HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-25-19 Council Workshop
SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS: The City of Arlington strives to provide accessible meetings for people with disabilities. Please contact the
ADA coordinator at (360) 403‐3441 or 711 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Barb Tolbert
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Mayor Barb Tolbert – Erin
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Mayor Pro Tem Marilyn Oertle
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS
PROCLAMATIONS
Arbor Day Proclamation ATTACHMENT A
Marilyn Oertle
WORKSHOP ITEMS – NO FINAL ACTION WILL BE TAKEN
1. 2019 Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Code Amendment Docket ATTACHMENT B
Staff Presentation: Marc Hayes
Council Liaison: Mike Hopson
2. Easement Agreement with Snohomish County PUD for Underground ATTACHMENT C
Electric Lines at Haller Park
Staff Presentation: Jim Kelly
Council Liaison: Josh Roundy
3. Strategies 360 Contract for Lobbying ATTACHMENT D
Staff Presentation: Paul Ellis
Council Liaison: Mayor Pro Tem Marilyn Oertle
4. February 2019 Financial Report ATTACHMENT E
Staff Presentation: Kristin Garcia
5. Miscellaneous council items
ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS
Arlington City Council Workshop
Monday, March 25, 2019 at 7:00 pm
City Council Chambers – 110 E Third Street
SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS: The City of Arlington strives to provide accessible meetings for people with disabilities. Please contact the
ADA coordinator at (360) 403‐3441 or 711 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required.
PUBLIC COMMENT
For members of the public who wish to speak to the Council. Please limit your remarks to three minutes.
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
REVIEW OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
EXECUTIVE SESSION
RECONVENE
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Barb Tolbert
CITY OF ARLINGTON PROCLAMATION
ARBOR DAY
WHEREAS, In 1872, J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of
Agriculture that a special day be set aside for the planting of trees; and
WHEREAS, this holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed with the planting of
more than a million trees in Nebraska, and Arbor Day is now observed throughout the
nation and the world; and
WHEREAS, trees reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water,
cut heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce oxygen and
provide habitat for wildlife; and
WHEREAS, trees are a renewable resource giving us paper, wood for our homes,
fuel for our fires and countless other wood products; and
WHEREAS, trees in our city increase property values, enhance the economic vitality
of business areas, and beautify our community; and
WHEREAS, trees, wherever they are planted, are a source of joy and spiritual
renewal; and
WHEREAS, Arlington has been recognized as a Tree City USA by the National Arbor
Day Foundation and desires to continue its tree planting practices;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Barbara Tolbert, Mayor of the City of Arlington,
Washington, do hereby proclaim March 30, 2019 as
ARBOR DAY
In the City of Arlington, and urge all citizens to celebrate Arbor Day and to support efforts
to protect our trees and woodlands, and
FURTHER, I urge all citizens to plant trees to gladden the heart and promote the well-
being of this and future generations.
____________________________________________
Mayor Barbara Tolbert
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
Item:
WS #1
Attachment
B
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
March 25, 2019
SUBJECT:
2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket
ATTACHMENTS:
2019 Preliminary Docket with attachments, Planning Commission Findings of Fact, Docket Schedule
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN
Community and Economic Development; Marc Hayes, Director – 360‐403‐3457
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: ‐0‐
BUDGET CATEGORY: ‐0‐
BUDGETED AMOUNT: ‐0‐
LEGAL REVIEW:
DESCRIPTION:
The 2019 Preliminary Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket consists of 11 items. The docket items
have been divided into two separate Public Hearings so that each group of docket items are given
sufficient time to be heard and discussed. This workshop item provides opportunity to review the
Planning Commission’s recommendation of the preliminary docket items and answer any questions
that Council may have regarding this preliminary list.
HISTORY:
Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, Cities may amend their comprehensive plans only once per calendar
year. Arlington Municipal Code §20.96.022 establishes a docketing process where all proposed
comprehensive plan amendments may be considered and adopted congruently. Proposed
amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan may be made by any private citizen or by the city
itself. The City Council must approve of any item being placed on the Final Docket. Once the docket
becomes final, staff is authorized to proceed with processing the proposed amendments. Proposed
amendments must receive final approval by the City Council in order to become incorporated into
the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
ALTERNATIVES:
Deny or remand back to staff for additional information.
NOTE: If the Council wishes to add to or subtract from the Planning Commission recommendation for docket
items, the Council must schedule a public hearing before taking that action. AMC 20.96.030(b)(4)
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Workshop; discussion only. At the April 1, 2019 council meeting, the recommended motion will be,
“I move to approve the 2019 Preliminary Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket”.
Staff Report & Recommendation
Arlington Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center – Planning Commission
Page 1 of 3
Community and Economic Development
Planning Division
18204 59th Avenue NE, Arlington, WA 98223
Planning Commission
2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket
To: Planning Commission
From:
Josh Grandlienard, Planner II
Date: February 7, 2018
Regarding: 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket Items
The City of Arlington has 11 items submitted under the 2019 Comprehensive Update docket cycle.
PRIVATELY INITIATED PROPOSALS
1. Amendment Type: Rezone
Applicant: Gill Riar Family, LLP
File №: PLN#518
Description: The applicant is requesting a land use designation change and rezone of 7.23
acres from Residential Low to Moderate Density to Residential High Density. The applicant
is requesting this be a concomitant rezone in order to limit future uses and densities on the
subject property to ensure a future project is compatible with residential uses in the area.
Approval by the City Council is required for all rezone applications. If the request is granted,
the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the City’s Official Zoning Map would need
to be amended. Goals and Policies supporting this amendment; GO‐3, GH‐1, GH‐2, GH‐8, GL‐
7, PH‐1.1, PH‐2.1, PH‐8.1, PL‐4.3, PL‐7.2
2. Amendment Type: Rezone
Applicant: Tic Toc LLC Rezone
File №: PLN#523
Description: The applicant is requesting that an approximately 0.5 acre Lot be rezoned
from a Residential Medium Density zone to Residential High Density. Approval by the City
Council is required for all rezone applications. If the request is granted, the City’s
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the City’s Official Zoning Map would need to be
amended.
Staff Report & Recommendation
Arlington Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center – Planning Commission
Page 2 of 3
3. Amendment Type: Rezone
Applicant: AVS Communities Rezone
File №: PLN#524
Description: The applicant is requesting the rezoning of a 9 acre Lot from General
Industrial to General Commercial to utilize a mixed use overlay. Approval by the City
Council is required for all rezone applications. If the request is granted, the City’s
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the City’s Official Zoning Map would need to be
amended. Goals and Policies supporting this amendment; PH‐1.1, PH‐2.1, PH‐2.3, PL‐7.1, PL‐
7.2, PL‐7.3, PE‐1.3, PE‐1.4, PE‐1.12, and PL‐1.7.
4. Amendment Type: Rezone
Applicant: Grandview Rezone
File №: PLN#509
Description: The applicant is requesting the rezoning of a 0.99 acre Lot from Residential
Low to Moderate Density to Neighborhood Commercial to utilize a mixed use overlay.
Approval by the City Council is required for all rezone applications. If the request is granted,
the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the City’s Official Zoning Map would need
to be amended. Goals and Policies supporting this amendment; PH‐1.1, PH‐2.1, PH‐2.3, PL‐
7.1, PL‐7.2, PL‐7.3, PE‐1.3, PE‐1.4, PE‐1.12, and PL‐1.7.
CITY INITIATED PROPOSALS
1. Amendment Type: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – AMC 20.96.030 – 20.96.080
Applicant: City of Arlington
File №: PLN #513
Description: Complete Streets Master Plan Adoption by Reference. The Adoption of the
Complete Streets Master Plan will help to provide for multi‐modal uses, as well as to be
consistent with the comprehensive plan 2017 updates and Puget Sound Regional Council’s
Vision 2040 plan. Goals and Policies supporting this amendment; GO‐3, PL‐4.5, GL‐9, T‐1, PR‐
1.3, PT‐1.4, PT‐2.0, T‐5, T‐6, T‐8, GP – 6
a) Applicable Elements:
Chapter 8, Section 8.1 Introduction – Requirement of PSRC’s Vision 2040
2. Amendment Type: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – AMC 20.96.030 – 20.96.080
Applicant: City of Arlington
File №: PLN #513
Description: Arlington‐Marysville Manufacturing and Industrial Center Subarea Plan Adoption
by Reference.
3. Amendment Type: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – AMC 20.96.030 – 20.96.080
Applicant: City of Arlington
File №: PLN#514
Description: Revision of the existing Unit Lot Subdivision Chapter 20.44.020 AMC, adding
additional development criteria and expanding the allowable zoning of the unit lot subdivision
process to enable the creation of simple fee properties with common‐wall construction. This
promotes attainable home ownership, addresses our buildable lands requirements / UGA goals
Staff Report & Recommendation
Arlington Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center – Planning Commission
Page 3 of 3
through higher density residential projects. Goals and Policies supporting this amendment;
GO‐3, GH‐1, PH‐1.1, PH‐1.5, GH‐2, PH‐2.2, GH‐5, GH‐6, GL‐1
a) Applicable Elements:
a. Chapter 5, Section 5.7 Major Land Use Considerations
b. Chapter 5, Section 5.10 Density
c. Chapter 5, Section 5.13 Future Needs
4. Amendment Type: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – AMC 20.96.030 – 20.96.080
Applicant: City of Arlington
File №: PLN#511
Description: Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan adoption by reference. School
Districts are required by the Growth Management Act to provide a plan for future growth and
future enrollment, and to establish impact fees consistent with the Comprehensive plan which
are used to fund new facilities only. Goals and Policies supporting this amendment; GO‐1, GL‐1,
GL‐4, GE‐4, GS‐1
a) Applicable Elements:
a. Chapter 9, Section 9.2 Existing Conditions – Public Schools
5. Amendment Type: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – AMC 20.96.030 – 20.96.080
Applicant: City of Arlington
File №: PLN#512
Description: Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan adoption by reference. School
Districts are required by the Growth Management Act to provide a plan for future growth and
future enrollment, and to establish impact fees consistent with the Comprehensive plan which
are used to fund new facilities only. Goals and Policies supporting this amendment; GO‐1, GL‐1,
GL‐4, GE‐4, GS‐1
a) Applicable Elements:
a. Chapter 9, Section 9.2 Existing Conditions – Public Schools
6. Amendment Type: Annexation
Applicant: City of Arlington
File №: PLN#390
Description: Butler Wetland Annexation. The Butler Wetland is fully within the Arlington
UGA and it is the cities intention to utilize it for stormwater treatment/flow control, passive
recreation, open space, and wetland restoration.
7. Amendment Type: Rezone
Applicant: City of Arlington
File №: PLN#510
Description: The City is rezoning a 0.56 acre Lot from Public/Semi‐Public zoning to Residential
High Density. Approval by the City Council is required for all rezone applications. If the request
is granted, the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the City’s Official Zoning Map
would need to be amended.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment/LUCA PC Workshop SEPA Issued
SEPA
Comment
Ends DOC Sent DOC Ends
PH to
Newspaper Notice of PH PC PH PC F&F Due Council CAB
Council
Workshop
Council
Meeting
Ord. Send
Date to DOC
Shoreline Master Program PLN#525 2/5/2019 2/15/2019 3/19/2019 2/1/2019 4/2/2019
2/8/2019 Published
2/13/2019
Posted
2/13/2019 3/5/2019 6/5/2019 6/5/2019 6/10/2019 6/17/2019 6/24/2019
Unit Lot Subdivision PLN#514 3/5/2019 2/21/2019 4/22/2019 3/22/2019 3/26/2019 4/16/2019 4/17/2019 4/17/2019 4/22/2019 5/6/2019 5/13/2019
Docket 3/5/2019 2/15/2019 2/19/2019 3/19/2019 3/20/2019 3/20/2019 3/25/2019 4/1/2019 4/8/2019
York Rezone PLN#515 3/5/2019 2/21/2019 4/22/2019 3/22/2019 3/26/2019 4/16/2019 4/17/2019 4/17/2019 4/22/2019 5/6/2019 5/13/2019
AVS Communities Rezone PLN#524 3/5/2019 2/21/2019 4/22/2019 3/22/2019 3/26/2019 4/16/2019 4/17/2019 4/17/2019 4/22/2019 5/6/2019 5/13/2019
AMMIC PLN#491 3/5/2019 10/23/2018 11/6/2018 3/22/2019 3/26/2019 4/16/2019 4/17/2019 4/17/2019 4/22/2019 5/6/2019
Complete Street PLN#513 3/5/2019 2/21/2019 4/22/2019 3/22/2019 3/26/2019 4/16/2019 4/17/2019 4/17/2019 4/22/2019 5/6/2019 5/13/2019
Butler Annexation PLN#309 3/5/2019 2/21/2019 4/22/2019 3/22/2019 3/26/2019 4/16/2019 4/17/2019 4/17/2019 4/22/2019 5/6/2019 5/13/2019
Grandview North, LLC PLN#509 3/5/2019 2/21/2019 4/22/2019 3/22/2019 3/26/2019 4/16/2019 4/17/2019 4/17/2019 4/22/2019 5/6/2019 5/13/2019
Gill Riar Family Rezone PLN#518 5/7/2019 3/28/2019 5/27/2019 5/1/2019 3/26/2019 5/21/2019 5/22/2019 5/22/2019 5/28/2019 6/3/2019 6/10/2019
Tic Toc, LLC Rezone PLN#523 5/7/2019 3/28/2019 5/27/2019 5/1/2019 3/26/2019 5/21/2019 5/22/2019 5/22/2019 5/28/2019 6/3/2019 6/10/2019
Arlington School Disctrict Capital Facility Plan
PLN#511 5/7/2019 3/28/2019 5/27/2019 5/1/2019 3/26/2019 5/21/2019 5/22/2019 5/22/2019 5/28/2019 6/3/2019 6/10/2019
Lakewood School District Capital Facility Plan
PLN#512 5/7/2019 3/28/2019 5/27/2019 5/1/2019 3/26/2019 5/21/2019 5/22/2019 5/22/2019 5/28/2019 6/3/2019 6/10/2019
Staff Report & Recommendation
York Rezone – Planning Commission
Page 1 of 3
Community and Economic Development
Planning Division
18204 59th Avenue NE, Arlington, WA 98223
Planning Commission
STAFF REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
To: Planning Commission
From:
Josh Grandlienard, Planner II
Date: February 21, 2019
Regarding: York Rezone PLN#515
A. INTRODUCTION
The York Rezone is a City‐initiated project that is an amendment to the City of Arlington
Comprehensive Plan. The Plan is submitted under the 2019 Comprehensive Update docket cycle.
B. GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: City of Arlington
Project Description: 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Requested Action: Make a recommendation of approval to the Arlington City Council
Staff Report & Recommendation
York Rezone– Planning Commission
Page 2 of 3
C. DETAILED PROJECT INFORMATION
The City is rezoning a 0.56 acre Lot from Public/Semi‐Public zoning to Residential High
Density. Approval by the City Council is required for all rezone applications. If the request is
granted, the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the City’s Official Zoning Map
would need to be amended.
D. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
1. SEPA COMPLIANCE:
The amendment of a comprehensive plan amendment is subject to provisions of the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Chapter 20.98 of the Arlington Municipal Code
(AMC).
2. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION/INVOLVEMENT
a. Presentations and/or updates to the Planning Commission will occur on March 5,
2019, March 19, 2019 and April 16, 2019.
b. Two Public Hearings will be held at Planning Commission, located at Arlington City
Chambers on the following dates, March 19, 2019 and April 16, 2019.
c. The City will present information and advertise the Public Hearings regarding the
Planning Docket in the Everett Herald, and via area wide mailing.
d. A Notice of Public Hearing for the May 6, 2019 Planning Commission meeting will be
posted at the Arlington and Smokey Point Post Offices, The Arlington Library and
City Hall. The Notice was also published in the Everett Herald.
3. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOTIFICATION
The York Rezone, along with the additional docket items will be submitted to the
Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC), and the DOC will notify the City that
if it is in procedural compliance with RCW 36.70A.106.
E. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Staff has reviewed the draft findings during review of the project and finds that the
applicant has met the intent of all applicable requirements and standards. The plan
supplements the Comprehensive Plan, through planning goals: PH‐1.1, PH‐2.1, PH‐2.3, PL‐
7.1, and PL‐7.2. This means that based on the submittal that the rezone will contribute to a
variety of housing types and densities, located near commercial and employment centers.
F. ANALYSIS
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend for approval and adoption, the
rezoning of tax parcel 00472500000806 from Public/Semi‐Public to Residential High
Density by City Council.
G. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Public meetings will be held on March 5, 2019, March 19, 2019, and April 16, 2019.
2. The Planning Docket and associated staff reports will be submitted to the DOC in
accordance with RCW 36.70A.106 and the submittal will meet all DOC’s procedural
requirements.
Staff Report & Recommendation
York Rezone– Planning Commission
Page 3 of 3
3. On March 5, 2019, the Planning Commission will review a draft of the City of Arlington
2019 Comprehensive Plan Docket at their workshop meeting.
4. On February 19, 2019 a Notice of Public Hearing for the March 19, 2019 Planning
Commission public hearing was posted at Arlington City Hall, Arlington Post Office, Smokey
Point Post Office and the Arlington Public Library.
5. On March 29, 2019 a Notice of Public Hearing for the April 16, 2019 Planning Commission
public hearing will be posted at Arlington City Hall, Arlington Post Office, Smokey Point Post
Office and the Arlington Public Library.
6. The application for PLN#515 has been reviewed for consistency with the Arlington
Comprehensive Plan and for internal consistency, and the 2019 Comprehensive Plan
amendments are consistent with, and internally consistent with, the Arlington
Comprehensive Plan.
7. PLN#515 has been reviewed in accordance with, and is consistent with, the Snohomish
County Countywide Planning Policies.
8. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments were prepared in accordance with the
Washington State Enabling Legislation (RCW 35A.63) and the Growth Management Act.
9. Documentation supporting the findings of fact is located in the file PLN#515, which is
adopted by reference into this approval.
10. Adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments, PLN#515, furthers the
public health, safety and general welfare.
H. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Arlington Planning Commission make a recommendation to the
Arlington City Council to adopt the York Rezone, 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
PLN#515.
Staff Report & Recommendation
Grandview North Rezone – Planning Commission
Page 1 of 3
Community and Economic Development
Planning Division
18204 59th Avenue NE, Arlington, WA 98223
Planning Commission
STAFF REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
To: Planning Commission
From:
Josh Grandlienard, Planner II
Date: March 21, 2019
Regarding: Tic Toc LLC PLN #523
A. INTRODUCTION
The Applicant is proposing to rezone a property at 606 Highland Drive from a Residential Medium
Density zoning to a Residential High Density zone for an approximately 0.5 acre lot. This request if
granted would be an amendment to the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and
the City’s Official Zoning Map would need to be amended. The Plan is submitted under the 2019
Comprehensive Update docket cycle.
B. GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Tic Toc LLC
Project Description: 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Property Rezone
Requested Action: Make a recommendation of approval to the Arlington City Council
Exhibits: Tic Toc Application and Narrative
Staff Report & Recommendation
Grandview North Rezone – Planning Commission
Page 2 of 3
C. DETAILED PROJECT INFORMATION
The applicant is requesting the rezoning of an approximately 0.5 acre Lot from Residential
Medium Density to Residential High Density. Approval by the City Council is required for all
rezone applications. If the request is granted, the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
and the City’s Official Zoning Map would need to be amended.
D. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
1. SEPA COMPLIANCE:
The amendment of a comprehensive plan amendment is subject to provisions of the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Chapter 20.98 of the Arlington Municipal Code
(AMC).
2. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION/INVOLVEMENT
a. Presentations and/or updates to the Planning Commission will occur on March 5,
2019, March 19, 2019 and May 21, 2019.
b. Two Public Hearings will be held at Planning Commission, located at Arlington City
Chambers on the following dates, March 19, 2019 and May 21, 2019.
c. The City will present information and advertise the Public Hearings regarding the
Planning Docket in the Everett Herald, and via area wide mailing.
d. A Notice of Public Hearing for the March 6, 2019 Planning Commission meeting was
posted at the Arlington and Smokey Point Post Offices, The Arlington Library and
City Hall. The Notice was also published in the Everett Herald.
3. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOTIFICATION
The York Rezone, along with the additional docket items will be submitted to the
Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC), and the DOC will notify the City that
if it is in procedural compliance with RCW 36.70A.106.
E. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Staff has reviewed the draft findings during review of the project and finds that the
applicant has met the intent of all applicable requirements and standards. The plan
supplements the Comprehensive Plan, through planning goals PH‐1.1, PH‐2.1, PH‐2.3, PL‐
7.1, PL‐7.2, PL‐7.3, PE‐1.3, PE‐1.4, PE‐1.12, and PL‐1.7. This means that based on the
submittal that the rezone will contribute to a variety of housing types and densities, locate it
near commercial and employment centers, promotes mixed use development, contributes
to an adequate employment land base and retail sales base, provides for commercial uses
within a neighborhood outside of the downtown area, and will allow for a range of
commercial uses and mixed use development per the General Commercial designation.
F. ANALYSIS
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend for approval and adoption, the
rezoning of tax parcel 31051100304400 from Residential Low to Moderate Density zoning
to Neighborhood Commercial by City Council.
G. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Staff Report & Recommendation
Grandview North Rezone – Planning Commission
Page 3 of 3
1. Public meetings will be held on March 5, 2019, March 19, 2019, and May 21, 2019.
2. The Planning Docket and associated staff reports will be submitted to the DOC in
accordance with RCW 36.70A.106 and the submittal will meet all DOC’s procedural
requirements.
3. On March 5, 2019, the Planning Commission will review a draft of the City of
Arlington 2019 Comprehensive Plan Docket at their workshop meeting.
4. On February 19, 2019 a Notice of Public Hearing for the March 19, 2019 Planning
Commission public hearing was posted at Arlington City Hall, Arlington Post Office, Smokey
Point Post Office and the Arlington Public Library.
5. On May 7, 2019 a Notice of Public Hearing for the May 21, 2019 Planning Commission
public hearing will be posted at Arlington City Hall, Arlington Post Office, Smokey Point Post
Office and the Arlington Public Library.
6. The application for PLN#523 has been reviewed for consistency with the Arlington
Comprehensive Plan and for internal consistency and the 2019 Comprehensive Plan
amendments are consistent with, and internally consistent with, the Arlington
Comprehensive Plan.
7. PLN#523 has been reviewed in accordance with, and is consistent with, the
Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies.
8. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments were prepared in accordance with
the Washington State Enabling Legislation (RCW 35A.63) and the Growth Management Act.
9. Documentation supporting the findings of fact is located in the file PLN#523, which
is adopted by reference into this approval.
10. Adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments, PLN#523, furthers the
public health, safety and general welfare.
H. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Arlington Planning Commission make a recommendation to the
Arlington City Council to adopt the Tic Toc Rezone, 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
PLN#523.
176TH PL NE
TROONCT MUIRFIELD CT
TOPPER CT
UPLAND DR
74TH DR NE72ND
DR
NE
73RDDRNE
73RD
AVE
NE
WCOUNTRY CLUBDR
HIGHLAND VIEW DR
67TH AVE NE
SR 531
172ND ST NE
P/SP
GI
NC
RMD
GC
1.1FIGURE:
PROJECTION: WASHINGTONSTATE PLANE, NORTH ZONE,NAD 83 HARN, FEET
JOB NUMBER: 17-185DRAWING NAME: 17-1851.0
DRAWING BY: M.COVERTDATE: 12-26-18SCALE: AS SHOWNJURISDICTION: ARLINGTON
DES IGNER: T.
REV ISION:
SOURCE
INFORMATION
DESCRIPTION
SOURCE
AGENCY
AreaZoningMap.mxd | MOD: 12/27/2018 | mcovert
VICINITY MAP
AKAL RIDGE PROJECT
RIA
R FA
MILY LA
ND
U
SE
AN
D R
EZON
E A
PPLIC
ATION
DE
TAILE
D ZONING MAP
KING
COUNTY
GIS
CONTOURS
-
GENERATED
FROM
BARE
EARTH
LiDAR
(KING
COUNTY).
THIS
DATA
HAS
A
STATED
VERTICAL
ACCURACY
OF APPROXIMATELY
1
FOOT.
CITY
OF
REDMOND
GIS
SEWER,
WATER,
STORM
SYSTEMS
166TH AVE NE
NE 92 ND PL
Proposed ComprehensivePlan Map and Rezone Area
Legend
Proposed Rezone Area
Tax Parcels
Zoning ³
250 0 250125
Feet
GC = General Commercial
GI = General Industrial
NC = Neighborhood Commercial
P/SP = Public/Semi-Public (Parks)
RLMD = Low to Moderate Density Residential
PROJECT NARRATIVE
City of Arlington
January 11, 2019
GILL RIAR FAMILY LLP.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
AND CONCOMITANT
REZONE APPLICATION
Residential Low/Moderate
Density to Residential High
Density
1 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPLICANTS AND PROJECT TEAM 2
APPLICATION AND SITE INTRODUCTION 2
PROJECT SUBMITTAL 3
PROJECT APPLICATION BACKGROUND 3
CONCOMITANT REZONE PROPOSED CONDITIONS/ANALYIS 4
IMPLEMENTING THE AMMIC GOALS AND POLICIES 7
REZONE MAP REQUST/CRITERIA 9
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP REQUEST/CRITERIA 14
CONCLUSION 19
2 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application
APPLICANTS AND PROJECT TEAM
Applicant/Owner
Gill Riar Family, LLP
C/O Supinder Gill
1242 State STE I, PMB 330
Marysville, WA 98270
Project Representative
Clay White, Director of Planning
LDC Inc.
20210 142rd Avenue NE
Woodinville, WA 98072
APPLICATION AND SITE INTRODUCTION
Gill Riar Family, LLP. is requesting a land use designation change and rezone of 7.23 acres from Residential
Low to Moderate Density (RLMD) to High Density Residential (RHD). The application consists of three
parcels (310523003011700, 3105230301400, and 31052301800) and the property addresses are 7103,
7115, and 7127 172nd St. SE. We are requesting that this application be processed through the formal
docket process as outlined in Arlington Municipal Code (AMC) 20.96. The request for a rezone falls under
SMC 20.96.026.
While this is a non‐project proposal and no
project action is being submitted or
evaluated under this application, we want to
be open and transparent with interested
parties about possible future uses for the
property (should the application be
approved or not be approved by the
Arlington City Council). This allows us to
have an open conversation and address
comments that were received when a
similar application was previously
submitted.
As part of this application we are asking
that the city condition our land use and
zoning map approval through the use of a
concomitant agreement. This will allow
several proposed conditions to be applied
to this non‐project action in order to ensure
any future use of the property syncs well
with surrounding properties and provides a
natural transition of land uses. Under the
agreement we are proposing, density for a
future project would be limited and
apartments would not be allowed.
Further, we are asking that future possible uses on the property be severely limited. We have provided
a Table 1 within this application to highlight the uses currently allowed with the existing zoning versus
what would be allowed if this application were approved. If this application is approved, almost all of
the high intensity uses currently allowed on the property would be eliminated as possible future uses
for the site.
Project/Site Description overview
Property Addresses: 7103, 7115, and 7127 172nd St.
SE Arlington, WA. 98223
Parcel Number: Parcel Numbers –
310523003011700, 3105230301400, 31052301800
Current Zoning/Land Use: RLMD – Residential Low
to Moderate Density
Proposed Zoning/Land Use: RHD – High Density
Residential
Total property: 7.23 acres
Request for concomitant rezone: Although this is a
non‐project application, we are asking that
conditions be placed on the rezone in order to limit
future uses and densities on the subject property in
order to ensure a future project is compatible with
residential uses in the area. This would be executed
through a concomitant rezone agreement.
3 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application
It is also worthy to note that approval of this non‐project action does not authorize a townhouse project
or any other use. A future townhome project, in addition to a subdivision/site plan approval and SEPA
compliance, would require a conditional use permit subject to the requirements of AMC 21.16. This
process would require public notice, a public hearing with the City of Arlington Hearing Examiner, and the
requirement that any future proposal meet the CUP and subdivision review criteria listed in code. This will
not be the last opportunity to comment.
As our application demonstrates, this proposed non‐project action meets the criteria for both a land use
and zoning map change as outlined in AMC 20.96.026 and 20.96.060. Tables 2 and 3 are provided to
demonstrate how the project complies with City of Arlington requirements for a land use and zoning map
change. The project conditions being proposed are being provided to help ensure that any future
development is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods.
PROJECT SUBMITTAL
In addition to the project narrative, the submittal package for this application includes the following
materials:
Land use map/rezone application
SEPA checklist
Site Plans
PROJECT APPLICATION BACKGROUND
In 2017, a similar application was submitted to the City of Arlington as part of the annual docket
application process. That application was subsequently amended by the City to include some additional
parcels to the west of the subject property. While we are open to those parcels being included once again,
we are not requesting that as part of this application.
While City of Arlington staff found that our application met all of the land use map amendment criteria in
AMC 20.96.060 and the criteria for rezone approval in AMC 20.96.026, the application was ultimately not
approved by the Arlington City Council. This seemed due primarily to concerns expressed by neighboring
properties about future uses and the transportation impacts of those uses if the land use/zoning change
was approved.
The application is focused on the land use and zoning maps change request. This is not a project submittal.
If a project is proposed on the site in the future, either under the current or proposed zoning, it will be
reviewed at that time for project specific impacts. However, because of the previous application process,
we have focused on finding ways to mitigate some of the concerns that were previously raised. We
understand the concerns that have been expressed and this application proposes to mitigate those
concerns through the use of a concomitant rezone that would limit future uses and density on the subject
properties.
We are proposing a concomitant rezone expressly because of the comments that were previously
submitted. This should bridge the gap between this non‐project proposal and a possible future project
proposal. In review of the previous record, very few comments focused on the criteria for a land use map
change in SMC 20.96.060 but focused on possible future impacts of a project proposal. A concomitant
rezone is a mechanism to address project level concerns at the non‐project stage. We would like to be
partners with the surrounding neighborhoods and the City as this proposal is evaluated and focus on
solutions if concerns or questions are raised.
4 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application
CONTRACT REZONE PROPOSED CONDITIONS/ANALYSIS
As part of our application, we are asking that the City of Arlington approve our land use change and
rezone from RLMD to RHD. In addition, we ask that the City consider placing the following (or similar)
conditions, as part of the approving legislation. This would be executed by a concomitant agreement
attached to the enabling ordinance:
Limit the uses allowed on the RHD property to those identified within Table 1 ‐ This will make
it clear that uses such as apartments, nursing homes, and police/fire stations would not be
allowed in the future when a project is proposed. Further, we have provided Table 1 to outline
the uses currently allowed or conditionally allowed under the current RLMD zoning. We hope
this shows that many uses currently allowed under the RLMD zoning code could have
substantial impacts beyond what would be allowed under the concomitant rezone we are
seeking. By limiting RHD uses, this provides a great compromise and zoning transition leading to
the church and commercial property directly west of the site
Limit future density ‐ The RHD zone allows unlimited density as long as the rest of the code
requirements are met (parking, open space, screening, maximum lot coverage, setbacks, ect.).
We are asking for a condition that would limit the subject site to no more than 13 dwelling units
per acre. While the zoning would still be RHD, the proposed density cap would ensure that high
density housing would not occur in the future if housing was proposed.
Table 1 below has two purposes. First, it provides a comparison of uses between the current zoning of
RMLD and the proposed RHD zoning to outline uses that are currently allowed on the property vs. what
uses may be allowed if a land use and zoning map change were approved. Second, the table outlines
those uses we are volunteering to restrict on the subject property in the future should the application
be approved. Between limiting uses and density on the site, we are proposing a land use and zoning
map change that would allow fewer and less intense uses than are currently permitted.
Arlington Municipal Code 20.40.020 outlines the designations Z, S, C in table of permissible uses.
"P" means that the use is permissible with a valid city business license.
"ZV" means that the use is permissible with a zoning verification approval.
"Z" means that the use is permissible in the indicated zone with a zoning permit issued by the
community development director.
Under this proposal, uses such as apartments would not be allowed when a future project is proposed even
though there are apartments currently located within the Gleneagle development just north of this site.
Townhomes, similar to those located within the Gleneagle development (shown above), would be permitted
with a conditional use permit. However, we are requesting density restrictions to ensure any future project
fits into the community. Any future project would be required to mitigate for any impacts such as traffic.
5 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application
"S" means a special use permit must be obtained from the community development director or
hearing examiner, and the letter
"C" means a conditional use permit must be obtained from the hearing examiner.
A blank column means the use is not allowed
When used in connection with residential uses:
"ZSC" means that such developments of less than twenty dwelling units must be pursuant to a
zoning permit, developments of twenty or more but less than fifty dwelling units need a special
use permit, and developments of fifty or more dwelling units require a conditional use permit.
When used in connection with nonresidential uses:
"ZS" or "ZC" means that such developments require a zoning permit if the total area to be
developed is less than four acres in size, and a special or conditional use permit, respectively, if
the total area is four acres or larger in area.
In addition:
A strikethrough indicates a use that is allowed or conditionally under the proposed RHD
zoning but that we are asking the City Council to specifically restrict as part of the rezone
request.
Uses allowed Current
zoning ‐ RLMD
Proposed
zoning ‐ RHD
Site built and modular structures ZV
Class “A” mobile home ZV
Class “B” mobile home ZV
Mobile Home Park ZSC
Two family conversion ZV ZV
Accessory Dwelling units ZV ZV
Duplex ZV ZV
Multi‐family conversions ZSC
Multi‐family townhomes ZSC
Multi‐family apartments ZSC
Homes for handicapped or informed C C
Nursing care, intermediate care homes C C
Special needs child care C C
Halfway house C C
Adult family homes Z Z
Table 1 –allowed uses under the current vs. proposed zoning
6 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application
Homes for handicapped or infirm C
Nursing care, intermediate care homes C
Special needs child care homes C
Halfway house C
Adult family homes Z Z
Rooming houses, boarding houses Z Z
Tourist homes and other temporary residences renting by the
day or week
Z Z
In‐home Child day care P P
Transient merchant sales (food truck, ice cream truck, etc.) P P
Colleges, universities, community colleges C C
Religious assembly as a principal onsite use ZS ZS
Religious assembly as an assessory use P P
Libraries, museum, art galleries, and similar uses within
previous single family home
Z Z
Libraries, museum, art galleries, and similar uses within any
building
C C
Private outdoor recreation facilities C C
Publically owned and operated recreational facilities ZS ZS
Gold driving ranges C ZS
Nursing care institutions C C
Institutions for the mentally ill C ZS
Electric vehicle infrastructure ZS ZS
Police stations C C
Fire stations C C
Rescue squad, ambulance services C C
Civil defense operation ZS ZS
Temporary mobile or modular structures used for public
services
Z Z
Cemetery ZS ZS
Commercial nursery school; day care centers S S
7 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application
TIMING OF A FUTURE PROJECT IN RELATION TO TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENTS ON SR‐531 ‐ ROAD WIDENING/REHABILITATION
PROJECTS
The land use map and rezone being requested is a non‐project action. Any future project on the site
would be required to be approved by the City of Arlington. The time it takes from permitting to
construction typically takes several years which means any future project would not be completed until
about 2022. This times well with the SR‐531 widening and rehabilitation and signalization projects that
are on the City of Arlington 6‐year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). The 39,000,000 widening
project would widen SR 531 (172nd Street) between 43rd and 67th ave (just west of the application site).
Project funding for this project comes from the Connect Washington program and will be managed by
the Washington State Department of Transportation.
The 1,300,000 SR‐531 roadway and corridor improvements on SR 531 (172nd St) would eliminate left
turn pockets and install a solid median, improve sidewalks and pedestrian and bike facilities.
According to the City of Arlington, construction on this project will begin in 2021. These projects coupled
with any traffic improvements from a future project on the site and traffic mitigation fees, will be a
positive impact on the community. To be clear, any future project submitted to the City of Arlington will
be required to mitigate traffic impacts associated with that project
IMPLEMENTING THE ARLINGTON‐MARYSVILLE MAJOR INDUSTIRAL
CENTER (AMMIC) SUBAREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
Although still moving through the approval process, it is worthy to show how the proposed land use and
zoning map change is consistent with the vision for the City as it implements the MIC and plans for
thousands of new jobs in the region. According to the AMMIC Subarea Plan prepared for the Cities of
Arlington and Marysville, the “…Subarea Plan articulates a vision for the Arlington‐Marysville
Subject property
8 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application
Manufacturing/Industrial Center’s future, as
well as goals and policies that provide a
roadmap to guide public and private
investments. The Subarea Plan reflects the
city and community aspirations for the
center and plans for anticipated growth.”
The City of Arlington portion of the MIC
consists of 2,291 acres and includes the 737‐
acre airport which is owned by the City.
As the Subarea Plan outlines, outreach and
citizen engagement was an important part
of the project and the output of those
meetings informed the vision, guiding
principles, and goals and policies of the
Subarea Plan. One of the primary themes of
this outreach was “Location of affordable
workforce housing. Many businesses citied
the supply of affordable workforce housing
in Arlington and Marysville as a key asset
and need. Approximately 45% of AMMIC
employees live less than 10 miles of the
subarea, reflecting the appeal of the
immediate vicinity for employees.”
The Riar family property is located
approximately 1000 feet from the MIC
boundary, which provides a mixture of
general and light industrial directly adjacent
to the site. Further, there is commercial
property just west of the Riar property
(borders east boundary of MIC) that is
scheduled for development in early 2019.
RHD zoning could provide an opportunity for
more affordable, single‐family housing
options, for those working within the MIC.
The location of the property would also
reflect the desire to provide jobs in close
proximity to where people live. Conditions
proposed as part of this application would
help balance the need to implement the MIC
Subarea Plan while also ensuring any future
development harmonizes with the existing
development in the area.
MIC boundary
Subject property
Subject property
9 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application
The Sub‐area plan also outlines
infrastructure improvements to
be emphasized as part of Plan
implementation. Major roadway
improvements are designated for
172nd (HWY 531) along the site
frontage. A future development
project (under the current or
proposed zoning) would provide
some of those improvements,
pay impact fees, and offset costs
for these improvements in order
to assist the City in implementing
this vision. These future
improvements would also
connect the project site to
Centennial Trail.
REZONE MAP REQUEST/CRITERIA
AMC 20.96.026 outlines the criteria that must be met in order for a zoning text or map change to be
approved. Table 2 below outlines each of the six criteria and demonstrates how this proposal is
consistent and implements each of them.
Selection and decision
criteria – text and zoning
map amendments
Response – how proposed zoning map change meets all six
criteria
The proposed amendment is
consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the
comprehensive plan.
This proposal is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of
the City of Arlington comprehensive plan. The following are goals,
objectives, and policies that support this land use change. A brief
analysis is provided for each policy listed.
GO‐3 – Work towards promoting and maintaining an urban
environment within the City that enhances livability for its residents.
Response: This proposal would promote urban densities in the City
while proposing restrictions on density to ensure livability is enhanced
for residents. This proposal would also increase livability by providing
opportunities for housing near jobs (MIC) that would be affordable for
residents.
GH‐1 – Diversify the City’s housing stock.
Response: This proposal would help diversify the City’s housing stock
and provide a great transition from single family housing to the north
and east to commercial uses to the west. Further, proposed
Subject property
Centennial Trail
Table 2 –rezone request approval criteria
10 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application
application restrictions would ensure any future residential densities
are appropriate for the neighborhood.
GH‐2 – Ensure the development of new multi‐family housing and
small single‐family housing units occur within close proximity to
commercial areas within the City.
Response: This proposal would be adjacent to Commercial property
located at the corner of 172nd St NE and 67th Ave NE which is
scheduled to be developed in 2019. Further, the site is located just
east of a church and approximately 1,500 feet from industrially zoned
lands.
GH‐5 – Encourage a quality housing stock within the City.
Response: Our application would remove apartments as a use for the
site. Any future single family development would most likely be
attached single family homes. This would increase the variety of
housing types but provide quality housing, especially for people
wanting to work and live within the City of Arlington. Further, any
future development would be required City design standards.
GH‐8 – Promote and facilitate the provision of affordable housing in
all areas and zoning districts of the City.
Response: If a future housing project were proposed, it would provide
housing that could be affordable for people wanting to live and work
in the City. However, it would still be high quality single family
development in character with surrounding neighborhoods and City
requirements. Proposed application mitigation would ensure this
balance.
GL‐4 – Accommodate new development in a manner that supports a
growth rate consistent with the goals of the State Growth
Management Act but also preserves and enhances Arlington’s quality
of life, its natural environment, and its historical and cultural
amenities.
Response: This rezone and land use change would be consistent with
growth the City is focused on accommodating and would support the
MIC. However, by limiting future densities, we would also preserve
and enhance Arlington’s quality of life, its natural environment, and
its historical and cultural amenities.
GL‐7 – Encourage a mix of residential densities throughout the City.
Response: This rezone and land use map change would help facilitate
a mix of residential densities throughout the City.
PO‐6.1 – Site design and build architecture in residential and
commercial developments should be human‐scaled (i.e. pedestrian
friendly) and conducive to social interaction).
11 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application
Response: Any future development would be required to be designed
to meet or exceed City of Arlington design guidelines and standards to
ensure this is implemented.
PH‐1.1 – A variety of housing types and densities should be
encouraged on lands with a residential land‐use designation.
Response: This land use and zoning map change would help
implement this policy and help provide transition zoning between
single family detached homes to the north and east and commercial
and industrial lands to the west.
PH‐2.1 – Multi‐family housing should be located close to commercial
and employment centers, transportation facilities, public services,
schools, and park and recreation areas.
Response: This is a great location for Multi‐family residential housing.
The site is located adjacent to commercial property and industrial
zones lands. The Centennial Trail is adjacent to the site and schools
are very close as well.
PH‐5.1 – The City should develop and maintain Development Design
Guidelines/Standards that address aesthetic and environmental
design issues for single family and multi‐family development.
Response: Any future use would be required to comply with the City of
Arlington design standards.
PH‐8.1 – The City should work to ensure that housing options for low
and moderate income families households are:
a) Dispersed throughout the City to discourage a
disproportionate concentration of such housing in any one
geographical area of the City;
b) Are located near amenities such as commercial and
employment areas, transportation facilities, and recreational
opportunities and;
c) Are inclusive of a variety of housing types.
Response: This proposal perfectly implements this policy. This land use
and zoning change would help ensure there are housing options
throughout the city, would provide a location near commercial areas
and jobs, and could help supply an inclusive housing type while still
balancing well with the neighborhood.
PL‐4.3 – The City should adopt and maintain development regulations
that ensure that growth is consistent with State laws and the
Community Vision.
Response: This project would ensure that growth is consistent with
State laws and the Community Vision. This includes the new MIC
subarea plan which emphasizes the need for housing near where jobs
12 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application
are being created. This also emphasizes the GMA goal to provide
urban densities within cities but our application balances this need
with the need to protect existing neighborhoods.
PL‐4.8 ‐ The City should plan for balanced mix of land uses based on
land availability and the capacity to provide public services.
Response: This land use map and zoning change would help provide a
balanced mix of land uses. Any future development would be required
to ensure project impacts are mitigated, City of Arlington code is
implemented, and any impact to public services are paid for through
impact fees.
PL‐7.2 – Higher density residential uses should be located around
commercial uses.
Response: If residential uses were proposed in the future, they would
be located adjacent to a church and commercially zoned property.
Further, we are proposing a concomitant rezone to limit future
densities to ensure this property provides a great transition of uses.
PL‐8.1 – The City should develop design standards to ensure the
orderly transition and compatibility of adjacent residential uses.
Response: Any future development would be required to comply with
City of Arlington design standards. Our application also proposes use
and density restrictions to ensure this occurs.
PT‐1.9 – Require developers to construct those streets directly
serving new development and pay a fair‐share for specific off‐site
improvements necessary to mitigate any adverse impacts determined
through the review to be created by the development.
Response: Any future development would be required to construct
those streets directly serving new development and pay a fair‐share
for specific off‐site improvements necessary to mitigate any adverse
impacts determined through the review to be created by the
development.
PE‐2.2 – The City should strive to maintain a high jobs to housing
ratio.
Response: If a residential use is proposed in the future, it would help
implement the MIC Sub‐area plan and would provide opportunities to
help ensure a jobs/housing balance.
The proposed amendment is
consistent with the scope
and purpose of the city's
zoning ordinances and the
description and purpose of
the zone classification
applied for.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the scope and purpose
of the city's zoning ordinances and the description and purpose of the
zone classification applied for. As outlined in AMC 20.36.010, “The
Residential high density (R‐HD) district is designed primarily to
accommodate higher density multi‐family developments and
recreational, quasi‐public, and public uses that customarily serve
13 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application
residential development in areas served by public sewer and water
facilities.”
This property is served by public water and sewer. Further, while a
number of uses are allowed in the RHD zone, we are proposing to
limit the number of uses are possible future density in order to
balance this appropriate land use and zoning change with existing
development. This should help ensure any future development
harmonizes well with existing development while still providing
future uses that implement the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Circumstances have changed
substantially since the
establishment of the current
zoning map or district to
warrant the proposed
amendment.
Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of
the current zoning map or district to warrant the proposed
amendment. The City is working to accommodate new job growth
within the MIC boundaries. Further, housing affordability has become
a huge issue in our region and there is strong need to provide a
variety of housing types and uses near where jobs are created
(jobs/housing balance). However, we believe that unlimited density
on this site and some of the uses in the current and proposing zoning
may not be appropriate directly adjacent to the residential uses.
Therefore, we are proposing a contract rezone that would recognize
the need to implement the comprehensive plan policies and
recognize changed circumstances while still ensuring that any future
development harmonizes with the surrounding neighborhood.
The proposed zoning is
consistent and compatible
with the uses and zoning of
surrounding property.
The proposed zoning is consistent and compatible with the uses and
zoning of surrounding property. As outlined in Table 1, most of the
uses allowed in the current zoning are also allowed in the proposed
zoning. However, we are asking that possible uses for this property
be restricted in the future to ensure compatibility. As highlighted in
the report, there are uses currently allowed in the underlying zoning
that may not be a good fit for the existing neighborhood and could
have impacts beyond what would be allowed under this proposal. We
are proposing a compromise that would address compatibility to
ensure a future use will work well. The topography of the site and
City imposed height limits will also help ensure there is visual
compatibility with existing residential uses
The property that is the
subject of the amendment is
suited for the uses allowed in
the proposed zoning
classification.
The property that is the subject of the amendment is suited for the
uses allowed in the proposed zoning classification. As proposed, this
amendment would proposes future uses for the site that would have
less impact than some of the uses currently allowed. We are
proposing to eliminate many uses if the RHD zoning is approved and
limit densities to make sure the amendment is appropriate.
Adequate public services
could be made available to
serve the full range of
proposed uses in that zone
Adequate public services are available to serve the full range of
proposed uses in the proposed zone.
14 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP REQUEST/CRITERIA
AMC 20.96.060 outlines the criteria that must be met in order for a zoning text or map change to be
approved. Table 2 below outlines each of the four criteria and demonstrates how this proposal is
consistent and implements each of them.
Selection and decision criteria –
Comprehensive plan and zoning
map amendments
Response – how proposed Comprehensive Plan and
zoning maps change meets all four criteria
The amendment represents a matter
appropriately addressed through the
comprehensive plan, and the proposed
amendment demonstrates a public
benefit and enhances the public health,
safety and welfare of the city.
The amendment does represents a matter appropriately
addressed through the comprehensive plan process as we
are seeking a land use map change paired with a rezone.
The docket process is required for this amendment.
The proposed amendment demonstrates a public benefit
and enhances the public health, safety and welfare of the
city. We agree with the previous City analysis on public
health, safety, and welfare. We believe the following
findings by city staff are further enhanced by the project
conditions we are proposing for this land use map and
rezone request.
The amendment does not raise policy or
land use issues that are more
appropriately addressed by an ongoing
work program approved by the city
council.
The amendment does not raise policy or land use issues
that are more appropriately addressed by an ongoing
work program approved by the city council. This
application is appropriately being submitted as part of the
annual docket process. Further, through this process we
Table 3 – Comprehensive Plan approval criteria
15 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application
are able to balance site specific circumstances that may
not be present for all properties zoned RHD.
As an example, we feel it is appropriate to limit future
potential uses and densities for this site to balance the
transition of uses with existing development. This would
probably not be needed for all RHD properties. This
process allows us to focus on this particular area.
The proposed amendment addresses
significantly changed conditions since
the last time the pertinent
comprehensive plan map or text was
amended. "Significantly changed
conditions" are those resulting from
unanticipated consequences of an
adopted policy, or changed conditions
on the subject property or its
surrounding area, or changes related to
the pertinent comprehensive plan map
or text, where such change has
implications of a magnitude that need to
be addressed for the comprehensive
plan to function as an integrated whole.
The proposed amendment addresses significantly changed
conditions since the last time the pertinent
comprehensive plan map or text was amended.
"Significantly changed conditions" are those resulting from
unanticipated consequences of an adopted policy, or
changed conditions on the subject property or its
surrounding area, or changes related to the pertinent
comprehensive plan map or text, where such change has
implications of a magnitude that need to be addressed for
the comprehensive plan to function as an integrated
whole.
The City is working to accommodate new job growth
within the MIC boundaries. Further, housing affordability
has become a huge issue in our region and there is strong
need to provide a variety of housing types and uses near
where jobs are created (jobs/housing balance). However,
we believe that unlimited density on this site and some of
the uses in the current and proposing zoning may not be
appropriate directly adjacent to the residential uses.
Therefore, we are proposing a contract rezone that would
recognize the need to implement the comprehensive plan
policies and recognize changed circumstances while still
ensuring that any future development harmonizes with
the surrounding neighborhood.
The proposed amendment is consistent
with the comprehensive plan and other
goals and policies of the city, the
countywide planning policies, the
Growth Management Act, other state or
federal law, and the Washington
Administrative Code and other
applicable law.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the
comprehensive plan and other goals and policies of the
city, the countywide planning policies, the Growth
Management Act, other state or federal law, and the
Washington Administrative Code and other applicable law.
The City Comprehensive Plan implements the
requirements outlined in state law and the CPPs. The
following demonstrates how our proposal complies with
those policies and in turn is consistent with state and
regional laws and policies.
GO‐3 – Work towards promoting and maintaining an
urban environment within the City that enhances livability
for its residents.
16 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application
Response: This proposal would promote urban densities in
the City while proposing restrictions on density to ensure
livability is enhanced for residents. This proposal would
also increase livability by providing opportunities for
housing near jobs (MIC) that would be affordable for
residents.
GH‐1 – Diversify the City’s housing stock.
Response: This proposal would help diversify the City’s
housing stock and provide a great transition from single
family housing to the north and east to commercial uses to
the west. Further, proposed application restrictions would
ensure any future residential densities are appropriate for
the neighborhood.
GH‐2 – Ensure the development of new multi‐family
housing and small single‐family housing units occur within
close proximity to commercial areas within the City.
Response: This proposal would be adjacent to Commercial
property located at the corner of 172nd St NE and 67th Ave
NE which is scheduled to be developed in 2019. Further,
the site is located just east of a church and commercial
property and approximately 1,500 feet from industrially
zoned lands within the MIC.
GH‐5 – Encourage a quality housing stock within the City.
Response: Our application would remove apartments as a
use for the site. Any future single family development
would most likely be attached single family homes very
similar to those located within the Gleneagle
Development. This would increase the variety of housing
types but provide quality housing, especially for people
wanting to work and live within the City of Arlington.
Further, any future development would be required City
design standards.
GH‐8 – Promote and facilitate the provision of affordable
housing in all areas and zoning districts of the City.
Response: If a future housing project were proposed, it
would provide housing that could be affordable for people
wanting to live and work in the City. However, it would still
be high quality single family development in character with
surrounding neighborhoods and City requirements.
Proposed application mitigation would ensure this
balance.
GL‐4 – Accommodate new development in a manner that
supports a growth rate consistent with the goals of the
State Growth Management Act but also preserves and
17 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application
enhances Arlington’s quality of life, its natural
environment, and its historical and cultural amenities.
Response: This rezone and land use change would be
consistent with growth the City is focused on
accommodating and would support the MIC. However, by
limiting future densities, we would also preserve and
enhance Arlington’s quality of life, its natural environment,
and its historical and cultural amenities.
GL‐7 – Encourage a mix of residential densities throughout
the City.
Response: This rezone and land use map change would
help facilitate a mix of residential densities throughout the
City.
PO‐6.1 – Site design and build architecture in residential
and commercial developments should be human‐scaled
(i.e. pedestrian friendly) and conducive to social
interaction).
Response: Any future development would be required to be
designed to meet or exceed City of Arlington design
guidelines and standards to ensure this is implemented.
PH‐1.1 – A variety of housing types and densities should
be encouraged on lands with a residential land‐use
designation.
Response: This land use and zoning map change would
help implement this policy and help provide transition
zoning between single family detached homes to the north
and east and commercial and industrial lands to the west.
PH‐2.1 – Multi‐family housing should be located close to
commercial and employment centers, transportation
facilities, public services, schools, and park and recreation
areas.
Response: This is a great location for Multi‐family
residential housing. The site is located adjacent to
commercial property and industrial zones lands. The
Centennial Trail is adjacent, the property abuts a major
arterial and schools are very close as well.
PH‐5.1 – The City should develop and maintain
Development Design Guidelines/Standards that address
aesthetic and environmental design issues for single family
and multi‐family development.
Response: Any future use would be required to comply
with the City of Arlington design standards.
18 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application
PH‐8.1 – The City should work to ensure that housing
options for low and moderate income families households
are:
d) Dispersed throughout the City to discourage a
disproportionate concentration of such housing in
any one geographical area of the City;
e) Are located near amenities such as commercial
and employment areas, transportation facilities,
and recreational opportunities and;
f) Are inclusive of a variety of housing types.
Response: This proposal perfectly implements this policy.
This land use and zoning change would help ensure there
are housing options throughout the city, would provide a
location near commercial areas and jobs, and could help
supply an inclusive housing type while still balancing well
with the neighborhood.
PL‐4.3 – The City should adopt and maintain development
regulations that ensure that growth is consistent with
State laws and the Community Vision.
Response: This project would ensure that growth is
consistent with State laws and the Community Vision. This
includes the new MIC subarea plan which emphasizes the
need for housing near where jobs are being created. This
also emphasizes the GMA goal to provide urban densities
within cities but our application balances this need with
the need to protect existing neighborhoods.
PL‐4.8 ‐ The City should plan for balanced mix of land uses
based on land availability and the capacity to provide
public services.
Response: This land use map and zoning change would
help provide a balanced mix of land uses. Any future
development would be required to ensure project impacts
are mitigated, City of code is implemented, and any impact
to public services are paid for through impact fees.
PL‐7.2 – Higher density residential uses should be located
around commercial uses.
Response: If residential uses were proposed in the future,
they would be located adjacent to a church and
commercially zoned property. Further, we are proposing a
contract rezone to limit future densities to ensure this
property provides a great transition of uses.
19 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application
PL‐8.1 – The City should develop design standards to
ensure the orderly transition and compatibility of adjacent
residential uses.
Response: Any future development would be required to
comply with City of Arlington design standards. Our
application also proposes use and density restrictions to
ensure this occurs.
PT‐1.9 – Require developers to construct those streets
directly serving new development and pay a fair‐share for
specific off‐site improvements necessary to mitigate any
adverse impacts determined through the review to be
created by the development.
Response: Any future development would be required to
construct those streets directly serving new development
and pay a fair‐share for specific off‐site improvements
necessary to mitigate any adverse impacts determined
through the review to be created by the development.
PE‐2.2 – The City should strive to maintain a high jobs to
housing ratio.
Response: If a residential use is proposed in the future, it
would help implement the MIC Sub‐area plan and would
provide opportunities to help ensure a jobs/housing
balance.
SUMMARY
Planning for growth is a difficult task. While advocating for economic development and jobs that help a
community thrive is so important, it is often difficult to provide housing solutions that meet the needs of
a community. In 2017, we appreciated hearing from the community about issues of concern and have
now applied for this land use and zoning map change with balance in mind. A variety of housing choices
are sorely needed and supported by the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan but they must also
harmonize with the existing community. This is why we have asked for a concomitant (contract) rezone
that would allow RHD zoning but mitigate future impacts of a project by limiting future density and uses.
It is also important to note that this is a non‐project action. Most uses in the RHD zone would require
public notice, a public hearing, and would require mitigation for any impacts associated with a future
project, such as traffic. We stand ready to work with the City and communicate with the neighborhood in
order to find solutions during this application process that will work for everyone. We know that planning
takes great coordination and communication.
The Comprehensive Plan and zoning map change being proposed meet the City of Arlington code
requirements for approval and we ask that you approve our application with the proposed conditions
associated with the rezone application.
ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2018-2023
JUNE 2018 DRAFT
Adopted: ______________, 2018
ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2018-2023
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Kay Duskin, Vice President
Judy Fay
Dr. Jeff Huleatt, President
Marc Rosson
Jim Weiss
SUPERINTENDENT
Dr. Chrys Sweeting
For information regarding the Arlington Public Schools Capital Facilities Plan, contact the
Office of the Superintendent, District Administration Office, 315 N. French Street, Arlington,
WA 98223. Telephone: (360) 618-6200; Fax: (360) 618-6221.
Approved by the Board of Directors on ________________, 2018
Table of Contents
Page
Section 1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................2
Section 2. District Educational Program Standards ..................................................................6
Section 3. Capital Facilities Inventory ......................................................................................9
Section 4. Student Enrollment Projections .............................................................................12
Section 5. Capital Facilities Needs .........................................................................................14
Section 6. Capital Facility Financing Plan ..............................................................................16
Section 7. School Impact Fees ................................................................................................20
Appendix A ……………………………………………...……..Population and Enrollment Data
Appendix B ……………………………………………...……………Student Generation Rates
Appendix C ……………………………………………...……………..Impact Fee Calculations
-2-
INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose of the Capital Facilities Plan
The Washington State Growth Management Act (the “GMA”) includes schools in the category
of public facilities and services. School districts have adopted capital facilities plans to satisfy
the requirements of the GMA and to identify additional school facilities necessary to meet the
educational needs of the growing student populations anticipated in their districts.
Arlington Public Schools (the “District”) has prepared this Capital Facilities Plan (the “CFP”) to
provide Snohomish County (the “County”) and the City of Arlington (the “City”) with a
schedule and financing program for capital improvements over the next six years (2018-2023).
In accordance with the Growth Management Act, the Snohomish County Ordinance Nos. 97-095
and 99-107, this CFP contains the following required elements:
Future enrollment forecasts for each grade span (elementary, middle, and high
schools).
An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by the District, showing the
locations and capacities of the facilities.
A forecast of the future needs for capital facilities and school sites.
The proposed capacities of expanded or new capital facilities.
A six-year plan for financing capital facilities within projected funding capacities,
which clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes. The
financing plan separates projects and portions of projects which add capacity from
those which do not, since the latter are generally not appropriate for impact fee
funding.
A calculation of impact fees to be assessed and support data substantiating said
fees.
In developing this CFP, the District followed the following guidelines set forth in the Snohomish
County General Policy Plan:
District should use information from recognized sources, such as the U.S. Census
or the Puget Sound Regional Council. School districts may generate their own
data if it is derived through statistically reliable methodologies. The information
must not be inconsistent with Office of Financial Management (“OFM”)
population forecasts. Student generation rates must be independently calculated
by each school district.
The CFP must comply with the GMA.
The methodology used to calculate impact fees must comply with the GMA. In
the event that impact fees are not available due to action by the state, county or
cities within the District, the District in a future CFP update must identify
alternative funding sources to replace the intended impact fee funding.
-3-
The methodology used to calculate impact fees complies with the criteria and the
formulas established by the County and the City.
B. Overview of Arlington Public Schools
Two-hundred square miles in area, the District encompasses the City of Arlington and portions
of unincorporated Snohomish County. The District is bordered by the Conway, Darrington,
Granite Falls, Lakewood, Marysville, Sedro-Woolley, and Stanwood-Camano School Districts.
The District serves a student population of 5,394 (October 1, 2017 reported FTE enrollment)
with four elementary schools (K-5), two middle schools (grades 6-8), one high school (grades
9-12), one alternative high school (grades 9-12), and one support facility for home schooled
children (grades K-12). For the purposes of facility planning, this CFP considers grades K -5 as
elementary, grades 6-8 as middle school, and grades 9-12 as high school. For purposes of this
CFP, neither enrollment in the Stillaguamish Valley School (a home school support facility
serving grades K-12) nor enrollment in the alternative high school (Weston) are included.
The District has experienced moderate growth in recent years after a period of declining student
population. For a period of years (2012-2015) the District, due to the declining student
population, did not prepare an updated Capital Facilities Plan. The District prepared a CFP in
2016 in anticipation of potential growth, enrollment increases, and future capacity needs. This
2018 update builds on the 2016 CFP and identifies growth-related projects at the middle and
high school levels.
-4-
FIGURE 1
MAP OF FACILITIES
-5-
-6-
SECTION 2
DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM STANDARDS
School facility and student capacity needs are dictated by the types and amounts of space
required to accommodate the District’s adopted educational program. The educational program
standards which typically drive facility space needs include grade configuration, optimum
facility size, class size, educational program offerings, classroom utilization and scheduling
requirements, and use of relocatable classrooms (portables).
In addition to student population, other factors such as collective bargaining agreements,
government mandates, and community expectations also affect classroom space requirements.
Traditional educational programs are often supplemented by programs such as special education,
bilingual education, preschool and daycare programs, computer labs, and music programs.
These programs can have a significant impact on the available student capacity of school
facilities.
A. Districtwide Educational Program Standards
Special programs offered by the District at specific school sites include, but are not limited to:
APPLE (formerly named ECEAP);
Elementary program for handicapped students; and
Enhanced Learning Program/Highly Capable; and
English Language Learner Program (Eagle Creek Elementary).
District educational program standards may change in the future as a result of various external or
internal changes. External changes may include mandates or needs for special programs, or use
of technology. Internal changes may include modifications to the program year, class sizes, and
grade span configurations. Changes in physical aspects of the school facilities could also affect
educational program standards. The school capacity inventory will be reviewed periodically and
adjusted for any changes to the educational program standards. These changes will also be
reflected in future updates of this CFP.
The District educational program standards which directly affect school capacity are outlined
below for the elementary, middle, and high school grade levels. Each grade span has a targeted
level of service (LOS) which is expressed as a “not to exceed” number. The minimum LOS for
each grade span is expressed as “maximum average class size”. This figure is used to determine
when another class is added. When this average is exceeded, the District will add additional
classes if space is available. Only academic classes are used to compute the maximum average
class size.
The District moved from half-day kindergarten to full-day kindergarten in the 2014-15 school
year. Available space has been a deterrent in the past. This move doubled the kindergarten FTE.
The State’s implementation of reduced class sizes will further impact school capacity. Future
updates to this CFP will include any necessary capacity adjustments.
-7-
B. Educational Program Standards for Elementary Schools
Class size for Kindergarten and grades 1-3 is targeted not to exceed 21 students, with a
maximum average class size of 21 students;
Class size for grade 4 is targeted not to exceed 25 students, with a maximum average
class size of 27 students;
Class size for grade 5 is targeted not to exceed 27 students, with a maximum average
class size of 29 students;
Special Education for some students is provided in a self-contained classroom;
Music instruction will be provided in a separate classroom (when available); and
All elementary schools currently have a room dedicated as a computer lab, or have access
to mobile carts with laptop computers for classroom use.
C. Educational Program Standards for Middle and High Schools
Class size for grade 6 is targeted not to exceed 27 students, with a maximum average
class size of 29 students
Class size for middle school grades 7-8 is targeted not to exceed 29 students, with a
maximum average class size of 31 students;
Class size for high school grades 9-12 is targeted not to exceed 30 students, with a
maximum average class size of 32 students;
It is not possible to achieve 100% utilization of all regular teaching station s throughout
the day. Therefore, high school classroom capacity has been adjusted using a utilization
factor in the range of 90% to 96% (based on a regular school day). Middle school
classroom capacity has been adjusted using a utilization factor of 85%;
Special Education for some students will be provided in a self-contained classroom; and
Identified students will also be provided other programs in classrooms designated as
follows:
1. Resource Rooms (i.e. computer labs, study rooms).
2. Learning Support Centers.
3. Program Specific Classrooms (i.e., music, drama, art, home and family
education).
D. Minimum Educational Service Standards
The District will evaluate student housing levels based on the District as a whole system and not
on a school by school or site by site basis. This may result in portable classrooms being used as
interim housing, attendance boundary changes or other program changes to balance student
housing across the system as a whole, while meeting the District’s paramount duties under th e
State Constitution. A boundary change or a significant programmatic change would be made by
the District’s Board of Directors following appropriate public review and comment. The District
-8-
may also request that development be deferred until planned facilities can be completed to meet
the needs of the incoming population; however, the District has no control over the ultimate land
use decisions made by the permitting jurisdictions.
The District’s intent is to adhere to the target facility service standards noted above without
making significant changes in program delivery. At a minimum, average class size in the grade
K-8 classrooms will not exceed 26 students and average class size in 9-12 classrooms will not
exceed 32 students. For purposes of this determination, the term “classroom” does not include
special education classrooms or special program classrooms (i.e. computer labs, art rooms,
chorus and band rooms, spaces used for physical education, and other special program areas).
Furthermore, the term “classroom” does not apply to special programs or activities that may
occur in a regular classroom or to classes held in assembly halls, gyms, cafeterias, or other
common areas.
The minimum educational service standards are not the District’s desired or accepted operating
standard.
For the school years of 2015-16 and 2016-17, the District’s compliance with the minimum
level of service was as follows
MINIMUM
LOS#
Elementary
REPORTED
LOS
Elementary
MINIMUM
LOS
Middle
REPORTED
LOS
Middle
MINIMUM
LOS
High
REPORTED
LOS
High
* The District determines the reported service level by adding the number of students in regular classrooms at each grade level and dividing that
number by the number of teaching stations.
2016-17 School
Year
LOS Standard MINIMUM
LOS#
Elementary
REPORTED
LOS
Elementary
MINIMUM
LOS
Middle
REPORTED
LOS
Middle
MINIMUM
LOS
High
REPORTED
LOS
High
26
21 26 19.3 32
31.8
* The District determines the reported service level by adding the number of students in regular classrooms at each grade level and dividing that
number by the number of teaching stations.
-9-
SECTION 3
CAPITAL FACILITIES INVENTORY
The facilities inventory serves to establish a baseline for determining the facilities necessary to
accommodate future demand (student enrollment) at acceptable levels of service. This section
provides an inventory of capital facilities owned and operated by the District including schools,
relocatable classrooms, undeveloped land, and support facilities. School facility capacity was
inventoried based on the space required to accommodate the District’s adopted educational
program standards. See Section 2. A map showing locations of District facilities is provided as
Figure 1.
A. Schools
The District maintains four elementary schools, two middle schools, one high school, an
alternative high school, and the Stillaguamish Valley School (a Home-
School Support center). Elementary schools currently accommodate grades K-5, the middle
schools serve grades 6-8, and the high school and alternative high school provide for grades
9-12. The Stillaguamish Valley School serves grades K-12.
School capacity was determined based on the number of teaching stations within each building
and the space requirements of the District’s adopted educational program. It is this capacity
calculation that is used to establish the District’s baseline capacity, and to determine future
capacity needs based on projected student enrollment. The school capacity inventory is
summarized in Tables 1, 2, and 3.
The Stillaguamish Valley School and Weston High School are housed in separate District-owned
facilities and are not included in this CFP for the purposes of measuring capacity or projecting
enrollment. Relocatable classrooms are not viewed by the District as a solution for housing
students on a permanent basis. Therefore, these facilities were not included in the school
capacity calculations provided in Tables 1, 2, and 3.
Table 1
Elementary School Inventory
Elementary School
Site Size
(Acres)
Building Area
(Square Feet)
Teaching
Stations
Permanent
Capacity
Year Built or
Remodeled
Eagle Creek 23.70 57,362 28 630 1989
Kent Prairie 10.10 57,362 28 630 1993
Presidents 12.40 60,977 31 680 2004
Pioneer 20.60 61,530 25 562 2002
TOTAL 66.62 237,231 112 2,502
-10-
Table 2
Middle School Inventory
Middle School
Site Size
(Acres)
Building Area
(Square Feet)
Teaching
Stations*
Permanent
Capacity
Year Built or
Remodeled
Post Middle 24.60 76,323 36 757 1993
Haller Middle 25.46 86,002 31 612 2006
TOTAL 50.06 162,325 67 1,369
*Includes a total of six special education classrooms between both schools.
Table 3
High School Inventory
High School
Site Size
(Acres)
Building Area
(Square Feet)
Teaching
Stations
Permanent
Capacity
Year Built or
Remodeled
Arlington High 54.00 256,181 53 1,780 2003
B. Relocatable Classrooms
Relocatable classrooms are used on an interim basis to house students until funding can be
secured to construct permanent classrooms. The District currently uses seven relocatable
classrooms at various school sites throughout the District to provide additional interim capacity
(an additional 10 relocatables are located at Stillaguamish Valley School). A typical relocatable
classroom can provide capacity for a full-size class of students. The District’s relocatable
classrooms have adequate useful remaining life and are evaluated regularly. Current use for the
2018-19 school year of relocatable classrooms throughout the District is summarized in Table 4.
Table 4
Relocatable Classroom (Portable) Inventory
Elementary School
Relocatables
Interim
Capacity
Eagle Creek 2 58
Kent Prairie 4 84
Middle School
Relocatables
Interim
Capacity
High School
Relocatables
Interim
Capacity
TOTAL 11 287
-11-
C. Support Facilities
In addition to schools, the District owns and operates additional facilities, which provide
operational support functions to the schools. An inventory of these facilities is provided in
Table 5.
Table 5
Support Facility Inventory
Facility
Building Area
(Square Feet)
Site Location
Administration and
Special Programs
21,402
Roosevelt Building,
Presidents
Transportation 41,550 Leased
Support Services 70,991 Old HS “A” Bldg
D. Land Inventory & Other Facilities
The District owns the following undeveloped sites:
A 167-acre site (“Hwy 530 Site”) located 1.5 miles from the city limits of Arlington
adjacent to SR 530 and intended for use as a school and/or sports fields. The District is
currently negotiating a sale of this property.
Seven sites ranging from 25 to 160 acres that are managed as forest land by a forestland
manager and generally topographically unsuitable for school site development.
An additional 58.9 acres at the Post Middle School site of farmland located in a
floodplain and therefore unsuitable for development.
The District owns the “A” Building on the former high school campus. The “A” Building has
been taken out of educational use and is no longer eligible (by OSPI) for use as for classroom
space.
The Stillaguamish Valley School, which supports home-schooled students, is located on the
Eagle Creek Elementary site. This facility consists of 10 portable classrooms and is not
considered part of the District’s permanent facility capacity.
Additionally, the District leases a 33,000 square foot building on a 10 acre site near the Arlington
Airport. This remodeled building houses the (alternative) Weston High School. Since this site
houses only alternative educational programs, the building’s capacity is not included as part of
the District’s eligible facility inventory1.
1 Students enrolled in these alternative programs are not included in enrollment numbers for the purposes of this
CFP update.
-12-
SECTION 4
STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
A. Projected Student Enrollment 2018-2023
Enrollment projections are most accurate for the initial years of the forecast period. In the past,
the District has used the methodology from the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
(OSPI) to determine enrollment projections. The cohort survival method uses historical
enrollment data to forecast the number of students who will be attending school the following
year. It uses a weighted average of the most recent years to project enrollment. The District has
adjusted the OSPI projections to reflect the District’s full-time equivalent enrollment (reduction
of students enrolled but not housed in District facilities). Based on this methodology, a total of
351 FTE students are expected to be added to the District by 2023 - an increase of 6.5% over
2017 enrollment levels.
OFM population-based enrollment projections were estimated for the District using OFM
population forecasts for the County. Between 2012 and 2017, the District’s enrollment
constituted 17.47% of the total population in the District. Assuming that between 2018 and 2023
the District’s enrollment will constitute 17.47% of the District's total population and using
OFM/County data, a total enrollment of 5,950 FTE is projected in 2023. See Appendix A.
Table 6
Projected Student Enrollment
2023-2023
* Actual October 2017 FTE enrollment
The District uses the adjusted OSPI cohort survival projections for purposes of predicting
enrollment during the six years of this Plan. The District will monitor actual enrollment over the
next two years and, if necessary, make appropriate adjustments in the next Plan update.
Change % Change
Projection 2017* 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 17-23 17-23
OFM/County 5,394 5,486 5,578 5,670 5,762 5,854 5,950 556 10.3%
District/OSPI 5,394 5,507 5,552 5,604 5,674 5,713 5,745 351 6.5%
-13-
B. 2035 Enrollment Projections
Student enrollment projections beyond 2023 are highly speculative. Based on OFM/County data
for 2023 and an estimated student-to-population ratio of 17.28%, 6,832 FTE students are
projected for 2035. The total enrollment estimate was broken down by grade span to evaluate
long-term site acquisition needs for elementary, middle, and high school facilities. Enrollment
by grade span was determined based on recent and projected enrollment trends at the elementary,
middle school, and high school levels.
Projected enrollment by grade span for the year 20352 is provided in Table 7. Again, these
estimates are highly speculative and are used only for general planning purposes.
Table 7
Projected Student Enrollment
(Ratio Method – OFM)
2035
Grade Span Projected Enrollment
Elementary (K-5) 3,074
Middle School (6-8) 1,640
High School (9-12) 2,118
TOTAL (K-12) 6,832
2 Snohomish County Planning & Development Services provided the underlying data for the 2035 projections.
-14-
SECTION 5
CAPITAL FACILITIES NEEDS
Projected available student capacity was derived by subtracting projected student enrollment
from existing school capacity (excluding relocatable classrooms) for each of the six years in the
forecast period (2018-2023). Capacity needs are expressed in terms of “unhoused students.”
Note that the identified capacity needs do not include growth-related capacity needs from recent
development.
Table 8A below shows future capacity needs assuming no new construction.
Table 8A
Future Capacity Needs
Grade
Span
2023 Projected Unhoused
Students
2023 Projected Unhoused
Students - Growth
Elementary (K-5) 0 0
Middle School (6-8) 30 30
High School (9-12) 77 77
TOTAL (K-12) 107 107
Projected student capacity is depicted on Table 8B. This is derived by applying the projected
number of students to the projected capacity. Planned improvements (if any) by the District
through 2023 are included in Table 8B. It is not the District’s policy to include relocatable
classrooms when determining future capital facility needs; therefore interim capacity provided
by relocatable classrooms is not included. (Information on relocatable classrooms and interim
capacity can be found in Table 4. Information on planned construction projects can be found in
Section 6 and the Financing Plan, Table 9.
-15-
Table 8B
Projected Student Capacity
2018 - 2023
Elementary School Surplus/Deficiency
Elementary 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
2023
Existing Capacity 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502
2,502
2,502
2,502
Added Capacity
Total Capacity 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502
Enrollment 2,435 2,425 2,453 2,461 2,480 2,508 2,489
Surplus (Deficiency) 67 77 49 41 22 (6)
13
Middle School Surplus/Deficiency
Middle 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
2023
Existing Capacity 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,369
1,519
Added Capacity 150^
Total Capacity 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,519 1,519
Enrollment 1,300 1,345 1,344 1,391 1,364 1,367 1,399
Surplus (Deficiency) 69 24 25 (22) 5 152
120
^Replacement and Expansion of Post Middle School
High School Surplus/Deficiency
High 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
2023
Existing Capacity 1,780 1,780 1,780 1,780 1,780 1,780
2,036
Added Capacity 256^
Total Capacity 1,780 1,780 1,780 1,780 1,780 2,036 2,036
Enrollment 1,659 1,737 1,755 1,752 1,830 1,838 1,857
Surplus (Deficiency) 121 43 25 28 (50) 198
179
^Arlington High School Addition
-16-
SECTION 6
CAPITAL FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
In February 2018, the District presented a $107.5 million bond measure to its voters to fund the
construction of a new middle school to replace Post Middle School, expand and renovate
Arlington High School, make district-wide security and safety improvements, and district-wide
health, educational and infrastructure improvements. The bond did not achieve the required 60%
minimum for passage. The District’s Board of Directors recently voted to place the same
package on the November 2018 ballot for consideration by the voters.
Permanent Capacity Adding Projects:
Replacement of Post Middle School would add 150 additional student seats.
Expansion of Arlington High School would add 256 additional student seats.
Temporary Capacity Projects:
The District plans to add portable facilities during the six year planning
period of this CFP.
Property Acquisition:
The District plans to acquire land for an elementary school site.
In the event that planned construction projects do not fully address space needs for student
growth and a reduction in interim student housing, the Board could consider various courses of
action, including, but not limited to:
Alternative scheduling options;
Changes in the instructional model;
Grade configuration changes;
Increased class sizes; or
Modified school calendar.
Funding for planned improvements is typically secured from a number of sources including voter
approved bonds, state school construction assistance program funds, and impact fees. Each of
these funding sources is discussed in greater detail below.
-17-
B. Financing for Planned Improvements
1. General Obligation Bonds
Bonds are typically used to fund construction of new schools and other capital
improvement projects. A 60% voter approval is required to approve the issuance of
bonds. Bonds are then retired through collection of property taxes. In March 2000,
the voters passed a $54 million bond issue for school construction and site
acquisition. The March 2000 bond issue added a replacement high school, a new
elementary school, a new middle school, and a replacement elementary. The funds
from this bond have been the primary source of funding for the capital improvement
projects listed in previous versions of this Plan. As discussed above, the District
plans to submit a bond proposal to its voters in November 2018 for a
replacement/expanded middle school, high school expansion, and various district-
wide projects.
2. State School Construction Assistance Funds
State School Construction Assistance funds come from the Common School
Construction Fund. The State deposits revenue from the sale of renewable
resources from State school lands set aside by the Enabling Act of 1889 into the
Common School Account. If these sources are insufficient to meet needs, the
Legislature can appropriate General Obligation Bond funds or the Superintendent of
Public Instruction can prioritize projects for funding. School districts may qualify
for State School Construction Assistance funds for specific capital projects based on
a prioritization system. The District is currently eligible for state school
construction assistance funds at the 61.75% level for eligible projects.
3. Impact Fees
Impact fees are a means of supplementing traditional funding sources for
construction of public facilities needed to accommodate new development.
4. Six-Year Financing Plan
Table 9 demonstrates how the District intends to fund new construction and
improvements to school facilities for the years 2018-2023. The financing
components include a bond issue, impact fees, and other future sources. Projects
and portions of projects which remedy existing deficiencies are not appropriate for
impact fee funding. Thus, impact fees will not be used to finance projects or
portions of projects which do not add capacity or which remedy existing
deficiencies.
-19-
Table 9
Capital Facilities Financing Plan
Improvements Adding Permanent Capacity (Costs in Millions)
Project
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Total
Cost
Bonds/
Levy
State
Match
Impact
Fees
Elementary
None
Middle School
Post Middle School Replacement and
Expansion
$24,279 $24,279 $24,279 $72.838 X X X
High School
Arlington High School Expansion $2.443 $4.887 $2.443 $9.774 X X X
Improvements Adding Temporary Capacity (Costs in Millions)
Project
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Total
Cost
Bonds/
Levy
State
Match
Impact
Fees
Relocatables $2.18 $2.18 $2.18 X X
Noncapacity Improvements (Costs in Millions)
Project
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Total
Cost
Bonds/
Levy
State
Match
Impact
Fees1
Elementary
Eagle Creek El Improvements
Kent Prairie El Improvements
Pioneer El Improvements
Presidents El Improvements
$2.769
$2.012
$0.950
$1.548
$2.769
$2.012
$5.538
$4.024
$0.950
$1.548
X
X
X
X
Middle School
Haller MS Improvements $2.372 $2.372 $4.744 X
High School
Arlington High School Renovation
Weston High School Building
Improvements
$1.394
$0.808
$1.394
$0.808
$1.394
$0.808
$4.181
$2.424
X
X
X
SV Learning Center $0.046 $0.046 X
Transportation Center $1.939 $1.939 X
-20-
SECTION 7
SCHOOL IMPACT FEES
The GMA authorizes jurisdictions to collect impact fees to supplement funding of
additional public facilities needed to accommodate new development. Impact fees cannot be
used for the operation, maintenance, repair, alteration, or replacement of existing capital facilities
used to meet existing service demands.
A. School Impact Fees in Snohomish County
The Snohomish County General Policy Plan (“GPP”) which implements the GMA sets
certain conditions for school districts wishing to assess impact fees:
The District must provide support data including: an explanation of the
calculation methodology, a description of key variables and their
computation, and definitions and sources of data for all inputs into the fee
calculation.
Such data must be accurate, reliable and statistically valid.
Data must accurately reflect projected costs in the Six-Year Financing
Plan.
Data in the proposed impact fee schedule must reflect expected student
generation rates from the following residential unit types: single family;
multi-family/studio or 1-bedroom; and multi-family/2-bedroom or more.
Snohomish County and the City of Arlington’s impact fee programs require school
districts to prepare and adopt CFPs meeting the specifications of the GMA. Impact fees are
calculated in accordance with the formula, which are based on projected school facility costs
necessitated by new growth and are contained in the District’s CFP.
B. Methodology and Variables Used to Calculate School Impact Fees
Impact fees are calculated utilizing the formula in the Snohomish County Impact Fee
Ordinance. The resulting figures are based on the District’s cost per dwelling unit to purchase
land for school sites, make site improvements, construct schools, and purchase/install relocatable
facilities that add interim capacity needed to serve new development. A student factor (or
student generation rate) is used to identify the average cost per dwelling unit by measuring the
average number of students generated by each housing type (single -family dwellings and multi-
family dwellings of one bedroom and two bedrooms or more). A description of the student
methodology is contained in Appendix B. As required under the GMA, credits are applied in the
formula to account for State School Construction Assistance funds to be reimbursed to the
District and projected future property taxes to be paid by the dwelling unit. The costs of projects
that do not add capacity are not included in the impact fee calculations. Furthermore, because
-21-
the impact fee formula calculates a “cost per dwelling unit”, an identical fee is generated
regardless of whether the total new capacity project costs are used in the calculation or whether
the District only uses the percentage of the total new capacity project costs allocated to the
Districts growth-related needs, as demonstrated in Table 8-A. For purposes of this Plan, the
District has chosen to use the full project costs in the fee formula. Furthermore, impact fees will
not be used to address existing deficiencies. See Table 9 for a complete identification of funding
sources.
The following projects are included in the impact fee calculation:
A capacity addition at Arlington High School.
A capacity addition at the replacement Post Middle School
Please see Table 11 for relevant cost data related to each capacity project.
C. Proposed Arlington School District Impact Fee Schedule
Using the variables and formula described in subsection B, impact fees proposed for the
District are summarized in Table 10. See also Appendix C.
Table 10
School Impact Fees
2018
Housing Type
Impact Fee
Per Dwelling Unit
Single Family $4,756
Multi-Family (1 Bedroom) No fee ($0)
Multi-Family (2+ Bedroom) $6,790
-22-
Table 11: Impact Fee Variables
Student Generation Factors – Single Family Average Site Cost/Acre
Elementary .283 N/A
Middle .157
Senior .166
Total .606
Temporary Facility Capacity
Student Generation Factors – Multi Family (1 Bdrm) Capacity 22
Elementary .000 Cost $109,250
Middle .000
Senior .000 State Match Credit
Total .000 Current State Match Percentage 61.75%
Student Generation Factors – Multi Family (2+ Bdrm) Construction Cost Allocation
Elementary .000 Current CCA 225.97
Middle .214
Senior .071 District Average Assessed Value
Total .286 Single Family Residence $340,872
Projected Student Capacity per Facility District Average Assessed Value
Arlington HS (expansion) - 256
Post Middle School (replacement and expansion) –
150 added capacity (for total new capacity of 907)
Multi Family (1 Bedroom) $91,988
Multi Family (2+ Bedroom) $136,499
Required Site Acreage per Facility
SPI Square Footage per Student
Facility Construction/Cost Average Elementary 90
Middle 108
Arlington HS (expansion) $9,773,649
Post Middle School (repl/expansion) $72,837,480
High 130
District Debt Service Tax Rate for Bonds
Current/$1,000 $1.369
Permanent Facility Square Footage General Obligation Bond Interest Rate
Elementary 237,231 Current Bond Buyer Index 3.85%
Middle 162,325
Senior 256,181 Developer Provided Sites/Facilities
Total 98.61% 655,737 Value 0
Dwelling Units 0
Temporary Facility Square Footage
Elementary 5,034
Middle 3,356
Senior 839
Total 1.39% 9,229
Total Facility Square Footage
Elementary 242,265
Middle 165,681
Senior 257,020
Total 100.00% 664,966
APPENDIX A
POPULATION AND ENROLLMENT DATA
A-1
APPENDIX B
STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR REVIEW
B-1
B-2
B-3
APPENDIX C
SCHOOL IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
C-1
Staff Report & Recommendation
Arlington Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center – Planning Commission
Page 1 of 3
Community and Economic Development
Planning Division
18204 59th Avenue NE, Arlington, WA 98223
Planning Commission
STAFF REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
To: Planning Commission
From:
Josh Grandlienard, Planner II
Date: February 21, 2018
Regarding: Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan
A. INTRODUCTION
The Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan is a City‐initiated project that is an amendment
to the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan. The Plan is submitted under the 2019 Comprehensive
Update docket cycle.
B. GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Arlington School District
Project Description: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Requested Action: Make a recommendation of approval to the Arlington City Council
Exhibits: Draft Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan
Staff Report & Recommendation
Arlington Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center – Planning Commission
Page 2 of 3
C. DETAILED PROJECT INFORMATION
Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan adoption by reference. School Districts are
required by the Growth Management Act to provide a plan for future growth and future
enrollment, and to establish impact fees consistent with the Comprehensive plan which are
used to fund new facilities only.
D. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
1. SEPA COMPLIANCE:
The amendment of a comprehensive plan is subject to provisions of the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Chapter 20.98 of the Arlington Municipal Code
(AMC).
2. PUBLIC NOTIFACTION/INVOLVEMENT
a. Presentations and/or updates to the Planning Commission occured on March 5,
2019 and May 21, 2019.
b. Two Public open houses were held at Crown Distribution on the following dates,
April 4, 2018 and October 16, 2018.
c. The City presented information and advertised the open houses regarding the
Comprehensive Plan Docket in the Everett Herald, and area wide mailing.
d. A Notice of Public Hearing for the May 21, 2019 City Council meeting was posted at
the Arlington and Smokey Point Post Offices, The Arlington Library and City Hall.
The Notice was also published in the Everett Herald.
3. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOTIFICATION
The Arlington‐Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center Subarea Plan Comprehensive
Plan Amendment was submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce
(DOC), and the DOC notified the City that it was in procedural compliance with RCW
36.70A.106.
E. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Staff has reviewed the draft findings during review of the project and finds that the
applicant has met the intent of all applicable requirements and standards. The plan
supplements the Comprehensive Plan, through planning goal PL‐15.55 and allows for the
fulfillment of Manufacturing/Industrial Center Designation. The Designation of the
Arlington Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center is consistent with the City of
Arlington Comprehensive Plan.
F. ANALYSIS
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend for approval and adoption of
AMMIC Resolution No. 2018‐007 for City Council, thus fulfilling applications requirements
to earn the designation of a Regional Manufacturing/Industrial Center from PSRC. The
proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan adds the Arlington‐Marysville Manufacturing
Industrial Center Subarea Plan as a document adopted by reference.
G. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Staff Report & Recommendation
Arlington Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center – Planning Commission
Page 3 of 3
The Amendment for the Arlington‐Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center Subarea Plan
will be adopted through the provision in RCW 36.70A.130(2), and has been addressed by
appropriate environmental review under chapter 43.21C RCW.
1. Public meetings were held on April 4, 2018 and October 16, 2018.
2. A Determination of Non‐Significance (DNS) for the AMMIC Subarea Plan was issued
on October 30, 2018.
3. The draft Arlington‐Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center Subarea Plan was
submitted to the DOC in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106 and the submittal met all DOC’s
procedural requirements.
4. On November 6, 2018, the Planning Commission reviewed a draft of the Arlington‐
Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center Subarea Plan at their workshop meeting.
5. The Subarea Plan and Existing Conditions Report were presented at the November 6,
2018 Planning Commission meeting and action to recommend Arlington‐Marysville
Manufacturing Industrial Center Subarea Plan occurred November 20, 2018.
6. On November 21, 2018, a Notice of Public Hearing for the December 3, 2018 City
Council public hearing was posted at Arlington City Hall, Arlington Post Office, Smokey
Point Post Office and the Arlington Public Library.
7. The application for PLN#491 has been reviewed for consistency with the Arlington
Comprehensive Plan and for internal consistency and the 2018 Comprehensive Plan
amendments are consistent with, and internally consistent with, the Arlington
Comprehensive Plan.
8. PLN#491 has been reviewed in accordance with, and is consistent with, the
Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies.
9. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments were prepared in accordance with
the Washington State Enabling Legislation (RCW 35A.63) and the Growth Management Act.
10. Documentation supporting the findings of fact is located in the file PLN#491, which
is adopted by reference into this approval.
11. Adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments, PLN#491, furthers the
public health, safety and general welfare.
H. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Arlington Planning Commission make a recommendation to the
Arlington City Council to adopt the Arlington‐Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center
Subarea Plan, 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, PLN #491.
Staff Report & Recommendation
Grandview North Rezone – Planning Commission
Page 1 of 3
Community and Economic Development
Planning Division
18204 59th Avenue NE, Arlington, WA 98223
Planning Commission
STAFF REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
To: Planning Commission
From:
Josh Grandlienard, Planner II
Date: February 21, 2019
Regarding: Grandview North PLN #509
A. INTRODUCTION
The Applicant is proposing to rezone a property at 6810 211th Pl NE from a Residential Low to
Moderate Density zoning to a Neighborhood Commercial zone for a 0.99 acre lot. This request if
granted would be an amendment to the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and
the City’s Official Zoning Map would need to be amended. The Plan is submitted under the 2019
Comprehensive Update docket cycle.
B. GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Grandview North LLC
Project Description: 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Property Rezone
Requested Action: Make a recommendation of approval to the Arlington City Council
Exhibits: Grandview North Application and Narrative
Staff Report & Recommendation
Grandview North Rezone – Planning Commission
Page 2 of 3
C. DETAILED PROJECT INFORMATION
The applicant is requesting the rezoning of a 0.99 acre Lot from Residential Low to
Moderate Density to Neighborhood Commercial with a mixed use overlay. Approval by the
City Council is required for all rezone applications. If the request is granted, the City’s
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the City’s Official Zoning Map would need to be
amended.
D. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
1. SEPA COMPLIANCE:
The amendment of a comprehensive plan amendment is subject to provisions of the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Chapter 20.98 of the Arlington Municipal Code
(AMC).
2. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION/INVOLVEMENT
a. Presentations and/or updates to the Planning Commission will occur on March 5,
2019, March 19, 2019 and April 16, 2019.
b. Two Public Hearings will be held at Planning Commission, located at Arlington City
Chambers on the following dates, March 19, 2019 and April 16, 2019.
c. The City will present information and advertise the Public Hearings regarding the
Planning Docket in the Everett Herald, and via area wide mailing.
d. A Notice of Public Hearing for the May 6, 2019 Planning Commission meeting will be
posted at the Arlington and Smokey Point Post Offices, The Arlington Library and
City Hall. The Notice was also published in the Everett Herald.
3. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOTIFICATION
The York Rezone, along with the additional docket items will be submitted to the
Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC), and the DOC will notify the City that
if it is in procedural compliance with RCW 36.70A.106.
E. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Staff has reviewed the draft findings during review of the project and finds that the
applicant has met the intent of all applicable requirements and standards. The plan
supplements the Comprehensive Plan, through planning goals PH-1.1, PH-2.1, PH-2.3, PL-
7.1, PL-7.2, PL-7.3, PE-1.3, PE-1.4, PE-1.12, and PL-1.7. This means that based on the
submittal that the rezone will contribute to a variety of housing types and densities, locate it
near commercial and employment centers, promotes mixed use development, contributes
to an adequate employment land base and retail sales base, provides for commercial uses
within a neighborhood outside of the downtown area, and will allow for a range of
commercial uses and mixed use development per the General Commercial designation.
F. ANALYSIS
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend for approval and adoption, the
rezoning of tax parcel 31051100304400 from Residential Low to Moderate Density zoning
to Neighborhood Commercial by City Council.
G. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Staff Report & Recommendation
Grandview North Rezone – Planning Commission
Page 3 of 3
1. Public meetings will be held on March 5, 2019, March 19, 2019, and April 16, 2019.
2. The Planning Docket and associated staff reports will be submitted to the DOC in
accordance with RCW 36.70A.106 and the submittal will meet all DOC’s procedural
requirements.
3. On March 5, 2019, the Planning Commission will review a draft of the City of
Arlington 2019 Comprehensive Plan Docket at their workshop meeting.
4. On February 19, 2019 a Notice of Public Hearing for the March 19, 2019 Planning
Commission public hearing was posted at Arlington City Hall, Arlington Post Office, Smokey
Point Post Office and the Arlington Public Library.
5. On March 29, 2019 a Notice of Public Hearing for the April 16, 2019 Planning
Commission public hearing will be posted at Arlington City Hall, Arlington Post Office,
Smokey Point Post Office and the Arlington Public Library.
6. The application for PLN#509 has been reviewed for consistency with the Arlington
Comprehensive Plan and for internal consistency and the 2019 Comprehensive Plan
amendments are consistent with, and internally consistent with, the Arlington
Comprehensive Plan.
7. PLN#509 has been reviewed in accordance with, and is consistent with, the
Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies.
8. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments were prepared in accordance with
the Washington State Enabling Legislation (RCW 35A.63) and the Growth Management Act.
9. Documentation supporting the findings of fact is located in the file PLN #509, which
is adopted by reference into this approval.
10. Adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments, PLN#509, furthers the
public health, safety and general welfare.
H. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Arlington Planning Commission make a recommendation to the
Arlington City Council to adopt the Grandview North Rezone, 2019 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, PLN#509.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction
1-4 SEPTEMBER 2017
Transportation
1. Develop plans for street connectivity
2. Accommodate nonmotorized transportation modes (trails, sidewalks, etc)
3. Develop street networks within the Brekhus/Beach Subarea, and the future Lindsay
Annexation Area.
Plan and Project Review
1. Reports, plans, project reviews or other actions by the City will contain an analysis of the
GMA Plan and policies to ensure consistency or describe variations.
2. Reports, plans, project reviews or other actions by adjacent jurisdictions will be reviewed
against the Comprehensive Plan, with comment being provided to the decision-makers.
The July 2015 GMA Comprehensive Plan was granted conditional certification by the Puget
Sound Regional Council, subject to completion of several items outlined in its March 2016
review (Appendix I). Certification is required for review of transportation funding requests under
the Regional Transportation Improvement Program, which Arlington will be pursuing over the
coming months and years. This 2017 Plan reflects changes based on that review.
1.4 DOCUMENTS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE
The City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan incorporates by reference the following documents:
2005 Arlington GMA Comprehensive Plan, except as otherwise amended by the 2015
Update.
Arlington/ Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center Subarea Plan
City of Arlington Complete Streets Policy
West Arlington Subarea Plan.
Arlington Water Systems Plan.
Arlington Sewer Systems Plan.
Arlington 2016 Transportation Plan.
Stillaguamish Valley Economic Development Plan.
Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies, June 2013.
Multi-County Planning Policies.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction
1-5 SEPTEMBER 2017
PSRC Vision 2040.
PSRC Transportation 2040.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction
1-6 SEPTEMBER 2017
PSRC Industrial Lands Analysis, 2015.
Updated Regional Transportation Demand Management Action Plan.
Updated Transportation 2040 financial strategy.
Coordination with planned Community Transit services.
Coordination with Sound Transit planning.
Puget Sound Cleans Air Agency Growth Management Policies.
Regional Open Space Strategy.
International Building Codes, including Fire Code.
Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan.
NPDES Phase II Stormwater permit.
2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.
Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan.
Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan.
Snohomish County UGA Land Capacity Analysis Technical Report, June 10, 2015
The documents listed will have direct influence on decision-making where provisions are
prescriptive. Where advisory only, the documents will be balanced with other policies, regulations
and priorities.
1.5 RE-ASSESSMENT PROCESS
The Comprehensive Plan includes a Capital Facilities Element (Chapter 9) and Transportation
Element (Chapter 8), each describing how infrastructure will be developed concurrently with
growth. The City may not be able to finance all proposed capital facility projects. This will be
assessed annually. Where capital facility shortfalls affect concurrency, the following are the
options available:
Increase Revenue
Decrease Level of Service Standards
Decrease the Cost of the Facility or Reduce the Scope of the Project
Decrease the Demand for the Public Service or Facility
Reassess the Land Use Element
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
i
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
ii
Acknowledgements
City of Arlington Community and Economic
Development Staff
Nova Heaton, P.E.
Launa Peterson
Marc Hayes
Toole Design
Kristen Lohse, ASLA
Katherine Knapp de Orvañanos
Brian Almdale
Carol Kachadoorian
Amalia Leighton, PE, AICP
BHC Consultants
Becca Ochiltree
Carla Talich
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS POLICY | November 2018
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... iii
Figures and Tables ....................................................................................................................................... vi
Terminology and Acronyms ....................................................................................................................... vii
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.0 Introduction & Overview .............................................................................................................. 5
1.2 Complete Streets Program .................................................................................................................. 6
1.2.1 Complete Streets Policy Summary ............................................................................................................. 6
1.2.2 Complete Streets Design Standards ....................................................................................................... 10
1.2.3 Complete Streets Implementation ........................................................................................................... 10
1.2.4 Program Evaluation Metrics .......................................................................................................... 10
1.2.5 Ongoing program Oversight and Reporting .......................................................................................... 12
1.3 Complete Streets Background ........................................................................................................... 12
1.3.1 Safety Benefits of Complete Streets ........................................................................................................ 12
1.3.2 Economic Benefits of Complete Streets ................................................................................................. 13
1.3.3 Accessibility and Mobility Benefits of Complete Streets .................................................................... 14
1.3.3 Health Benefits of Complete Streets ....................................................................................................... 15
1.3.4 Environmental Benefits of Complete Streets ........................................................................................ 16
1.3.5 Economic and Equity Considerations ............................................................................................ 17
1.4 Case Studies ...................................................................................................................................... 20
1.4.1 Policy Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................................................... 21
1.5 Funding Opportunities ...................................................................................................................... 21
1.6 Plan and Policy Review and Recommendations ............................................................................... 24
1.7 Community Engagement................................................................................................................... 27
2.0 Process & Documentation ..................................................................................................................... 29
2.1 Roles, Responsibilities, and Coordination ........................................................................................ 29
2.1.1 City Departments and Divisions ............................................................................................................... 29
2.1.2 Boards, Commissions, and Committees ................................................................................................. 31
2.2 Project Development Process............................................................................................................ 32
2.2.1 Process Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 32
2.3 Complete Streets Checklist ............................................................................................................... 40
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS POLICY | November 2018
iv
2.3.1 Process and Responsibilities ...................................................................................................................... 41
2.3.2 Variances ........................................................................................................................................................ 41
2.3.3 Complete Streets Prioritization Plan ....................................................................................................... 41
2.4 Next Steps: Street Design Typologies .............................................................................................. 42
3.0 Cross-Sections and Design Guidance ................................................................................................... 44
3.1 Roadway Design Criteria Parameters and Standards ........................................................................ 44
3.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 44
3.2 Roadway Design Criteria Footnotes and Clarifications .................................................................... 52
3.2.1. Pedestrian Zone Width ............................................................................................................................. 52
3.2.2 Number of Travel Lanes ............................................................................................................................. 52
3.2.3 Travelway /Lane Width ............................................................................................................................... 52
3.2.4 Center Turn Lane / Median ........................................................................................................................ 52
3.2.5 Default Bikeway Type .................................................................................................................................. 53
3.2.6 Target Speed .................................................................................................................................................. 54
3.2.7 Corner Radii .................................................................................................................................................. 55
3.2.8 Typical ADT ................................................................................................................................................... 56
3.3 Supporting Transit in Complete Streets ............................................................................................ 56
3.3.1 Bus Stops and Bikeways .............................................................................................................................. 57
3.3.2 Conventional Bus Stop with Interrupted Bike Lane ............................................................................ 57
3.3.3 Floating Bus Stops ........................................................................................................................................ 58
3.4 Supporting Pedestrians in Complete Streets ..................................................................................... 59
3.4.1 Pedestrian Zone Design Criteria .............................................................................................................. 59
3.4.2 Frontage Zone............................................................................................................................................... 59
3.5.3 Clear Zone ..................................................................................................................................................... 59
3.4.4 Amenity Zone ............................................................................................................................................... 60
3.4.5 Total Width ................................................................................................................................................... 60
3.4.6 Crosswalks ..................................................................................................................................................... 60
3.4.7 Midblock Crossings ...................................................................................................................................... 61
3.5 Street Trees and Landscaping ........................................................................................................... 61
3.5.1 Greenscape and Street Trees .................................................................................................................... 61
3.5.2 Street Tree Planting ..................................................................................................................................... 62
3.5.3 Other Design Considerations ................................................................................................................... 63
3.5.4 Installation and Maintenance ...................................................................................................................... 64
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS POLICY | November 2018
v
3.6 Low Impact Design Guidelines......................................................................................................... 65
3.6.1 High Infiltration, Low Groundwater ........................................................................................................ 65
3.6.2 High Groundwater ....................................................................................................................................... 65
3.6.3 Poor Infiltration ............................................................................................................................................ 65
3.7 Street Element Priorities ................................................................................................................... 65
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS POLICY | November 2018
vi
Figures and Tables
Figure 1. Downtown Arlington Street Fair. Photo credit: Downtown Arlington ......................................... 1
Figure 2. Downtown Arlington ..................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3. Biking in Arlington ...................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 4. Walking in Arlington ................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 5. Walking in Arlington ................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 6. Census Tracts – ............................................................................................................................ 17
Figure 7. Poverty status, Arlington ............................................................................................................. 18
Figure 8. Median Household Income, Arlington ........................................................................................ 18
Figure 9. Black Population ......................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 10. The TIB Indicators of a Well-Integrated Complete Streets Ethic (from the TIB) ..................... 23
Figure 11. Overview of Complete Streets Policy implementation within City departments ............... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
Figure 12. Example Complete Streets Corridor Cross Section ................................................................... 44
Figure 13. Proposed Road Section: Arterial Boulevard .............................................................................. 48
Figure 14. Proposed Road Section: Mixed Use Avenue ............................................................................ 49
Figure 15. Proposed Road Section: Smokey Point Blvd, north of 172nd ................................................... 50
Figure 16. Proposed Road Section: Smokey Point Blvd, north of 172nd ................................................... 51
Figure 17: Bicycle Facility Selection .......................................................................................................... 52
Figure 18: Bicyclist Types and Preferences ................................................................................................ 53
Figure 19: Speed and Pedestrian Crash Severity ........................................................................................ 54
Figure 20. Four Types of Speed .................................................................................................................. 55
Figure 23: Example Conventional Bus Stop with Interrupted Bike Lane ................................................... 57
Figure 24: Examples of Floating Bus Stops at Intersections and Midblock Locations .............................. 58
Table 1. Review of Arlington’s Policies and Plans..................................................................................... 26
From the 22 department and division structures, plans and budget documents analyzed, the top
department and division opportunities and challenges for developing and implementing the Complete
Streets Program were summarized (see Table 2). ....................................................................................... 29
Table 3: BCC Complete Streets Program Development and Implementation Opportunities and Challenges
.................................................................................................................................................................... 31
Table 4. Department & Divisions’ Complete Streets Policy Implementation Roles and Responsibilities . 32
Table 5. BCCs’ Complete Streets Policy Implementation Roles and Responsibilities............................... 37
Table 6. External Agencies' Complete Streets Policy Implementation Roles and Responsibilities ........... 39
Table 7. Community Groups’ Complete Streets Policy Implementation Roles and Responsibilities ........ 40
Table 8. Existing Conditions and Planned Improvements on Identified Complete Streets Corridors ........ 45
Table 9. Proposed Corridor Design Elements and Space Requirements .................................................... 46
Table 10: Proposed Roadway Operational Parameters ............................................................................... 47
Table 11. Tree Spacing Recommendations ................................................................................................. 62
Table 12. Tree Clearance Recommendations.............................................................................................. 63
Table 13: Street Element Priorities ............................................................................................................. 66
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS POLICY | November 2018
vii
Terminology and Acronyms
The following is a list of phrases and acronyms used throughout this document and commonly used by
City of Arlington planners, designers, and officials.
Terms
85th percentile speed – The speed at which 85 percent of motor vehicle traffic travels at or below. This
is a common measurement used to determine whether people are driving at or near the intended speed of a
street; see target speed.
All Ages and Abilities – A term used to denote a philosophical approach to the design of bicycle
facilities that is inclusive of a wide range of cyclist skills, abilities, and confidence, including children and
older people; sometimes referred to as ‘8-80’, as in 8 to 80 years old.
city (uncapitalized) – The geographic area known as Arlington; this term is used when referring to
Arlington as a place.
City (capitalized) – Short for City of Arlington; this term is used when referring to the City government,
which (along with WSDOT) is responsible for planning, designing, constructing, and maintaining
Arlington’s transportation system.
Guide – A non-binding document that provides best practices (or a summary of standards) for planning
and design; see standard.
Mode shift – A shifting of trips from one mode to another, typically from motor vehicle to transit,
walking, or biking.
Person miles traveled (PMT) – A measurement of how many cumulative miles individuals travel in a
given period of time; one person driving one mile equates to one-person mile traveled, while 25 people
riding a bus one mile equates to 25-person miles traveled; see vehicle miles traveled.
Plan – Short for the City of Arlington’s Complete Streets Policy (this document.)
Right-of-way (ROW) – Land owned or granted by easement to the City or WSDOT for transportation
purposes; this term is often used to refer to the public land outside of the roadway in which sidewalks,
landscaping, and set-backs are present.
Roadway – The paved or unpaved area meant for conveying motor vehicles and bicycles, including all
through lanes, turn lanes, bike lanes, paved shoulders, medians, curbs, and gutters.
Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) – A vehicle that only contains a driver and no additional passenger.
Standard – Usually a non-binding parameter (or set of parameters) that specifies the typical treatment for
a design feature (such as bike lane width); non-binding standards can be deviated from so long as
adequate documentation and justification is provided; Board of Public Roads Classifications and
Standards are mandated by state statute and dictate minimum lane width.
Street – The entirety of a transportation corridor, including the roadway, pedestrian spaces, landscaped
areas, and even building facades; a holistic concept in which transportation, land use, character,
economics, and quality of life should be considered equally.
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS POLICY | November 2018
viii
Target Speed - The speed at which people are expected to drive; the target speed is intended to become
the posted speed limit.
Typology – A defined street type (whether existing or potential) in Arlington used to describe the general
design, function, and character of a street design; the Plan includes eight street typologies.
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) – A measurement of how many cumulative miles are traveled by motor
vehicles; one person driving one mile and 25 people riding a bus one mile each equates to one vehicle
mile traveled; see person miles traveled.
Acronyms
AASHTO – American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; AASHTO has
produced numerous design guides and standards that tend to be conservative and are based on
demonstrated designs.
BCC – Boards, committees, and commissions; policy and program decision making bodies for the City of
Arlington, which includes the City Council
CSP – Complete Streets Policy
FHWA – Federal Highway Administration; a division of the US Department of Transportation
GSI – Green Stormwater Infrastructure; a variety of systems or practices used in the street right-of-way to
manage stormwater flows naturally, or to improve water quality including vegetation, soil, and other
elements.
LID – Low Impact Development, refers to systems or practices that use or mimic natural drainage
processes including infiltration, evapotranspiration, to protect water quality.
M&O – Maintenance and operations; this is a category of street projects that is not typically conducive to
incorporating changes to the roadway or right-of-way.
NACTO – National Association of City Transportation Officials; NACTO has produced multiple design
guides that incorporate innovative and sometimes experimental approaches to street design.
WSDOT – the Washington State Department of Transportation.
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
1
Executive Summary
Introduction
Community design in America has been focused on automobiles for more than 50 years. In that time
Americans are getting less exercise, diseases linked to inactivity have skyrocketed, and obesity has
increased in both adults and children. The City of Arlington recognizes that the design of its roadways
and transportation system has effects beyond safety mobility and the effects extend to the aesthetics,
economic vitality, livability, and health of its residents.
In 2017, the City of Arlington adopted a Complete Streets Resolution that aims to address the needs of all
users when development and redevelopment of transportation corridors are proposed within the City. This
includes, in addition to people who drive, family and commuter cyclists, pedestrians, people with
accessibility needs, and people who use transit.
The Complete Streets Program outlined in this plan is about re-thinking the way the City lays out roads to
embrace the larger community goals. Providing safe routes to school may give parents the peace of mind
Figure 1. Downtown Arlington Street Fair. Photo credit: Downtown Arlington
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS POLICY | November 2018
2
they need to allow their kids to bike or walk to school. A trail between your housing development and
local grocery store may increase your likelihood to walk for milk and eggs. A bike lane and secure bike
parking might make it possible to leave your car at home in the morning on your way to catch your bus or
vanpool. Creating a walkable community may not change your habits, but if our children begin to think in
a different way we can improve their future health.
The Complete Streets Policy offers an organized look at how the City implements and monitors progress
on complete streets. Through the Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvement Plans, Transportation Expansion
Plan and other design guides and standards it summaries the elements of development that should be
expected for new projects based on location and zoning. Providing comprehensive Pedestrian and
Bicycle Improvement Plans ensures connectivity throughout the city without building unnecessary
facilities. In general, the requirements summarized in the Complete Streets Policy already exist in the
Development Code, Form Based Code, and Engineering Design Standards. This plan summaries policies,
plans, and standards that will help guide future development of streets to ensure that development is
consistent with the City’s vision for a healthy, accessible community, and that the City maintains its local
character.
The plan incorporates input from City Council Members, the Mayor, a Complete Streets Advisory
Committee, as well as the public. A key component of the plan is a Complete Streets Checklist.
Implementation of the Complete Streets checklist will assist City Staff in applying Complete Streets
principles and design standards to projects moving forward and will set community standards within the
development community.
The design standards outlined in this document are intended to facilitate the design and
construction of a street network that better accommodates all transportation modes and users in
the city, by addressing street and right-of-way features that affect user safety, speed, and comfort.
The design standards are discussed in Chapters 3 and 4.
Plan Contents
The plan begins with a summary of the City’s Complete Street Policy and describes how this plan and the
guidance and recommendations within will help the City implement the policy and facilitate the design
and construction of a Complete Streets network with a particular focus on designated corridors.
The plan includes an exploration of the importance and benefits of Complete Streets for Arlington. To
provide additional context and perspective, case studies of other Complete Streets communities are
studied and summarized.
Summary Complete Streets Components
A discussion of each of the development components of complete streets is proved below, including how
this differs from existing regulations and requirements.
Transportation – Street width, number of lanes, and speed limit shall be determined by the City of
Arlington Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), a current part of the Comprehensive Plan. For
streets not covered in the TIP, land use shall dictate appropriate roadway configuration with
approval from the City. This is not a change from current procedure.
Pedestrian – City code and standards govern requirements of pedestrian facilities. The Pedestrian
Improvement Plan (PIP) shall determine if additional requirements are required. The PIP shall be
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS POLICY | November 2018
3
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan during the next update and will supplement the
existing multimodal plan. The PIP is a new more comprehensive addition to current
procedure intended to clarify and improve connectivity within the city and transparency
regarding pedestrian facility requirements.
Bicycle – City code and standards govern requirements of bicycle facilities in conjunction with
the Bicycle Improvement Plan (BIP) attached in the appendix. The BIP shall be incorporated into
the Comprehensive Plan during the next update and will supplement the existing multimodal
plan. The BIP is a new more comprehensive addition to current procedure intended to
clarify and improve connectivity within the city and transparency regarding bicycle
facility requirements.
Transit – City code and standards govern requirements of transit facilities. The City, working
with Community Transit shall work to finalize the Transit Expansion Plan (TEP). The TEP shall
influence the location of future transit routes and stops. The TEP shall be incorporated into the
Comprehensive Plan during the next update and will supplement the existing multimodal plan.
The TEP is an update to the existing Multimodal Plan that is intended to clarify and
future routes and ensure transit facilities are being adequately planned for.
Freight – The City’s freight routes, as summarized in the Comprehensive Plan shall dictate
pavement structure to ensure long term durability of pavement. This is not a change from
current procedure.
Street Lighting – City code and standards govern the requirements for street and pedestrian
lighting facilities. The City has included, in the appendix, Street Lighting Guide to detail style
and requirements of all new light fixtures and poles. Lighting shall be of approved equal to the
examples shown. The Street Lighting Guide is a reference document to provide more
information to developers regarding the type and style of light standards required by
current code.
Median Design – The Median Design Guide provides general color, layout, and style for planted
medians within the right of way. The use of the guide is to provide a consistent look throughout
the city that considers maintenance and safety in addition to plantings and artwork. Street trees
and other plantings shall be per the City of Arlington approved plant list, or approved equal. All
artwork shall be approved through the Public Art Committee. The Median Design Guide is a
new reference document that supports existing city code and design standards intended to
unify aesthetics throughout the City of Arlington.
Artwork – Working with the Public Art Committee the City encourages use of artwork in public
spaces. There are no new requirements for public art, this encourages the use of public
art and provides direction for how to get public art approved.
Low Impact Design – The City of Arlington standards for stormwater detention and treatment are
determined by the current edition of the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual
for Western Washington. Low Impact Design is required as part of all stormwater management if
feasible. This is not a change from current procedure.
Project Prioritization – The Complete Streets Policy outlines a procedure for prioritization of
public complete streets projects to encourage equity. This is a new procedure that will be
used for any public project that is considered to be a Complete Streets Project.
Complete Streets Checklist – The checklist shall be used on all projects within the city applied for
after adoption of the Complete Streets Policy. It is a planning tool that assists the designer in
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS POLICY | November 2018
4
considering all components of Complete Streets within Arlington. The checklist ensures
consistency and transparency for all projects. This is a new procedure that will be used on
all public and private projects during the Land Use and Civil submittals and is included
in the application checklist.
For City of Arlington Staff
The plan delves into the City’s current challenges and opportunities in implementing Complete Streets
given the City’s current staffing roles and responsibilities; it also examines planning and policies and
provides policy and staff coordination recommendations and a section on funding.
In terms on implementation, the plan also provides recommendations for ongoing oversight, reporting,
and evaluation metrics to monitor progress over time.
For Developers and City Staff
There is an overview of the project development process, along with design standards and roadway
geometry examples for the development of designed Complete Streets corridors, and the Complete Streets
Checklist. The standards address a wide range of corridor design elements and space requirements. The
Complete Streets Checklist, as adopted via an ordinance by the City Council, will serve as the governing
decision-making tool, and is a required for applicable developments as part of the development checklist.
The variance procedure can be found in the municipal code. These tools will help both developers and
City staff understand the nuts and bolts of creating a Complete Streets corridor.
Key Takeaways and Conclusion
Implementation of the Complete Streets program is based on the organizing principle of connectivity and
directs the development of a program that addresses policy and planning.
The Checklist is a tool to help the City and Developers consider all aspects of a complete street, ensure
The Policy creates a method to track and ensure projects have considered all users from design
implementation through construction.
This plan benefits from a review of the experience of other communities, and includes a suite of tools and
design guidance, including updated network planning for bicycles, pedestrians, and transit. It also
addresses implementation challenges and opportunities, including funding, organizational structure and
responsibilities, and design standards. The Complete Streets Policy will be adopted by ordinance and
codified by integration into the comprehensive plan.
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
5
1.0 Introduction and Overview
Located within the Stillaguamish River Valley,
Arlington is home to over 19,000 people and has
a strong sense of community pride. Arlington’s
close-knit community enjoys both a traditional
downtown, recreational spaces, and room to
grow along Smokey Point Boulevard. As
Arlington continues to grow so too are local
demands for mobility options for residents,
employees, and visitors.
Arlington’s proximity to Everett and Seattle,
along the Interstate 5 corridor, and location
along the Stillaguamish River and the
Centennial Trail make it an ideal place for many
to work, live, and visit. Additionally, walking
and bicycling in Arlington is physically possible
and attractive for a wide range of the population
and of the year due to the city’s relatively flat
topography and temperate climate, with a
notable rainy season in the winter. Bus service
provided by Community Transit provides
connections between the downtown and Smokey
Point Boulevard district, and to communities
from Seattle, Everett, and onto Darrington.
The City of Arlington has made significant
strides forward in preparing for future
population growth and development
opportunities with investments in a
Transportation Benefit District, update of the
Comprehensive Plan, and development of a
Mixed Use Overlay Development Code. The
region’s trail network is poised for growth with
the 2015 North Stillaguamish Valley Economic
Redevelopment Plan, and recent investments by
the City in its trail connections. Such planning
and investments create opportunities for
Arlington to retain its hometown feel and meet
its mobility needs by taking a Complete Streets
approach.
1 City of Arlington, Council Agenda Bill, Item WS#3
Attachment E, Resolution for Complete Streets
Program: November 13, 2017.
1.1 Why Complete Streets for
Arlington
Arlington’s transportation network connects its
community members to schools, jobs, shops,
parks, community events, and to their neighbors.
The Complete Streets program will improve
access and safety for all community members to
the streets, sidewalks, and trails that connect
Arlington. In 2017, the Arlington City Council
passed a resolution that adopted a Complete
Streets policy and directed staff to develop a
Complete Streets program. In Arlington,
Complete Streets means,
A comprehensive, integrated transportation
network with infrastructure and design that
allows safe and convenient travel along and
across streets for all users, including
pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and
motorists that accommodates people of all
ages and abilities.1
Complete Streets are streets for everyone, no
matter who they are, or how they travel. The
Complete Streets Policy, this document,
provides design guidance for reimagining and
developing transportation network with land use,
local context, and multiple modes in mind.
Planning and designing for community members
to move, access, and connect in Arlington –
regardless of their age, ability, status, or travel
mode – will support Arlington’s livable future.
Implementation of the Complete Street Policy
has the potential to improve the livability of
Arlington. By creating a transportation network
that supports multiple modes of transportation,
the application of Complete Streets principles
can help to increase access to and the safety of
all transportation options. As Arlington
community members and visitors are safer and
feel more comfortable biking, walking, or taking
transit, more travelers will choose a mode of
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
6
transportation other than a personal vehicle. At a
community-wide level, these individual
transportation choices can collectively reduce
vehicle traffic congestion and associated air
quality concerns. By accommodating and
encouraging active modes of transportation—
through walking to a bus stop or biking to
work— Complete Streets also support public
health and active living goals.
Communities where mobility is primarily
focused on automobile connectivity creates
challenges for citizens to walk, bike, or take
transit. This often disproportionally affects low
income, minorities, the elderly, and people with
disabilities. Implementation of the Complete
Streets Policy will work towards creating
transportation equity and providing economic
opportunity for non-auto users.
Applying the Complete Streets approach to
existing and new roadways can support existing
historic characteristics, create new connections
between neighborhoods, and plans for
development and growth. Complete Streets also
helps the City better accommodate and
coordinate public investments like streetlights,
street trees, stormwater infiltration, and utility
corridors. Through the implementation of the
Complete Streets Policy, the City will not only
improve the safety of the transportation system
but ensures that streets and public rights-of-way
better serve the community.
1.2 Complete Streets Program
The City of Arlington committed to developing
and enacting a city-wide Complete Streets
program in November 2017. As outlined in the
City’s Complete Streets Resolution, the purpose
of Arlington’s Complete Streets program is to:
…[create] a true multimodal transportation
network that is designed and operated to be
safe, comfortable, and convenient for all
users – pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and
transit rides of all ages and abilities.
Complete Streets is also about transforming
streets into environments that provide for a
sense of belonging and engagement and
ultimately creating a more livable
community.
1.2.1 Complete Streets Policy
Summary
Arlington’s Resolution calls for the City to
develop a multimodal transportation plan that
meets the needs and abilities of roadway users of
all ages and abilities. The Resolution also
highlights the City’s identified need to
accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, transit
users, motorists, emergency responders, and
Figure 2. Downtown Arlington
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
7
freight providers on its transportation network.
Finally, the Resolution called on the Department
of Public Works and Department of Community
and Economic to work collaboratively on
preparing a Complete Streets Program for the
Council’s consideration by November 2018. The
Program is to include:
Metrics for all modes of transportation
based on local connectivity assessments
for pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and
automobile travel; and,
Specific design standard details with
Public Rights-of Way requirements such
as Low Impact Development
Storm water facilities, utility placement,
street lighting, landscaping.
The Complete Streets Policy includes
procedures and design standards to ensure all
new and redesigned projects include elements to
address all users. Each of the following elements
were considered.
Vision and Intent
The vision of the City of Arlington
Complete Streets Policy as outlined in
the 2017 resolution states “a
transportation system that encourages
healthy, active living; promotes
transportation options and independent
mobility; increases community safety
and access to healthy food; reduces
environmental impact; mitigates climate
change; and supports greater social
interaction and community identity by
providing safe and convenient travel
along and across streets through a
comprehensive, integrated
transportation network for pedestrians,
bicyclists, public transportation riders
and drivers, motor-vehicle drivers….”
The policy aims to create a complete,
connected network for the following
modes of traffic; pedestrians, cyclists,
transit riders, and motorists. Each mode
has been looked at independently and
improvement plans have been drafted to
create complete, safe, equitable,
integrated systems for all modes of
travel.
All projects, public or private, permitted
within the City of Arlington shall utilize
the Complete Streets Checklist and
adhere to the Complete Streets Policy
and Design Standards included within.
This vision was used as a guide
throughout the development process to
ensure the final policy met the intent for
all City of Arlington citizens.
Diverse users
As outlined in the 2017 resolution the
policy is intended to serve “people of all
ages and abilities, including children,
youth, families, older adults, and
individuals with disabilities” Safety and
gap improvements have been identified
to increase accessibility for all users.
Additionally, the policy was created to
consider the needs of all people
including vulnerable or
underrepresented populations, by
focusing on connecting all modes of
transportation to diverse residential
areas. The policy seeks to increase
transit coverage in areas of existing and
future multifamily developments, large
employment centers, schools, and
commercial areas. When considering
public complete streets projects the City
shall prioritize vulnerable users or
neighborhoods historically
underinvested, identified through
Snohomish County census data.
Commitment in all projects and phases
In order to ensure all projects and phases
are included the City put together a team
of planners, engineers, council
members, maintenance staff, and
administration to advise and direct the
planning of the policy.
The Complete Streets Checklist was
created and will be required on all
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
8
projects to ensure consistency with the
policy on all levels for all projects. This
includes working with Public Works and
Maintenance to ensure all city
maintenance projects such as
resurfacing, or restriping consider the
needs of all users.
The City has included changes to the
right of way permitting procedures to
ensure all users are considered when
considering temporary traffic control
plans.
Clear, Accountable Expectations
The complete streets checklist details
requirements, outlines variance
procedures, and is a requirement of all
project applications. It utilizes the
existing City of Arlington variance
procedure for evaluation of exceptions.
The existing variance procedure requires
public notification and can only be
approved by the Director of Community
and Economic Development based on
clear and acceptable justification.
Acceptable Justifications for Complete
Streets Variances would be limited to;
o Routine maintenance of the right of
way that does not change the
roadway geometry or operations,
such as mowing, sweeping, and spot
repair.
o Emergency repairs that require
immediate rapid response may be
justifiable, however improvements
should still be considered if
possible. Temporary
accommodations for all existing
modes of travel are still required.
o The cost of accommodation is
excessively disproportionate to the
need or probable use.
o A documented absence of current
and future need can be
demonstrated.
o User prohibited corridors as
specified by City planning
documents.
Jurisdiction
All projects, public or private, permitted
within the City will be required to
include the Complete Streets Checklist
with the permit application in order to
demonstrate adherence to the Complete
Streets Policy.
The Completes Streets Policy has been
created with interagency coordination
and is intended to be a tool for
continued coordination with State,
County, Health, Community Transit,
Public Works, Planning, City Council,
Administration, and housing, bicycle
and pedestrian groups.
Design
The Complete Streets Policy includes
Design Standards for current best
management practices. It also details
design components for key complete
street corridors within the City and
includes typical sections commonly
proposed for commercial, industrial, and
residential areas.
All new project applications received
after implementation of this policy will
be required to follow the proposed
Design Standards.
Land Use and Context Sensitivity
The City has implemented a set of
mixed use regulations intended to work
in conjunction with the Complete Streets
Policy. In addition to adoption of the
Design Standards within the Complete
Streets Policy the City plans updates to
the Engineering Design Standards and
Standard Plans within the next year.
The Policy intends to consider existing
and proposed community context in
design guidance and mitigate for
unintended consequences such as
involuntary displacement. The
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
9
Horizontal Mixed-Use Regulations are a
key component of mitigation by creating
economically diverse, walkable,
complete, communities.
Performance Measures
Specific performance measures have
been incorporated into the Policy
including; pedestrian improvements,
bicycle improvements, connectivity,
transit improvements, vehicle metrics,
health, safety, economics, and
community.
Detailed performance measures have
been created and assigned to the
appropriate department for near and
long-term reporting. This allows review
of the program and creates the ability to
improve or adjust as needed to ensure
the policy continues to meet the intent
and vision as stated above.
The Policy shall include evaluation of
equity measures by reporting and
comparing improvements within
identified target areas to improvements
within other areas of the City.
Near-term measures will be collected
annually, long-term measures are to be
collected every six years. Community
and Economic Development will be
responsible for collecting data from the
appropriate departments and creating
annual reports. Performance measures
shall be published annually and made
available to the public on the City
website.
Project Selection Criteria
Through the process of creating the
Complete Streets Policy, the City has
identified a significant number of
Complete Streets projects aimed at
increasing connectivity within our
communities. The Policy has also
established criteria for prioritization of
projects which include safety, equity,
cost effectiveness, connectivity, and
health. The same criteria will be used in
evaluation of transportation projects
from adoption of the policy moving
forward.
Implementation Steps
Prior to development of the Complete
Streets Policy the Horizontal Mixed-Use
Regulations were adopted to create
communities complementary to
Complete Streets.
The Policy includes immediate changes
to permitting policy including
implementation of the Complete Streets
Checklist and updating the Right of
Way procedures for specific measures to
accommodate all users.
Engineering Design Standards and
Standard Plans will be updated within
the next year.
Annual reporting will be required in
conjunction with staff training and
updates as necessary to ensure the plan
remains up to date and aligned with the
Complete Streets goals.
The existing Complete Streets advisory
committee, under the direction of
Community and Economic
Development, is to remain engaged and
responsible for reporting, training, and
updating the Complete Streets Policy.
Representation includes, City
Administration, Community and
Economic Development, city council,
design review, public works, GIS,
planners, engineers, and maintenance
staff.
The Complete Streets advisory
committee will be responsible for
providing updated information to the
City’s Communications Department to
keep the website up to date with new
information, community input, and
public outreach.
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
10
1.2.2 Complete Streets Design
Standards
The standards outlined in the Complete Streets
Policy (this document) are intended to facilitate
the design and construction of a street network
that better accommodates all transportation
modes and users in the city. This document
provides standards for street and right-of-way
features that affect user safety, speed, and
comfort. The design standards are discussed in
Chapter 3.
The combination of street design parameters
(number of travel lanes, lane widths, medians,
on-street parking, and bikeways) with pedestrian
zone parameters (building setback, sidewalk
width, pedestrian clear space, landscape buffers,
and street furnishings) will result in a safer
transportation network for all users.
1.2.3 Complete Streets
Implementation
The Complete Street Policy and this Plan apply
to all public and private street design,
construction, and retrofit projects managed and
implemented by the City of Arlington initiated
after this Plan’s adoption, except in unusual or
extraordinary circumstances. Following the
City’s adoption of this Plan, all street and right-
of-way projects will refer to the process, design
standards outlined in Chapter 3 of this document
to the extent feasible.
The Policy includes required use of The
Complete Streets Checklist for all permitted
projects within the City. The Checklist walks
project managers through the steps required to
ensure the project addresses all users for each
mode of transportation. Key to the checklist is
the supporting planning documents contained
within.
1.2.4 Program Evaluation Metrics
Arlington’s Complete Streets Policy requires the
development of connectivity-focused metrics
across all modes of transportation. The
Resolution specifically calls out pedestrian,
bicycle, transit, and auto connectivity as starting
points for Complete Streets metrics. In addition
to the connectivity-focused metrics required by
the Policy, this Plan recommends that the City
establish near-term input activity-based
performance measures. The performance
measures can be used to track the City’s
implementation of the Complete Streets Policy
and this Plan, and progress towards the Policy-
required multimodal connectivity metrics. The
near-term performance measures should be
connected to and updated based on future
updates to the Complete Streets Policy, and
funding and staffing resource levels.
Performance measures and metrics should be
easy and inexpensive to collect and calculate and
guide the City’s progress towards achieving the
Complete Streets Policy’s vision. Prior to
committing to the below recommended
performance measures and metrics, the City
should determine what data is readily available
or can easily be collected. In addition to data the
City already collects, the City will likely need to
use data collected by other agencies, such as the
U.S. Census, Community Transit, and the
County and State Departments of
Transportation.
Near-term Performance Measures
Near-term performance measures are used to
track and measure the City’s actions and
Complete Streets investments. They should be
tracked and reported on an annual basis. The
annual report should be presented to the City
Council and posted on the City’s Complete
Streets webpage.
Miles of new and improved sidewalks
Miles of new and improved bicycle facilities
Number of new and improved accessible
transit stops (required by the Complete
Streets Policy)
Number of and percentage of projects
granted exceptions from the Complete
Streets Policy
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
11
Number of new and improved intersection
pedestrian crosswalks
Number of new and improved mid-block
pedestrian crossings
Over time, the City should provide annual and
six-year targets for these input measures. The
annual and six-year targets should be in
alignment with the City’s annual budget and Six
Year Transportation Improvement Plan.
Long-term Connectivity Metrics
While near-term performance measures are
related to project delivery and workloads, long-
term Connectivity Metrics measure changes in
the network’s performance and in the
community’s behavior. The following long-term
connectivity metrics should be tracked and
reported on every six years following the
adoption of this Plan. The report should be
presented to the City Council and posted on the
City’s Complete Streets webpage following its
development.
The six-year timeline was proposed to align the
City’s six-year TIP schedule. A longer time
frame (18 or 30 years, or another 6-year mark)
may be better for achieving a significant mode
shift.
Pedestrian Metrics
Pedestrian Connectivity
Walking commute mode share
Six-year change in walking commute
mode share
Bicycle Metrics
Bicycling Connectivity
Bicycling commute mode share
Six-year change in bicycling commute
mode share
Transit Metrics
Transit Connectivity
Transit commute mode share
Six-year change in transit commute
mode share
Number of bus boardings in Arlington
Six-year change in bus boardings in
Arlington
Vehicle Metrics
Vehicular Connectivity
SOV commute mode share
Six-year change in SOV commute mode
share
Community Metrics
Community Connectivity
Mean travel time to work
Six-year change in the mean travel time
to work
Percentage of workers with commutes
30, 60 minutes or greater
Six-year percentage change in the
percentage of workers with commutes
30, 60 minutes or greater
Economic Metrics
Commercial vacancy rate
Six-year percentage change of
commercial use vacancy rate
Community Health Metrics
Six-year percentage change of adults
who participate in 30 minutes of
moderate physical activity per day, five
days a week
Six-year percentage change of youth
who participate in 30 minutes of
moderate physical activity per day, five
days a week
Safety Metrics
Average annual reported traffic fatalities
and serious injuries (all modes)
Six-year change in average annual
reported traffic fatalities and serious
injuries (all modes)
Average annual reported pedestrian and
bicyclist fatalities and serious injuries
Six-year change in average annual
reported pedestrian and bicyclist
fatalities and serious injuries
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
12
The target goals should be established for the
long-term connectivity metrics based off initial
data for the near-term metrics, and available
funding for planning, project development, and
maintenance and operation activities. The long-
term connectivity metrics’ goals should be
updated every six years in alignment with the
City’s Six Year Transportation Improvement
Plan.
1.2.5 Ongoing program Oversight and
Reporting
Implementing the Complete Streets policy and
developing the Complete Streets Policy will
require significant coordination between the
Community and Economic Development, Public
Works, and Maintenance and Operations
departments. Other departments and key staff
members will also need to be integrated into the
planning, operation, and maintenance decision-
making processes. For example, the Airport
Department, Community Revitalization Project
Manager, Finance Department, Police
Department, and Fire Department all play
important roles in managing the City’s built
environment and transportation network.
From the launch of this Plan’s development, the
needs and viewpoints of multiple departments
were recognized and considered through the
work on an internal Complete Streets Advisory
Committee of elected and appointed officials,
and City Staff members who represent multiple
departments and teams. The Complete Streets
Advisory Committee met monthly to review and
provide feedback on the Plan’s development and
project deliverables. The Complete Streets
Advisory Committee should continue to serve as
the Policy’s oversight body following the Plan’s
adoption. In this updated role, the Complete
2 U.S. Department of Transportation. "U.S.
Transportation Secretary Foxx Announces New
Initiative to Enhance Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety."
U.S. Department of Transportation, September 10,
2014. https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-
Streets Advisory Committee should focus on
integrating this Plan’s primary products, the
Complete Streets Checklist and Streets Design
Framework, into the departments’ project
development processes. The Complete Street
Advisory Committee should also establish
annual reporting and training standards.
Reporting shall include updates on performance
measures, changes needed to improve the Policy
and maintain current on best available science
and design standards. Results will be shared
with the community on the City’s website, with
staff, and with the City Council.
1.3 Complete Streets Background
1.3.1 Safety Benefits of Complete
Streets
According to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, bicyclist and pedestrian injuries
and fatalities have “steadily increased” since
2009, “at a rate higher than motor vehicle
fatalities.2” Nationwide, pedestrian and bicyclist
fatalities have not only increased overall, but
also as a share of all fatalities. For example,
pedestrian fatalities increased by 25 percent
from 2010 to 2015, while traffic fatalities overall
increased only 6 percent.3 The causes underlying
this increase are not well understood, but are
likely due to a combination of factors including
sociodemographic changes (the shift in physical
and cognitive abilities of particular generations,
such as the baby boomers, as they age),
increased exposure (i.e., more people walking
and driving), unsafe walking and bicycling
environments, and unsafe behaviors such as
impaired or distracted driving, bicycling and
walking.
room/us-transportation-secretary-foxx-announces-
new-initiative-enhance-pedestrian-and.
3 Governors Highway Safety Association. “Pedestrian
Traffic Fatalities by State.” N.d.
https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2017-
03/2017ped_FINAL_4.pdf
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
13
Figure 3. Biking in Arlington
In recent years, considerable progress has been
made in identifying effective approaches for
reducing crash risk for pedestrians and
bicyclists.4, Research has also shown that
planning for and implementing facilities to
increase the safety of people who bicycle and
walk will improve safety for drivers and transit
users.6 Additionally, motorists feel more
comfortable driving when bicyclists have a
defined space on a road, compared to scenarios
where they share space with bicyclists.7 These
studies show how planning for people who walk
or bike benefits all users, especially those with
the greatest risk of suffering an injury or fatality
when involved in a crash.
Roadway safety improvement will benefit not
only those out on the road, but also first
responders and the community. Arlington’s
Police Department has experienced an 18
percent increase in the total number of service
calls received from 2012 to 2016. Arlington’s
4 Federal Highway Administration. “Pedestrian
Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System
(PEDSAFE).”
5 Federal Highway Administration. “Bicycle Safety
Guide and Countermeasure Selection System
(BIKESAFE).”
6 Wesley Marshall and Norman Garrick. Evidence on
Why Bicycle-Friendly Cities Are Safer for All Road
Users, Environmental Practice 13, no. 1, 2011, p. 16–
27.
7 Rebecca Sanders. “Roadway Design Preferences
Among Drivers and Bicyclists in the Bay Area." 93rd
Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
Board, Washington, D.C, 2014.
Fire Department saw a 10 percent increase in the
number of incident calls received from 2015 to
2017. Reducing the number of traffic crashes in
Arlington will improve the Police Department’s
and the Fire Department’s ability to respond to
other emergencies within the community and to
meet the Departments’ response time goals.8,
1.3.2 Economic Benefits of Complete
Streets
Smart Growth America has found that Complete
Streets projects have helped communities realize
several economic benefits. The Safer Streets,
Stronger Economies 2015 report analyzed data
from 37 Complete Streets projects in the United
States and found the following economic
benefits10:
Increased economic development: the study
found that more people were employed
along Complete Streets projects after a
project was completed than before.
Additionally, these projects found an
increase in new businesses, higher property
values, and an increase in private investment
Increased multimodal travel: for nearly all
Complete Streets projects there was a
resulting increase in biking, walking and
transit trips. These modes themselves have
proven economic benefits in offsetting
health costs, increased consumer spending,
8 Arlington Police Department, Annual Report 2016.
2016.
https://www.arlingtonwa.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFil
e/Item/80,
9 Arlington Fire Department, Annual Report of
Service Level Objectives (RCW 52.33.020). 2017.
https://www.arlingtonwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/
1205/Arlington-Fire-Department-Annual-Report-of-
Service-Level-Objectives-2017,
10 Smart Growth America, “Safer Streets, Stronger
Economies.” March 2015.
smartgrowthamerica.org/resources/evaluating-
complete-streets-projects-a-guide-for-practitioners/
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
14
property values, and lower individual
transportation costs.11
Lower project costs: 74 percent of projects
cost less than an average normal-cost arterial
and 97% cost less per mile than construction
of an average high-cost arterial.
Lower crash-related costs: 70percent of
projects saw a reduction in the number of
collisions and 56% of projects experienced a
reduction in injuries after their Complete
Streets improvements. These improvements
collectively averted $18.1 million in total
collision costs in one year.
Complete Streets improvements will enhance the
way that Arlington community members see and
experience their neighborhoods and connect
neighborhoods across the City.
1.3.3 Accessibility and Mobility
Benefits of Complete Streets
Active transportation options contribute to a
more equitable transportation system by
reducing accessibility barriers for people who do
not have access to a vehicle or do not drive, by
providing healthier travel options for all, and by
shifting trip modes and reducing roadway
congestion. While nine percent of American
households did not own or have access to a
vehicle in 2016, only 2.1 percent of Arlington
households reported not having a vehicle.12, ,
While some people choose to live without a car,
others do not have a choice due to age, financial
reasons, physical or mental conditions that
11 Vibrant Northeast Ohio Sustainable Communities
Consortium Initiative, “Vibrant NEO 2040.”
February 2014. Pg. 149-151. vibrantneo.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/03/VibrantNEO_EconomicBen
efitsofCompleteStreets.pdf
12 Governing the States and Localities. “Car
Ownership in U.S. Cities Data and Map.” N.d.,
Accessed January 30, 2018.
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/car-ownership-
numbers-of-vehicles-by-city-map.html
13 University of Michigan Transportation Research
Institute. “Hitchin’ a Ride: Fewer Americans Have
prevent them from driving. Furthermore, as the
population ages, the need for safe and accessible
alternatives to driving will increase. Older adults
who no longer feel safe driving, or do not have
the physical or financial ability to drive, should
not be limited from performing their daily
activities. Like everyone else, people without a
car have jobs, attend school, go grocery
shopping, and need to get around to perform a
variety of other functions to fully participate in
society. As a result, transit, walking, and
bicycling fill an important role in the overall
transportation system by offering mobility
options for people without cars. Improvements
for these modes offer significant benefits.
Bicycling is an affordable and convenient means
of transportation for people who do not drive but
is largely underutilized.
Arlington residents take more single occupancy
vehicle (SOV) trips to work and have longer
commutes than the average Washington state
worker. In 2016, 83.5 percent of Arlington’s
Their Own Vehicle.” 2014.
http://www.umtri.umich.edu/what-were-
doing/news/hitchin-ride-fewer-americans-have-their-
own-vehicle.
14 U.S. Census Bureau. 2012-2016 American
Community Survey, “Means of Transportation to
Work by Selected Characteristics.”
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/p
ages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_16_5YR_S0802&
prodType=table.
Figure 4. Walking in Arlington
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
15
residents drove to work alone. Arlington’s SOV
mode share is higher than that for Snohomish
County, 75 percent, and Washington State’s,
72.3 percent. In addition to having a
significantly higher SOV mode share, Arlington
resident’s mean travel time to work, 30.5
minutes, is greater than the statewide average of
26.7 minutes. In Arlington, 48.5 percent of
residents’ commute for 30 minutes or more to
work, while only 38.1 percent of workers
statewide commute for 30 minutes or more to
work. Almost 14 percent of Arlington’s
residents commute 60 minutes or more to work.
The costs of long commutes are significant on
not only the individual work’s mental and
physical health, but also on their families and
communities are they have less time to socialize
and participate in family and community life.
Longer commutes are associated with higher
blood pressure, greater body mass index, and
lower levels of physical activity.15 In fact, a
2004 study found that each additional hour daily
hour spent in a car is associated with a 6 percent
increase in the likelihood of obesity.16
15 Hoehner, Christine M., et al. "Commuting distance,
cardiorespiratory fitness, and metabolic risk."
American journal of preventive medicine 42.6
(2012): 571-578.
16 Frank, Lawrence D., Martin A. Andresen, and
Thomas L. Schmid. "Obesity relationships with
community design, physical activity, and time spent
in cars." American journal of preventive medicine
27.2 (2004): 87-96.
17 Center for Disease Control and Prevention
Foundation. "Heart Disease and Stroke Cost America
Nearly $1 Billion a Day in Medical Costs, Lost
Productivity." 2015.
https://www.cdcfoundation.org/pr/2015/heart-
disease-and-stroke-cost-america-nearly-1-billion-
day-medical-costs-lost-productivity
18 Snohomish Health District, The Health of
Snohomish County: Community Report Card. 2013.
http://www.snohd.org/Portals/0/Snohd/Living/files/A
ssessmentResultsFINAL8x11.pdf.
1.3.4 Health Benefits of Complete
Streets
Americans suffer 1.5 million heart attacks and
strokes each year, both of which can be caused
by the leading cause of death, heart disease.17
This staggering number contributes to $320
billion in annual healthcare costs and lost
productivity caused by cardiovascular disease.
These numbers are expected to rise to more than
$818 billion in medical costs and $275 billion in
lost productivity by 2030. Heart disease in the
second leading cause of death in Snohomish
County (154.6 per 100,00 deaths).18
Individuals who have obesity are at a higher risk
of suffering from cardiovascular diseases, high
blood pressure, diabetes, strokes, clinical
depression, and other chronic diseases.19,
Obesity is caused by a variety of factors
including dietary patterns, activity levels,
medications, and genetics.21 In 2017, 29 percent
of adults were self-reported as obese, and 11
percent of youth were diagnosed with obesity in
2013 within Snohomish County. The county’s
obesity rate is higher than Washington’s
statewide average of 27 percent.22 The county’s
adult obesity rate doubles between 1994 and
19 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Managing Overweight and Obesity in Adults. 2013.
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/sites/default/files/media/d
ocs/obesity-evidence-review.pdf.
20 National Institutes of Health, Clinical Guidelines
on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of
Overweight and Obesity in Adults: The Evidence
Report. 1998.
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/files/docs/guidelines/ob_g
dlns.pdf.
21 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
“Overweight & Obesity: Adult Obesity Causes &
Consequences.” Accessed 07/13/2018.
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/adult/causes.html.
22 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, “County Health
Rankings & Reports,” Accessed 07/13/2018.
http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/app/colorado/2
017/measure/factors/70/data.
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
16
2010, and the youth obesity rate increase 18
percent between 2002 and 2010.23
Physical inactivity is an important risk factor for
heart disease and obesity. While the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention recommends a
minimum of 30 minutes of moderate physical
activity per day, five days a week, 50 percent of
Snohomish County adults and 77 percent of
youth did not meet this minimum in 2010.24, In
Snohomish County, 18 percent of adults in 2017
reported not participating in any leisure-time
forms of physical activity, such as walking,
jogging, or bicycling for recreational purposes.
,
1.3.5 Environmental Benefits of
Complete Streets
Transportation is responsible for 27 percent of
greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S and
contributes to respiratory complications, such as
asthma.28 A study completed by the University
of Southern California, found that at least eight
percent of 300,000 cases of childhood asthma in
Los Angeles County can be attributed to homes
within 250 feet of a major roadway.29
Snohomish County had a 9.1 average daily
density of fine particulate matter in micrograms
per cubic meter (PM2.5) in 2017. In comparison,
23 Snohomish Health District, The Health of
Snohomish County: Community Report Card. 2013.
http://www.snohd.org/Portals/0/Snohd/Living/files/A
ssessmentResultsFINAL8x11.pdf.
24 The State of Obesity. “Physical Inactivity in the
United States.” N.d., Accessed 01/30/2018.
https://stateofobesity.org/physical-inactivity/
25 Snohomish Health District, The Health of
Snohomish County: Community Report Card. 2013.
http://www.snohd.org/Portals/0/Snohd/Living/files/A
ssessmentResultsFINAL8x11.pdf.
26 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, “County Health
Rankings & Reports,” Accessed 07/13/2018.
http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/app/colorado/2
017/measure/factors/70/data
27 In 2017, 17 percent of adults in Washington State
did not participate in any leisure-time physical
activities.
Washington
state had a 7.0
average daily PM 2.5 density in 2017.30 Elevated
pollution levels can negatively impact older
adults, children, and those with asthma. In 2017,
over 13,000 youth and 59,000 adults were
diagnosed with asthma.31 Shifting trips from
motor vehicles to active modes would reduce air
pollution and associated health impacts,
benefitting disadvantaged communities as a
result.
28 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Help
Make Transportation Greener, Overviews and
Factsheets." US EPA, September 24, 2015.
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/help-make-
transportation-greener
29 Scientific American. “Breathe Wheezy: Traffic
Pollution Not Only Worsens Asthma, but May Cause
It.” Scientific American, n.d.,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/traffic-
pollution-and-asthma/
30 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, “County Health
Rankings & Reports,” Accessed 07/13/2018.
http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/app/colorado/2
017/measure/factors/70/data.
31 American Lung Association, “State of the Air.”
Accessed 07/13/2018. http://www.lung.org/our-
initiatives/healthy-air/sota/city-
rankings/states/washington/snohomish.html.
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
17
1.3.6 Economic and Equity
Considerations
Based on census data it is possible to identify the
location of underserved populations in the
Arlington area, in order to show where
Complete Streets projects could provide a larger
benefit to the residents.
In an effort to work towards transportation
equity for underserved populations we have
examined census data for the city based on
income, poverty, and race. The City will utilize
this information when prioritizing projects.
Giving higher priority to projects in areas of
lower income or higher concentrations of
underserved populations. Based on the
information the following areas should be
looked at as priority areas:
Smokey Point
East of Stillaguamish Ave
Neighborhoods around the Arlington
Airport
Old Town near SR530
Kent-Prairie Neighborhood
See 2016 census summary maps below, Figures
5-10, for supporting documentation.
Figure 6. Census Tracts –
2010. Source: Snohomish County
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
18
Figure 7. Poverty status, Arlington
Figure 8. Median Household Income, Arlington
Figure 9. Black Population
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
19
Figure 8. Hispanic Population
Figure 10. American Indian Population
Figure9. Black Population
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
20
Poverty Status
Based on Figure 6-7, the City of Arlington the
population is generally above the national
average for poverty. The areas that have the
largest concentration of poverty within city
limits are the Smokey Point and Arlington
Airport areas.32
Median Household Income
Within the City of Arlington median household
income is $66,615, which is higher than the
national median of $55,322. Based on the map
above there are areas of income below national
averages that should be considered in
prioritization. The area east of Stillaguamish
Ave is the lowest within city limits, followed by
the Old Town neighborhood near SR 530, the
Kent-Prairie neighborhood, and Smokey Point
west of Smokey Point Boulevard.
Hispanic Population
Based Figure 8, the City does not have an area
of Hispanic population significantly above the
US Hispanic population of 17.3%. There is no
recommendation of prioritization based on this
information.
Black Population
Based Figure 9, the City does not have an area
of black population significantly above the US
black population of 12.6%. There is no
recommendation of prioritization based on this
information.
32 Source:
https://data.thetimesherald.com/american-
community-survey/snohomish-county-
washington/poverty-
status/population/num/05000US53061/
American Indian Population
The City is home to a larger percentage of
American Indians than the US average
population. Based on Figure 10, there are
neighborhoods that should be considered in
prioritization. The area east of Stillaguamish
Ave and Smokey Point have the highest
populations of American Indian households.
1.4 Case Studies
A detailed review of Complete Streets policies
and plans from 13 communities was conducted
to inform the recommendations of the Plan. The
communities were selected from Washington
State’s Transportation Improvement Board
(TIB) Complete Streets Award eligibility list,33
and the National Complete Streets Coalition’s
(NCSC) Complete Streets Policy atlas.34 The
case study includes both Arlington’s neighbors
and regional communities, and peer-cities from
across the country, In identifying peer-cities for
this evaluation, only communities of a similar
population, with a prominent municipal airport,
and located approximately one hour away from a
large employment center (such as the City of
Seattle) were considered.
A list of the case study communities and
summaries of the communities’ Complete
Streets policies and plans are provided in
Appendix J. The case studies are organized
based on their location, with Washington
locations listed first, and then by 2016
population size. The format of each individual
case study includes:
Structure of the policy, plan, or design
guideline
Implementation elements
33 TIB Complete Streets Funding Award webpage:
www.tib.wa.gov/grants/completestreets/completestre
ets.cfm. Accessed on 02-19-2018.
34 NCSC Complete Streets Policy Atlas:
www.smartgrowthamerica.org/program/national-
complete-streets-coalition/policy-
development/policy-atlas/. Accessed on 02-19-2018.
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
21
Funding and implementation details post-
adoption: this section’s depth is correlated to
the amount of time since the policy’s, plan’s
or design standards’ adoption, the local
political will, and available resource levels
Links to the policy, plan, or design guideline
1.4.1 Policy Evaluation Criteria
The case studies’ Complete Street policies were
evaluated using the National Complete Streets
Coalition/Smart Growth America’s (NCSC)
Elements of a Complete Streets Policy scores.
Each year, the NCSC scores and ranks Complete
Streets policies adopted during the previous
calendar year. The Elements of a Complete
Streets Policy score considers both the policy’s
completeness (does it include all elements of an
ideal policy), and the quality of its language (is
the language strong and clear, with limited
exceptions). NCSC Elements of a Complete
Streets Policy scores from local and national
case study communities are included in
Appendix J.35,
The NCSC criteria are an important tool to refer
to when developing Complete Street policies
and planning documents, as the framework is
used for the Washington State Complete Streets
grant program, as discussed below in the
Funding Opportunities section. In January 2018,
the NCSC’s criteria were substantially revised to
place a greater emphasis on implementation and
equity. The 2018 criteria will be considered
when developing recommendations for
Arlington’s program, but are not cited in the
below case study communities as these policies
and planning documents were adopted prior to
the 2018 NCSC criteria’s release.
35 NCSC scores are not currently available for
policies adopted after December 2016.
36 NCSC does not provide scores for Complete
Streets plans, or design guidelines and manuals.
37 The Region’s TIP is submitted by PSRC to the
State, and then to the U.S. Department of
Transportation for funding approval. The TIP is
The City of Arlington has included all ten
elements recommended in the 2018 criteria.
A full discussion of the Complete Streets Best
Practices and Peer Cities review is provided in
Appendix J.
1.5 Funding Opportunities
Through a strong Complete Street Plan, the City
of Arlington can leverage local, regional, and
state funding opportunities to stretch
transportation project budgets, and work towards
building out a comprehensive and integrated
transportation network.
As discussed in Section 2, the Complete Street
legislation adopted by the State of Washington
incentivizes cities to adopt Complete Street
policies to be eligible for state grants related to
Complete Streets projects. In addition, the Puget
Sound Regional Council (PSRC) distributes
grant funds and recommends projects for the
region’s biannual Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP).37 The TIP grant criteria
prioritizes applications that improve walkability,
bicycle mobility, and access to public transit.38
With a Complete Streets Policy, the City of
Arlington can leverage its local resources to be
eligible for these and other funding opportunities
that can stretch local dollars further, and achieve
greater investments for balanced and safer
streets, as several of its Washington state peer
cities have.
Local Funding Opportunities
In April 2013, City Council established a
Transportation Benefit District (TBD). The TBD
serves as a quasi-municipal corporation and
independent taxing district that raises funds
developed every two years, with updates occurring
on an annual basis.
38 Puget Sound Regional Council, “2018 Regional
project Evaluation Criteria for PSRC’s FHWA
Funds.”
https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/rpecriteria201
8regional_fhwa_project_evaluation_criteria.pdf.
Accessed: 03/06/2018.
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
22
(through taxes and fees) for pavement
preservation transportation projects within the
City’s boundaries. The TBD’s 2018 workplan
includes programming for $1,316,500 in
pavement preservation work. While the current
TBD statute does not include infrastructure for
pedestrians or bicyclists, the ongoing pavement
preservation work is making important updates
to the roadway system, such 59th Ave NE and E
5th St. Additionally, it can be used in
combination with other local funds to implement
multimodal improvements. The current TBD
will expire in 2023 and a subsequent TDB can
be structured to consider future multimodal
infrastructure investments to fund identified
needs.
Regional Funding Opportunities
PSRC, as the Region’s Metropolitan Planning
Organization, delivers several transportation
programs and administers state and federal
transportation funds at the regional level.
Additionally, the region’s TIP is used to inform
the state level TIP and project eligibility for
state-level grant programs. The strengthening of
the City’s Policy through an adopted Complete
Streets Policy can help to increase the City’s
competitiveness for these regional programs,
which include:
Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) Funds: The Surface
Transportation Program Block Grant
Program (STP), and the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program (CMAQ)
PSRC sets aside 10 percent of the
combined STP and CMAQ funds for
bicycle and pedestrian priority projects.
PSRC’s project eligibility criteria
includes how projects support safety,
mobility and accessible; what
populations are served and the project’s
39 Puget Sound Regional Council, “Call for Projects
for PSRC Federal Transportation Funds” 03/04/2018.
https://www.psrc.org/whats-happening/blog/call-
impact on health and equity; and, how
the project impacts emissions.39
Regional Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP)
TIP Projects must be consistent with the
VISION 2040, PSRC’s Regional
Transportation Plan, and local
comprehensive plans.
State Funding Opportunities
The Complete Streets Act (House Bill 1071)
establishes policies for consideration of context
sensitive design and Complete Streets principles
for Urban Main Streets and all state highways
that run through incorporated towns or cities in
Washington. The Act requires that the
Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) must consider the needs of all road
users in its design and establishes a process for
consultation with the local jurisdiction and the
public to inform the design.
The Act also establishes a grant program for
local governments with the purpose of
encouraging local governments to adopt
Complete Streets ordinances and to encourage
projects incorporating Complete Streets
projects-psrc-federal-transportation-funds. Accessed:
03/06/2018.
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
23
principles. The Act sets out the criteria for
“eligible projects,” which include local
government streets or state highways that
“provide street access with all users in mind,
including pedestrians, bicyclists, and public
transportation users”. It also establishes that
eligible local governments must have adopted a
“jurisdiction-wide complete streets ordinance.
The state’s adoption of a Complete Streets
Policy has resulted in an updated Complete
Streets approach in WSDOT’s roadway design
manual and its programs including Safe Routes
to School40 and the Bicycle and Pedestrian41
programs. The TIB’s Complete Streets grant
program awards grants to cities and counties
with established Complete Streets policies and a
proven track-record of planning and
implementing projects using a Complete Streets
approach, based on the following:
A city or county is eligible for the grant
if it has adopted a Complete Streets
ordinance and does not have an active
Complete Streets Award (and they must
be nominated by one of the established
nominating partners).
40 Washington State Department of Transportation,
“Safe Routes to School.”
www.wsdot.wa.gov/LocalPrograms/SafeRoutes/.
Accessed 02-21-2018.
41 Washington State Department of Transportation,
“Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Funding.”
www.wsdot.wa.gov/LocalPrograms/ATP/funding.ht
m. Accessed 02-21-2018.
Funding criteria include a strong
Complete Streets Policy, integration into
the Comprehensive Plan, recently
completed Complete Streets projects,
planned projects, and community
outreach on street design.
The TIB looks for integration of
Complete Streets thinking beyond a one-
time policy adoption; specifically, for
“achievement[s] in planning, designing,
building and involving the community
in design[ing] for all users.”42
The TIB considers staff training,
performance data, and adopted ADA
training plan as local indicators of a
“well-integrated Complete Streets
ethic.” A full list of the TIB’s
recognized indicators in included below
in Figure 6.
Award levels include $125,000 for cities
early in the Complete Streets adoption
process and $500,000 for cities and
counties with an established Complete
Streets program.44
A call for nominations for the second
round of funding will be issued in 2018
42 Complete Streets Award Program, Washington
State Transportation Improvement Board. 05-20-
2016.
http://www.tib.wa.gov/grants/completestreets/Compl
eteStreetsFramework.pdf. Accessed 02-21-2018.
43 Ibid, page 2.
44 In 2017, Everette was awarded $250,000, and
Bellingham $500,000 for pedestrian improvements.
Figure 10. The TIB Indicators of a Well-Integrated Complete Streets Ethic (from the TIB)
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
24
and will be awarded in 2019. Funds
must be used within 3 years.45
WSDOT also provides the Pedestrian and
Bicyclist, and the Safe Routes to School grant
programs, with awards biannually. The 2019-
2021 funding period is expected to include
approximately $21 M in state and local funds.
Only projects that are included in the TIP, or in
progress of being added to the TIB, are deemed
eligible for these two grant programs.
The Pedestrian and Bicyclist program
funds infrastructure and design projects that
improve pedestrian and/or bicyclist safety and/or
mobility. Eligible infrastructure and design
projects include:
Crossing/intersection improvements
Traffic calming/speed reduction
Signage and pavement markings
Pedestrian-scale lighting
On-road bicycle facilities
Bicycle parking facilities
Shared-use paths and trails
Vehicle speed feedback signs and photo
enforcement
Sidewalks, sidewalk buffer zones, curbs,
curb ramps, and gutters
Walking and bicycle count programs
Public engagement and encouragement
campaigns
Network planning and analysis
Preliminary right of way acquisition
activities, environmental analysis, and
engineering design
45 Washington State Department of Transportation,
“TIB Funding Opportunity – Complete Streets
Award.”
http://www.tib.wa.gov/grants/completestreets/comple
testreets.cfm. Accessed 02-21-2018.
46 Washington State Department of Transportation,
“Call for Projects – Pedestrian and Bicycle Program
and Safe Routes to School.
Tactical urbanism techniques, as part of
a planning process46
Safe Routes to School program funds may
be used for infrastructure improvements within
two miles of a school and/or local transportation
safety programs serving students from
kindergarten to 12th grade. The improvements
must be for improving the safety and/or
increasing the number of students walking or
biking to school. Establishing walking school
buses and bicycle trains,47 and delivering bicycle
and pedestrian educational programming are
considered eligible education/encouragement
activities.48
1.6 Plan and Policy Review and
Recommendations
The City’s adopted policies and plans guide
investments in Arlington’s transportation
network. These policies and plans include
comprehensive visions, regional coordination
efforts, and specific projects and funding levels.
In addition to these plans, the City Council also
created a Transportation Benefit District (TBD)
in 2013 that provides a designated source of
transportation funding from taxes and fees. The
TBD seeks to preserve, maintain, and as
appropriate, construct or reconstruct
transportation infrastructure. While the current
TBD statue does not include infrastructure for
pedestrian or bicyclists, ongoing pavement
preservation work can be used in combination
with other local funds to implement multimodal
improvements.
www.wsdot.wa.gov/LocalPrograms/saferoutes/callfor
projects.htm. Accessed 03-06-2018.
47 Eligible costs include those related to recruiting
adult leaders, training, and safety equipment.
48 Washington State Department of Transportation,
“Call for Projects – Pedestrian and Bicycle Program
and Safe Routes to School.
www.wsdot.wa.gov/LocalPrograms/saferoutes/callfor
projects.htm. Accessed 03-06-2018.
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
25
Arlington’s current transportation-focused plans
and policies provide planning- and design-based
guidance for the Complete Streets Policy’s
(Plan) development and implementation.
Arlington’s recent planning updates well
positions the City to leverage its planning
investments for implementing the Complete
Streets Policy and this Plan. The transportation
policies and plans reviewed include the:
2015 Comprehensive Plan with 2017 Update
Mixed Use Overlay Development Code
2018-2023 Six Year Transportation
Improvement Plan – Project List
Transportation Benefit District Budgets and
Annual Reports (2016 to 2018)
Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2016-
2021
Emerging Median Planning Guide
Transportation 2035 Plan with 2017 Update
2017 Arlington and Darrington Revised
Community Revitalization Plan
2015 North Stillaguamish Valley Economic
Redevelopment Plan
From a review of the nine local and regional
transportation-focused policies and plans listed
in above, broad community visions and goals,
and specific project needs emerged for the
Plan’s consideration. It is worth noting that the
nine plans do reflect current conditions and
priorities, as six of the plans were either last
updated or adopted in 2017, and the other two
plans were either adopted in 2016 or 2015. The
frequency of the plans’ Complete Street Plan
references and recommendations and a full
review of the Complete Street planning and
policy challenges and opportunities is provided
in Appendix I.
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
26
Table 1. Review of Arlington’s Policies and Plans
Complete Streets Policy
Reference
Number
of Plans
Plan Title
In addition to the eight local and regional plans,
Arlington’s Roadway Median Planning Guide,
still being developed, was also reviewed through
discussions with City staff. Once completed, the
Median Planning Guide will provide additional
guidance for engineers and design professionals
in considering appropriate roadway geometrics,
and the use of landscaping elements along
sidewalks and in medians.
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
27
1.7 Community Engagement
In developing this Plan, the City implemented
recommended strategies from a Community
Engagement Framework (CEF) Plan. The CEF
Plan identified the community engagement
purposes, goals, and strategies for this Plan’s
development. The CEF Plan’s recommendations
were developed based off conversations with the
City’s project management team, a review of
local demographic information, and community
engagement best practices. The recommended
community engagement purposed was: “to
generate and expand community interest, solicit
input on ideas, and attain buy-in of the proposed
concept.” The recommended community
engagement goals were to deliver an inclusive
community engagement process that:
Builds on current efforts of the City and its
partner agencies and engages input from
City staff and across departments to create a
comprehensive and implementable
Complete Streets Policy;
Equitably conducts outreach to residents
throughout Arlington, embracing diverse
communities;
Promotes fair treatment so that all residents
and visitors to Arlington, including all
racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups,
benefit from the project; and,
Ensures the community contributions are
considered for incorporation into the final
policy
Provides ongoing opportunities for
stakeholders to participate in constructive
two-way conversations with the project
team.
Using the CEF Plan, the City delivered a variety
of in-person and online opportunities for
community members to learn about the project,
engage with the project team, and to provide
feedback. In the Spring of 2018, the City
launched a webpage with a project overview and
schedule, links to Complete Streets resources,
and project contact information. In addition to
the online resources, the Project Team hosted a
Work Session and Community Workshop on
April 26, 2018. The Work Shop was attended by
Mayor Tolbert, members of the City Council,
City Staff, and representatives from WSDOT,
Community Transit, and other local and regional
stakeholders. Members of the public and City
Staff participated in the Community Workshop,
which included a rotating set of information and
feedback boards, and activity tables. A detailed
summary of the feedback received during the
Community Workshop is provided in Appendix
K. Updates on this Plan’s development were
presented to the City Council and the attending
public in March and November 2018.
The community also engaged with Complete
Streets practices through six City-held
Walkshops. During the Walkshops, community
members gathered and walked with a Project
Team member identifying barriers and
opportunities for improved mobility for all
modes, ages, and abilities. The Walkshops
participants identified desired design and
maintenance improvements for
sidewalks/walking paths and roadways, and
desired behavioral changes among roadway
users. The participants shared their desire for:
Safe, wide, and continuous
sidewalks/walking paths to beaches,
ramps, and bus stop shelters
Buffers between the sidewalk/walking
path and the roadway
Wheel stops between the
sidewalk/walking path and parking areas
Sidewalk crossing markings
Regular vegetation pruning and surface
quality maintenance on sidewalks/
walking paths.
Lower traffic speeds, especially at
intersections
Increased separation and markings
between roadways users via bike lanes
and marked crosswalks
Increased and additional lighting, more
mid-block crossings, and signs at
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
28
intersections to improve pedestrian
crossings
In addition to the previously mentioned design
and maintenance improvements, the participants
identified the need to change roadway behaviors
to improve the safety and comfort of all users.
Participants suggested additional driver
education and engagement around the
importance of stopping and yielding at
crossings, especially when pedestrians are
present.
Continued community engagement shall include
annual reporting made available to the public
through the City website, presented to City
Council, and shared with City Staff. The
Complete Streets Website will remain active
with links to the Improvement Plans allowing
easy review, comments, and suggestions from
citizens. The Complete Streets Advisory
Committee will continue to solicit feedback and
communicate with the public about Complete
Streets.
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
29
2.0 Process and Documentation
2.1 Roles, Responsibilities, and
Coordination
2.1.1 City Departments and Divisions
Implementing the Complete Streets policy and
developing the Complete Streets Policy will
require on-going coordination between the
Community and Economic Development, Public
Works, and Maintenance and Operations
departments. Other departments and key staff
members will also need to be integrated into the
planning, operation, and maintenance decision-
making processes. For example, the Airport
Department, Community Revitalization Project
Manager, Finance Department, Police
Department, and Fire Department all play
important roles in managing the City’s built
environment and transportation network. In
coordinating the policy’s and Plan’s
implementation, the City should leverage
existing shared goals and priorities between the
departments and divisions.
A review of the City’s departments’ and
divisions’ goals and policies found a high-
quality delivery of community members- and
customer-facing services, and the efficient and
effective use of community resources to be
frequently shared top-level priorities. Many of
the departments that will be essential in
implementing the Complete Streets program
have a service-focused mission or vision
statement. These departments include, but are
not limited to: Fire/EMS, Maintenance and
Operation, Police, Community and Economic
Development, and the Utilities Department. In
addition to the prevalence of service-focused
mission and vision statements, nine of the
departments and divisions involved with the
program’s implementation spoke to the
importance of providing efficient services and
using the community’s resources effectivity.
The review was conducted based on the City’s
organizational structure as expressed on the
City’s internal documents, website, planning
documents, and in the biennial budget. The
departments’ missions, functions, relationships
to other departments and divisions were
analyzed using a mixed approach of considering
both external communication sources and
funding priority documents. An additional level
of consideration was applied for connecting the
departments’ missions and functions to the
Complete Streets Policy’s implementation and
Plan’s development.
From the 22 department and division structures,
plans and budget documents analyzed, the top
department and division opportunities and
challenges for developing and implementing the
Complete Streets Program were summarized
(see Table 2).
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
30
Table 2. Departmental Challenges and Opportunities
Department and Division Opportunities Department and Division Challenges
Clear mission and vision goals and themes
connect multiple departments and divisions
Planning, funding, and implementation
responsibilities for elements of the healthy, active
transportation network are divided-up among
three different departments and multiple divisions:
Airport, Community and Economic Development,
and Public Works
The City’s budget uses multiple funding sources
to support investments in the built environment
The City does not currently have a dedicated
funding source for improving healthy, active
transportation services such as walking, biking,
and transit infrastructure, planning or education
The departments’ and divisions’ missions and
visions are forward looking and based on growth
and new developments
The departments’ and divisions’ missions and
visions do not currently factor or prioritize the
abilities, accommodations, or needs of vulnerable
community members such as specific
communities of older adults, people with
disabilities, or individuals in low-income
households
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
31
2.1.2 Boards, Commissions, and
Committees
In addition to departments and divisions, the
City has a system of boards, commissions, and
committees (BCCs) that guide the City’s
planning, policy, and funding decisions. These
BCCs include the City Council, the Planning
Commission, and the Transportation Benefit
District, along with a network of other citizen-
led BCCs.
The missions, functions, relationships to other
BCCs, and duties related to a Complete Street
Plan were reviewed based on the City Code,
information on the City’s website, and in
planning and budget documents. Based on this
review the top BCC opportunities and
challenges were identified for developing and
implementing the Complete Street Plan:
Table 3: BCC Complete Streets Program Development and Implementation Opportunities and Challenges
Board/Commission/Committee Opportunities Board/Commission/Committee Challenges
The City’s TBD Governing Board is focused on
transportation items.
The TBD Governing Board is not currently able
to program funds from the TBD to maintain or
improve conditions expressly for pedestrians,
bicyclists, transit riders; or, to make accessible
accommodations.
The PARC/Tree Board creates a centralized
forum for park-, recreation- and tree-focused
planning efforts and funding discussions.
The City does not currently have a designated
public forum, board, commission, or committee to
discuss and provide planning and funding
recommendations on healthy-active modes of
transportation.49
The Youth-Council establishes a cross-
disciplinary channel for the needs, ideas, and
collaboration opportunities for the youth to be
discussed and planned.
The City does not currently require the
representation of individuals who rely on healthy-
active modes of transportation for non-recreation
trips, older adults, or people with disabilities on
the City’s boards, commissions, or committees.
49 The Snohomish County Health District does provide regional p rograms and service coordination efforts.
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
32
2.2 Project Development Process
Implementing and managing the Complete
Streets Policy among the various department,
divisions, and BCCs will require defined roles
and responsibilities for all stakeholders, and
clear steps for decision-making processes. These
processes should include opportunities for
external stakeholder engagement with
community members, business and school
districts, and state regional, and transit agencies.
The project development process outlined in this
Plan will assist staff in effectively developing
and reviewing projects by establishing process
steps and tools, including the Complete Streets
Checklist.
The primary roles and responsibilities for the
Complete Streets Policy’s and Program’s
internal and external stakeholders are provided
below in Tables 4 through 6.
2.2.1 Process Overview
The Policy’s implementation will be led by the
Community and Economic Development and
Public Works Administration departments.
Staff from the two departments will work
collaboratively to integrate and embed the
Policy’s initiatives into the City’s policies,
plans, and projects. The departments’ planning
and GIS staff will manage the collection and
reporting of the Plan’s implementation process
based on the Plan’s recommended performance
measures. The departments’ leadership will in
turn report these performance measures in the
department’s plans and share them with the
City’s Administration and Finance departments.
The Administration and Finance Departments
will report the performance measures in the
City’s key budget documents, such as the
Annual Budget, the CIP, and the Transportation
Benefit Districts’ annual plan. Providing regular,
data-based reports on the City’s Complete
Streets implementation will assist staff in
generating and growing the Policy’s and Plan’s
needed long-term support from staff, elected
officials, and external stakeholders.
Table 4. Department and Division Implementation Roles and Responsibilities
Departments and Divisions
Stakeholder Responsibilities Complete Streets Program Roles
Administration Oversees goal and policy attainment,
economic development, recreation,
and communication and public
information efforts.
Manages interdepartmental coordination
for the implementation of the Policy.
TRACK and
REPORT
performances
measures
(Planning and GIS)
ADJUST
staff and support of CS
initiatives
(Admin and Finance)
INTEGRATE
and EMBED
CS inititiatives
into policy,
planning, projects
(PWD and CED)
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
33
information on the City’s website and
’s initiatives into the
City’s economic development and
Airport
Community and
Economic
Development
Manages the City’s development
initiatives into the City’s development
City’
program’s goals, processes, requirements,
City’s multimodal transportation network
efforts for the Plan’s performance
Finance
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
34
City’s progress in implementing the
the City’s Complete Streets
implementation progress in the City’s
Fire / EMS
Fire / EMS’ operation in all roadway
Human Resources
and maintenance of the City’s multimodal
promote the use of the IRS’ transportation
Legal
the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Code
Library
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
35
Maintenance and
Operations
the City’s trail and park network
Police
program, a Citizen’s Academy, and a
initiatives into the Department’s
traffic collisions, and the City’s progress
wards safer streets in the Department’s
Department’s bicycle registration
Public Works,
Administration ’s
maintains the City’s engineering and
initiatives into the Department’s
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
36
projects that impact the City’s multimodal
Public Works, GIS
/ Engineering
Creates and maintains the City’s GIS
data. Manages the City’s internal and
the City’s GIS data, and
provide regular updates on the City’s
City’s existing and planned multi
Public Works,
Transportation
Implements the City’s
initiatives into projects’ design plans, and
the City’s Engineering
’s multimodal priorities and
projects that impact the City’s multimodal
Public Works,
Utilities
City’s utility services
and the City’s solid waste and
initiatives into utility projects’ designs
Washington’s recycling and garbage
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
37
Table 5. BCCs’ Complete Streets Policy Implementation Roles and Responsibilities
BCCs
Stakeholder
City Council
initiative as part of the City’s
Transportation
Benefit District
Governing Board
into the Board’s reports (e.g. including
e projects’ impact to the
Arlington Planning
Commission /
Design Review
Board
cts as the City’s Design Review
City’s design
Commission/Board’s review of Special
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
38
Arlington Parks,
Arts and
Recreation
Commission
(PARC)/Tree
Board
Arlington Youth
Council initiatives into the Council’s
people using the City’s multimodal
Arlington Airport
Commission
Arlington
Cemetery Advisory
Board
Library Board
Lodging Tax
Advisory
Committee
the Plan’s initiatives into the grant
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
39
Table 6. External Agencies' Complete Streets Policy Implementation Roles and Responsibilities
External Agencies
Stakeholder Responsibilities Complete Streets Program Roles
Puget Sound
Regional Council
(PSRC)
Develops regional policies and plans,
and allocates state and federal
funding for transportation projects
across the region
Recognizes and supports the City’s
Complete Streets Policy when developing
regional plans and considering
transportation project funding requests
WSDOT Plans, designs, constructs, and
maintains the statewide multimodal
transportation network
Partners with local municipalities to
maintain and improve the local
multimodal transportation network
Allocates federal and state funding
for transportation network
improvements and programming
Recognizes and supports the City’s
Complete Streets Policy when developing
regional plans and considering
transportation project funding requests
Coordinates with the City’s
administrative, planning, and design staff
on state projects occurring within the
City’s limits
FHWA Provides standards and guidance for
the design of multimodal
transportation network elements
Reviews environmental assessment
documents for federally-funded projects
Community
Transit
Provides fixed route and Dial-A-
Ride Transportation (DART)
paratransit operations, and vanpool
programs
Coordinates with the City’s
administrative, planning, and design staff
on transit service plans and routing
changes
Participates in corridor planning and
design initiatives. Provide input on the
location and design of transit stops, speed
mitigation features
Promotes safe operations of transit
vehicles and vanpool vehicles in and
around the City’s multimodal
transportation network
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
40
Table 7. Community Groups’ Complete Streets Policy Implementation Roles and Responsibilities
Community Groups
Stakeholder Responsibilities Complete Streets Program Roles
The Community Elects local officials, votes on tax
levies, and makes Arlington the
community it is by living, working,
playing, and participating in
community life.
Participates in corridor/area planning and
give input on street design goals and
priorities
Practices sound judgement and safe travel
behavior when walking, rolling, riding,
driving, and traveling in and around
Arlington
Advocacy Groups Assists the City in considering the
individual needs of the multimodal
transportation system’s users
Participates in stakeholder involvement
efforts, provide input on plans and
designs, lead education and
encouragement events, and promote
public hearings and meetings
Business
Associations (Stilly
Valley Chamber of
Commerce,
Downtown
Arlington Business
Association)
Leads economic development
programs, business coordination,
beautification, and advocacy for
specific business areas
Participates in corridor/area planning,
promotes participation in planning efforts
among its members, provides insight on
future development and revitalization
efforts, and gives input on street design
goals and priorities
Hosts educational and outreach
programming that attracts visitors to Open
Streets events, and fun walk/runs and bike
rides
2.3 Complete Streets Checklist
In addition to tracking and communicating the
Policy’s and the Plan’s progress, it is essential
that staff establish processes to assist in the day-
to-day implementation of the Policy and the
Plan. One process that can help is use of the
Complete Streets Checklist. The Complete
Streets Checklist (the Checklist) can be used by
elected officials and policy makers, developers,
city staff, and external stakeholders to
understand the expectations and impacts of
development on the local multimodal
transportation network. A copy of the Checklist
is provided in the Appendices. Several
communities from the Complete Streets Best
Practices and Peer Cities review identified
Complete Streets checklists as a helpful tool for
implementing policies and plans, and for
tracking staff’s decisions around developments.
The cities of Seattle and Saint Paul, MN, and the
New Jersey Department of Transportations
implemented Complete Streets Checklists as part
of their Complete Streets programs. A full
discussion of the Complete Streets Best
Practices and Peer Cities review is provided in
Appendix J.
The Checklist works with and complements but
does not replace the City’s existing standards,
manuals, standards, plans and maps. For quick
reference, a list of many of City’s standards and
copies of the City’s improvement maps are
provided in Appendices C-H. The Checklist’s
references to the City’s adopted standards and
plans will strengthen the City’s efforts to move
towards fully implementing these documents,
and to establishing set expectations with
developers on the City’s vision and design
standards.
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
41
2.3.1 Process and Responsibilities
The developer, or their designated applicant, is
responsible for completing and submitting the
Complete Streets Checklist for all private
development and re-development projects that
occur within city limits. The Checklist will be a
required submittal document with the Land Use
process and site civil submittal. Developers are
encouraged to reach out to the Community and
Economic Development Department to secure
and review the Checklist during the initial stages
of their project’s development. The City will
provide the checklist and relevant improvement
plan documents during the General Information
Meeting (GIM) developers are encouraged to
take advantage of. Early conversations with staff
and development partners may generate project
synergies and opportunities to improve the
development’s access and connections to the
multimodal transportation network.
The Community and Economic Development
Department is responsible for:
Managing the Checklist’s
implementation and use, and the project-
level data recorded through the
Checklist
Managing the review process for fully-
completed Checklists, and for
establishing internal protocols for staff
coordination to review the Checklist’s
proposals and information
Providing approval and variance
determinations for full-completed
Checklists to the applicant
Establishing a regular reporting
procedure on approval and variance
determinations
Working with staff from multiple
departments and business associations in
promoting the Checklist among the local
development community.
The Public Works Agency will be responsible
for:
Providing administrative, technical, and
data management support to the
Community and Economic
Development Department during
Checklist reviews, and as part of
program management activities
Providing Average Daily Trip estimates and
Overall Conditions Index (OCI) and
Standards to applicants during the
Checklist’s submittal process.
Staff from various departments and divisions are
responsible for reviewing completed checklists
and providing information, support, and
technical-expertise to the Community and
Economic Development Department.
Additionally, the Public Art Committee should
coordinate with the Community and Economic
Development Department and applicants on
identifying and promoting public art
opportunities.
2.3.2 Variances
The municipal code addresses variances. Refer
to Section 20.20.030 for more information.
2.3.3 Complete Streets Prioritization
Plan
The following is a guide for prioritization of
Complete Streets Projects within the City of
Arlington. As funding for projects comes
available, it is important the City consider
several factors when choosing which projects to
complete first. Economic and racial equality,
connectivity, safety, age and health equity
factors all play a part in prioritization of
projects. The City of Arlington has compiled a
list of Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit
accessibility projects that all seek to create
connectivity within our community and
encourage healthy non-motorized travel, but not
all projects are equal. Below is a list of weighted
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
42
factors the city shall consider when choosing
which complete streets projects to pursue.
In an effort to make the process simple the
following equation has been created. Projects
meeting all the factors will score 100%.
Priority Level = EQ + CC + SI + YT + ELD +
ADA + BI + PED + BUS + TRA
SI = (12 points) Safety Improvements
In order to be considered a safety improvement
project, the project must have some component
of specific safety measure included. Examples
include, RRFB or HAWK crossings, separated
bike or pedestrian areas, reduced speeds, and
traffic calming.
ADA = (11 points) Accessibility Improvements;
A project must include specific accessibility
improvements for this factor. This could include
new or improved accessible sidewalks or trails,
installation of new ramps, improved access to
transit stops, etc. This would also include
projects that increase accessibility to programs
and facilities that serve the disabled community.
EQ = (11 points) Economic and racial equality;
The City of Arlington has done an equality
analysis based on census data for both income
and race based on this information the following
areas have been identified as economic and
racial equality priority areas;
Smokey Point
East of Stillaguamish Ave
Neighborhoods around the Arlington Airport
Old Town near SR530
Kent-Prairie Neighborhood
Projects in that serve these areas are considered
Economic and racial equality projects.
YT = (10 points) Youth Considerations;
For a project to have a youth consideration
component it should demonstrate to improved
access to schools, parks, or other youth targeted
destinations. This includes projects located on
school routes or identified in Safe Route to
School studies.
ELD = (10 points) Elderly Considerations;
Projects that increase accessibility to senior
facilities, neighborhoods, and community
centers.
BI = (10 points) Bicycle Improvements;
Any project that will improve connectivity for
cyclists such as shared use trails, bike lanes, and
shared lanes can be considered bicycle
improvements.
PED = (10 points) Pedestrian Improvements;
Any projects that include a pedestrian
improvement component, include sidewalks,
improved or additional crossings, mixed use
trails, and intersection improvements can be
considered a pedestrian improvement.
BUS = (10 points) Transit accessibility;
Projects that have a transit improvement
component, such as added or improved bus
stops, and projects that can show improved
connectivity to the transit system can be
considered transit accessibility projects.
CC = (8 points) Community Connectivity;
Projects that can show improved connectivity
between neighborhoods, business centers, arts,
activities, and shopping will be considered
community connectivity projects.
TRA = (8 points) Traffic Improvements;
Any project that demonstrates an improvement
to traffic flow, safety, or capacity can be
considered a traffic improvement project.
2.4 Next Steps: Street Design
Typologies
The City should consider developing a set of
context-specific street typologies to ensure that
street development opportunities match with
local context Street typologies can be used to
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
43
refine the City’s design standards plans for the
multimodal transportation network based on the
roadway’s character, surrounding land uses, and
position within the transportation network. For
example, a roadway’s width, traffic volumes,
connectivity impact the appropriateness of
certain design treatments such as curb bulb-outs,
shared use paths, separated bike lanes, and
enhanced transit stops. When developing the
street typologies, City staff should refer to data
collected through the Complete Streets Checklist
to understand where development is occurring
based on the City’s roadway classifications and
cross connection type. Additionally, staff should
integrate the cross sections and design guidance
from Section 3 into the street typologies.
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
44
3.0 Cross-Sections and Design Guidance
Figure 11. Example Complete Streets Corridor Cross Section
3.1 Roadway Design Criteria
Parameters and Standards
3.1. Introduction
Street design decisions—such as how many
travel lanes are needed, whether to include on-
street parking, and what type of bikeway to
provide—are made and documented initially
during the project scoping phase of a street
design project and may be revised during the
conceptual design phase. These decisions must
also consider stormwater management, utility
services, building access, trees and other
vegetation. These decisions are typically
oriented around what are called design criteria,
which guide the project toward achieving a safe
and effective outcome.
Each street type in the City’s network has a
unique set of parameters for roadway and
pedestrian zone design criteria that make the
street type compatible with and supportive of the
land use, utilities, and other context. Rather than
looking broadly at street types to develop design
criteria, this Plan addresses criteria for specific
corridors identified by City staff. Design criteria
for these corridors—and associated standards for
making design decisions—are described in the
following pages.
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
45
Table 8. Existing Conditions and Planned Improvements on Identified Complete Streets Corridors
Collector/
Arterial
60’ (180th Pl NE)
100’ (N of 172nd St NE)
80’ (168th St NE)
70’ (188th St NE)
60’ 35 mph
6,600 north of SR 530
20,000 south of SR
530
R1. 188th St to SR 530: reconstruct
from 2 lanes to 3
R30. From SR 531 (172nd St) to
188th St: reconstruct from 2 lanes to
5
th Arterial
70’ (SR 531)
60’ (Bovee Ln-188th St NE)
53’ (67th Ave NE_)
36’ 35 mph 10,000 N/A*
th
Collector/
Arterial
70’ (49th Ave NE)
60’ (East of 51st Dr NE) 48’/58’ 35 mph 5,700-7,500
R2. Cross Town Connector:
Cemetery Rd from 47th Ave to 188th
St: Reconstruct from 2 lanes to 3
Arterial
30’ (S Olympic Ave)
45’ (French Ave-
Stillaguamish Ave)
38’ 25 mph 3,500-4,500 R5. From SR 9 to Stillaguamish Ave
from 2 lanes to 3
nd
State Route
(Arterial)
90’ (W of 43rd Ave NE)
50’ (59th Ave Ne-67th Ave
NE)
75’ (79th Ave NE)
85’/68’
35 mph 24,000
R1A. From 43rd Ave to 67th Ave:
reconstruct from 2 lanes to 4. Install
roundabouts at 43rd Ave, 51st Ave,
59th Ave and 67th Ave
R15B. From 67th Ave to SR 9:
reconstruct from 2 lanes to 4
th
State Route
(Arterial) 150’ 46’-60’ 45 mph 11,000 N/A*
Collector 40’
24’
35 mph
(west of airport)
25 mph
(east of airport
5,200
2,500
N/A*
Data sources: Snohomish County Assessor's Office (ROW), WSDOT Traffic Volumes and 2017 Update to the Arlington Transportation 2035
Plan/Comprehensive Plan Comp Plan (ADT), Google Maps (Paved width), Comp Plan (TIP projects)
* This corridor was not included in the TIP.
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
46
Table 9. Proposed Corridor Design Elements and Space Requirements
* This corridor is not served by fixed-route bus service.
Corridor and
Classification
Total
Pedestrian
Zone Width
(per side)
# of
Travel
Lanes
Traveled Way / Lane
Width Center
Turn
Lane /
Median
Default
Bikeway
Type
On-
Street
Parking
Total Roadway
Width*
Total
Right-of-
Way Width
Pref. Min.
Min.
Bus
Route
Min.
Pref. Max. Max
. Typ. Min. Typ. Max.
Smokey Point Blvd
Collector/ Arterial 14’ 12’ 2/4 10’ 12’ 11’ 12’ Standard Separated
bike lanes N/A 78 50 80’ 100’
67th Ave NE
Arterial 12’ 8’ 2 10’ 12’ 10’ 12’ Standard
Shared
use path
or
buffered
bike lanes
N/A 48’ 44’ 70’
204th St NE/ Cemetery
Rd
Collector/ Arterial
12’ 8’ 2 10’ N/A* 11’ 11’ Standard
Bike
lanes/
protected
bike lanes
N/A 52’ 44’ 70’
E Highland Dr
Arterial 12’ 8’ 2 10’ N/A* 10’ 11’ Optional
Bike lanes
or
buffered
bike lanes
Parallel 58’ 44’ 74’
SR 531/ 172nd St NE
State Route 14’ 12’ 4 11’ 12’ 11’ 12’ Standard Separated
Bike lanes N/A 74’ 52’ 90’
SR 9/ 177th St NE
State Route 12’ 8’ 2 10’ 11’ 11’ 12’ Optional
Separated
bike lanes
or shared
use path
N/A 56’ 50’ 74’
188th St NE
Collector 14’ 8’ 2 10’ N/A* 11’ 12’ Optional
Separated
bike lanes
or shared
use path
Parallel 52’ 34’ 70’
Arlington Complete Streets Plan | November 2018
47
Table 10: Proposed Roadway Operational Parameters
Street Type
# of Travel
Lanes
Target Speed
(miles per hour) Corner Radii Typical ADT
Pref. Max.
Smokey Point Blvd 2/4 30 15’ 30’ 10,000 to 25,000
67th Ave NE 2 25 5’ 15’ <3,000
204th St NE/Cemetery Rd 2 25 5’ 15’ <5,000
E Highland Dr 2 25 5’ 20’ <3,000
SR 531/172nd St SE 4 30 15’ 30’ 10,000 to 25,000
SR 9/177th St SE 2 25 15’ 25’ 1,000 to 15,000
188th St SE 2 25 5’ 15’ <3,000
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
48
Figure 12. Proposed Road Section: Arterial Boulevard
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
49
Figure 13. Proposed Road Section: Mixed Use Avenue
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
50
Figure 14. Proposed Road Section: Smokey Point Blvd, north of 172nd
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
51
Figure 15. Proposed Road Section: Smokey Point Blvd, north of 172nd
Arlington Complete Streets Plan | November 2018
52
3.2 Roadway Design Criteria Footnotes
and Clarifications
The following numbered sections provide additional
guidance on roadway design criteria from the tables
above.
3.2.1. Pedestrian Zone Width
Per side of street. Measurement includes
sidewalks (6-foot minimum) and buffer. The
City’s existing standards R-010 and R-020
indicate a 5-foot sidewalk and 5-foot
minimum buffer; the additional width
indicated embodies a Complete Streets
approach to accommodating pedestrians for
safety and comfort. A minimum buffer of 2
feet within the -6-foot minimum allows for
signs, hydrants and utility poles, and
luminaires to be placed out of the traveled
way. Street trees require a 6 feet minimum
planting strip for rooting and if feasible can
provide space for roadway specific low
impact development facilities such as swales
or stormwater planters.
Intersections should remain clear of
amenities for the entire width of the
pedestrian zone to allow for maximum
visibility to and for the pedestrians
approaching to cross the street. The clear
zone is typically 20 feet from a signalized
intersection and 30 feet from a stop-
controlled intersection.
3.2.2 Number of Travel Lanes
Specified number of travel lanes represents
the default or typical configuration, and
includes two-way center turn lanes. Street
designs can deviate if allowed by unique
context or constraints. Thorough
documentation should be provided for any
deviations.
3.2.3 Travelway /Lane Width
The bus route minimum width applies to
outside lane on bus routes.
The maximum lane width may be used on
truck routes.
3.2.4 Center Turn Lane / Median
Center turn lanes and medians increase
crossing distances for pedestrians on
pedestrian-oriented streets; they also
consume right-of-way that could otherwise
be used for pedestrian realm improvements.
To facilitate intersection operations, on-
street parking can be removed to allow left
turn lanes as needed to maintain LOS E or
better during peak periods.
Center turn lanes or medians are
recommended for any roadway with two or
more through lanes in each direction.
Pedestrian islands or pedestrian refuges can
be used to assist with pedestrian access
across wider arterials with medians.
On streets in which a median is not preferred
or optional, it may still be beneficial to
provide crossing islands or non-continuous
centerline traffic-calming islands in certain
locations. Zone Width
Figure 16: Bicycle Facility Selection
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
53
3.2.5 Default Bikeway Type
Motor vehicle traffic volume and speed are
critical contextual considerations for
bicyclist safety and comfort. Proximity to
motor vehicle traffic is a significant source
of stress, safety risks, and discomfort for
bicyclists, and corresponds with sharp rises
in crash severity and fatality risks for
vulnerable users when motor vehicle speeds
exceed 25 miles per hour. Furthermore, as
motorized traffic volumes increase above
3,000 vehicles per day, it becomes
increasingly difficult for motorists and
bicyclists to share roadway space.
From a bicycling perspective, people vary
considerably in terms of traffic stress
tolerance, which is defined as comfort,
confidence, and willingness to interact with
motor vehicle traffic. Research50 indicates
that people fall into one of the four
categories shown below. The largest group
(51 percent) has a low tolerance for
interacting with motor vehicle traffic. As
such, the type of bikeway facility and
amount of separation from motor vehicle
traffic will largely determine whether the
bikeway will be used by most of the
population or only by a smaller portion that
is comfortable interacting with motor
vehicle traffic.
There may be conditions under which it is
infeasible to provide bicycle facilities that
are sufficiently comfortable for most people.
These limiting conditions could include
50 Dill, J. and N. McNeil. (2013, January) “Four Types of
Cyclists? Examining a Typology to Better Understand
funding shortfalls associated with right-of-
way acquisition or budget limitations. Under
these conditions, it may be necessary to
select the next-best facility type, which may
have less separation between bicycle and
motor vehicle traffic than the ideal facility.
If this decision is made, the designer and
project team must document the decision
and the constraints that led to the facility
type downgrade. If a downgraded facility is
selected, it is important to be aware that it
may accommodate more confident or
experienced bicyclists but will likely be
uncomfortable for most of the population.
If the Arlington Bike Improvement Plan
(Appendix F) or any future bike plans
specify a bikeway facility that differs from
the default facility shown in the table, then
the facility which provides the highest level
of comfort (i.e., lowest level of traffic stress)
for bicyclists should be provided.
The default bikeway type indicates the type
of bikeway that is typically appropriate for
the street type. For the purposes of these
corridor, a standard bike lane is assumed to
be 5-foot minimum wide and buffered and
separated bike lanes are assumed to be 7-
foot wide (5-foot lane and 2-foot buffer).
Designers should consider traffic speeds and
forecasted volumes of each individual
project when selecting a bikeway; additional
width in either the bike lane or buffer may
be desirable depending on the context of the
street. Figure 16 illustrates the baseline
Bicycling Behavior and Potential.” Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.
Figure 17: Bicyclist Types and Preferences
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
54
optimal bicyclist accommodations for the
projected traffic context of the street. The
speed and volume thresholds shown
correlate with a Level of Traffic Stress
rating of LTS2.
Bike lanes are the preferred facility type
when traffic volumes are between 3,000 to
6,000 vehicles/day and posted speeds are 25
to 30 mph. Within this range, buffered bike
lanes are preferred to provide spatial
separation between bicyclists and motorists,
especially as volumes or speeds approach
the limits. Bike lanes should be a minimum
of 6 feet wide where adjacent to on-street
parking. Bike lanes may be 5 feet wide
where on-street parking does not exist or in
constrained environments.
Separated bike lanes and shared use paths
are the preferred facility type as traffic
volumes exceed 6,000 vehicles/day or
vehicle speeds exceed 30 mph. However,
because many higher-traffic streets
(especially Thoroughfares) have very
constrained rights-of-way, it may be
infeasible to provide these facilities. In
constrained corridors, the solution will often
be to provide parallel routes or Bicycle
Boulevards on lower-traffic streets.
Sidepaths (shared use paths along roadways)
may be acceptable design solutions in lieu of
separated bike lanes in land use contexts
where pedestrian volumes are relatively low
and are expected to remain low. The
sidepath may be located on one or both sides
of the street, depending upon bicycle and
pedestrian network connectivity needs. As
volumes increase over time, the need for
separation should be revisited. Where land
use is anticipated to add density over time,
right-of-way should be preserved to allow
for future separation of bicyclists and
pedestrians. 6 Default On-Street Parking:
The table indicates the typical treatment of
on-street parking for the designated
corridors.
The default width for parallel parking lanes
is 7 feet. Wider (8-foot) lanes may be
appropriate in industrial areas, to
accommodate trucks. Decisions regarding
parking lane width when adjacent to bike
lanes should consider the amount of parking,
parking turnover rates, and vehicle types.
When parallel parking and bike lanes are
provided adjacent to each other, the
minimum combined width of the two is 15
feet, with15 feet preferred.
3.2.6 Target Speed
Target speed is the speed at which people
are expected to drive and is determined for
each street based on context, the street type,
and the street’s role within the transportation
network. The target speed is intended to
become both the design speed and the
posted speed limit. Per the Institute of
Traffic Engineers (ITE; Designing Walkable
Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive
Approach, 2010), the target speed should be
set at “the highest speed at which vehicles
should operate on a thoroughfare in a
specific context, consistent with the level of
multimodal activity generated by adjacent
land uses to provide both mobility for motor
vehicles and a safe environment for
pedestrians and bicyclists.” In other words,
target speeds—and by extension posted
speed limits and design speeds—should
balance the needs of all anticipated street
users based on context.
Arlington Complete Streets Plan | November 2018
55
Four Types of Speed
3.2.7 Corner Radii
Small corner radii are an effective way to
make design speed match target speed.
Large radii are associated with higher design
speeds and small radii are associated with
lower design speeds.
The values in this column refer to the actual
radii of curb returns. In many cases, the
effective corner radii—the curve which
motor vehicles follow when turning—will
be significantly greater than these values.
For example, a street with a 5-foot curb
return and on street parking and bike lanes
may have an effective corner radius of more
than 25 feet.
Small curb radii benefit pedestrians by
creating sharper turns that require motorists
to slow down, increasing the size of waiting
areas, allowing for greater flexibility in the
placement of curb ramps, and reducing
The speed that people should drive
Tool to determine the design of the roadway
Design speed should
generally be selected so that the resulting prevailing speed matches the target speed.
The speed most people drive at or below
The legal maximum speed
control (i.e., lowering the design speed) is often ineffective at slowing traffic. FHWA’s
Methods and Practices for Setting Speed Limits: An Informational Report
Figure 22: Example Application of Truck Aprons and
Recessed Stop Bar to Allow Lane Encroachment
Figure 21: Actual and Effective Curb Radii
Figure 19. Four
Types of Speed
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
56
pedestrian crossing distances. Ideally, the
curb radius should be as small as possible
while accommodating the appropriate design
vehicle for the intersection.
Not all curb radii need to be the same along
a corridor, or even within an intersection.
Accommodations should be made for bus
routes and freight routes only where needed.
At locations where a significant number of
trucks, buses, and other large vehicles make
right-hand turns, consider solutions that
allow the corner radii to remain small for
traffic calming and pedestrian safety.
Effective corner radii can be increased for
large vehicles through the provision of truck
aprons, which retain the traffic-calming
effect of smaller corner radii for passenger
vehicles. Planning for lane encroachment
can also allow corner radii to remain small.
Specific applications include:
At signalized intersections, corner design
should assume that a large vehicle will use
the entire width of the receiving lanes on the
intersecting street. Where additional space is
needed to accommodate large vehicles,
consideration can be given to recessing the
stop bar on the receiving street to enable the
vehicle to use the entire width of the re-
ceiving roadway (encroaching on the
opposing travel lane).
On low-volume (less than 4,000 vehicles per
day), two-lane streets, corner design should
assume that a large vehicle will use the
entire width of the departing and receiving
travel lanes, including the oncoming traffic
lane.
In some cases, it may be possible to allow a
large turning vehicle to encroach on the
adjacent travel lane on the departure side (on
multi-lane roads) to make the turn.
The values in this column assume that right-
turn slip lanes are not present. If a radius
over the maximum value for a corridor is
deemed necessary, a right-turn slip lane
should be provided and a refuge (or “pork
chop” island) should be included. The
design of right-turn slip lanes should create
a 55 to 60-degree angle between motor
vehicle flows and should either be stop-
controlled or have a raised crossing.
3.2.8 Typical ADT
The values in this column represent the
typical average daily traffic volume (ADT)
compatible with each type. Traffic volumes
higher or lower than the typical value may
be appropriate depending on context and
ability to adequately control speeds and
maintain operational efficiency. Note that
traffic volumes also influence how safe and
comfortable a roadway is for biking. A
traffic study should be performed for streets
nearing the upper limits of these ranges.
3.3 Supporting Transit in Complete
Streets
Community Transit operates on several of the
designed Complete Streets corridors as noted in
Table 9. Due to the size and operational
characteristics of buses, it is often necessary to
adjust the geometric design, pavement markings, or
traffic control of a street to accommodate transit
effectively. However, some of the design treatments
to accommodate transit (e.g., wider lanes or larger
corner radii at intersections) may have an “anti-
traffic calming” effect of encouraging higher
passenger vehicle speeds. As such, transit-
accommodating design treatments should be applied
only where transit operates or may operate in the
future and are not applied wholesale to the street
typologies in the Complete Streets Policy.
Case-by-case design flexibility is incorporated into
the Complete Streets design process and will apply
to bus routes by shifting design parameters to
accommodate transit. This may include wider lanes,
larger corner radii, lane encroachment areas,
alternative bikeway treatments, and more. The
design parameters for each street type include ranges
of values, which in most cases will provide
satisfactory results for transit. In cases where values
outside of the parameters are necessary or desirable
to accommodate transit, the design engineer should
consider and balance the needs of all modes while
emphasizing the safety of all users, especially
pedestrians and bicyclists.
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
57
3.3.1 Bus Stops and Bikeways
Transit stops should be safe and efficient for all
users, with minimal negative impacts on transit
operations. One area of particular interest is the
design of bus stops located along bike lanes and
separated bike lanes. The goal in these locations is to
reduce conflicts and minimize delays. Bus stops
should be provided curbside (against a curb) in most
instances, as this is the most functional location for a
bus stop. Designs that require passengers to cross
bike lanes when boarding or alighting should be
avoided. Designs that require buses to pull out of the
flow of motorized traffic are also not desirable.
Based on common roadway and bikeway
configurations, transit operations, and other
considerations, two primary bus stop designs exist
(with multiple variations possible):
Conventional Bus Stop with Interrupted Bike
Lane (bus enters/crosses bikeway)
Floating Bus Stop (bikeway is directed behind
passenger waiting area)
3.3.2 Conventional Bus Stop with
Interrupted Bike Lane
Conventional bus stops with interrupted bike lanes
are traditional curbside bus stops adjacent to an on-
street bikeway. At these stops, buses enter or cross
the bike lane to pull to the curb. Bike lanes can have
solid or dashed lines and green pavement can be
used to increase awareness of potential conflicts.
When a bus is blocking the bike lane, bicyclists stop
and wait until the bus proceeds, or merge into the
motor vehicle travel lane.
Conventional bus stops with interrupted bike lanes
require less space than floating bus stops but provide
less separation between buses and bicyclists. This
type of stop is best utilized at locations with lower
boarding/alighting levels and/or on streets with
lower speed and lower volume traffic.
Figure 20: Example Conventional Bus Stop with Interrupted Bike Lane
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
58
3.3.3 Floating Bus Stops
Floating bus stops are sidewalk-level platforms built between the bikeway and the roadway travel lane. Floating
bus stops direct bicyclists behind the bus stop, reducing or eliminating most conflicts between buses and
bicyclists, and expanding available sidewalk space. By eliminating bus and bicyclist interaction, floating bus stops
have safety benefits for bicyclists. This design can also benefit pedestrians, as the floating bus stop doubles as a
pedestrian refuge, which if designed efficiently, can shorten crossing distances and enable shorter signal cycles. It
also allows for a space for pedestrians to wait for the bus outside of the bike facility. This design includes ADA
facilities and measures to ensure that transit access is maintained for all users.
Floating bus stops are recommended for use with separated bike lanes and can also be used with standard and
buffered bike lanes.
Figure 21: Examples of Floating Bus Stops at Intersections and Midblock Locations
Arlington Complete Streets Plan | November 2018
59
3.4 Supporting Pedestrians in Complete
Streets
3.4.1 Pedestrian Zone Design Criteria
The function and design of the pedestrian realm
significantly impacts the character of each street.
Extending from curb to building face or property
line, this area includes sidewalks, street trees, street
furniture, signs, low impact development (LID)
street lights, bicycle racks, and transit stops. They
are places of transition and economic exchange as
restaurants engage the public space and retailers
attract people to their windows and shops.
The following sections provide additional guidance
on pedestrian zone design criteria.
3.4.2 Frontage Zone
The Frontage Zone is the area of the
pedestrian realm (usually paved) that imme-
diately abuts buildings along the street. In
residential areas, the Frontage Zone may be
occupied by front porches, stoops, lawns, or
other landscape elements that extend from
the front door to the sidewalk edge. The
Frontage Zone of commercial properties
may include architectural features or
projections, outdoor retailing displays, café
seating, awnings, signage, and other
intrusions into or use of the public right-of-
way. Frontage Zones may vary widely in
width from just a few feet to several yards.
The Frontage Zone is measured from right-
of-way limit to the edge of the Clear Zone.
Where buildings are located against the back
of the sidewalk and constrained situations do
not provide width for the Frontage Zone, the
Clear Zone needs to accommodate a buffer
from the building façade.
Wider frontage zones are acceptable where
conditions allow. The preferred width of the
Frontage Zone to accommodate sidewalk
cafes is 6 to 8 feet.
3.5.3 Clear Zone
Also known as the “walking zone,” the
Clear Zone is the portion of the sidewalk
space used for active travel. For it to
function, it must be kept clear of any
obstacles and be wide enough to
comfortably accommodate expected
pedestrian volumes including those using
mobility assistance devices, pushing
strollers, or pulling carts. To maintain the
social quality of the street, the width should
accommodate pedestrians passing singly, in
pairs, or in small groups as anticipated by
density and adjacent land use.
The Clear Zone should have a smooth
surface, be well lit, provide a continuous and
direct path with minimal to no deviation, be
adequately maintained, and meet all
applicable accessibility requirements.
In locations with severely constrained
rights-of-way, it is possible to provide a
narrower clear zone. The Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) minimum 4-foot
wide clear zone can be applied using
engineering judgement and should account
for a minimum 1-foot shy distance from any
barriers. If a 4-foot wide clear zone is used,
5-foot wide passing zones are required every
200 feet. Driveway designs meet the criteria
of ADA-compliant passing zones.
Figure 24. Pedestrian Zones
Frontage
Zone
Clear
Zone
Amenity
Zone
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
60
For any sidewalk intended to also
accommodate bicycle traffic (i.e. shared use
path), the clear zone should be a minimum
of 10 feet wide, 12 feet preferred for urban
areas. For short segments through
constrained environments, 8-foot wide
shared use paths are acceptable.
3.4.4 Amenity Zone
The Amenity Zone lies between the curb
and the Clear Zone. This area is occupied by
elements such as street lights, street trees,
bicycle racks, parking meters, signposts,
signal boxes, benches, trash and recycling
receptacles, and other amenities. In
commercial areas, it is typical for this zone
to be hardscape pavement, pavers, or tree
grates. In residential, or lower intensity
areas, it is commonly a planted strip.
The Amenity Zone can provide a temporary
emergency repository for leaves or snow
cleared from streets and sidewalks, although
snow storage should not impede access to or
use of important mobility fixtures such as
parking meters, bus stops, and curb ramps.
Typically, the minimum width necessary to
support standard healthy street tree
installation is 6 feet. The City’s Standard
Plans allow for narrower tree pitch depth
(4.5 feet minimum) but additional rooting
space is recommended.
Low impact development (LID) is
commonly located in the Amenity Zone.
LID typically require a minimum of 6 feet of
width.
Utilities, street trees, and other sidewalk
furnishings should be set back from curb
face a minimum of 18 inches.
Where on-street parking is not present, a
wider Amenity Zone should be prioritized
over the width of the Frontage Zone to
create a buffer between pedestrians and the
travelway.
The preferred width of the Amenity Zone to
accommodate sidewalk cafes that are not
adjacent to the building is 6 to 8 feet.
Curb extensions extend the Amenity Zone
and curb into the roadway. The use or
function of curb extensions typically mirrors
or complements that of the Amenity Zone
and may include stormwater management
features, transit stops or passenger facilities,
seating, dining, additional landscaped area,
or additional pedestrian space.
3.4.5 Total Width
The minimum total width of the pedestrian
zone for any street with transit service is 8
feet (preferably 10 feet) to provide space for
a minimum 5-foot wide by 8-foot deep
landing zone.
3.4.6 Crosswalks
By legal definition, there are crosswalks
whether marked or unmarked at any
intersection location where a sidewalk leads
to and crosses the intersection, unless
pedestrian crossing is explicitly prohibited.
Marked crosswalks serve many purposes,
including:
Acting as a warning device and reminder to
motorists that pedestrian conflicts can be
expected, especially where an unmarked
crosswalk would not be clearly discernable
due to peculiar geometrics or other physical
characteristics.
Pointing out to the pedestrian the safest
crossing path.
Encouraging pedestrian crossings to at
specific locations.
Aiding in enforcing crosswalk laws.
Discouraging drivers from blocking the
pedestrian crossing at intersections.
By default, marked crosswalks should be
located at every signalized intersection (on
all approaches); across major cross-streets
that intersect designated Complete Streets
corridors; and all intersections in business
districts/commercial areas, such as Highland
Drive. Consider providing raised crosswalks
across major cross streets as traffic-calming
devices to slow motor vehicle traffic as it
enters neighborhoods and pedestrian-
oriented districts.
Crosswalk markings must comply with the
MUTCD standards in Section 3B.18.
Marked crosswalks should be at least 10 feet
wide or the width of the approaching
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
61
sidewalk if it is greater. In areas of heavy
pedestrian volumes, crosswalks can be up to
25 feet wide. Crosswalks should be aligned
with the approaching sidewalk and as close
as possible to the parallel street to maximize
the visibility of pedestrians while
minimizing their exposure to conflicting
traffic.
Standard crosswalk markings, or simple
transverse lines at least 6 inches in width,
may be used at a minimum at stop-
controlled and signalized intersections.
High-visibility markings (continental or
ladder crosswalks) may be used at any
location, but are especially important at
midblock crossings, designated school
crossings, and near heavy pedestrian
generators such as major destinations, transit
stops, and parks.
Decorative crosswalks (brick pavers,
colored or textured concrete, or similar
materials) are discouraged because they
often create accessibility challenges and can
require additional maintenance. Decorative
materials are more appropriately used in the
center of intersections. Locations where
decorative crosswalks have been installed
should be assessed for visibility, especially
at night. Visibility of decorative crosswalks
can be improved by adding transverse
markings on either side of the decorative
pavement, installing pedestrian signs at both
curbs, or installing pedestrian lighting.
Marked crosswalks are a useful traffic
control device but they are not the only
solution to improving pedestrian crossings.
In some cases, a marked crosswalk might
not be adequate on its own to increase the
safety of pedestrians. Multi-lane
intersections with high traffic volumes,
longer crossing times, and higher speeds
increase the exposure of pedestrians to
potential crashes. At these intersections,
crosswalk markings can provide increased
awareness of the presence of pedestrians,
but they may need to be supplemented with
pedestrian refuge islands, curb extensions,
increased signal cycle length, overhead
illumination, warning signs, etc. to reduce
pedestrian exposure.
3.4.7 Midblock Crossings
At a mid-block location, a marked crosswalk
is required to create a legal pedestrian
crossing. High-visibility (continental or
ladder markings) marked crosswalks are
recommended at all midblock crossings,
especially those without traffic control. They
delineate the crossing location and can help
alert roadway users to the potential conflict
ahead.
On roadways with low traffic volumes and
speeds where sight distances are adequate, a
marked crosswalk should be sufficient to
accommodate pedestrians effectively.
Additional crossing improvements such as
warning signs, Rectangular Rapid Flash
Beacons (RRFB), or Pedestrian Hybrid
Signals (HAWK signals) are recommended
at locations without traffic signals and where
any of the following is true:
There is a history of pedestrian crashes near
the location.
The area has high levels of pedestrian
activity.
The speed limit or 85th percentile speed is
greater than 35 miles per hour.
The roadway has four or more lanes of
travel without a raised crossing island and
an ADT of 9,000 vehicles/day or greater.
The roadway has four or more lanes of
travel with a raised crossing island (either
existing or planned) and an ADT of 12,000
vehicles/day or greater.
See FHWA’s Safety Effects of Marked
versus Unmarked Crosswalks at
Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and
Recommended Guidelines for additional
information and guidance.
3.5 Street Trees and Landscaping
3.5.1 Greenscape and Street Trees
Overview
Trees and landscaping play an important role in
making streets comfortable, delightful, memorable,
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
62
and sustainable. Used appropriately, they can help
define the character of a street. Street tree planting
transforms a street’s appearance and produces great
benefits with limited funds. Trees add color and
shade to the environment and reduce the heat island
effect. They separate vehicles from pedestrian
pathways, tend to calm traffic, and help the city
breathe by capturing carbon dioxide and other
gaseous pollutants and particulates.
Street trees require their own allocation of right-of-
way to thrive. For technical guidance and standards
for on street trees, including installation procedures
and on-going maintenance requirements, please refer
to City of Arlington Design Standards and
Specifications.
Relationship to Context
Landscape and Street Tree design should be mindful
of the surrounding landscape character. Street tree
plantings should strive to maintain consistent
spacing and character along a given corridor or
district.
Understory Plantings
The primary concerns regarding understory
plantings are pedestrian access, security, visibility,
and ongoing cost and ease of maintenance.
Consequently:
Plantings shall conform to zoning requirements,
including:
o Within 30 feet of intersections and
corners, plants must not exceed 12
inches.
o Other plants must not exceed a height of
36 inches.
Plants should be selected and/or maintained in
such a way that there is no overhang or
encroachment onto the sidewalk, curb or street
area.
When placed adjacent to on-street parking,
plants should be located away from ‘door zone’
of parked cars, typically 3 feet from the curb, of
if planted behind a sidewalk, 3 feet from back of
sidewalk.
For plantings being used for green infrastructure,
species should be tolerant of both dry and
saturated conditions.
Plantings should be selected and planted as to
not interfere with street tree health.
Plantings should be drought tolerant.
Annuals are not discouraged from being used
within the ROW, however, they require a long-
term commitment from the organization planting
them. Without that commitment, perennial
plantings should be used.
Irrigation may be considered in conditions
where there is limited ability to capture adequate
rainwater and will require an ongoing
maintenance agreement or where there is the
desire to include plant material that is less
drought tolerant. In most cases, it is beneficial to
include temporary irrigation for establishment or
‘quick-coupler’ hose bibs to allow watering
during times of extreme drought.
In most cases, it is optimal to use native or
regionally adapted plant material.
3.5.2 Street Tree Planting
Species diversity is important to the long-term-
health of the City’s urban forest and can be
facilitated by selecting two or more tree types to
plant along a street. Trees come in a wide variety of
shapes and sizes. The City’s Street Tree List
provides a list of recommended tree species ranging
from large shade trees to small ornamentals. Species
with similar characteristics are grouped; when
planted along a street, they provide visual continuity
to the street segments while allowing for
horticultural diversity. Evergreen
trees are not to be used as street trees.
Table 11. Tree Spacing Recommendations
Trees that have a maximum height of 25 feet can be
used under power lines or where overhead clearance
is a factor.
30 feet
30 feet
Canopy/Shade trees that have a minimum height of
30 feet at maturity and provide a significant canopy
over the street and adjacent properties.
30 feet
45 feet
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
63
Boulevard: 50 feet 50 feet
Specialty Determined by
director
Table 12. Tree Clearance Recommendations
3 feet at planting time
4 feet at planting time
10 feet
5 feet
10 feet
15 feet
15 feet
10 feet
30 feet
15 feet
8 feet
14 feet
51 ‘Soil for Urban Tree Planting’, E. Thomas Smiley, Ph.
D,
3.5.3 Other Design Considerations
Minimum Tree Size: It is important to note
that for urban streetscapes, larger caliper
size trees may be necessary to keep tree
limbs high enough off the ground to
maintain ADA accessibility.
The distance between the curb and the
sidewalk should be at least 6 feet (although
8 feet is preferred) to support a tree and
provide enough space for the trunk and
roots.
Best management practices recommend that
for every 1 square foot of mature canopy
cover, 2 feet of cubic soil be provided to
support tree growth and root development.
Shade trees, require a min. of 400 CF of soil
area. And for very large trees, along
boulevards for example, a minimum of 1000
CF should be provided to achieve optimal
canopy size51. Soil Depth should be at least
36” for large shade trees.
In constrained areas that prioritize
pedestrian pavements over planting area,
there are several techniques that may be
used to expand the available root zone for a
street tree, including:
Providing structural soil under pavements,
Use a structural cell system to support
pavements to provide a large volume of
available, uncompacted and amended soil
while minimizing restrictions on pedestrian
access.
Providing adjacent green space areas for
root development, and
Providing paths for roots under pavements
in to encourage trees to reach available root
space on the opposite side of the sidewalk.
Pedestrian traffic and vehicle access through
the Planting/ Furnishing Zone can cause soil
compaction which impacts soil structure and
tree health.
Where traffic is minimal, boulevards should
be covered with mulch, turf grass, or
ornamental plantings. A mulch ring around
the tree retains soil moisture, cools soils,
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
64
prevents soil compaction, and reduces
maintenance.
Permeable hardscape, such as pavers, may
be used in commercial area
Planting/Furnishing Zones to limit soil
compaction where there is higher pedestrian
traffic. When using pavers, a structured soil
must be used, and an opening of several
inches should remain around the trunk to
allow for tree growth.
Adjustable tree grates are generally not
considered a best practice but may be
considered in select situations with the
approval of the City.
3.5.4 Installation and Maintenance
Because trees are living infrastructure, proper
installation, care, and maintenance are required to
maximize the investment. City of Arlington
Standard Plans provide recommendation for
installation standards.
Soil condition, along with soil volume, is the
primary determiner of future plant health. Even in
areas with adequate soil volume, if the soils have
been compacted due to construction activities, trees
can struggle to flourish. In construction zones, or
areas that have been compacted due to other
activities, it is recommended for all areas planted
with trees or understory plants, that the soils be
ripped or tilled to a depth of 12” or deeper.
As trees grow to maturity, it is important to prune
them to accommodate pedestrians and vehicles along
the street. Per the City’s standard details, a 7-foot
clearance above sidewalks and a 14 feet clearance
above streets is required. Selecting trees with
ascending or vase-shaped mature canopies rather
than broad or pyramidal forms, will help alleviate
the need for pruning. Choosing trees with strong,
undamaged leaders (which is the top-most vertical
branch) will help ensure that the tree will grow with
appropriate forms. Trees with damaged or ‘split’
leaders will tend to grow more horizontally and may
have weak structures prone to splitting when mature.
For established street trees, standard maintenance
consists of structural pruning on a regular cycle
(typically every 3-5 years depending on the species,
size, and location of the tree) and regular inspection
by a certified arborist (recommended every 1-2
years) to assess the condition of the tree and
determine the presence of any disease or damage
that could lead to failure of the tree.
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
65
3.6 Low Impact Design Guidelines
Using Low Impact Design (LID) within the right-of-
way can provide multiple solutions for the City.
Beyond treating and retaining stormwater where it
falls, LID elements add aesthetic diversity, help
create a sense of place, and show citizens that our
natural resources matter. The City has several
subsurface scenarios along the main corridors, and
each scenario lends itself to specific LID facilities:
3.6.1 High Infiltration, Low Groundwater
Under this ideal subsurface scenario, numerous LID
facilities could be feasible. Selection will depend
upon geometry, space available, and types of users
within each corridor.
Permeable Pavement: Permeable pavements
include porous asphalt, pervious concrete, permeable
pavers, and grid systems. Porous asphalt, pervious
concrete, and permeable pavers would all suitable
for sidewalk and shared use path applications in high
infiltration, low groundwater locations. Permeable
pavements can accommodate additional run-on
flows from adjacent areas, provided stormwater
pollutants and sediment run-on can be limited.
Geometric considerations include maximum
longitudinal slopes (5 percent for porous asphalt,
and 12 percent for pervious concrete and permeable
pavers). Modern porous asphalt mix designs provide
a smoother wearing course suitable for all types of
users.
Bioretention: Bioretention options include cells,
swales, planters, and planter boxes. In a high
infiltration, low groundwater location, cells, swales,
or planters would be suitable for stormwater
infiltration. Size of contributing area and geometric
considerations generally dictate the type of
bioretention selected. Steep longitudinal slopes lend
themselves to swales or connected planters but may
require check dams or weirs. Cells and swales
require at least seven feet of width within the right-
of-way using 3H:1V side slopes; rockery side slopes
or concrete planters can be used in narrower spaces.
In facilities adjacent to roadways, cells or swales
with bottom depths more than 4-feet below the
roadway require a guard rail.
3.6.2 High Groundwater
Permeable Pavement: Permeable pavement may
still be used in high groundwater locations if the
vertical separation from the bottom of the aggregate
base to the winter groundwater elevation is at least 1
foot. Pervious concrete and permeable pavers can
have facility depths as shallow as 1 foot for
pedestrian uses.
Bioretention: Bioretention cells, swales, or
planters may still be used in high groundwater
locations if the vertical separation from the bottom
of the bioretention bioretention soil media (or the
bottom of the underdrain aggregate) to the winter
groundwater elevation is at least 1 foot for
contributing areas of less than 5,000 sf of pollution-
generating impervious surface, less than 10,000 sf of
impervious area, or less than ¾ acre of lawn and/or
landscaped area. Greater contributing areas should
have at least 3 feet of vertical separation. Separation
distance can be increased by decreasing the ponding
depth and increasing the facility footprint.
3.6.3 Poor Infiltration
Permeable Pavement: Locations with poor
infiltration rates may require under drains to prevent
degradation of the native soil subgrade due to
periodic saturated conditions. If the native soil
subgrade can withstand saturated conditions, an
elevated drain can be used to protect the pavement
wearing course from saturation. Permeable
pavements can be used in locations of very poor
infiltration by utilizing an impermeable liner and
under drains.
Bioretention: Bioretention planter boxes are ideal
for locations of poor infiltration, because their solid
bottoms do not rely on infiltration to the native soil.
Planter boxes can provide water quality treatment,
but only limited flow control. Underdrains below
cells, swales, or planters can also be used in
locations of poor infiltration to provide water
quality, but only limited flow control.
3.7 Street Element Priorities
Many street projects are subject to tradeoffs.
Whether limited by budget, available right-of-way,
or operational challenges, relatively few street
projects in developed portions of the city can
ARLINGTON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN | November 2018
66
provide optimal operating spaces for all modes while
also supporting urban design and placemaking goals.
When tradeoffs are required, they are made based on
priorities for each street type. The result is street
designs that safely accommodate all users within the
constraints of the specific project or location and
achieve the multimodal goals of the project.
Feasibility is typically assessed during the
conceptual design phase of the project development
process, at which time tradeoffs are also made.
Table 13 provides guidance for designers when
weighing tradeoffs. Judgments regarding the
inclusion of certain design elements (e.g., bike lanes)
or where to allocate additional width where right-of-
way allows should be based on the priorities
outlined in this table depending on street type.
User safety is paramount and a minimum
accommodation or reasonably-convenient alternative
route for people biking and walking is required for
every street project. Features that are indicated to be
medium or lower priorities should not be dismissed
from inclusion unless constraints make it infeasible
to include all default elements for the street type.
Table 13: Street Element Priorities
Corridor
Pedestrian Realm & Crossings Roadway
Fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
Z
o
n
e
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
C
l
e
a
r
Z
o
n
e
Am
e
n
i
t
y
Z
o
n
e
Cu
r
b
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
,
P
a
r
k
l
e
t
s
,
an
d
o
t
h
e
r
B
u
f
f
e
r
s
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
/
R
e
f
u
g
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
s
Ma
r
k
e
d
C
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
s
*
Tr
a
v
e
l
e
d
W
a
y
/
L
a
n
e
Wi
d
t
h
On
-St
r
e
e
t
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
De
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
B
i
k
e
w
a
y
Me
d
i
a
n
/
C
e
n
t
e
r
T
u
r
n
La
n
e
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
C
a
l
m
i
n
g
/
S
p
e
e
d
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
F
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
th
th
nd
th
th
H Higher
Priority M Medium Priority L Lower Priority NC Not Compatible
*Marked Crosswalks are a high priority in school zones, regardless of street type.
Staff Report & Recommendation
AVS Communities Rezone – Planning Commission
Page 1 of 3
Community and Economic Development
Planning Division
18204 59th Avenue NE, Arlington, WA 98223
Planning Commission
STAFF REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
To: Planning Commission
From:
Josh Grandlienard, Planner II
Date: February 21, 2019
Regarding: AVS Communities Rezone PLN #524
A. INTRODUCTION
The Applicant AVS Communities is submitting a rezone for a project that is located at 6927 204th St
NE, to be an amendment to the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan. The Plan is submitted under
the 2019 Comprehensive Update docket cycle.
B. GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: AVS Communities
Project Description: 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Requested Action: Make a recommendation of approval to the Arlington City Council
Exhibits: AVS Communities Application and Narrative
Staff Report & Recommendation
AVS Communities Rezone – Planning Commission
Page 2 of 3
C. DETAILED PROJECT INFORMATION
The applicant is requesting the rezoning of a 9 acre Lot from General Industrial to General
Commercial with a mixed use overlay. Approval by the City Council is required for all
rezone applications. If the request is granted, the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
and the City’s Official Zoning Map would need to be amended.
D. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
1. SEPA COMPLIANCE:
The amendment of a comprehensive plan amendment is subject to provisions of the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Chapter 20.98 of the Arlington Municipal Code
(AMC).
2. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION/INVOLVEMENT
a. Presentations and/or updates to the Planning Commission will occur on March 5,
2019, March 19, 2019 and April 16, 2019.
b. Two Public Hearings will be held at Planning Commission, located at Arlington City
Chambers on the following dates, March 19, 2019 and April 16, 2019.
c. The City will present information and advertise the Public Hearings regarding the
Planning Docket in the Everett Herald, and via area wide mailing.
d. A Notice of Public Hearing for the May 6, 2019 Planning Commission meeting will be
posted at the Arlington and Smokey Point Post Offices, The Arlington Library and
City Hall. The Notice was also published in the Everett Herald.
3. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOTIFICATION
The York Rezone, along with the additional docket items will be submitted to the
Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC), and the DOC will notify the City that
if it is in procedural compliance with RCW 36.70A.106.
E. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Staff has reviewed the draft findings during review of the project and finds that the
applicant has met the intent of all applicable requirements and standards. The plan
supplements the Comprehensive Plan, through planning goals PH-1.1, PH-2.1, PH-2.3, PL-
7.1, PL-7.2, PL-7.3, PE-1.3, PE-1.4, PE-1.12, and PL-1.7. This means that based on the
submittal that the rezone will contribute to a variety of housing types and densities, locate it
near commercial and employment centers, promotes mixed use development, contributes
to an adequate employment land base and retail sales base, provides for commercial uses
within a neighborhood outside of the downtown area, and will allow for a range of
commercial uses and mixed use development per the General Commercial designation.
F. ANALYSIS
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend for approval and adoption, the
rezoning of tax parcel 31051100303100 from General Industrial to General Commercial by
City Council.
G. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Staff Report & Recommendation
AVS Communities Rezone – Planning Commission
Page 3 of 3
1. Public meetings will be held on March 5, 2019, March 19, 2019, and April 16, 2019.
2. The Planning Docket and associated staff reports will be submitted to the DOC in
accordance with RCW 36.70A.106 and the submittal will meet all DOC’s procedural
requirements.
3. On March 5, 2019, the Planning Commission will review a draft of the City of
Arlington 2019 Comprehensive Plan Docket at their workshop meeting.
4. On February 19, 2019 a Notice of Public Hearing for the March 19, 2019 Planning
Commission public hearing was posted at Arlington City Hall, Arlington Post Office, Smokey
Point Post Office and the Arlington Public Library.
5. On March 29, 2019 a Notice of Public Hearing for the April 16, 2019 Planning
Commission public hearing will be posted at Arlington City Hall, Arlington Post Office,
Smokey Point Post Office and the Arlington Public Library.
6. The application for PLN#524 has been reviewed for consistency with the Arlington
Comprehensive Plan and for internal consistency and the 2019 Comprehensive Plan
amendments are consistent with, and internally consistent with, the Arlington
Comprehensive Plan.
7. PLN#524 has been reviewed in accordance with, and is consistent with, the
Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies.
8. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments were prepared in accordance with
the Washington State Enabling Legislation (RCW 35A.63) and the Growth Management Act.
9. Documentation supporting the findings of fact is located in the file PLN #524, which
is adopted by reference into this approval.
10. Adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments, PLN#524, furthers the
public health, safety and general welfare.
H. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Arlington Planning Commission make a recommendation to the
Arlington City Council to adopt the AVS Communities Rezone, 2019 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, PLN#524.
Findings of Fact
City of Arlington Planning Commission
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Arlington‐Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center
Page 1 of 1
City of Arlington Community and Economic Development
Planning Commission
18204 59th Avenue NE, #B Arlin ton, WA 98223
Regarding:
The Arlington‐Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center Subarea Plan – PLN#491
Summary:
This proposed amendment to the City’s comprehensive Plan is a City initiated project that
will create an additional Sub Area which will encompass Arlington’s portion of the
Arlington‐Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center. This amendment is submitted under
the 2018 Comprehensive Update docket. Provisions of State law allow for adoption of sub‐
area plans outside of the normal Comprehensive Plan docketing process. The subarea plan
will guide future growth and development within the City’s portion of the manufacturing
Industrial Center.
1. RCW 39.70A0130(2) allows for the adoption of sub‐area plans outside of the docket
period, provided the appropriate environmental review has occurred under RCW
43.23C. The relevant review has been completed.
2. Well attended public meetings were held on April 4 and October 16, 2018. At those
meetings, information was disseminated, and input sought which would inform the
development of the sub‐area plan.
3. The draft Arlington‐Marysville manufacturing Industrial Sub‐area plan was
presented and discussed at the November 6th planning Commission workshop.
4. The Sub‐area plan and Existing Conditions Report were presented and discussed at
the November 20th Planning Commission meeting.
5. Snohomish County has already recognized the Arlington‐Marysville manufacturing
Industrial Center; the proposed new comprehensive Plan Sub‐area plan will allow
the City to continue the application process with PSRC for regional recognition of
the Center.
6. The Sub‐area plan is consistent with both County planning policies and goals as well
as PSRC’s Vision 2040 policies.
Conclusion and Recommendation:
Based on the foregoing findings, the Planning commission herby recommends, on a
unanimous vote, that the City Council approve passage of the Arlington‐Marysville
Manufacturing Industrial Center Sub‐area plan as recommended by staff.
Respectfully submitted through the Department of Community and Economic Development
to the City Council this twenty‐sixth day of November, 2018 by:
____________________________________________________
Bruce Angell
City of Arlington Planning Commission Chair
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction
1-4 SEPTEMBER 2017
Transportation
1. Develop plans for street connectivity
2. Accommodate nonmotorized transportation modes (trails, sidewalks, etc)
3. Develop street networks within the Brekhus/Beach Subarea, and the future Lindsay
Annexation Area.
Plan and Project Review
1. Reports, plans, project reviews or other actions by the City will contain an analysis of the
GMA Plan and policies to ensure consistency or describe variations.
2. Reports, plans, project reviews or other actions by adjacent jurisdictions will be reviewed
against the Comprehensive Plan, with comment being provided to the decision-makers.
The July 2015 GMA Comprehensive Plan was granted conditional certification by the Puget
Sound Regional Council, subject to completion of several items outlined in its March 2016
review (Appendix I). Certification is required for review of transportation funding requests under
the Regional Transportation Improvement Program, which Arlington will be pursuing over the
coming months and years. This 2017 Plan reflects changes based on that review.
1.4 DOCUMENTS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE
The City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan incorporates by reference the following documents:
2005 Arlington GMA Comprehensive Plan, except as otherwise amended by the 2015
Update.
Arlington/ Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center Subarea Plan
City of Arlington Complete Streets Policy
West Arlington Subarea Plan.
Arlington Water Systems Plan.
Arlington Sewer Systems Plan.
Arlington 2016 Transportation Plan.
Stillaguamish Valley Economic Development Plan.
Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies, June 2013.
Multi-County Planning Policies.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction
1-5 SEPTEMBER 2017
PSRC Vision 2040.
PSRC Transportation 2040.
City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Introduction
1-6 SEPTEMBER 2017
PSRC Industrial Lands Analysis, 2015.
Updated Regional Transportation Demand Management Action Plan.
Updated Transportation 2040 financial strategy.
Coordination with planned Community Transit services.
Coordination with Sound Transit planning.
Puget Sound Cleans Air Agency Growth Management Policies.
Regional Open Space Strategy.
International Building Codes, including Fire Code.
Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan.
NPDES Phase II Stormwater permit.
2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.
Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan.
Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan.
Snohomish County UGA Land Capacity Analysis Technical Report, June 10, 2015
The documents listed will have direct influence on decision-making where provisions are
prescriptive. Where advisory only, the documents will be balanced with other policies, regulations
and priorities.
1.5 RE-ASSESSMENT PROCESS
The Comprehensive Plan includes a Capital Facilities Element (Chapter 9) and Transportation
Element (Chapter 8), each describing how infrastructure will be developed concurrently with
growth. The City may not be able to finance all proposed capital facility projects. This will be
assessed annually. Where capital facility shortfalls affect concurrency, the following are the
options available:
Increase Revenue
Decrease Level of Service Standards
Decrease the Cost of the Facility or Reduce the Scope of the Project
Decrease the Demand for the Public Service or Facility
Reassess the Land Use Element
Staff Report & Recommendation
Arlington Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center – Planning Commission
Page 1 of 4
Community and Economic Development
Planning Division
18204 59th Avenue NE, Arlington, WA 98223
Planning Commission
STAFF REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
To: Planning Commission
From:
Josh Grandlienard, Planner II
Date: November 20, 2018
Regarding: Arlington‐Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center Subarea Plan
A. INTRODUCTION
The Arlington‐Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center Subarea Plan is a City‐initiated project
that is an amendment to the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan. The Plan is submitted under the
2018 Comprehensive Update docket cycle, under provision RCW 39.70A.130(2) which allows for
the adoption of Subarea plans outside of the docket period, since the appropriate environmental
review has occurred under chapter 43.21C RCW. The Subarea Plan will guide future growth and
development within the Manufacturing Industrial Center of the City of Arlington.
B. GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: City Of Arlington, 238 N. Olympic Ave., Arlington, WA 98223
Contact Person: Marc Hayes, Community Development Director
Josh Grandlienard, Planner II
Project Description: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Acreage: 4,019 acres, 2,291 within the City of Arlington
Requested Action: Make a recommendation of approval to the Arlington City Council
Review Process: See Title 20 – Land Use Code of AMC, Chapter 20.96 Amendments
Exhibits: Draft AMMIC Subarea Plan, PLN #491
Staff Report & Recommendation
Arlington Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center – Planning Commission
Page 2 of 4
C. DETAILED PROJECT INFORMATION
The City of Arlington is requesting Planning Commission recommendation for approval by City
Council for the Arlington‐Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center Subarea Plan. The Arlington‐
Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center consists of 4,019 acres located in Snohomish County.
The AMMIC is located in a low basin, east of Interstate 5 and the Tulalip Reservation. The AMMIC is
comprised of parcels within the Cities of Arlington and Marysville.
Arlington: The Arlington portion of the AMMIC includes 2,291 acres. This includes the 1,200‐acre
City‐owned and operated Arlington Municipal Airport. The City of Arlington is requesting that City
Council approve the Ordinance to adopt the Subarea plan for the Arlington‐Marysville
Manufacturing Industrial Center, and amend the 2017 Comprehensive Plan to include the
Arlington‐Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center Subarea Plan by reference.
Snohomish County Council adopted policy ED‐16 which identifies the Arlington Marysville
Manufacturing Industrial Center as a candidate for regional Designation as a Manufacturing
Industrial Center. The City of Arlington has established with the City of Marysville an interlocal
agreement to submit the application and establish a subarea plan for the Manufacturing Industrial
Center. The Arlington‐Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center serves as a major manufacturing
and industrial employment center for the region. The Center includes a diverse range of industrial
activities that provides employment opportunities for residents in Snohomish County and the
region. Puget Sound Regional Council requires a Subarea plan for application of Manufacturing
Industrial Center regional designation. Both the City of Arlington and Marysville applied and
received funding to create a Subarea Plan through the Community Economic Revitalization Board.
The Subarea Plan is a requirement by Puget Sound Regional Council for submittal of application to
receive Regional Designation as a Manufacturing Industrial Center.
D. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
1. SEPA COMPLIANCE:
The amendment of a comprehensive plan is subject to provisions of the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Chapter 20.98 of the Arlington Municipal Code
(AMC). The City’s SEPA official has determined that the Arlington‐Marysville
Manufacturing Industrial Center Subarea Plan will not have a probable adverse impact
on the environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not
required.
On October 30, 2018, a Determination of Non‐Significance (DNS) was issued for
Arlington‐Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center Subarea Plan. Comments were
received on the DNS from Community Transit and the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians.
Community Transit’s comments were related to their service in the area and the changes
will be affective in the final draft of the Subarea Plan. Staff has met with the Stillaguamish
Tribe of Indians to address their concerns in the area and will continue to work with the
Stillaguamish Tribe through the planned action phase of the plan.
2. PUBLIC NOTIFACTION/INVOLVEMENT
a. Presentations and/or updates to the Planning Commission occured on October 16,
2018, November 6, 2018, and November 20, 2018.
b. Two Public open houses were held at Crown Distribution on the following dates,
April 4, 2018 and October 16, 2018.
Staff Report & Recommendation
Arlington Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center – Planning Commission
Page 3 of 4
c. The City presented information and advertised the open houses regarding the
Arlington‐Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center Subarea Plan in the Everett
Herald, and area wide mailing.
d. A Notice of Public Hearing for the December 3, 2018 City Council meeting was
posted at the Arlington and Smokey Point Post Offices, The Arlington Library and
City Hall. The Notice was also published in the Everett Herald.
3. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOTIFICATION
The Arlington‐Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center Subarea Plan Comprehensive
Plan Amendment was submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce
(DOC), and the DOC notified the City that it was in procedural compliance with RCW
36.70A.106.
E. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Staff has reviewed the draft findings during review of the project and finds that the
applicant has met the intent of all applicable requirements and standards. The plan
supplements the Comprehensive Plan, through planning goal PL‐15.55 and allows for the
fulfillment of Manufacturing/Industrial Center Designation. The Designation of the
Arlington Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center is consistent with the City of
Arlington Comprehensive Plan.
F. ANALYSIS
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend for approval and adoption of
AMMIC Resolution No. 2018‐007 for City Council, thus fulfilling applications requirements
to earn the designation of a Regional Manufacturing/Industrial Center from PSRC. The
proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan adds the Arlington‐Marysville Manufacturing
Industrial Center Subarea Plan as a document adopted by reference.
G. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Amendment for the Arlington‐Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center Subarea Plan
will be adopted through the provision in RCW 36.70A.130(2), and has been addressed by
appropriate environmental review under chapter 43.21C RCW.
1. Public meetings were held on April 4, 2018 and October 16, 2018.
2. A Determination of Non‐Significance (DNS) for the AMMIC Subarea Plan was issued
on October 30, 2018.
3. The draft Arlington‐Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center Subarea Plan was
submitted to the DOC in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106 and the submittal met all DOC’s
procedural requirements.
4. On November 6, 2018, the Planning Commission reviewed a draft of the Arlington‐
Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center Subarea Plan at their workshop meeting.
5. The Subarea Plan and Existing Conditions Report were presented at the November 6,
2018 Planning Commission meeting and action to recommend Arlington‐Marysville
Manufacturing Industrial Center Subarea Plan occurred November 20, 2018.
6. On November 21, 2018, a Notice of Public Hearing for the December 3, 2018 City
Council public hearing was posted at Arlington City Hall, Arlington Post Office, Smokey
Point Post Office and the Arlington Public Library.
7. The application for PLN#491 has been reviewed for consistency with the Arlington
Comprehensive Plan and for internal consistency and the 2018 Comprehensive Plan
Staff Report & Recommendation
Arlington Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center – Planning Commission
Page 4 of 4
amendments are consistent with, and internally consistent with, the Arlington
Comprehensive Plan.
8. PLN#491 has been reviewed in accordance with, and is consistent with, the
Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies.
9. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments were prepared in accordance with
the Washington State Enabling Legislation (RCW 35A.63) and the Growth Management Act.
10. Documentation supporting the findings of fact is located in the file PLN#491, which
is adopted by reference into this approval.
11. Adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments, PLN#491, furthers the
public health, safety and general welfare.
H. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Arlington Planning Commission make a recommendation to the
Arlington City Council to adopt the Arlington‐Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center
Subarea Plan, 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, PLN #491.
City of Arlington
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN
JANUARY 2019
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ADVISORY GROUP
Terry Battuello · Port of Everett, Chief of Business Development
Roland Behee · Community Transit, Strategic Planning Unit Manager
Matt Smith · Economic Alliance of Snohomish County, Director, Industry & Resource Development
Keri Moore · Snohomish Public Health, Healthy Communities Specialist
David Ryan · Arlington Municipal Airport, Airport Director
CITY OF ARLINGTON
Marc Hayes · City of Arlington, Community and Economic Development Director
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
David Koenig · City of Marysville, Community Development Director
Kari Chennault · City of Marysville, Assistant Public Works Director
Chris Holland · City of Marysville, Planning Manager
CONSULTANTS
Lisa Grueter · BERK Consulting
Radhika Nair · BERK Consulting
Jessie Hartmann · BERK Consulting
Matt Fontaine · Herrera Inc.
Stefanie Herztein · Transpo Group
Eric Hovee · ED Hovee
John Owen · Makers Architecture
Katy Saunders · Makers Architecture
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 The Arlington-Marysville MIC 1
1.2 Public Outreach & Engagement 1
AMMIC Webpage 3
Stakeholder Interviews 3
Online Community Survey 3
Vision Public Workshop 4
Advisory Committee Meetings 4
Draft Plan Public Workshop 4
Legislative Process 4
1.3 What We Heard 5
Assets 6
Opportunities 7
2 VISION & GUIDING PRINCIPLES 9
1.1 Vision 9
1.2 Guiding Principles 9
3 SUBAREA PLAN CONCEPTS 11
1.1 Plans & Policies 11
1.2 Land Use 11
Development Capacity 11
Future Land Use 12
1.3 Framework Plan 14
4 GOALS & POLICIES 19
1.1 Land Use & Urban design 19
Context 19
Goals & Policies 19
1.2 Transportation 22
Context 22
Goals & Policies 24
1.3 Natural Environment 27
Context 27
Goals & Policies 28
i
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN · CITY OF ARLINGTON
J ANUARY 2019 · CONTENTS & EXHIBITS
1.4 Economic Development 29
Context 29
Goals & Policies 29
1.5 Public Facilities & Infrastructure 31
Context 31
Goals & Policies 32
5 IMPLEMENTATION 33
1.1 Capital Facilities Plan 33
Transportation 33
Utilities 35
–Wastewater 35
–Water 36
–Stormwater 36
Natural Environment 37
–Wetlands & Streams 37
1.2 Finance 37
Funding & Financing Tools for Subarea Development 37
–Funding & Financing Mechanisms (Beyond Existing Tools) to Support
Expected City Contributions & Upfront Funding of Improvements 37
–Funding & Financing Mechanisms to Recover Funds from Developers 38
6 ZONING & DEVELOPMENT STANDARD
RECOMMENDATIONS 39
1.3 Industrial Design Standards 39
APPENDICES 43
Appendix A Existing Conditions Report
CITY OF ARLINGTON · ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN
ii CONTENTS & EXHIBITS · J ANUARY 2019
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Arlington-Marysville MIC, 2018 2
Exhibit 2 Desired Industry Clusters and Needs, 2018 8
Exhibit 3 Arlington-Marysville MIC Future Land Use, 2018 13
Exhibit 4 Arlington-Marysville MIC Framework Plan, 2018 15
Exhibit 5 Arlington-Marysville Conceptual Site Design, 2018 17
Exhibit 6 Summary of AMMIC Transportation Improvements 34
Exhibit 7 Summary of Arlington Wastewater Capital Projects within AMMIC 35
Exhibit 8 Summary of Arlington Water Capital Projects within AMMIC 36
iii
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN · CITY OF ARLINGTON
J ANUARY 2019 · CONTENTS & EXHIBITS
CITY OF ARLINGTON · ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN
iv CONTENTS & EXHIBITS · J ANUARY 2019
1 INTRODUCTION
This Subarea Plan articulates a vision for the Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing/Industrial Center’s
(AMMIC) future, as well as goals and policies that provide a roadmap to guide public and private
investments. The Subarea Plan reflects city and community aspirations for the center and plans for
anticipated growth. It supports business retention and growth, strengthens existing assets, expands
transportation choices, and improves environmental conditions.
This Subarea Plan is part of a longer sequence of planning work for the AMMIC. A market study
was completed in 2016, and Arlington and Marysville have adopted policies and provisions in their
comprehensive plans and infrastructure functional plans (water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, and
transportation) that support planned industrial growth and development in the center. The Subarea
Plan is aligned with regional plans and policies such as Snohomish County Countywide Planning
Policies, and Puget Sound Regional Council Vision 2040. Building on the foundation provided by these
plans and policies, the Subarea Plan identifies goals and policies to provide guidance for future growth
and continued economic vitality in the center.
The Plan’s growth targets and area boundaries meet PSRC and Snohomish County requirements
for MIC jobs and size. The plan is also consistent with guidance provided in PSRC’s Regional Center
Plans Checklist. The Cities are committed to implementing this Plan, achieving its growth targets, and
strengthening the AMMIC’s function as a regional employment center.
1.1 THE ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC
The Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center consists of 4,019 acres located in Snohomish
County, east of Interstate 5 and the Tulalip Reservation. The AMMIC is comprised of parcels within the
Cities of Arlington and Marysville.
Arlington: The Arlington portion of the AMMIC includes 2,291 acres. This includes the 737-acre City-
owned and operated Arlington Municipal Airport (AWO).
Marysville: The Marysville portion of the AMMIC includes 1,728 acres. This includes the City of
Marysville’s 2007 Smokey Point Master Planning Area of approximately 675 acres.
1.2 PUBLIC OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT
Public participation is an important aspect of the subarea planning process; feedback informed various
stages of Plan development, from visioning, plan alternatives, goals and policies. This Plan’s public
involvement program was designed to meet the following objectives:
1
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN · CITY OF ARLINGTON
J ANUARY 2019
Exhibit 1 Arlington-Marysville MIC, 2018
Source: City of Arlington, 2018; City of Marysville, 2018; BERK, 2018.
CITY OF ARLINGTON · ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN
INTROdUCTION · J ANUARY 20192
Learn about community and business needs in the subarea.
Keep stakeholders informed on the status of the subarea planning process.
Create a plan that has the support of the community and can guide City actions and private
development over the next twenty years.
Starting in April 2018, the Cities reached out to a broad range of stakeholders and invited them to
participate in Plan development. Stakeholders included AMMIC businesses and property owners, public
entities and agencies, potential developers, residents, and other interested parties. The various outreach
efforts are detailed below.
AMMIC Webpage
The Subarea Planning webpage, located at https://www.arlingtonwa.gov/575/Manufacturing-Industrial-
Center on the City of Arlington website, provides information on project status, meeting dates,
published documents and analysis, contact people, and other key information.
Stakeholder Interviews
In September 2017, the project team conducted eight interviews with individual stakeholders, property
owners, and business owners in the MIC. The interviews provided insights into the needs and concerns
in the area as well as an opportunity to introduce and connect interviewees to the upcoming planning
process. Interviewees included the following:
Terry Battuello, Port of Everett
John Case, Case Marine
Fitz Couhig, Pioneer Nuggets
Kevin McKay, Senior Aerospace
Matt Smith, EASC
Steve Miller, American Distributing
Linda Neunzig, Agriculture Coordinator, Snohomish County Executive's Office
Bob Qualick, Universal Aerospace
Online Community Survey
In March 2018, an online survey was distributed to residents in both cities as well as business owners
and employees in the MIC. This was a way to both increase awareness of the Subarea Planning
process and gather input from people who could not attend in-person meetings. A total of eighty-four
respondents provided feedback through the online survey. Their input underscored the needs and
concerns raised through interviews.
3
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN · CITY OF ARLINGTON
J ANUARY 2019 · INTROdUCTION
Vision Public Workshop
More than 80 property owners and community members attended the AMMIC Subarea Plan kickoff
workshop on April 4, 2018 to learn about the project and provide input. The consultant team set up
project boards including informational and interactive boards to receive public input. The public had
opportunities to provide input through three ways:
An open house where the consultant team was at hand to provide information and answer
questions. There were also boards where points of interest or ideas for future improvements could
be noted.
A facilitated large group discussion.
Three smaller group discussions, which involved a facilitated conversation and mapping activity.
Advisory Committee Meetings
In addition to these engagement activities, the Cities created an advisory group to review technical
information, provide input and recommendations, and work collectively to refine components of the
Subarea Plan. This group is comprised of senior technical staff from regional agencies, and AMMIC
business and property owners. The advisory group met three times over the course of preparation of the
Subarea Plan to provide input on substantive aspects of plan development.
Draft Plan Public Workshop
More than 80 property owners and community members attended the AMMIC Subarea Plan workshop
on October 17, 2018 to provide input on the draft plan concepts. The consultant team set up project
boards including informational and interactive boards to receive public input. The meeting included an
open house, presentation, question and answer session and time for one-on-one discussion with City
staff and consultants. Attendees were encouraged to provide input related to strengths and weaknesses
in the Plan.
Legislative Process
On November 20, 2018 the City of Arlington Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and
made their formal recommendation to the City Council.
CITY OF ARLINGTON · ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN
INTROdUCTION · J ANUARY 20194
1.3 WHAT WE HEARD
Engagement activities revealed several assets and opportunities in the AMMIC. These identified assets
and opportunities summarized below informed the vision, guiding principles, and goals and policies of
the Subarea Plan.
Residents map out ideas at vision public meeting.
5
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN · CITY OF ARLINGTON
J ANUARY 2019 · INTROdUCTION
Assets
The AMMIC has many assets that are essential to a successful industrial employment center. These
include the following:
Sites suitable for modern industry. Many industrial businesses need large, flat sites buffered from
non-residential uses. The price of suitable land is also a major driver of industrial activity, since industrial
businesses need large amounts of land for outdoor staging and other activities. Given this need, the
presence of competitive, affordable sites suitable for modern industry is a key asset of the AMMIC.
Easy access to regional transportation routes. Easy truck and freight access to suppliers and markets
are key elements that influence the location preferences of industrial users. AMMIC’s proximity to
regional transportation corridors such as I-5, SR 9, SR 531, and SR 530 makes it an attractive location for
businesses.
Recognized aerospace industry cluster. Snohomish County’s Paine
Field and concentration of advanced manufacturing businesses
support over 200 aerospace companies of all sizes in the county. Given
its location in Snohomish County, proximity to Paine Field, existing
concentration of aerospace businesses, access to skilled labor, and
lower costs, the AMMIC enjoys a comparative advantage in the region
for aerospace-related manufacturing and industrial activity. There are
competitive advantages and agglomeration benefits from building and
strengthening this established industry cluster, both for the cities and
the region as a whole.
Presence of Arlington Municipal Airport. The Arlington Municipal
Airport is a unique asset to the AMMIC both as a transportation facility
and as a land use. As a transportation facility it enables fast delivery
of personnel and goods and as a land use it supports and attracts
aerospace manufacturing and aviation related activities. Demand for
general aviation and small aircraft manufacturing is strong in many
regions across the world, but especially in rapidly growing markets in
Asia-Pacific. As one of the few general aviation airports in the region,
the Arlington Municipal Airport is a unique asset and opportunity for
the AMMIC.
Location near affordable workforce housing. Many businesses cited
the supply of affordable workforce housing in Arlington and Marysville
as a key asset and need. Approximately 45% of AMMIC employees
live less than 10 miles of the subarea, reflecting the appeal of the
immediate vicinity for employees.
ARLINGTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
The Arlington Municipal Airport is a regional
general aviation facility which started
operations in 1935.
It supports a variety of industrial activities
that rely on proximity to the airport.
These include aircraft and aircraft parts
manufacturers, aviation schools, aircraft
repair shops, aviation research and testing
laboratories, emergency parachute
manufacturing, kit plane and sailplane
sales and manufacturing, historic and
decommissioned aircraft restoration, aircraft
upholstery, and aircraft cover manufacturing.
The airport is home to corporate jets,
decommissioned military jets, vintage
aircraft, experimental aircraft, aerobatic
aircraft, helicopters, gliders, and ultralights.
Land use compatibility is key aspect of
planning around airports. Compatibility
regulations balance the need to prohibit
uses that may be harmed by proximity to the
airport (such as housing and places of public
assembly) and to retain and attract uses that
benefit from being close to the airport (such
as aviation related industrial activities).
CITY OF ARLINGTON · ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN
INTROdUCTION · J ANUARY 20196
Expansion of Paine Field. Paine Field Airport in Everett is slated to start hosting commercial flights
in early 2019. The airport is expected to accommodate up to 2,350 daily passengers and connect to
destinations such as Denver, Portland, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and several cities in California. Market interest
in industrial land is expected to increase as flights begin to operate and Paine Field offers an alternative
to SeaTac Airport.
Opportunities
The subarea planning process provided an opportunity to address the input from the community on
ways to ensure the AMMIC develops as a successful industrial employment area. Opportunities for
enhanced policy direction include:
Improvements to Infrastructure. As the AMMIC develops, infrastructure will need to be planned,
designed, and built to support growth. Investments in infrastructure can attract new development,
catalyze growth as well as increase the success of existing businesses located in the area. In this way,
investments in infrastructure is an effective economic development strategy.
Improvements to transportation network. Freight and truck travel to and from
the AMMIC is facilitated primarily by 172nd Street NE (SR 531), 51st Avenue NE,
67th Avenue NE, and Smokey Point Boulevard. Transportation improvements in
and around the AMMIC to increase capacity, reduce conflicts with the railroad,
and improve connectivity can increase the attractiveness of the area for industrial
businesses. Businesses cited improvements to 172nd Street NE, 156th Street NE, and
access to I-5 as high priority needs.
Closing the skills gap. Access to a highly skilled workforce is a key need for many
industrial businesses, especially in the manufacturing sector. Filling the gaps in the
manufacturing talent pipeline, through partnerships with community colleges,
schools or other workforce development strategies will ensure the AMMIC remains
an attractive destination for manufacturing jobs.
Strengthening aerospace industry. As reference previously, the aerospace
industry is an established sector in Snohomish County and the AMMIC. Several
new technologies developing in the region, such as cloud computing, artificial
intelligence, composites and advanced manufacturing, can play a part in the future of
the sector. The AMMIC is a promising location for development related to aerospace.
Building on the AMMIC’s strengths, and investing in infrastructure, and workforce
training is an opportunity to maintain and leverage this competitive advantage.
Potential to attract businesses that leverage and support existing businesses.
Many businesses cited the potential benefits of including businesses that can
TOP CUB IN ARLINGTON
The market for aircraft
manufacturing in the Asia-Pacific,
especially China, is growing rapidly
as general aviation expands
as an alternative to ground
transportation, especially for
shorter trips. Top Cub Aircraft is
building a new manufacturing
facility at the Arlington Municipal
Airport to meet this growth in
demand. Top Cub’s manufacturing
plant will include space for parts
inspection, assembling processes,
aircraft maintenance, painting
and flight testing. The Arlington
Municipal Airport was chosen
because of its concentration of
aircraft manufacturing, aviation
tenants and components suppliers.
Source: Douglas Buell, The Marysville
Globe
7
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN · CITY OF ARLINGTON
J ANUARY 2019 · INTROdUCTION
support production activities as part of the AMMIC’s industrial ecosystem. Attracting suppliers, life cycle
repair and maintenance businesses, and services, especially those that specialize in manufacturing, was
cited as a key opportunity.
Potential to enhance the airport. The Arlington Municipal Airport is a unique asset and opportunity for
the AMMIC and presents an opportunity for the AMMIC to differentiate itself and support other regional
industrial centers.
Potential to attract businesses in desired industry clusters. The planning process led to the
development of desired industry clusters for the AMMIC. A brief summary of these clusters and their
needs and opportunities are summarized in the table below.
Exhibit 2 Desired Industry Clusters and Needs, 2018
INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVE BUSINESSES
REGIONAL
FIRMS TOP SITE CRITERIA
OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS
Aerospace Includes businesses engaged in activities
related to commercial/military airplanes,
unmanned aerial vehicles/systems, space
exploration maintenance, repair & overhaul,
aviation biofuel, air travel and cargo.
Zodiac
Aerospace
Universal
Aerospace
Senior
Aerospace
High skilled, specialized
workforce
Local and regional truck
access
Proximity to suppliers
Proximity to Airport
Advanced Manufacturing Includes businesses engaged in activities
that depend on the use of information,
automation, computation, software, sensing,
and networking, and/or makes use of cutting
edge materials and emerging capabilities.
It involves both new ways to manufacture
existing products, and the manufacture of
new products emerging from new advanced
technologies.
MTorres
Innovation
Center
High skilled, specialized
workforce
Local and regional truck
access
Rail access (some users)
Proximity to suppliers
The aerospace sector
supports advanced
materials and composites
manufacturing.
Composites manufacturing
needs significant energy
but other types of
advanced manufacturing
may not have this need.
Food Processing Includes businesses engaged in activities such
as post harvest handling, drying/dehydrating,
freezing, co-packing, central distribution/
storage, poultry processing and meat
processing.
National
Food
Sites larger than 5 acres
Local and regional truck
access
Proximity to suppliers
Water and power
Maritime Includes businesses engaged in activities such
as cargo handling and logistics, commercial
fishing and seafood processing, ship and boat
building, repair and maintenance, passenger
vessel operations, recreational boating and
sport fishing, military and federal activities
through the U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard and
NOAA, marine technology and maritime
education and training programs.
Case Marine
Pacific
Seafood
Sites larger than 5 acres
Local and regional truck
access
High skilled workforce
Proximity to suppliers
Wood Products &
Mass Timber
Includes businesses engaged in furniture,
wood products, paper, packaging and forestry,
including mass timber manufacturing which
uses prefabricated solid engineered wood
products made from layers of solid-sawn
lumber or structural composite lumber.
Sites larger than 5 acres
Local and regional truck
access
Proximity to suppliers and
markets
High skilled workforce
CLT needs supply of timber
Source: BERK, 2018.
CITY OF ARLINGTON · ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN
INTROdUCTION · J ANUARY 20198
2 VISION & GUIDING PRINCIPLES
1.1 VISION
The Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center serves as a major
manufacturing and industrial employment and innovation center for the
region. The Center includes a diverse range of industrial activities that provides
employment opportunities for residents in Snohomish County and the region.
The Center is well connected to regional transportation corridors by highways
and rail. The Arlington Municipal Airport is a hub for aviation related activity and
a unique asset for Snohomish County and region. Development in the Center
maximizes opportunities to increase sustainability, including long-term economic
vitality, energy efficiency, greenhouse gas reductions and community health.
The vision statement above describes the future the Cities envision for the AMMIC. This vision is based
on input received through the engagement activities listed above as well as the foundation established
by planning work completed for the area prior to this Plan. The Subarea Plan lays out goals and policies
that will help achieve this vision.
1.2 GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Development of the vision led to several guiding principles that form the framework for goals and
policies that follow.
Coordinated investments and regional impact. Coordinated investments within the AMMIC allow
it to function as a regional center with a focus on production, especially advanced manufacturing.
AMMIC businesses leverage and support manufacturing industrial activity across the region,
including activities at Paine Field, Port of Everett and Port of Seattle Tacoma. In addition to Arlington
and Marysville, Snohomish County and the central Puget Sound region benefit from development in
the AMMIC through its positive impact on regional economic health and competitiveness.
Economic diversity. The presence of a variety of economic activities allows cities and regions to
be resilient against changing economic trends and cycles. The AMMIC provides opportunities
for a broad range of economic activities and industries. Employment-rich production businesses
contribute to job growth in the Center. These include business in advanced manufacturing,
aerospace, food processing, mass timber, as well as broader manufacturing activity. AMMIC
businesses also engage in repair and distribution to support and leverage manufacturing and
industrial activity.
9
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN · CITY OF ARLINGTON
J ANUARY 2019
Building on and strengthening distinctive competitive advantages. The AMMIC enjoys a distinct
competitive advantage in the region for manufacturing, especially related to aerospace. In addition
to a diverse range of firms, the AMMIC builds on this recognized business and industry clusters to
leverage its comparative advantage and agglomeration benefits.
Economic activity and opportunity. AMMIC’s industrial businesses create jobs that pay good
wages and are accessible to people with all levels of education. Partnerships with local community
colleges, high schools, as well as other local and regional institutions ensure residents have access
to training opportunities and businesses have access to a trained workforce. The presence of
affordable housing in both Arlington and Marysville support the local workforce and economy.
Accessibility and connectivity. Planned transportation improvements in and around the AMMIC
have increased capacity, reduced conflicts with the railroad, and improved freight connectivity.
AMMIC employees can access readily available public transit, including the future SWIFT BRT on
Smokey Point Blvd. The Cities of Arlington and Marysville, local businesses and Community Transit,
have partnered to provide innovative micro-transit or feeder routes that serve industrial facilities
and provide good connections to transit and to park and ride facilities. Nonmotorized facilities
within the AMMIC have improved and employees and residents enjoy easy access to the Arlington
Airport Trail and the Centennial Trail.
High quality design. Industrial development in the MIC is consistent with design standards to
ensure quality development that benefits property owners and the Cities.
Sustainability. Development in the AMMIC is consistent with standards for modern industrial
development and environmental requirements. Where feasible, industrial facilities integrate low
impact development concepts, including rain gardens, pervious pavements, and green roofs.
Industrial development also utilize alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power.
CITY OF ARLINGTON · ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN
VISION & GUIdING PRINCIPLES · J ANUARY 201910
3 SUBAREA PLAN CONCEPTS
1.1 PLANS & POLICIES
The Subarea Plan is aligned with state, regional and City plans, policies and regulations. These include
the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Vision
2040, Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies, and the City of Arlington Comprehensive
Plan. These plans and policies are described in a detailed policy discussion available in the Existing
Conditions Report for the Subarea Plan. The Subarea Plan is consistent with the policy guidance in
these plans.
1.2 LAND USE
Development Capacity
In accordance with regional planning policies, the Cities have adopted targets for employment growth
for the AMMIC through 2040. These targets are intended to help the cities plan for future growth
and ensure development is supported by infrastructure. The combined (Arlington + Marysville) 2040
employment growth target for the AMMIC is 20,000 jobs. PSRC Regional Manufacturing / Industrial
Center criteria require a minimum target employment level of 10,000 jobs over a twenty-year time
horizon for Industrial Growth Centers and 20,000 jobs over a twenty-year time horizon for Industrial
Employment Centers. Given estimated (2016) employment in the AMMIC of 7,597 jobs this means
that at least 2, 403 jobs, or approximately 12% of the combined growth target should occur within
the Arlington-Marysville MIC in the next twenty years for regional designation as an Industrial Growth
Center.
A market analysis commissioned by the cities in 2016 found it plausible that the center would achieve
sufficient job growth to meet the target of 20,000 jobs. (Community Attributes Inc, 2016) Estimates
ranged from 8,560 jobs in a low growth scenario, 9,759 jobs in a medium growth scenario and 25,000
jobs in a high growth scenario.
Based on data from the 2012 Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report, within the boundaries of
the AMMIC, a total of 46% of the land area or 1,762 acres consists of lands with capacity for additional
development, including partially-used sites, redevelopable sites, and vacant sites. Given this large
supply of redevelopable lands, AMMIC’s overall employment targets can be met at relatively modest
11
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN · CITY OF ARLINGTON
J ANUARY 2019
employment densities from as low as 5 to about 14 jobs per acre. Employment capacity can increase
as the area transitions to more intensive employment over time. Given growing market demand,
planned transportation improvements, and the priority that comes with regional MIC designation, it is
anticipated that growth in the AMMIC will achieve employment targets and potentially exceed them.
Future Land Use
AMMIC is a designated countywide Manufacturing Industrial Center, a regional planning center
classification used by the Puget Sound Regional Council to identify locations of manufacturing,
industrial, or advanced technology uses within the region. As a countywide MIC, the AMMIC is
recognized in countywide planning policies and in the cities’ comprehensive plans. The Arlington
Municipal Airport is a unique asset of the AMMIC. The Arlington Comprehensive Plan includes several
policies that promote the Airport Business Park and other sites within the AMMIC as locations for future
employment growth in manufacturing and industrial sectors. In addition, airport compatibility policies
(PL-16.1 and PL-16.16) in the Comprehensive Plan help protect the airport from incompatible land uses.
In the Arlington portion of the AMMIC, 854 acres (37%) to the east and northeast of the Airport are
zoned General Industrial. The General Industrial zone accommodates businesses in manufacturing,
processing, repair, renovation, painting, cleaning, or assembling of goods, merchandise, or equipment.
The Arlington Airport is zoned Aviation Flightline for airport operations and uses related to aviation
operations. Almost 236 acres (10%) north of the Airport is zoned for Light Industrial for uses with fewer
impacts than the uses allowed under the General Industrial category. The Arlington Airport’s Business
Park zone comprises 166 acres (7%) and allows office, hi-tech, research and development and related
uses in a master-planned setting. A small amount of land, roughly 89 acres (4%) near 172nd Street is
zoned Highway Commercial.
In addition to the base zoning, close to 94% of the land within the AMMIC lies within a special zoning
overlay called the Arlington Airport Protection District (APD). The APD regulations are required by the
state and are intended to discourage siting of incompatible land uses and densities adjacent to general
aviation airports to reduce hazards to lives and properties and ensure a safe flying environment. The
APD overlay consists of four subdistricts (A, B, C and D) that modify the allowable density and land uses
of underlying zoning districts. More detailed information on the location and constraints under the
zoning overlay can be found in the 2016 market study report available on the City website.
CITY OF ARLINGTON · ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN
SUBAREA PLAN CONCEPTS · J ANUARY 201912
Exhibit 3 Arlington-Marysville MIC Future Land Use, 2018
Source: City of Arlington, 2018; City of Marysville, 2018; BERK, 2018.
13
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN · CITY OF ARLINGTON
J ANUARY 2019 · SUBAREA PLAN CONCEPTS
1.3 FRAMEWORK PLAN
The Subarea Plan Framework Plan reflects concepts around the desired future land use mix as well as
urban design ideas that influence the physical development of the MIC into the future. The Framework
Plan’s land use concepts and urban design elements are intended to improve the attractiveness of the
MIC for new job-rich development and foster a vibrant center for the cities and the region. The concepts
of the framework plan are intended to guide changes over the long and short term. These concepts
are illustrated in the Framework Map and the Conceptual Site Design on the following pages and
summarized as goals and polices in the next section of this Plan.
The Framework Plan summarizes proposed improvements that help fulfill the major goals for the
AMMIC. Transportation improvements within the next 10 years (highlighted in blue) will quickly improve
mobility within the center. Longer term street improvements (dashed blue) would fill out many of the
desired connections and enhance mobility for all users. Buildings, as they (re)develop over time, will also
add to the character areas by following new design guidelines.
The concepts synthesized in the Vision Framework Plan are:
Opportunity sites. Development would be encouraged throughout the subarea. The Opportunity
Sites, which include parcels that are vacant or underdeveloped or larger properties which need more
infrastructure to be redeveloped. Shovel ready sites represent sites that have infrastructure in place
today and are ready for development.
Desired industry clusters. The Subarea Plan envisions the AMMIC as the location for the following
industry clusters:
Aerospace
Advanced Manufacturing
Food Processing
Maritime
Wood Products and Mass Timber
A connected street network. The Subarea Plan envisages a hierarchy of streets and a complete and
connected street network. Streets hierarchy classifies streets as major, secondary and local access
roads. The Plan envisions both improvements to existing streets and the addition of new streets to
create a more connected street network. Improvements are also envisioned to include the addition
of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along key streets to enhance mobility for people without
impacting industrial businesses.
Continuous trail system. In addition to these street enhancements, the Subarea Plan envisions
the construction of new non-motorized connections that link existing trails. These connections are
CITY OF ARLINGTON · ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN
SUBAREA PLAN CONCEPTS · J ANUARY 201914
The Framework Plan above is a graphic depiction of one option. There are other options which may come out of
working with property owners. Any area wide master plan to address environmental solutions would require the
cooperation and approval of property owners to explore and implement.
Exhibit 4 Arlington-Marysville MIC Framework Plan, 2018
!"`$
!"`$
AÔ
?|
?|
Ar lington
Municipal
Airport Gleneagle
Golf Course
Tulalip
Reser vation Mar ysville
Ar lington
Arlington UGA
Strawberry
Fields
Athletic
Complex
Portage Creek
Wildlife Reserve
MARYSVILLE
ARLINGTON
Map date: September, 2018
°0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Source: C ity of Arlington, 2018; City of Marysville, 2018;
BERK, 2018
172nd St NE
67
t
h
A
v
e
N
E
Sm
o
k
e
y
P
t
B
l
v
d
.
51
s
t
A
v
e
N
E
59
t
h
A
v
e
N
E
51st
A
v
e
N
E
152nd St NE
Ce
n
t
e
n
n
i
a
l
T
r
a
i
l
Airport Trail
Focus infrastructure
improvements in
this area
Relocate and restore
Edgecomb Creek
Shovel-ready
large site for
business park
Planned SWIFT bus
rapid transit service
Shovel-ready redevelopment sites
Potential Redevelopment Sites
Redevelopment opportunity sites
Already redeveloped
Zoning Adjustments
Improvement to existing road
New major road
Major Road Connections
Secondary Road Connections
Improvement to existing road
New secondary road
Access Road Connections
New access connection
(constructed with redevelopment)
Non-motorized Connections
New or improved
non-motorized connection
Existing non-motorized connection
Future SWIFT Bus Rapid Transit (2040+)
Opportunity site for infrastructure
investments
Incorporate green
stormwater/
infrastructure and
stream restoration
into redevelopment
Area is already largely
developed
Adjust zoning to
allow outdoor
storage and
discourage
commercial uses
Design streets to
accommodate
the needs of
industrial
businesses,
pedestrians and
cyclists
Focus near-term
redevelopment
e orts as a
demonstration
project
Restored stream corridor and
stormwater treatment
DRAFT 10-25-2018
Existing stormwater
ponds with
available capacity
to manage
stormwater from
new development
Restored stream corridor and °0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Source: City of Arlington, 2018;
City of Marysville, 2018; BERK, 2018
Source: City of Arlington, 2018; City of Marysville, 2018; BERK, 2018.
15
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN · CITY OF ARLINGTON
J ANUARY 2019 · SUBAREA PLAN CONCEPTS
envisioned to expand transportation options, incorporate green stormwater management features, and
include street trees and landscaping that enhance the public realm, providing environmental benefits.
Green infrastructure systems. In addition to expanded non-motorized transportation options, the
Plan envisions the integration of green infrastructure elements into new industrial development sites.
These elements will help manage stormwater, promote ecological connectivity throughout the MIC and
provide an amenity for employees.
Edgecomb Creek Realignment. Within the study area, Edgecomb Creek straddles the cities of
Marysville and Arlington. Edgecomb Creek originates in the hills east of the study area, flowing west
and then south through the AMMIC before draining into the middle fork of Quilceda Creek. Within
the AMMIC Edgecomb Creek has been highly channelized for rail and agriculture. There is a narrow
riparian buffer along the creek, but most of the land surrounding the creek has been converted to
agricultural uses. This Plan envisions the potential relocation of the creek from its current alignment
into a more natural channel with a riparian corridor that would provide better fish and wildlife habitat.
The conceptual channel alignment would include:
a low-flow channel for year-round stream flow
a high-flow channel to convey flood flows, to address flooding issues in the basin
instream large woody debris for habitat
100- to 150-foot buffers on either side of the creek along the entire length of the project
native vegetation planting in the channel and buffer
off-channel reading habitat
connection to hillside streams north of 172nd Street NE
Creek restoration would also provide an opportunity to integrate habitat enhancement with
stormwater management.
CITY OF ARLINGTON · ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN
SUBAREA PLAN CONCEPTS · J ANUARY 201916
Exhibit 5 Arlington-Marysville Conceptual Site Design, 2018
Principal East-West arterial
Connecting to I-5
North-South “feeder” arterial
Connecting to principal E-W arterial
All streets include landscape strips
with trees and multi-use trails for
pedestrians and cyclists
1,500,000 sf facilities
on a 33 acre site
620,000 sf facilities
on a 33 acre site
225,000 sf facilities
on a 17.2 acre site 136,000 sf
facilities
on a 8.9
acre site
100,000 sf
facilities
on a 8.2
acre site
Connect stream restoration and
stormwater treatment facilities to
watershed tributaries
Retain as many mature conifer trees
as possible
East-West collector streets as
necessity to support development
A variety of parcel sizes and building
configurations
Lot coverage is typically 30-46%2,000 - 2,500 ft
Typical block length
80
0
-
1
,
2
0
0
f
t
Ty
p
i
c
a
l
b
l
o
c
k
w
i
d
t
h
0 200 400 600 800’
Manufacture
Office
Storage Space
Parking Lot
Lawn/Pedestrian Area
Natural Area
Stormwater/Wetland
Tree
Principal East-West arterial
Connecting to I-5
North-South “feeder” arterial
Connecting to principal E-W arterial
All streets include landscape strips
with trees and multi-use trails for
pedestrians and cyclists
1,500,000 sf facilities
on a 33 acre site
620,000 sf facilities
on a 33 acre site
225,000 sf facilities
on a 17.2 acre site 136,000 sf
facilities
on a 8.9
acre site
100,000 sf
facilities
on a 8.2
acre site
Connect stream restoration and
stormwater treatment facilities to
watershed tributaries
Retain as many mature conifer trees
as possible
East-West collector streets as
necessity to support development
A variety of parcel sizes and building
configurations
Lot coverage is typically 30-46%2,000 - 2,500 ft
Typical block length
80
0
-
1
,
2
0
0
f
t
Ty
p
i
c
a
l
b
l
o
c
k
w
i
d
t
h
0 200 400 600 800’
Source: Makers Architecture, 2018.
17
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN · CITY OF ARLINGTON
J ANUARY 2019 · SUBAREA PLAN CONCEPTS
CITY OF ARLINGTON · ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN
SUBAREA PLAN CONCEPTS · J ANUARY 201918
4 GOALS & POLICIES
The section below includes goals and policies for the following topics: land use, urban design,
transportation, natural environment, climate change, economic development, and public facilities and
infrastructure. The subsequent section describes short and longer-term actions to implement the Plan.
1.1 LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN
Context
Industrial uses dominate the AMMIC. Many manufacturing, processing and fabrication firms, especially
related to aerospace, are located east and northeast of the Arlington Municipal Airport, as well as along
Smokey Point Boulevard. Warehousing, Transportation, and Utilities firms cluster around the airport and
major arterials. The majority of commercial, office, and business park development is located south and
west of the airport and concentrated along 172nd Street NE (SR 531), near the Interstate 5 interchange.
The publicly-owned Arlington Municipal Airport is a significant use in the AMMIC. The airport presently
consists of approximately 1,189 acres and includes industrial, commercial, and public land uses, in
addition to aviation operational areas.
The Arlington Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Designation and Zoning authorize industrial
uses. Considering current zoning and vacant and redevelopable land, there is a large capacity for new
industrial employment uses within the overall MIC. Within Arlington, there are several shovel-ready
industrial sites, as well as opportunities for infill industrial development.
Goals & Policies
AMMIC-LU-1: The AMMIC maintains a sufficient amount of industrial land to support a
high ratio of jobs to households.
AMMIC-LU-1.1: Ensure that at least 80% of the property within the AMMIC is planned and zoned for
industrial and manufacturing uses to encourage the concentration of industrial uses
within the center.
AMMIC-LU-1.2: Allow compatible non-industrial uses, especially services that support industrial
businesses and employees, and condition them to mitigate for potential conflicts
with current and future industrial uses.
AMMIC-LU-1.3: Continue to restrict land uses incompatible with industrial uses, such as large retail
use, high concentrations of housing, and unrelated office use.
19
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN · CITY OF ARLINGTON
J ANUARY 2019
AMMIC-LU-1.4: Incorporate open space and recreation opportunities such as parks and non-
motorized trails in industrial areas and ensure that they do not adversely impact
industrial operations.
AMMIC-LU-1.5: Ensure that the amount of land zoned for business and industrial use is adequate to
meet 20-year employment forecast within the planning area boundaries.
AMMIC-LU-1.6: Attract development that has employment densities sufficient to accommodate the
20-year growth projection of 20,000 jobs by 2040.
AMMIC-LU-2: The Arlington Municipal Airport continues to be a hub for aerospace and
aviation activity.
AMMIC-LU-2.1: Support the growth of the Arlington Municipal Airport as a general aviation and
corporate aircraft asset.
AMMIC-LU-2.2: Locate compatible industrial land uses in the vicinity of Arlington Airport in order to
take advantage of existing and anticipated transportation systems.
AMMIC-LU-2.3: Provide a supportive business environment for start-up, light manufacturing and
assembly businesses in the airport/industrial area.
AMMIC-LU-3: Future development in the Arlington portion of the AMMIC
complements the existing character and development pattern of Arlington.
AMMIC-LU-3.1: Encourage high-quality, aesthetically pleasing industrial development in the
Arlington portion of the AMMIC through the development of design guidelines for
industrial areas.
AMMIC-LU-3.2: Develop appropriate zoning, design review and landscaping regulations so that
manufacturing uses within the Arlington portion of the AMMIC are buffered from
adjacent or abutting residential uses.
AMMIC-LU-3.3: Establish landscaping and site development standards to regulate site development
in industrial areas .
AMMIC-LU-3.4: Allow outdoor storage only as accessory to a principal industrial use.
AMMIC-LU-4: Adjacent and abutting residential properties in Arlington are not
adversely impacted by development in the MIC.
AMMIC-LU-4.1: Additional setbacks should be required for industrial buildings and uses that
are adjacent to or abut non-industrial zoned land in order to minimize impacts.
Vegetated Low Impact Development (LID) facilities may be located within these
setbacks.
AMMIC-LU-4.2: Require full screen landscape buffers or other approved landscape treatment (which
may consist of vegetated LID facilities) along industrial zoned property and non-
industrial zoned properties.
AMMIC-LU-4.3: Outdoor storage areas should be screened from public rights-of-way through use of
both fencing and native vegetation.
AMMIC-LU-4.4: Landscape buffers or other landscape features such as restored creek corridors or
approved street tree and planter strip plantings should be installed and maintained
along property lines adjacent to rights-of-way.
CITY OF ARLINGTON · ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN
GOALS & POLICIES · J ANUARY 201920
AMMIC-LU-4.5: Landscape buffers should include the use or retention of native vegetation adequate
to serve as visual screens between rights-of-way and industrial uses. Landscape
buffers may also consist of vegetated LID facilities.
AMMIC-LU-5: The AMMIC is consistent with regional planning policies.
AMMIC-LU-5.1: Ensure that the AMMIC is consistent with the goals and expectations established
in the PSRC’s VISION 2040 and multi-county planning policies and the criteria for
designated Manufacturing/Industrial Centers.
AMMIC-LU-5.2: Ensure the boundaries of the AMMIC are within Arlington’s and Marysville’s
respective Urban Growth Boundaries.
AMMIC-LU-6: Development in the AMMIC is attractive as well as efficient, exhibiting
high quality architectural and landscape design.
AMMIC-LU-6.1: Adopt MIC specific design standards and guidelines that address site development,
including the location and orientation of buildings, parking and service/storage areas,
landscaping, parking area design, screening of unsightly areas, lighting, circulation,
landscape planting and incorporation of natural features.
AMMIC-LU-6.2: Adopt MIC specific architectural design standards for new and remodeled buildings
that address design issues such as building materials, entries, windows, and other
features.
AMMIC-LU-7: Site development in the AMMIC incorporates natural features, open
spaces, stormwater drainage facilities and, where applicable, restored stream
corridors as landscape and amenity features and incorporate these natural systems as
part of the MIC’s design identity.
AMMIC-LU-7.1: Adopt MIC specific site development standards that call for the maintenance,
enhancement or restoration of stream corridors, wetlands and aquatic features and
their use as a site amenity.
AMMIC-LU-7.2: Adopt MIC specific standards to ensure that storm water features such as detention
ponds are attractive and maximize opportunities to increase natural ecological
functions.
AMMIC-LU-7.3: Take all opportunities to incorporate natural features to enhance and unify the MIC’s
physical identity.
AMMIC-LU-8: Roadways, walkways, trails and other public circulation features
accommodate all appropriate transportation modes and are attractively landscaped
in a way that reinforces the AMMIC’s identity and design character.
AMMIC-LU-8.1: Adopt MIC specific roadway standards for the MIC that provides efficient circulation
for all motorized and non-motorized modes.
AMMIC-LU-8.2: Adopt or amend streetscape standards that produce attractive, well landscaped
streets and add a sense of unity to the MIC.
AMMIC-LU-8.3: Enhance the MIC’s identity by Incorporating signage or other gateway improvements
at key locations.
21
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN · CITY OF ARLINGTON
J ANUARY 2019 · GOALS & POLICIES
1.2 TRANSPORTATION
Context
The transportation system is critical to the vitality of the AMMIC to support both freight transport and
connect workers to their place of employment. The main mode of travel for AMMIC workers has generally
been single occupant vehicles (SOV) given the lack of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, limited transit
connectivity, and typical around-the-clock shift schedules of the industry. Improving multimodal access
to the AMMIC will allow for growth in jobs while reducing the need to increase capacity to serve vehicle
transport.
Freight and auto travel to and from the AMMIC is facilitated primarily by 172nd Street NE (SR 531), 51st
Avenue NE, 67th Avenue NE and Smokey Point Boulevard. The area currently has limited connectivity
and the operations of the transportation system are impacted by conflicts between rail, vehicular, and
non-motorized traffic due to at-grade crossings. Planned transportation improvements in and around
the AMMIC will increase capacity, reduce conflicts with the railroad, and improve connectivity. Key
improvements include widening of 172nd Street NE between 43rd and 67th Avenues and the new
I-5/156th Street NE interchange and extension of 156th Street NE.
Approximately 45% of AMMIC employees live within less than 10 miles of the subarea and approximately
30% live within approximately 25 miles of the subarea; the other 25% live further than 25 miles from
the subarea. Employees living proximate to the AMMIC makes non-motorized and transit modes viable
alternatives. Key bicycle routes include the Airport and Centennial Trails, which are not connected to
each other and the Centennial Trail does not connect directly to the AMMIC. There are opportunities
to connect these trails and improve the non-motorized facilities within the AMMIC as existing and new
roadway improvements are completed. Planned improvements will include bicycle and pedestrian
facilities with improvements to existing and new roads.
In addition, transit service to the AMMIC area is currently limited. Community Transit has two bus
routes 201/202 which go north and south serving Marysville / Arlington and the AMMIC. Route 201 is on
Smokey Point Blvd / SR529 on the western side of the MIC and has service every 15 minutes. Route 202
goes east from State Ave and north on Shoultes Road, north on 51st Ave NE and onto 152nd St NE within
the AMMIC to Smokey Point Blvd to the Arlington park and ride lot. This service is every 15 minutes. The
routes come from the Lynnwood Park and Ride through Everett and enters Marysville on the south
coming up SR529. There is a SWIFT Bus Rapid Transit service planned by Community Transit where
Route 201 currently serves with projected service every 8 to 10 minutes. A planning study is being done
by the City of Marysville in cooperation with Community Transit to plan the station locations for this
SWIFT BRT route in anticipation of the funding of this new BRT route through Marysville from Everett
Station where there is the planned regional light rail and current Sounder northern terminus.
CITY OF ARLINGTON · ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN
GOALS & POLICIES · J ANUARY 201922
Strategies will need to be explored to help reduce reliance on single occupant vehicles (SOV).
Improvements may consider additional or improved services such as bus rapid transit and connectivity
to park and ride facilities. Potential vanpooling and transit connections from Island and Skagit counties
can increase the ability of employees to access the AMMIC using transit. Currently Island Transit Route
412 and Skagit Transit Route 90X pass by on I-5 enroute to Everett. Both could potentially stop in
Smokey Point, connecting AMMIC with Stanwood and Skagit County. With frequent bus service on
Smokey Point Boulevard (future Swift and current 201/202 route), employers can encourage transit use
with programs such as subsidized bus passes, a “guaranteed ride home” provision, and access to lockers
and showers.
Emerging transportation trends may change how people and goods travel and the transportation
systems operate. Transportation-related technology has advanced rapidly over the past decade and will
continue to accelerate and create major shifts in transportation within the AMMIC and the region as a
whole. Technology-related trends that could impact the transportation system include:
Autonomous Vehicles (AVs). There is a great deal of uncertainty for communities planning for
AVs. Over the next 15 years, a portion of the vehicles on the street and highway system could be
operating without drivers. It is possible that 30 to 40 years from now all, or nearly all, vehicles
will be driverless or will have driverless capabilities in certain situations. The implementation of
some of these technologies are likely within the AMMIC 20-year planning horizon. Some of the
ramification of these technologies that should be considered are an increase in capacity of streets
and highways with AVs able to space closer, changes to how freight is transported and reduction in
cost of operating transit.
Parking Demand Shifts. As on-demand and shared ride services change how people travel, the
need for off-street parking at places of employment could decrease but the demand for curbside
areas set aside for loading/unloading activities could increase.
Connected Vehicles. This technology has the potential to optimize traffic flow as computer
systems communicate with vehicles to moderate flow. Cities might look ahead to providing
infrastructure as efficient reference points such as light poles to allow for vehicle-to-infrastructure
communication.
It remains unclear whether these new technologies (or others) will be implemented by agencies,
vehicle manufactures and related industries. The shifts may be relatively quick (within a decade) or
take much longer to develop. Agencies can play a major role in how connected vehicle infrastructure
gets implemented, which can lead to better traffic management. Future development planning can
consider the potential decrease in off-street parking needs with increase in on-demand services and AV
and how this parking could be repurposed and/or how curb space is managed.
23
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN · CITY OF ARLINGTON
J ANUARY 2019 · GOALS & POLICIES
Goals & Policies
AMMIC-T-1: Development of the AMMIC
supports the movement of goods, is
compatible with adjacent neighborhoods
and promotes a multi-modal transportation
network.
AMMIC-T-1.1: The City should identify and
implement short-term and
long-range infrastructure
improvements that support
existing infrastructure and help
stimulate the development of new
manufacturing and industrial uses
in the AMMIC.
AMMIC-T-1.2: The City should work
collaboratively with the City of
Marysville to develop a seamless
and compatible road network in
order to efficiently move goods
and services within and outside
the AMMIC.
AMMIC-T-1.3: Develop street designs that incorporate low-impact development standards where
feasible which reduce surface water and enhance aesthetics of the area.
AMMIC-T-1.4: A non-motorized network should be developed throughout the area that allows
pedestrians and cyclists to safely access places of employment.
AMMIC-T-1.5: Landscaping along roadways and between properties that are adjacent to
neighborhoods should be required to reduce noise and visual impacts.
AMMIC-T-1.6: The City should utilize available State and federal transportation infrastructure
funding in the AMMIC once regional designation is obtained from PSRC.
AMMIC-T-1.7: Roadway designs within the AMMIC should be sensitive to the needs and movement
of large trucks that will frequent the AMMIC, including the installation of cueing
areas for trucks delivering/receiving goods.
AMMIC-T-1.8: The City should encourage existing and new businesses to utilize the BNSF railroad
spur as useful resource to move goods and services within and outside the AMMIC.
AMMIC-T-2: Transportation strategies encourage the use of pedestrian, bicycle, and
mass transit facilities that lead to savings of nonrenewable energy sources.
AMMIC-T-2.1: Provide for safe and efficient movement of bicycles and pedestrians along streets and
highways by constructing sidewalks and other footpath systems as well as bicycle
paths.
AMMIC-T-2.2: Encourage the use of bicycles as a transportation alternative by providing bicycle
lanes or shared use paths on arterial and collector streets.
FIRST-AND-LAST MILE
First-and-last mile connections
address the beginning and end
of a trip primarily made by public
transit. It may be difficult to access
transit from an origin or destination
if there are barriers or the distance
is more than a typical walking
distance (i.e., approximately ¼-mile).
Addressing the connections to and
from transit origins and destinations
with removal of barriers or increased
connectivity for walking, providing
or improving bicycle facilities and/or
options such as rideshares increases
access to transit and makes this
mode more attractive and/or
competitive with other options.
CITY OF ARLINGTON · ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN
GOALS & POLICIES · J ANUARY 201924
AMMIC-T-2.3: Coordinate bicycle/pedestrian facility improvements, including the Centennial and
Airport Trails, with neighboring jurisdictions to connect routes where possible.
AMMIC-T-2.4: Require new construction to include the construction of sidewalks, bicycle storage/
parking facilities, and access to mass transit where possible and in proportion to the
need generated by the proposal.
AMMIC-T-3: The AMMIC includes safe and efficient multimodal access and
connectivity.
AMMIC-T-3.1: Balance the needs of pedestrians, bicycles, transit, autos, and trucks on the AMMIC
transportation system by improving streets according to modal priorities.
AMMIC-T-3.2: Design non-motorized facilities within the AMMIC in a manner that minimizes
potential conflicts with trucks and trains to allow for the safe and efficient movement
of both freight and people.
AMMIC-T-3.3: Ensure safe and comfortable pedestrian connectivity to transit stops in the AMMIC.
Provide first-and-last mile connections to transit and destinations within the AMMIC.
AMMIC-T-3.4: Enforce regulations so that, outside of designated routes, trucks do not utilize City
streets, except for local deliveries and services.
AMMIC-T-3.5: Enhance safety and operations of rail service (freight and passenger) through grade
separation of roadways or improving at-grade crossings.
AMMIC-T-4: An optimized transportation system which uses intelligent
transportation system (ITS) technologies reduce the need for physical widening to
increase capacity.
AMMIC-T-4.1: Move traffic efficiently through use of signal coordination and synchronization, speed
reduction, access management, channelization improvements, multimodal design
features, and other systems to ease flow.
AMMIC-T-4.2: Implement infrastructure to support vehicle-to-infrastructure communication that
can lead to better traffic management.
AMMIC-T-4.3: Integrate with fleet management systems to enhance freight movement to and
within the AMMIC.
AMMIC-T-4.4: Coordinate with the freight industry and promote sharing traffic flow conditions or
other information allowing for informed decision-making in freight movement.
AMMIC-T-5: Provide good freight connections to and from the AMMIC and the region.
AMMIC-T-5.1: Ensure efficient and safe access throughout the AMMIC to I-5, which provides the
main freight corridor to the region.
AMMIC-T-5.2: Encourage access to the BNSF rail line as an efficient way to move goods throughout
the region.
25
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN · CITY OF ARLINGTON
J ANUARY 2019 · GOALS & POLICIES
AMMIC-T-6: The freight transportation system is enhanced by considering the
operation of trucking and rail terminals in developing and planning the transportation
infrastructure.
AMMIC-T-6.1: Identify and address areas within the AMMIC or connecting corridors where efficient
truck access and circulation is hindered by infrastructure gaps and inadequate
design. Ensure future transportation improvements address the needs of large trucks,
including (but not limited to) turn lanes, intersection turning radii, driveway design,
street weight load capacity, acceleration lanes and climbing lanes.
AMMIC-T-6.2: Support priority funding for strategic transportation investments that improve freight
mobility within and to the AMMIC. Develop a permit program, improvement district,
or other revenue source to ensure ongoing maintenance and repair of infrastructure
impacted by commercial freight and related businesses.
AMMIC-T-6.3: Promote public-private partnerships to address the need for improved parking,
staging and related services for large trucks in or adjacent to the AMMIC.
AMMIC-T-7: Promote Arlington Airport as an asset within the AMMIC.
AMMIC-T-7.1: Encourage the use and growth of the Arlington Airport by ensuring easy access to the
Airport via City streets by both automobiles and trucks.
AMMIC-T-7.2: Provide non-motorized and transit connections to the Airport to allow for access via
alternative modes.
AMMIC-T-8: An integrated system of public transportation alternatives and demand
management programs provide mobility alternatives, reduce single occupant vehicles
and expand the general capacity of arterials and collector streets in the AMMIC.
AMMIC-T-8.1: Continue to coordinate with all agencies and neighboring jurisdictions involved with
public transportation, whether they be bus, HOV lanes, light rail, heavy rail, ride sharing,
vanpooling, or other forms, to identify what is of best use to the AMMIC and participate
in those ventures and proposals which are of general and/or specific benefit to the
AMMIC.
AMMIC-T-8.2: Continue to work with Community Transit to support and enhance a multimodal
transportation system including future bus rapid transit (BRT) by ensuring that the
AMMIC transportation plans and facilities are consistent with public transit plans and
programs.
AMMIC-T-8.3: Collaborate with Community Transit to expand and enhance bus transit service
between the AMMIC and local and regional areas of high density residential
development.
AMMIC-T-8.4: Encourage developers to consider public transportation in transportation plans
submitted as part of development permit approval consideration. New developments
should encourage van and carpooling, public transit use, and other alternatives to
reduce single-occupancy vehicular travel.
AMMIC-T-8.5: Support construction of improved first-and-last mile connections with local and
regional transit service. Work to provide transit stops and shelters along arterials and/
or facilitate vanshare activities through curb space management on-street or within
off-street parking within the AMMIC.
CITY OF ARLINGTON · ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN
GOALS & POLICIES · J ANUARY 201926
AMMIC-T-8.6: Work to provide bike lockers and facilities at key transit connections.
AMMIC-T-8.7: Support and coordinate with Community Transit and WSDOT on the development
of an expanded regional park-and-ride system to support use of alternative
transportation modes in the AMMIC. Seek to provide tax credits or other incentives
for allowing public parking on private property.
AMMIC-T-8.8: Promote programs that reduce travel demands on the transportation system through
the following strategies:
Encourage the use of HOV programs—buses, carpools, and vanpools—through
both private programs and under the direction of Community Transit;
Promote flexible work schedules allowing the use of transit, carpools, or vanpools;
Promote reduced employee travel during the daily peak travel periods through
flexible work schedules and programs to allow employees to telework part or full
time;
Encourage major employers to develop carpools, commuter routes, and provide
company incentives if carpools are used;
Encourage employers to provide transportation demand management (TDM)
measures in the work place through such programs as preferential parking for
HOVs, improved access for transit vehicles, and employee incentives for using
HOVs;
Develop commute trip mode split goals for the site and conduct regular surveys
to monitor progress; and
Implement the provisions of the State Commute Trip Reduction Act.
1.3 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Context
Critical areas are protected under Washington State’s Growth Management Act (GMA) to preserve
the natural environment and protect the public’s health and safety. The City of Arlington documents
two types of critical areas within the AMMIC: wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
(FWHCAs). Several streams and ditches in the study area constitute FWHCAs that provide habitat for
federal and state listed fish species. None of the wetlands in the AMMIC are designated as FWHCAs.
There are four creeks that flow through the AMMIC: Edgecomb Creek (also referred to as the Middle
Fork of Quilceda Creek), Westphal Creek, Hayho Creek, and Portage Creek. More detailed information is
available in the Existing Conditions report for this Subarea Plan.
As new development occurs in the AMMIC, the Subarea Plan envisions the integration of green
infrastructure elements into development sites, the protection of critical habitat areas and the
preservation, restoration and enhancement of wetlands, streams and buffers. The Plan also envisions
the realignment of Edgecomb Creek to provide better fish and wildlife habitat.
27
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN · CITY OF ARLINGTON
J ANUARY 2019 · GOALS & POLICIES
Goals & Policies
AMMIC-NE-1: Development in the AMMIC integrates natural features, open spaces,
stormwater drainage facilities and, where applicable, restored stream corridors as
landscape and amenity features and incorporates these natural systems as part of the
MIC’s design identity.
AMMIC-NE-1.1: Adopt MIC specific site development standards that call for the maintenance,
enhancement or restoration of stream corridors, wetlands and aquatic features and
their use as a site amenity.
AMMIC-NE-1.2: Define corridors for stream and wetland enhancement and restoration across the
landscape of the MIC so these efforts result in functionally connected environmental
resources.
AMMIC-NE-1.3: Work with the City of Marysville to relocate Edgecomb Creek from its current
alignment to a more natural channel with a riparian corridor that provides better fish
and wildlife habitat.
AMMIC-NE-1.4: Adopt MIC specific standards to ensure that stormwater features such as detention
ponds are attractive and maximize opportunities to increase natural ecological
functions.
AMMIC-NE-1.5: Take all opportunities to incorporate natural features to enhance and unify the MIC’s
physical identity.
AMMIC-NE-2: Environmental stewardship is integrated into the landscape of the
AMMIC.
AMMIC-NE-2.1: Protect wetlands in accordance with the Cities’ critical area regulations.
AMMIC-NE-2.2: Encourage low intensity industrial developments adjacent to wetlands, creek
corridors, or steep slopes to allow the flexibility of design necessary to mitigate the
impacts of such development on these sensitive areas.
AMMIC-NE-2.3: Promote energy efficient buildings and fixtures, and incentivize the use of alternative
energy sources such as solar and wind.
AMMIC-NE-2.4: Update Natural Environment goals and policies to respond to changes in technology,
best management practices, and building techniques.
AMMIC-NE-3: The AMMIC is a healthy, clean industrial district through adherence to
environmental standards.
AMMIC-NE-3.1: Ensure development in the AMMIC meets the following standards:: Pollutants should
be managed through site design engineering and source control. Site disturbance
and soil compaction should be minimized during construction. Implement source
control best management practices (BMPs) to prevent soil and stormwater runoff
contamination from operation and storage of heavy equipment.
CITY OF ARLINGTON · ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN
GOALS & POLICIES · J ANUARY 201928
1.4 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Context
The AMMIC currently includes a total of 7,597 jobs (2016). Industrial
sectors (manufacturing, construction, warehousing, transportation, and
utilities) account for close to 80% of the total employment in the center.
The Subarea Plan recognizes AMMIC's strengths in the aerospace cluster,
especially in the Arlington portion of the center, given the presence of the
airport and existing businesses. Plan policies and goals are intended to
retain and grow this existing strength and attract new industry clusters
in desired sectors such as Food Processing, Maritime and Wood Products
and Mass Timber Production. Many of these industries can be attracted to
the area through appropriate investments in infrastructure, and workforce
development, as well as appropriate zoning and design standards to
ensure industrial uses continue to be viable. Quality of life considerations,
such as access to affordable workforce housing, to parks, public safety and
transportation are an import element of economic development. This is
especially true for the AMMIC since many businesses choose to locate in
the center to take advantage of the affordable housing and quality of life
in Arlington and Marysville. In addition, economic development efforts
should also address the role of the AMMIC within the regional industrial
ecosystem and its potential to complement the region’s other industrial
centers.
Goals & Policies
AMMIC-ED-1: Investments in infrastructure and amenities
create, retain, grow, and attract businesses important for
Arlington and Snohomish County’s long-term economic
health.
AMMIC-ED-1.1: Create and sustain a distinctive competitive advantage
as a significant employment center for the region and
entire state of Washington.
AMMIC-ED-1.2: Build on existing strengths in the Aerospace industry cluster.
AMMIC-ED-1.3: Encourage employment growth in desired industry clusters such Advanced
Manufacturing, Food Processing, Maritime, and Wood Products and Mass Timber
Production.
WORKFORCE SUPPORTS
Businesses in the AMMIC and
residents in Arlington and Marysville
enjoy access to a comprehensive
aerospace and advanced
manufacturing industry training
and research cluster at Paine
Field-Snohomish County Airport,
and in local and regional colleges
and universities. Some examples
of training resources focused
on Aerospace and Advanced
Manufacturing include:
Center of Excellence for
Aerospace and Advanced
Manufacturing.
Washington Aerospace Technical
Training and Research Center
Aerospace Joint Apprenticeship
Committee (AJAC):
Everett Community College –
Advanced Manufacturing Group.
Edmonds Community College
– Aerospace and Advanced
Manufacturing Programs:
National Resource Center for
Materials Technology Education
(MatEd)
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
University: Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University’s Everett
Campus.
Sno-Isle TECH Skills Center
29
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN · CITY OF ARLINGTON
J ANUARY 2019 · GOALS & POLICIES
AMMIC-ED-1.4: Use existing City programs to
promote investment and growth.
AMMIC-ED-2: Partnerships and collaboration
drive collective strategies for economic
development in the AMMIC.
AMMIC-ED-2.1: Partner with local and regional
stakeholders such as the Port of
Everett, WSU, Economic Alliance of
Snohomish County, the Tulalip tribe,
and economic development agencies
on regional economic development
initiatives related to the industrial
sector.
AMMIC-ED-2.2: Partner with the Economic Alliance
of Snohomish County to market and
recruit new businesses to the AMMIC
and coordinate retention visits to
Arlington companies.
AMMIC-ED-2.3: Continue to partner with the
Department of Commerce on the
Regulatory Roadmap Project, an
online site selection tool that distills all local, regional, and state requirements into
easy-to-understand checklists for gauging feasibility of sites for manufacturing
facilities.
AMMIC-ED-2.4: Develop a marketing and communications strategy tailored to specific industry
clusters that highlights local strengths, and the economic benefits of the MIC.
AMMIC-ED-2.5: Market opportunity sites for high-quality industrial development that implements
the land use and economic vision of this Subarea Plan.
AMMIC-ED-2.6: Adopt an inter-local agreement with the City of Marysville that establishes
the mechanism by which both jurisdictions will jointly plan for the long-term
development of the AMMIC including a minimum employment capacity of 20,000
jobs.
AMMIC-ED-3: Robust workforce development programs support continued growth of
the AMMIC.
AMMIC-ED-3.1: Connect local businesses with workforce development programs of regional
organizations like the Snohomish County Workforce Development Council and
others.
AMMIC-ED-3.2: Connect employers and residents with training and research resources focused on
Aerospace and Advanced Manufacturing. These include:
AMMIC-ED-3.3: Partner with the WSU Center for Advanced Food Technology at the Port of Everett
to support workforce development, and research and development related to food
processing and food related manufacturing.
ARLINGTON FLY-IN
The Arlington Fly-In is a
popular summer community
event focused on aviation-
oriented activities. Over 1,000
aircraft including powered
parachutes, home built,
classic, vintage and warbirds
are present at the event.
Photo source: Christy Murray,
Lynnwood Toursim.
CITY OF ARLINGTON · ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN
GOALS & POLICIES · J ANUARY 201930
AMMIC-ED-3.4: Work with AMMIC businesses to coordinate orientations and tours of manufacturing
businesses for local School District teachers and career counselors to educate them
about careers and pathways in advanced manufacturing.
AMMIC-ED-3.5: Collaborate with the Marysville School District, Arlington School District, Lakewood
School District, Lake Stevens School District, Everett Community College, and AMMIC
employers to create paid internship programs for students interested in jobs in
Advanced Manufacturing, Aerospace Manufacturing, Food Processing, Maritime or
Wood Products, and Mass Timber industries.
AMMIC-ED-4: Arlington sustains a high quality of life that supports the economic
competitiveness of the AMMIC.
AMMIC-ED-4.1: Ensure that City zoning and plans allow a variety of housing opportunities and types
to provide a broad range of housing choices to the local workforce.
AMMIC-ED-5: The AMMIC benefits from a business climate that encourages
development and provides clarity and certainty to developers and property owners.
AMMIC-ED-5.1: Reach out to businesses in the AMMIC to understand their needs and concerns, any
needed improvements to the City’s development review processes, and business
climate.
AMMIC-ED-5.2: Streamline application, review and approval processes for engineering, building, and
planning permits for new development and expansion of existing businesses based
on input and best practices.
1.5 PUBLIC FACILITIES & INFRASTRUCTURE
Context
In the Arlington portion of the MIC, most infrastructure is already in place and the City has begun
planning for service in the underdeveloped portion of the portion, south of 172nd Street NE. As the
AMMIC develops, infrastructure will need to be planned, designed, and built to support desired land
use patterns and ensure facilities are provided consistent with targeted growth. The Snohomish County
Public Utility District has been a partner in providing additional electrical capacity to the area with
a new substation and distribution system that provide 99 MVA currently and 204 MVA in the near
future. Comcast is putting in a higher speed internet network to serve the area enabling an increase
in symmetrical speed up to 10 gigabits per second. Frontier Communications and Wave Business
Solutions also serve the area. The Subarea Plan envisions public/private partnerships between the City,
property owners and developers to obtain funding for capital facilities to realize the vision and serve
and an incentive for economic development.
31
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN · CITY OF ARLINGTON
J ANUARY 2019 · GOALS & POLICIES
Goals & Policies
AMMIC-PF-1: The AMMIC is efficiently served by public services and infrastructure.
AMMIC-PF-1.1: Ensure that urban level facilities and services are provided prior to, or concurrent
with private development. These services, include, but are not limited to, sanitary and
storm sewers, water, police and fire protection, and roadways.
AMMIC-PF-1.2: Ensure that industrial development sites have good access, adequate public facilities
and services, suitable topography and soils, and minimum impact on residential
areas.
AMMIC-PF-1.3: Require development to pay its fair share of costs toward infrastructure and public
services.
AMMIC-PF-1.4: Seek opportunities to partner with the Port of Everett and other regional
stakeholders for funding of infrastructure.
AMMIC-PF-1.5: Encourage coordination of public investments with private investments to ensure
that the AMMIC is an attractive and feasible opportunity for new development.
AMMIC-PF-2: New development in Arlington does not adversely impact surface and
ground water quality.
AMMIC-PF-2.1: Require industrial businesses to provide on-site pretreatment of wastewater to the
City sewer system in compliance with applicable standards and regulations.
AMMIC-PF-2.2: Encourage property owners to retrofit their properties with green stormwater
infrastructure best management practices.
AMMIC-PF-3: The AMMIC includes reliable and cost-effective utility services.
AMMIC-PF-3.1: Ensure utilities are available at the right levels of service to support the AMMIC’s
existing and planned development.
AMMIC-PF-3.2: Coordinate with utility providers to ensure that utility service plans are adequate to
support planned growth and zoning capacity in the AMMIC and support the goals of
the Subarea Plan.
AMMIC-PF-3.3: Update City Water, Sewer, and Stormwater comprehensive plans to reflect the latest
plans for the AMMIC and ensure that primary public infrastructure is well planned
and can be built incrementally if needed.
AMMIC-PF-3.4: Pursue outside funding, such as grants and loans when appropriate, to leverage City
infrastructure investment.
CITY OF ARLINGTON · ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN
GOALS & POLICIES · J ANUARY 201932
5 IMPLEMENTATION
1.1 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Development of the AMMIC will require investments in infrastructure and capital facilities. Exhibits
6–8 show the total costs, by category, of the improvements needed to allow for development in the
Subarea. It is important to note that these are point-in-time costs that assume this project is completed
all at one time, in 2017 or 2018 dollars. As the work on the infrastructure is phased and completed, cost
estimates will need to be updated to reflect inflation and the carrying costs based on phasing.
Some capital facilities expected in the AMMIC are related to new development. New development
is expected to provide for these capital facilities through direct infrastructure construction and the
payment of related fees and charges. The development of new capital facilities and infrastructure will
be guided by City of Arlington plans, policies, and regulations as shown in the sections below.
Transportation
The City of Arlington maintains a Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) that lists local transportation
projects. Each year an updated TIP is submitted to the PSRC and the Washington State Department
of Transportation (WSDOT) to ensure that projects eligible for federal and state funding can compete
for funds. Projects listed on the TIP include motorized, non-motorized improvements, on-going
maintenance projects, and projects to served new growth. In the most recent Arlington TIP (2018-2023)
two projects appear on the list for the AMMIC. These projects include:
43rd Ave NE, 160th St NE to SR 531
51st Ave NE, 160th St NE to SR 531
In addition to the TIP, the Comprehensive Plan lists additional projects that will be needed to meet the
needs of growth by 2035. These include:
173rd St NE (Phases 1-3A), Smokey Point Blvd to 51st Ave NE
47th Ave NE, SR 531 (172nd Street NE) to Airport Blvd
Some of the transportation facilities needed in the AMMIC will be constructed by the developer as
development occurs. Title 20 of the Arlington Municipal Code specifies the standards and minimum
requirements for the construction of streets and sidewalks. The City of Arlington intends to use its
established traffic impact fees in place at the time of application as the mechanism to collect a fair
share from development for the construction of the regional arterial streets. In addition, grant funding
will also be applied for to help fund infrastructure. More information is available in the finance section
of this plan.
33
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN · CITY OF ARLINGTON
J ANUARY 2019
Exhibit 6 Summary of AMMIC Transportation Improvements
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION JURISDICTION
COST EST.
(MILLION $)SOURCE
156th St NE Overcrossing 2 lane RR Overcrossing Marysville $12.4 INFRA Grant Application
Interstate 5 & 156th
St NE Interchange
Single Pt Urban Interchange WSDOT $42.0 INFRA Grant Application
156th St NE/160th St
NE/51st Ave NE
5 lanes/3lanes/3 lanes Marysville $21.0 INFRA Grant Application
SR 531 (172nd Ave NE), 43rd
Ave NE to 67th Ave NE
5 lanes WSDOT $39.3 INFRA Grant Application
SR 531, 43rd Ave NE to Smokey Point Blvd Eliminate left turn pockets,
and install medians. Improve
pedestrian and bicycle
facilities. Signalize 40th Ave
NE/SR 531.
WSDOT $39.8 Arlington Transportation
Element / Arlington 6-Year TIP
43rd Ave NE, 160th St NE to SR 531 3 lanes Marysville/
Arlington
$8.0 INFRA Grant Application
51st Ave NE, 160th
St NE to SR 531
3 lanes Marysville/
Arlington
$8.0 INFRA Grant Application
173rd St NE (Phases
1-3A), Smokey Point Blvd to 51st Ave NE
New Corridor Arlington $3.83 Arlington Transportation
Element / Arlington 6-Year TIP
47th Ave NE, SR 531 (172nd Street NE) to Airport Blvd Construct 3 lane roadway
from SR 531 (172nd St) to
southern city limits. Install
right-in-right-out intersection
control at intersection with
SR 531.
Arlington $0.65 Arlington Transportation
Element / Arlington 6-Year TIP
TOTAL $175.0
Note: The remaining roads/connections within the AMMIC would be developed with the properties.
Source: City of Arlington, 2018; City of Marysville, 2018; Transpo Group, 2018.
CITY OF ARLINGTON · ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION · J ANUARY 201934
Utilities
The City of Arlington maintains comprehensive plans for wastewater, water, and stormwater utilities.
These plans define city-wide utility improvement projects, including projects within the AMMIC.
Arlington’s plans for the expansion of each utility within the MIC are described below.
Wastewater
The City of Arlington provides wastewater service to the Arlington portion of the MIC. The City has
accounted for MIC growth in evaluating its wastewater system requirements. Overall, the existing
system has been extended through the developed areas of the Arlington portion of the MIC and lift
station 2 was upgraded in 2017 to serve increased demand related to existing and future development.
The City recently expanded its wastewater service area to include the portion of Arlington south of
172nd Street, east of 51st Avenue, and west of 43rd Avenue.
Exhibit 7 lists the six capital projects currently planned in the MIC between 2018 and 2035. This list
includes capacity improvements that are scheduled for lift stations 4, 8, and 12 over the next 20
years and other conveyance improvements to accommodate increased demand related to new
development, including extension of the trunk connectors east and west of lift station 12. The capacity
of the planned conveyance improvements is generally expected to meet the demand of increased
development in the study area; however, project refinement will be needed as redevelopment plans
become more discrete. The City still needs to determine the funding strategy for extending the system
into the underdeveloped portions of the MIC.
Exhibit 7 Summary of Arlington Wastewater Capital Projects within AMMIC
PROJECT
NUMBER YEAR PLANNED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
COST EST.
(THOUSANDS $)
F2 2025 Lift station 4 improvements $800
F4 2031 – 2035 Lift station 8 improvements $100
F6 2026 – 2030 Lift station 12 improvements $200
P4 2018 – 2020 Primary interceptor improvements $1,600
P6 2019 – 2020 Lift station 4 sewer drainage basin
improvements
$300
P9 2023 – 2025 MIC, south of 172nd improvement
focus area collection system
expansion
$3,200
TOTAL $6,200Estimates in 2016 $
Source: City of Arlington, 2018; Herrera, 2018.
35
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN · CITY OF ARLINGTON
J ANUARY 2019 · IMPLEMENTATION
Water
The City of Arlington provides water service to the Arlington portion of the MIC. The City has sufficient
water supply and secured wholesale supplies to meet demand beyond 2035, and the City is pursuing
additional water rights to meet long-term demands. The system was recently extended for the Airport
Business Park. Exhibit 8 lists the 4 capital projects currently planned in the MIC between 2018 and 2035,
including extension of the system into the undeveloped portions of the service area south of 172nd
Street, as well as system upgrades to serve redevelopment. As with the wastewater utility, the City still
needs to determine the funding strategy for extending the system into the underdeveloped portions of
the MIC..
Stormwater
The City of Arlington has completed many capital projects in the last 10 years to prepare for increased
development, including culvert replacement projects to address flooding and fish passage concerns.
Development projects in the MIC will require stormwater management facilities and physical conditions,
such as poor infiltration rates and high groundwater, make stormwater management more challenging
in the Arlington portion of the MIC south of 172nd Street. The City is considering the possibility of regional
stormwater facilities in this area as it updates its stormwater comprehensive plan over the next year. In
the northern portion of the MIC, recent redevelopment projects have successfully infiltrated stormwater
on-site and the City expects that future developers will follow that same approach (i.e. onsite stormwater
management). Specific stormwater projects within the Arlington portion of the MIC are not listed here
because the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan is in the process of being updated.
Exhibit 8 Summary of Arlington Water Capital Projects within AMMIC
PROJECT
NUMBER YEAR PLANNED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
COST EST.
(THOUSANDS $)
WM3 2024 – 2025 198th Place NE/Cemetery Road
Water Main: Install new 12-inch
ductile iron water main
$1,600
DF4 TBD 59th Avenue and Cemetery Road
Industrial Improvements
$700
DF6 TBD Northwest Airport 12-inch Water
Main Loop: Install 12-inch water
main within the light industrial zone
$700
WM5 2020 – 2021 South of 172nd Area MIC Water Main
Expansion
$3,400
TOTAL $ 6,400
Estimates in 2017 $
Source: City of Arlington, 2018; Herrera, 2018.
CITY OF ARLINGTON · ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION · J ANUARY 201936
Natural Environment
Wetlands & Streams
Portions of the MIC within the City of Arlington are adjacent to Edgecomb and Portage Creeks.
Based on a desktop assessment, other undeveloped areas of the site have poor infiltration, shallow
groundwater, mapped hydric soils, current agricultural land uses, and mapped wetlands (particularly
areas south of 172nd St.), indicating the potential presence of additional wetlands on the site.
Development planning in the MIC would benefit from a more thorough field assessment of wetland
presence and an integrated evaluation of stream and wetlands preservation, stream realignment,
and compensatory mitigation options. A better understanding of these factors would enable more
effective planning and allow the development to comprehensively plan for, integrate, and optimize the
management of environmental resources, rather than managing them on a project-by-project basis as
development occurs.
1.2 FINANCE
Funding & Financing Tools for Subarea Development
This plan identifies funding and financing mechanisms that can be used to generate City revenues
to fund and finance the improvements, either in total or just upfront, and, where developers are
responsible for costs, but the City is funding the initial investment, recover funds from developers to
refund the City’s initial investment.
Funding & Financing Mechanisms (Beyond Existing
Tools) to Support Expected City Contributions
& Upfront Funding of Improvements
The following are sources of funding that Washington cities can use to pay for capital improvements
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET)
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (MVFT)
Bonds or Loans
Transportation Benefit District and Local Improvement District
Grants. The following Federal and State grants can fund improvements, especially those related to
transportation.
–Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
37
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN · CITY OF ARLINGTON
J ANUARY 2019 · IMPLEMENTATION
–Transportation Improvement Board (TIB)
–Pedestrian and Bicycle Program (PED-BIKE)
–Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
–Surface Transportation Program (STP)
–Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ)
–Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB)
–Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD)
–Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA)
Funding & Financing Mechanisms to
Recover Funds from Developers
State Environmental Policy Act Mitigation Fees. SEPA grants wide-ranging authority to impose
mitigating conditions relating to a project’s environmental impacts. A local government’s authority
under SEPA to mitigate environmental impacts includes the authority to impose impact fees on a
developer to pay for the mitigation of impacts on public facilities and services.
Property Owner and Developer Contributions. In cases of large developments, the City may
work with a developer to enter into a development agreement governing the development. This
agreement can include obligations for the developer to pay for infrastructure necessary to support
the development.
General Facility Charges. These include charges paid to the City for utilities facilities.
Impact Fees. These include fees for transportation facilities or other infrastructure.
CITY OF ARLINGTON · ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION · J ANUARY 201938
6 ZONING & DEVELOPMENT STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS
1.3 INDUSTRIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The City of Arlington utilizes elements of Form Based Code in its Design Standards for all new
development. Below is an outline of key provisions for industrial center design criteria.
1. Site Planning
1a. Relationship to Street Front. The primary entrance to all buildings, typically the office or
reception area associated with the business, should be positioned as close to the street
frontage as possible so that the building provides an inviting presence and emphasizes the
design elements of the structure. Onsite parking should be oriented to the sides or rear
of the building so as to not obstruct the site line of the entryway. The frontage should also
incorporate landscaping and other elements to enhance the buildings appeal, such as special
lighting and artwork.
1b. Pedestrian Circulation—Site Planning. Ensure good pedestrian routes between buildings,
streets, parking etc. This section covers location and Section 2a below covers design aspects
such as width, materials, etc.
1c. Vehicular Access and Circulation. Location and configuration.
1d. Loading, Service Areas and Mechanical Equipment. Building and site design should
incorporate elements that eliminate or effectively screen these areas from visibility
1e. Stormwater Facility Planning. Low Impact Design (LID) is required to be utilized whenever
feasible for new development. This provision primarily is to identify opportunities to combine
SWM facilities with landscaping and environmental enhancement measures.
1f. Site Planning for Security. Incorporate CPTED principles whenever possible.
1g. Unifying Site Planning Concept. This provision requires that the proponent integrate the
above requirements and considerations into an efficient and logical site plan that incorporates
pedestrian circulation and landscaping as unifying elements, takes advantage of special on-
site features, and provides for the efficient circulation of all modes of transportation.
39
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN · CITY OF ARLINGTON
J ANUARY 2019
2. Site and Roadway Design Elements
2a. Internal Pedestrian Paths and Circulation. Size and design of connections between buildings,
site features, parking areas and roadways should be designed in a logical manner that
considers the pedestrians needs and convenience. A width of five feet shall be the minimum
for all walkways, but wider widths should always be considered.
2b. Streetscape Elements. Streetscapes are vital in creating an attractive and functional
environment for all manufacturing/industrial areas by providing some scale to the larger
footprint buildings typically associated with industrial uses and by providing essential
screening and greenspace between the public realm and the industrial uses. Lighting is also
an essential part of the streetscape by providing safe illumination of the public way and also
provides aesthetic interest when ornamental lighting is utilized.
2c. Site Landscaping. This must be coordinated with landscaping in the code’s development
standards for landscaping and critical area protection, but it might include provisions for a
signature landscape palette to unify the area or special requirements to enhance entries,
etc. this section could also include provisions for enhancing natural features such as stream
corridors and providing some useable open space for recreation opportunities for workers.
2d. Parking Area Design and Landscaping. Parking facilities should be evaluated carefully for
need and capacity then designed accordingly, as they incorporate a large percentage of a sites
impervious area, requiring larger drainage facilities and additional long term maintenance
costs. Arlington’s Development Code requires a minimum of 20% shading of parking areas to
An example of a unified site plan illustrating requirements of (1g).
CITY OF ARLINGTON · ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN
ZONING & dEVELOPMENT STANd ARd RECOMMENd ATIONS · J ANUARY 201940
address the impacts of the heat island effect caused by large expanses
of impervious areas. Parking areas should be oriented to the sides or
rear of the buildings, while still considering design aspects such as
pedestrian access, ADA requirements, and landscaping to the code’s
dimensional standards in the overall design.
3. Building Design
3a. Building Design—Character. Building form is extremely important in
the Arlington portion of the AMMIC, as it is centrally located within the
city and borders established neighborhoods. Manufacturing uses can
be compatible with existing uses and attractive building design can
allow those uses to be indistinguishable from one another.
3b. Human Scale Elements. Human scale design is essential in Arlington’s
design requirements since they require businesses to orient as close
to the Right of Way as possible. This creates a more urban feel and
appearance to the new development within the AMMIC.
3c. Architectural Scale. Arlington’s Design Standards require emphasis
on building articulation—such as visually breaking up a building façade
into intervals by including repetitive features (e.g., broken rooflines,
chimneys, entrances, distinctive window patterns, street trees, and
different materials) in addition to modulation (stepping back or projecting forward of portions
of a building face, within specified intervals of building width and depth, as a means of
breaking up the apparent bulk of a structure’s continuous exterior walls).
3d. Materials. The use of a variety of materials is allowed in the Design Standards, with an
emphasis on use of materials that represent northwest styling.
3e. Blank walls. Large blank walls shall be addressed in a variety of ways, including modulation,
articulation, glazing, use of differing materials, and landscaping.
3f. Building Entrances. Entrances are very important to the perception of quality in industrial
settings, as they are the first thing you see when entering a site. An attractive entrance
presents that first impression that the business takes pride in its appearance and pays close
attention to quality and detail.
4. Lighting
4a. Site Lighting. Careful attention to site lighting not only provides for safe efficient lighting of
the site, but can also add significant aesthetic value to the site.
5. Signage
5a. Site Signage. Must coordinate this with the sign code. Sometimes, but not always, it makes
sense to standardize sign size and placement.
An industrial scaled entrance—enhanced by
details, lighting landscaping and materials—
illustrating requirements of 3f.
41
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN · CITY OF ARLINGTON
J ANUARY 2019 · ZONING & dEVELOPMENT STANd ARd RECOMMENd ATIONS
CITY OF ARLINGTON · ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN
ZONING & dEVELOPMENT STANd ARd RECOMMENd ATIONS · J ANUARY 201942
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
APPENDICES
Appendix A Existing Conditions Report
43
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN · CITY OF ARLINGTON
J ANUARY 2019
CITY OF ARLINGTON · ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN
APPENdICES · J ANUARY 2019
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
APPENDIX A EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT
ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN · CITY OF ARLINGTON
J ANUARY 2019 · APPENdICES · EXISTING CONdITIONS REPORT
CITY OF ARLINGTON · ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MIC SUBAREA PLAN
APPENdICES · EXISTING CONdITIONS REPORT · J ANUARY 2019
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
20.44.020A Unit Lot Subdivisions (ULSs).
(a) Unit lot subdivisions, is an alternative to conventional subdivision processes by which the location of a
building on a lot can be placed in such a manner that one or more of the building’s sides rests directly
on a lot line, allowing for the creation of fee simple lots for townhome, and cottage housing
developments, in zones where such uses are permitted. Each building shall not be less than 1 units
or exceed 10 units and shall maintain a 10-foot separation from other buildings.
(b) Unit lot subdivisions shall be permitted in Residential High-Density zones and all Commercial zones
(in conjunction with the Horizontal Mixed-Use overlay).
(c) Prior to submittal of the final plat, the design of all buildings shall meet the design standards and shall
have received design review approval.
(d) All units created by a unit lot subdivision shall provide attached private open space for each
individual unit equaling 15% of the total lot area, but in no case shall be less than 200 square feet.
The required open space may be provided by one or more of the following: ground level open space,
balconies, roof decks or porches.
(e) Existing Multi-Family developments which meet or can be brought into conformance with the
requirements of the unit lot subdivision may submit an application for such unit lot subdivision. The
existing building shall also be in full compliance with the most currently adopted edition of the
International Residential Code (IBC) and International Fire Code (IFC).
(f) If a development proposes open or park space exceeding 125% of the minimum requirement, buildings
may exceed the maximum allowed height requirement by 5 feet.
(g) Low impact development street standards are required where feasible.
(h) Low impact development techniques for stormwater management are required where feasible.
20.44.020B Unit Lot Subdivision Lot Standards
As allowed by this chapter, development on individual unit lots within the unit lot subdivision need not
conform to the minimum lot area or dimensional standards of Title 20 – Land Use Code, provided that
overall development of the parent parcel meets the development and design standards of the underlying
and the requirements of this section. There shall be no minimum required lot area for individual lots within
a unit lot subdivision, provided that the area of the unit lot shall be large enough to contain the dwelling
unit and any accessory structures, decks, fences, garages, driveways, private yard areas, parking,
landscaping or other improvements that are accessory to the dwelling unit; provided further, so long as
conforming to the approved site development plan, such accessory improvements may encroach upon or
be located in an adjoining unit lot or common area pursuant to an appropriate easement.
20.44.020C Development and Design Standards
All developments using unit lot subdivisions in residential zones, shall be in compliance with the rules and
regulations set forth in Title 20 AMC - Land Use Code, specifically Chapter 20.16 - Permits and Final Plat
Approval.
Unit Lot Subdivisions in Residential High Density zones shall comply with the Density and Dimensional
Standards as described in Table 20.48-5.
20.44.020D Unit Lot Subdivisions in Mixed Use Development
All Horizontal Mixed-Use Development overlay areas utilizing Unit Lot Subdivisions shall strictly adhere to
Chapter 20.110.040 – Mixed Use Development Regulations, when designing the site development plan.
20.44.020E Ownership of Common Areas
Portions of the parent parcel not subdivided for individual unit lots or not dedicated as public Right of Way
or municipal utility systems shall be owned in common by the owners of the individual lots within the
subdivision, or by a homeowner’s association comprised of the owners of the individual unit lots within the
subdivision.
20.44.020F Building Setbacks
Building setbacks shall be as required for the zone as applied to the underlying parent parcel as a whole.
There shall be no setback required from unit lot lines which are interior to the perimeter of the parent
parcel; provided, however, that any structure located upon a unit lot created hereunder shall comply with
the setbacks applicable to the approved site development plan. The unit lot subdivision shall comply with
the Density and Dimensional Standards set forth in Chapter 20.48. However, if alley access is proposed
the minimum setback for any structure from the alley shall be 5 feet.
20.44.020G Off – Street Parking
(a) The minimum amount of parking shall be as required by Chapter 20.72. Required off-street parking
space may be provided in an area owned and maintained in common by the homeowner’s association.
Parking spaces located in a common area shall be available to residents or guest or invitees of
residents and shall not be reserved for any specific dwelling units.
(b) One, additional off-street parking space shall be provided for every four lots proposed and be
adjacent to the units for which they are required.
(c) All required off-street parking spaces shall be maintained in perpetuity for off-street parking for the
residents, or guests of residents. Such spaces shall not be used at any time or in any manner that
precludes use for off-street parking of operable motor vehicles regularly used by occupants of the unit
lot dwellings.
(d) Parking shall be prohibited in fire lanes, and each fire lane shall be clearly identified with signage and
pavement markings to indicate that the fire lane is not to be used for parking at any time. The
homeowner’s association shall be responsible for enforcing this requirement. The city shall have the
authority to remove any vehicle illegally parked in a fire lane at the vehicle owner’s expense.
(e) The unit lot subdivision shall provide bicycle parking facilities equal to 1 stall for every 4 lots.
20.44.020H Private Access Drives
Private access drives are allowed, to provide access to dwellings and off-street parking areas within a unit
lot subdivision. All private access drives shall be designed and constructed to city design and construction
standards. A separate pedestrian walkway is required from the dwelling units to a public sidewalk.
Parking within any access drive shall be prohibited, but off-street parking may be located adjacent to an
approved access drive outside the minimum required dimensions of the access drive. The homeowner’s
association shall be responsible for enforcing this requirement. The city shall have the authority to remove
any vehicle illegally parked in a fire lane at the vehicle owner’s expense. As an alternative to the private
access drive, the applicant may provide a public street meeting the city’s design and construction
standards.
20.44.020I Public Water Mains, Sewer Mains and Fire Hydrants
All water mains, sewer mains and fire hydrants within the unit lot subdivision shall be constructed to city
design and construction standards and dedicated to the city. The city shall have the discretion to refuse or
accept dedication of utility systems in developments that this chapter that are not constructed to city
standards.
20.44.020J Ingress, Egress and Utility Access
Each unit lot subdivision shall make adequate provisions for ingress, egress and utilities access to and
from each unit lot by dedicating streets or by reserving such common areas or easements over and
across the parent parcel necessary to comply with all other design and development standards applicable
to the approved site development plan.
20.44.020K Landscaping
In addition to perimeter landscaping required for the parent parcel, landscaping shall be provided on each
unit lot where yard area abuts an access drive, and between driveways and/or parking areas on abutting
lots. A landscape plan shall be submitted with the land use application showing the following:
(a) Perimeter landscape standard along rear or interior lot lines of parent parcel. All required perimeter
landscaping shall be placed within a common area and shall be maintained by the homeowner’s
association. Conversion of perimeter landscaping to private yard area is prohibited.
(b) Street trees on public streets shall be per city approved tree list.
(c) Street trees on private access drives shall be per city approved tree list.
20.44.020L Homeowners Association Incorporation
Prior to the recording of the subdivision, the applicant shall provide evidence that the homeowner’s
association has been incorporated pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington, including the filing of
the association’s articles of incorporation with the Washington Secretary of State. In the event the
homeowner’s association should cease to be a corporation under the laws of the State of Washington
and as required by this section, such association shall continue as an unincorporated association
governed by the Washington Uniform Common Interest Act (Chapter 64.90 RCW).
20.44.020M Covenants and Maintenance
(a) Covenants and Homeowners Association. The applicant shall provide a preliminary draft of covenants,
declarations and restrictions with the subdivision application for review as part of the subdivision. Prior
to the recording of the subdivision, the applicant shall provide final covenants, declarations and
restrictions in a form satisfactory to the city attorney, which shall be recorded with the county auditor’s
office providing that the homeowner’s association shall be subject to and comply with:
(1) Such covenants, declarations and restrictions;
(2) The Washington Uniform Common Interest Act (Chapter 64.90 RCW);
(3) The applicable Washington corporation statute;
(4) Any applicable provisions of the city code including, but not limited to, B and C of this section.
(b) Maintenance of Private Common Areas and Infrastructure. All common open space and recreation
areas and all private utility infrastructure located within a unit lot subdivision and shall be maintained
in perpetuity by the homeowner’s association. Prior to the recording of the subdivision, the applicant
shall provide the covenants, declarations and restrictions required by subsection A of this section for
review by the city, which shall provide that the following common areas and infrastructure are
maintained by the homeowner’s association in accordance with all applicable provisions of the city
code. Said covenants, declarations and restrictions shall provide authority for the city, after providing
reasonable written notice to the homeowners association and opportunity to perform required
maintenance, to recover any costs incurred by the city to maintain private infrastructure or common
areas due to a failure of the homeowners association to adequately maintain privately owned
improvements, including a lien on the property or other appropriate assurance device, as determined
by the city.
(1) Private access drives;
(2) Vehicle and pedestrian access easements;
(3) Joint use and maintenance agreements;
(4) Common off-street parking;
(5) Common open space (including, but not limited to, landscape areas, gardens, woodlands,
walkways, courtyards or lawns and outdoor recreation areas;
(6) Private utility infrastructure (including, but not limited to, underground utilities and utility
easement;
(7) Any other common buildings or improvements.
(c) Maintenance of Lot, Buildings and Facilities. Buildings, utilities and facilities on individual unit lots shall
be maintained by the property owner in accordance with city codes and the requirements of the
covenants, declarations and restrictions applicable to the development. Prior to the recording of the
subdivision, the applicant shall provide the covenants, declarations and restrictions required by
subsection A of this section for review by the city, which shall provide that buildings, utilities and
facilities on individual lots shall be maintained by the property owner in accordance with city codes and
the requirements of such covenants, declarations and restrictions.
20.44.150 Recorded Conditions
Notes shall be placed on the plat recorded with the county auditor’s office to acknowledge the following:
(a) Approval of the design and layout of the unit lot subdivision was granted by the review of the
subdivision as a whole, on the parent parcel by the site development plan approval (stating the project
file number);
(b) Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications to the structure(s) may not create or increase
any nonconformity of the parent parcel as a whole, and shall conform to the approved site development
plan.
(c) If a structure or portion of a structure has been damaged or destroyed, any repair reconstruction or
replacement of the structure(s) shall conform to the approved site development plan;
(d) The individual unit lots are not separately buildable outside of the context of the approved site
development plan for the subdivision and additional development of the individual unit lots may be
limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent parcel.
(Ord. No. 1454, 9-26-2008)
(Ord. No. 2015-025, § 3, 10-19-2015)
Staff Report & Recommendation
Unit Lot Subdivision Land Use Code Update – Planning Commission
Page 1 of 3
Community and Economic Development
Planning Division
18204 59th Avenue NE, Arlington, WA 98223
Planning Commission
STAFF REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
To: Planning Commission
From:
Josh Grandlienard, Planner II
Date: February 21, 2019
Regarding: Unit Lot Subdivision Land Use Code Update PLN#514
A. INTRODUCTION
The Unit Lot Subdivision Land Use Code Update is a City-initiated project that is an amendment to
the City of Arlington Land Use code Chapter 20.44.020A. The Code Update is submitted under the
2019 Comprehensive Update docket cycle.
B. GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: City of Arlington
Project Description: 2019 Land Use Code Update
Requested Action: Make a recommendation of approval to the Arlington City Council
Staff Report & Recommendation
Unit Lot Subdivision Land Use Code Update – Planning Commission
Page 2 of 3
C. DETAILED PROJECT INFORMATION
The City is expanding upon the current Unit Lot Subdivision Code Section in order to help to
encourage the use of Unit Lot Subdivision to encourage diverse types of available housing
within the City. Approval by the City Council is required for all land use code updates. If the
request is granted, the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Code Section 20.44.020 would
need to be amended.
D. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
1. SEPA COMPLIANCE:
The amendment of a comprehensive plan amendment is subject to provisions of the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Chapter 20.98 of the Arlington Municipal Code
(AMC).
2. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION/INVOLVEMENT
a. Presentations and/or updates to the Planning Commission will occur on March 5,
2019, March 19, 2019 and April 16, 2019.
b. Two Public Hearings will be held at Planning Commission, located at Arli ngton City
Chambers on the following dates, March 19, 2019 and April 16, 2019.
c. The City will present information and advertise the Public Hearings regarding the
Planning Docket in the Everett Herald, and via area wide mailing.
d. A Notice of Public Hearing for the May 6, 2019 Planning Commission meeting will be
posted at the Arlington and Smokey Point Post Offices, The Arlington Library and
City Hall. The Notice was also published in the Everett Herald.
3. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOTIFICATION
The York Rezone, along with the additional docket items will be submitted to the
Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC), and the DOC will notify the City that
if it is in procedural compliance with RCW 36.70A.106.
E. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Staff has reviewed the draft findings during review of the project and finds that the
applicant has met the intent of all applicable requirements and standards. The plan
supplements the Comprehensive Plan, through planning goals: PO-6.4, GH-1, GH-2, GH-5,
GH-6, GH-8, GL-1, GL-2, GL-4, and GL-7. This means that based on the submittal that Unit Lot
Subdivision update will encourage the development of Land Use Developments that are
conducive to social interaction, Diversify the City’s housing stock, Ensure the development
of new multi-family housing and small single-family units occur within close proximity to
commercial areas within the city, Encourage a quality housing stock within the City,
Establish and maintain a streamlined permitting processing to help create predictability for
customers, Promote and Facilitate the provision of affordable housing in all areas and
zoning districts of the city.
F. ANALYSIS
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend for approval and adoption, the
amendment of the Unit Lot Subdivision land use code update by City Council.
Staff Report & Recommendation
Unit Lot Subdivision Land Use Code Update – Planning Commission
Page 3 of 3
G. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Public meetings will be held on March 5, 2019, March 19, 2019, and April 16, 2019.
2. The Planning Docket and associated staff reports will be submitted to the DOC in
accordance with RCW 36.70A.106 and the submittal will meet all DOC’s procedural
requirements.
3. On March 5, 2019, the Planning Commission will review a draft of the City of Arlington
2019 Comprehensive Plan Docket at their workshop meeting.
4. On February 19, 2019 a Notice of Public Hearing for the March 19, 2019 Planning
Commission public hearing was posted at Arlington City Hall, Arlington Post Office, Smokey
Point Post Office and the Arlington Public Library.
5. On March 29, 2019 a Notice of Public Hearing for the April 16, 2019 Planning Commission
public hearing will be posted at Arlington City Hall, Arlington Post Office, Smokey Point Post
Office and the Arlington Public Library.
6. The application for PLN#514 has been reviewed for consistency with the Arlington
Comprehensive Plan and for internal consistency and the 2019 Comprehensive Plan
amendments are consistent with, and internally consistent with, the Arlington
Comprehensive Plan.
7. PLN#514 has been reviewed in accordance with, and is consistent with, the Snohomish
County Countywide Planning Policies.
8. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments were prepared in accordance with the
Washington State Enabling Legislation (RCW 35A.63) and the Growth Management Act.
9. Documentation supporting the findings of fact is located in the file PLN#514, which is
adopted by reference into this approval.
10. Adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments, PLN#514, furthers the
public health, safety and general welfare.
H. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Arlington Planning Commission make a recommendation to the
Arlington City Council to adopt the Unit Lot Subdivision code update, 2019 Land Use Code
Amendment, PLN#514.
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
Item:
WS #2
Attachment
C
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
March 25, 2019
SUBJECT:
Easement Agreement for Snohomish County PUD Underground Electric Lines at Haller Park
ATTACHMENTS:
PUD Easement
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN
Public Works
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: None
BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A
BUDGETED AMOUNT: N/A
LEGAL REVIEW:
DESCRIPTION:
Request to issue an easement to the PUD for electric service to and crossing through Haller Park.
HISTORY:
As part of the Haller Park Splash Pad project, the City is undergrounding the overhead power lines in
the Park, along Cox Ave, and power lines that are serving the Old Town Wetland. Our electric power
provider, Snohomish County PUD, needs an easement for these underground power lines.
ALTERNATIVES:
‐ Do not issue an easement
‐ Remand to staff for further consideration
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Workshop; discussion only. At the April 1, 2019 council meeting, the recommended motion will be, “I
move to approve the easement agreement with PUD and authorize the Mayor to sign the easement
agreement, pending final approval by the City Attorney.”
AFTER RECORDING, PLEASE RETURN TO:
Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County
Attn; C. Biggs
Real Estate Services
P.O. Box 1107
Everett, Washington 98206-1107
E-
WO#100035394 NOT#10000069259
________________________________________________________________________
DISTRIBUTION EASEMENT
Grantor (“Owner”): City of Arlington
Grantee: Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County
Frontier Communications Northwest, Inc.
Short Legal Description: Portion NE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec. 2, Twp. 31N; Range 5E
Tax Parcel No: 00461802900100
THIS DISTRIBUTION EASEMENT (“Easement”) is made this day of
2019, by and between City of Arlington_____(“Owner”), and Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish
County, a Washington State municipal corporation (“District”) and Frontier Communications Northwest Inc.
(“Frontier”). The Owner, District and Frontier are sometimes referred to individually herein as “Party” and
collectively as “Parties”. The District and Frontier are collectively referred to as “Grantee”.
WHEREAS, Owner is the owner of certain lands and premises situated in the County of
Snohomish, State of Washington, legally described as follows (hereinafter “Property”):
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF.
Situate in the County of Snohomish , State of Washington
WHEREAS, the Grantee is desirous of acquiring certain rights and privileges across, over, under,
upon and through the Property.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Distribution Easement. Owner, for good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged, hereby conveys and grants to Grantee, its agents, contractors, successors and
assigns, a non-exclusive easement for the perpetual right, privilege, and authority to patrol, construct, erect,
reconstruct, alter, improve, extend, repair, operate, and ma intain overhead and/or underground electric
distribution lines and facilities, Grantee-owned communication wires and cables, and other necessary or
convenient appurtenances, across, over, under, through and upon the following portion of Owner’s Property
(hereinafter “Easement Area”):
That portion of the above-described property being a strip of land 10 feet (10’) in width having
five feet (5’) of such width on each side of the centerline of the electrical facilities as constructed,
to be constructed, extended or relocated within the above described real property. The exterior
boundaries of said easement being widened accordingly to provide Grantee 8 feet of easement
area adjoining all sides of Grantee’s ground mounted transformers, switch cabinets, and/or
vaults.
2. Access To and Across Property. Grantee has the right of ingress to and egress from the
Easement Area across the adjacent Property of Owner where same is reasonably necessary for the
purpose of exercising its easement rights described in Section 1.
3. Owner’s Reservation of Rights and Use of Easement Area. Owner reserves the right to
use the Easement Area in a manner that does not interfere with the Grantee’s use of the Easement Area,
and/or present a hazard to Grantee’s electric distribution lines and facilities, communication wires and
cables, and other appurtenances. The Owner shall not construct or permit to be constructed any struc tures
of any kind in the Easement Area without prior approval of the Grantee.
4. Clearing of Power Line Right of Way. Grantee has the right at all times to clear said
Easement Area and keep the same clear of all brush, debris and trees.
5. Trimming or Removal of Hazardous/Danger Trees. Grantee has the right at all times to
cut, slash, or trim and remove brush, timber or trees from the Property which in the opinion of Grantee
constitute a hazard to said lines and facilities, communication wires and cables, and other appurtenances
or the Grantee's access thereto. Trees, brush or other growth shall be deemed hazardous to the lines or
facilities or access of the Grantee when they are of such a height that they could, upon falling, strike the
nearest edge of the Easement Area at a height of more than fifteen feet (15’). Except in emergencies,
Grantee shall, prior to the exercise of such right, identify such trees and make a r easonable effort to give
Owner prior notice that such trees will be trimmed or removed.
6. Title to Removed Trees, Vegetation and Structures. The title to all brush, debris, trees and
structures removed from the Easement Area and the Property pursuant to Sections 4 and 5 shall be vested
in the Grantee, and the consideration paid for this Easement and rights herein described is accepted by
Owner as full compensation for said removed brush, debris, trees and structures . Owner shall be entitled
to request fallen timber be set aside for Owner’s personal use. Grantee shall make reasonable effort to
set aside said fallen timber provided doing the same is safe in Grantee’s sole opinion. Title to any fallen
timber set aside in this manner shall revert to the Owner.
7. Restoration Provision. To the extent that Owner’s Property is disturbed and/or damaged
by Grantee’s exercise of its rights hereunder, Grantee shall restore the condition of the Property as nearly
as reasonably possible to its existing condition prior to said exercise of its rights.
8. Title to Property. The Owner represents and warrants having the lawful right and power
to sell and convey this Easement to Grantee.
9. Binding Effect. This Easement and the rights and obligations under this Easement are
intended to and shall run with the Property and shall benefit and bind the Parties and their respective heirs,
successors and assigns.
10. Governing Law and Venue. This Easement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The venue for any action to enforce or interpret this
Easement shall lie in the Superior Court of Washington for Snohomish County, Washington.
11. Authority. Each party signing this Easement, if on behalf of an entity, represents that they
have full authority to sign this Easement on behalf of such entity.
12. Grantee Acceptance. By recording this Easement, Grantee hereby accepts all provisions
set forth under this agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been executed the day and year first above written
OWNER(S):
City of Arlington, a municipal corporation
By: _____________________________________
Its: ________________________________
(REPRESENTATIVE ACKNOWLEDGMENT)
State of
County of
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that
signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he/she/they) (was/were) authorized to execute the instrument and
acknowledged it as the____________________ of _____City of Arlington____________
to be the free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Dated:
Signature of
(Seal or Stamp) Notary Public
Title Notary Public
My appointment expires
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
Item:
WS #3
Attachment
D
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
March 25, 2019
SUBJECT:
Professional Services Agreement renewal with Strategies 360
ATTACHMENTS:
Strategies 360 Professional Services Agreement
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN
Administration; Paul Ellis – 360‐403‐4603
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: $36,000
BUDGET CATEGORY: GF—Other General Government Services
BUDGETED AMOUNT: $36,000
LEGAL REVIEW:
DESCRIPTION:
The attached contract and scope of work describes the work to be done by Strategies
360 at the state and federal level from January 1 through December 31, 2019. Strategies
360 has been working on our behalf in Olympia and Washington, D.C. to address some of
our immediate and long‐term transportation improvement goals, as well as assist us in
economic development and other areas. The continuation of the contract ensures that
our best interests are represented in the decision‐making processes of the Washington
State Legislature, the Washington State Department of Transportation, the United States
Congress, as well as other state and federal agencies. The City has budgeted $36,000
annually for the 2019‐20 budget.
HISTORY:
The City has been a direct client of Strategies 360 starting in Fall 2012. Prior to that, the
City was a client through our participation in the SR9 Coalition.
ALTERNATIVES
None
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Workshop; discussion only. At the April 1, 2019 council meeting, the recommended
motion will be, “I move to approve the contract with Strategies 360 for Lobbying
Services for 2019 and authorize the Mayor to sign the contract.”
City of Arlington
Council Agenda Bill
Item:
WS #4
Attachment
E
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
March 25, 2019
SUBJECT:
February 2019 Financial Report
ATTACHMENTS:
Financial Reports –
Narrative
General Fund Operating Statement
Revenue Charts
Other Fund Operating Statements
Public Safety Resourcing
DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN
Finance; Kristin Garcia – Finance Director 360‐403‐3431
EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: 0
BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A
BUDGETED AMOUNT: N/A
LEGAL REVIEW:
DESCRIPTION:
Attached is the February 2019 financial report.
HISTORY:
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Workshop; discussion only.