The URL can be used to link to this page

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>ttÃ -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;ß§~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