Planning Commission PKT 07-17-2019N �
City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
July, 17, 2019 City Hall
6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 5, 2019, Public Hearing
4. AUDIENCE COMMENT.— UNRELATED TO COMMISSION BUSINESS
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
I
6. COMMISSION'BUSINESS
• Discussion: Update on the City Center Access Plan. PW
• Discussion: Housekeeping Amendments Proposed for the Code
7. -r-ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
8. ADJOURN -
City Staff
Robert "Doc" Hansen, Planning Manager
Margaret Clark, Principal Planner
E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant
253435-2601
www.citvoffederalway.com
Commissioners
Wayne Carlson, Chair
Tom Medhurst, Vice -Chair
Lawson Bronson
Hope'Elder
Dawn Meader McCausland
Tim O Neil
Diana Noble-Gulliford
Dale Couture, Alternate
Eric Olsen, Alternate
K: (Planning Commissionl20M4gmdalAgmda 07-17-19.dm
J
City Staff
Robert "Doc" Hansen, Planning Manager
Margaret Clark, Principal Planner
E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant
253435-2601
www.citvoffederalway.com
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 5, 2019 City Hall
6:30 p.m. 'City Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Wayne Carlson, Lawson Bronson, Dawn Meader McCausland, Tim O'Neil, Diana
Noble-Gulliford, Eric Olsen, and Dale Couture. Commissioners,absent: Tom Medhurst and Hope Elder
(ex). City Staff present: Planning Manager Robert "Doc" Hansen, Principal Planner Mamaret Clark, Senior
ie Master
DISCUSSION: Upcoming Items Before Council for Docket— Kitts Corner and Belmore
Principal Planner Clark delivered a short presentation. City staff has started the 2019 comprehensive plan
amendment process. As part -of that process, the City Council makes a determination of what, if any,
proposals will go through the process (the selection process). Staff prepares a preliminary report with a
preliminary analysis (per the criteria in the Federal Way Revised Code [FWRC]) and the Mayor's
recommendation based on those criteria. Once the Council makes the selection of what will be included in
that year's update, staff prepares a more substantial analysis (again per the FWRC). After environmental
review, that report and updated Mayor's recommendation will go through the Planning Commission (for a
public hearing), LUTC, and Council (for final approval). These two requests have been reviewed by the
LUTC, are now before the Commission for briefing purposes, and will go to the Council for the final
decision to select them for further analysis or not.
The Kitts Corner (Federal Way Village) is a request for a rezone from Community Business with
Conditions, to just Community Business (no conditions). The site is 20.61 acres located west of Pacific
Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 June 5, 2019
Highway South and south of South 336`h Street. The existing use is vacant land with an office and
automobile shop. The Mayor recommends this proposal moves forward for further review. The LUTC
concurs with the Mayor's recommendation.
The Belmore request is for a rezone from Multi -Family (RM 3600) to City Center -Core (CC -Q. The site
is 62.74 acres located south of South 324h Street and west of I-5. The existing use is the Belmore Mobile
Home Park. The Mayor recommends this proposal moves forward for further review. The LUTC concurs
with the Mayor's recommendation.
Commissioner O'Neil regarding the Kitt's Corner proposal, he recalls there was a proposal about 2011,
what happened to that? Planner Clark replied that the problem is that,the owner (and the city) receives
proposed plans and ideas, but no one has moved forward with them The property will likely develop if
the city removes the conditions, including the requirement to pre/pare-/a master plan. The proposal in
question is currently extended to April 2020. CommissionerfNoble-Gulliford asked why the conditions
were applied in the first place. Planner Clark replied that tlfe. Council�at the time wanted to be assured any
development would be more substantial, not simply a gas station and convenience store, strip
development, etc. They wanted to see something like the Kent's Commons.aCommissioner Noble-
Gulliford asked if the conditions that would be removed include conditions for the roads. Planner Clark
replied that any conditions regarding the roads will remain. It is just the zoning conditions they are asking
be removed. Commissioner Meader McCausland asked,if staff would`consider new conditions under this
proposal. Planner Clark replied that staff has not analyzed possible additional conditions; but likely will
not propose any additional conditions.
Commissioner Meader McCausland asked if commercial designstandards have changed to lthe point that
not requiring the conditions will likely lead to the type°of development the former Council wanted to see.
Planner Clark replied that,the st ndards have not�changed%Commissioner Noble-Gulliford asked why the
properties to the west of Belmor are not being considered as part.of this proposal. Planner Clark responded
that the city currently has a developer who is proposing senior housing on one of the parcels. The city has
not received any interest from -the owners of the other parcel. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford expressed
concern that since it is the owner of the mobile home "park who received notice of this meeting, the
individual own rse of "the mobile.homes may.no't"be aware. Manager Hanson commented that the owner of
the mobile home" park is the applicant and that effort`s=have been made to make the residents aware of this
process He noted that staff will include�'comments from}residents in any further research. Planner Clark
stated that t the environmental�'eview�stage (SEPA) the city will post the site with notice boards, so the
residents will be made aware of.tl e,proposal this way if they haven't already heard. It will also be posted
prior to the Commission's public'hearing. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford asked if Sound Transit has been
notified. Manager,Hansen replied that Sound Transit has been involved. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford
asked how the proposed three years of back rent compare with the current Landlord/Tenant law. Planner
Clark replied she does not know at this time. Staff will consider this during further research.
r
Commissioner Bronson exp essed concern regarding a possible extension of South 324`h over I-5. Planner
Clark replied that the city (just today) received the report of three possible alternatives for the extension of
South 324`h. Since the report just arrived, staff will plan for an update to the Commission on a later date.
Chair Carlson asked how much analysis has staff done on these proposals. Planner Clark replied that staff
has only analyzed them regarding if they meet the FWRC criteria. Staff is waiting on some studies from
the applicant. Chair Carlson asked if the city has received statistics of population increase that would
support such an up -zone in this area. Planner Clark replied the city works closely with the Puget Sound
Regional Council (PSRC) on this issue. The city's current population target will have to be increased to
accommodate this increase in units. Staff has talked to PSRC and they don't foresee any problems with an
increase. It can be included in PSRC's update to the 2050 Vision, which they have started.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 June 5, 2019
Commissioner Meader McCausland asked if the applicant has considered phasing their proposed
development. Planner Clark replied that the city has not gotten to that level of detail as yet. The applicant
intends to submit a "vision statement" for the proposal before the end of the month. Commissioner Meader
McCausland asked in regards to the Kitt's Corner proposal, would housing be allowed. Planner Clark replied
that senior housing is allowed in the Community Business zone outright, general apartments must have some
sort of commercial on the first floor; so it would be mixed-use. Commissioner Meader McCausland asked if
there are conditions on multi -family when it abuts single-family housing. Planner Clark replied there are no
conditions, but in this case, there will be a large buffer because there is a wetland on each side.
DISCUSSION: Housekeeping Amendments Planned Within the Next Two Months
Manager Hansen informed the Commission about what housekeeping amendments are planned for the
next two months. They are the first 12 items on the Commission's work program. He expects to bring
them before the Commission within the next two months. There will be study sessions before the public
hearing so Commissioners will have a good understanding of the proposals before the hearing. No
Commissioner comments.`
DISCUSSION: Sound Transit Update
Senior Planner Ryan Medlen led the discussion. He is a new city employee who wtll'be serving as the
point person'with Sound Transit. There are three pieces,of the Sound Transit process, currently working
their way through the city. The first is the Federal Way Link Extension (the,line from•`Angle Lake to the
Federal Way Transit Center). The development agreement for, this was approved by the City Council and
` will now go to Sound Transit for their approval.and,then will be signed by all parties. Sound Transit has
selected their Design Build Contractor, Kiewit; who is located in Federal Way. Expect permitting activity
to start soon and may even have -some minor` c�o'nstruction activity later this year.
The city has two of the sites nude sideratio�for�theOperatio d Maintenance Facility. The city is
focused on lobbying for, the.Midway,landfill site in Kent: Likely wo`n't'know more until mid -2020, which
'is when it is expected the`draft,EIS will come out.
The third piece is the Tacoma Dome Link Extension(Federal Way Transit Center to Tacoma Dome). It is
nearing.the end of the scoping phase.'Itis expected t ' t,Sound Transit will identify alternatives for further
study in July. 'The Council voted last -night to send a letter supporting two sites in particular (SF8/9, which
runs by Jet�Chevrolet and SF2 West [preferred], which runs by Enchanted Parkway; out of six identified).
Commissioned- Bronson commented that he was a stakeholder in a group that now has been dissolved. He
finds it interesting that -the Council',is supporting the S178/9 alternative because the stakeholders group felt
it was not justified. It would be quite'a challenge getting through the area and none of them saw a_'
reasonable way of doing.so\When will be the next public comment opportunity? Planner Medlen stated
the next would be with Sound Transit. He doesn't know when the issue will next appear before the City
Council, but they always have an opportunity for public comment.
Commissioner Noble-Gulliford asked if an analysis has been done on the possible fiscal impact if we lose
the Jet Chevrolet property for auto sales. Planner Medlen replied not to his knowledge, but usually a fiscal
impact study is done as part of the environmental review, which will be done by Sound Transit. He
doesn't know if the possible fiscal impact of losing the site for auto sales will be included in the study.
Commissioner Noble-Gulliford commented that the city is likely to see construction lasting some ten years
for this project. We are seeing the beginning of businesses being purchased by Sound Transit. As a result,
we are losing jobs and businesses in our city. Sound Transit will need a substantially amount of property
for all three pieces of this project. It means a substantially about of jobs and businesses'seeing negative
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 June 5, 2019
effects and a substantial amount of negative effects on the traffic. Has the city considered a study that
includes all three pieces and the affect the changes/construction will have on the city and what would be
the best way to approach the proposals? Planner Medlen commented that Sound Transit has purchased
most of the property for the Federal Way Link Extension. For the Tacoma Dome Extension, the city has
seen some preliminary reports of possible impacts. Once a decision of the alternatives is made, the city
will be able to review impact reports prepared for the alternatives. Economic Director,Tim Johnson has
been proactively speaking too many of the businesses that may be affected. Chair Carlson commented that
it seems Commissioner Noble-Gulliford's concern is that the city is being reactive and if the city were
proactive and produced such reports, Sound Transit might take them into account during their selection
process for their preferred alternative. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford commented that when ST3 was,
approved by voters, there wasn't much said in regards to Transit Oriented Development, but there is now.
It seems Sound Transit is basing part of their decision of where to-place''the route on how much they can
make from Transit Oriented Development and it has changed the dynamics of this project. How is the city
planning for it? Manager Hansen commented that he differsw'ith,the Commissioner's concern that the city
has been reactive and not proactive. In the past, the city did,not'participate has much as we could have due
to internal complications. Currently, the city is being much`more proactive. There are currently nine
alternatives because when Sound Transit first proposed one route, the city insisted that alternatives be
considered, not just one. It is because of the city's involvement that there is an active outreach program
and that citizen and business comments are being seriously considered.
Commissioner O'Neil asked how will pedestrians be able to cross 3201h. Planner Clark,.replied that the
city is contemplating ideas for this issue, but has not yet reached Aecision.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS`t
None
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 7.30 P:M.)
KAPIa ing
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 June 5, 2019
I
r
5
Attachment A
Discussion
Update on the City Center Access Plan
CITY OF
Federal My
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 17, 2019
TO: Wayne Carlson, Planning Commission Chair
FROM: EJ Walsh, Public Works Dire'"ctor
—Rick Perez, City Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: % Update on City Center Access Plan
PROJECT UPDATE TO PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff will provide an update to the Planning Commission including status of public outreach, alternatives
removed from consideration, alternatives being further analyzed, and next steps.
I. BACKGROUND
The City has struggled with congestion on S 320`h Street since its incorporation. The street attracts high
volumes of traffic for a variety of reasons:
1. It has one of only three interchanges on I-5 serving a population of over 150,000 (Federal Way,
- its Potential Annexation Area, and Northeast Tacoma);
2. It is one of the few continuous east -west corridors in the City;,
, 3. It runs directly through the City Center area and connects directly to Auburn.
4. Congestion on I-5 from the Fife curve frequently backs up to S 320`h Street, thus making it a
popular location -to start diverting from 1-5 to alternative routes.
None of these issues are going to be resolved anytime soon. In addition, these issues are and will be
compounded by the following factors:
1. Consistent with state, regional, and county policies, the City's Comprehensive Plan calls for the
concentration of employment and housing in the City Center.
2. The extension of light rail to Federal Way Transit Center will attract a larger number of regional
trips to the City Center, and a large number of local pedestrian trips. This phenomenon will be
particularly acute between 2024 and 2030, when this will be the interim terminus of light rail.
3. The existing spacing of traffic signals is too close, making signal coordination difficult and not
providing adequate queue storage between signals. Safety concerns and the potential for gridlock
will increase if vehicles block intersections. ,
4. As density increases in the City Center, pedestrian traffic will increase, creating more conflicts
between pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
Recognizing this, the City conducted a Feasibility Study in 2003, which concluded that federal criteria
were met to allow improved access to I-5. f This resulted in a more detailed analysis starting in 2007 that
Planning Commission Staff Report July 17, 2019
Update on City Center Access Plan
Pagel of 2
was to conclude with an environmental review to select a preferred alternative and preliminary design.
Due to opposition to both S 312"' Street and S 324`h Street alternatives, the City Council selected a No
Build Alternative.
During the recovery from the 2009 recession, traffic once again became a major concern. To address this
concern, the City re-initiated the City Center Access Project.
The attached document (which is also on the project's web page) describes in greater detail the process
for analysis, the current status of the project, and opportunities for public input.
Planning Commission StaffReport July 17, 2019
Update on City, Center Access Plan
Page 2 of 2
i
City Center Access Project I City of Federal Way Page I of 8
City Center Access Project
CITY OF
'... Federal Way
CITY CENTER ACCESS PROJECT
Project news
• On June 19, Project Study Support Team (including Washington State Department of
Transportation (https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/), Federal Highways Administration
(https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/wadiv/), King County
(https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/local-services/roads.aspx), Sound Transit
(https://www.soundtransit.org/), and King County Metro
(https://kingcounty.gov/depts/transportation/metro.aspx)) made a final decision to
remove the S 312th Street interchange modification option from further
consideration as part of this study. This means the City will move forward
considering S 324th Street interchange modification option.
• Meet the City Center Access Project Team at Federal Way's Red, White and Blues
Festival (https://itallhappenshere.org/event/red-white-blues/) on July 4 and
Summer Sounds at Steel Lake Park (https://itallhappenshere.org/event/summer-
sounds-concert-series-3/) on August 14!
What will happen next?
We will continue to evaluate solutions, share information with the community, and collect
more feedback. We're on track to recommend a preferred alternative to the Federal Way
City Council by the end of the year.
Our team will move forward with evaluating various options for interchange modifications
at S 324th Street and possible local street improvements, including:
• S 312th Street from 23rd Avenue S to Military Road
• 32nd Avenue S from S 320th Street to Military Road
• 320th/324th couplet (one-way streets)
• HOV lanes on S 320th Street between Pacific Highway S and Military Road
https://www.cityoffederalway.com/node/3677 7/12/2019
City Center Access Project I City of Federal Way
Next steps
Page 2 of 8
summer and fall 2019
About the City Center Access Project
The City of Federal Way is working to ease traffic congestion in the area around S 320th
Street between SR 99/Pacific Highway and Military Road S.
https://www.cityoffederaIway.com/node/3677 7/12/2019
City Center Access Project I City of Federal Way
Page 3 of 8
The City re-initiated the Federal Way City Center Access Project in Fall 2017. The City has
been working to develop solutions with community members and partners at the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/), Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/), Puget Sound
Regional Council (PSRC) (https://www.psrc.org/), Sound Transit
(https://www.soundtransit.org/), Pierce Transit (https://www.piercetransit.org/), South
King Fire and Rescue (http://southkingfire.org/), and King County
(https://www.kingcounty.gov/).
What problem are we trying to solve?
Interstate 5 (I-5) and local streets in Federal Way's City Center are strained by sustained
growth. As more people move to the area, traffic will continue to increase. Traffic delays
during the afternoon are approaching unacceptable levels, even with the expansion of
mass transit.
This study supports transportation infrastructure needed to support the City of Federal
Way's Comprehensive Plan (http://www.cityoffederalway.com/content/comprehensive-
plan). This study is identified in the City of Federal Way 6 -Year Transportation
Improvement Plan (TIP)
(http://www.cityoffederalway.com/sites/default/files/Documents/Department/PW/Traffic/tipl
20for%20website.pdf) as an environmental documentation study.and state roadway
networks are showing the strain of sustained growth. Anticipated growth and development
in the City Center are expected to worsen this strain. Traffic delays during the afternoon
peak period are approaching unacceptable levels, even with the expansion of alternative
transporation modes, such as mass transit.
This study supports transportation infrastructure needed to support the City of Federal
Way's Comprehensive Plan (http://www.cityoffederalway.com/content/comprehensive-
plan). This study is identified in the City of Federal Way 6 -Year Transportation
Improvement Plan (TIP)
(http://www.cityoffederalway.com/sites/default/files/Documents/Department/PW/Traffic/tipl
20for%20website.pdf) as an environmental documentation study.
What is the solution?
We are working to find a solution that will make it easier for people to travel into, out of
and around the City Center. Successful solutions will improve quality of life and the City's
economic vitality by:
https://www.cityoffederalway.com/node/3677 7/ 122017
City Center Access Project I City of Federal Way
Page 4 of 8
• Improving mobility for people traveling by car, transit, bike, or walking by
decreasing congestion on S 320th Street
• Maintaining or improving access to and from the City Center
• Providing opportunities for traffic to travel around rather than through the city core
Early this year we concluded changing access to I-5 is necessary to improve congestion.
We evaluated how interchange alternatives might improve congestion in the City Center.
Interchanges at S 304th, S 288th, S 296th, and S 336 streets do not provide the traffic
relief on 320th and I-5 ramps compared to the modified interchanges at S 312th and S
324th streets, and increase safety issues with the additional interchange access points.
Therefore, these alternatives were eliminated from further consideration.
Interchange access improvements with ramps at S 312th Street have operational impacts
to Federal Way Link Extension light rail, high potential for Steel Lake Park and
neighborhood impacts and lack of stakeholder acceptance. Additionally, an I-5 access at S
312th Streets does not directly serve the City Center Core. Therefore, this alternative
were eliminated from further consideration.
This map (/sites/default/files/2B_2C_ AI_Slide3-2.pdf) highlights areas for ramp changes
and local roadway improvements. We are evaluating which of these will work best for
residents and businesses.
How have we engaged the community?
S 324th Street Interchange Alternatives
S 324th Street Alternative
530 hSt
5 31.1 5 $
CityCenter
vv.5324kh 5t
S$
y+�
S 324th Street Alternative One-way streets (couplet) option
s3 "s I
5 31zm 3i
z
City Center
5 3161h $t S
m v.�ummeox
awmew�.nrr
N•Sl16MwJ39U Sb
https://www.cityoffederalway.com/node/3677 7/12/2019
vv592
MSt-,
A%i
\
w. Erem�MI
3i
rein
m v.�ummeox
awmew�.nrr
N•Sl16MwJ39U Sb
https://www.cityoffederalway.com/node/3677 7/12/2019
City Center Access Project I City of Federal Way
Page 5 of 8
The City began work on the City Center Access Study in late 2017 to determine the
purpose and need for a solution through preliminary analysis and public feedback. The
community helped the project team understand the issues currently facing the City
Center, including specific problem areas and potential solutions.
After holding stakeholder interviews, community briefings, tabling events, a public in-
person open house and an online open house, the City of Federal Way confirmed the
purpose and need of the study and moved forward to consider solutions in the local only
analysis phase.
The community helped us define the City Center Access Project purpose and need in 2018
through:
• 21 interviews
• 4 community briefings
• 3 tabling events
• 1 public in-person open house
• 1 online open house
We received 169 comments that helped the project team understand public perception of
issues and opportunities around City Center. You can download a summary
(https://www.cityoffederaIway.com/sites/default/files/CCA%20Comment%20Summary%
20Final.pdf) of the comments or a full report
(https://www.cityoffederaIway. com/sites/default/files/CCA%20Purpose%20and%
20Need%200utreach%20Report%20-%20Spring%202018-CFW.pdf) of the outreach
completed in 2018.
In May 2019, members of the project team met with neighbors immediately adjacent to
the alternatives the City were considering (S 312th Street and S 324th Street) to hear
their ideas, questions, and concerns.
Several key themes emerged from conversations we had with when we went door to door
to invite neighbors to the meetings and at the meetings themselves, including:
Concern about an interchange modification at S 312th Street and local
improvements near S 312th Street east of I-5 on S 312th Street, S 316th Street,
and 32nd Avenue.
Concern about noise, air, and safety impacts to Steel Lake Park with any changes to
S 312th Street.
https://www.cityoffederalway.com/node/3677 7/12/2019
City Center Access Project I City of Federal Way Page 6 of 8
You can download a summary
(https://www.cityoffederalway.com/sites/default/files/CCA%20Briefing%20Summary%
20Final%2006%2020%2019-reposted%20on%206%2020%2019.pdf) of the feedback
from these meetings. We will consider all the input we heard as we evaluate the possible
solutions.
Why are we evaluating modifications to ramps on 1-5?
Based on analysis from in April 2018 to early 2019, the project team concluded only
revised access to I-5 will improve City Center congestion. During that time, the project
team evaluated how specific "local only" solutions might improve congestion in the City
Center without revising access to I-5. "Local only" solutions are projects in or near the
study area that would not alter I-5 interchanges.
Public input generated several of the solutions the project team analyzed during this
phase, including (see map
(https://www.cityoffederaIway.com/sites/default/files/Capacity%20Map.pdf)):
• Add S 312th Street crossing over I-5
• Widen Military Road South to S 272nd Street
• Intersection capacity improvements along S 320th Street
• Extend S 317th Street direct access ramp interchange to east side of I-5
• Extend 23rd Avenue S to S 336th Street
• Ring Road extension
The analysis looked at projects ranging from roadway capacity improvements to
enhancements to transit, high occupancy vehicle (HOV), and pedestrian and bike access,
and new freeway overcrossings. The City Center Access project team used computer
modeling to test these solutions and learn how they might affect travel conditions into and
within the City Center area.
After modeling the projected performance of each solution, including models that
packaged all solutions together, the project team concluded that local only projects will
not provide enough relief to the City Center congestion. The project team further
concluded that modifications to I-5 access, with some local elements, will be needed to
address the need as established by the City Center Access study.
The project team concluded only revised access to I-5 will improve City Center congestion and is beginning
work on an Access Revision Report. The project team is now evaluating various possible solutions, including
modifications at S 312th Street, S 324th Street, combination interchange options, and local projects.
https://www.cityoffederalway.com/node/3677 7/12/2019
City Center Access Project � City of Federal Way Page 7 of 8
Project history
In 2004, the City of Federal Way initiated a similar study to determine what
transportation system changes were needed to preserve mobility in the City Center. The
purpose of the City Center Access Study was to evaluate current and future mobility in
the City Center and identify a strategy for improving access and circulation.
The first phase of study evaluated strategies for improving access and circulation to the
City Center in a three-step screening process. The study evaluated a total of 47 potential
solutions, including local improvements and modified or new interchanges. At that time,
most traffic flowed to and from I-5, favoring an interchange modification alternative. The
first phase of the study identified two preliminary preferred solutions to move forward to
environmental review.
After narrowing the options down to three alternatives, the City initiated the second phase
of the study. To better understand the strengths and weaknesses of each option, the City
of Federal Way, in partnership with FHWA, WSDOT, King County, and the study's Public
Stakeholder Team, evaluated the results of environmental studies and weighed public
interests and concerns. The alternatives included a No Build Alternative and two build
options (Alternatives 1 and 2) with proposed modifications to existing interchange ramps
and improvements to local roads on and around the South 320th Street interchange near
I-5.
In December 2008, the Public Stakeholder Team recommended Alternative 1, a new
interchange modification at 312th Street
(https://www.cityoffederaIway.com/sites/default/files/CITY%20CENTER%20ACCESS%
20PROJECT-alt%201.pdf), as the preferred option to deliver faster and safer access to and
from the City Center. The city also led an outreach process to gather input from the
community. In April 2009, the City Council considered stakeholder and community input
and selected the No Build Alternative. As a result, the project was put on hold.
In 2018, due to continued and anticipated growth and development in the City Center,
the City has started this project to address a growing problem with traffic delays, safety,
and mobility for drivers, transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The City has reestablished the
Support Team for the project to complete the study and environmental documentation for
the project.
https://www.cityoffederalway.com/node/367 7/12/2019
City Center Access Project I City of Federal Way Page 8 of 8
The Future of Federal Way
The City Center Access Study is part of Federal Way's effort to develop a thriving
community and robust economy that is prepared for fast regional growth. The City Center
Access project team recently participated in a peer exchange
(https://www. planning.dot.gov/peer/washington/federalway11-14-18.asp) (Full Report
(https://www.cityoffederaIway.com/sites/default/files/FederaIWay_11-14-18-Final%
20Peer%20 Exchange% 20 Report.pdf)) with neighboring communities in Shoreline and
Bellevue and two other U.S. cities that have faced similar growth in recent years.
Participants discussed ideas for innovative ways for residents to access transit,
opportunities for partnerships and Subarea Plan development needs.
Federal Way's City Center is a designated regional growth center/urban center, as
discussed in Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan. Concentrating urban development in
the City's Center and secondary commercial district preserves Federal Way's primarily
residential community and open natural areas. Development activity in the City Center is
creating infrastructure and laying the foundation for vibrant neighborhoods where
residents have the option of walking, bicycling, or using transit for most of their needs.
This study will support the City's effort to move forward with development in thoughtful
ways that work for people who live, work, and play in Federal Way.
Talk to Us!
We look forward to collaborating with you to make Federal Way a great place to live and
work for generations to come. Please contact us with questions or comments:
City Center Access Hotline: 253-835-2714 (available in Spanish, Korean and English)
City Center Access Project Manager: Naveen Chandra, P.E., Street Systems Project
Engineer; Naveen.Chandra@cityoffederalway.com
(ma iIto: Naveen.Cha ndra@cityoffederalway.com); 253-835-2729
https://www.cityoffederalway.com/node/3677 7/12/2019
Attachment B
Discussion
Housekeeping Amendments
Proposed for the Code
Proposed Housekeeping Code Amendments - Draft
Planning Commission Discussion
July 17, 2019
1. Addressing Time to Address Completeness
14.10.020 Lead agency determination and responsibilities.
(6) Within - 80 days of issuing a letter of completeness for the application and environmental checklist,
the responsible official shall make a threshold determination or notify the applicant that a determination of
significance is likely and indicate the areas of likely impact. The applicant may request an additional 30
days for the issuance of the threshold determination by the responsible official, or for the responsible
official to evaluate mitigation measures proposed by the applicant. The responsible official shall grant such
extension, if requested. A final determination shall be made within 90 days from the receipt of the
applicant's response for additional information, unless the applicant requests an additional 30 days as
provided in this section.
2. Addressing Issue Between G°Lot" and "Tract" (to allow tracts to be listed without
counting them as "lots" within a short plat)
18.05.010
"Tract" means a fractional part of subdivided lands having fixed boundaries, which is dedicated or reserved
by appropriate covenant or plat restriction for purposes of ingress, egress, utility access, open space,
drainage or other purpose necessary to the public welfare.
3. Addressing Notice for Owners Adjacent to Short Plats (providing adjacent
landowners in a short plat the same courtesy as provided land owners adjacent a long plat)
Proposed Housekeeping Code Amendments -- Draft July 17, 2019
Planning Commission Discussion Page 1 of 4
18.30.080 Notice.
(2) Distribution. Within 14 days of issuance of the letter of completeness, and at least 14 calendar days
before the deadline for submitting comments, the director of community development services shall
distribute this notice as follows:
(a) A copy of the notice will be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the city.
(b) A copy of the notice will be conspicuously posted — property
adjoining a public right-of-way.
(c) A copy of the notice will be posted on each of the official notification boards of the city and public
libraries located within the city.
r. �Vi' .,; Sett i E' persons receiving the prJNE,`iy :c3X S c,,, 'er'iS -or alp , 3 -
of t :cn r;E�r,� ary uT tire Sunlect property
F. f':nt Uba?iE .,f t ,e Groperty veil h is propesea t;i :)e SUDG!yIGer3 o✓ if anot it
N cpe a .�n r le auiacen? to Cn-- property proposed to oe suc c!vioee c;ice of
of property locaiec within 300 meet of -3n , Dortc rnc- �)o nu�jnes e E .cer
4. Addressing Distinction Between "Convalescent Center" and "Special
Needs" (to distinguish between the types of care facilities which may or may not have full-
time staff needs)
19.05 Definitions.
"Convalescent center" means an inpatient facility
for patients who are recovering from an illness or who are receiving care for chronic conditions;
mental, physical, emotional or developmental disabilities; terminal illness; or alcohol or drug treatment and
may include assisted living facilities.
"Special needs housing" means housing not specifically defined by this title, and which will be processed
under the classification most closely related to the proposed use, as determined by the director.
Proposed Housekeeping Code Amendments -- Draft July 17, 2019
Planning Commission Discussion Page 2 of 4
5. Addressing Double Notice Requirement for Variances (if a notice is sent out for
a land use action other than avariance, there is no reason to duplicate the notice)
19.45.015 Administrative variance.
(1) Scope. The community development director may grant a variance that does not exceed 25 percent of
the measurable standard.
(2) n otice. A notice of impending decision shall be issued with content items and distribution
methods set forth in FWRC 19.65.070 at least 15 days prior to the director's decision.
6. Addressing Zoning Line Dividing Lots
19.190.020 Zoning boundary interpretation.
(1) Following property lines. Where a zone boundary is indicated as approximately following a property
line, the property line is the zone boundary.
(2) Following streets. Where a zone boundary is indicated as following a street, the midpoint of the street is
the zone boundary.
(3) Other cases. Where a zone boundary is not indicated to follow a property line or street, =- >- -1-_-
7. Addressing IIFamily Day Care" with Reference to State Requirements
RCW 36.70A.450 (4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a county or city from imposing
zoning conditions on the establishment and maintenance of a family day-care provider's home in an area
zoned for residential or commercial use, so long as such conditions are no more restrictive than conditions
imposed on other residential dwellings in the same zone and the establishment of such facilities is not
precluded. As used in this section, "family day-care provider" is as defined in RCW 43.216.010.
Proposed Housekeeping Code Amendments -- Draft July 17, 2019
Planning Commission Discussion Page 3 of 4
19.105.070 Family day care.
Family day care is permitted in conjunction with any residential use in any zoning district provided it meets
all of the following criteria:
(1) The use must be operated as part of a principal residential use.
(2) The use must be licensed by the state, if required. Family child day care homes as defined by RCW
43.215.010 must be licensed by the state Department of Social and Health Services.
(3) All city licensing, zoning, building, housing, and fire regulations applicable to the underlying type of
housing in which the use exists (i.e., single-family residence, multifamily residence, etc.) must be met.
(4) Lot size, building size, setbacks, and lot coverage must conform to those applicable to the zoning
district. If the lot or structure is legally nonconforming the family day care may be approved through
process III review.
(5) No more than two persons who are not residents of the dwelling unit may be employed or work at the
family day care at any one time.
I— __ The family day care may be required to limit its hours of operation to reduce impacts on nearby
residential uses.
Proposed Housekeeping Code Amendments -- Draft July 17, 2019
Planning Commission Discussion Page 4 of 4