 20 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of
property abutting a residential zone.
Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot
lines, except as noted above.
.
.
Planning Commission Staff Report
Freeway Commercial Zone I File #04-1O0812-00-UP
March 17,2004
Page 7
EXHIBIT- I
PAGE~8 ,)r-5_~
New vehicle sales include a display area for cars. Language has been added to the use zone
chart for new vehicle sales (Exhibit A) to clarify that areas where vehicles are displayed are
not subject to the parking lot landscaping requirements of FWCC Section 22-1567 (note
13). A note has also been added to state that areas where vehicles are displayed are not
subject to the provisions of FWCC Chapter 22, Article XIII, Section 22-1113, "Outdoor
Activities and Storage," which also require screening and landscaping of outdoor storage
(note 14).
5.
Community Design Guidelines
Amendments to the "Community Design Guidelines," FWCC Chapter 22, Article XIX, Section
22-1638, would add the Freeway Commercial District to that section, which governs Professional
Office (PO), Neighborhood Business (BN), and Community Business (Be) (Exhibit M).
IV.
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
The following paragraphs present recommended Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP)
amendments necessary to implement a new commercial land use and zoning designation for Freeway
Commercial development.
1.
The Concept Plan Diagram
On page II-3, Figure II-2, Concept Plan Diagram, should be revised to identify the Freeway
Commercial concept and general location (this will be done prior to adoption).
2.
Section 2.2, Relationship to Other Land Use Chapters
On Page II-4, a bullet should be added that states the following, "Freeway commercial
development focusing on attracting and capturing those retail dollars presently being lost to
other communities and complementing existing retail uses in the community" (Exhibit I).
3.
Section 2.8, Land Use Designations - Commercial Designations
Following the description of the Community Business Designation, add the following section for
the proposed Freeway Commercial designation (Exhibit I):
Freeway Commercial
The Freeway Commercial designation is intended for areas that are adjacent to Interstate
5 and SR 18 interchanges with convenient freeway access and visibility. Freeway
Commercial areas are typically large in size (five acres or greater). The range of
commercial land usespermitted in these areas is limited to uses that are difficult to site in
the city's other commercially designated areas due to their large site size requirements
and/or difficulty in adapting to pedestrian-oriented areas. Freeway Commercial areas are
particularly suitable for automobile sales, home furnishings centers and related retail and
service uses that require large tracts of land, convenient freeway access and visibility.
Planning Commission Staff Report
Freeway Commercial Zone I File #04-100812-00-UP
March 17,2004
Page 8
Goal
EXHI8IT~_'
P AGE -!_- ;~) ¡:-'_~L
LUG7
Encourage the development of limited areas with high levels of freeway access and
visibility as suitable locations for freeway-oriented businesses to locate within the
city in a cohesive development pattern that also meets the community's product and
service needs. .
Policies
LUP40 Encouragefreeway oriented uses to locate in Freeway Commercial-designated
areas.
LUP41 Encourage quality regional destination retail development through the utilization of
appropriate design guidelines and development standards.
LUP42 The development of freeway commercial areas should respond to the needs of
consumers by providing for ease of access and circulation and convenient grouping
of complementary uses.
LUP43 Create additional development standards to mitigate impacts to neighboring
residential uses.
4.
Table 11-3, Land Use Classifications (Exhibit I)
Add a row to this table with the following information:
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Zoning Classification:
Freeway Commercial
Freeway Commercial
5.
Map II-I, Comprehensive Plan Designations (Exhibit I)
At such time that areas are designated Freeway Commercial, subject to Federal Way City
Council consideration, Map II-I and the official comprehensive plan map will be amended to
incorporate the Freeway Commercial designated areas.
6.
Section 4.2, The Economic Development Vision for Federal Way (Exhibit N)
On page IV -IS under the heading "Retail Areas," add a bullet as follows:
.
Freeway oriented commercial development providingfor automobile sales, home
furnishings centers, hotels, and related retail and service uses are located adjacent
to /-5 and SR-18 within areas of appropriate size and with convenient access and
visibility.
Planning Commission Staff Report
Freeway Commercial Zone I File #04-1 00812-00-UP
March 17,2004
Page 9
EXHIBIT I
PAGE--'.O-OF ~
.
V.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that a new Freeway Commercial zone be adopted with the amendments as
proposed in the enclosed Exhibits A-H and J-M.
VI.
REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
FWCC Chapter 22 "Zoning," Article IX, "Process VI Review," establishes a process and criteria for
zoning code text amendments. Consistent with Process VI review, the role of the Planning Commission
is as follows:
1. To review and evaluate the zoning code text regarding any proposed amendments.
2. To determine whether the proposed zoning code text amendment meets the criteria
provided by FWCC Section 22-528.
3. To forward a recommendation to City Council regarding adoption of the proposed zoning
code text amendment.
VII.
DECISIONAL CRITERIA
FWCC Section 22-528 provides criteria for zoning text amendments. The following section analyzes
the compliance of the proposed zoning text amendments with the criteria provided by FWCC Section
22-528. The City may amend the text of the FWCC only if it finds that:
1.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive
plan.
The proposed FWCC text amendment is consistent with the following FWCP goals and policies:
LUPIO
Support a diverse community comprised of neighborhoods that provide a range of
housing options; a vibrant City Center; well designed and functioning commercial
areas and distinctive neighborhood retail areas.
LUPIS
Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non-residential uses.
EDGI
The City will emphasize redevelopment that transforms the City from a suburban
bedroom community to a full-service community with an urban core.
EDGS
The City will encourage and support the development of recreational and cultural
facilities and/or events that will bring additional visitors to Federal Way and/or
increase visitor spending.
EDP7
The City will develop zoning, permitting and potential financial incentives that
encourage prioritized development consistent with comprehensive and subarea
plans and orderly, phased growth.
Planning Commission Staff Report
Freeway Commercial Zone / File #04-1 00812-00-UP
March 17,2004
Page 10
EXHIBIT-1
PAGE-IL.'~)F~
2.
The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or
welfare.
The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare
because it has the potential to attract new sales tax revenues to the City of Federal Way. New tax
revenues would offset the cost of providing City services. The intent of the Freeway Commercial
zone is to capture new dollars that are presently leaking to neighboring jurisdictions. In addition,
the Freeway Commercial zone is intended to allow uses, such as outlet centers, that complement
and support existing retail uses in other zones, and entertainment facilities such as movie
theaters and amusement centers, which would attract people to Federal Way. Increased setbacks,
height limitations, and additional landscape screening are proposed for development within the
Freeway Commercial zone that is located adjacent to residential areas.
3.
The proposed amendment is in the best interest á the residents of the City.
The proposed text amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the City because it
provides for a commercial designation that will permit retail uses that are currently under
represented in the City of Federal Way. These uses include vehicle sales, outlet centers, hotels,
and home furnishing retail centers. By providing an opportunity for specialized retail centers to
locate in areas with convenient freeway access and visibility, the City can attract more of these
uses and resultant sales tax dollars. Currently, residents have to travel outside of Federal Way to
find large concentrations of businesses offering these goods for sale. Providing a new zoning
category that could be applied to land with convenient freeway access and visibility, and which
allows uses currently under represented in the community, would keep more retail dollars at
home and could attract more visitors to Federal Way and visitor spending within the community.
VIII. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Consistent with the provisions of FWCC Section 22-539, the Planning Commission may take the
following actions regarding the proposed zoning code text amendments:
1. Recommend to City Council adoption of the FWCC text amendments as proposed;
2. Modify the proposed FWCC text amendments and recommend to City Council adoption of
the FWCC text amendments as modified;
3. Recommend to City Council that the proposed FWCC text amendments not be adopted; or
4. Forward the proposed FWCC text amendments to City Council without a recommendation.
IX.
TABLES
Table I
Table II
Table III
Comparison of Allowable Uses City in Federal Way Commercial Zones
Comparison of Development Standards in Selected Washington Cities
Comparison of Development Standards in Selected California Cities
Planning Commission Staff Report
Freeway Commercial Zone / File #04-1 008 I 2-00-UP
March 17,2004
Page II
X.
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit 0
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
Exhibit G
Exhibit H
Exhibit I
Exhibit J
Exhibit K
Exhibit L
Exhibit M
Exhibit N
EXHIBIT I
P A.G E _-'-ÄC) E ,~
Use Zone Chart - New Vehicle Sales
Use Zone Chart - Retail
Use Zone Chart - Entertainment, Etc.
Use Zone Chart - Hotel
Use Zone Chart - Public Utility
Use Zone Chart - Public Transit Center
Use Zone Chart - Personal Wireless Service Facility
FWCC, Chapter 22, Section 22-966, Personal Wireless Services Facilities
Chapter Two, Land Use of the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan
FWCC, Chapter 10, Article II, Sections 10-26 and 10-27 (Noise)
Freeway Commercial Sign Language
FWCC, Chapter 22, Article XVII, Landscaping
FWCC, Chapter 22, Article XIX, Community Design Guidelines
Chapter Four, Economic Development of the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan
1:\DOCUMEN1\Freeway Commercial Zoning District\Planning Commission\Final 031704 Planning Commission StaffReport.DOC
Planning Commission Staff Report
Freeway Commercial Zone / File #04-1 00812-00-UP
March 17,2004
Page 12
USES
Above-grade structured parking facilities
Adult entertainment activity, retail or use
Art gallery
--.............-.......--..................,.........-. -..-,.........--.......-....,. ............ .....,.................. ......-......,.. .....................-...........-........-.........
Bank/savings & loan company - retail providing these & related financial service
TABLE I
BN1
CC-Cl
X
CC-F1
X
BC
......... .....,...........-.....,..,........,.......................... ...."..'-....'..-".".... ....-..-.,........
X
I Brokerage
I. .,...--...-....--........-..--.....................,........,.,.. ........ .............. ............,...,........ .................. .....,.... ...,..-.. ............... .....,............... ....,.,... ,.....,.,...... .................--.-... .......-....,.-.,..,.,..................... ,.,....-...... ...... -..-...,.-.....-...........-.......,..
1 Bulk retail sale of lumber, paint, glass; plumbing, electrical and heating fixtures & supplies; bulk I
.~ 0 use ~Þ.91,~. g9.9_~~!f~~.l1.i~~!!1 g~,L~l1.~...l1.~E~~ 1Y.. .~!9.~~,(il1. ~1~A~~,.:.:þ}gÞ9.?'.::.!.~~!D.._.... ........- "----..--.......--......--.. ......-.-. -,--_...........
Business or vocational school
Car wash
Church, synagogue, or other place of religious worship
--.,...--..-...-,---...........................-...,.......-.................
Convalescent center/nursing home
Convention center/trade center
Day care facility, except Class II home occupations
..---......-....-.........--...-....... ............-.-.....,
.......................,........
Department store
Dwelling unit (Multiple family attached)
Dwelling unit (Multiple family stacked)
Fast food restaurant
Golf course
Golf driving range
X
...........................-.,.-..--
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X
X
X X X X
..................................,............,........-..................,.......,...............................
X X X
(II-A and (II-A and (II-A and
..::::'.::~~::~:':::::=::~~:::::'.~t:::~:::::::~~~~::::::::::::::: X X
X
...,..........--....-.....-..........
X
X
X
X
X
X
.,..-.--.,...,.-,.......-.........
....-.-...........,..,....
X
X
..........,.....,.........,...........
Government facility
Group home
Health club
....-.....................
......-................-......-.......-......
I Excluding Bulk Retail
- I -
FC
=~~
........~ :J:
m-
.............x."i....~
.--.=--.- :-I
,
..
x
---------------------------.....--
FC 1
=C~
I
-.---1
I
1
!
,...._,j
!
- 1
I I
1-'-""...1
-1------11
I x
-1----'--'--=--'-"'--.1
I I
-------------- -------'-'-------------'-"---"--'11
-----1-------- ---.----.-..---.---
1=~=
BN1 BC CC-C1 CC-F1
X X X
....-.. ,--------------
X X X
X
USES
Hospital
Hotel
Merchandise and equipment rental facilities (excluding heavy equipment rental)
Mini-warehouse or public storage facility
---._--,- -----.--.----- ------.-----------.----- -----.----- -----.----- -----.--.------------------.---.--.----------..---- -------,------..---------..-.-..-----
---------.-----------.--------------------.----.---,-----,-_..--_....------,-----------------------------------------------------------------------,------------,------------------------------.------.-------.-----------------------_._-------.----,---------------------------._------------------------,--
, Office use (medical, dental, health care, veterinary, accounting, legal, architectural, engineering,
I consulting, management, administrative, secretarial, marketing, advertising, personnel, sales offices
1'~~ë~i~¿å~¿6~%~i~~r-voëh~&it~h:¿'¡WL¿~~Jå~j~r~1-¿~-~~iàl~r~êlhâr¡ffrrJ~k~t6%~~6W-õi1'~x~16f~~*åJ..._..--._,
_.!~?I}~fe.Lf?cjUti e. ~_.._-- ------------ ---,-,----_.."....,---_._-_.. '"
Personal wireless service facility
í
.....1,,__,_--
I
(..---------.---------.----.----.----,-
i
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pistol range (Indoor)
Private lodge or club X
Public park X
-----------.---.---------------------------- ------.-------.-----..-..-..-,--,-..------.----------..------ ------.------ -,--,-.-.---_._---- ------.------- ------.-.------..-----.-,-..------..---,-,-.-------,-..--.------..-_._--- ---------------------.-
=t~r~~~;~\,;;;~~~::~s~~öi'==- -... ~~
1--~~::~-~~-~-~-~~~_~_~~i,~.I~~~~~L~ ~- __I?~~t~ ~P?~~~ !,... ------------.----.-..-.- --- ......_-~,
I_,_.!:::~~~.~..~~,~-~~~~~~-~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --_._-----~---_._,.. X
I Retail selling groceries; produce and related items X X
L.-----.-------..---.--------------....--.-..-------------------------------------.-------------------------------------.--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ --.- ----------------------.------.----.-----,---,--..-
I Retail selling drugs and personal care products X X
1....,-..-.-.--..,-,---.--.----.---.---.--.----.------------------_._---------,------------,-------------------------------------------------------_._------.-,--,-,- ----,-------- --.-- ---..-._----..-_._---- ----- --,--------------------------------
I Retail selling books I X X
---_.._---,--- ----,-----_.----
----,--------.-----.------.-.---- --------- ------.-.-----------------..-..--.---..-,-...-...-..-
- 2-
X
----,----
I
i
i
I
--1-
i
L
I
I
------.-..1-----
I
I
,_...j,
X I
-,---,-!--
X I
X.---""'---'--¡------'
--------.-----.--.1....-.------
l~"
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
I
----.I
I
X
X
--
."---,,,---"'--.-...."'--""'.----
USES
...--....-...--- -..........-.-,-..---......---..--...-.....,..........,.-.----..-
Retail selling clothing
.------.......-...........-...--........,......-..,.--....----......,........-.- .--,.-----
Retail selling variety items
..,--............-...-,-.-.......-...".........---....-.--,---.-.....,
Retail selling specialty items
--.-............-....,.....-,..........-.,.--....-...---...............--.-"'..""---"-
Retail selling home electronics
--.---.......-.--.......-...-..-.-.-.-........,..... ,............ ......""..".,.".-.-,,""-.""'.-.'......".."".."...."...........--..........-.....-.....'
Retail selling sporting goods
...----.....................,-...............,..........-...-......-.........-...-.................,-...........-....,..".",..",.......-.-.......--.
Retail selling works of art
---------.,....,.,.........--....-.....-...-.--..-. .-..-..-....,-...- --.'-'---'-
Retail outlet centers
.-.-,-...-..-..---....,......... .,-....--......---...-...,...-....- -....................,.......--...-..--,-.-.
Retail providing laundry, dry cleaning, beauty/barber, video rental or shoe
.. -.--.."""""--""'---"--"-..-"-'
Retail providing entertainment, recreational, or cultural services and activi
-,.-.........-..-..,-..---... ......-..-..,.....-.-...--..,-,--...-.... ....................-........,...,..............-.--...-.,
Retail providing printing & duplicating services
-..-----.,-.......-...-..-...-..-......,-..-.----.....-..-.....,.-.............-..,....,. ......-......... ...'.'.........'...... ,....,.........----..-.-...,.
Retail providing vehicle service or repair
-",-,-,.-""-""""----",-"",--,.",.",..-.........."""",,.-,,.-..."..""'-'.'.....-..-."""."'.."-.-.-.-....'.-"-
Retail providing vehicle, boat or tire sales, service, repair and/or painting
..""--"--.",...--"""--..--,.-",---"",-",.-",-,,,,,,, .-- -----,.
Retail selling new vehicles. boats. recreational vehicles and motorcycles
Ret~II provlaing IimífëëI medíë¡lI; manüfacfüiìng sërViceš sû"ch-.ãš'-dentaTlã
..2.e...rv 1 f~.~j_9.!L~!I:~~.þy-ç,~-~.Þ,!I:~.!.~..__.........._._..._.......,...-.......,.....-.......,..,-.........,.......".....-......---........
School (through secondary education)
-..-......,...,......---.....-.......,-....-...-.--....-....-.,.-.............-.-........-.-.....,-
Senior citizen or special needs housing
---.-...-...---...-...'-..-"...'..-"""'.....""-.-.... ..----"'."".'...--......".'-" - --,.--.-
Social service transitional housing
-.. .----..........-...--------..-..,.".,.................,.............................---....-.......-......-.,.....,....--....-.................-...--.
Trade school
.--"""....--.-.-"".",..-........-.""".""."",,--.,---. ..,-........-.......,-...........--... -...,-.--.
Vehicle service station
...--.--...-.-,--.,.. ..--..--., -..--.....-.---..-- -.....-.......,.,..........--...-.-......,-.
1:\2004 Code Amendments\Freeway Zone\O 13004 Comparison Use Chart.doc/O 1/30/2004
-"'-."-------.-""..""-.--...""".-.---
BN1
CC-C1
FC
CC-F1
BC
..,-,--_._,...,---
-..--.......-.--.;.,....-.--
x
, ....,..--.-..........,-...l................-.--
X X X
...-...........-.1-.,
X X
- -rn=~+~
...--.___...__L X
r-"'--
X
-..-.--..-.
.------.--.-
-...-.-..--..-.-.....-,...-..,..---
-....-.....,.......-....-................-..--..-.-.... ....-.-+..--......,...-.............-..-.,..----....---..--.....-
~~~==~-;=t;- ...
-,----""".",--..-.",---.
.........-..-,.--,-.-.-...-.-.-.,..........
X X X X
"....--.........-....""""'--'. --"""""""'.....""..""'...-.......1-........---......-.....--
X X X
....-.-.....--..--.-......-.-.-.-....--+-..-.-...- , .. .-........,..-.....-.-,..-.- --.--..--..............-..;-.-.-..-
X X X
(Type A or (Type A (Type A or
13L- ~~J~)---,,_.... ..,...-.- ___._êL.__._....,
~-=d~it
m-
,OJ
~F
J 1--
Ti
.....---.....--..........---....,...,.,.-....
-......-.....-.----,..--.
X
...--..-.,---
..
- 3 -
Jurisdiction!
Zone Name
Permitted
Uses
Min. Lot
Size/ Max.
Coverage/
Max.
Building
Height
Elk Grove CA
Auto Commercial (AC)
Auto sales, rental and leasing,
Motorcycle, and Truck sale sand
service
Boat sales, rental, repair
Marine supply
Water recreational equipment sales
Computer sales and service
Furniture and equipment sales and
rental
Medical/Dental office
Towing service
Lawn and garden equipment sales
and repair
Bar, brew pub, restaurant
Physical fitness studio
Supermarket
Gun shop
Pet store
Church
Bank, office insurance, real estate
Public faciilities
Conditional Use:
Dance hall/disco, Movie Theatre,
Indoor recreation facility,
Bike sales and rental
Min, Lot Size: 10,000 square feet
Height Limit: 40 feet
Lot coverage:
No requirements
TABLE III
Red BluffCA
Freeway Oriented commerciaP A
District (FC)
Automobile service stations;
automobile sales and repair
Towing service
Parking lot
Transit facility
Convenience store and drive through
business
Hotels/motels
Public unitities
Min, lot size: 6,000 sq, ft
Max building coverage: 60%
Max surface coverage: 80%
Max building height: 50 feet
Related Commercial: service
related - banks, savings and
loans, barbershops, beauty shops,
cleaners, tailors, shoe repair,
travel service, government, civic;
art galleries, bakery, bookstores,
camera, florist, jewelry stores, gift
shops, liquor stores, restaurants,
cafes (no drive-in)
Office
Open Space:
Parks, playgrounds, agricultural,
plant nurseries
Accessory Uses:
Sale of used cars and trucks,
Sale of new trucks, sale ofvehicle
parts, auto repair, comparable
uses
Other Uses- (only allowed if
certain siting and design
conditions are met and uses do
not detract from development of
area for auto sales): RV sales,
boat sales, motorcycle sales, lease
or rent of automobiles, clubs and
meeting halls, health and athletic
clubs, convention centers, hotels
and motels
Minimum parcel size:
Specialized Commercial: 1,8
acres
Related Commercial: 2.0 acres
Office Commercial: 2.0 acres
(smaller parcel size is only
allowed if an existing parcel)
Parcels may be developed in
phases
Building Height: shall not exceed
a height equal or lesser to the
horizontal distance from the
building and an adjacent arterial
street or four stories in height,
whichever is greater. No building
w/in 58' of the curb face shall
exceed two stories. No building
shall provide vision into an
ad'acent residential structure or
Jurisdiction!
Zone Name
Setbacks
Landscaping
Sign Req.
Elk Grove CA
Auto Commercial (AC)
Rear/Side: 25' between property line
and structure if near residential
property, otherwise 0'
Property line adjacent to freeway:
10'
Minimum 5' wide along R.O.W
Minimum 6' high masonry wall plus
landscaping along property line if
abutting residential
10' wide landscaping for perimeter
adjacent to freeway
5' wide perimeter parking lot
landscaping plus one interior
landscaped island per every 8
parking stalls
The Special Sign Corridors are
designated along state highways,
county roads, and rivers which
accommodate the traveling public.
These types of corridors have
traditionally attracted large, bright,
gaudy signs in an effort to attract the
attention of the traveler to a business
or a product which mayor may not
be related to the travel-way or the
needs of the traveler. The purpose of
the regulations in this section is to
make provisions for signs that
identify the name and type of
business in an aesthetic manner that
compliments the architecture of the
building and serves the needs of the
traveling public.
335-31. Permitted Signs
(a) Identification Signs.
Identification signs attached to a
building and which are visible from
the freeways, County roads, and
County routes, and all freestanding
signs are subject to the provisions of
Section 335-15.
Identification signs attached to a
building and which are not visible
from the freeways, roads and routes
designated are subject to the
provisions of the Zoning Code
.relating to signs
EXHIBIT- l-
p A (~1=~1." :~
Freeway Oriented Commercial Development Area Five: Auto. '
District (FC) Mall! Restricted Commercial
residential yard
Setbacks From Street frontage:
dependent upon particular street
frontage and range from 20' to
58'
Red Bluff CA
D-
Front setback: 10 feet
Rear setback 10'
Side: none unless abutting a LO.W.,
then 5'
Adjacent to similar or
nonresidential land: 20'
Adjacent to residential land: 50'
Street frontage: varies depending
on particular frontage from min.
18't033'
Adjacent to similar or
nonresidential land: setback area
fully landscaped.
Adjacent to residential land: 20'
minimum landscaped buffer
J urisdictionl
Zone Name
Parking Req.
Elk Grove CA
Auto Commercial (AC)
Building Frontage. The total area of
all signs attached to a building with
less than fifty (50) foot setback from
the street right-of-way line shall not
exceed two (2) square feet per foot
of building frontage. For buildings
with fifty (50) feet or greater setback
from the street right-of-way line, the
total area of all signs shall not
exceed three (3) square feet per foot
of building frontage. For parcels
fronting on more than one public
street, sign area entitlement may be
based on anyone of the street
frontages, not the total frontage;
however, once the allotted sign area
has been computed, it may be
distributed over both faces of the
building fronting on the public
streets.
(b) Driveway And Parking Lot
Directional Signs. Private
directional signs indicating ingress
and egress shall be permitted at each
entry and exit provided the sign does
not exceed four (4) square feet.
(c) Off-Site Directional Sign.
Parcels with no public street
frontage and being served by access
easement, mutual parking
agreement, or a private road may
have one (1) monument sign at the
point of access to a public street or
private street provided:
(I) Maximum area is twenty-four
(24) square feet for a monument
sign.
(2) Maximum height issix feet.
(3) Minimum setback is ten (10) feet
from existing public street
improvements or right-of-way line
as provided in Section 335-O9.5(g),
or as otherwise determined by
enforcement agency, when other
than a public street.
(4) Spacing shall be fifty (50) feet
from any other freestanding sign and
shall be located within a landscaped
area with a minimum of three (3)
feet in all directions.
General retail: 4.5 spacesll,OOO sq.
ft GFA
Red BIuffCA
Mall/ Restricted Commercial
J urisdictionl
Zone Name
Elk Grove CA
Auto Commercial (AC)
Offices: 4.5 spaccslI,OOO squ ft.
GFA
Furniture, major appliance, floor
covering, pian%rgan sales:
1.2/1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Outdoor sales-Auto sales(boat,
trailer, lumber): 5 spaces for first
5,000 square feet sales and I space
for each addl.l,OOO sq. ft sales area
for a Maximum 20 spaces plus I
space per each employee.
Indoor bulding material sales: 4.5
spaces per 1,000 sq. ft GFA
Auto repair/service: 5 spaces per
1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Red Bluff CA
Freeway Oriented Commercial
District (FC)
Auto parts store:
4 spaces per 1,000 sq. fL g.f.a.
Convenience Store: 4 spaces per
1,000 sq. ft. g.f.a.
Furniture store: 2 spaces per 1,000
sq. ft. g.f.a.
Gas station: I per 4 pumps plus I
per service bay
Restaurant: I per every 4 seats
AGI;nt~H.ý~).ttfu .,- .
Mall! Restricted Commercial
requirements of Chapter 22.74 of
this code, the director of
community development may
require additional parking spaces
and improvements so as to
enhance the design of the
development and to provide a
harmonious circulation scheme
between adjacent developments.
(b) Adequate off-street parking
shall be provided to accommodate
all parking needs for employees,
visitors, demonstration, rental,
service, display and storage
vehicles on the site or other sites
approved by the city council.
Employee parking shall be
prohibited in adjacent residential
developments. If parking
requirements increase as a result
of a change in use or number of
employees, additional off-street
parking shall be provided to
satisfy the intent of Sections
22.15.210 through 22.15.390 and
Chapter 22.74 of this code.
(c) The number of display, new
and used car storage, and service
or repair storage parking spaces
shall be determined by the
director of community
development, and may be in
accordance with the "Space Guide
and Facility Recommendations"
as published by the manufacturer
and established for the specific
make of car authorized to occupy
the automobile facility. Said
parking guide shall be submitted
to the director of community
development as an attachment to
the precise plan and shall be
certified to be the most recent
copy of said parking standards.
The required number of parking
spaces shall be determined by the
"guides" established parking
requirements for the anticipated
annual sales potential plus one-
half of that planned potential
re uirement.
22-XXX New vehicle sales.
The following uses shall be
USE
R&IT
establishment
providing for
new vehicle
sales including
boats.
motorcycles
and
recreational
vehicle RV
sales
USE ZONE CHART
Process
III
acres
~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. .. THEN, across for REGULATIONS
$: Minimums
S ~ Required Yards
~ g ""'
" ""¡:\: 'B
~ u ~ u ~
¡:¡: .: u.t::I ~
:;I .- CI) 'a! u
¡r~ õ e :s!
¡:z:: ¡:z:: ..J fJ.. CI)
..
Process I. ll. ill and IV te descrl>ed in
§§ 22-351 - 22-356,
22-361 - 22-370,
22-386 - 22-411,
22-431 - 22-460, respectively.
æ
u
¡:z::
... u
0 ..
- :;I
'§¡õ
'û .5
:I:CI)
35 ft. above
average
building
elevation
8
~
Q.
""CI)
~ ~
.- C
:;1'-
0-..10:
~Æ
ZONE
FC
SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
Retail 1. If any portion of a structure on the subject property is located less than 100 ft. from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the structure
facilities: I shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of 50 ft. from the property line of the
for every 300 residential zone.
sq. ft of 2. The height of that portion ofa structure located 100 ft. or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft. above average building elevation to a
gross floor maximum of 55 ft.. if all of the following criteria are met:
See notes I -I area a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and
2 b. That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft. for each one ft. the structure exceeds 35 ft. above average building elevation; and
Oth '. c. An increase in height above 35 ft. will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and
d ern:lsed d. The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan.
etermme b 3. Used vehicle sales, gasoline service stations. ~ervice. maintenance and body shops, car washes, auto supply stores, hazardous waste
on a cas:- y- treatment and storage facilities. and coffee shops are only permitted as an accessory use to a new vehicle sales establishment.
case basts 4. Gas pump islands. canopies. and covers over pump islands may not be closer than 25 ft. to any property line, unless located adjacent to a
residential zone, in which case the setback shall be 50 ft. Outdoor vehicle display areas and service areas may not be closer than 10ft. to any
property line. unless located adjacent to a residential zone. in which case the setback shall be 50 ft.
5. Auto and boat body repair and/or painting may be permitted under this section only if:
a. Building layout and design mitigates impact of dust, fumes, noise, glare, odor, or any other discharge on neighboring uses and natural systems;
protects neighboring uses and natural systems from accidental spillage, leakage, or discharge of hazardous material and pollutants;
b. All storage, operations, service, painting, and repair are conducted within enclosed buildings.
6. Truck parking, loading, and maneuvering areas; areas where noise generating outdoor uses and activities may occur; and vents and similar
features must be located as far as possible from any residential zone and secondarily, from any public right-of-way.
7. Hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities must comply with state citing criteria adopted in accordance with Chapter 70.105 RCW.
8. No use or activity shall be conducted that involves the release of toxic or noxious gases, fumes, or odors.
9. No use or activity shall be conducted that results in the contamination of storm water, surface water, or groundwater pursuant to Chapter 21,
~~ ~m
10. Public address speakers (PA systems) shall not be audible from an adjacent residential zone. U
11. No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be determined by other site development requiremen~., r~d
buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc. """' -r
12. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIx. Areas where vehicles are displayed are not subjecWl>.I1e MIM1g lot
design requirements of Section 22-1 634(b). m -
13. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII. Areas where vehicles are displayed are not subject tq'tlfe þart1¡)ot
landscaping requirements of Section 22-1567. ~ -
14. Areas where vehicles are displayed are not subject to the provisions of Article XIII, Section 1113, Outdoor Activities and Sto ~
15. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII. , I
16. For noise standards that apply to the project, see Chapter 10, Article II. V-
17. Refer to § 22-946 et seq. to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property. ",
For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq.
.l'i
'-
~
For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq.
For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq.
22-XXX Retail.
The followin
USE
Rëiã1¡
establishment
selling
household
goods and
fumishings,
household
appliances and
home
electronics
Retail Outlet
centers
lations and notes set forth in this section:
æ
u
¡:z::
... u
0 ...
- :;I
'§¡õ
,. .5
:I: en
8
~
Q.
""CIJ
~ b/)
'3.5
0"..10:
~Æ
ProcessIIINone 120ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 35 ft. above Retail facilities:
See notes 1.2 and average I for every 300
Possible I /9 building sq. ft of gross
Process elevation floor area
III
See Note
2
See notes I _II for each 100
2 sq. ft. of gross
floor area for
restaurants
m
X
J:
-
ro
-
I~
Process I, ll, ill and IV are describel in
§§ 22.351 - 22-356,
22-361 - 22.370,
22-386-22-411,'
22-431 - 22-460, respectively.
~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use... THEN, across for REGULATIONS
$: Minimums
S ~ Required Yards
~ g --.
"... ~
~ "" ~ u u
¡:¡: .~ ~.!:ì !
:;1.- CIJ 'a! u
0" > - 0 ""
~~ .3 ~ r;)
USE ZONE CHART
ZONE
FC
SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
1. If any portion of a structure on the subject property is located less than 100 ft. from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the
structure shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of20 ft. from the property line of
the residential zone.
2. If approved through Process III, the height of that portion ofa structure located 100 ft. or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft.
above average building elevation to a maximum of 55 ft., if all of the following criteria are met:
a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and
b. That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft. for each one ft. the structure exceeds 35 ft. above average building elevation;
and
c. An increase in height above 35 ft. will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and
d. The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan.
3. Assembly or manufacture of goods on the subject property is permitted only if:
a. The assembly or manufacture is clearly accessory to an allowed use conducted on the subject property and is directly related to and
dependent on this allowed use; and
b. The assembled or manufactured goods are available for purchase and removal from the subject property and are for sale only to retail
purchasers; and
c. There are no outward appearance or impacts from the assembly or manufacture.
4. Restaurants, not exceeding 7,500 square feet in gross floor area, are allowed as an accessory use to the outlet center.
5. Truck parking, loading. and maneuvering areas; areas where noise generating outdoor uses and activities may occur; and vents and similar
features must be located as far as possible from any residential zone and secondarily, from any public right-of-way.
6. Outdoor use, activity. and storage is regulated by Article XIII, Section 1113,
7. No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be determined by other site development requirements, i.e.. required
buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc. -0 m
8. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIx. » X
9. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII.
1 O. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII. 1""\ -r-
II. Referto § 22-946 et seq. to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property. ~.I"'"
-
For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq.
For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq.
For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq.
-.J
:1'1
--
22-XXX Entertainment, etc.
The following uses shall be
USE
Retail
establishment
providing
entertainment,
recreational or
cultural
services or
activities
Golf driving
range
USE ZONE CHART
Process II INone
20 ft.5 ft. 15 ft.
See notes 1,2
and 5
~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST read down to find use. .. THEN, across for REGULATIONS
$: Minimums
S ~ Required Yards
~ 0 ""'
¡;¡ -o¡:\: u g
CI: .~ ~.~ ~
:;I .- CIJ 'a! U
0"> - 0 '"
~~ .3 ~ ti3
Possible
Process
III
See Note
2
Process I, II, ill and IV are described in
§§ 22.351 -22-356,
22-361 - 22-370,
22.386 - 22-41 I.
22-431 - 22-460, respectively.
Determined I. If any portion of a structure on the subject property is located less than 100 ft. from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the structure
on a case-by. shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of20 ft. from the property.line of the
case basis residential zone.
2. Ifapproved through Process III, the height of that portion ofa structure located 100 ft. or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft. above
average building elevation to a maximum of 55 ft.. if all of the following criteria are met:
a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and
b. That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft. for each one ft. the structure exceeds 35 ft. above average building elevation; and
c. An increase in height above 35 ft. will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and
d. The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan.
3. No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be determined by other site development requirements, i.e., required
buffers, parking lot landscaping. surface water facilities, etc.
4. Truck parking, loading, and maneuvering areas; areas where noise generating outdoor uses and activities may occur; and vents and similar
features must be located as far as possible from any residential zone and secondarily, from any public right-of-way.
5. Outdoor use, activity, and storage is regulated by Article XIII, Section 1113.
6. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIx.
S. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII.
7. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII.
8. Refer to § 22-946 et seq. to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property.
9. Minor and supporting structures constructed as a functional requirement of golf driving ranges may exceed the applicable height limitation
provided that the director of community development services determines that such structures will not significantly impact adjoining properties.
æ
u
¡:z::
... u
0 ..
- :;I
'§¡õ
'û .5
:I:CIJ
'35'ifãbõve
average
building
elevation
See notes I,
2 and 5
U
I"
8
~
Q.
""CIJ
.~ gp
:;1'-
0"..10:
~Æ
ZONE
FC
SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq.
-em
»x
For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq.
For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq.
m-
CD
~.F
t '\ '
.--J I
.1-1 i-.
.
..
22-XXX Hotel.
The following uses shall be permitted in the fteeway commercial (Fe) zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this section:
~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST read down to find use. .. THEN, across for REGULATIONS
$: Minimums
~ ~ Required Yards
~ 8
;¡ 0
" ""ø:
¡;.¡ u ~
~ .: u
:;1.-
0">
u u
¡:z::¡:z::
Process II ¡None 120 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 35 ft. above lOne for each
See notes 1,2 and average guest room.
Possible I 18 building
Process elevation
III
USE
Hotel
U
N
ëij
Õ
..J
See Note
2
Process I, IT, ill and IV are described in
§§ 22.351 - 22.356,
22.361 - 22.370,
22-386 - 22-411,
22-431 - 22-460, respectively.
-
USE ZONE CHART
'a!
e
fJ..
""'
..c
u
~
~
u
""
ëij
8
~
Q.
""CIJ
~ b/)
.- C
:;1'-
¡r~
¡:z::~
SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
ZONE
FC
... u
~ ;:;
'§¡õ
'û .5
:I:CIJ
æ
u
¡:z::
See note 3
1. If any portion of a structure on the subject property is located less than 100 ft. from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the structure
shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of20 ft. from the property line of the
residential zone.
2. If approved through Process Ill, the height of that portion of a structure located 100 ft. or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft. above
average building elevation to a maximum of 55 ft.. if all of the following criteria are met:
a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and
b. That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft. for each one ft. the structure exceeds 35 ft. above average building elevation; and
c. An increase in height above 35 ft. will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and
d. The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan.
3. If this use includes accessory meeting, convention or other facilities that will be used by persons other than overnight guests at the hotel, the city
may require additional parking on a case-by-case basis, based on the extent and nature of these accessory facilities.
4. Truck parking, loading, and maneuvering areas; areas where noise genernting outdoor uses and activities may occur; and vents and similar
features must be located as far as possible from any residential zone and secondarily, from any public right-of-way,
5. Outdoor use, activity, and storage is regulated by Article XIII, Section 1113.
6. No maximum lot covernge is established. Instead, the buildable area will be determined by other site development requirements, i.e., required
buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc.
7. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIX.
8. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII.
9. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII.
10. Refer to § 22-946 et seq. to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property.
See notes I .
2
J1]IT
»><
C":)-r
L For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq.
-em
»x
G)I
For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq.
For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq.
mlß
~::¡
O.
;ï1
--
mea
t:~
Ui
11 ~
22-XXX Public utility.
The following uses shall be pennitted in the freeway commercial (Fe) zone subject to the regulation.s and notes set forth in this section:
~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. .. THEN, across for REGULATIONS
~ Minimums
-( ¡:¡ Required Yards .Ëf
~ 8 ..10:
~ 0 ""' æ
"... ..c... ~
~ ""~ u g o~ "E
¡:¡: ~~ N U -:;I ...'"
'3 .!:! êi3 ë: '-.;' '§¡ Õ '3 8
go ~ õ e :s! ~ 'û .5 go ~
¡:z::~ ..J fJ.. CI) ¡:Z:::I:CI) ¡:Z::CI)
USE
Public utility I Process II INone
See note
2
Public Utility Public
20 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. Utilities:
35 ft
See Notes 1,2 and b
7 a ove
average
building
elevation
Determined on
a case-by-case
basis.
Possible
Process
III
See notes
I and 2
Process I. ll. m and IV are described in
§§ 22.351 - 22.356,
22.361- 22-370,
22-386 - 22-411,
22-431 - 22-460, respectively.
-em
~
G>-
mOJ
~~
USE ZONE CHART
ZONE
FC
SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
I. If any portion ora structure on the subject property is located less than 100 ft. from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the structure
shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of20 .ft. from the property line of the
residential zone.
2. If approved through Process III. the height of that portion of a structure located 100 ft. or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft., if all of
the following criteria are met:
a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and
b. That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft. for each one ft. the structure exceeds 35 ft. above average building elevation; and
c. An increase in height above 35 ft. will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and
d. The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan.
3. May be permitted only iflocating this use in the immediate area of the subject property is necessary to permit effective service to the area to be
served.
4. If determined necessary to mitigate visual and noise impacts to surrounding properties, the city may require additional landscaping or buffers on a
case.by-case basis.
5. No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be-determined by other site development requirements, Le. required
buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc.
6. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIx.
7. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII.
8. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII.
9. Refer to §22-946 et seq to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property.
L-For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq.
For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq.
For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq.
""Urn
»X
-r;y-:c
mffi
~I~
~¡-
22-XXX Public Transit Shelter
The following uses shall be permitted in the freeway commercial (Fe) zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this section:
USE ZONE CHART
~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. .. THEN, across for REGULATIONS
$: Minimums. u_-
S ~ Required Yards
~ g
" ""~
¡.¡ ~ ~
CI: .- u
:;1.-
go~
¡:z::¡:z::
U
N
èi5
Õ
..J
'é
e
'"
"...,
.:::
g
~
u
""
èi5
æ
u
¡:z::
... u
0 ..
- :;I
'§¡ü
'û .5
:I:CIJ
Transit
Shelter:
IS ft. above
average
building
elevation
b/)
c
~
¡:¡,.
""
~ '"
'S ~
r:;r~
u Q.
¡:Z::CIJ
ZONE
FC
USE
SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
Public transit I Process I I None I Public Transit
shelter Shelter
~ft.
None
1. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIX.
2. There are no landscaping requirements for this use. The larger site on which it is located is subject to the landscaping requirements of Article XVII.
3. For sign reqùirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII.
4. Refer to §22-946 et seq to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property.
Process I, ll, ill and IV are described in
§§ 22.351 - 22-356,
22-361 - 22-370,
22.386 - 22-411,
22-431 - 22-460, respectively.
L For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22.1376 et seq.
For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq.
For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq.
.....
-om
»x
Q::I:
mæ
~F
, '. .
'....; ~
,T] !
I
.,
..
--em
»x
G)I
mffi
-
,--I~
t' tn
'~I
IT}
22-XXX Personal wireless service facility.
The following uses shall be permitted in the freeway commerciaJ.{FC) zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this section:
USE ZONE CHART
~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. .. THEN, across for REGULATIONS
$: Minimums.
S ~ Required Yards
~ g
" ""It
"" u ~
¡:¡: .: u
:;1.-
0">
U U
¡:z::¡:z::
USE
p;s;;¡;¡
wireless
service
facility
u
.t::I
CIJ
Õ
..J
'a!
e
fJ..
""'
.c
á
~
u
""
i:i5
æ
u
~
'õ ~
~õ
'û .5
:I:CIJ
See note ¡None ¡See ¡See ¡See Refer.to
2 note I note note §22-967
1 I for
maximum
heights
for
allowed
types of
PWSFs
See note 5
for allowed
types of
PWSFs
Process I, II, III and IV are described in
§§ 22.351 - 22-356,
22-361 - 22-370,
22-386 - 22-411,
22-431- 22-460, respectively.
See note 3
~~
~
m-
~~
'f~' I
:~ ¡G\
...
§.
u
VI
""
§
..J
See INot
note allowed
4 on a
PWSF
~
i:i5
I
co
c
:.;;¡
æ
¡:\.,
"t:I
~ VI
'S ~
O"~
U '"
~CI)
SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
ZONE
FC
N/A II. For developed sites, the setback requirements shall be those of the principal use of the subject property. For undeveloped sites, the setback
requirements for new freestanding PWSFs shall be 20 ft. for front, side, and rear yards.
2. Subject to meeting all applicable development standards, the review process used shall be Process 1, except for the following proposals:
a. Process III for the following proposals:
(I) The PWSF is located within 300 ft. ofa residential zone;
(2) The PWSF is located on a structure that is a residence or school or contains a residence or school; or
(3) The PWSF is a new freestanding PWSF.
b, Process IV if the PWSF is a lattice tower accommodating four or more providers.
3. Maximum allowed height for a new freestanding PWSF shall be the minimum necessary to provide the service up to 100 ft., plus any
height granted under § 22-1047. A PWSF shall be allowed up to 120 ft. if there are two or more providers, except that a lattice tower of
between 120 ft. and 150 ft. will be allowed under a combined application of four or more providers.
4. All PWSFs shall be landscaped and screened in accordance with Article XVII of this chapter, and the provisions of the PWSF development
regulations. At a minimum, a five ft. type III landscaping area shall be required around the facility, unless the community development
services director determines that the facility is adequately screened.
5. New freestanding PWSFs are allowed subject to height limits and collocation provisions. PWSFs are allowed on existing towers, on private
buildings and structures, on publicly used structures not located in public rights-of-way, on existing structures located in the BPA trail, and on
existing structures in appropriate public rights-of-way. Refer to § 22-967 for development standards applicable to allowed types of PWSFs,
6. For all other development standards, see Article XIII, Section 22-966 et al.
For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq.
For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq.
For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq.
-am
:r»<
G):r:
moo
f»-F
t"" I
~
iT¡
EXHIBIT___'
PAGE~'OF~
Federal Way City Code
Chapter 22, Article XIII, "Supplementary District Regulations"
22-966 Personal wireless service facilities (pWSF).
(a) Purpose. This section addresses the issues of location and appearance associated with
personal wireless service facilities. It provides adequate siting opportunities through a wide range
of locations and options which minimize safety hazards and visual impacts sometimes associated
with wireless communications technology. The siting of facilities on existing buildings or
structures, collocation of several providers' facilities on a single support structure, and visual
mitigation measures are required, unless othelWise allowed by the city, to maintain neighborhood
appearance and reduce visual clutter in the city.
(b) Definitions. Any words, terms or phrases used in this section which are not othelWise
defined shall have the meanings set forth in FWCC 22-1.
( c) Exemptions. The following antennas and facilities are exempt from the provisions of this
sectiòn and shall be permitted in all zones consistent with applicable development standards as
outlined in the use zone charts, Article XI of this chapter, District Regulations:
(l) Wireless communication facilities used by federal, state, or local public agencies for
temporary emergency communications in the event of a disaster, emergency preparedness, and
public health or safety purposes.
(2) Industrial processing equipment' and scientific or medical equipment using
frequencies regulated by the FCC; provided such equipment complies with all applicable
provisions of FWCC 22-960, Rooftop Appurtenances, and Chapter 22 FWCC, Article XIII,
Division 5, Height.
(3) Citizen band radio antennas or antennas operated by federally licensed amateur
("ham") radio operators; provided such antennas comply with all applicable provisions of FWCC
22-960, Rooftop Appurtenances, and Chapter 22 FWCC, Article XIII, Division 5, Height.
(4) Satellite dish antennas less than two meters in diameter, including direct-to-home
satellite services, when used as a secondary use of the property; provided such antennas comply
with all applicable provisions of FWCC 22-960, Rooftop Appurtenances, and Chapter 22 FWCC,
Article XIII, Division 5, Height.
(5) Automated meter reading (AMR) facilities for the purpose of collecting utility meter
data for use in the sale of utility services, except for whip or other antennas greater than two feet
in length; provided the AMR facilities are within the scope of activities permitted under a valid
franchise agreement between the utility service provider and the city.
(6) Routine maintenance or repair of a wireless communication facility and related
equipment excluding structural work or changes in height, dimensions, or visual impacts of the
antenna, tower, or buildings; provided, that compliance with the standards of this chapter are
maintained.
(d) Prioritized locations. The following sites shall be the required order of locations for
proposed PWSFs, including antenna and equipment shelters. In proposing a PWSF in a particular
location, the applicant shall analyze the feasibility of locating the proposed PWSF in each of the
higher priority locations and document, to the city's satisfaction, why locating the PWSF in each
higher priority location and/or zone is not being proposed. In order of preference, the prioritized
locations for PWSFs are as follows:
(l) Structures located in the BP A traiL A PWSF may be located on any existing support
structure culTently located in the easement upon which are located U.S. Department of Energy/
Bonneville Power Administration ("BP A") Power Lines regardless of underlying zoning.
02002 Code Publishing Co. Page I
EXHIB'T_~
PAGEÌ-:)F~
EXHIBIT a
P AGE -ßO F ..J.L....-
(2) Existing broadcast, relay and transmission towers. A PWSF may be located on an
existing site or tower where a legal wireless telecommunication facility is currently located
regardless of underlying zoning. If an existing site or tower is located within a one mile radius of
a proposed PWSF location, the applicant shall document why collocation on the existing site or
tower is not being proposed, regardless of whether the existing site or tower is located within the
jurisdiction of the city.
(3) Publicly used structures. lfthe city consents to such location, a PWSF may be located
on existing public facilities within all zoning districts, such as water towers, utility structures, fire
stations, bridges, and other public buildings, provided the public facilities are not located within
public rights-of-way.
(4) Appropriate business, commercial, and city center zoned sites. A PWSF may be
located on private buildings or structures within appropriate business, commercial, and city center
zoning districts. The preferred order of zoning districts for this category of sites is as follows:
BP - Business Park
FC - Freeway Commercial
CP-l - Corporate Park
OP through OP-4 - Office Park
CC-C - City Center Core
CC-F - City Center Frame
BC - Community Business
. (5) Appropriate public rights-of-way. For the purposes of this section, appropriate public
rights-of-way shall be defined as including those public rights-of-way with functional street
classifications of principal arterial, minor arterial, and principal collector. A PWSF may be
located on existing structures in appropriate public rights-of-way. Structures proposed for
location of PWSFs shall be separated by at least 330 linear feet. Within any residential zone,
neighborhood business (BN) zone, or professional office (PO) zone, there shall be no more than
one PWSF located on an existing structure. Location of a PWSF on an existing structure in an
appropriate public right-of-way shall require a right-of-way penn it in addition to the required use
process approval.
The preferred order of functional street classifications for this category of sites is as follows:
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Principal Collector
If the PWSF is proposed to be located in an appropriate public right-of-way and the
surrounding uses or zoning are not the same, that portion of the right-of-way with the most
intensive use and/or zoning shall be the preferred location.
If the PWSF is proposed to be located in an appropriate public right-of-way and surrounding
uses or zoning are the same, the preferred location shall be that portion of the right-of-way with
the least adverse visual impacts.
(6) If the applicant demonstrates to the city's satisfaction that it is not technically possible
to site in a prioritized location, the city reserves the right to approve alternative site locations if a
denial would be in violation of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, as detennined by the city.
(Ord. No. 97-300, § 3, 9-16-97; Ord. No. 00-363, § 14, 1-4-00; Ord. No. 01-399, § 3, 8-7-01)
«)2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 2
EXHIBIT H
PAGE-L-OE t
FWCP-ChapterTwo, Land Use
EXHIBIT_I,.__,
, - -----
P AGE -'J..~ ) ~._S L__-
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAND USE CHAPTERS
2.2
The land use concept set forth in this chapter is consistent with all FWCP chapters.
Internal consistency among the chapters of the FWCP translates into coordinated growth
and an efficient use of limited resources. Below is a brief discussion of how the Land Use
chapter relates to the other chapters of the FWCP.
Economic Development
Federal Way's economy is disproportionately divided. Based on PSRC's 2000 Covered
Estimates by jurisdiction.> retail and service industries compose more than 70 percent of
Federal Way's employment base. Covered estimates arejobs that are covered by
unemployment insurance. Dependence on retail trade stems primarily from the City's
evolution into a regional shopping destination for South King County and northeast Pierce
County. Increased regional competition from other retail areas, such as Tukwila and the
Auburn SuperMall, may impact the City's ability to capture future retail dollars. To
improve Federal Way's economic outlook, the economic development strategy is to
promote a more diverse economy. A diversified economy should achieve a better balance
between jobs and housing and supports the City's quality of life.
In conjunction with the Economic Development chapter, this Land Use chapter promotes
the following:
.
A City Center composed of mid-rise office buildings, mixed-use retail, and
housing.
.
Community Business and Business Park development in the South 348th Street
area.
.
Continued development of West Campus.
.
Continued development of East Campus (Weyerhaeuser Corporate and Office
Park properties).
.
Redevelopment and development of the SR-99 corridor into an area of quality
commercial and mixed use development.
.
Continued use of design standards for non-single_family areas.
.
Freeway commercial development focusing on attracting and capturing those
retail dollars presently being lost to other communities and complementing
existing retail uses in the community.
2003 Camp Plan Update
EXHIBIT__, ~
PAGE ~
11-4
FWCP - Chapter Two, land Use
EXHIBIT_, I
P AGEMOF-Ü.-.-
The land use map designations support development necessary to achieve the above (see
the Comprehensive Plan Designations Map II-i). A complete discussion of economic
development is set forth in the Economic Development chapter.
Capital Facilities
Capital facilities provided by the City include: transportation and streets, parks and open
space, and surface water management.
Infrastructure and Urban Services
The amount and availability of urban services and infrastructure influences the location and
pace of future growth. The City is responsible for the construction and maintenance of
parks and recreation facilities, streets and transportation improvements, and surface water
facilities. Providing for future growth while maintaining existing improvements depends
upon the community's willingness to pay for the construction and financing of new
facilities and the maintenance of existing facilities. As outlined in the Capital Facilities
Plan, new infrastructure and services may be financed by voter-approved bonds, impact
fees, grants, designated capital taxes (real estate excise tax, fuel tax, utility tax), and money
from the City's general fund.
To capitalize on the City's available resources for urban services and infrastructure, this
Land Use chapter recognizes that concentrating growth is far more cost effective than
allowing continued urban sprawl. Concentrating growth also supports the enhancement of
future transit improvements.
Water Availability
Based on reports from the Lakehaven Utility District, the estimated available yield from the
underlying aquifers is 10.1 million gallons per day (MGD, 10-year average based on
average annual rainfall). The District controls which well to use, thus which aquifers are
being pumped from, based on a number of considerations including water levels and
rainfall. In order to reduce detrimental impacts to its groundwater supplies in the recent
past, the District has also augmented its groundwater supplies with wholesale water
purchased from the City of Tacoma through water system interties. In addition, the District
has entered into a long-term agreement with the City of Tacoma and other South King
County utilities to participate in the construction of Tacoma's Second Supply Project (a
second water diversion from the Green River), which will provide additional water supplies
to the region. As a result, the water levels in the' aquifers have remained stable, and the
District's water supply capacity will increase to 14.7 MGD on an annual average basis
when Tacoma's Second Supply Project is completed in 2004. Concentrating growth, along
with conservation measures, should help to conserve water.
Water Quality
Maintaining a clean source of water is vital to the health and livability of the City.
Preserving water quality ensures a clean source of drinking water; and, continued health of
the City's streams and lakes. Maintaining water quality is also important for maintaining
2003 Comp Plan Update
EXHß1 ! ¡
PAGE --2. \'-- --"-
11-5
FWCP- Chapter Two, Land Use
EXHIBIT--.
PAGE~'c)~9
LUP36
Develop business parks that fit into their surroundings by grouping similar
industries in order to reduce or eliminate land use conf1icts, allow sharing of
public facilities and services, and improve traffic flow and safety.
LUP37
Limit retail uses to those that serve the needs of people employed in the area.
Commercial
City Center Core
The intent of establishing the City Center Core is to create a higher density, mixed-use
designation where office, retail, government uses, and residential uses are concentrated.
Other uses such as cultural/civic facilities, community services, and housing will be highly
encouraged.
City Center Frame
The City Center Frame designation will have a look and feel similar to the Core and will
provide a zone of less dense, mixed-use development physically surrounding a portion of
the City Center Core. Together, they are meant to complement each other to create a
"downtown" area. A more detailed description, along with goals and policies regarding the
City Center Core and Frame, can be found in the City Center chapter.
Community Business
The Community Business designation encompasses two major retail areas of the City. It
covers the "strip" retail areas along SR-99 and the large "bulk" retail area found near the
South 348th Street area, approximately between SR-99 and 1-5. Community Business
allows a large range of uses and is the City's largest retail designation in terms of area.
The Community Business designation generally runs along both sides of SR-99 from
South 272nd to South 348th. A wide range of development types, appearance, ages,
function, and scale can be found along SR-99. Older, single-story developments provide
excellent opportunities for redevelopment.
Due in part to convenient access and available land, the South 348th Street area has
become a preferred location for large bulk retailers such as Eagle Hardware, Home Depot,
and Costco. Due to the size of these facilities, the challenge will be to develop these uses
into well functioning, aesthetically pleasing retail environments.
To create retail areas that are aesthetically and functionally attractive, revised development
standards, applied through Community Business zoning and Community Design.
Guidelines, address design quality, mixed-use, and the integration of auto, pedestrian, and
transit circulation. Site design, modulation, and setback requirements are also addressed.
Through regulations in the Community Business land use chart, the size and scale of
hotels, motels, and office uses have been limited in scale so as not to compete with the
City Center.
2003 Camp Plan Update
EXHlBJ T
PAGE_3
~
~: -,
11-21
FWCP-ChapterTwo, Land Use
Goal
LUG6
Policies
LUP38
LUP39
EXHIBIT '"" .
-------
PAGE---L1~J~-'&
Transform Community Business areas into vital, attractive, mixed-use areas
that appeal to pedestrians and motorists and enhance the community's image.
Encourage transformation of Pacific Highway (SR-99) Community Business
corridor into a quality mixed-use retail area. Retail development along the
corridor, exclusive of the City Center, should be designed to integrate auto,
pedestrian, and transit circulation. Integration of public amenities and open
space into retail and office development should also be encouraged.
Encourage auto-oriented large bulk retailers to locate in the South 34Sth Street
Community Business area.
Freeway Commercial
The Freeway Commercial designation is intended for areas that are adjacent to Interstate 5
and SR IS interchanges with convenient freeway access and visibility. Freeway
Commercial areas are typically large in size (five acres or greater). The range of
commercial land uses permitted in these areas is limited to uses that are difficult to site in
the city's other commercially designated areas due to their large site size requirements
and/or difficulty in adapting to pedestrian-oriented areas. Freeway Commercial areas are
particularly suitable for automobile sales, home furnishings centers, and related retail and
service uses that require large tracts of land, convenient freeway access and visibility.
Goal
LUG7
Policies
LUP40
LUP41
LUP42
Encourage the development of limited areas with high levels of freeway access
and visibility as suitable locations for freeway-oriented businesses to locate
within the city in a cohesive development pattern that also meets the
community's product and service needs.
Encourage freeway oriented uses to locate in Freeway Commercial-designated
areas.
Encourage quality regional destination retail development through the
utilization of appropriate design guidelines and development standards.
The development of freeway commercial areas should respond to the needs of
consumers by providing for ease of access and circulation and convenient
grouping of complementary uses.
EXI:i1J3 ~ ~ r
PAGE~OF -" 11-22
2003 Camp Plan Update
FWCP-ChapterTwo, Land Use
LUP43
EXHIBIT____J
PAGEh'OF-"--
Create additional development standards to mitigate impacts to neighboring
residential uses.
Neighborhood Business
There are a dozen various sized nodes of Neighborhood Business located throughout the
City. These nodes are areas that have historically provided retail and/or services to adjacent
residential areas. The FWCP recognizes the importance of firmly fixed boundaries to
prevent commercial intrusion into adjacent neighborhoods.
Neighborhood Business areas are intended to provide convenient goods (e.g., groceries and
hardware) and services (e.g., dry cleaners, dentist, bank) at a pedestrian and neighborhood
scale close to adjacent residential uses. Developments combining residential and
commercial uses provide a convenient living environment within these nodes. In the future,
attention should be given to design features that enhance the appearance or function of
these areas. Improvements may include sidewalks, open space and street trees, and parking
either on street or oriented away from the street edge. The function of neighborhood
business areas can also be enhanced by safe pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections to
surrounding neighborhoods.
The need to address expansion or intensification may occur in the future depending on
population growth. Future neighborhood business locations should be carefully chosen
and sized to meet the needs of adjacent residential areas.
Goal
LUG7
Policies
LUP40
LUP41
LUP42
LUP43
LUP44
Provide neighborhood and community scale retail centers for the City's
neighborhoods.
-*
Integrate retail developments into surrounding neighborhoods through attention
to quality design and function.
Encourage pedestrian and bicycle access to neighborhood shopping and
servIces.
Encourage neighborhood retail and personal services to locate at appropriate
locations where local economic demand and design solutions demonstrate
compatibility with the neighborhood.
Retail and personal services should be encouraged to group together within
planned centers to allow for ease of pedestrian movement.
Neighborhood Business centers should consist of neighborhood scale retail and
personal services.
EXHlBJI_-- - X
PAGE S)~.,
2003 Camp Plan Update
11-23
FWCP-ChapterTwo, Land Use
EXHIBIT I
P AGE..J..!a F -"--
the PAS will not have to go through prolonged environmental review. This can be a
powerful incentive for private development in the City Center.
Subarea Plans
Over the years, citizens from various areas of the City have come forth to testify before the
Planning Commission and City Council regarding their neighborhood or business area.
Development of subarea plans can lead to area specific visions and policies. This type of
specific planning, developed with citizen input and direction, can lead to improved
confidence and ownership in the community. Areas where subarea planning should be
considered include: SR-99 Corridor, South 348th Street area, and Twin Lakes
neighborhood.
Incentives
Develop an incentives program, for both residential and commercial deyelopment.
Incentives should be substantial enough to attract development and should be used to
create affordable and desired types of housing and to encourage development within the
City Center.
Table II-3
Land Use Classifications
Comprehensive Plan Classification Zoning Classification
Single Family - Low Density Residential Suburban Estates (SE), one dwelling unit per five acres
Single Family - Medium Density Residential RS 35,000 & 15,000
Single Family - High Density Residential RS 9600, 7200, 5000
Multiple Family Residential RM 3600, 2400, 1800
City Center Core City Center Core
City Center Frame City Center Frame
Office Park Office Park, Office Park 1, 2, & 3
Professional Office Professional Office
Community Business Community Business
Business Park Business Park
Freewav Commercial Freeway Commercial
Neighborhood Business Neighborhood Business
Corporate Park Corporate Park-l
Commercial Recreation Office Park-4
Open Space & Parks A variety of zoning is assigned.
EXHIB'T_- X.
PAGE ~,-)E(.
2003 Camp Plan Update
II-55
10-26 General prohibition.
It is unlawful for any person to cause, or for any person in possession of property to allow to
originate from the property, sound that is a public disturbance noise. (Ord. No. 90-37, § 1 (A), 2-20-90)
EXHIBIT_- _,
PAGE.'.OF-Ü-
10-27 Illustrative enumeration.
The following sounds are public disturbance noises in violation of this article:
(I) The frequent, repetitive or continuous sounding of any horn or siren attached to a motor
vehicle, except as a warning of danger or as specifically permitted or required by law.
(2) The creation of frequent, repetitive or continuous sounds in connection with the starting,
operation, repair, rebuilding or testing of any motor vehicle, motorcycle, off-highway vehicle or internal
combustion engine within a residential district, so as to unreasonably disturb or interfere with the peace
and comfort of owners or possessors of real property.
(3) Yelling, shouting, whistling or singing on or near the public streets, particularly between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. or at any time and place as to unreasonably disturb or interfere with the
peace and comfort of owners or possessors of real property.
(4) The creation of frequent, repetitive or continuous sounds which emanate from any building,
structure, apartment or condominium, which unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace and
comfort of owners or possessors of real property, such as sounds from musical instruments, audio sound
sy~tems, band sessions or social gatherings.
(5) Sound from motor vehicle audio sound systems, such as tape players, radios and compact disc
players, operated at a volume so as to be audible greater than 50 feet from the vehicle itself.
(6) Sound from portable audio equipment, such as tape players, radios, and compact disc players,
operated at a volume so as to be audible greater than 50 feet from the source, and if not operated upon the
property of the operator.
(7) The squealing, screeching or other such sounds from motor vehicle tires in contact with the
ground or other roadway surface because of rapid acceleration, braking or excessive speed around
corners or because of such other reason; provided, that sounds which result from actions which are
necessary to avoid danger shall be exempt from this section.
(8) Sounds originating from construction sites, including but not limited to sounds from
construction equipment, power tools and hammering between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on
weekdays and 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends.
(9) Sounds originating from residential property relating to temporary projects for the
maintenance or repair of horns, grounds and appurtenances, including but not limited to sounds from
lawn mowers, powered hand tools, snow removal equipment and composters between the hours of 10:00
p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends. (Ord. No. 90-65, § I(B),
7-3-90; Ord. No. 99-341, § 3, 5-4-99)
EXHIBiT-
PA.GE.__.-'
1-
-" ,'-
, ,_.
I
~2002 Code Publishing Co.
Page I
EXHIBIT__l
FREEWAY COMMERCIAL ~E~OF ~
22-1601 Signs in nonresidential zoning districts.
(a) Freestanding signs. Permit applications for freestanding signs shall be designated as
qualifying for a high profile, medium profile~ ef low profile sign, or highway profile category A,
based upon criteria regarding both the size and zoning designation of the development. The sign
profile designation shall control the sign types, sign height, sign area and number of signs
allowed.
Separate parcels or pads for single-tenant buildings that comply with all zoning requirements
for single-tenant parcels, excluding access, and are not otherwise tied to an adjacent multi-tenant
center by virtue of architectural style or theme, are permitted one freestanding monument or
pedestal sign not to exceed a maximum sign area of 80 square feet for the total of all sign faces
with no one sign face exceeding 40 square feet.
(1) High profile sign.
a. Criteria. A subject property meeting all of the following criteria is permitted a
high profile freestanding sign:
1. A minimum of 250 feet of frontage on one public right-of-way;
2. A zoning designation of city center core (CC-C) or city center frame (CC-F), or
community business (Be);
3. A multiuse complex; and
4. A minimum site of 15 acres in size.
b. Sign types. The following sign types are allowed for a high profile sign:
1. Pylon or pole signs; provided, however, that any pylon or pole sign must have more
than one pole or structural support;
2. Pedestal signs;
3. Monument signs;
4. Tenant directory signs; and
5. Kiosks.
Sign content for any pylon or pole sign, or for any pedestal or monument sign in lieu of a
pylon or pole sign, may include electronic changeable messages, center identification signs and/or
changeable copy signs. Any high profile sign may be an electrical sign, an illuminated sign,
and/or a neon sign.
c. Sign height. A high profile sign shall not exceed the following maximum heights:
1. Pylon or pole sign: Twenty-five feet;
2. Pedestal or monument signs: Twelve feet if in lieu of a pylon or pole sign.
Otherwise, pedestal and monument signs shall not exceed five feet;
3. Tenant directory or kiosk signs: Six feet unless the sign is set back a minimum of 50
feet from any public right-of-way, in which case it may be 10 feet.
d. Sign area. A high profile sign shall not exceed the following maximum sign areas:
1. Pylon or pole sign: 400 square feet for the total of sign faces with no one sign face
exceeding 200 square feet;
2. Pedestal or monument signs: 128 square feet for the total of all sign faces with no
one face exceeding 64 square feet;
3. Tenant directory or kiosk signs: 15 square feet per sign face.
e. Number of signs. A subject property qualifying for a high profile sign may have the
following maximum number of signs: .
EXHtB\T
PAGE 8
\<-----
5 --
EXHIBIT I
FREEWAY COMMERCIAL s~AGEßOF....1.2.-
1. Pylon or pole sign: One sign unles~ the subject property has an additional 500 feet
of street frontage for a total of 750 feet of aggregate frontage on any public rights-of-way, in
which case the subject property will be allowed one additional high profile sign, not to exceed a
maximum of two such signs per subject property;
2. Pedestal or monument signs: If the pedestal or monument sign is in lieu of a pylon
or pole sign, the number of signs allowed shall be determined pursuant to subsection (e)(I) of this
section. In addition, two monument signs which identify the name of any multiuse complex are
allowed, per entrance from a public right-of-way, not to exceed five feet in height; and
3. Tenant directory or kiosk signs: One sign per frontage on a public right-of-way.
(2) Medium profile sign.
a. Criteria. A subject property that does not qualify for a high profile sign pursuant to
subsection (a)(I) of this section and is not a low profile sign by being zoned office park (OP) or
professional office (PO) pursuant to subsection (a)(3) of this section is permitted a medium
profile freestanding sign.
b. Sign types. The following sign types are allowed for a medium profile sign:
I. Pedestal signs; and
2. Monument signs.
Sign content for any medium profile sign may include electronic changeable messages,
center identification signs and/or changeable copy signs. Any medium profile sign may be an
electrical sign, an illuminated sign, and/or a neon sign.
c. Sign height. The height of a medium profile sign shall be calculated at the rate of 0.75
feet in the sign height for every 10 lineal feet of frontage on a public right-of-way; provided,
however, that sign height shall be calculated at the rate of one and one-half feet in sign height for
every 10 lineal feet of frontage on a public right-of-way for any multi-tenant complex; and
provided further, that such sign shall not exceed a maximum height of 12 feet and every applicant
is entitled to a minimum height of five feet.
d. Sign area. For any multi-tenant complex, sign area allowed for a medium profile signs
shall be calculated at the rate of two square feet per lineal foot of frontage on a public right-of-
way not to exceed a maximum sign area of 128 square feet for the total of all sign faces on each
permitted sign with no one sign face exceeding 64 square feet. For other uses, sign area allowed
for medium profile sign shall be calculated at the rate of one square foot per lineal foot 9f
frontage on a public right-of-way not to exceed a maximum sign area of SO square feet for the
total of all sign faces on each permitted sign with no one sign face exceeding 40 square feet.
Notwithstanding the foregoing sign area calculations, every applicant is entitled to a minimum
sign area of 50 square feet for the total of all sign faces with no one sign face exceeding 25 square
feet.
e. Number of signs. A subject property qualifying for a medium profile sign may have
one pedestal or monument sign for each street frontage. Each street frontage exceeding 300 linear
feet and containing more than one vehicular access is permitted one additional freestanding sign.
No subject property may contain more than three freestanding signs regardless of total linear
street frontage and no one street frontage may have more than two freestanding signs.
Freestanding signs shall be located a minimum distance of 200 feet from other freestanding signs
on the same subject property.
(3) Low profile sign.
a. Criteria. A subject property located in the office park (OP) or professional office (PO)
zone is permitted a low profile freestanding sign.
b. Sign types. The following sign types are allowed for a low profile sign:
I. Pedestal signs;
EXHIBIT
PAGE ~
I(
. ,
,,--
EXHIBíl~__- J-
FREEWAY COMMERCIAL ~~~EÆ-a.)~~-2.
2. Monument signs; and
3. Tenant directory signs.
Sign content for any pedestal or monument sign may include center identification signs
and/or changeable copy signs. Any low profile sign may be an electrical sign, an illuminated sign,
and/or a neon sign.
c. Sign height. A low profile sign shall not exceed the following maximum heights:
1. Pedestal or monument signs: Five feet.
2. Tenant directory signs: Six feet unless the sign is set back a minimum of 50 feet
from any public right-of-way, in which case it may be 10 feet.
d. Sign area.
1. Pedestal or monument signs: Sign area allowed for a low profile sign shall be
calculated at the rate of one square foot per lineal foot of frontage on a public right-of-way;
provided, however, that a low profile sign shall not exceed a maximum sign area of SO square feet
for the total of all sign faces on each permitted sign with no one sign face exceeding 40 square
feet, and every applicant is entitled to a minimum sign area of 50 square feet for the total of all
sign faces with no one sign face exceeding 25 square feet;
2. Tenant directory signs: IS square feet per sign face.
e. Number of signs. A subject property qualifying for a low profile sign may have the
following maximum number of signs:
1. Pedestal or monument signs: One sign per frontage on a public right-of-way; and
2. Tenant directory signs: One sign per frontage on a public right-of-way.
(4) Highway Profile Category A signs.
In addition to the categories available in FWCC Section 22-160l(a)(l-3), a subject
property may be permitted one of the following freestanding signs if it meets the criteria listed in
highway profile category A below.
a. Highway Profile Category A
1. Criteria. A subject property is permitted an additional highway profile category A
freestanding sign if the subject property meets all of the following criteria:
a. Abuts the right of way ofInterstate 5;
b. Is located in a zoning designation of freeway commercial (FC).
2. Sign types. A pylon or pole sign is allowed, provided, that any pylon or pole sign
must have more than one pole or structural support.
Sign content for any pylon or pole sign, may include center identification signs, provided,
however, that all font sizes used are a minumum 2.5 feet tall. Trademarks or copy write symbols
are exempt from the font size requirement. Any highway profile category A may be an
illuminated sign, and/or a neon sign. Electronic changeable copy and/or changeable coPy signs
are not permitted.
The sign must be oriented toward the freeway (not the off-ramps) and be located near the
property line closest to the freeway and be visible from the freeway.
3. Sign height. A highway profile category A sign shall not exceed 25 feet above the
elevation of the nearest driving lane of the fr~eway at a point nearest to the proposed location of
the sign. The sign height shall be measured by a licensed surveyor and the applicant shall be
responsible for providing the surveyor. .
If the subject property has an elevation that is higher than the nearest driving lane of the
freeway, then the sign shall be no taller than IS feet above the average finshed ground elevation
measured at the midpoint of the sign base.
',-
t=XHn=~i
PAGE \
1-\
.~~
~
EXHIBIT__J
FREEWAY COMMERCIAL sI~GE4-", c)~
4. Sign area. A highway profile category A sign shall not exceed 600 square feet for
the total of sign faces with no one sign face exceeding 300 square feet.
If the subject property has an elevation that is higher than the nearest driving lane of the
freeway, then the sign area shall not exceed 400 square feet for the total of sign faces with no one
sign face exceeding 200 square feet.
5. Number of signs. A subject property qualifying for a highway profile sign may have
only one (l) highway profile category A sign per subject property.
6. The applicant shall be responsible for coordinating any such sign with the State of
Washington Scenic Vistas Act.
--f4)ill Combined sign package for adjacent property owners. The owners of two or more
properties that abut or are separated only by a vehicular access easement or tract may propose a
combined sign package to the city. The city will review and decide upon the proposal using
process III. The city may approve the combined sign package if it will provide more coordinated,
effective and efficient signs. The allowable sign area, sign type, sign height and number of signs
will be determined as if the applicants were one multi-tenant complex.
(b) Building-mounted signs.
(1) Sign types. The following sign types may be building-mounted signs and are allowed in
all nonresidential zoning districts:
a. Awning or canopy signs;
b. Center identification signs;
c. Changeable copy signs;
d. Civic event signs;
e. Directional signs, on-site;
f. Electronic changeable message signs;
g. Instructional signs;
h. Marquee signs;
i. Projecting signs;
j. Tenant directory signs;
k. Time and temperature signs;
I. Under canopy signs; and
m. Wall-mounted signs.
Any building-mounted sign may be an electrical sign, an illuminated sign, and/or a neon sign.
(2) Sign height. No sign shall project above the roofline ofthe exposed building face to which
it is attached.
(3) Sign area. The total sign area of building-mounted signs for each business or tenant,
excluding under canopy signs, shall not exceed seven percent of the exposed building face to
which it is attached; provided, however, that no individual sign shall exceed a sign area of 240
square feet and every applicant is entitled to a minimum sign area of 30 square feet. A multi-
tenant complex which does not use a freestanding sign may have two additional wall-mounted
signs. No one sign may exceed seven percent of the exposed building face to which it is attached,
to a maximum of 240 square feet per sign. This sign is in addition to any other tenant signs on
that building face.
(4) Number of signs. The number of building-mounted signs permitted each user is dependent
upon the surface area of the largest single exposed building face of his or her building as follows,
excluding wall-mounted center identification signs:
t:.XH,Bc,r'
PAGE &4
t<
~'F 5
EXHIBIT L '.,
FREEWAY COMMERCIAL SIG~ --. -
t-'A G E JIJ. ~);.: ~
Largest Exposed Maximum
Building Face Number of Signs
Less than 999 sq. ft. 2
1,000 - 2,999 sq. ft. 3
3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft. 4
4,000 and over sq. ft. 5
Buildings with more than 4,000 square feet on any exposed building face, with several clearly
differentiated departments, each with separate exterior entrances, are permitted one sign for each
different department with a separate exterior entrance, in addition to the five permitted.
No sign or signs may exceed the maximum area permitted for that building face except as
may be specifically permitted by this code. However, an applicant is allowed to move allotted
signs, as calculated in subsection (b)( 4) from one building face to another.
Each business or use shall be permitted under canopy signs in addition to the other permitted
building-mounted signs subject to the size and separation requirements set forth in FWCC 22-
1599(c)(2)(w).
(c) Sign area multipliers. The sign area and sign number allowed, as set forth in subsection
(a)(l)(d) of this section for high profile signs, (a)(2)(d) of this section for medium profile signs,
and (a)(3)(d) of this section for low profile signs and subsection (b)(3) of this section for
building-mounted signs may be increased in the following instances; provided, however, that in
no event shall the sign exceed the maximum sign area allowed:
(1) If no signs on the subject property have internally lighted sign faces, then the total sign
area allowed may be increased by 25 percent.
(2) If all signs, other than center identification signs, are building-mounted signs, the total
sign area allowed may be increased by 25 percent.
(3) A time and temperature sign may be included with any sign and such time and
temperature signs shall not be included for purposes of calculating maximum sign area or
maximum number of signs. (Ord. No. 95-235, § 4, 6-6-95; Ord. No. 96-270, § 3(F), 7-2-96; Ord. No. 99-
348, § 5, 9-7-99; Ord. No. 99-357, § 6, 12-7-99)
L::XH I B rr 1<
PAGE __._5 JFJ
EXHIBIT__I.
PAGE~~J'\~5~
Federal Way City Code
Chapter 22, Article XVII, "Landscaping"
22-1566 Landscaping requirements by zoning district.
(a) Suburban Estates, SE.
(1) Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all property lines of
nonresidential uses in the SE zoning district, except as provided in FWCC 22-1567 of this article.
(b) Single-Family Residential, RS.
(1) Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all property lines of
nonresidential uses in the RS zoning districts, except as. provided in FWCC 22-1567 of this
article.
(c) Multifamily Residential, RM.
(1) Type III landscaping 20 feet in width shall be provided along all public rights-of-way
and ingress/egress easements.
(2) Type II landscaping 20 feet in width shall be provided along the common boundary
abutting single-family zoning districts.
(3) Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines,
except as noted in subsections (c)(I) and (c)(2) of this section.
(d) Professional Office, Po.
(1) Type III landscaping eight feet in width shall be provided along all property lines
abutting public rights-of-way and access easements.
(2) Type I landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter property
lines abutting a residential zoning district except for schools which shall provide 10 feet of Type
II.
(3) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines,
except as noted in subsections (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section.
(e) Neighborhood Business, BN.
(1) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all properties abutting
public rights-of-way and ingress/egress easements.
(2) Type I landscaping IS feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property
abutting a residential zoning district.
(3) Type III landscaping five feet in width along all perimeter lot lines except as noted in
subsections (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section.
(f) Community Business, Be.
(1) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all properties abutting
public rights-of-way and ingress/egress easements.
(2) Type I landscaping 15 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property
abutting a residential zoning district.
(3) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lots lines
except as noted in subsections (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section.
(g) Freeway Commercial
(I) Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of parking
areas abutting public rights-of-way.
(2) Type I landscaping 20 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property
abutting a residential zone. .
(3) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines,
except as noted above.
02002 Code Publishing Co. Page I
EXHIBIT-
PAGE____I
L..
~ .--
"It-
2.
(g3 (h} City Center, Cc.
(1) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of
parking areas abutting public rights-of-way.
(2) Type I landscaping 15 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property
abutting a residential zoning district.
(3) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines
except as noted in subsections (g)(I) and (g)(2) of this section.
Eflj ill Office Park, OP; and Corporate Park, CP-I.
(l) Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all property lines
abutting public rights-of-way and access easements. .
(2) Type I landscaping 15 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property
abutting a residential zoning district. .
(3) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines,
except as noted in subsections (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this subsection.
0) .~(anu.facturing Pflrk, AlP. (i) Business Park. BP.
(1) Type II landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all property lines
abutting public rights-of-way and access easements.
(2) Type I landscaping 25 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of the
property abutting a residential zoning district.
(3) Type II landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of the
property abutting a nonresidential zoning district, except MP zones.
(4) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines
except as noted in subsections (i)(I), (i)(2), arid (i)(3) of this section. (Ord. No. 93-170, § 4, 4-20-93;
Ord. No. 96-270, § 3(E), 7-2-96)
E=X' 1-1 n:t.ll- I '
Cl û .....,A !. -- - --
P A () E -- '1_1. ..) F ~
EXH I B 11.-
PAGE_~
L.
)t=:
~
02002 Code Publishing Co. Page 2
EXHIBrr_- ,-_-
Federal Way City CodrAGE~'JF-' L
Chapter 22, Article XIX, Community Design Guidelines
22-1638 District guidelines.
In addition to the foregoing development guidelines, the following supplemental guidelines
apply to individual zoning districts:
(a) Professional office (PO), neighborhood business (BN), and community business (Be),
and freeway commercial (FC).
(1) Surface parking may be located behind the building, to the side(s) of the building, or
adjacent to the right-of-way; provided, however, that parking located adjacent to the right-of-way
maximizes pedestrian access and circulation pursuant to FWCC 22-1634( d).
(2) Entrance facades shall front on, face, or be clearly recognizable from the right-of-
way; and should incorporate windows and other methods of articulation.
(3) Ground-level mirrored or reflective glass is not encouraged adjacent to a public right-
of-way or pedestrian area.
(4) If utilized, chain-link fences visible from public rights-of-way shall utilize vinyl-
coated mesh and powder-coated poles.
For residential uses only:
(5) Significant trees shall be retained within a 20-foot perimeter strip around site.
(6) Landscaped yards shall be provided between building(s) and public street(s). Parking
lots should be beside or behind buildings that front upon streets.
(7) Parking lots should be broken up into rows containing no more than 10 adjacent stalls,
separated by planting areas.
(8) Pedestrian walkways (minimum six feet wide) shall be provided between the interior
of the project and the public sidewalk.
(9) Lighting fixtures should not exceed 20 feet in height and shall include cutoff shields.
This shall not apply to public parks and school stadiums.
20'
Fí~:.: 1(,. See.. 22. I(¡~<¡ {a)
(10) Principal entries to buildings shall be highlighted with plaza or garden areas
containing planting, lighting, seating, trellises and other features. Such areas shall be located and
designed so windows overlook them.
02002 Code Publishing Co. Page I
EXH\B"T-
PAGE---J
K.
" , ~, 1.1
~r 1-
"
EjG..., I 81T__I-
P AGE -11-1-'~) F -'- a
Ft~II~'li,$.r.,-" ~2.16:..~(a)
(11) Common recreational spaces shall be located and arranged so that windows overlook
them.
~
--"::I
---- -
--
Rf'lIre I b - !;tc. 2.2- 16111 (It)
(12) Units on the ground floor (when permitted) shall have private outdoor spaces
adjacent to them so those exterior portions of the site are controlled by individual households.
F~li(\; 19.s.~.2,-1(.38~~)
(13) All new buildings, including accessory buildings, such as carports and garages shall
appear to have a roof pitch ranging from at least 4:12 to a maximum of 12: 12.
EXHIBI-r ~
P AGE --- 2.
~
02002 Code Publishing Co. Page 2
ríli~ 20- S«. 22- :63-8 (.I;
EXHIBIT__- _.l-
P AGE .~~~:~þ;-: I~
(14) Carports and garages in front yards should be discouraged.
(15) The longest dimension of any building facade shall not exceed 120 feet. Buildings
on the same site may be connected by covered pedestrian walkways.
(16) Buildings should be designed to have a distinct "base", "middle" and "top" The base
(typically the first floor) should contain the greatest number of architectural elements such as
windows, materials, details, overhangs, cornice lines, and masonry belt courses. The midsection
by comparison may be simple. (Note: single-story buildings have no middle.) The top should
avoid the appearance of a flat roof and include distinctive roof shapes including but not limited to
pitched, vaulted or terraced, etc.
rig\lr~... 2l - 5<....-.. Z2. l638 (IA)
(17) Residential design features, including but not limited to entry porches, projecting
window bays, balconies or decks, individual windows (rather than strip windows), offsets and
cascading or stepped roof forms shall be incorporated into all buildings. Window openings shall
have visible trim material or painted detailing that resembles trim.
(b) Office park (OP), corporate park (CP), and business park (BP).
(1) Surface parking may be located behind the building, to the side(s) of the building, or
adjacent to the right-of-way; provided, however, that parking located adjacent to the right-of-way
maximizes pedestrian access and circulation pursuant to FWCC 22-1634( d).
(2) Buildings with ground floor retail sales or services should orient major entrances,
display windows and other pedestrian features to the right-of-way to the extent possible.
(3) Ground-level mirrored or reflective glass is not encouraged adjacent to a public right-
of-way or pedestrian area.
(4) If utilized, chain-link fences visible from public rights-of-way shall utilize v,inyl-
coated mesh and powder-coated poles.
For non-single-family residential uses only:
(5) Subsections (a)(5) through (A)(17) of this section shall apply.
(c) City center core (CC-C) and city center frame (CC-F).
(1) The city center core and frame will contain transitional forms of development with
surface parking areas. However, as new development or re-development occurs, the visual
02002 Code Publishing Co. Page 3
EXHIBIT H ----
PAGE.___3 . ~
EXHIBJT__-l
dominance of sunace parking areas shall he reduced. TherefOr~ !:n§. ~arki! !ei f~
located as follows: ~ .
a. The parking is located behind the building, with the building located between the
right-of-way and the parking areas, or it is located in structured parking; or
b. All or some of the parking is located to the side(s) of the building; or
c. Some short-term parking may be located between the building(s) and the right-of-
way, but this shall not consist of more than one double-loaded drive aisle, and pedestrian
circulation shall be provided pursuant to FWCC 22-1634( d).
Large retail complexes may not be able to locate parking according to the above guidelines.
Therefore, retail complexes of 60,000 square feet of gross floor area or larger may locate surface
parking between the building(s) and the right-of-way. However, this form of development shall
provide for small building(s) along the right-of-way to break up and reduce the visual impact of
the parking, and pedestrian circulation must be provided pursuant to FWCC 22-1634(d). For
purposes of this guideline, retail complex means the entire lot or parcel, or series of lots or
parcels, on which a development, activity or use is located or will locate.
(2) Entrance facades shall front on, face, or be clearly recognizable from the right-of-
way; and should incorporate windows and other methods of articulation.
(3) Building facades that are visible from a right-of-way and subject to modulation per
FWCC 22-1635(b), shall incorporate facade treatment as follows:
a. The facade incorporates modulation and/or a landscape screening, pursuant to
FWCC 22-1635(b); and
b. The facade incorporates an arcade, canopy or plaza; and/or one or more
articulation element listed in FWCC 22-1635( c )(2); provided, that the resulting building
characteristics achieve visual interest and appeal at a pedestrian scale and proximity, contribute to
a sense of public space, and reinforce the pedestrian experience.
(4) Drive-through facilities and stacking lanes shall not be located along a facade of a
building that faces a right-of-way.
(5) Above-grade parking structures with a ground level facade visible from a right-of-
way shall incorporate any combination of the following elements at the ground level:
a. Retail, commercial, or office uses that occupy at least 50 percent of the building's
lineal frontage along the right-of-way; or
b. A 15-foot-wide strip of Type III landscaping along the base of the facade; or
c. A decorative grille or screen that conceals interior parking areas from the right-of-
way.
(6) Facades of parking structures shall be articulated above the ground level pursuant to
FWCC 22-1635(c)(1).
(7) When curtain wall glass and steel systems are used to enclose a building, the glazing
panels shall be transparent on 50 percent of the ground floor facade fronting a right-of-way or
pedestrian area.
(8) Chain-link fences shall not be allowed. Barbed or razor wire shall not be used.
For non-single-family residential uses only:
(9) Subsections (a)(5) through (a)(17) of this section shall apply.
(d) For all residential zones.
(1) Non-residential uses. Subsections (a)(5) through (a)(IO) and (a)(13) through (a)(17) of
this section shall apply.
(2) Non-single-family residential uses. Subsections (a)(5) through (a)(17) of this section
shall apply. (Ord. No. 96-271, § 3, 7-2-96; Oed. No. 99-333, § 3, 1-19-99; Ord. No. 01-382, § 3, 1-16-01)
EXH\B\1
PAGE_q
M
It
02002 Code Publishing Co. Page 4
FWCP - Chapter Four, Economic Development
EXHIBrL - J.-
PAGEh:l1~_L~__--..-
Retail Areas
.
SeaTac Mall and other regional retailers within the City redevelop/reposition to meet
changing consumer demand and become more competitive with other regional
retailers.
.
High-volume retail in Federal Way increases faster than population.
.
Growth in resident-serving retail occurs in the City Center, existing commercial
nodes, and in redevelopment areas along SR-99.
.
Neighborhood scale retail development keeps pace with population growth and to an
increasing extent, is accommodated within mixed-use buildings in more concentrated
neighborhood villages.
.
Pedestrian-oriented retail development emerges gradually in the redeveloped City
Center.
.
Small amounts of retail use occur on the ground floor of offices, residential buildings,
and parking structures.
.
Neighborhood scale retail development in concentrated neighborhood villages
emerges in response to growth in multiple-family concentrations in the I-5/SR-99
corridor and new single-family development on the east side ofI-5.
.
Old, outdated strip centers along the SR-99 corridor redevelop as a mix of retail,
office, and dense residential uses.
.
The large truck-stop facility at the intersection of Enchanted Parkway and South
348th Street is redeveloped into a retail or mixed-use commercial center.
.
Freewav oriented commercial development providing for automobile sales. home
furnishings centers. hotels and related retail and service uses are located adjacent to 1-5
and SR-I8 within areas of appropriate size and with convenient access and visibility.
Office Development
.
Offices of regional, national, and/or international firms locate in West Campus, East
Campus, and the City Center.
.
Garden, high-rise, and mid-rise office space, and modem light-industrial buildings
increase rapidly in areas with land assembled for business parks and in redeveloped
retail areas.
.
Office development is integrated with retail, residential, and business parks.
EXrttf3F,
PAGE
fJ
,
1_--
2003 Comp Plan Updates
--IV45--
City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
f- V LJ ' ¡::: ,,-,-
~.._. "
L
,- -- '+
PAGE_--
I
March 17, 2004
7:00 p.rn.
City Hall
Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: John Caulfield. Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Dim Duclos, Bill Drake, and Marta
Justus Foldl. CommIssIoners absent: Grant Newport (excused). Altemate CommisslOners present:
ChrIstine Nelson Lawson Bronson, and Merle PfeIfer. Altemate Commissioners absent: Tony Moore
(excused). City CouncIl present: Mayor Dean McColgan, Council Members Eric Faison and Jeanne
Burbidge. StafTpresent: Community Development Services Director Kathy McClung, Community
Development Services Deputy Director Greg Fewins, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Associate Planner
Isaac Conlen, Assistant City Attomey Karen Jorgensen, Management Services Director Iwen Wang,
Tramc Engineer Rick Perez, Surfàce Water Manager Paul Bucich, Parks, Recreation, & Cultural Services
Director Jennifer Schroder, Parks, Recreation, & Cultural Services Deputy Director Kurt Rueter, Contract
Planner Janet Shull, Jones & Stokes Gregg Dohm, Jones & Stokes Lisa Grueter, and Administrative
Assistant E. Tina Piety.
Chair Caulfield called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.rn.
ApPROY AL OF MINUTES
It was ill/sic to adopt the March 3, 2004, minutes as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
None.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING - Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Subarea Plan
Mr. Dohm delivered a presentation on the background of the P AA. He stated these hearings address: 1) the
draft PAA Subarea Plan; 2) amendments to that plan (site-specific requests); and 3) the new Freeway
Commercial zoning designation. These hearings do not address the annexation process. Ms. Grueter
delivered a presentation on the purpose and process of the P AA Subarea Plan. The Commission discussed
annexations. The current City Council policy is to wait to hear from citizens if they have an interest in
annexation. Since incorporation, the City has annexed three areas; two resulted in a net surplus to the City
and one in a net loss, with an altogether net surplus. There would be an increase in taxes to areas that
choose to annex to the City because of the City's utility tax, but they would gain a higher level of service.
It was noted that the P AA Subarea Plan IS not a mechanism to annex areas, but designates the future
zoning for areas if they choose to annex to the City.
KIPIa""mg CnnmusSlu",2004\Mwmg Sununacy ,,\ 17-04 dnc
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
EXH I B I farch 1 "'t°~-
PAGE__~ ~
PUBLIC HEARING - New Freeway Commercial Zoning Classification
Ms. Shull delivered the staff presentation. This new zoning classification is being considered to: provide
unique development opportunities along the 1-5 and SR18 corridors; capture retail markets not currently
strongly represented in Federal Way; and capture significant tax revenue. An owner of property in the
P AA requested Commercial Business (Be) zoning, but staff felt it was inappropriate. Reasons for this are:
Federal Way already has a lot of land designated commercial, adding to these could work against the City's
plans for the City Center, and the proposed Freeway Commercial zone has fewer uses. New signage
designation is proposed for this new zone. If the Freeway Commercial zone were adopted, goals and
policies would have to be added to the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Shull noted that the height
for pole signs was corrected and changed from 20 to 15 feet.
Commissioners expressed concern that this new zone would draw businesses away from Pacific Highway
South. Ms. Shull commented that the trend seems to be to have enough land available so a number of
different auto dealerships can congregate in an "auto-mall" setting. The Commissioners asked if that is
really the image we want to have at the entrance to our City. The Commissioners asked if we are lacking in
other retail areas, why not pursue them, as opposed to a new zone. The Commissioners asked if the staff
has a map with all the parcels in the City that would be eligible for this new zone. The Commissioners
want to be sure that this proposed zone would not allow "big-box" retail. The Commissioners would like to
know if signs are allocated by parcel or use.
P AA Site-Specific Requests
Ms. Grueter went over the four site-specific requests.
Commissioner Osaki asked that the record reflect that he works for the City of Auburn. Public Testimony
was opened.
Thor Hoyle - He represents the Davis site-specific request. He also submitted written comments.
He feels this request is different from the other site-specific requests because there has been a
business on this parcel since 1946. It has been an office use since 1979. The current King
County zoning is almost the same as Federal Way's Neighborhood Business (BN) zone. It is his
understanding that part of the reason for zoning this residential is the belief that the property
would not be able to meet Federal Way BN requirements. He feels the property can meet these
requirements. He stated there is no way the current building could be turned into a home (it is
only 900 square feet). There is no sewer and the lot is built-out. It is a comer lot, on a road that is
not very busy. It has minimal signage, no parking problems, no egress or ingress issues, and no
retrofit problems. It will stay as it is for the foreseeable future.
Louise Davis - She purchased the property in 1998 and soon ran into legal problems with King
County because it was not zoned for a business. It took a lot of time and effort, but the parcel
was rezoned and she is now legal. It upsets her that she would again be illegal ifthe staff
recommendation is adopted.
Chuck Gibson - He spoke in regards to the Northlake request and represents the owners. Of 56
owners, 44 signed a petition in favor ofRS 9.6, four did not, and eight were not available. The
RS 9.6 zone better fits the neighborhood.
Alan Ulnyg - He spoke in regards to the Davis request. He has known her for several years and
watched her go through the legal hassles. He supports her request. He feels it is better for the
community.
KIPlanning Commissionl20041Meeting Summary 03-17.04.doclLast printed 4/28/2004 906 AM
Planning Commission Minutes
March 17,2004
EXHIBIT .t.
Gary Anderson - He spoke in regards to the Davis request. He feels~~ße£ënf is t!ng ---- -'I
her property rights. He feels the land value of her property will go down if it is zoned residential.
He knows the City wants to annex them and he doesn't want the City to take her property rights
by downzoning D&D Accounting. They are good for the community. She already went through
the steps to be legal and now the City wants to change it back. It would close the business, ruin
their retirement, and put employees out of work. .
Page 3
Christy Field - She asked if it was true that King County wants to have them annex to Federal
Way and they have no choice? She has lived here 40 years and does not want to be part of the
City.
The Commissioners wanted to make it clear that annexation would happen only if some citizens in the area
ask the City to be annexed.
BJ McMasters - He commented that he has 900 feet on freeway (on Military) and is happy with
it. He wants to be in the County, not the City. He has a surface water problem that no one
(county or state) has helped him with.
Neil Goldingay - He is not impressed with the proposed Freeway Commercial zone. He is open
to the idea of annexation. He feels King County has done a good job. He would love to see the
City improve Military Road like Pacific Highway South and make it a safer road. He also stated
that the intersection of 288th and Military needs work in regards to trash, empty buildings, and
vandalism.
Lee Rabie - He feels the City is taking the Davis property and his property. This will cost him Y2
million dollars. He feels the City staff is mean-spirited and deceitful. King County staff is fairer
and has more experts. He stated that the City's permitting process is broken and gave the
example of a church. He stated that he would fight if the City attempts to take his property.
Norm Ingersoll- He stated that the map of the Rabie property is inaccurate because it shows a
road that does not exist. Land is set aside for the road, but currently it is trees and open space.
He is not favor of the proposed Freeway Commercial zone or annexation. We should not
compete with Auburn, but work with them. Whatever happens, the 320th bridge over 1-5 needs to
be fixed. It is too congested. In addition, Military Road needs to be made safer. He feels the
mailings on this issue were sporadic and few people knew of this meeting. He knows the City
needs more money, but they should not seek more retail, but other kinds of businesses.
Rick Reese - He thanked the Commission for listening to the comments. He said that cars make
no sense for a bedroom community. He commented that the City should not think in the short-
term. He feels the City doesn't follow the mandate of the voters and cited Celebration Park as an
example. The City needs to look at the carrying capacity of essential services. Sidewalks, water,
etc. need to be in place before the City continues to develop.
Michael Tischler - He spoke in regards to the Jackson request. He lives near the proposal. The
topography that surrounds those lots is very different from the northeastern side. The proposed
new Freeway Commercial zone would be better facing 320th, but not near the single-family lots
on the northeast.
Moore - She commented that an article in the paper said that annexing these areas would cost
more than it is worth. She feels large signs by the highway would distract drivers.
K:IPlanning Convnissionl2OO4IMeeting Summary 03-1741.docILast printed 4/28/2004 9:06 AM
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
EXHIBIT
March 17,2004
2.
Lawson Bronson, Alternate Planning Commissioner - Does the sta~ tl\~Fwmany 'Cel~~in - -"
the P AA have been rezoned from commercial? He feels the proposed Freeway Commercial zone
is a separate issue and asked why are we creating a special classification for one request
(Jackson), but not another (Davis)? He feels the P AA study should deal with the financial
aspects but not the zoning, until such time an area actually annexes to Federal Way. He feels that
this way we are imposing zoning on people who cannot vote for Federal Way Council Members.
He asked if this is implemented, what would be the impact on people who want to change their
zoning before their area annexes to Federal Way (if it ever does)?
Ann Blackwell - She lives near the Davis property. She commented that the traffic is heavy on
Military Road. There are times she feels she risks her life when pulling out of her driveway.
Jackie Moore - She spoke to the impact on the Northlake area. She said it would cost more
money to annex and it would come out of our pocket book (property owners).
There was no further public testimony. Since the public hearings will be continued, further public
testimony will be allowed. Chainnan Caulfield read three letters into the record.
The Commissioners asked about the way in which policies are stated. Some say, "City shall do this" and
others say, "County shall do this," what does this mean? The Commissioners asked who is and is not the
governing body of the P AA? They asked that a representative ITom the County be invited to the next
public hearing. They would like to know how many multi-family parcels are developed and undeveloped.
They requested that the Freeway Commercial proposal be "tightened"; taking into account the issues raised
at this meeting. They would like to know what water body feeds the wetland on the Jackson property and is
there any opportunity for off-site mitigation? They would like an aerial photo of the Jackson site and BPA
easement in order to gain a feel for how much ofthe site could be developed.
It was m/s/c to continue the public hearings to Wednesday, April 7, 2004, in the City Council Chambers at
7:00 p.rn.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
None.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 9:53 p.m.
KIPlanning CommissionI2004IM«ting Summary 03-17-04.doclLast printed 4/28/2004 9'06 AM
~
CITY OF ~
Federal Way
EXHIBIT- 3--
PAGE---l-__~)F If)
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Amendments to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapto- 22
Addition of Freeway Commercial Zone
Planning Commission Meeting of April 7, 2004
I.
BACKGROUND
The proposed code amendment to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 22, to add a new
Freeway Commercial Zone was presented to the Planning Commission at their March 17,2004,
public hearing. During this public hearing, some members of the Commission expressed concern
about creating a new commercial zone. Some general concerns included a concern that businesses
may relocate to this zone from commercial areas along Highway 99; therefore, having a negative
affect on the Highway 99 corridor. Another concern was that locating automobile dealerships at the
entrances to our community might not be the image that we want to present. One Commissioner was
concerned about the effect of commercial development on existing residential neighborhoods. Yet
another Commissioner wanted the code to be "tighter" in terms of protecting neighborhoods while
benefiting the City. A list of more specific questions and comments from the Planning Commission
followed by staff responses is contained within Section III of this staff report. Section II of this report
discusses a change that staff would like to propose in the locational criteria for allowing parcels to be
designated Freeway Commercial.
II. PROPOSED STAFF CHANGES
After the March 17, 2004 Planning Commission public hearing, staff reviewed the proposed
locational criteria in Chapter 2, "Land Use," of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit A) and
would like to propose the following change shown as strilŒ€Hlt and underlined.
Freeway Commercial
The Freeway Commercial designation is intended for areas that are adjacent to the Interstate
5 s.M.€! SR 1 g interchanges with convenient freeway access and visibility. Freeway
Commercial areas are typically large in size (five acres or greater). The range of commercial
land uses permitted in these areas is limited to uses that are difficult to site in the city's other
commercially designated areas due to their large site size requirements and/or difficulty in
adapting to pedestrian-oriented areas. Freeway Commercial areas are particularly suitable for
automobile sales. home furnishings centers. and related retail and service uses that require
large tracts of land. convenient freeway access. and visibility.
EXH ! B rf_- !Þ
fit 'J": ,.
PAGE~-,,~ r---DL--
¡
The reason for this proposed change is that SR 18 extends to Pacific Highway where it becomes S.
348 Street. If properties in this area were to apply for and be granted a Freeway Commercial zone,
there is a potential for 25-foot tall signs to be constructed at grade adjacent to S. 3481h Street. The
maximum height of free stranding signs is presently 12 feet.
III. FOLLOW-UP TO QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Questions from and comments by the Planning Commission are shown followed by the staff response:
1.
Planning Commission Comment: Locating automobile dealerships at the entrances to our
community might not be the image that we want to present.
Staff Response: The Planning Commission and Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTe)
will issue a recommendation, with the City Council making the final decision.
2.
Planning Commission Comment: The Market Studies identified some retail dollars that were
"leaking" to other communities. Why don't we pursue these uses?
Staff Response: The Citywide Market Study conducted in 2000, the City Center Market Study
conducted in 2002, and the Potential Annexation Area (P AA) Subarea Plan and Annexation
Feasibility Study completed in 2003 all identify that Federal Way is less competitive in the retail
categories of auto sales, furniture, furnishings, and equipment, and to a lesser extent, apparel
and accessories. Except for apparel and accessories, the proposed permitted uses in the new
Freeway Commercial zone include all of the identified retail uses.
3.
Planning Commission Concern: There was a concern that providing a new commercial zoning
district with opportunity for designating additional areas commercial, would detract from
redevelopment along the Pacific Highway Corridor.
Staff Response: The proposed uses to be permitted in a new Freeway Commercial zone was
limited to the following due to the need to lessen competition between this new zone and existing
commercial districts. Please refer to Table 1 (Exhibit C) for a comparison of the allowable uses
between existing commercial zones and the proposed new Freeway Commercial zone.
Proposed permitted uses in the Freeway Commercial Zone
I. Retail selling new vehicles, boats, recreational vehicles, and motorcycles
2. Retail selling household goods and furnishings (floor coverings, draperies, glass, and
chinaware)
3. Retail selling household appliances
4. Retail selling home electronics
5. Retail outlet centers
6. Retail providing entertainment, recreational, or cultural services and activities
(amusement parks, movie theaters)
7. Golf driving range
8. Hotel
Planning Commission Staff Report
Addition of Freeway Commercial Zone / File #04-1 00812-00-UP
April 7,2004
Page 2
EXH I B IT -_J
PAGE-3- )ç:-lCL-
9. Public utility (water supply, electric power, telephone, cablevision, natural gas,
transportation for persons/freight, commercial broad-cast towers, commercial
antennas)
10. Public transit shelter (bus stop)
11. Personal wireless service facilities
4.
Planning Commission Question: Do we have a map that shows areas that might qualifY for the
new Freeway Commercial zoning designation?
Staff Response: The new Freeway Commercial zoning designation is intended to apply to
property at least five acres in size that is located adjacent to, and visible from, 1-5 and is easily
accessible from the freeway interchanges. This zoning designation can be applied to parcels
within the P AA as well as in the City. Staff has not prepared a map showing all potential parcels
that may be eligible for this zone because that is not the scope of the study. The intent of the
Freeway Commercial zoning designation is to provide a new classification, which could be
applied for as part of the annual comprehensive plan amendment process, by owners of
properties meeting the locational criteria.
As part of the P AA Subarea Plan process, property owners within the P AA were given the
opportunity to apply for a different pre-annexation and zoning designation. One applicant, Mr.
Jackson, has applied for commercial (Community Business) zoning for approximately 23 acres
located east of 1-5 and north of South 320th Street. The Planning Commission, as part of the
P AA adoption process, is presently considering this request. A traffic study (January 2004 City
of Federal Way Planning Technical Report, Rezone Evaluation of Portion of Potential
Annexation Area "Camelot" by the Transpo Group) was prepared for the Jackson request. This
study showed that increased traffic associated with development of the Jackson site as Freeway
Commercial would still meet the City's adopted level of service standards.
5.
Planning Commission Question: Will "big box" retail be allowed in the new Freeway
Commercial zone?
Staff Response: "Big box" retail and bulk retail sales will not be allowed in the Freeway
Commercial zone. Only the Community Business zone allows this type of use. Staff has added
language shown as underline in the chart for "Retail" in order to exclude "big box" retail (See
Exhibit B).
6.
Planning Commission Question: How will the Freeway Commercial signs be allotted? Will it
be by parcel or use?
Staff Response: The proposed code amendment to the sign code allows one Freeway
Commercial sign per subject property. This is in addition to signage that is already allowed in
the code.
Per FWCC Chapter 22, Article I, subject property means the entire lot or parcel, or series of lots
or parcels, on which a development, activity, or use is or will locate, or on which any activity or
condition regulated by or subject to this chapter is or will occur or take place. Based on this
definition, subject property may apply to a single use on a single lot, or to one use on a series of
Planning Commission Staff Report
Addition of Freeway Commercial Zone / File #04-100812-00-UP
April 7, 2004
Page 3
lots.
If the Freeway Commercial Zoning Classification and related admendments to FWCC Chapter
22, ArticleXVIII, Signs, are adopted as proposed, signage would be allowed as follows:
EXHIBIT_- ¡
PAGE~
- ~-' 10
Ìì~ .
(a) Building-Mounted Signs - As with all other non-residential zoning districts, the sign
area of building-mounted signs in the Freeway Commercial zone would depend on the
area of the exposed building face to which it is attached, and the number of building-
mounted signs would depend on the surface area of the largest single exposed
building face based on a certain formula.
(b) Freestanding Signs - The Freeway Commercial zone will be permitted signs pursuant
to the Medium Profile category and Highway Profile Category A signs.
(c) A maximum amount of four freestanding signs per subject property would be allowed,
with a maximum of three freestanding signs per street frontage (two Medium Profile
Category and one Highway Profile Category A along the street frontage), including I-
S.
(d) Signs must have a minimum separation of200 feet.
(e) Three of the four signs could have a maximum height of 12 feet (Medium Profile).
The fourth sign (Freeway Commercial sign) could be a maximum of 15 feet if the
subject property is above the freeway elevation, and 25 feet above the elevation of the
freeway if the subject property is lower in elevation than the freeway.
(f) For single-tenant parcels or separate parcels or pads for single tenant buildings,
maximum sign area for three of the four maximum allowable signs is 80 square feet
(maximum of 40 square feet per face). For multi-tenant parcels, the maximum sign
area for three of the four maximum allowable signs is 128 square feet (maximum of
64 square feet per face). The Freeway Commercial sign could have a maximum sign
area of 600 square feet (maximum of 300 square feet per face) if the elevation of the
site is below the elevation of the freeway, and 400 square feet (maximum of200
square feet per face) if the elevation of the site is above the elevation of the freeway.
7.
Planning Commission Question: The Planning Commission was concerned about what effect
the commercial development of areas that were traditionally residential might have on existing
residential neighborhoods. Related to this, the Planning Commission requested that staff
"tighten" the standards of the Freeway Commercial zone.
Staff Response: The existing proposal already incorporates the following standards if a Freeway
Commercial zoned-property is located adjacent to residential zone:
(a) Setbacks - There is a proposed setback of20 feet for all structures, if abutting a residential
zone, with a 50-foot setback for New Vehicles sales.
(b) Landscape Screening -
.
Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of
parking areas abutting public rights-of-way.
Type I landscaping 20 feet in width (emphasis added) shall be provided along
the perimeter of property abutting a residential zone. I
.
I Per FWCC Chapter 22, Section 22-1565, Type 1 landscaping is a solid screen, which is intended to provide a solid sight barrier
to totally separate incompatible uses. This landscaping is typically found between residential and incompatible nonresidential
land use zones.
Planning Commission Staff Report
Addition of Freeway Commercial Zone / File #04-1 00812-O0-UP
April 7, 2004
Page 4
EXHIBIT- 3.
PAGE-'-,)~lO
, ~
.
Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided alcmg all perimeter lot
lines, except as noted above.
In response to the Planning Commission's concerns, staff recommends that the following language
be added to the proposed use zone charts in the Freeway Commercial zone:
(a) New Vehicles, Retail, and Entertainment Uses - "The hours of operation may be limited
to reduce impacts on nearby residential uses".2
(b) The following language, which is presently proposed for the New Vehicles Use Zone
Chart is recommended to be further changed as follows3:
Public address speakers (P A systems) shall not be audible from an adjacent
residential zone.
The site must be designed so that noise associated with public address systems;
vehicle repair or maintenance; and truck parking, loading or maneuvering; will not
be audible off the subject property. based on a certificate to this effect signed by
an acoustical engineer and filed with the development permit application.2
IV. EXHIBITS
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2, Page II-22
Federal Way City Code, New Retail Use Zone Chart
Table I, Uses
1:\2004 Code Amendments\Freeway Zone\PlanningCommission\040704 Revised Staff Report.DOC/03/30/20048:50 AM
2 A similar note is included in the Use Zone Chart for retail and office uses in the Neighborhood Business zone.
3 This change will be made in the Use Zone Chart if the Planning Commission approves it.
Planning Commission Staff Report
Addition of Freeway Commercial Zone I File #04-100812-00-UP
April 7, 2004
Page 5
FWCP-ChapterTwo, Land Use
Goal
LUG6
Policies
LUP38
LUP39
EXHIBIT_-- ,
P A.G E-'
-1;-- ./0
Transform Community Business areas into vital, attractive, mixed-use areas
that appeal to pedestrians and motorists and enhance the community's image.
Encourage transformation of Pacific Highway (SR-99) Community Business
corridor into a quality mixed-use retail area. Retail development along the
corridor, exclusive of the City Center, should be designed to integrate auto,
pedestrian, and transit circulation. Integration of public amenities and open
space into retail and office development should also be encouraged.
Encourage auto-oriented large bulk retailers to locate in the South 348th Street
Community Business area.
Freeway Commercial
The Freeway Commercial designation is intended for areas that are adjacent to the
Interstate 5 ttluI Sn. 1 g interchanges with convenient freeway access and visibility.
Freewav Commercial areas are typicallv large in size (five acres or greater). The ran~e of
commercial land uses permitted in these areas is limited to uses that are difficult to site in
the city's other commercialIv designated areas due to their large site size requirements
and/or difficulty in adapting to pedestrian-oriented areas. Freeway Commercial areas are
particularly suitable for automobile sales. home furnishings centers. and related retail and
service uses that require large tracts of land. convenient freeway access and visibility.
Goal
LUG7
Policies
LUP40
LUP41
LUP42
Encourage the development of limited areas with high levels of freeway access
and visibility as suitable locations for freewav-oriented businesses to locate
within the city in a cohesive development pattern that also meets the
community's product and service needs.
Encourage freeway oriented uses to locate in Freeway Commercial-designated
areas.
Encourage quality regional destination retail development through the
utilization of appropriate design guidelines and development standards.
The development of freeway commercial areas should respond to the needs of
consumers bv providing for ease of access and circulation and convenient
grouping of complementary uses.
EXH1Bl T
PAGE_--- \
{\-
2003 Camp Plan Update
\
11-22
22-XXX Retail.
The followin
USE
Retail
establishment
selling
household
goods and
furnishings,
household
appliances and
home
electronics
(excluding
bulk and big
hox retail)
Retail Outlet
centers
(excluding
bulk and big
box retail)
.,
.t:i
CI)
Õ
...¡
ë
e
....
---
.c:
u
"
~
"
"0
Ci3
æ
.,
IX
'õ ~
- ::I
iiJ'G
,) S
:I:CI)
'"
"
u
"
0-
"OCI)
,1:; gf
::1'-
O"-"C
~£
USE ZONE CHART
ZONE
FC
SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
35 ft. above Retail facilities:
average I for every 300
Possible I building sq. ft of gross
Process elevation floor area
III
See Note
2
L Ifany portion ofa structure on the subject property is located less than 100 ft, from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the
structure shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of 20 ft. from the property line of
the residential zone.
2, If approved through Process III, the height of that portion ofa structure located loa ft, or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft,
above average building elevation to a maximum of 55 ft" if all of the following criteria are met:
a, The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and
b, That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft. for each one ft, the structure exceeds 35 ft, above average building elevation;
and
c, An increase in height above 35 ft, will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and
. d, The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan.
3, Assembly or manufacture of goods on the subject property is pennitted only if:
a, The assembly or manufacture is clearly accessory to an allowed use conducted on the subject property and is directly related to and
dependent on this allowed use; and
b. The assembled or manufactured goods are available for purchase and removal from the subject property and are for sale only to retail
purchasers; and
c. There are no outward appearance or impacts from the assembly or manufacture,
4, Restaurants, not exceeding 7,500 square feet in gross floor area, are allowed as an accessory use to the outlet center.
5, Truck parking, loading, and maneuvering areas; areas where noise generating outdoor uses and activities may occur; and vents and similar
features must be located as far as possible from any residential zone and secondarily, from any public right-of-way,
6. Outdoor use, activity, and storage is regulated by Article XIII, Section I I 13,
7, No maximum lot coverage is established, Instead, the buildable area will be detennined by other site development requirements, Le" required
buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc.
8, For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIX
9, For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII.
I 0, For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII.
I I, Refer to § 22-946 et seq, to detennine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property,
See notes I -II for each 100
2 sq. ft. of gross
floor area for
restaurants
m
X
:r:
-
OJ
~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use, .. THEN, across for REGULATIONS
S Minimums
~ ~ Required Yards
...¡ .,
;;;¡ g
C-' "1:!P::
¡..¡ ., ~
¡:z:: .:::.,
::I ,-
0">
., "
IX IX
I
Process I, II, ill and IV are described ili
§§ 22.351-22-356, 1- ¡
22.361 - 22-370,
22.386 - 22-41 I,
22-431 - 22-460, respectively.L'
11,U
- I \J\)
For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq.
For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq,
For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq,
-om
»x
G):J:
i11 õ5
\ -
" -t
<\ r"',
!~I\
x
........_,."".._""'",,,-,"',"'..
- Bank/sav~~~",~~~~~~mp~~~.=.~~_t,~~,~'p~,,~,~,!.?,~,?~,~,~~,~,~~~~.l~te~.~~.~,~i~,l",=~~!,~,~""."""""""_..""",,."'.,,'" ,J"""""""",~",."""""""..I x I x I x
~~XI X
Business or ~~~~,~?~~,~,~~oo~._""""""""""".""""",-"""_.",...."""..,,,""....",."",.""""..."",-.""""""""",-."",.."""..-.""",,-.,"..."""L"""""",_.",."""--,, x x "'-"".._"'~
x X X
""""""'-"""--"""'-""""""""-""""""'-"-"""'-"'.""""'-"""""-".... "..,+"',-"'.."""_..."""- "_."""_.,_.""""'.,,,,, """"..""-"'.,,. ._-",-"'".,,'"
X X X X
"'-""""".""""""""""""""".""""""--"'."""""""""""..,.,""
X X X
.,--".""..."", '-.""."""....-...-- ."'-""'".."',,"'_.,,
I X I X
.[ X""'"
X X
X X X
X X X X
."."","""""""'.""""
X X I X I X
~K~~ X
Golf driving range X i
X X I X
""""""""--"'-'_."-"'",... ""..1,...,....",..."..,.,-"""""""-",, ..."'"""."'..""."'.""".""
X X
(II-A and (II-A and
TABLE I
USES
BN1
BC
CC-Cl
X
Above-grade structured parking facilities
-'-"""-'.""'--""--'-""""""""""""'""""""""""""""",-""",.,,"',.,. ,.,.."" .......,.".,"'"".""'".,,
"""""""""-""""'."""""""'.."",,""
Adult entertainment activity, retail or use
I
,.,."L"..., ,
X
'-'--""-""-'-"'--"""'."'-"""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""....,."",...
"""."'.""""'.."'.
Art gallery
Car wash
._,--"_."...""""""-,_.."'""."....,,,, "".""."""",."",."".-",.-.."",.""",
Church, synagogue, or other place of religious worship
-""'-'-""---"'--'-'."""""""-"""""""'-""'-"""-".""
Convalescent center/nursing home
--'-'--"-"'-'-'-'-'._"""'.""'.""""""""""""'-"""""""""'""
Convention center/trade center
-,--"---,_.""',,"',,,, """'" """"","'"""""""_.,,."'..""".
Day care facility, except Class II home occupations
--'-'--'-""'--"""""'-----'-"'.""""""""'-""""'"
""""""'-'...",."""",..",
".."""","""""""". "".""""
Department store
"--'---'-"""-"" ""."""""""",..."""""",-"-"""",..,..,..."",,
DwelIing unit (Multiple family attached)
-'-"""'-",-,--",-",.",.",."..".",-",..
Dwelling unit (Multiple family stacked)
'-.""""""-""""'-""-'-"""""" "."'"-,"'"""""",.""""..""'""..""""",,,,
Fast food restaurant
Government facility
'-----'-"-""'-"""""--""'-"."'.'-""'"
..,.""'.."."'..""'-...,..",""'"
"""'._""",..",,
Group home
Health club
X
X
X
I Excluding Bulk Retail
- I -
,
CC-F1
X
X
"""""...""",,,""","""
X
(II-A and
II~~)
X
FC
x '
- I
..
()
-em
»x
G):t
.m as
-
'1}J--4
~'
\
r---._-'._'-"'-"'.""" ....._"'.._"'-"'."""_...""" .,.,..,.,
......... ....-..,..,.,.....
"'.-.,.,.,................., ..,...,..
USES
...,-..,.,....,...-..., ."'."'.,...
......,...."'_.,..
....-....
Hospital
Hotel
,...-.... """..,
........'
"'....,"'.,.. .......,...,.................--....,.,.
""'.." ,.......,....
,----...,..,..-......"...-....,.--.----..,....",...."""'-.'.'
..."',.,.,......"'.."',..,.., ....-....
......-"..
".."..' ..""'.."-"" .........,......
Merchandise and equipment rental facilities (excluding heavy equipment rental)
.,.,-,.",_,-_",,'-'.'_._,_..,.......,.,-,""'...."""'.'
"'...."""...""."'..."".,.-.....,.,......""
".,_.....-..""""'.'
......."
,......--....
Mini-warehouse or public storage facility
-.-..--...-..,.--,...."'....."'..."'..
Motel
-.""-...--....---..,,-""--"".......,."".-........."'....""".,......_",.,..",.._--,......,..............",......."'...."""""""""""""""'".........-,...""'-"""........-.....,...."'...-.."'...."'...----...,."'..,_...."."'."'."'..
Office use (medical, dental, health care, veterinary, accounting, legal, architectural, engineering,
consulting, management, administrative, secretarial, marketing, advertising, personnel, sales offices
-"~~~¿~~.~~~ifI~r'Ÿ~~~í~I~~hfn1M~?Jåljrr~Ï¿~~~idVf~cThâfriiliJ~k~t6%~~6&Yoi1~~.rr%ft:*dl_,
",..._tr.~,I!~{e._Lf1l.l::.iJi!i.e..~..............,...,..,....,..,.............,..,.,............,..""..,.,'.....'.'.............."..........,.........",.,....,.,,"'.."',...,..,"'.."""'.""'...,.,,........,,,.........."'.......,"'......,...,...._,"'",-"..,..""'..,,
,-
Personal wireless service facility
...--,..--"'--"""'.'..-"."" ....-.... ..,..,......""...._"', ....-..'"
...'.....
.........
Pistol range (Indoor)
.,------....--.-....,."'...."'-.'"
..,.-....""'...
""""'....."'. ,...,."',..."""."""_....,........
.....,..,
"'...."'..
Private lodge or club
Public park
'.--"-"-""-"-'-."-"--""
Public transit shelter (bus stop)
'-.-'-"----------"""-.-"""".""""""""""""""""--""""""""'"..-"'-...."'..........-......-...."'...""........-..........""..."'.....-.."'.......,..".."'.............'_................."'...."'....,
Public utility (water supply, electric power, telephone, cablevision, natural gas, transportation for
.P.,~! s 0 ~Œ~!g~.!!.~<:>.'!1æ.~~~,!~LÞE<:>. ~,~:~~~~.. .~,<:>.,~.~~~.!, .~<:>. .'!1'!1.~~.~.! .1:1.1...~, ~ ~ ~!1.~~~)",..",,-, ._"'.... -.... -- ... "',.."..,-, "'.."'..
Recreational vehicle parking lot (temporary)
-,.-...."'....-,-..,-..'"
Restaurant or tavern
_"'-""""""_""""".'_""'-""..._"".'"
"'..............,.,."',......
...""",..........."'..
,.,.........-........,.-........
Retail selling groceries; produce and related items
-..",....--......-.-.-....,-..,..-",..,....",
"'.-."""....."'...."" ,...."'-"'.
""""....-.."'...-....-.....-.-"'.
Retail selling drugs and personal care products
".---------,-"'-...""".......-.."'.---..-.....
,...."".,.,.,."'..-....-....-.-..................,
Retail selling books
"--"----"""-....'...'.'."""-..'.'...-.'..-.."-""
....-.,.. ......,...."'.
,.,..,.."'........,....,...-."'..'"
Retail selling liquor
,..-.....,-.......""'...,.........-............ ....-...,
Retail selling hardware
...-..-,-.-..-....-.......-...-..--.."...........,..
.....,_.,., ....-."'..""...."""-....
('11 Retail selling garden, nursery stock and related items
Retail selling household goods and furnishing
---..-.-----..---,---....-.....-.....
Retail sellin~Q!JJ;~hQlclappliances
--..--.-.--,--..""".-..-",..-""..-",...,......---......."....,."..,.
"".......,...,-."....-...",....",...-.",.........-..,.
..,...... ........, ".......
Retail sale of grain, seed, fencing, hay, nursery stock and other agricultural supplies
-...,--.....-,-....---..---..-"'-,-,.-.-..--......-.... ,...-....."'--.......,.,.,.-,-....,-....,
"..-..,..",-,-",-..-"""."""--..-.,.-,,,-.-....
- 2 -
BN1 CC-F1 FC
X
.,..-.-...-""....--......
X
X
X
X
i
i
I
,...,."".-...",...",..",-.0.,.....,..........,..,.........,...,....,......J
I
::::::,:-."'x......"""'l:::
-~~J~
......ft"".",....~."",.."".I,."".""
I "
I X I X I X
r::::::~::~:::::::::::I::~:::~::t::_,.........;
::]
i
.-J
"""- 1
x"1
",-.,.-.,]
;
I
,....,t
i
",.-j
i
"""........,.0-...-..,....."".,-..,.
x
X
X
....-.....--",..0",..",
,..,-,........,..,.......
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.-...1.
I
",..1
.1",
X
X
X
.~...,-",--j,.,.........~
'_'"_,_",-,,,""--".. ..""¡,.,_.._,,~,,,,_...._,J..,_......., X",...",...-I..
..~"""._~J",_...._.._.~""" ...".1,
I
I
I
I
0.", ""-""...."'..'!."" ,...,...!...,
X ¡
t
I
i
r
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
¡
;
i
i
"'I'
I
",...1.,..,.
X
"'I
I
j",
I
I
I'"
i
I
I
"1
;
;
....,;."',
I
I
"".L.,
I
,j",.,
I
X
X
X
I
I
"""'1
.1
I
i
."'.."'.!
I
I
I
I
i
-"'1
I
I
"'I
X
"'j
I
...",,1
I
I
I
.,....-....,....,..J
I
""",j
X ¡
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
".1...,
I
,..,..J",.,
-em
:Þx
G)J:
mæ
I -
W H--
I
I
'"
Vv
--,-,._---
..-..-."'- --,-",.,--"--,-,.",-"."...,.""._,-,,-_._,,-,,,_._,_..._-_.,--
USES
",..__._-""'_._",-,..,-,--,--",_.."""",_.",,,,_.,_...._-_..."-",.,-",,,._,..-
Retail selling clothing
.,.",.-,."--.",.,.,.",.-,-.-.--",,,,--,,-...,.,---.---,--,--."'---.-
Retail selling variety items
-'."'",--"-"',.._".""'-,---".,,_.,-,,,.,_._--,,_._--,,,---,.--,---,.
Retail selling specialty items
".""",.,."_._""",."""",.""","'..."'.."._"""-"""",.""",,,,,,"" ...'.-""..-.."'-.'---"'-.""-.'.".----
Retail selling home electronics
""""'.".._"'..""'."""'.'.-""""--"..'."""..".'."'.'._'..-....,.-..,,-.-.-.,--,---,-.--.
Retail selling sporting goods
."'-'."'-"""'- -"'._"""-_.._"'--"'.._""-""'._-"-"---""'_.'---'-
Retail selling works of art
-'..""'."'."'."".--.".'.' .,.,-,.".,.,._..,.,-,._""",""..."'.'-""""'_.._.'--".".".'---"""'-.'.'-"".---..-
Retail outlet centers
...'-'-'.__.'-"'-_._.._-'-"_. ,---
Retail providing laundry, dry cleaning, beauty/barber, video rental or shoe repair services
,--,-,-- -
Retail providing entertainment, recreational, or cultural services and activities
-
Retail providing printing & duplicating services
,,-_.,,-,-,,_. ,.
Retail providing vehicle service or repair
--_.. "-.----.
Retail providing vehicle, boat or tire sales, service, repair and/or painting
- .
Retail selling new vehicles. boats. recreational vehicles and motorcvcles
Ret3;l1 providing lImited medíëpJ, manufacturIng services süë11 as dentar labs, prostlietìcs, labs, op'
services", on !!...Ç.~se b.Y.~~~J)-¡¡,~,!§-_._,-,."",-,---,..",.",-_._,_."._----
School (through secondary education)
,-,-_.",----",,_._----
Senior citizen or special needs housing
--,,_... "'-' --
Social service transitional housing
----"-'-""'-"'.""'-"'."""."'-'.."'.""._.'- .'."'_.".'._'.'.._--"'._"'_..'--_._--
Trade school
,-,.'.,-_.",-,-----"._.._.".",_.. ._-"-'-""_..._""'._.'..."'_."-""'-"'-""-'_.'._-"'._----'--".'"
V ehicle service station
.,-",-'.._-'.,--,-".,--, _.""""",.""",-, -"."""'...-.. ..,.",".- .",.""". ._"""".. ""...."'...'......_-'-'."._..'. .,..,_.. .""""'.""._"'..."'._"'..'-'._'-"."-'"
BNI
x
--...--t-.- X
X
-"""---¡----'-
X
_.'._'-'1---
X
BC
,.----,'-.--
X
X
X
X
X
..,.,._-".,_.
---~-_.,--,-
-'_.'--"'.'1--"._."'-'-
---,,-.---
X
X
,-_.,--
X
.----
labs. oPtlcal--'--------
X
-"'-'."'..""'-".._.'._..'.'-----
CC-F1
X
X
--"'_._'..-"-'.1--
X
--.-.,.,....+-
X
X
""-_._._-'.."._.~""._---
FC
X
"""""'-.-.".--""-."'.-.-'--"'-
X
~-~ ~ I f
X
---.,-..".-,--.,.,'-.,-..---
X
-->-""-'---""_._._'."'._""-_..'-""'.'. '--'-
--->-"... .."'...-'.'--'-."-"'."."""'.'. ."""""""-- """.-
--"-'.">"'-.""""".--.
- X
--+----
X
--"'.'-"_._--'~-_._-"'."""".
_.'.'--"'-'_.._'----'-'-'_._._"""_.'.'
()
1:\2004 Code Amendments\Freeway Zone\Planning Commission\021 004 Comparison Use Chart.doc/03/30/2004 9:05 AM
- 3 -
X
-"'."'-'-".."--"._-_.-
X
--'.-'1'
X
-,,_.._---~_....
X
X
(Type A or
m-
X
X
X
(Type A
0 !J!)_.~--,----
X
X X
-"""'-"-"'-"'-'..~---'._-
X
m
X
:r:
-
to
~~
0
~
I
t
City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
E X H , be ;,.. ie'
PAGE I
'f=
sr ~
April 7, 2004
7:00 p.m.
City Hall
Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Dmi Duclos, and Grant Newport.
CommIssioners absent: Marta Justus Foldi and Bill Drake (excused). Alternate Commissioners present:
Christllle Nelson Lawson Bronson, Tony Moore, and Merle PfeIfer. Alternate Commissioners absent:
None, CIty Council present: Council Members Eric Faison and Jeanne Burbidge. Staff present:
Community Development Services Director Kathy McClung, Community Development Services Deputy
Director Greg Fewins, Associate Planner Isaac Conlcn, Assistant City Attorney Karen Jorgensen,
Management Services Director Iwen Wang, Tramc Engineer Rick Perez, Contract Planner Janet Shull,
Jones & Stokes Gregg Dohrn, Jones & Stokes Lisa Grueter. and Administrative Assistant E- Tina Piety.
Chair Caulfield called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
ApPROV AL OF MINUTES
It was ill/sic to adopt the March 17, 2004, minutes as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None,
ADMINISTRA TIVE REpORT
Ms. Wang delivered a presentation on the City of Federal Way 2005 - 2006 Biennial Budget. She noted
that while the City's tax burden is $63 higher than King County's, the City provides more services, and a
tax break for low-income senior citizens is available.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING - Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Subarea Plan
Mr. Conlen went over the staffs responses to the Commission's and public's questions from the last
meetll1g. The Commission questioned where access would be for the Jackson request. Mr. Perez responded
that the primary access would probably be from 32"d Avenue South. The Washington Department of
Transportation would have to approve any access to/from 320lh Street and if they allowed any access, it
most likely would be right.in/right-out only.
Mr. Dohrn addressed the King County policies question raised at the last meeting- He stated that the staff
had spoken to King County about providing a representative for this meeting, but negotiations fell through.
One concern King County has about providing a representative is that they are working with the City
Manager's office on this issue and want to be sure no miscommunication occurs. King County will not
adopt the City's P AA Subarea Plan, but would view it, and the policies contained therein, as advisory. If
K \Pbnnmg ('ornmlsslol1\""O4\Meetll1g Summary 04-07-04 doc
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
April 7, 2004
the City feels strongly about any of the policies, they can enter into negJEaXtrl.ui\!~g County to~
encourage King County to adopt said policies. P AG E -- ~ ". ..-: ~
PUBLIC HEARING - New Freeway Commercial Zoning Classification
Ms. Shull went over the staff's responses to the Commission's questions and comments from the last
meeting. The staff had removed SR 18 from the recommendation and the Commission asked if staff had
considered including SR 18 east ofI-5.
Michael Tischler - He showed a PowerPoint presentation of the area with aerial and ground
photos of the single-family homes on 32 od and 316th. He commented that the last report said one
of the goals of the change is to make adjacent parcels more alike. He feels his presentation
shows the change will actually make adjacent parcels more different.
Del Carlino - He lives on Lake Doloff and asked if the City was planning to annex the area.
The Commission explained that this process only adopts future comprehensive plan zoning designations
for the area that would take effect only if citizens in the area request that they be annexed to the City.
Roy Ruffino - He spoke on the Jackson request. He stated it seems to be an adversarial issùe and
most neighbors are against it. He commented that off-site mitigation would not do any good in
this area. He requested the City consider future relations with neighbors in the area when making
their decision.
Karen Bush - She stated her opposition to the Jackson request.
James Awarado - He stated his opposition to the Jackson request. He commented it would
decrease the quality of life in the area. There would be more traffic and more lights at night.
Steve McNey - He is with All American Homes and represents the Jackson request. He
commented that the Freeway Commercial zone is a compromise for them. They did not request
this zoning from the City; rather they want Community Business (BC) so they can build a
grocery store. A grocery store would decrease the traffic traveling west on 320th. A grocery store
in this area would also capture traffic going to Auburn. They want to do a development that
would be good for the neighborhood and the City. He stated they have been negotiating with
King County and the County supports the BC zoning. He stated they have spoken with car
dealerships and the dealerships say the sign code would be a deterrent. They have heard from
grocery chains wanting to locate in the area. He commented that this side of 32nd would not
make good residential property. One reason is because of the freeway noise.
Gary Anderson - He stated his opposition to the Jackson request. He said that due to Mr.
McNey's comments, most of what he had to say has gone out the window. He commented that
he wants to keep auto dealerships out of the area. He lives only 60 feet away from the Jackson
property. Planning philosophy denotes a gradual change from one use to another. This would be
a sharp change. It would reduce the value of the homes in the area. He gave the Commission a
petition signed by 52 people opposed to the zoning change. Itwould impact more than just his
neighborhood. It would make traffic on 320th much worse. He feels it is not right that
representatives that people in the neighborhood cannot vote for are making this decision.
Louise Davis - She is the applicant for the Davis request. She asked if there are any other
properties comparable to hers (staff replied the Sutherland Grocery and Gas property is similar,
but it is abandoned). She challenged the Commission to consider that property; it hasn't operated
K:\Planning Commission\2OO4\Meding Summary 04-07-04.doclLast printed 4/28/2004 9:06 AM
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 April 7, 2004
EXHIB~-r '1
in years while hers is a thriving business. She spent a lot of money to ~eJt~er pro!rYH-- ~
commercial with King County and does not want to do again for the <:Ji{1"1\~Md-notiJè .
possible for this to be a residential lot.
Bryan Cope - He spoke on the Jackson request. He lives nearby. The City should keep
businesses together and not place them out here. An auto mall should go along Pacific Highway
near the other auto dealerships. There is no visibility of the property from 1-5 from the south and
it would be a distraction from the north. Freeway Commercial zoning would change the City's
"curb appeaL" The City should work with SeaTac Mall to get more businesses to locate at the
mall. Because of the wetlands, developing the Jackson property would be more trouble than it is
worth. There is already a lot of noise in the neighborhood due to 1-5 and this would increase the
nOlse.
Lois Kutscha - She spoke in favor of the Northlake request. She wants to see the zoning
changed from six to four houses per acre.
Carla Laslella - She spoke on the Jackson request. She had figured it would be office park, like
other properties in the area. She is concerned for the children in the area who ride their bikes
along 32od and 3 16th. She is concerned auto dealerships would bring in transients who have no
feeling for the community. She feels access to the site would make more sense if it were from
the freeway as opposed to 32od.
Steve Charles - He spoke on the Davis request. As a small business owner, he knows the
Davis's look upon this business as their retirement and it would be very detrimental to them to
lose it. He commented that the building would not work as a home. Because 30Sth Place is in the
wrong place, according to the title insurance, the property is in the road. Because of this when
they remolded, they had to change the setback on the second floor. There is only one bathroom
and no place to put a second. There is no place a garage could go. The current building would
have to be demolished in order to have a residential use on the property.
Pam Ditzhazy - She spoke in opposition to the Jackson request. She lives on the corner of 32od
and 316th. She is concerned about the noise and light auto dealerships would bring. She is also
concerned about the safety of the children and the increased traffic.
Lawson Bronson, Alternate Planning Commissioner - Ifthe Jackson applicant does not want
Freeway Commercial, what other uses would be good for this area? Since they don't want it,
why pursue the Freeway Commercial zoning? The City needs to communicate more clearly
about the P AA issue because miscommunication has caused unneeded stress.
The Commissioners commented that the P AA Subarea Plan has been in the works for I ~ to 2 years.
Numerous public meetings have been held that have been mailed to various citizens and agencies within
the P AA, and advertised in the paper and on the City's TV Channel.
Doug Parter - He spoke on the Davis request. He commented that community members do not
have the ability to fight policy and that is what this is about.
Val Caulder- He spoke in opposition of the Jackson request. A through street to 320th would
increase traffic on 316th because people would use it to avoid the intersection of 320th and
Military. It would be a faster way to 1-5. Currently they ride horses on 316th and would no longer
be able to do that.
K:IPlanning Commissionl2004lMc:cting Summary 04-07-04doc1Last printed 4/28/2004 9:06 AM
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
April 7, 2004
4-
Lisa Fritz- She spoke in opposition of the Jackson request. Thet;ߧ~Sñëíg~rh~~~
currently wonderful to walk along, but this would increase the traffic and they would no longer
be safe.
EXHIBIr.'
The Commission discussed the site-specific requests. The Commission would like to know King County's
plans for zoning on the Jackson property and clarity on the access for the Jackson property. They would
like to know the uses allowed by the concomitant agreement for property to the east of the Jackson request.
They would like to know what properties could be zoned Freeway Commercial. The Commission would
like to know why the Sutherland Grocery and Gas property is identified as a cultural resource. It was m/s/c
to continue the Public Hearings to Wednesday, April 21, 2004, in the City Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
None.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.rn.
K:IPlanning Commission\2OO4IMeeting Summary 04-07-O4.doclLast printed 4/28/2004 906 AM
~
CITY OF ~
Federal Way
EXHIBIT_S
PAG."c, ...1.. )ï=.3
.1.-..---------." -
MEMORANDUM
April 14, 2004
To:
John Caulfield, Chair, City of Federal Way Planning Commission
FROM:
Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services
Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner
Janet Shull, Contract Planner
SUBJECT:
Follow-up Responses to April 7, 2004, Planning Commission Comments on the
Proposed Freeway Commercial Zone
MEETING DATE: April 21, 2004
I. BACKGROUND
The proposed code amendment to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 22, to add a new
Freeway Commercial Zone was presented to the Planning Commission at their March 17,2004, and
April 7, 2004, public hearings. During the March 17, 2004, public hearing, some members of the
Commission had concerns and comments, which staff addressed in a follow-up memorandum. This
memorandum was presented to the Planning Commission at their April 7th meeting. At that meeting,
the Planning Commission had two additional questions, which staffhas addressed in the following
section.
II.
FOLLOW-UP TO QUESTIONS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Questions from the Planning Commission are shown followed by the staff response:
1.
Planning Commission Question: Can the Freeway Commercial zoning designation also be
applied to areas along SR 18 east ofI-5? .
Staff Response: After the March 17, 2004, Planning Commission public hearing, staff had
reviewed the proposed locational criteria for the Freeway Commercial zone and recommended
that this designation only be applicable to areas five acres or greater that are adjacent to the
Interstate 5 (1-5) interchanges with convenient freeway access and visibility. This was a change
from the initial recommendation, which had also included SR-18. Staff recommended not
including SR-18 because SR 18 extends to Pacific Highway where it becomes South 348th
Street. If properties in this area were to apply for and be granted a Freeway Commercial zone,
there is a potential for 25-foot tall signs to be constructed at grade adjacent to South 348th Street.
The maximum allowable height offree stranding signs in that area is presently 12 feet.
EXH!BIT_-5
PA(3E,_2. {~)E 3
However, after further study of how the locational criteria could relate to SR 18, staff
recommends that only those areas five acres or greater in size that border the 1-5/South 320th and
I-5/SR 18 interchanges with convenient freeway access and visibility should be eligible for the
Freeway Commercial comprehensive plan and zoning designation.
In order to accomplish this, staff recommends the following changes in the proposed locational
criteria in Chapter 2, "Land Use," of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. Proposed changes
discussed in this memorandum are shown as 8trib~êtlt and underlined.
Freeway Commercial
The Freeway Commercial designation is intended for areas that an~ a€lia€Jlmt tê
Intgmtatg 5 and SR I ~ border the 1-5/South 320th and 1-5/SR 18 interchanges with
convenient freeway access and visibility. Freeway Commercial areas are typically large
in size (five acres or greater). The range of commercial land uses permitted in these
areas is limited to uses that are difficult to site in the city's other commercially
designated areas due to their large site size requirements and/or difficulty in adapting to
pedestrian-oriented areas. Freeway Commercial areas are particularly suitable for
automobile sales, home furnishings centers, and related retail and service uses that
require large tracts of land, convenient freeway access, and visibility.
This recommendation is based on the following reasons:
(a) There are three 1-5 interchanges that serve the City of Federal Way. These are located at
South 272nd Street and 1-5, South 320th Street and 1-5, and South 348th Street and 1-5. Mark
Twain Elementary School and multi-family development is located on property bordering
the southwestern portion of the 1-5/South 272nd interchange, which is located within the
City of Federal Way, and a church borders the southeastern portion of the I-5/South 272nd
interchange, which is located within the Potential Annexation Area (P AA). The
northeastern and northwestern portions of the South 272od/I-5 interchange is located within
the Cities of Des Moines and Kent, respectively. Freeway Commercial zoning would not be
appropriate for those properties bordering either the southwestern or southeastern portions
of the 1-5/South 272nd interchange. Therefore, only the I 5/South 320th and I-5/SR 18
interchanges are proposed as potential locations for Freeway Commercial zoning.
(b) Freeway Commercial zoning could not be applied to properties west of 16th Avenue South
along SR 18 if eligible property was required to border rather than be adjacent to the 1-
5/SR-18 interchange. This is because the dictionary defines "adjacent" as being next to or
nearby whereas it defines "border" as having a common boundary.
(c) Areas north of SR -18 that may be eligible for this designation are presently under the
Weyerhaeuser Company control, and are for the most part developed as office. In addition,
these properties are zoned Corporate Park (CP-I) pursuant to a development agreement
which has been crafted for uses and standards unique to this property. Uses in this area are
not expected to change in the near future.
Planning Commission Memorandum
FoJlow-Up to Freeway Commercial Zone
April 14,2004
Page 2
EXHIBIT__- _5
PA.GE --~ ".- 3
(d) Areas to the south of SR 18 that meet this requirement are presently in the P AA and are
zoned single family (R-4, four units per acre) under King County and are proposed to be
given a pre-annexation Federal Way zoning designation of single family (RS 9.6, one lint!
per 9,600 square feet). One other potential candidate for Freeway Commercial zoning is
located to the east of this single family zoned area. This property is also under
Weyerhaeuser control and is zoned for Office Park (OP-l) pursuant to a development
agreement.
2.
Planning Commission Question: Do we have a map that shows areas that might qualify for the
new Freeway Commercial zoning designation?
Staff Response:
(a) The new Freeway Commercial zoning designation is intended to apply to property at least
five acres in size that borders, is visible from, and is easily accessible from the 1-5/South
320th and I-5/SR 18 freeway interchanges.
(b) This zoning designation can be applied to parcels within the P AA as well as in the City.
(c) Like any other site-specific comprehensive plan amendment and rezone request, the
Freeway Commercial designation could be applied for as part of the annual comprehensive
plan amendment process. Staff has not prepared a map showing all potential parcels that
may be eligible for this zone because this may set up an expectation on the part of owners
that these properties shall be given this designation upon request. Like any other request,
these requests would be subject to the comprehensive plan amendment process, which
includes a Selection Process by the City Council, a Public Hearing by the Planning
Commission, and a decision by the City Council.
1:\DOCUMENnFreeway Commercial Zoning District\Planning Commission\042 I 04 Staff Report,doc/04/15/2004 I :00 PM
Planning Commission Memorandum
Follow-Up to Freeway Commercial Zone
April 14,2004
Page 3
City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
'-, ..," '=
. , . i..
-. u .,....-. "-.-.
ðJ"'~ r:: ., -------1-,. ") ~.:: . "!I
/f""'.._Af"." --.--- -'" ~
April 21, 2004
7:00 p.rn.
City Hall
Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Dini Duclos, Bill Drake, and Grant
Newport. Commissioners absent: Marta Justus Foldi (excused). Alternate Commissioners present: Lawson
Bronson, Tony Moore, and Merle Pfeifer. Alternate Commissioners absent: Christine Nelson (unexcused).
City Council present: Deputy Mayor Linda Kochmar and Council Member Jeanne Burbidge. Staff present:
Community Development Services DIrector Kathy McClung, Community Development Services Deputy
Director Greg Fewins, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Associate Planner Isaac ConI en, Assistant City
Attorney Karen Jorgensen, Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Contract Planner Janet ShulL Jones & Stokes Lisa
Grueter, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety.
Chair Caulfield called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.rn.
ApPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was m/s/c to adopt the April 7, 2004, minutes as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADMINISTRA TIVE REpORT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING - Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Subarea Plan
Mr. Conlen delivered a presentation on questions raised at the last public hearing. It was stated that a
development agreement is an option for the Rabie property.
PUBLIC HEARING - New Freeway Commercial Zoning Classifìcation
Ms. Shull delivered a presentation on questions raised at the last public hearing. Because the Commission
wanted to know what parcels this proposed zoning could be applied to, she showed a map of the current
zoning in the areas considered for this proposed zoning classification. Ms. Shull commented that if this
zoning classification is approved, any owner wishing to apply this proposed zone to their property would
have to go through the City's Comprehensive Plan Amendment process.
PUBLIC HEARING - 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Quadrant Site-Specifìc Request
Ms. Clark delivered the staff report. Commissioner Newport recused himselffrom the Quadrant site-
specific request. This is a request to delete a proposed road from the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan
(FWCP). The road in question is an extension of Weyerhaeuser Way. The City Council required the
K IPlanning Commission\2004lMccling Summary 04-2] .04 doc
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
EXHIBIT
April 21, 2004
applicant to prepare a traffic study analyzing the effects of deleting thißAGEhÅpr~~Fj .
plan. The study concluded that no roadway improvements would be needed by 2020 as a result of the
proposed action. Due to this proposal, Mr. Perez asked the Commission to consider amending the
comprehensive plan to make 32od Avenue South a principal collector from South 320th Street to
approximately South 316th Street.
The meeting was opened to public testimony. Commissioner Duclos informed the Commission that she
had spoken to Steve McNey and encouraged him to bring his comments to this public hearing.
Wally Costello - Applicant for the Quadrant request. He explained their proposal for the parcels
the road would pass through and showed how the road would be detrimental to the proposed
project. There are wetlands on the property that will restrict development and a road would
restrict it further.
Joanne Kirkland - She spoke in opposition of the Jackson request. She stated that the map in the
staff report shows 31th as a through street (from 32nd to Military), but it is not. The report also
says that a grocery store would decrease the amount of traffic in the area, but how could adding
retail decrease the amount of traffic? She also commented that she recently learned that the P AA
process has been going on for some two years, but this is the first she has heard about it. She is
concerned that annexation would raise taxes and services would go down. This is a safe area for
children and she is concerned that will change.
Chairman Caulfield asked if King County mailed a notification of the P AA Subarea Plan to those within
the P AA? Ms. Grueter replied that the issue was on the King County website, but for the most part, the
City of Federal Way mailed the notifications. A notification had been sent in the utility mailings.
Charles Gibson - He spoke his support of the Northlake request and said he was available if the
Commission had any questions.
Cindy Cope - She spoke in opposition of the Jackson request. She feels there is no need to bring
more retail into the area. There is a lot of available retail space in Federal Way, such as the
vacant theater and empty spaces in the Mall and Ross Plaza and SeaTac Village, etc. This area is
a very private neighborhood that is safe for children to ride their bikes. Opening 32od would
bring more traffic, which would make it more dangerous for children to ride their bikes and
would bring in more crime.
Steve McNey - He is the Jackson property manager. They want Community Business (Be)
zoning because they feel they can best serve the neighborhood and the City with that zoning.
They are not trying to compete with the downtown core. A grocery store in this area would
decrease traffic on 320th, would proved a tax base to the City, and would provide a service to the
neighborhood. They have submitted a docket to King County asking for a zoning change to
commercial business.
Kristen Wynne - She spoke in opposition of the Jackson request. She feels the proposed Freeway
Commercial zone is not compatible with existing uses. If a car dealership were to go into the
area, it would mean more lights and noise. She commented that 320th is already a disaster area
on the weekends. A more intense traffic study should be done before a decision is made. In
addition, in terms of aesthetics, a car dealership at the entrance to Federal Way is a step in the
wrong direction.
K:\Planning Commission\2004lMeding Summary 04-21-04.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3
EXH!BIT Apri121,2004 '--
P A G E -_I') ~-------
Public testimony was closed. It was m/s/c (unanimous) to recommend adoption of the Neighborhood
Business comprehensive plan designation and Neighborhood Business (BN) zoning for the Davis P AA
site-specific request. It was m/s/c (unanimous) to recommend adoption of the Single Family, High Density
comprehensive plan designation and Single Family 9.6 zoning for the Northlake P AA site-specific request.
The Commission discussed how the owner of the Rabie P AA sit -specific request could utilize a
development agreement. Mr. Fewins informed the Commission that annexation of this area is not
anticipated in the near future and the owner plans to develop soon. It was m/s/f(one yes, four no, one
abstain) to recommend adoption of the Neighborhood Business comprehensive plan designation and
Neighborhood Business (BN) zoning for the Rabie P AA site-specific request. The Commission expressed
concern over downzoning the property. It was m/s/f(three yes, three no) to recommend adoption of the
Single Family, High Density comprehensive plan designation and Single Family 7.2 zoning for the Rabie
P AA site-specific request; with the stipulation that the Planning Commission feels strongly that a self-
storage/mini-storage use would be an acceptable use on this site. After further discussion, it was concluded
that the Rabie P AA site-specific request would go forward with no Planning Commission recommendation.
It was m/s/f (one yes, five no) to recommend adoption of the Community Business comprehensive plan
designation and Community Business (Be) zoning for the Jackson P AA site-specific request. It was m/s/c
(four yes, two no) to recommend adoption of the Office Park comprehensive plan designation and Office
Park (OP) zoning to the south part of the Jackson P AA site-specific request, and Single Family High
Density comprehensive plan designation and Single Family RS 9.6 zoning to the north part of the Jackson
P AA site-specific request.
It was m/s/c (five yes, one no) to recommend adoption of the staff recommendation for the New Freeway
Commercial Zoning Classification. It was m/s/c (unanimous) to recommend adoption, with the
aforementioned changes, of the staff recommendation for the PAA Subarea Plan. It was m/s/c (four yes, one
no, one excused) to recommended adoption of the staff recommendation for the Quadrant site-specific
request with the amendment that 32nd Avenue South, from South 320th Street to approximately South 316th
Street, would be reclassified from a minor to a principal collector, it would use Cross Section "0," Map III-
6 would be modified to reflect this, and 32nd Avenue South from South 320th Street to approximately South
316th Street would replace Weyerhaeuser Way as Map ID #35 on Table III-19.
The Public Hearings were closed at 8:55. These items will be scheduled for the May 3,2004, City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee, which will meet at 5:30 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
None.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
KIPlanning Commission\2004lMeeting Summary 04-21-04.doc
Figure II-2
The Concept Plan Diagram
EXHIB!T
PAGE_- ,
1
7
FWCP - Chapter Two, land Use
Concentrate new development in the
Highway 99/1-5 c:ocridOC'.
Devdop infrastructu.-e to support!
conidOf' devdopment.
Transfonn retail core into a new
mixed-use GtyCenœr.
,
2003 Camp Plan Update
11-3
FWCP - Chapter Two, land Use
EXHfBIT_--,_1
PAGE-2..:JF-'
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAND USE CHAPTERS
-
2.2
The land use concept set forth in this chapter is consistent with all FWCP chapters.
Internal consistency among the chapters of the FWCP translates into coordinated growth
and an efficient use of limited resources. Below is a brief discussion of how the Land Use
chapter relates to the other chapters of the FWCP.
Economic Development
Federal Way's economy is disproportionately divided. Based on PSRC's 2000 Covered
Estimates by jurisdiction~ retail and service industries compose more than 70 percent of
Federal Way's employment base. Covered estimates are jobs that are covered by
unemployment insurance. Dependence on retail trade stems primarily from the City's
evolution into a regional shopping destination for South King County and northeast Pierce
County. Increased regional competition from other retail areas, such as Tukwila and the
Auburn SuperMall, may impact the City's ability to capture future retail dollars. To
improve Federal Way's economic outlook, the economic development strategy is to
promote a more diverse economy. A diversified economy should achieve a better balance
between jobs and housing and supports the City's quality of life.
In conjunction with the Economic Development chapter, this Land Use chapter promotes
the following:
.
A City Center composed of mid-rise office buildings, mixed-use retail, and
housing.
.
Community Business and Business Park development in the South 34Sth Street
area.
.
Continued development of West Campus.
.
Continued development of East Campus (Weyerhaeuser Corporate and Office
Park properties).
.
Redevelopment and development of the SR-99 corridor into an area of quality
commercial and mixed use development.
.
Continued use of design standards for non-singleJamily areas.
.
Freeway commercial development focusing on attracting and capturing those
retail dollars presently being lost to other communities and complementing
existing retail uses in the community.
2003 Camp Plan Update
11-4
FWCP-ChapterTwo. Land Use
EXHIBIT__n-'
PAGE_j~)F~
The land use map designations support development necessary to achieve the above (see
the Comprehensive Plan Designations Map II-I). A complete discussion of economic
development is set forth in the Economic Development chapter.
Capital Facilities
Capital facilities provided by the City include: transportation and streets, parks and open
space, and surface water management.
Infrastructure and Urban Services
The amount and availability of urban services and infrastructure influences the location and
pace of future growth. The City is responsible for the construction and maintenance of
parks and recreation facilities, streets and transportation improvements, and surface water
facilities. Providing for future growth while maintaining existing improvements depends
upon the community's willingness to pay for the construction and financing of new
facilities and the maintenance of existing facilities. As outlined in the Capital Facilities
Plan, new infrastructure and services may be financed by voter-approved bonds, impact
fees, grants, designated capital taxes (real estate excise tax, fuel tax, utility tax), and money
from the City's general fund.
To capitalize on the City's available resources for urban services and infrastructure, this
Land Use chapter recognizes that concentrating growth is far more cost effective than
allowing continued urban sprawl. Concentrating growth also supports the enhancement of
future transit improvements.
Water Availability
Based on reports from the Lakehaven Utility District, the estimated available yield from the
underlying aquifers is 10.1 million gallons per day (MGD, 1 O-year average based on
average annual rainfall). The District controls which well to use, thus which aquifers are
being pumped from, based on a number of considerations including water levels and
rainfall. In order to reduce detrimental impacts to its groundwater supplies in the recent
past, the District has also augmented its groundwater supplies with wholesale water
purchased from the City of Tacoma through water system interties. In addition, the District
has entered into a long-term agreement with the City of Tacoma and other South King
County utilities to participate in the construction of Tacoma's Second Supply Project (a
second water diversion from the Green River), which will provide additional water supplies
to the region. As a result, the water levels in the aquifers have remained stable, and the
District's water supply capacity will increase to 14.7 MGD on an annual average basis
when Tacoma's Second Supply Project is completed in 2004. Concentrating growth, along
with conservation measures, should help to conserve water.
Water Quality
Maintaining a clean source of water is vital to the health and livability of the City.
Preserving water quality ensures a clean source of drinking water; and, continued health of
the City's streams and lakes. Maintaining water quality is also important for maintaining
2003 Camp Plan Update
11-5
FWCP-ChapterTwo. Land Use
f- X'.. f P. ."', 0-.-
i- 'ï" .
'- "\ "'n'
.,.
r, F, reo r
! -' I"" "" ~ ;
,.,
-1.-
LUP36
Develop business parks that fit into their surroundings by grouping similar
industries in order to reduce or eliminate land use conflicts, allow sharing of
public facilities and services, and improve traffic flow and safety.
LUP37
Limit retail uses to those that serve the needs of people employed in the area.
Commercial
City Center Core
The intent of establishing the City Center Core is to create a higher density, mixed-use
designation where office, retail, government uses, and residential uses are concentrated.
Other uses such as cultural/civic facilities, community services, and housing will be highly
encouraged.
City Center Frame
The City Center Frame designation will have a look and feel similar to the Core and will
provide a zone of less dense, mixed-use development physically surrounding a portion of
the City Center Core. Together, they are meant to complement each other to create a
"downtown" area. A more detailed description, along with goals and policies regarding the
City Center Core and Frame, can be found in the City Center chapter.
Community Business
The Community Business designation encompasses two major retail areas of the City. It
covers the "strip" retail areas along SR-99 and the large "bulk" retail area found near the
South 348th Street area, approximately between SR-99 and 1-5. Community Business
allows a large range of uses and is the City's largest retail designation in terms of area.
The Community Business designation generally runs along both sides of SR-99 from
South 272od to South 348th. A wide range of development types, appearance, ages,
function, and scale can be found along SR-99. Older, single-story developments provide
excellent opportunities for redevelopment.
Due in part to convenient access and available land, the South 348th Street area has
become a preferred location for large bulk retailers such as Eagle Hardware, Home Depot,
and Costco. Due to the size of these facilities, the challenge will be to develop these uses
into well functioning, aesthetically pleasing retail environments.
To create retail areas that are aesthetically and functionally attractive, revised development
standards, applied through Community Business zoning and Community Design
Guidelines, address design quality, mixed-use, and the integration of auto, pedestrian, and
transit circulation. Site design, modulation, and setback requirements are also addressed.
Through regulations in the Community Business land use chart, the size and scale of
hotels, motels, and office uses have been limited in scale so as not to compete with the
City Center.
2003 Camp Plan Update
11-21
FWCP-ChapterTwo. Land Use
Goal
LUG6
Policies
LUP38
LUP39
EXHIB.JT_- .
PAGE__-5
70-
-:1
Transform Community Business areas into vital, attractive, mixed-use areas
that appeal to pedestrians and motorists and enhance the community's image.
Encourage transformation of Pacific Highway (SR-99) Community Business
corridor into a quality mixed-use retail area. Retail development along the
corridor, exclusive of the City Center, should be designed to integrate auto,
pedestrian, and transit circulation. Integration of public amenities and open
space into retail and office development should also be encouraged.
Encourage auto-oriented large bulk retailers to locate in the South 34Sth Street
Community Business area.
Freeway Commercial .
The Freeway Commercial designation is intended for areas that border the I-5/South 320th
and I-5/SR lSinterchanges with convenient freewav access and visibility. Freeway
Commercial areas are typicallv large in size (five acres or greater). The range of
commercial land uses permitted in these areas is limited to uses that are difficult to site in
the city's other commercially designated areas due to their large site size requirements
and/or difficulty in adapting to pedestrian-oriented areas. Freeway Commercial areas are
particularly suitable for automobile sales, home furnishings centers, and related retail and
service uses that require large tracts of land, convenient freeway access and visibility.
Goal
LUG7
Policies
LUP40
LUP41
LUP42
Encourage the development of limited areas with high levels of freeway access
and visibility as suitable locations for freeway-oriented businesses to locate
within the city in a cohesive development pattern that also meets the
community's product and service needs.
Encourage freeway oriented uses to locate in Freeway Commercial-designated
areas.
Encourage quality regional destination retail development through the
utilization of appropriate design guidelines and development standards.
The development of freeway commercial areas should respond to the needs of
consumers by providing for ease of access and circulation and convenient
grouping of complementary uses.
2003 Camp Plan Update
11-22
FWCP - Chapter Two, Land Use
LUP43
,
EXHIBIT_-
PAGE_'- .~.~ 1
Create additional development standards to mitigate impacts to neig~boring
residential uses.
Neighborhood Business
There are a dozen various sized nodes of Neighborhood Business located throughout the
City. These nodes are areas that have historically provided retail and/or services to adjacent
residential areas. The FWCP recognizes the importance of firmly fixed boundaries to
prevent commercial intrusion into adjacent neighborhoods.
Neighborhood Business areas are intended to provide convenient goods (e.g., groceries and
hardware) and services (e.g., dry cleaners, dentist, bank) at a pedestrian and neighborhood
scale close to adjacent residential uses. Developments combining residential and
commercial uses provide a convenient living environment within these nodes. In the future,
attention should be given to design features that enhance the appearance or function of
these areas. Improvements may include sidewalks, open space and street trees, and parking
either on street or oriented away from the street edge. The function of neighborhood
business areas can also be enhanced by safe pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections to
surrounding neighborhoods.
The need to address expansion or intensification may occur in the future depending on
population growth. Future neighborhood business locations should be carefully chosen
and sized to meet the needs of adjacent residential areas.
Goal
LUG7
Policies
LUP40
LUP41
LUP42
LUP43
LUP44
LUP45
Provide neighborhood and community scale retail centers for the City's
neighborhoods.
Integrate retail developments into surrounding neighborhoods through attention
to quality design and function.
Encourage pedestrian and bicycle access to neighborhood shopping and
services.
Encourage neighborhood retail and personal services to locate at appropriate
locations where local economic demand and design solutions demonstrate
compatibility with the neighborhood.
Retail and personal services should be encouraged to group together within
planned centers to allow for ease of pedestrian movement.
Neighborhood Business centers should consist of neighborhood scale retail and
personal services.
Encourage mixed residential and commercial development in Neighborhood
2003 camp Plan Update
11-23
FWCP-ChapterTwo, land Use
PAGE ., '~}E:1 .
the PAS will not have to go through prolonged environmental review ~an be a
powerful incentive for private development in the City Center.
EXHIBIT__- - 1
~
Subarea Plans
Over the years, citizens from various areas of the City have come forth to testify before the
Planning Commission and City Council regarding their neighborhood or business area.
Development of subarea plans can lead to area specific visions and policies. This type of
specific planning, developed with citizen input and direction, can lead to improved
confidence and ownership in the community. Areas where subarea planning should be
considered include: SR-99 Corridor, South 348th Street area, and Twin Lakes
neighborhood.
Incentives
Develop an incentives program, for both residential and commercial development.
Incentives should be substantial enough to attract development and should be used to
create affordable and desired types of housing and to encourage development within the
City Center.
Table 11-3
Land Use Classifications
Comprehensive Plan Classification Zoning Classification
Single Family - Low Density Residential Suburban Estates (SE), one dwelling unit per five acres
Single Family - Medium Density Residential RS 35,000 & 15,000
Single Family - High Density Residential RS 9600, 7200, 5000
Multiple Family Residential RM 3600, 2400, 1800
City Center Core City Center Core
City Center Frame City Center Frame
Office Park Office Park, Office Park 1, 2, & 3
Professional Office Professional Office
Community Business Community Business
Business Park Business Park
Freeway Commercial Freeway Commercial
Neighborhood Business Neighborhood Business
Corporate Park Corporate Park-l
Commercial Recreation Office Park-4
Open Space & Parks A variety of zoning is assigned.
2003 Camp Plan Update
II-55
FWCP - Chapter Four, Eronomic Development
EXHIBr~
PAGE -- ,
8
_I
Retail Areas
.
SeaTac Mall and other regional retailers within the City redevelop/reposition to meet
changing consumer demand and become more competitive with other regional
retailers.
. - High-volume retail in Federal Way increases faster than population.
.
Growth in resident-serving retail occurs in the City Center, existing commercial
nodes-,- and in redevelopment areas along SR-99.
.
Neighborhood scale retail development keeps pace with population growth and to an
increasing extent, is accommodated within mixed-use buildings in more concentrated
neighborhood villages.
.
Pedestrian-oriented retail development emerges gradually in the redeveloped City
Center.
.
Small amounts of retail use occur on the ground floor of offices, residential buildings,
and parking structures.
.
Neighborhood scale retail development in concentrated neighborhood villages
emerges in response to growth in multiple-family concentrations in the I-5/SR-99
corridor and new single-family development on the east side ofI-5.
.
Old, outdated strip centers along the SR-99 corridor redevelop as a mix of retail,
office, and dense residential uses.
.
The large truck-stop facility at the intersection of Enchanted Parkway and South
348th Street is redeveloped into a retail or mixed-use commercial center.
.
Freeway oriented commercial development providing for automobile sales. home
furnishings centers, hotels and related retail and service uses are located in areas
bordering the I-5/SR-18 and I-5/S 320th St interchanges within areas of appropriate
size and with convenient access and visibility.
Office Development
.
Offices ofregional, national, and/or international firms locate in West Campus, East
Campus, and the City Center.
.
Garden, high-rise, and mid-rise office space, and modern light-industrial buildings
increase rapidly in areas with land assembled for business parks and in redeveloped
retail areas.
2003 Camp Plan Updates
IV-15
22-XXX New vehicle sales.
The following uses shall be permitted in the freeway commercial (Fe} zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this sectIOn:
~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. . . THEN, across for REGULATIONS
::2 Minimums
~:::¡ Required Yards
...¡ "
~ g
" -o¡:\:;
"" ,,~
¡:¡::: .="
::1.-
cr;>
" "
~~
USE
Retail
establishment
providing for
new vehicle
sales including
boats,
motorcycles
and
recreational
vehicle RV
sales
Process
III
"
N
Cí3
Õ
...¡
:<:
g
~
"
-0
Cí3
E
e
"'"
acres
Process I, IT, ill and IV are described in
§§ 22-351 - 22-356,
22-361 - 22-370,
22-386 - 22-411,
22-431- 22-460, respectively.
æ
"
~
'õ ~
~ ::I
§'U
.;:¡ .5
:eel:>
35 ft. above
average
building
elevation
See notes 2
and 3
USE ZONE CHART
V>
"
u
'"
c..
-oel:>
~ b1)
.- :::
.,.-
if~
~~
Retail 1. The hours of operation may be limited to reduce the impacts on nearby residential uses.
facilities: I 2. If any portion of a structure on the subject property is located less than 100 ft. from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the structure
for every 300 shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of 50 ft. from the property line of the
sq. ft of residential zone. .
gross floor 3. The height of that portion ofa structure located 100 ft. or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft. above average building elevation to a
area maximum of 55 ft., if all of the following criteria are met:
a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and
b. That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft. for each one ft. the structure exceeds 35 ft. above average building elevation; and
c. An increase in height above 35 ft. will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and
d. The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan.
4. Used vehicle sales, gasoline service stations, service, maintenance and body shops, car washes, auto supply stores, hazardous waste
treatment and storage facilities. and coffee shops are only pennitted as an accessory use to a new vehicle sales establishment.
5. Gas pump islands, canopies, and covers over pump islands may not be closer than 25 ft. to any property line, unless located adjacent to a
residential zone, in which case the setback shall be 50 ft. Outdoor vehicle display areas and service areas may not be closer than lOft. to any
property line, unless located adjacent to a residential zone, in which case the setback shall be 50 ft.
6. Auto and boat body repair and/or painting may be pennitted under this section only if:
a. Building layout and design mitigates impact of dust, fumes, noise, glare, odor, or any other discharge on neighboring uses and natural systems;
protects neighboring uses and natural systems from accidental spillage, leakage, or discharge of hazardous material and pollutants;
b. All storage, operations, service. painting, and repair are conducted within enclosed buildings.
7. Truck parking, loading, and maneuvering areas; areas where noise generating outdoor uses and activities may occur; and vents and similar
features must be located as far as possible from any residential zone and secondarily, from any public right-of-way.
8. Hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities must comply with state citing criteria adopted in accordance with Chapter 70. i<D.cm
9. No use or activity shall be conducted that involves the release of toxic or noxious gases, fumes, or odors. ~ ~
10. No use or activity shall be conducted that results in the contamination of stonnwater, surface water, or groundwater pursuant hap,
Article IV.
II.The site must be designed so that noise associated with public address systems; vehicle repair or maintenance; and truck parki adlR.o8f
maneuvering; will not be audible off the subject property, based on a certificate to this effect, signed by an acoustical engineer an I d 1!!£Jhe
development pennit application. i -
12. No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be detennined by other site development requirements, Le.. (equ.Jred
buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc. : .- --j
13. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIX. Areas where vehicles are displayed are not subject to the 'parking lot
design requirements of Section 22-1 634(b). .....
14. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII. Areas where vehicles are displayed are not subject to the parking lot
landscaping requirements of Section 22-1567. ~
15. Areas where vehicles are displayed are not subject to the provisions of Article XIII, Section 1113, Outdoor Activities and Storage: i
16. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII. I La
17. For noise standards that apply to the project, see Chapter 10, Article II. ~
118. Refer to § 22-946 et seq. to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property. I ..
L For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq.
ZONE
FC
SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
Otherwise:
determined
on a case-by-
case basis
For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq.
For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq.
22-XXX Retail.
The following uses shall be permitted in the freeway commercial (FC) zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this sectlOn:
~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. .. THEN, across for REGULATIONS
:2 Minimums
1;;; ~ Required Yards
... '"
;;J ë
" 'OP..
'"' '" ~
cz:: .:: '"
'" .-
<3">
'" '"
~~
USE
Retail
establishment
selling
household
goods and
furnishings,
household
appliances and
home
electronics
(excluding
bulk and big
box retail)
Retail Outlet
centers
(excluding
bulk and big
box retail)
'"
N
èí3
Õ
....¡
:2
g
~
'"
'O
èí3
æ
'"
~
...... '"
0 ..
- .a
-§¡u
,j .5
::r:r/1
¡:
e
....
~
Co
'Or/1
~ OJ)
'5.5
g'~
~P..
Process II INone 120 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 35 ft. above Retail facilities:
See notes 2, 3 and average I for every 300
Possible I 110 building sq.ftofgross
Process elevation floor area
III
See Note
3
See notes 2
and 3
Process I, II, ill and IV are described in
§§ 22-351 - 22-356,
22-361 - 22-370,
22.386 - 22-411,
22-431 - 22-460, respectively.
I for each 100
sq. ft. of gross
floor area for
restaurants
USE ZONE CHART
ZONE
FC
SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
1. The hours of operation may be limited to reduce impacts on nearby residential uses.
2. If any portion ofa structure on the subject property is located less than 100 ft. from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the
structure shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of20 ft. from the property line of
the residential zone.
3. If approved through Process III, the height of that portion ofa structure located 100 ft. or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft.
above average building elevation to a maximum of 55 ft., if all of the following criteria are met:
a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and
b. That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft. for each one ft. the structure exceeds 35 ft. above average building elevation;
and
c. An increase in height above 35 ft. will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and
d. The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan.
4. Assembly or manufacture of goods on the subject property is pennitted only if:
a. The assembly or manufacture is clearly accessory to an allowed use conducted on the subject property and is directly related to and
dependent on this allowed use; and
b. The assembled or manufactured goods are available for purchase and removal from the subject property and are for sale only to retail
purchasers; and
c. There are no outward appearance or impacts from the assembly or manufacture.
5. Restaurants, not exceeding 7,500 square feet in gross floor area, are allowed as an accessory use to the outlet center. -n ~
6. Truck parking, loading, and maneuvering areas; areas where noise generating outdoor uses and activities may occur; and ven~ si i a
features must be located as far as possible from any residential zone and secondarily, from any public right-of-way. .p
7. Outdoor use, activity, and storage is regulated by Article XIII, Section 1113. r""'\ ..,..
8. No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be detennined by other site development requiremeðt:l, Ie., .red
buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc. m -
9. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIX. I OJ.
10. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII. -
II. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII. ~.,
12. Refer to § 22-946 et seq. to detennine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property. ..
....
'- For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq.
~ ,
For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq.
For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq.
Ið
/- ¡
22-XXX Entertainment, etc.
The following uses shall be permitted in the freeway commercial (Fe) zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this sectIOn:
USE ZONE CHART
~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. .. THEN, across for REGULATIONS
9 Minimums
~ ~ Required Yards
,.;¡ .,
;¡ ë
'" .,,¡:l.,
¡.¡ ., ~
CI:: .!::.,
::s .-
cr>
., .,
0::0::
.,
N
¡;:j
Õ
,...¡
ë
0
~
?
g
~
.,
."
¡;:j
æ
.,
0::
'- .,
0 ...
... ::s
"fit
oj E
::r:<Z)
8
co
Q.
."cn
.g ~
::s .-
8"~
O::¡:l.,
ZONE
FC
USE
Retail
establishment
providing
entertainment,
recreational or
cultural
services or
activities
SPECIAL REGULA nONS AND NOTES
See Note
;!-J
See notes 2,
and 3 and 8
1. The hours of operation may be limited to reduce the impacts on nearby residential uses.
2. Ifany portion ofa structure on the subject property is located less than 100 ft. from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the structure
shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of20 ft. from the property line of the
residential zone.
3. If approved through Process III, the height of that portion ofa structure located 100 ft. or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft. above
average building elevation to a maximum of 55 ft., if all of the following criteria are met:
a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and
b. That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft. for each one ft. the structure exceeds 35 ft. above average building elevation; and
c. An increase in height above 35 ft. will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and
d. The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan.
4. No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be determined by other site development requirements, Le., required
buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc.
5. Truck parking, loading, and maneuvering areas; areas where noise generating outdoor uses and activities may occur; and vents and similar
features must be located as far as possible from any residential zone and secondarily, from any public right-of-way.
6. Outdoor use, activity, and storage is regulated by Article XIII, Section I I 13.
7. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIX
8. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII.
9. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII.
10. Refer to § 22-946 et seq. to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property.
11. Minor and supporting structures constructed as a functional requirement of golf driving ranges may exceed the applicable height limitation
provided that the director of community development services determines that such structures will not significantly impact adjoining properties.
Process II INone
20 ft.15 ft. 15 ft.
See notes 2, 3
and 6
35 ft. above IDetermined
average on a case-by-
building case basis
elevation
Possible
Process
III
Golf driving
range
Process I, II, III and IV are described in
§§ 22-351 - 22-356,
22-361- 22-370,
22-386-22-411,
22-431 - 22-460, respectively.
LFor other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq.
For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq.
For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq.
U III
J>X
G)I
ITlõ5
--
1-1
-- .
~i~
22-XXX Hotel.
The following uses shall be permitted in thefreeway commercial (Fe) zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this sectIOn:
USE ZONE CHART
~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. . . THEN, across for REGULATIONS
9 Minimums
E.( ~ Required Yards
...¡ 8
;;;¡ 0
" ""~
~ ,,~
¡:z: .= '"
::s .-
0->
'" '"
¡:.:¡:.:
USE
Hotel
'"
N
¡;;
Õ
....¡
?
g
~
'"
-0
¡;;
c:
e
"'"
æ
'"
~
.... "
0 ...
.i:fJ
.~ g
:I: <11
V>
'"
<.)
'"
Q.
-0<11
'" OJ)
'3.5
g"~
~"'"
ZONE
FC
SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
I. Ifany portion ora structure on the subject property is located less than 100 ft. from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the structure
shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of20 ft. from the property line of the
residential zone.
2. If approved through Process III, the height of that portion ofa structure located 100 ft. or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft. above
average building elevation to a maximum of 55 ft., ifall of the following criteria are met:
a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and
b. That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft. for each one ft. the structure exceeds 35 ft. above average building elevation; and
c. An increase in height above 35 ft. will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and
d. The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan.
3. If this use includes accessory meeting, convention or other facilities that will be used by persons other than overnight guests at the hotel, the city
may require additional parking on a case-by-case basis, based on the extent and nature of these accessory facilities.
4. Truck parking, loading, and maneuvering areas; areas where noise generating outdoor uses and activities may occur; and vents and similar
features must be located as far as possible from any residential zone and secondarily, from any public right-of-way.
5. Outdoor use, activity, and storage is regulated by Article XIII, Section 1113.
6. No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be determined by other site development requirements, i.e., required
butTers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc.
7. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIx.
8. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII.
9. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII.
10. Refer to § 22-946 et seq. to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property.
Process II None 120 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 35 ft. above lOne for each
See notes I, 2 and average guest room.
Possible I 18 building
Process elevation
III
See Note
2
Process I, 11, III and IV are described in
§§ 22-351 - 22-356,
22-361 - 22-370,
22-386-22-411,
22-431- 22-460, respectively.
See notes I -
2
See note 3
L For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq.
For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq.
For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq.
-urn
»X
Q:r::
m.ãi
-
,--I
--
<..)
~
--
~
22-XXX Public utility.
The following uses shall be permitted in the freeway commercial (Fe) zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this sectIOn:
~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use... THEN, across for REGULATIONS
sa Minimums-
~ ~ Required Yards
..¡ 8
;;¡ 0
" .",ð:
¡..¡ <> ~
~ .:: <>
'" .-
0->
<> <>
ø:::ø:::
USE
<>
N
ü3
Õ
....;¡
:ï=
<.J
'"
~
<>
.",
ü3
ë
g
¡.¡;.,
Public utility I Process II INone
t;¡
<>
ø:::
'õ ~
- '"
'5ht>
'ü Ë
;¡::",
Possible
Process
III
Public Utility Public
20 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. Utilities:
See Notes 1,2 and 3b5 ft
7 a ove
average
building
elevation
See note
2
Process I, II, III and IV are described in
§§ 22-351-22-356,
22-361 - 22-370,
22-386 - 22-411,
22-431 - 22-460, respectively.
See notes
I and 2
01J
c
~
t;¡
~
.",
<>
... '"
.- <>
'" <.J
0-",
<> 0.
ø:::",
Detennined on
a case-by-case
basis.
USE ZONE CHART
ZONE
FC
SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
1. If any portion of a structure on the subject property is located less than 100 ft. from an adjacent residential zone, then that portion of the structure
shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of20 ft. from the property line of the
residential zone.
2. If approved through Process III, the height of that portion of a structure located 100 ft. or more from a residential zone may exceed 35 ft., if all of
the following criteria are met:
a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and
b. That portion of the structure is set back an additional one ft. for each one ft. the structure exceeds 35 ft. above average building elevation; and
c. An increase in height above 35 ft. will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and
d. The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the comprehensive plan.
3. May be permitted only iflocating this use in the immediate area of the subject property is necessary to permit effective service to the area to be
served.
4. If determined necessary to mitigate visual and noise impacts to surrounding properties, the city may require additional landscaping or buffers on a
case-by-case basis.
5. No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be determined by other site development requirements, i.e. required
buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc.
6. For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIX
7. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII.
8. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII.
9. Refer to §22-946 et seq to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property.
L For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-] 376 et seq.
-um
ÞX
QI
m -~
. OJ
I~F
01,
¡n
--.
For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq.
For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq.
22-XXX Public Transit Shelter
The following uses shall be permitted in the freeway commercial {FC) zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this sectIOn:
~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. . . THEN, across for REGULA TrONS
sa Minimums
~ ~ Required Yards
,.¡ <1)
;;¡ g
~ .,..,ð:
~ <1) ~
cz: .: <1)
::s ,-
0">
<1) <1)
¡:,:~
USE
<1)
N
¡¡:;
Õ
,....¡
;C
g
~
<1)
"0
¡;j
ë
0
~
Public transitProcess I INone PUbliC Transit
shelter Shelter
õ"ftlõftlõ ft.
Process I, II, III and IV are described in
§§ 22-351 - 22-356,
22-361 - 22-370,
22-386 - 22-411,
22-431 - 22-460, respectively.
æ
<1)
~
..... <1)
0...
.... ::s
-§¡õ
'" S
;:r:",
Transit
Shelter:
15 ft. above
average
building
elevation
OJ)
r::
~
~
"0
~ '"
'5 8
0"",
<1) c..
~'"
None
USE ZONE CHART
ZONE
FC
SPECIAL REGULA nONS AND NOTES
I, For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIx.
2, There are no landscaping requirements for this use. The larger site on which it is located is subject to the landscaping requirements of Article XVII.
3. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII.
4. Refer to §22-946 et seq to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property.
LFor other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq.
For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et seq.
For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq.
u n~i
þ. ><
CJ; I
m .,-
j ~
I ~I
1-.
I i
I .
u
iÏ1
.....
--
22-XXX Personal wireless service facility.
The following uses shall be permitted in the freeway commercial (FC) zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this sectIOn:
USE ZONE CHART
~ DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. .. THEN, across for REGULATIONS
sa Minimums
~ ~ Required Yards
,.¡ <1)
;;¡ g
~ .,..,ð:
~ <1) ~
cz: .: <1)
::s .-
0">
<1) <1)
~~
USE
Personal
wireless
service
facility
<1)
N
¡¡:;
Õ
,....¡
ë
e
"'"
;C
g
~
<1)
"0
¡¡:;
See note None ¡See see ¡See
2 note I note note
I I
See note 5
for allowed
types of
PWSFs
Process I, II, III and IV are described in
§§ 22-351 - 22-356,
22-361 - 22-370,
22-386 - 22-411,
22-431 - 22-460, respectively.
æ
<1)
~
.....
0 ~
.... ::s
..c: ....
OJ)U
';; 2
:r::êi5
Refer to
§22-967
for
maximum
heights
for
allowed
types of
PWSFs
See note 3
<1)
§-
U
'"
"0
ã
,....¡
See INot
note allowed
4 on a
PWSF
~
OJ)
¡¡:;
l
OJ)
r::
~
~
"0
~ '"
.- <1)
::s U
0"",
<1) 0.
~'"
SPECIAL REGULATIONS AND NOTES
ZONE
FC
N/A 11. For developed sites, the setback requirements shall be those of the principal use ofthe subject property. For undeveloped sites, the setback
requirements for new freestanding PWSFs shall be 20 ft. for front, side, and rear yards.
2. Subject to meeting all applicable development standards, the review process used shall be Process 1, except for the following proposals:
a. Process III for the following proposals:
(1) The PWSF is located within 300 ft. of a residential zone;
(2) The PWSF is located on a structure that is a residence or school or contains a residence or school; or
(3) The PWSF is a new freestanding PWSF.
b. Process IV if the PWSF is a lattice tower accommodating four or more providers.
3. Maximum allowed height for a new freestanding PWSF shall be the minimum necessary to provide the service up to 100 ft., plus any
height granted under § 22-1047. A PWSF shall be allowed up to 120 ft. if there are two or more providers, except that a lattice tower of
between 120 ft, and 150 ft. will be allowed under a combined application offour or more providers,
4. All PWSFs shall be landscaped and screened in accordance with Article XVII of this chapter, and the provisions of the PWSF development
regulations. At a minimum, a five ft. type III landscaping area shall be required around the facility, unless the community development
services director determines that the facility is adequately screened.
5, New freestanding PWSFs are allowed subject to height limits and collocation provisions. PWSFs are allowed on existing towers, on private
buildings and structures, on publicly used structures not located in public rights-of-way, on existing structures located in the BPA trail, and on
existing structures in appropriate public rights-of-way. Refer to § 22-967 for development standards applicable to allowed types ofPWSFs.
6, For all other development standards, see Article XIII, Section 22-966 et al.
For other information about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq.
-am
»x
.G:Lr
mãJ
I ~
I~
, ,
0/--.
,î'l '"
....
For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-] 046 et seq.
For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq,
10-26 General prohibition.
It is unlawful for any person to cause, or for any person in possession of property to allow to
originate from the property, sound that is a public disturbance noise. (Ord. No. 90-37, § leA), 2-
20-90)
EXHIB'T__"
PAGE...._I_.~)F.I
10-27 Illustrative enumeration.
The following sounds are public disturbance noises in violation ofthis article:
(1) The frequent, repetitive or continuous sounding of any horn or siren attached to a
motor vehicle, except as a warning of danger or as specifically permitted or required by law.
(2) The creation of frequent, repetitive or continuous sounds in connection with the
starting, operation, repair, rebuilding or testing of any motor vehicle, motorcycle, off-highway
vehicle or internal combustion engine within a residential district, so as to unreasonably disturb or
interfere with the peace and comfort of owners or possessors of real property.
(3) Yelling, shol,lting, whistling or singing on or near the public streets, particularly
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. or at any time and place as to unreasonably disturb
or interfere with the peace and comfort of owners or possessors of real property.
(4) The creation of frequent, repetitive or continuous sounds which emanate from any
building, structure, apartment or condominium, which unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the
peace and comfort of owners or possessors of real property, such as sounds from musical
instruments, audio sound systems, band sessions or social gatherings.
(5) Sound from motor vehicle audio sound systems, such as tape players, radios and
compact disc players, operated at a volume so as to be audible greater than 50 feet from the
vehicle itself.
(6) Sound from portable audio equipment, such as tape players, radios, and compact disc
players, operated at a volume so as to be audible greater than 50 feet from the source, and if not
operated upon the property of the operator.
(7) The squealing, screeching or other such sounds from motor vehicle tires in contact
with the ground or other roadway surface because of rapid acceleration, braking or excessive
speed around comers or because of such other reason; provided, that sounds which result from
actions which are necessary to avoid danger shall be exempt from this section.
(8) Sounds originating from construction sites, including but not limited to sounds from
construction equipment, power tools and hammering between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00
a.m. on weekdays and 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends.
(9) Sounds originating from residential property relating to temporary projects for the
maintenance or repair of horns, grounds and appurtenances, including but not limited to sounds
from lawnmowers, powered hand tools, snow removal equipment and composters between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends. (Ord.
No. 90-65, § 1(B), 7-3-90; Ord. No. 99-341, § 3, 5-4-99)
~2002 Code Publishing Co. Page I
EXHIBIT_~'1
P.A G E--l- ,.) F ---2.
Federal Way City Code
Chapter 22, Article XIII, "Supplementary District Regulations"
22-966 Personal wireless service facilities (PWSF).
(a) Purpose. This section addresses the issues of location and appearance associated with
personal wireless service facilities. It provides adequate siting opportunities through a wide range
of locations and options which minimize safety hazards and visual impacts sometimes associated
with wireless communications technology. The siting of facilities on existing buildings or
structures, collocation of several providers' facilities on a single support structure, and visual
mitigation measures are required, unless otherwise allowed by the city, to maintain neighborhood
appearance and reduce visual clutter in the city.
(b) Definitions. Any words, terms or phrases used in this section which are not otherwise
defined shall have the meanings set forth in FWCC 22-1.
(c) Exemptions. The following antennas and facilities are exempt from the provisions of this
section and shall be permitted in all zones consistent with applicable development standards as
outlined in the use zone charts, Article XI of this chapter, District Regulations:
(I) Wireless communication facilities used by federal, state, or local public agencies for
temporary emergency communications in the event of a disaster, emergency preparedness, and
public health or safety purposes.
(2) Industrial processing equipment and scientific or medical equipment using
frequencies regulated by the FCC; provided such equipment complies with all applicable
provisions of FWCC 22-960, Rooftop Appurtenances, and Chapter 22 FWCC, Article XIII,
Division 5, Height.
(3) Citizen band radio antennas or antennas operated by federally licensed amateur
("ham") radio operators; provided such antennas comply with all applicable provisions of FWCC
22-960, Rooftop Appurtenances, and Chapter 22 FWCC, Article XIII, Division 5, Height.
(4) Satellite dish antennas less than two meters in diameter, including direct-to-home
satellite services, when used as a secondary use of the property; provided such antennas comply
with all applicable provisions of FWCC 22-960, Rooftop Appurtenances, and Chapter 22 FWCC,
Article XIII, Division 5, Height.
(5) Automated meter reading (AMR) facilities for the purpose of collecting utility meter
data for use in the sale of utility services, except for whip or other antennas greater than two feet
in length; provided the AMR facilities are within the scope of activities permitted under a valid
franchise agreement between the utility service provider and the city.
(6) Routine maintenance or repair of a wireless communication facility and related
equipment excluding structural work or changes in height, dimensions, or visual impacts of the
antenna, tower, or buildings; provided, that compliance with the standards of this chapter are
maintained.
(d) Prioritized locations. The following sites shall be the required order of locations for
proposed PWSFs, including antenna and equipment shelters. In proposing a PWSF in a particular
location, the applicant shall analyze the feasibility of locating the proposed PWSF in each of the
higher priority locations and document, to the city's satisfaction, why locating the PWSF in each
higher priority location and/or zone is not being proposed. In order of preference, the prioritized
locations for PWSFs are as follows:
(I) Structures located in the BP A traiL A PWSF may be located on any existing support
structure currently located in the easement upon which are located U.S. Department of Energy/
Bonneville Power Administration ("BP A") Power Lines regardless of underlying zoning.
(Ç;)2002 Code Publishing Co. Page I
EXHIBIT ,11
PAGE~_:)F~
(2) Existing broadcast, relay and transmission towers. A PWSF may be located on an
existing site or tower where a legal wireless telecommunication facility is currently located
regardless of underlying zoning. If an existing site or tower is located within a one mile radius of
a proposed PWSF location, the applicant shall document why collocation on the existing site or
tower is not being proposed, regardless of whether the existing site or tower is located within the
jurisdiction of the city.
(3) Publicly used structures. If the city consents to such location, a PWSF may be located
on existing public facilities within all zoning districts, such as water towers, utility structures, fire
stations, bridges, and other public buildings, provided the public facilities are not located within
public rights-of-way.
(4) Appropriate business, commercial, and city center zoned sites. A PWSF may be
located on private buildings or structures within appropriate business, commercial, and city center
zoning districts. The preferred order of zoning districts for this category of sites is as follows:
BP - Business Park
FC - Freeway Commercial
CP-l - Corporate Park
OP through OP-4 - Office Park
CC-C - City Center Core
CC-F - City Center Frame
BC - Community Business
(5) Appropriate public rights-of-way. For the purposes of this section, appropriate public
rights-of-way shall be defined as including those public rights-of-way with functional street
classifications of principal arterial, minor arterial, and principal collector. A PWSF may be
located on existing structures in appropriate public rights-of-way. Structures proposed for
location of PWSFs shall be separated by at least 330 linear feet. Within any residential zone,
neighborhood business (BN) zone, or professional office (PO) zone, there shall be no more than
one PWSF located on an existing structure. Location of a PWSF on an existing structure in an
appropriate public right-of-way shall require a right-of-way permit in addition to the required use
process approval.
The preferred order of functional street classifications for this category of sites is as follows:
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Principal Collector
If the PWSF is proposed to be located in an appropriate public right-of-way and the
surrounding uses or zoning are not the same, that portion of the right-of-way with the most
intensive use and/or zoning shall be the preferred location.
If the PWSF is proposed to be located in an appropriate public right-of-way and surrounding
uses or zoning are the same, the preferred location shall be that portion of the right-of-way with
the least adverse visual impacts.
(6) If the applicant demonstrates to the city's satisfaction that it is not technically possible
to site in a prioritized location, the city reserves the right to approve alternative site locations if a
denial would be in violation of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, as determined by the city.
Card. No. 97-300, § 3, 9-16-97; Ord. No. 00-363, § 14, 1-4-00; Ord. No. 01-399, § 3, 8-7-01)
«;)2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 2
FREEWAY COMMERCIAL sIE~ I B 'T
PAGE_-I
I~
-5
22-1601 Signs in nonresidential zoning districts.
(a) Freestanding signs. Permit applications for freestanding signs shall be designated as
qualifying for a high profile, medium profile~ ef low profile sign, or highway profile category A-
based upon criteria regarding both the size and zoning designation of the development. The sign
profile designation shall control the sign types, sign height, sign area and number of signs
allowed.
Separate parcels or pads for single-tenant buildings that comply with all zoning requirements
for single-tenant parcels, excluding access, and are not otherwise tied to an adjacent multi-tenant
center by virtue of architectural style or theme, are permitted one freestanding monument or
pedestal sign not to exceed a maximum sign area of 80 square feet for the total of all sign faces
with no one sign face exceeding 40 square feet.
(1) High profile' sign.
a. Criteria. A subject property meeting all of the following criteria is permitted a
high profile freestanding sign:
1. A minimum of 250 feet of frontage on one public right-of-way; .
2. A zoning designation of city center core (CC-C) or city center frame (CC-F), or
community business (Be);
3. A multiuse complex; and
4. A minimum site of 15 acres in size.
b. Sign types. The following sign types are allowed for a high profile sign:
1. Pylon or pole signs; provided, however, that any pylon or pole sign must have more
than one pole or structural support;
2. Pedestal signs;
3. Monument signs;
4. Tenant directory signs; and
5. Kiosks.
Sign content for any pylon or pole sign, or for any pedestal or monument sign in lieu of a
pylon or pole sign, may include electronic changeable messages, center identification signs and/or
changeable copy signs. Any high profile sign may be an electrical sign, an illuminated sign,
and/or a neon sign.
c. Sign height. A high profile sign shall not exceed the following maximum heights:
1. Pylon or pole sign: Twenty-five feet;
2. Pedestal or monument signs: Twelve feet if in lieu of a pylon or pole sign.
Otherwise, pedestal and monument signs shall not exceed five feet;
3. Tenant directory or kiosk signs: Six feet unless the sign is set back a minimum of 50
feet from any public right-of-way, in which case it may be 10 feet.
d. Sign area. A high profile sign shall not exceed the following maximum sign areas:
1. Pylon or pole sign: 400 square feet for the total of sign faces with no òne sign face
exceeding 200 square feet;
2. Pedestal or monument signs: 128 square feet for the total of all sign faces with no
one face exceeding 64 square feet;
3. Tenant directory or kiosk signs: 15 square feet per sign face.
e. Number of signs. A subject property qualifying for a high profile sign may have the
following maximum number of signs:
FREEWAY CO MMERCI AL ~ I BIT :2
PAGE_-
I. Pylon or pole sign: One sign unless the subject property has an additional 500 feet
of street frontage for a total of 750 feet of aggregate frontage on any public rights-of-way, in
which case the subject property will be allowed one additional high profile sign, not to exceed a
maximum of two such signs per subject property;
2. Pedestal or monument signs: If the pedestal or monument sign is in lieu of a pylon
or pole sign, the number of signs allowed shall be detennined pursuant to subsection (e)( 1) of this
section. In addition, two monument signs which identify the name of any multiuse complex are
allowed, per entrance from a public right-of-way, not to exceed five feet in height; and
3. Tenant directory or kiosk signs: One sign per frontage on a public right-of-way.
(2) Medium profile sign.
a. Criteria. A subject property that does not qualify for a high profile sign pursuant to
subsection (a)(1) of this section and is not a low profile sign by being zoned office park (OP) or
professional office (PO) pursuant to subsection (a)(3) of this section is permitted a medium
profile freestanding sign.
b. Sign types. The following sign types are allowed for a medium profile sign:
1. Pedestal signs; and
2. Monument signs.
Sign content for any medium profile sign may include electronic changeable messages,
center identification signs and/or changeable copy signs. Any medium profile sign may be an
electrical sign, an illuminated sign, and/or a neon sign.
c. Sign height. The height of a medium profile sign shall be calculated at the rate of 0.75
feet in the sign height for every 10 lineal feet of frontage on a public right-of-way; provided,
however, that sign height shall be calculated at the rate of one and one-half feet in sign height for
every 10 lineal feet of frontage on a public right-of-way for any multi-tenant complex; and
provided further, that such sign shall not exceed a maximum height of 12 feet and every applicant
is entitled to a minimum height of five feet.
d. Sign area. For any multi-tenant complex, sign area allowed for a medium profile signs
shall be calculated at the rate of two square feet per lineal foot of frontage on a public right-of-
way not to exceed a maximum sign area of 128 square feet for the total of all sign faces on each
pennitted sign with no one sign face exceeding 64 square feet. For other uses, sign area allowed
for medium profile sign shall be calculated at the rate of one square foot per lineal foot of
frontage on a public right-of-way not to exceed a maximum sign area of 80 square feet for the
total of all sign faces on each pennitted sign with no one sign face exceeding 40 square feet.
Notwithstanding the foregoing sign area calculations, every applicant is entitled to a minimum
sign area of 50 square feet for the total of all sign faces with no one sign face exceeding 25 square
feet.
18
"....$
e. Number of signs. A subject property qualifying for a medium profile sign may have
one pedestal or monument sign for each street frontage. Each street frontage exceeding 300 linear
feet and containing more than one vehicular access is pennitted one additional freestanding sign.
No subject property may contain more than three freestanding signs regardless of total linear
street frontage and no one street frontage may have more than two freestanding signs.
Freestanding signs shall be located a minimum distance of 200 feet from other freestanding signs
on the same subject property.
(3) Low profile sign.
a. Criteria. A subject property located in the office park (OP) or professional office (PO)
zone is pennitted a low profile freestanding sign.
b. Sign types. The following sign types are allowed for a low profile sign:
1. Pedestal signs;
2. Monument signs; and
3. Tenant directory signs.
Sign content for any pedestal or monument sign may include center identification signs
and/or changeable copy signs. Any low profile sign may be an electrical sign, an illuminated sign,
and/or a neon sign.
c. Sign height. A low profile sign shall not exceed the following maximum heights:
1. Pedestal or monument signs: Five feet.
2. Tenant directory signs: Six feet unless the sign is set back a minimum of 50 feet
from any public right-of-way, in which case it may be 10 feet.
d. Sign area.
1. Pedestal or monument signs: Sign area allowed for a low profile sign shall be
calculated at the rate of one square foot per lineal foot of frontage on a public right-of-way;
provided, however, that a low profile sign shall not exceed a maximum sign area of 80 square feet
for the total of all sign faces on each permitted sign with no one sign face exceeding 40 square
feet, and every applicant is entitled to a minimum sign area of 50 square feet for the total of all
sign faces with no one sign face exceeding 25 square feet;
2. Tenant directory signs: 15 square feet per sign face.
e. Number of signs. A subject property qualifying for a low profile sign may have the
following maximum number of signs:
1. Pedestal or monument signs: One sign per frontage on a public right-of-way; and
2. Tenant directory signs: One sign per frontage on a public right-of-way.
FREEWAY COMMERCIALË~~BIT
PAGE.-3
la
,:°--5
(4) Highway Profile Category A signs.
In addition to the categories available in FWCC Section 22-1601(a)(l-3), a subject
property mav be permitted one of the following freestanding signs if it meets the criteria listed in
highway profile category A below.
Highway Profile Category A
1. Criteria. A subject property is permitted an additional highway profile category A
freestanding sign if the subject property meets all of the following criteria:
a. Abuts the right of way ofInterstate 5;
b. Is located in a zoning designation of freeway commercial (FC).
2. Sign types. A pylon or pole sign is allowed, provided, that any pylon or pole sign
must have more than one pole or structural support.
Sign content for any pylon or pole sign may include center identification signs, provided,
that all font sizes used are a minumum 2.5 feet tall. Trademarks or copvwrite symbols are exempt
from the font size requirement. Any highway profile category A may be an illuminated sign,
and/or a neon sign. Electronic changeable COPy and/or changeable copy signs are not permitted.
The sign must be oriented toward the freeway (not the off-ramps) and be located near the
property line closest to the freeway and be visible from the freeway.
3. Sign height. A highway profile category A sign shall not exceed 25 feet above the
elevation of the nearest driving lane of the freeway at a point nearest to the proposed location of
the sign. The sign height shall be measured by a licensed surveyor and the applicant shall be
responsible for providing the surveyor.
If the subject property has an elevation that is higher than the nearest driving lane of the
freeway, then the sign shall be no taller than 15 feet above the average finished ground elevation
measured at the midpoint of the sign base.
FREEWAY COMMERCIAL s~ti' B IT
PAGE_'-I
It
"'--:_~
4. Sign area. A highway profile category A sign shall not exceed 600 square feet for
the total of sign faces with no one sign face exceeding 300 square feet. If the subject property has
an elevation that is higher than the nearest driving lane of the freeway. then the sign area shall not
exceed 400 square feet for the total of sign faces with no one sign face exceeding 200 square feet.
5. Number of signs. A subject property qualifying for a highway profile sign may have
only one (I) highway profile category A sign per subject property.
6. The applicant shall be responsible for coordinating any such sign with the State of
Washington Scenic Vistas Act.
i41ill Combined sign package for adjacent property owners. The owners of two or more
properties that abut or are separated only by a vehicular access easement or tract may propose a
combined sign package to the city. The city will review and decide upon the proposal using
process III. The city may approve the combined sign package if it will provide more coordinated,
effective and efficient signs. The allowable sign area, sign type, sign height and number of signs
will be detennined as ifthe applicants were one multi-tenant complex.
(b) Building-mounted signs.
(1) Sign types. The following sign types may be building-mounted signs and are allowed in
all nonresidential zoning districts:
a. Awning or canopy signs;
b. Center identification signs;
c. Changeable copy signs;
d. Civic event signs;
e. Directional signs, on-site;
f. Electronic changeable message signs;
g. Instructional signs;
h. Marquee signs;
i. Projecting signs;
j. Tenant directory signs;
k. Time and temperature signs;
1. Under canopy signs; and
ill. Wall-mounted signs.
Any building-mounted sign may be an electrical sign, an illuminated sign, and/or a neon sign.
(2) Sign height. No sign shall project above the roofline of the exposed building face to which
it is attached.
(3) Sign area. The total sign area of building-mounted signs for each business or tenant,
excluding under canopy signs, shall not exceed seven percent of the exposed building face to
which it is attached; provided, however, that no individual sign shall exceed a sign area of 240
square feet and every applicant is entitled to a minimum sign area of 30 square feet. A multi-
tenant complex which does not use a freestanding sign may have two additional wall-mounted
signs. No one sign may exceed seven percent of the exposed building face to which it is attached,
to a maximum of 240 square feet per sign. This sign is in addition to any other tenant signs on
that building face.
(4) Number of signs. The number of building-mounted signs pennitted each user is dependent
upon the surface area of the largest single exposed building face of his or her building as follows,
excluding wall-mounted center identification signs:
FREEWAY COMMERCIAL SIg~IBIT
PAGE__S
Largest Exposed Maximum
Building Face Number of Signs
Less than 999 sq. f1. 2
1,000 - 2,999 sq. f1. 3
3,000 - 3,999 sq. ft. 4
4,000 and over sq. ft. 5
I'
-5
Buildings with more than 4,000 square feet on any exposed building face, with several clearly
differentiated departments, each with separate exterior entrances, are pennitted one sign for each
different department with a separate exterior entrance, in addition to the five pennitted.
No sign or signs may exceed the maximum area pennitted for that building face except as
may be specifically pennitted by this code. However, an applicant is allowed to move allotted
signs, as calculated in subsection (b)(4) from one building face to another.
Each business or use shall be pennitted under canopy signs in addition to the other pennitted
building-mounted signs subject to the size and separation requirements set forth in FWCC 22-
l599( c )(2)(w).
(c) Sign area multipliers. The sign area and sign number allowed, as set forth in subsection
(a)(1)(d) of this section for high profile signs, (a)(2)(d) of this section for medium profile signs,
and (a)(3)(d) of this section for low profile signs and subsection (b)(3) of this section for
building-mounted signs may be increased in the following instances; provided, however, that in
no event shall the sign exceed the maximum sign area allowed:
(1) If no signs on the subject property have internally lighted sign faces, then the total sign
area allowed may be increased by 25 percent.
(2) If all signs, other than center identification signs, are building-mounted signs, the total
sign area allowed may be increased by 25 percent.
(3) A time and temperature sign may be included with any sign and such time and
temperature signs shall not be included for purposes of calculating maximum sign area or
maximum number of signs. (Ord. No. 95-235, § 4, 6-6-95; Ord. No. 96-270, § 3(F), 7-2-96; Ord. No. 99-
348, § 5,9-7-99; Ord. No. 99-357, § 6,12-7-99)
EXHIßC,
Federal Way City CodPAGE__-
Chapter 22, Article XVII, "Landscaping"
,~
2.
t
22-1566 Landscaping ~equirements by zoning district.
(a) Suburban Estates, SE.
(1) Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all property lines of
nonresidential uses in the SE zoning district, except as provided in FWCC 22-1567 of this article.
(b) Single-Family Residential, RS.
(1) Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all property lines of
nonresidential uses in the RS zoning districts, except as provided in FWCC 22-1567 of this
article.
(c) Multifamily Residential, RM.
(1) Type III landscaping 20 feet in width shall be provided along all public rights-of-way
and ingress/egress easements.
(2) Type II landscaping 20 feet in width shall be provided along the common boundary
abutting single-family zoning districts.
. (3) Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines,
except as noted in subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
(d) Professional Office, Po.
(1) Type III landscaping eight feet in width shall be provided along all property lines
abutting public rights-of-way and access easements.
(2) Type I landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter property
lines abutting a residential zoning district except for schools which shall provide 10 feet of Type
II.
(3) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines,
except as noted in subsections (d)( 1) and (d)(2) of this section.
(e) Neighborhood Business, BN
(1) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all properties abutting
public rights-of-way and ingress/egress easements.
(2) Type I landscaping 15 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property
abutting a residential zoning district.
(3) Type III landscaping five feet in width along all perimeter lot lines except as noted in
subsections (e)(l) and (e)(2) of this section.
(f) Community Business, BC
(1) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all properties abutting
public rights-of-way and ingress/egress easements.
(2) Type I landscaping 15 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property
abutting a residential zoning district.
(3) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lots lines
except as noted in subsections (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section.
(g) Freeway Commercial. FC
(1) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of
parking areas abutting public rights-of-way.
(2) Tvpe I landscaping 20 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property
abutting a residential zone.
0) Tvpe III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines,
except as noted in subsections (g)(l) and (g)(2) of this section.
(\;)2002 Code Publishing Co. Page I
tg) ill City Center, Cc. : ~
(1) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of
parking areas abutting public rights-of-way.
(2) Type I landscaping 15 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property
abutting a residential zoning district.
(3) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines
except as noted in subsections (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this section.
ffl1 ill Office Park, OP; and Corporate Park, CP-J.
(1) Type III landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all property lines
abutting public rights-of-way and access easements.
(2) Type I landscaping 15 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property
abutting a residential zoning district.
(3) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines,
except as noted in subsections (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this subsection.
(i) Mal1ujactW'ing Park, MY. (i) Business Park. BP.
(1) Type II landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all property lines
abutting public rights-of-way and access easements.
(2) Type I landscaping 25 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of the
property abutting a residential zoning district.
(3) Type II landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of the
property abutting a nonresidential zoning district, except MP zones.
(4) Type III landscaping five feet in width shall be provided along all perimeter lot lines
except as noted in subsections (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this section. (Ord. No. 93-170, § 4, 4-20-93;
Ord. No. 96-270, § 3(E), 7-2-96)
EXH\B\"
PAGE-- 2.
fCt
i;~ --&
(\;)2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 2
EXHIBIT
Federal Way City CodePAGE -
Chapter 22, Article XIX, "Community Design Guidelines"
-¡j)
.._~
,
22-1638 District guidelines.
In addition to the foregoing development guidelines, the following supplemental guidelines
apply to individual zoning districts:
(a) Professional office (PO), neighborhood business (BN), and community business (BC),
and freeway commercial (Fe).
(1) Surface parking may be located behind the building, to the side(s) of the building, or
adjacent to the right-of-way; provided, however, that parking located adjacent to the right-of-way
maximizes pedestrian access and circulation pursuant to FWee 22-1634( d).
(2) Entrance facades shall front on, face, or be clearly recognizable from the right-of-
way; and should incorporate windows and other methods of articulation.
(3) Ground-level mirrored or reflective glass is not encouraged adjacent to a public right-
of-way or pedestrian area.
(4) If utilized, chain-link fences visible from public rights-of-way shall utilize vinyl-
coated mesh and powder-coated poles.
For residential uses only:
(5) Significant trees shall be retained within a 20-foot perimeter strip around site.
(6) Landscaped yards shall be provided between building(s) and public street(s). Parking
lots should be beside or behind buildings that front upon streets.
(7) Parking lots should be broken up into rows containing no more than 10 adjacent stalls,
separated by planting areas.
(8) Pedestrian walkways (minimum six feet wide) shall be provided between the interior
of the project and the public sidewalk.
(9) Lighting fixtures should not exceed 20 feet in height and shall include cutoff shields.
This shall not apply to public parks and school stadiums.
20.
FittUH.: ¡ (~ . Si..--c. 12. (.;t.<I (II)
(10) Principal entries to buildings shall be highlighted with plaza or garden areas
containing planting, lighting, seating, trellises and other features. Such areas shall be located and
designed so windows overlook them.
(\;)2002 Code Publishing Co. Page I
I -..,'
t: )\.1-1 :
PAGE
a
ao
--~
filiI/" 1'1 . ~.". 22. 16"'~ (,.,
(11) Common recreational spaces shall be located and arranged so that windows overlook
them.
"'--...
- ........;.':J
--- ..
-"",-
Fi!,\lt~ lb. M:..'. 11. 16~ (a)
(12) Units on the ground floor (when permitted) shall have private outdoor spaces
adjacent to them so those exterior portions of the site are controlled by individual households.
F¡$.it\~ 19 - s.~" 22 . 1(,38 ;1<1
(13) All new buildings, including accessory buildings, such as carports and garages shall
appear to have a roof pitch ranging from at least 4: 12 to a maximum of 12: 12.
(\;)2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 2
fíg\1(Ç 1(1. ~. 22 - :631; íd;
EXH ~ b ~-,.
P AG F 3
!
).0
. J.-
(14) Carports and garages in front yards should be discouraged.
(15) The longest dimension of any building facade shall not exceed 120 feet. Buildings
on the same site may be connected by covered pedestrian walkways.
(16) Buildings should be designed to have a distinct "base", "middle" and "top" The base
(typically the first floor) should contain the greatest number of architectural elements such as
windows, materials, details, overhangs, cornice lines, and masonry belt courses. The midsection
by comparison may be simple. (Note: single-story buildings have no middle.) The top should
avoid the appearance of a flat roof and include distinctive roof shapes including but not limited to
pitched, vaulted or terraced, etc.
Fíj;ure 21. 'X'r, n. 16\8 (..)
(17) Residential design features, including but not limited to entry porches, projecting
window bays, balconies or decks, individual windows (rather than strip windows), offsets and
cascading or stepped roof forms shall be incorporated into all buildings. Window openings shall
have visible trim material or painted detailing that resembles trim.
(b) Office park (OP), corporate park (cP), and business park (BP).
(I) Surface parking may be located behind the building, to the side(s) of the building, or
adjacent to the right-of-way; provided, however, that parking located adjacent to the right-of-way
maximizes pedestrian access and circulation pursuant to FWcc 22-1634( d).
(2) Buildings with ground floor retail sales or services should orient major entrances,
display windows and other pedestrian features to the right-of-way to the extent possible.
(3) Ground-level mirrored or reflective glass is not encouraged adjacent to a public right-
of-way or pedestrian area.
(4) If utilized, chain-link fences visible from public rights-of-way shall utilize vinyl-
coated mesh and powder-coated poles.
For non-single-family residential uses only:
(5) Subsections (a)(5) through (A)(17) of this section shall apply.
(c) City center core (CC-C) and city center frame (Cc-F).
(I) The city center core and frame will contain transitional forms of development with
surface parking areas. However, as new development or re-development occurs, the visual
(\;)2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 3
EXHIBIT
~ø
dominance of surface parking areas shall be reduced. ThereeeA~~ park~ are'~s shalld-
located as follows:
a. The parking is located behind the building, with the building located between the
right-of-way and the parking areas, or it is located in structured parking; or . ,
b. All or some of the parking is located to the side(s) of the building; or
c. Some short-term parking may be located between the building(s) and the right-of-
way, but this shall not consist of more than one double-loaded drive aisle, and pedestrian
circulation shall be provided pursuant to FWCC 22-1634( d).
Large retail complexes may not be able to locate parking according to the above guidelines.
Therefore, retail complexes of 60,000 square feet of gross floor area or larger may locate surface
parking between the building(s) and the right-of-way. Howwer, this form of development shall
provide for small building(s) along the right-of-way to break up and reduce the visual impact of
the parking, and pedestrian circulation must be provided pursuant to FWCC 22-1634(d). For
purposes of this guideline, retail complex means the entire lot or parcel, or series of lots or
parcels, on which a development, activity or use is located or will locate.
(2) Entrance facades shall front on, face, or be clearly recognizable from the right-of-
way; and should incorporate windows and other methods of articulation.
(3) Building facades that are visible from a right-of-way and subject to modulation per
FWCC 22-1635(b), shall incorporate facade treatment as follows:
. a. The facade incorporates modulation and/or a landscape screening, pursuant to
FWcC 22-1635(b); and
b. The facade incorporates an arcade, canopy or plaza; and/or one or more
articulation element listed in FWcc 22-1635( c )(2); provided, that the resulting building
characteristics achieve visual interest and appeal at a pedestrian scale and proximity, contribute to
a sense of public space, and reinforce the pedestrian experience.
(4) Drive-through facilities and stacking lanes shall not be located along a facade of a
building that faces a right-of-way.
(5) Above-grade parking structures with a ground level facade visible from a right-of-
way shall incorporate any combination ofthe following elements at the ground level:
a. Retail, commercial, or office uses that occupy at least 50 percent of the building's
lineal frontage along the right-of-way; or
b. A 15-foot-wide strip of Type III landscaping along the base of the facade; or
c. A decorative grille or screen that conceals interior parking areas from the right-of-
way.
(6) Facades of parking structures shall be articulated above the ground level pursuant to
FWCC 22-1635(c)(1).
(7) When curtain wall glass and steel systems are used to enclose a building, the glazing
panels shall be transparent on 50 percent of the ground floor facade fronting a right-of-way or
pedestrian area.
(8) Chain-link fences shall not be allowed. Barbed or razor wire shall not be used.
For non-single-family residential uses only:
(9) Subsections (a)(5) through (a)(17) of this section shall apply.
(d) For all residential zones.
(1) Non-residential uses. Subsections (a)(5) through (a)(lO) and (a)(13) through (a)(17) of
this section shall apply.
(2) Non-single-family re'sidential uses. Subsections (a)(5) through (a)(17) of this section
shall apply. (Ord. No. 96-271, § 3, 7-2-96; Ord. No. 99-333, § 3, 1-19-99; Ord. No. 01-382, § 3, 1-16-01)
(\;)2002 Code Publishing Co. Page 4