Loading...
Res 92-101 RESOLUTION NO. 92-l0l A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, APPROVING CONDITIONS THE BINDING SITE PLAN OF FRANCIS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL (FEDERAL WAY NO. UP3-91-0002). CITY WITH ST. FILE WHEREAS, applicant had applied to King County for binding site plan approval; and WHEREAS, the Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on January 7, 1992, concerning the binding site plan of st. Francis Hospital; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said hearing the Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner issued its Findings, Conclusions, Conditions, and Recommendation on January 22, 1992; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the city of Federal Way is the governmental body having jurisdiction and authority to pass upon the approval, denial or modification of the conditions of said binding site plan pursuant to RCW Chapter 58.17, and Federal Way Zoning Code sections 16.420 et seq.; and WHEREAS, the City Council having considered the written record and recommendation of the Hearing Examiner, pursuant to Federal Way Code 16.430.30, on this date; and 1 COpy WHEREAS, pursuant to Federal Way Code 155.70, a challenge to the Hearing Examiner's recommendation was filed on this binding site plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Federal Way Code 155.75(3) (a) after consideration of the entire matter on the record before the Hearing Examiner, the Council shall grant, modify and grant or deny the application; and WHEREAS, after full consideration, the Council has determined that the conditions jointly proposed in the Staff Report and Amended Challenge filed in this matter constitute a basis to modify the application pursuant to Federal Way Zoning Code 155.75.3(a)2 and 155.75.5; but do not raise significant issues for which an additional public hearing is required; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: section 1. The findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner issued on January 22, 1992, following a hearing held on January 7,1992, which included a recommendation to approve the binding site plan of st. Francis Hospital, subject to certain conditions, are hereby adopted as the Findings and Conclusions of the City Council, with the addition of the following Findings: 1. Increasing the predictability of the timing of the street dedication aids the applicant and the public by allowing more efficient planning for the Hospital's resources. 2 2.Combining the street construction financial participation required by this development with future development better addresses the cumulative impact of the total site development, and allows more accurate proportional cost sharing between the owners of the phased developments on the site. 3.The financial contributions to be required of the applicants can be more precisely determined after final design selections for the site's development have been made. section 2. Based upon the Findings and Conclusions of the Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner, as set out in Exhibit A attached hereto and adopted by reference by the City Council and the additional Findings as contained herein, the binding site plan of st. Francis Hospital (Federal Way File No. UP3-91-0002) is hereby approved subject to the following Conditions: 1.Street Dedication st. Francis agrees to dedicate to the City of Federal Way right-of-way to build 344th street to City standards. standard width of a street under City standards is sixty (60) feet. st. Francis shall not be required to dedicate more than a width of thirty (30) feet for this street and may be required to dedicate less depending on how much land is dedicated by the U.s. Government for street 3 construction. st. Francis shall NOT be required to dedicate right-of-way unless, or until, such time as the commi tment by the U. S. Government to dedicate such right- of-way to ensure that the street will be built to City standards. 2. Financial Participation in street Construction The financial participation in the roadway construction will not be required as a condition of this action. Instead, the dollar amount of the financial participation for this project is deferred and shall be combined with the SEPA review for the next development application for this binding site plan. section 3. The conditions of approval of the binding site plan are all integral to each other with respect to the City council finding that the public use and interest will be served by the development of the subject property. Should any court having jurisdiction over the subject matter declare any of the conditions invalid, then, in said event, the proposed binding site plan approval granted in this resolution shall be deemed void, and the binding site plan shall be remanded to the Hearing Examiner for the City of Federal Way to review the impacts of the invalidation of any condition or conditions and conduct such additional proceedings 4 as are necessary to assure that the proposed binding site plan makes appropriate provisions for the public health, safety and general welfare and other factors as required by RCW Chapter 58.17 and applicable County and/or city ordinances, rules and regulations and forward such recommendation to the City council for further action. RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, ~ WASHINGTON, this fl- day of -Peli>r"ary-, 1992. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY ~&?~ MAYOR, ROBERT STEAD ATTEST: ;2Jy Q~~ ,47 ~ APPROVED AS TO FORM: G CITY ATTORNEY, CAROLYN A. LAKE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. 92-l01 March 12, 1992 March 17, 1992 b'pufh 5 FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMJNER OF FEDERAL WAY RECOJ\flv1L""DATIO DOWL ENGINEERS, ON BEHALF OF ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL, For Approval of a Binding Site Plan. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File # UP3-#-OOOP- FWHE # 92-1 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF: T. S~Y OF APPLICATION AND RECOMMTh'DATION St. Francis Hospital requests approval of a binding site plan to facilitate an expansion of the hospital. The City recommended approval of the request subject to three conditions: (1) participation in the costs of construction of a new street; (2) dedication of right-of-way for the new street and; (3) keeping 15 % of the site in open space. The applicant requested that the recommended conditions not be imposed. The Examiner recommends that the conditions related to street improvements be imposed (with modifications) but concludes that the open space requirements do not apply to this application. ll. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Date of Hearing: Date Decision Issued: January 7, 1992 January 22, 1992 At the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence: 1.) Greg Fewins, Senior Planner, City of Federal Way 33530 - lst Way South, Federal Way, W A 98003 2.) Elvin J. Vandeberg, Attorney for Applicant 19oo First Interstate Plaza, l201 Pacific Avenue, Tacoma, W A 98402 3.) Craig L. Hendrickson, St. Francis Hospital 34515 - 9th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003 4.) Tim Miller, Traffic Engineer, City of Federal Way 33530 - lst Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 5-) Curtis LaPierre, Dowl Engineers 500 South 336th Street, Federal Way, W A 98003 EXHlal r II. - ~- - ~ _h- ST. FRANCIS BINDING SITE PLAN UP3-91-0002j FWHE #92-1 PAGE 2 At the hearing the following exhibits were admitted as part of the official record of these proceedings: 1. 2. 3. 1.) Staff Report A.) Binding Site Plan Documents B.) Sub-Area Map C.) lO/31/91 Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance D.) Street System Plan for West Campus Business Park Superblock ~ City of Federal Way, February l4, 1991 ill. FINDINGS The applicant requests approval of a binding site plan to allow a 13,400 square foot expansion of emergency and radiology (9,850 square feet) units, and labor, delivery and recovery (3,550 square feet) units as part of the existing 113,206 square foot hospital building. ------- ----- The site is located at 34515 - 9th Avenue South, and is approximately 17.8 acres. The site is classified as IlP, Industrial/Office Park, by the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. 4. The site is designated as OP, Office Park, by the City of Federal Way Zoning code. 5. A sub-area Transportation Plan was completed on February 14, 1991 for the area located between 1st Avenue South, 9th Avenue South, South 348th Street and approximately South 344th Street. The study concluded that an east/west street street along the South 344th corridor between 1st Avenue South and 9th Avenue South is needed. A fmal design detailing the location of this street has not been prepared. Several alternative locations of the right-of-way are under consideration. A portion of this street, if constructed, may be along the north boundary of the hospital site. It is also possible that the street would be located entirely north of the hospital property. Testimony of Tim :Miller, City Traffic Engineer. 6. The potential fmancial impact to the hospital, if the hospital is required to contribute to the cost of constructing South 344th Street along the north property line of the hospital site, would be $250,000. Testimony of Curtis laPierre, Applicant Engineer. - ~-----~-- ---- - ST. FRANCIS BTh'DING SITE PLAN UP3-91-0002j FWHE #92-1 PAGE 3 7. 8. If fifteen percent of the site is required for open space, as defmed by applicable Federal Way codes, open space would equal 2.67 acres of the site. The site has avaJlable .89 acres in buffer areas and .93 acres in non-buffer areas for a total of 1.82 acres. This is .85 acres less than 15 % of the site. A determination of non significance (DNS) was issued for this proposed action on October 30, 1991. No conditions were placed on this DNS. No one appealed this DNS. IV. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to review the evidence and issue a recommendation on this application under Chapter 58.17 of the Revised Code of Washington, Section 16.430.30 of the Federal Way Subdivision Code and Chapter 155 of the Federal Way Zoning Code. 2. The criteria that must be used by the Examiner in his review of this application are set fo$ in Section l55.60.3 of the Federal Way Zoning Code and in Section 16.430.40 of the Federal Way Subdivision Code. Those sections state that the Examiner shall review an application for a binding site plan for conformance with: a. The purposes of the Subdivision Code as specified in Section 16.10.20; b. The design criteria and development standards set forth in Section 16.210 through l6.370 of the Subdivision Code; c. RCW 58.17.035; d. Other applicable ordinances or regulations of the City. The Examiner must also determine if the approval of the application would be consistent with: . e. The Comprehensive Plan; f. All applicable provisions of the Zoning Code; g. The public health, safety and welfare. ST. FRANCIS BINDING SITE PLAN UP3-91-0002j FWHE #92-1 PAGE 4 3. The application is in conformance with the purposes of the Subdivision Code. The proposed expansion of the St. Francis Community Hospital will be of definite benefit to the health, safety and general welfare of the community of Federal Way. The hospital was chosen several years ago by citizens of the Federal Way area as the preferred community hospital. The hospital served 36,500 people in its emergency room in 1991 and was the delivery room for over 1,500 babies. The hospital hc.s experienced a growth rate in excess of lO% a year over the past few y=s. 4. The application is in conformance with Sections 210 through 370 of Chapter 16 of the Subdivision Code. Specifically, the application meets the Subdivision Design criteria, ~_ilÌ.eLot Design criteria, the Density standards, the Open Space and Recreation standards, - the Pedestrian and Bicycle Access standards, the View considerations, Buffer requirements, Retention of Vegetation standards, Street and Right-of-Way standards, ---- Landscaping Protection and Enhancement standards, Monuments standards, and Utility standards (for water, sewer, storm drainage, street lighting and other utilities). - It may at first glance appear that the applicant is not in conformance with the Open Space standards found in Section 16.250 of the Subdivision Code because the applicant has proposed less than l5 % of the gross land area as open space. However, a close analysis of that requirement reveals that it applies only to residential subdivisions and not to a binding site plan to facilitate an expansion of an existing hospital. Subsection .20 of that Section requires that "all residential subdivisions shall be required to provide open space in the amount of l5 % of the gross land area of the subdivision site". In the l7 sections that set forth standards and criteria, the limitation to "residences' is used only twice: in the open space requirements and in the requirement for a buffer between residences and arterial streets. At the public hearing, the City stated that its position is that all standards in Sections l6.2l0 and 16.370 must be complied with whether the application is for a residential subdivision or not. Standard rules of interpretation of ordinances suggest otherwise. Those rules provide that specific language in a ordinance controls over more general language that addresses the same topic. See, State v, Sterling Theatres, 64 Wn.2d 761 (1964); Dean v. McFarland, 81 Wn.2d 215 (1972). The requirement in Section 16.430.40 that the binding site plan comply with "design criteria and development standards" is a general reference to l7 specific sections containing criteria and standards. The specific standards for open space are found in Section l6.250. The standard of 15 % is found in Section 16.250.20. It appears to the Examiner that the City Council intended to limit the application of the 15 % standard to residential subdivisions. If the Examiner's interpretation of those ordinances is contrary to the Council's intent, the Council can correct the interpretation at the time it acts on this recommendation of the Examiner. -._-~-~-----_. ST. FRANCIS BINDING SITE PLAN UP3-91-0002; FWHE #92-1 PAGE 5 5. - --- 9.--- The application is in confonnance with the requirements of RCW 58.17.035. The requirements for binding site plan review in state law are far Jess specific than the requirements for review of plat applications and are easily met by this application. 6. The application is consistent with the designation and standards of the Federal Way Zoning Code. The zoning code designates the site as OP, Office Park. The use of the site for a hospital is allowed under that zoning designation. 7. The application is consistent with the classification and policy statements of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. The site is classified as IfP, IndustrialJOffice Park, by the - _Cityof Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. The use of the site for a hospital is consistent with that designation. 8. No other ordinances or regulations of the City were identified as applicable to this application. --The- application will be consistent with the health, safety and general welfare of the community of Federal Way if conditions are applied to the approval of the application to address the need for street improvements. The authority of the City to require participation in the cost of street improvements is found in Sections 16.10.20 and 16.300.50 as applied pursuant to the requirement for binding site plan approval in conformance with that section found in Section 16.430.40. Section 16.10.20C states that it is necessary to: Avoid congestion and promote safe and convenient travel by the public on streets and highways through the proper planning and coordination of new streets within subdivision(s) with existing and planned streets in the surrounding community. Section 16.300.50 states ûìat: Additional off-site street and traffic control improvements may be required to mitigate impacts resulting from the subdivision or short subdivision. The requirement for participation in any street improvements that might abut the north property line of the St. Francis property is intended to offset the impacts on the community from the increased traffic assocjated with the proposed expansion of the St. Francis Hospital. It is also true that a new street, if constructed, would improve n_--__---.- ST. FRANCIS BINDING SITE PLAN UP3-91-0002; FWHE #92-1 PAGE 6 community access to St. Francis Hospital and thereby benefit the hospital. The authority of the City to impose this as a condition is supported by the City's ordinances. This authority also appears to be supported by the language in paragraph four of RCW 58.17.035 which provides that all conditions of the binding site plan shall be enforceable. ~, also, Bartz v. Board of Adiustment, 80 Wn.2d 209 (1972). Although the precise amount of contribution cannot be determined until final design selections are made, the applicant has the opportunity to influence the final design by participating in the traffic study as recommended by the City in proposed condition #2. V. RECO:MMENDATION . The Exà.miner recommends that the binding site plan application of St. Francis Hospital be APPROVED subject to the following conditions related to street improvements: _w.,.-_.-.. . cC-,,:. --..0---'_-.. 1.' ," Prior to recording the binding site plan, St. Francis Hospital shall enter into a written ._"~':';-ågrœment with the City to contribute a pro-rata share to the cost of constructing South . u'344th Street between 1st Avenue South and 9th Avenue South. -."...- 2.-. - _: prior to recording the binding site plan, St. Francis Hospital shall enter into a written ':,;agreement with the City committing to dedicate at the time of the actual final design of . ":--Sóufu 344th Street up to thirty feet of public street right-of-way and appropriate intersection radii along the north boundary of the site. A traffic study and street design approved by the Public Works Director with input from a representative of St. Francis Hospital shall be the basis for deterrn.inþ1g the actual extent of the needed right-of-way. Dated this 22nd day of January, 1992. -u._~ ,-L ~ THEODORE P. HUNTER, Hearing Examiner VI. RIGHTS TO RECONSIDERA nON A1';l) APPEAL Any person who has a right to challenge a recommendation under the Federal Way Zoning Code may request the Hearing Examiner to reconsider any aspect of his or her recommendation by delivering a written request for reconsideration to the Planning Department within seven (7) calendar days after the date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. The person requesting the reconsideration shall specify in the request what aspect of the recommendation he or she wishes to have reconsidered and the reason for the request. The distribution of the request and the response to the request shall be governed pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Way Zoning Code. Within ten (lO) working days after receiving a request for rec,onsideration, the Hearing Examiner shall notify the persons who have a right to appeal under .---.~~"~------_...-- ST. FRANCIS BINDING SITE PLAN UP3-91-0002; FWHE #92-1 PAGE 7 the Federal Way Zoning Code, whether or not the recommendation will be reconsidered. The Hearing Examiner may reconsider the recommendation only if he or she concludes that there is substantial merit in the request. The process of the reconsideration will be followed in accordance with the Federal Way Zoning Code. The recommendation of the Hearing Examiner may be challenged by any person who is to receive a copy of that recommendation pursuant to FWZC 155.60.6. That challenge, in the form of a letter of challenge, must be delivered to the Planning Department within fourteen (14) calendar days after the issuance of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation or, if a request for reconsideration is filed, then within fourteen : (l4) calendar days of either the decision of the Hearing Examiner denying the request for :' reconsideration or the reconsidered recommendation. The letter of challenge must contain a ,i clear reference to the matter being challenged and a statement of the specific factual findings and --,e'l còi1clusions of the Hearing Examiner disputed by the person filing the challenge. The person è;;Jiiling the challenge shall include, with the letter of appeal, the fee established by the City. The '.:~aþpealwill not be accepted unless it is accompanied by the required fee. The recommendation . - :'::-ofthè Hearing Examiner may be challenged whether or not there was a request to reconsider ¿§~,é)l~g Examiner's recommendation. ----,----_.--,-.