The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUTC PKT 01-24-2005 REVISED City. of Federal ,Way . .. CitY Council' .. ¡Land Use/Transportation Committee January 24, 2005 4:30 pm MEETING AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 10, 2005 PUBUC COMMENT (3 minutes) 3. 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. City Center Access Study - Briefing #5 B. Sound Transit Long-Range Plan Updates Draft Supplemental EIS c. 2004 Comprehensive Plan Selection Process D. Planning Commission Work Program E. King County Interlocal Agreement F. Commercial Vehicles in Right-of-Way G. Code Compliance Presentation H. East Branch Lakota Creek Restoration - 100% Design Authority to Bid 1. Lakota Wetland RSF Project Acceptance 5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURN 6. City Hall Council Chambers Information Zukowski/30 Min Action Michaelson/iS Min Action Clark/i0 Min Action McClung/iS Min Action McClung/i0 Min Information Roe/iS Min Information Martin/30 Min Action Bucich/l0 Min Action Bucich/s Min Committee Members Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison Michael Park GtyStaff Kathy McClung, Community Development Services Director E Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant 253-835-2601 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2005\January 24, 2005 Revised LUTC Agenda.doc ", ", '" t, ': City °" F~deral Way : ">dtÿ"êöûncil'" tLand ~~~Transportat~,on'committ~i , ;: '" "', , " " Janua,y24, 2005 4:30 pm ,'.il" '," ."'" .. , , ' ::~¡"'¡:;~f;~~~¡,:j::':'~,:~; :,.',::',""':'" ',¡~":',":;'!','"::~,",,,"',,,C"ty:",','H II """,,:: ':, I ..: a CoUncil Chambers, ' MEETING AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2, APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 10, 200S 3. PUBUC COMMENT (3 minutes) 4. BUSINESS ITEMS G. East Branch Lakota Creek Restoration - 100% Design Authority to Bid Information Zukowski/30 Min Action Michaelson/1S Min Action Clark/lO Min Action McClung/iS Min Information Roe/ls Min Information Martin/30 Min Action Bucich/l0 Min Action Bucich/5 Min A, City Center Access Study - Briefing #5 B. Sound Transit Long-Range Plan Updates Draft Supplemental EIS c. 2004 Comprehensive Plan Selection Process D. Planning Commission Work Program E. Commercial Vehicles in Right-of-Way F, Code Compliance Presentation H, Lakota Wetland RSF Project Acceptance S. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURN 6. Committee Members Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison Michael Park Gty Staff Kathy McClung, Community Development Services Director E Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant 253-835-2601 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2005\January 24, 2005 LUTC Agenda,doc CITY OF .. Fede y Land Use/Transportation Committee Testimony Sign-Up Monday, January 24, 2005 If you wish to give public testimony on this issue, please print your name and address. * Written Testimon is encoura ed. NAME ADDRESS (OPTIONAL) ISSUE rv, 0.. {'; L ~G. j' Cl.. c.. IA ~ C~,Y\"'" Vz::- W .J e (J. ~ A -\vv-L II G~e\le ~ ,j~y , ' -z. ~-r \ l"V\G\ vs<" >CIM ~ L-~-f- t.... f;1Ji') (j .> ~ ~..{'c. 1V1~1 ~~~ /'11 t4te I'C /~.o IE R 1:>0 N {. L. , C ¡if"$ .¡ l-oAC rJ.s-, P..s. ~so p"fc-,¡t::..,c ,~- rT"E. €"o ~4-- iN+- '11 '{oZ tA/V.o ,,1$e *You may choose to provide an address to receive additional notifications about the topic on which you are speaking. This sign-in sheet is a public record, however, and may be required to be disclosed upon request. If you desire that your address be confidential, you may choose to not include it on this form; however, non-disclosure of address information may affect the weight Council members give your testimony (e.g. Council members may choose to give more weight to testimony from individuals with an address in Federal Way). G:\LUTCIHearing Sign Up Sheet.doc City of Federal Way City Council Land UselTransportation Committee January 10, 2005 6:30 p.m, City Hall Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES In attendance: Committee members Jack Dovey, Chair, and Council Members Eric Faison and Michael Park; Mayor Dean McColgan; Deputy Mayor Linda Kochmar; Council Members Jeanne Burbidge, and Jim Ferrell; City Manager David Moseley; Director of Community Development Services Kathy McClung; Assistant City Attorney Amy Jo Pearsall; Deputy Community Development Director Greg Fewins; Senior Planner Margaret Clark; Senior Planner Jim Harris; Associate Planner Isaac Conlen; Deputy Public Works Director Ken Miller; Surface Water Manager Paul Bucich; Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; SWM Project Engineer Fei Tang; Engineering Plans Reviewer Kevin Peterson; and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Dovey called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm, 2. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES The minutes of the December 6, 2004, meeting was approved as presented. 3, PUBLIC COMMENT Marie Sciacqua - She express her concerns over commercial vehicles parked on residential streets. She has spoken to many different committees and City staff, and was told this is the committee that can help her. There is a person in her neighborhood who has been parking a large commercial vehicle on the street. This is causing problems maneuvering the street and is a safety problem. She asked the committee to consider an amendment to the Federal Way Code (FWCC) Chapter 15 to disallow commercial vehicles parked in the right-of-way in residential zones. Jean Atwell- She spoke in support of Ms. Sciacqua. An additional problem they have with the vehicle is that the driver will move it in the middle of the night and it is a very noisy vehicle and wakes people up. Wally Aikala - He also spoke to the issue of commercial vehicles in residential zones, He lives in a different neighborhood where someone parks a cab from an 18-wheeler on the street. This causes numerous problems. He feels it is an environmental (due to oil leakage) and safety issue. The Committee requested staff research this issue, with an emphasis on enforcement, and bring it back to the next LUTC meeting, 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. West Hylebos Creek Restoration Construction Project Final - The City Council must accept the work as complete to meet state Department of Revenue and Department of Labor & Industries requirements, Mr. Bucich gave a presentation of what work has been done, He noted that the project came in under time and budget. The Committee m/sic to authorize final acceptance of the completed West Hylebos Creek Restoration Project, constructed by Jansen, Inc., in the amount of $422,288.04 as completed and moved it forward to the January 18, 2005, City Council meeting. G:ILUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 2oo5\January 10, 2005, LUTC Minutes,doc B. SW 356th Regional Pond Fence Project -100% Design Approval and Authorization to Bid - This project will install approximately 1,800 lineal feet of chain link fencing to enclose four properties recently acquired by the City that were needed to complete the regional pond. The Committee m/slc to approve the 100% design to fence the pond perimeter and authorized staff to advertise the project for bid, returning to Council for authorization to award, and moved it forward to the January 18, 2005, City Council meeting. C. Wynstone Preliminary Plat and Concomitant Agreement - After discussion, the Committee m/slc a recommendation approving the Wynstone preliminary plat with conditions, and approving the Wynstone Concomitant Zoning Agreement based on the findings and conclusions of the Federal Way Hearing Examiner, and moved it forward to the January 18, 2005, City Council meeting. The Committee requested that a note be placed on the title of all lots (in addition to the final plat and the lots already recommended by the Hearing Examiner) of the fact that 13th Court SW will provide access to lot 45 which will develop with 16 multi-family or single-family residential units, Staff suggested they could also place a sign noting the same. D. Brown's Point & Dash Point UGA Resolution - In response to a letter from the City of Tacoma, staff felt it was important to formalize the City Council's intent to establish a Browns Point/Dash Point Urban Growth/Service Area. After discussion, the Committee m/slc that the City Council pass a resolution re- affirming the City's intent to amend the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan to establish a Brown's Point/ Dash Point Urban Growth/Service Area for Federal Way following passage of the City's Pierce County comprehensive plan amendment request. D. Planning Commission Work Program - Ms. McClung presented the Committee with amendments that have been started, but not completed; amendments proposed by the Planning Commission; and amendments proposed by staff. She also included other items the Long Range staff is working on, She asked if the Committee had any items to add. The Committee would like to see the ability to build mixed-use developments along Pacific Highway South towards the north part of the City where there are some great view corridors; they would like staff to research higher housing density to allow cluster homes/cottages; they would like to have higher heights in the city center and requested staff research the options; they would like off-site signage for events; and they would like the city center standards to be more comprehensive. They requested Ms. McClung prioritize the list and return to the next meeting so the Committee can review and make a decision on the Work Program, 5. FUTURE MEETINGS The next scheduled meeting will be January 24, 2005, because of the Sound Transit Open House; the meeting will start at 4:30 p.m. 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2005\January 10, 2005, LUTC Minutes,doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: January 24, 2005 Land Use and Transportation Committee David H, Mo~ Manager Maryanne Z~ko~i, P .E., Senior Traffic Engineer VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: City Center Access Study Briefing #5 Screening Level 3 Results-Option(s) to move forward for public comment at Public Open House scheduled for Thursday, February 3, 2005 from 4:00PM - 7:00 PM POLICY QUESTION: This is an informational session only, updating the Land Use and Transportation Committee prior to the Public Open House. Presently, staff is preparing the preferred option(s)s to present to the public for comment at the Public Open House scheduled for Thursday February 3rd, 2005, There will be one follow up Public Stakeholder meeting February 9th, 2005 to consolidate all public comments and issues, The final Core Support Team meeting is scheduled February 15th, 2005 to endorse a recommendation to the LUTC and the City of Federal Way City Council in March 2005, BACKGROUND: The City of Federal Way, in conjunction with project partners, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Federal Highways Administration (FHW A), Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), and the additional supporting agencies (the "Core Support Team") are perfonning a feasibility study to detennine viable access solutions to the safety issues and the congestion at the interchange of S 320th Street and Interstate 5 (access to Federal Way City Center). The interchange is experiencing significant congestion many hours of the day and is currently at capacity, If a successful and viable access solution is found, Federal Way will proceed in developing an Access Point Decision Report (APDR) to submit to WSDOT, With City and State approval, the report would go to the FHW A, An APDR is the initial step required by FHW A before changing an interstate highway interchange, This briefing is the fifth in a series of Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTC) briefing updates of the current schedule and milestones accomplished to date for the project. The sixth and final update will be the request for an approval of the preferred option/s scheduled for March 2005, The final request at that time will be for the direction from the City of Federal Way City Council required for a step forward to an environmental study if approved to move forward in an APDR. Briefing # 1 presented the Public Involvement and Communications Plan, the Project Work Plan, the Purpose and Need statement, the project issues map, and the study area of the project. Briefing #2 was presented by CH2M Hill, the engineering consultant, and provided an update from project beginning to the development of 47 options (project alternatives) in this project study, Briefing #3 presented 15 options retained for further evaluation, analysis, and scoring, Briefing #4 presented 5 options retained for further evaluation, analysis, and scoring. Presented during this informational session were issues and concerns from the City of Federal Way Public Stakeholder Team and the Transit Agency Representatives, Briefing #5 presents a summary of options evaluated at Level 3 screening (see attachments), EV ALUA TION PROCESS 47 OPTIONS DEVELOPED 11 OPTIONS REMAINED [ 4 OPTIONS ADDED I 3 OPTIONS REMAINED it- 28 5 NEW MODIFIED,'i INTERCHANG INTERCHANGE OPTIONS OPTIONS 14 LOCAL NETWORK OPTIONS ""'<l, ' ,'" FATAL FLAW SCREENING: (MAY 2004) '~ ' '.." 4 3 LOCAL 5 3 OTHER NETWORK MODIFIED NEW INTERCHANGE OPTIONS INTERCHANGE INTERCHANGE OPTIONS OPTIONS OPTIONS ','" ' t SECOND LEVEL SCREENING::~¡~;~'~; " ,,'¡ , '.. (JUN 2004) " ': ,;:, "',,'" " 1 2 LOCAL MODIFIED NETWORK INTERCHANGE OPTIONS OPTION!; ,",~ftD LEVEL SCREENI~~~};I~'¡'-' :", (JAN 2005) ?:',' YOU ARE HERE ,', Update Upon completion and review of the second l~vel screening, five (5) options advanced to the final screening (screening level 3). These options were refined under direction from the Core Support Team, supported by the Public Stakeholder Team, and approved by the City of Federal Way City Council. The three "build" options were compared against a "No- Build" Option that incorporated elements from a list of Spot City Wide Intersection Improvements (Transportation System Management "TSM" improvements) developed by the City of Federal Way. Please see Appendix D for a complete list of these improvements. The Core Support Team and the Public Stakeholder Team also reviewed and refined the evaluation criteria to be used for this "final screening". The evaluation of the three "build" options (Local, Mod. I, and Mod, 2) does not preclude the potential ofa Local Option to be combined with a Modified Option or any combination ofTSM, Local, or Modified interchange at the direction of the Core Support team, Methodology Pursuant to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Chapter 1425, the "final screening" began with an assessment of the Local Option (Options H4 + J5 with TSM) to see if it could fulfill the project objectives, The Local option should be able to preserve an acceptable Level of Service "E" through the City Center (S 320th Street) without extraordinary geometry (i,e, triple left-turns) and minimal impact to freeway operations. If the Local Option does not meet project objectives, then the two Modified Interchange Options will be added along with the Local Option for evaluation against the 2030 No-Build condition, It was assumed that projects identified in the 2020 City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (20-Year Capital Improvement Plan) and the 2004 to 2009 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), were in place as "committed" projects. In addition, regional and state projects within the study area are assumed to be in place, including the 1-5/SR-18/SR-161 "Triangle" project and the SR-509 extension and subsequent 1-5 HaY widening. The new bridge crossing of 1-5 at South 3 12th Street, and improvements at the 1-5 ramp intersections with associated bridge widening at South 320th Street are included in the baseline (2030 No-Build) to better model and evaluate the City's future transportation network. The Final Screening incrementally evaluates each of the Options in an effort to detennine whether a low investment solution can successful meet the conditions outlined in Technical Memorandum 2 (TM 2) - Project Purpose and Need. Concept Refinement At the conclusion of the second level screening evaluation, documented in Technical Memorandum 9 (TM 9): Screening Level 2 - Refined Alternatives and Evaluation, the following (5) Options were recommended to move forward to Final Screening: TABLE 1 - OPTIONS ADVANCED FROM SECOND LEVEL SCREENING OPTION NAME DESCRIPTION 2030 No-Build The current city comprehensive and surrounding regional plan that includes the widening of the S 320th Street interchange and the S 312th Street Bridge Crossing 1- 5, 2 Traffic System Management (TSM) 3 H4 and J5: L316 WB, L324 EB COUPLET, and L324 EW 4 C2VI: N312 M320 DIAMND CD 5 D2V4: N324 Y2 DIAMND M320 Local improvements at failing intersections throughout the City of Federal Way study area. A combined local option for a one-way ring road couplet configuration clockwise around the city center core area and a local improvement option of a new bridge crossing 1-5 at S 324th Street. Modification to the S 320th Street interchange gaining access to 1-5 at S 31th Street. A Modification to the S 320th Street interchange with new access at the S 324th St area, Note: The decision to include elements of the TSM Analysis in the 2030 No-Build Option was to ensure that the benefits of each of the "build" options would not be overstated in the evaluation. The inclusion of the TSM elements into an enhanced No-Build condition, made the inclusion of a stand-alone TSM Option redundant for the Final Screening. The Options selected for Final Screening (including the enhanced No-Build) are listed below in Table 2, TABLE 2 - REFINED FINAL SCREENING OPTIONS No-BUILD OPTION LOCAL OPTIONS MODIFIED INTERCHANGE OPTIONS 2030 No-Build LOCAL Option: S. 316th/S, 324th Ring MOD, 1 Option: S, 320Ih/S. 31th Braided CD Road MOD, 2 Option: S. 324Ih/S. 320lh Fu11 Access Local Option: S 316th/S 324th Ring Road The Local Option was created by combining together two solutions from the Second Level Screening: Option H4 (a clockwise, one-way "ring road" utilizing S 3241h, S 3161h, 23rd Avenue Sand 11 th Place S) and Option J5 (a S 3241h bridge crossing ofI-5 between 23rd Avenue Sand Weyerhaeuser Way S), Additional refinements included the realignment of the eastern extension of the S 324th Street crossing to merge with S 323rd Street instead ofWeyerhaeuser Way and the additional of a contra-flow transit lane along 23rd Avenue S between the Federal Way Park & Ride and S 317th Street. A graphic schematic of the Local Option is provided in Attachment B, Mod. 1 Option: S 320th/. 31th Braided CD The Mod, 1 Option was created through refinement of the C2 VI Option that featured a Co11ector Distributor (CD) system accessing S 320th Street and S 31th Street. To accommodate a higher design speed, Option C2 VI was modified to enlarge the radius of the northbound loop on-ramp at S 320th Street. In the southbound direction, a braided ramp configuration a11ows for access to both S 312th Street and S 320th Streets, A refinement in the northbound direction provides connection to S 31th Street via a bound off-ramp alignment that travels under S 320th Street before heading to S 312th Street. A graphic schematic of the Mod, 1 Option is provided in Attachment B. Mod. 2 Option: S 3241h/S 320lh Full Access The Mod. 2 Option was created through modification of the D4 V2 Option that featured a half-diamond interchange at a new S 324th Street bridge crossing and northbound and southbound frontage roads between S 324th Street and S 320lh Street. Eliminating the frontage roads modified the D4 V2 Option and added braided ramps in both directions to a11ow fu11y directional access from S 3241h Street and S 320lh Street. The eastern extension of the proposed S 324th Street crossing was realigned to merge with S 323rd Street instead of Weyerhaeuser Way, In addition, the radius of the northbound loop on-ramp at S 320th Street was enlarged to accommodate a higher design speed, A graphic schematic of the Mod, 2 Option is provided in the attachments labeled "Appendix A", Final Screening Level Criteria The screening process is reevaluated at each level of assessment to confirm efficiency, remove redundancy and focus on criteria that will assist in differentiating concepts, The evaluation process for the Final Screening was refined through involvement by the Core Support Team and the Public Stakeholder Team, Table 3 lists the Second Level screening criteria on the left with revisions to the criteria for the Final Screening on the right-hand side of the table (Attachment A), Table 4 provides a list of the Final Screening evaluation criteria, and a brief description (Attachment A), Preliminary Results At the time ofthis memo preparation, the Core Support Team is scheduled to meet on January 18th, 2005 fo11owing the Public Stakeholder Team meeting scheduled January 12th, 2005, A power point presentation will be prepared fo11owing the Core Support Team to present those findings. RECOMMENDATION: This is an informational session only. ",,' <;¡,t\:; APPROVE OF'COMMrITEE+)U:Pt1>RT:, "Y, :~,Z\. '. ""jk.<,'" ¡I" .. J',,~ ' ""'.;~~~i:, , ,-I '. ".'", ""+4t "><;'!lmçha~1 Par~Member "';<-.1.,," '<'" Jac~:p°vey,;~hair ", Eric, Faison, Member'" .., .. '", TABLE 3 - FINAL SCREENING CRITERIA SECOND LEVEL SCREENING CRITERIA A TT ACHMENT A Transportation Benetit REVISIONS FOR FINAL SCREENING Compatibility with Freeway Operations Compatibility with Freeway Safety Local Arterial Operations Local Arterial Safety Travel Time to, from and within City Center Connectivity with and Circulation within City Center Transit Travel Time within City Center Impact to Non-Motorized Modes Freight Mobility Ability to Meet Design Standards Constructability Cost Effectiveness , : Economic Development Compatibility with Local Plans Compatibility with State and Regional Plans Disruptions and Displacements Impact on Noise Impact on Section 4(1) Resources HCS Operational analysis for merge, diverge, mainline and weave. Revised the scoring criteria Synchro Operational analysis Revised the scoring criteria Added for Final Screening. Same as Level 2 Screening Synchro Operational analysis Analyze turning movements. Revised scoring criteria Eliminated from Final Screening Eliminated from Final Screening Eliminated from Final Screening Not used in Final Screenin , but available Added for Final Screening, Changed to "Compatibility with Comprehensive Plans" Eliminated following Second Level Screening Revised with refinements to options Same as Level 2 Screening Same as Level 2 Screening Impact to ~atural Environment Impact on Critical areas (steep slopes, wetlands, aquifer recharge, streams, etc,) Impact on air quality Impact to Threatened or Endangered Species Revised with refinements to options, Eliminated from Final Screening Eliminated from Final Screening TABLE 4-FINAL SCREENING EVALUATION CRITERIA FINAL SCREENING CRITERIA DESCRIPTION Compatibility with Freeway Operations Transportation Benefit Compatibility with Freeway Safety: . Nominal Safety . Substantive Safety Local Arterial Operations: . S 320th Street Corridor . All Other Corridors Local Arterial Safety: . Local High Accident Location (HAL) . Local High Accident Corridor (HAC) Travel Time to, from and within City Center Connectivity with and Circulation within City Center Transit Travel Time within City Center . Park & Ride to/from Transit Center . Impacts to Current Transit Routes Impact to Non-Motorized Modes . Impact to Crossing Roadways . Impact to CurrentIPlanned Ped,/Bike Trails How does the option impact the overall operations and of the freeway transportation system? How does the option impact safety on the freeway? How does the option impact overall operations of the local street system? How does the option impact overall safety of the local street system? How does the option rate in terms of travel time to and from the City Center via the regional system? How does the option impact or enhance circulation within the City of Federal Way taking into account functional classification development? How does the option rate in terms of travel time to and from the City Center via the regional system? Does the option support non-motorized facilities while not impacting existing ones? Impact to Built Environment Economic Development . Accommodate high-concentration development . Promote improved mode-choice . Support a dense roadway network Compatibility with Comprehensive Plans Does the option support economic development goals per the Economic Development Element of the City Comprehensive Plan? Impact on Section 4(1) resources Is the option consistent with local plans? How well does the option support and advance those plans? Would there be any direct impacts on Steel Lake Park, any listed historic buildings, or other section 4(1) resources? Impact on noise How will implementation of an option impact noise levels to residential communities? How many commercial and residential properties will be displaced and to what level? Would the option disrupt any existing neighborhoods? Disruptions and Displacements Impact to :\atural Environment Impact on Critical areas (steep slopes, wetlands, aquifer recharge, streams, etc.) How will implementation of an option impact known critical resources? k:\lutc\2005\ 1-24-05 city enter access study briefing #5.doc APPENDIX A ,-'.. .',:<itf- ,"""o.",:::,:.;',-."':~ ~'" .. .'1',-. . ' .>4 f i ~" ~ 0 ". . 5' /:nl.? Sea-Tac.::; Malk~?;":. .,:~ ; . , ¡ , ,. I ; ,.- ;'\ . .. '23rçl A~~. ~., ~~::,l' . .'r';~ ~CA' .' .'0' .. ~~-.--:;¡, ... i ',¡, l- - A' '~-~~;~~.--.-'-,~': --~~¡,:::' I ,"",' IWay I "Y"""W","""'O'" L ' 0'" ! federa ",~. ~~:"~';~"':"'~~_o --- ~;'" TM-10 FINAL SCREENING --,'_.. ----I ,:,~ LOCAL: :,', :',., .. o.'~ (P",c~ò I ,". "'- ,:~, I Pacifié}hNy'SÓUlh' ! ,,". ~:.:~O.. '.: -.,1 i ,0,. ",I; -~- .. , , ! , ' , ' , ',- , '. .. ,', '. ""-~ f.~"", . 0, '. ~ -;". ,;'¡ i <'"", - , '- ";,.. -' ~ ,'I '1 I ! "I : ! -'-~' ";.~::'-Z¡I;.". . , ',-".. .' 0: "!~?_'~;~~';~~~t:;.~::rJ:-,: -', 0' , " ; ".. '.." }'::i1 , "'.' , ..:;:$"; ::' ":': '. . ," "0< : .' ..,,-.. -en:, ~~~'v .. , f 1\), "y' :-'~ ~ ;ê~¿;~;; :~- "':~~"-~:~:;Áîo'." . :> "";(.!'.. , G"" , .., ..' ,:. ;;:-" ,:;, ' -, .. ,,'. " :*, , " :""":;~'," ' ,,~', .. .,.,', ( "":, )," .<, ' ~~\ ~; if> ',' " ",'" ',;-i!'c ~ .:..:r'~h_~~~'::"~<:I"'" .',":,. :'~';'J , '>1 :'~:,.. 1! J " '," LOCAL OPTION: S, 3i6thiS 324m RING ~OAD .-,-----..--..", ..'------"" Figure A,1 . Local Option H4 + J5 Schematic ----,-, CH2MHILL APPENDIX A " : ¡ , { ; j -, r:~,~" '-0 ---~11 -}1; . -, ~~.~ ~:~~~ ~..~~L!t~i1~~: ., -~"., - ' '.". r ~ ,~.~ ~ ;~(~~~t~~~.~~ - , '. .' '. if. .', ::. ,r -.'::' , ','. f:;':<,;~~..::)~,:;~-~7:;;- .~ ~:. /~ .. " '; s~;:cF:-'~..~tÃ'¡'~ . '.': t I~.~>~~< ~~{:j..:~~r\,:~~- ":;'-~ 11~:>center ,¡",.t~--".._~--------,-;--_:, '~.<>" '~'-' . uL,'.;:..'","\;."'" I '}þ,r.. ~~~~i '. J : :,.~--- "--'C':~' - ,- "- '" . ~:~--~- --_.~J'--- -ts;-:- -~'-~:"'-'~--_N'- '- H - .' "._'lfI- t.- ,r:,. , ',,'~:t:-: ", , .,r,N:f'" I --c- "-T", -~'-'" ' '..,--_.,---~--",- T..'{:<:..--"" - ~ - -" ,:::1" :-:'~~.~~ ~ ; --~-_:: ;~~ I ".--"'- I.~):-~ 1 !:.;..?::~" i,~:~ '-~t ' I. .r'~- " ' :' .,,":t ',-"'J!I ,~ ::,,~~:~'tj - . ,~~-<~;~:~ ~ "'~"-- ': ,"h, S ','2.' .,' -.-'-'-", -- , "':' t. 'i- <10, .1:.- SCALE I"" - ',:~ .- -- -- -'----:-'~--L~(~LNC... - --.--- ~ - pr«,"U,'I-I, , fèd~way I ::.: ~~:¡?:~'~~-":':'~;,~~""Y"T I '".4(CF, [' TM-10 FINAL SCREENI~,~_- : x' N,"'"""'-,,"'<,, .--..- ~." CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY CENTER ACCESS STUDY ,--_,~!gure ~:~-- MO~._~ - C2 V~__Braided --, - ------ CH2MHILL APPENDIX A ! " - ....------. . ""1 MOD. 2 , .. ~. ~:4 :3f~A.D[;:; ~ ;.. J. r r , .. i ' ,;1'" I<c"'"c-, ~" . .,,'~. . .;,. Weyert!p~~ -W~y~!~,. ~;i CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY CENTER ACCESS STUDY ¡ TM-10 FINAL SCREENING I ~~3~rÍd ~~~;""¿.~ .' I --==i1!" ~:~ !"'I -..,,; ":¥.:~ -j MOD. 2 OPTION: S. 324!l1fS. 3201:1 f-ULL ACC!::SS J i I k~ '~-~:.:.: . 'of; '. ,C;' .... , -------"- I ~ i ...~~ L_.F~ra' w~~--- ,- ~ x ~ LEGÚ';¡Ü'--T- --- -- _.__..._.-~ N-,."".",;; ; .... ,,:r"H,'v>.')JIC' "'.Y.Ai".""", "-A."""'" I '.1"."":' "I/o':' I ,". 4;X¡ I"T Figure A.3 - Mod, 2 - D4 Braided Schematic CH2MHILL Appendix D CH2M HILL Inter- section Approach SB NB WB EB , , I:': ,> '. :~¡:'. 5. 3201h SI. & 25th Ave S íGaleway Allow only riaht in/riaht out Allow only right in/right out Remove left turn lane Remove left turn lane Remove Siena! and redirect traffic to 23rd!320th '/:1' ,,:~!i... '.'i,;',;~~t;; ; ;";,: "",,' S, 320th St. & 1-5 SB Ramps 1, SB NB WB EB .. ""f Traffic System Management, TSM Analysis DRAFT TM #10 Appendix D Improvements S, 320th 5t. & SR 99 '.tJ;-::, ': ;',1~,~;,~. 'i, S. 320th 5t. & 20th Ave. S. Add exclusive SBR Add exclusive NBR '.., ',., 2, SB NB WB EB Add exclusive EBR ,'!~:;.¡,.,."~¡.!.,j~'l";',' " ; ", ':1;:"1 :... '!;";'\:..';"': ".",: S. 320th 51. & 23rd Ave. S. Add exclusive SBR & 3rd SBL Add 2nd NBR '~~:' '. .; '.. " . 3. 4, 5B NB WB EB ,.:,:',,' ,t..,,~~, .. .' ,;> 5, 5B NB WB EB , ":,'~; , " ", 5, 3201h St & 1-5 NB Ram')!; 5B NB WB EB ::. '::i" '.:;~,~'ti.i:~~:", ~'" ':,!'?,ii",,:!i) j:~,::.,,:<> ';i~.:;)'lj'~, 5. 3201h 51. & Woyorhaousor Way 5B NB WB EB '~i:,.i)~,ji>'¡('J"~ :'::'~i.:~.' :,t.: :""")'~~::,, [1 S, 324th St. & SR 99 SB Add exclusive SBR NB Add NBL; Add exclusive NBR WB EB " . 6, 7, 8, 9, 5B NB WB EB d:, 1""',,,.. "'¡¡("r!;.!:~:. ::;ÏI:" ,J~,¡!¡:"",:~:." '::1 s. 3201h SI. & Military Rd. ~,,: ", .,. ' ~ .' i.:>\i;, ,:~i':' "",".", "::!i('(¡~; "';::,;¡¡¡¡¡'¡!\'.: " 0-1 Appendix 0 CH2M HILL Traffic System Management, TSM Analysis DRAFT TM #10 Appendix D Inter- section Approach 10. 11, 12, 13, 14. 15, ,.,' '\""," 16, 17, ":i" 18. Improvements S. 3361h SI. & SR 99 Add 5BL 5B NB WB EB Add EBL, EBT, & EBR 'Remove permilled phasinc¡ for IPOrt!; & p(~rmitl()d/()v()r for ritlhts , ') ",;"~;::i:,',é"¡::~~,, :\.,:, ' ,\ . S. 3481h SI.iSR 18 & Encbanted PkwyiSR 161 ,:).;¿.:, SB NB WB EB Add 2nd WBR (include 3rd WBL in no action) " ',., I,:, J ,', ,\~1~ ',"~~,.' .. " " " ": . '.., ;¡r' ",: ': ,~,: ,. '" Share WBTIWBR and provide for two WBL's Add EBL with shared EBT/R 'Remove splil phase; prolect WBL ~::,.I'::"i:IP',fi,¡;::..,;!If¡!<""':-:i:;:'~",;,,.<\.^ ",:",,:,.1/,"); S. 272nd SI. & SR 99 .., S. 3161h SI. & SR 99 SB NB WB EB Add WBR; Add 2nd WBL Add EBR 'Remove permitted left phase " .i,,!>';:'!',' .,O:!,;,.~: S. 312111 51. & Sf~ 99 SB Add 2nd SBl NB Add 2nd NBl WB Add exclusive WBR; Add 2nd WBl EB Add exclusive EBR; Add 2nd EBl "';,: ¡'::d.' ';~:f' ';,!¡¡¥,'" ,\,i:i":' S. 3O4lh SI. & SR 99 SB NB WB EB Add exclusive single WBl Add EBl S. 2881h SI. & SR 99 SB NB WB EB SB NB WB EB S. 272nd SI. & 1-5 SB Ramps SB NB WB EB Add 2nd 5BR Add 2nd WBl ,~ ",¡",.""}'I;i; ," V' : "U::'í. . .Jj¡f:: "¥:;i1~; : ,:'{.' 5, 272nd 51. & 1-5 NB Ramps SB NB WB EB Add NBl 2nd WBR ! ! ;'1' ;¡ (,i,!. ,:':;¡¡~:;" .' !.~".;~,~'d~r .. ¡;';, D-2 'I:." .co ", :" Appendix D CH2M HILL Traffic System Management, TSM Analysis DRAFT TM #10 Appendix D Inter- section Approach ~"i:,.": ".; ~;" :'"" 19. 20, 21, 22, :,1' 23, 24, 25, 26, Improvements S. 304th SI. & Military Rd, SB NB WB EB Add 2nd EBL .Remove Dermitted phasing ,¡ . "~!:',,,::¡.:,:, ' ,: ":":;::",',~' . ,~,:,', ,:", S. 312111 81. & 28th ^vc. S. , SB NB WB EB Add NBL (protected) ;:;:i~:'!~,~'.,\;¡:~'(' , :: ',' " S, 317lh SI. & 23rd Ave. S. " l SB NB WB EB Add WBL .. S. Dash Point Rd. & SR 99 SB NB WB EB ;i,1(,">';,,~I:.."":i;,'1!:;',';" ".jlii~~ ',::",,"! ",':":'::~:!,¡:i':';i,:"'i;iI,~:.,,>;,,~ii!f.:"',,""¡»if":'fA "il".t",},": Weyerheauser Way & SR 1 ß EB Ramps Add 2nd SBL (remove permitted phasing) ,,' .' , "" SB NB WB EB "i~;,: ..'h.l";,"",: ,,' ,;:~5,:¡ "'.I'~'..:" .. ",jf . .:d"'!:",:;:.., .",' .,':',!,i,~'~, Weyerheauser Way & SR 18 WB Ramps ":~i~<""¡;"":!'" ... SB NB WB EB ;.".¡..:Sl;¡:;.;,:,¡U)\', ",\,-.;.":,i::':':"",:,:,:,t..",,,.:,,:" lé;f.":~¡';:~'~,;;;¡¡~", .',.:~"" ',::,,¡'! S. 3201h SI. & 32nd ^ve. S, SB NB WB EB ,,::(,"" . ::;~ '::,:: .Remove split phasing: permittf>.d lefts NB/SB ,."';~,II""';:¡JilJt::,,,~.,i!'li..i¡¡'il!""",:,..:,.;,;,';r.:".i' "".." S. 272nd SI. & Military Rd. ¡;(,"'.,: ,ì' .~.... SB NB WB EB Add exclusive NBR; Add 2nd NBL Add 2nd WBL Add 2nd EBL; Add 2nd EBR 0-3 ~ CITY OF ~#ø' Federal Way CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT To: FROM: VIA: DATE: SUBJECT: Jack Dovey, Chair Land Useffransportation Committee Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services Cary Roe, Director of Public Works ..:tY1 ~(@1 Lori Michaelson, AICP, Senior PlanneØ'<" Rick Perez, P,E., City Traffic Engineer ft/ð? David MOS~ager January 14,2005 ylv\ c;, Council direction on providing comments to Sound Transit on the December 2004, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (on Updates to the 1996 Regional Transit Long-Range Plan) I. POLICY QUESTION Should the Council authorize staff to provide comments to Sound Transit on the Draft SEIS, and if so, what issues should be addressed? (The comment deadline is January 31, 2005,) II. BACKGROUND Sound Transit is taking steps to update its 1996 Long-Range Plan, The updated plan will guide upcoming decisions on expanding the regional transit system to meet growth and transportation needs through the year 2030, The plan updates will reflect current demographic data and transit improvements in the region since the plan was adopted. Future public investments in specific projects such as light rail, commuter rail, regional express bus, and transit facilities within Pierce, King, and Snohomish Counties ("Sound Transit 2") will be based on the updated plan, The updates to the 1996 Long Range Plan are subject to environmental compliance under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A), The existing plan was preceded and supported by a 1993 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), At this time, Sound Transit has issued a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS) which supplements and builds on the 1993 EIS as a basis for the plan updates, The City Council was provided with a hard copy of the Draft SEIS, and internet link, for review, Also, on November 15, 2004, the Land Useffransportation Committee was briefed by Joni Earl of Sound Transit. Ms, Earl reported on the status and future of Sound Transit projects through the region and in Federal Way, She also outlined upcoming steps related to the issuing the Draft SEIS and updating the Long-Range Plan, The Draft SEIS includes updated employment, housing and growth forecasts that were not available in the early' 90' s, and considers the number of potential riders and environmental effects of building a mass transit system in the region through the year 2030, It is an early step in a "phased" environmental review process, and it examines impacts at a very broad level. These preliminary steps allow Sound Transit to update planning and technical analyses to inform and involve the public and help the Sound Transit Board identify the best way to expand the mass transit systems already in place and select the next round of projects ("Sound Transit 2"). Future phases will be subject to more detailed project-level environmental analysis, Sound Transit will conduct public meetings on the Draft SEIS at various locations throughout the month of January, 2005. As Council has been advised, a meeting is scheduled at the Federal Way Library on 151 Avenue South, from 5:00 p,m. to 8:00 p.m. on January 24, 2005, The deadline for comments on the Draft SEIS is January 31, 2005, Sound Transit will then prepare and circulate a Final SEIS that documents and addresses comments received on the Draft. The Sound Transit Board will then circulate and adopt an updated Long-Range Plan, and will continue technical and planning analyses and outreach to help determine the next phase of transit investments ("Sound Transit 2") consistent with the adopted Plan. Public comment will again be solicited with these future steps, III. PROJECT SAVINGS AND CONTINGENCY The Draft SEIS does not identify or evaluate any specific future transit projects, or the costs, funding sources, or timing related to such projects. These decisions and funding recommendations . will be made in the future by the Sound Transit Board, based on the Final SEIS, the updated Long- Range Plan, and public input. Staff will continue to brief the City Council on key proposed actions, considerations for Federal Way, and Council options, In addition, at the November 15,2004 LUTC meeting, Sound Transit agreed to brief the Federal Way City Council on a quarterly basis, IV. OPTIONS 1) Direct staff to not prepare written comments on the Draft SEIS, 2) Direct staffto prepare comments addressing all or some of the staff recommendation below, or with additional or revised comments as determined by Council, or some combination thereof. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff reviewed the Draft SEIS and identified the following issues and recommendations for Council consideration. If authorized, staff will prepare a comment letter based on Council direction. 1) AL TERNA TIVES CONSIDERED IN THE SEIS Staff recommends that the "Plan Alternative" described in the Draft SEIS is identified as the alternative preferred by the City of Federal Way, The "Plan Alternative" preserves all of the elements of the 1996 Long Range plan, including the aJditional service expansion and capital investments needed to provide light rail and regional transit service between urban centers in Pierce, King, and Snohomish Counties, including Federal Way, Sound Transit Long Range Plan City Council Committee Memo File #04-104942-00-IA / Doc. tD. 30122 Pagc 2 The "Plan Alternative" includes light rail service through Federal Way as part of a rail linkage from SeaTac (at South 200th Street) to Tacoma (downtown). No light rail corridor through Federal Way is contemplated in the other alternatives analyzed in the SEIS. Extending light rail through Federal Way is consistent with the range of high capacity transit improvements contemplated in the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP), The "Plan Alternative" also preserves Regional Express Bus Service, or "Bus Rapid Transit" (BRT) opportunities for Federal Way, This would preserve and expand express bus services and facilities similar to the programs provided in "Sound Move," which delivered new transit service and direct connections between urban centers throughout the region, building upon the core system ofHOV lanes in place or planned by WSDOT, The new transit center and direct- access HOV ramp under construction in Federal Way were part of the "Sound Move" initiative, 2) LIGHT RAIL ROUTE PLANNING As noted above, the "Long Range Plan Alternative" appropriately preserves light rail for Federal Way, However, the location of a light rail route has not yet been determined. Route location and other project details would be determined with future project-specific review, At this time it is anticipated that the route would follow either the SR-99 or the 1-5 corridor. The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) offers a couple of options for locating a future light rail corridor through the City, However, recent discussions with the City Council have indicated a potential preference for the 1-5 corridor. In addition, the route and timing of a light rail project should consider the recent substantial public investment and improvements in and around the City Center, including right-of-way improvements along SR-99, the transit center under construction at South 316th Street, and the direct-access HaY ramp between the transit center and 1-5, Any projects planned in the near term should be designed with maximum compatibility and minimal impact to these improvements, Therefore, the subject of route planning should be given careful analysis in a future light rail project, with the City reserving a key role in that process, City considerations would include, but are not necessarily limited to, a potential preference for the 1-5 corridor, and an interest in preserving recent right-of-way improvements in the City Center. 3) REGIONAL EXPRESS Bus SERVICE DELIVERY As noted above, the "Long Range Plan Alternative" appropriately preserves and expands express bus services for Federal Way. However, staff is concerned that the existing ridership reflected in the Draft SEIS underestimates the City's ridership potential, as current ridership does not capture the effect of improved services and facilities on ridership demand, Factors such as increased frequency of bus departures and arrivals during peak commute hours, and quality facilities such as the new Federal Way Transit Center, can effect and increase ridership, In particular, staff anticipates that the new route between Federal Way and downtown Seattle will warrant IS-minute service upon the opening of the transit center. This is based on current ridership levels on Metro Routes 177 and 194, and anticipated demand generated by the new Sound Transit Long Range Plan City Council Committee Memo File #04-104942-00-IA I Doc. 1.0 30122 Page 3 transit center. Similar increases are anticipated to be necessary in both span of service and frequency on the existing Sound Transit Routes 565 (Federal Way to Bellevue) and 574 (Lakewood to Seatac) as a result of the transit center. Sound Transit's ridership forecasts and bus service to and from Federal Way should account for and address such factors. VI. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Direct staff to proceed with option -' ApPROVAL OF COMMITTEE RtPORT: Michael Park, Member ~f-i.¡ - Eric F ison, ~ember Sound Transit Long Range Plan City Council Committee Memo File #04-104942-00-IA / Doc. ID. 30122 Page 4 ~ CITY OF II' -~ Federa I Way DATE: January 14,2005 FROM: Jack Dovey, Chair Land Useffransportation Committee (LUTC) David Mo,+anager Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services ¡!)..¡\l..--- Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner ~ To: VIA: SUBJECT: Selection Process - 2004 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan MEETING DATE: January 24, 2005 I. POLICY QUESTION Should the City of Federal Way select the Puget Center Partnership site-specific request for further analysis as part of its 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update? n BACKGROUND A formal process for updating the comprehensive plan and development regulations was adopted in March 1999. This process sets up a yearly deadline of September 30 to submit applications for amendments, Pursuant to Federal WayCity Code (FWCC) Section 22-523, after the deadline for accepting applications, the City Council shall hold a public hearing and select those docketed amendment requests it wishes to consider for adoption, It is the City's practice that all City business be presented to a Council Committee, in this case the Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC), before Council deliberation, ill 2004 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS In September 2003, the City received one site-specific request for a change to the comprehensive plan designation and zoning (Exhibit A). City staff will also be updating the text of Chapter 5, Housing, of the comprehensive plan to include the most up-to-date readily available housing data, IV PROCEDURAL SUMMARY FOR 2004 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS September 30, 2003 January 24, 2005 February 15,2005 V Deadline for Applications LUTC Meeting - The request will be presented to the LUTC for a recommendation to the City Council as to whether the request should be considered further Public Hearing by City Council STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION PUGET CENTER PARTNERSHIP SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST Request from the Puget Center Partnership to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of 4.03 acres located north of South 3121h Street and east of 151 Avenue South from Professional Office (PO) to Neighborhood Business (BN) (Exhibit A), The applicant is requesting BN zoning to build either a grocery store or a drug store. Their application states that they have been diligently seeking a potential tenant to use this site as a professional office for the last ten years (Exhibit A). The applicant believes that there is no demand for office use in this area, Moreover, they believe that there is a change in the residential shopping pattern with a desire to have shopping located within a convenient distance (within one plus miles) of a residence (Exhibit B), File Number: Parcel No: Location: Size: Applicant: Owner: Request: Existing Comprehensive Plan: Existing Zoning: Proposed Comprehensive Plan: Proposed Zoning: 00-104926-00 UP 082104-9074,082104-9076&082104-9167 North of South 31ih Street and east of 151 Avenue South (Exhibit C) 4,03 acres Paul Benton on behalf of Puget Center Partnership Same Request to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Professional Office (PO) to Neighborhood Business (BN) Professional Office Professional Office (PO) Neighborhood Business Neighborhood Business (BN) Pursuant to the FWCC, the following criteria shall be used in determining whether this request should be considered for further analysis, Selection Process - 2004 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Page 2 DECISIONAL CRITERIA Criterion No 1 Whether the same area or issue was studied during the last amendment process and conditions in the immediate vicinity have significantly changed so as to make the requested change within the public interest. Staff Response The same area or issue was not studied during the last amendment process, Land uses in the immediate vicinity have not significantly changed during the last five years, The adjacent use to the north is a single-family development, Parkwood Campus, which was constructed after incorporation of the City in 1990, The adjacent use to the east is also single-family, The use to the south across South 31ih is a multi-family complex (Greystone Meadows Apartments), and across the street to the west is a 7-11 convenience store and Papa John's Pizza on the comer, with vacant land further to the north, Criterion No 2 Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the overall vision of the comprehensive plan, Staff Response The overall vision of the comprehensive plan is to provide an appropriate balance of services, employment, and housing, This comer was designated Professional Office to provide for small-scale office development compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods; however, the site has not developed in over 10 years, The request for a Neighborhood Business designation is consistent with the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP), Page II-22 ofthe FWCP states that, "Neighborhood Business areas are intended to provide convenient goods (e.g., groceries and hardware) and services (e,g" dry cleaners, dentist, bank) at a pedestrian and neighborhood scale close to adjacent residential uses, Moreover, a Market Study prepared for the City in 2000 found that the City has enough capacity designated for different uses to accommodate the 20-year employment forecast. However, while there is adequate land for employment growth in the aggregate, several districts achieve more than 50 percent buildout. These are Neighborhood Business (BN), City Center Frame (CC-F), Corporate Park (CP-l), and Professional Office (PO)," Criterion No 3 Whether the proposed amendment meets existing state and local laws, including the Growth Management Act (GMA), Staff Response The proposal does not conflict with any existing state or local laws, including the GMA. However, these parcels are located within the Mirror Lake Basin, which has been experiencing flooding problems, Development of this site for any use will have to meet the requirements of the King County Water Suiface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and the Federal Way Addendum to the KCSWDM. Selection Process - 2004 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Page 3 Criterion No 4 In the case of text amendments, or other amendments to goals or policies, whether the request benefits the city as a whole versus a selected group, Staff Response This criterion does not apply to this, since this is a site-specific request. If the request meets the criteria set forth in 1-4 above, it shall be further evaluated according to the following criteria: Criterion No.5 Whether the proposed amendment can be incorporated into planned or active projects, Staff Response If the Council determines that this request should be analyzed further, it can be incorporated into the work program for the 2004 comprehensive plan update. Criterion No.6 Amount of analysis necessary to reach a recommendation on the request. If a large-scale study is required, a request may have to be delayed until the following year due to workloads, staffing levels, etc, Staff Response The analysis necessary to reach a recommendation on this request would not require a large-scale study. Criterion No.7 Volume of requests received. A large volume of requests may necessitate that some requests be reviewed in a subsequent year. Staff Response This was the only site-specific request received for the 2004 update, Criterion No.8 Order of requests received. Staff Response This was the only site-specific request received. STAFF RECOMMENDA TION That the request goes forward for further analysis, VI. COUNCIL ACTION Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-523( d), based on its review of requests according to the criteria in Section V of this staff report, the City Council shall determine which requests shall be further considered for adoption, and shall forward those requests to the Planning Commission for its review Selection Process - 2004 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Page 4 and recommendation, The Council's decision to consider a proposed amendment shall not constitute a decision or recommendation that the proposed amendment should be adopted, nor does it preclude later Council action to add or delete an amendment for consideration, VII. OPTIONS The Committee has the following options: 1, Recommend that the Puget Center Partnership site-specific request be considered further. 2. Recommend that the Puget Center Partnership site-specific request not be considered further, VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION "I recommend that the Puget Center Partnership site-specific request be forwarded for further analysis by staff," IX. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDA nON Forward Option 1 to the full City Council for consideration during a public hearing on February 15, 2005, ApPROY AL OF COMMITTEE REPORT: Michael Park, Member ~em~ ~ XI. LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment September 23, 2004, Correspondence from Powell Development Co, Site Specific Map 1:\2004 Comprehensive Plan\Selection Process\LUTC Staff Report.docll / 18/2005 I: 19 PM Selection Process - 2004 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Page 5 EXHIBIT F\ RE.CE.\\JE.O ... PAGE-1-0F L.L p 2 ~TER LAND USE APPLICATION . ~ ---w:-- S E DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF .",. lIL -~ f fEDERAL WA'l 33530 First Way South C\TY ~\LD\NG DEfT. PO Box 9718 r=-ederal Way 6 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 rl 253-661-4000; Fax 253-661-4129 www,cityoffederalwaY.com ApPLICATION NO(S) 03-/0Y ~ 11- -00 Date 18 September 2003 Pugét Center Partnership Project Name Property Address/Location NE corner of SW 312th Street and 1st Ave. S. Parcel Number(s) 68 ~ -. rrt>7tf; 16 7~ ~ r¡ W Project Description Undeveloped site PLEASE PRINT Type of Permit Required - Annexation - Binding Site Plan - Boundary Line Adjustment ----X- Comp PlanlRezone - Land Surface Modification -- Lot Line Elimination - Preapplication Conference - Process I (Director=s Approval) - Process II (Site Plan Review) - Process III (Project Approval) - Process IV (Hearing Examiner's Decision) - Process V (Quasi-Judicial Rezone) - Process VI - SEPA w/Project - SEP A Only - Shoreline: Variance/Conditional Use - Short Subdivision Subdivision - Variance: CommerciallResidential Required Information . /Business BN /Nelghborhood Zoning Designation BN Comprehensive Plan Designation Unknown Unknown Value of Existing Improvements Value of Proposed Improvements Unifonn Building Code (UBe): Occupancy Type Construction Type Applicant Paul D. Benton of Name: Puget Center Partnership Address: 515 - 116th Ave NE, Suite 108 City/State: Bellevue, WA Zip: 98004 Phone: 425 990 8415 F~: 425 990 8419 Email: claremontdev~ol. com Signatur~~ 44~ Agent (if different than Applicant) Name: Address: City/State: Zip: Phone: Fax: Email: Signature: Owner Puget Center Partnership Name: Paul D. Benton, Partner Address: 515 - 116th Ave NE, Suite 108 City/State: Bellevue, WA Zip: 98004 Phone: 425 990 84 15 F~: 425 990 8419 Email: claremont v@aol. com Signature.:-.~~~ ,~~ Bulletin #003 - March 3. 2003 k:\Handouts - Rcyiscd\Mastcr Land Use ;\pplicl!lPIl Pag<; I of I EXH I B IT --'L- ~ - P A ß E ~OF ~RTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVEWPMENT SER"CES ~ ~ 33530 First Way South CITY OF ~ RECEIVED PO Box 9718 I:ederal Way Federal WayWA 98063-9718 rl , 2 5, 3 253-661-4000; Fax 253-661-4129 SEP 200 www,citvoffederalway.com CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BUILDING DEPT, APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 1. Site Specific Requests a) Who may apply. Any person may, personally or through an agent, apply for a decision regarding property he or she owns. b) How to apply. The applicant shall file the following information with the Department of Community Development Services: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) A completed Master Land Use Application. Attached A vicinity map showing the subject property with enough information to locate the property within the larger area. Attached A copy of the underlying plat or the King County Assessor's parcel map, Attached The following site data: a) Tax Parcel No, }(O8~ lo4-<Jð 74J roT, « 9 / ~ 7 b) Lot Size/Acreage 4.04 Acres c) d) Existing Comprehensive Plan Designation Office Park, OP Existing Zoning Professional Office, PO e) t) Requested Comprehensive Plan Designation Neighborhood Business, BN Requested Zoning Neighborhood Business, BN Services. Please provide the following information regarding the availability of services: a) The site is currently served by sewer ---.X!septic - ~check one), . -l ...L... SewerProvider:~tLtN JJt~r ~1CI- The site is currently served by a public water system ~jwei( - (check one). Waterprovider:~ltt) L,tv ~\~ì. Rl~ Fire District#:~" \... W ~ r \ ,¡; \)\ ~ ~ \ ~ School District#: Federal Way sc'ioOl District \ b) c) d) Any additional information or material that the Director of Community Development Services determines is reasonably necessary for a decision on the matter. Bulletin #024 - April 16, 2003 Page I of3 k:\Handouts - Revised\Comp Plan Amendment Application EXHIBIT ~ : PAGE~OF ~ Prior to issuance of the threshold determination and the public hearing by the Planning Commission, the applicant must submit the following: 7) a) A set of stamped envelopes, and a list of the same, labeled with the name and address of all current owners of real property (as shown in the records of the county assessor for the subject property), within 300 feet of each boundary ofthe subject property, with the return address of the City of Federal Way, Department of Community Development Services, PO Box 9718, Federal Way, WA 98063, Attached '\ b) A copy of the county assessor=s map identifying the properties specified in subsection 6 of this section. At tached X 2. OTHER REQUESTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS a) Who may apply. Any person may, personally or through an agent, apply for an amendment to policies of the comprehensive plan. b) How to apply. The applicant shall file a completed Master Land Use application with the Department of Community Development Services. c) Proposed Amendment A proposed amendment can be either conceptual or specific amendatory language. Please be as specific as possible so that your proposal can be adequately considered, If specific wording changes are proposed, this should be shown in 5tfike- oot/underline format (please attach additional pages if necessary), x To change existinq zoninq of Professional Office, PO, to Neighborhood Business, BN. It has been demonstrated that there 1S no demand for add1tional PrcrÎessional Office use in tho city of Federal Way. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that there is a demand for more Neighborhood Business zoning in this neighborhood. This applicant has ùiliyenLly ::;uuyht all puLenLial u::;eL::; [UL 1_JLu[essiol1al office use for over 10 years and has found no interest.* Reference. Please reference the Element of the Comprehensive Plan (e.g" Land Use, Transportation, Housing, Capital Facilities) and page number where located, ÿ.+ d) 3. SUPPORT FOR THE AMENDMENT (Please fill out for all amendments, whether site specific or otherwise) Please explain the need for the amendment (why is it being proposed), Include any data, research, or reasoning that supports the Rroposed amendment (please attach additional pa~s if necessary).. 1 *The neignborhood consists of densely populateQ area or slng e family residential homes and over 400 apartment units immediately aaj acent. The area is under served [UL neiylllJuLlluod DusiIle55 with only two ucoc consisting of a ~as faciJiry w;rn ~ ~m~ll convenience store and a real estate office. The neighborhood area clearly needs additional neighborhood business facilities. Bulletin #024 - April 16,2003 Page 2 of3 k:\Handouts - Revised\Comp Plan Amendment Application 4. FEE EXHIBIT ~ P AGE --4-° F -La- There is no fee for the initial application. If after a public hearing the City Council determines that the request shall be further considered for adoption, site-specific requests must be submitted for a preapplication conference with a non-refundable fee that will be credited to the formal application fee, If after the preapplication conference the applicant decides to pursue the request, the remaining portion of the comprehensive plan amendment fee will be required, A fee must be submitted for all other requests after the selection process, 5. SIGNATURE ¿~ ,tI ~~ SIgnature 18 September 2003 Date Paul D. Benton Print Name If you have any questions about filling out this application form or the amendment process, please contact the Department of Community Development Services at 253-661-4115. Please be advised that an application for a comprehensive plan amendment lacking the required information will not be accepted, / Bulletin #024 - April 16, 2003 Page 3 of3 k:\Handouts - Revised\Comp Plan Amendment Application ~ EXHIBIT ~ PAGE I OF~ POWELL DEVELOPMENT Ce 737 Market Street Kirkland, WA 98033 (425) 828-4444 Fax (425) 828-4388 September 23, 2004 RE: Ms, Margaret Clark Associate Planner Community Development Services Department City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, W A 98003 NE Comer SW 31ih St. & 1st Ave. So. Parcel Numbers 082104-9074, 9076 & 9167 Dear Ms. Clark: On September 18, 2003, Puget Center Partnership, under Master Land Use Application number 03-104417-00 requested a Comp Plan/Rezone of its above referenced property from Office Park (OP) to Neighborhood Business (BN). We believe that this request is supported by what we see as a change in the city's residential shopping patterns and supports the City Council's stated goal to reinvigorate its retail core, Earlier this year we commissioned a Retail Market Analysis by Robert H. Burton of Kennedy Wilson. Mr. Burton was instrumental in bringing Metropolitan Market to Dash Point Village, What Mr. Burton found was that typical Neighborhood Business tended to flourish in neighborhood settings that were convenient to their primary customer base. This primary customer base was typically found within one plus miles of the subject site. He found that this neighborhood customer convenience co-efficient was dramatically impacted by both natural and man-made barriers. Heavily congested regional arterials, while necessary to support regional retail, has a dramatic negative impact on Neighborhood Business. We believe that Federal Way is currently going through a retail metamorphoses, We are seeing significant neighborhood retail demand for moving off of Pacific Highway to the west to be closer to their primary customer base. This trend is validated in the overwhelming success of Metropolitan Market at Dash Point. There is a silver lining in this potential neighborhood retail migration, When neighborhood retail moves from regional retail locations, it not only frees up land for regional retail redevelopment but also takes neighborhood traffic off of regional transportation corridors, Ms. Margaret Clark City of Federal Way September 23, 2004 Page Two EXHIBIT ---- PAGE 2. OF-*- We believe our requested rezone supports the council's stated goal to reinvigorate its retail core by potentially making available appropriate property that is currently being utilized by neighborhood uses. We believe our requested rezone will have a positive impact to regional transportation corridors by shortening and/or intercepting neighborhood trips by providing neighborhood services close to the neighborhoods. We believe our requested Comp Plan Amendment and Rezone is appropriate and should be supported by the City of Federal Way. Sincerely, jJ~t~ Donald V. Barker VP - Store Development jgt ----,---- 'I 1 ;----"-- RS1:Z r--t-- ------1-- ~-f~- -l+- N -- 1_- t~ ~--..-.' --"'1- ! ìt ~ -.' -"-.-...' ~ > --- -c - - >'- ~ , ~ ~ ~ I -i- I St=2 ---f-- . - -1-- t-- -----¡- - -ta.- -'1"--- ~T- ~ t --to --l~ j!¡ ! ~ í I I -- t¡tS-7~ I ! -, ~ ~ .-- c ¡¡ SW 308TH ST RS7.2 PO S 306T. ~ City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan 2004 SITE SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION CHANGES. S 308TH ST Existing Designation: Comprehensive Plan: Professional Office Zoning: PO Puget Center Partnership Site Specific Request I . I ! ! I ], 2 I I t'I.,".'.."...'. I , -i / II ¡ C i ,~< I - I r- ¡ fill, t~~ I III I Ii Requested DeSignation11. ' Comprehensive Plan: Neighborhood Business I Zoning: BN L_j ---- ~--- 0 , I 1St. 2- I I- I - -------r-- - , ! i RM1800 -, RS7.2 '" ';"'\.. , \ \ ! RM240 Key: Steep Slopes Wetlands .............. - Site Requests -I ~m e»( m:J: ~~ 0 F~ Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. 200.... 0 200 400 600 800 Feet ^ ~- £...l N Map Printed-January 14, 2005 ~ CITY OF ifIII' _1>;:7 Federa I Way DATE: January 18, 2005 To: Land Use/Transportation Committee David ~ Manager Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services ~lc.-- VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: 2005 Planning Commission and Long Range Planning Work Program MEETING DATE: January 24, 2005 A. REQUESTED ACTION Request that the Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) prioritize the 2005 Planning Commission Work Program and forward a recommendation to the City Council. B. BACKGROUND The LUTC reviewed a list of potential work items for the Planning Commission at their January 10th meeting. Staff has added the council's changes and has a recommended work program to consider. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff makes the following recommendations for the 2005 Planning Commission work program: 1 st Quarter - 1. Signs in annexation area - Presented at the January 19th Planning Commission meeting 2. Signs on athletic field fences - Draft report completed 3. Freeway signs - Draft ordinance completed 4. Traffic Concurrency - Draft report completed 5. City Planned Action SEPA - Draft close to be being finished 6. Shoreline Stringline Setback Issue - Draft report bei!lg worked on 7. Start comprehensive plan update 2nd Quarter - 1. Continuation of comprehensive plan update (Housing Chapter update plus one parcel request) 2. Address reasonable measures and density if required, 3. Development Regulation requests from 2004 (2) if recommended by City Council 4. Start Neighborhood Business (planning consultant working on) 3rd Quarter- 1. Cottage housing 2. Amendments as result of planned action SEP A (including increased height and other items identified in downtown study) 4th Quarter- 1. Traffic meetings in neighborhoods 2. 2005 comprehensive plan update (Five site-specific requests plus amendments for increased heights along Pacific Highway view corridors) * *Code amendments related to this amendment would be made concurrently or the following year depending on staff resources available. Items that may be added time permitting: 1. Off- site signs for advertising events 2. Traffic impact fee 3. Construction hours amendment 4, Inconsistencies with appraisal requirements D. OPTIONS These have been prioritized based on state requirements, staff resources, and council direction. It is a fairly ambitious workload and items will be delayed based on the time the Planning Commission and City Council take to review each item. City Council has discretion to move the order and priority. 2005 Planning Commission & Long Range Work Program Page 2 E, COMMITTEE RECOMMENDA nON Forward the LUTC recommendation to the full City Council for approval on February 15th. ApPROVAL OF COMMITTEE: REpORT: Michael Park, Member ~emoor K:\Planning Commission\2005\Documents\pC work program.doc 2005 Planning Commission & Long Range Work Program Page 3 ~ CITY OF ,~ Federal Way CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DATE: To: January 21,2005 Land Use/Trans ortation Committee (LUTe) SUBJECT: David ose i Manager Kathy McCI ng, CDS Director ~v Isaac Conlen, Associate Planner Annexation lnterlocal Agreement - Permits VIA: FROM: MEETING DATE: January 24, 2005 POLICY QUESTION Should City Council adopt the attached interlocal agreement regarding permitting and code enforcement issues in the recently annexed areas? BACKGROUND On October 18,2004, the LUTC directed staff to work towards a January 1,2005, annexation effective date, On December 6, 2004, the LUTC directed staff to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOO) with King County staff regarding police and permitting transitional issues as a condition of annexation approval. A MOU was reached and the annexations were approved by City Council on December 21,2004, and became effective January 1,2005, Beginning in early fall of2004, City staff has been working with County staff to create an interlocal agreement to address a number of annexation transitional issues, including permitting and code enforcement. City and County staff have now reached consensus on language for an agreement to address building and land use permitting and code enforcement in the annexation areas. The attached agreement does not address other annexation transitional issues such as property acquisition and transfer of funds. It is the County's position that these issues should be addressed in a separate interlocal agreement. As of January 1,2005, the County has been unable to issue any pending building or land use permits in the annexation areas. The County will not be able to do so until an interlocal agreement granting such authority is approved. For this reason, the County has requested that the City expedite review and approval of the attached interlocal agreement. The general intent of the agreement is that the County maintains primary review authority for vested permits, The agreement, however, allows the City to assume review authority for individual permits on a case-by-case basis, The agreement has undergone a number of revisions and re-revisions by City and County staff. The attached draft, while not exactly as staff originally proposed, represents a working compromise that protects the City's interest in annexation permitting issues. OPTIONS Options Positives Nee:atives I. "I move that City This option would: None identified, Council approve the a) Formalize the City and County's role attached interlocal in processing vested permits, agreement regarding b) Allow the County to issue pending building and land use building and land use permits, permitting and code c) Provide a higher level of certainty and enforcement in the consistency for project applicants, annexation areas," d) Allow opportunities for a high level of coordination between City and County staff, 2. "I move that City None identified, This option would: Council not approve the a) Result in confusion as to the roles attached interlocal and responsibilities of City and agreement regarding County permitting staff, building and land use b) Indefinitely prohibit the County permitting and code from issuing any pending building enforcement in the and land use permits in the annexation areas." annexation areas, c) Result in delays and resubmittall redesign costs for project applicants, d) Limit opportunities for coordination between City and County staff, Staff Recommendation Option I: "I move that City Council approve the interlocal agreement regarding vested building and land use pennitting and code enforcement in the North Lake, Parkway, and Redondo East annexation areas," Committee Recommendation Forward option - to the full City Council for approval. APPROVAL OF COMMITT~E REPORT: i ! .. Eric Faison, Member ~ Attachments: Draft Interlocal Agreement K:\Annexations\General Annexation Information\General Documents\Council-LUTC Packet Meterials\O12405 LUTC StaffReport.doc Annexation Interlocal Agreement - Pennits Page 2 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN KING COUNTY AND THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY RELATING TO PROCESSING OF BUILDING AND LAND USE APPLICATIONS THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day by and between King County, a home rule charter County in the State of Washington (hereinafter referred to as the "County") and the City of Federal Way, a municipal corporation in the State of Washington (hereinafter referred to as the "City"). WHEREAS, the North Lake, Redondo East, and Parkway annexation areas ("Annexation Areas") will become effective on January 1,2005, pursuant to ordinances 15005, 15006, and 15007; and WHEREAS, all local governmental land use authority and jurisdiction with respect to the newly annexed areas transfers from the County to the City upon the date of annexation; and WHEREAS, the County and City agree that having County staff process various annexation area building and land use applications on behalf of the City for a transitional period will assist in an orderly transfer of authority and jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, it is the parties' intent by virtue of this Agreement that any and all discretionary decisions shall be made by the City; and WHEREAS, this Agreement is authorized by the Interlocal Cooperation Act, RCW 39.34; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and provisions herein, it is agreed by and between the City and County as follows: 1. Preannexation Building Permit Applications Filed with King County, 1.1 Except as otherwise specified herein, the County shall continue to review on behalf of the City all vested building permit applications filed with the County before the effective date of annexation that involve property within the Annexation Areas. Review by the County shall occur in accordance with the regulations under which the applications are vested or to which they are otherwise subject. Any decisions regarding whether or when an application vested shall be made by the City, 1.2 For purposes of this Agreement building permits include but are not limited to building permit mechanical permits and fire systems/fire sprinkler permits. 1.3 County review of building permits pursuant to this Agreement shall include decisions to approve condition or deny applications; follow-up inspections; issuance of extensions or completion of extensions; and issuance of ancillary permits, such as fire and mechanical permits that are essential for completion of each original project permit. The County agrees to consult with the City prior to rendering any administratively appealable building-related permit decision. Appeals of building permit decisions, if any, shall be processed in the same manner as permit appeals in Section 2.4 of this Agreement. 1.4 The City shall have sole discretion and responsibility on the assessment of required performance and the enforcement or release of financial guarantees required of the applicant to secure compliance with permit or development-related requirements, Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon special written request by the City, the County may agree to assist the City in determining whether to enforce or release particular financial guarantees. Such assistance from the County shall not include the initiation or, undertaking of legal actions. 1.5 The County shall review and render decisions on requests for changes to approved building-related plans up to the time that either a certificate of occupancy is issued or final construction approval has been issued for the project. Following issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final construction approval, requests for changes to the approved set of plans shall be referred to the City. The City intends to process such requests as new permit applications. 2 Federal Way Interlocal Permit Processing 2. Preannexation Land Use Permit Applications Filed with King County. 2.1 Except as otherwise specified herein, the County shall continue to review on behalf of the City all vested land use permit applications filed with the County before the effective date of annexation that involve property within the Annexation Areas. Review by the County shall occur in accordance with the regulations under which the applications are vested or to which they are otherwise subject. Any decisions regarding whether or when an application vested shall be made by the City, 2.2 For purposes of this Agreement, land use permits include but are not limited to conditional use permits, site plan approvals, rezones, reasonable use permits, special use permits, SEP A reviews, shoreline permits and exemptions, short subdivisions, formal subdivisions (preliminary plats and final plats), boundary line adjustments, lot line elimination, binding site plans, plat alterations and amendments, right-of-way permits, clearing and grading permits, and other land use and engineering permits and approvals. 2.3 For those vested land use applications that do not require a public hearing prior to issuance, the County shall render a decision to approve, condition or deny applications; conduct follow- up inspections; issue extensions or completion of extensions. Appeals of building permit decisions, if any, shall be processed in the same manner as appeals are processed under Section 2.4 of this Agreement. 2.4 For those vested land use applications that require quasi-judicial or legislative approval or that involve administrative appeals, the County shall prepare a report and recommendation to the City's designated decision-maker for a final decision. Except as provided in Section 5, the City's decision- maker shall not be a County employee. The City shall be responsible for scheduling, providing notice, 3 Federal Way Interlocal Permit Processing conducting any public hearings or appeals and making any final decision on such applications. County staff shall attend the public hearing to testify with respect to analysis set forth in the County's report and recommendation. 2.5 For those subdivisions and short subdivisions that have been granted preliminary approval prior to incorporation or annexation or under Section 2.4, the County shall continue its review through engineering plan approval, final plat or short plat approval, construction inspection approval, and maintenance/defect approval phases. For each ofthese post-preliminary review phases, the County shall prepare a recommendation for the City's designated decision maker. All final decisions on any of the post-preliminary review phases shall be rendered by the City, At the request of the City, County staff shall appear before the City Council to discuss analysis set forth in the County's final plat approval recommendation. 2.6 The City shall have sole discretion and responsibility on the assessment of required performance and the enforcement or release of financial guarantees required of the applicant to secure compliance with permit or development-related requirements. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon special written request by the City, the County may agree to assist the City in determining whether to enforce or release particular financial guarantees. Such assistance from the County shall not include the initiation or undertaking of legal actions. 3. Permit Renewal or Extension. The City shall have ultimate authority to determine whether or not to renew a building permit or to renew or extend a land use permit under review or issued by the County in the annexation areas. 4 Federal Way Interlocal Permit Processing 4. Optional Exclusion of Particular Applications. The City or County may at any time exclude from this Agreement any particular permit(s) or application(s) upon providing to the County or City fifteen days advance written notice. If the City provides written objection to the County's exclusion within ten days thereafter, the County shall continue processing of the application. Upon excluding any permit from review under this Agreement, the County shall turn the application over to the City for all further processing. 5. Optional Hearing Examiner Review. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, upon written request by the City, the County may agree to have the King County Hearing Examiner conduct public hearings or appeals on behalf of the City for particular land use or building permit applications. Decisions whether to utilize the County Hearing Examiner for appeal or hearing recommendations or decisions shall be made by the City and County on a case by case basis. 6. SEP A Compliance. 6.1. In order to satisfy the procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEP A"), the County shall serve as lead agency for all applications processed by the County pursuant to this Agreement. 6.2 Except as provided in Section 5, appeals from SEP A threshold determinations and other SEP A matters relating to projects within the City shall be heard by the City. 7, Permit Condition and Code Enforcement. 7.1. Enforcement of Code Requirements. Within sixty days following the date this Agreement is last signed below, the County shall provide the City with a list and brief explanation of all 5 Federal Way Interlocal Permit Processing incorporation or annexation area code enforcement cases under review by the County at the time of annexation and shall provide file documents to the City upon request. 7.2 The City shall be responsible for undertaking any code enforcement actions following the date of incorporation or annexation. 8. Fees and Reimbursement. 8,1 In order to cover the costs of processing building and land use permit applications and performing SEP A review in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the County is authorized to collect and retain such application and other fees authorized by the County fee ordinances adopted by the City as may be modified at some future date by the County and the City. 8.2 For all applications upon which the County has initiated review and that are subsequently excluded from County processing or transferred to the City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, the County will retain the base permit fee and a percentage of fees equivalent to the percentage of permit processing and administration performed by the County on the application. Any remaining application fee amounts received by the County prior to exclusion or transfer shall be promptly forwarded to the City. Duration. This Agreement shall be deemed to take effect retroactively upon January 9. 1, 2005 and shall continue in effect for a period of five years thereafter, unless otherwise terminated or extended, Either party may terminate this Agreement upon providing at least one hundred and twenty days (120) days written notice to the other party. The Agreement may be extended as provided in Section 11. 6 Federal Way Interlocal Permit Processing 10. Termination Procedures. Upon termination of this Agreement, the County shall cease further processing, enforcement, and related review functions with respect to applications it is processing under this Agreement. The County shall thereupon transfer to the City those application files and records, posted financial guarantee instruments, and unexpended portions of filing fees for pending land use and building-related applications within the incorporation or annexation area. Upon transfer, the City shall be responsible for notifying affected applicants that it has assumed all further processing responsibility. 11. Extension. Pursuant to a mutual agreement between the parties, this Agreement may be extended for five additional years or for a lesser agreed upon period. In order to extend the otherwise applicable termination date of this Agreement, the City shall make a written request to the County not less than sixty (60) days prior to the otherwise applicable termination date. If the parties have not agreed to the extension in writing by the termination date, the agreement terminates. 12. Indemnification. 12.1 The County shall indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents and employees, or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by reason or arising out of any negligent action or omission of the County, its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, in performing obligations pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such a claim, action, loss, or damage is brought against the City, the County shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense, provided that the City retains the right to participate in said suit if any principal or governmental or public law is involved, and if final 7 Federal Way Interlocal Permit Processing judgment be rendered against the City and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, or jointly against the City and County and their respective officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, the County shall satisfy the same. 12.2 The City shall indemnify and hold harmless the County and its officers, agents and employees or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by reason or arising out of any negligent action or omission of the City, its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, in performing obligations pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such a claim, action, loss, or damage is brought against the county, the City shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense, provided that the County retains the right to participate in said suit if any principal of governmental or public law is involved; and if final judgment be rendered against the County and its officers, agents, employees, or any of them, or jointly against the City and County and their respective officers, agents, and employees or any of them, the City shall satisfy the same. 12.3 The City and the County acknowledge and agree that if such claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses and damages are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of the City, its agents, employees, and/or officers and the County, its agents, employees, and/or officers, this section shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of each party, its agents, employees and/or officers. 13. Personnel. Control of personnel assigned by the County to process applications under this Agreement shall remain with the County, Standards of performance, discipline and all other aspects of performance shall be governed by the County. 8 Federal Way Interlocal Permit Processing 14. Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by the County Director of Development and Environmental Services or hislher designee, and the City Manager, or his/her designee. 15. Amendments. This Agreement is the complete expression of the tenus hereto and any oral representation or understanding not incorporated herein are excluded. Any modifications to this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. 16. Legal Representation. The services to be provided by the County pursuant to this agreement do not include legal services, which shall be provided by the City at its own expense. 17. Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the parties hereto, No other person or entity shall have any right of action or interest in this Agreement based upon any provision set forth herein. 9 Federal Way Interlocal Pennit Processing IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement. CITY: COUNTY: David H. Moseley, City Manager Ron Sims, King County Executive Date: Date: ATTEST: ATTEST: N. Christine Green, CMC, City Clerk DATED: DATED: Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form: Patricia A. Richardson, City Attorney King County Prosecuting Attorney K:\Annexations\General Annexation Information\General Documents\Council-LUTC Packet Meterials\Federai Way final.doc 10 Federal Way Interlocal Permit Processing CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: January 24, 2005 VIA: David H, i Manager FROM: Rick Perez, P,E., ity Traffic Engineer fèP SUBJECT: On-Street Parking of Commercial Vehicles POLICY QUESTION: Should on-street parking of commercial vehicles in residential zones be further restricted? BACKGROUND: Federal Way City Code Section 15-82 (see Attachment A), as last amended in 1991, reads: "No person shall park a commercial vehicle which is more than 80 inches wide overall on any street or alley in residential areas zoned SE, RS and RM between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 6:00 a,m," In 2004, Ordinance 04-457 (see Attachment B) also amended Sections 22-1176 through 22-1180 to restrict the ability to park commercial vehicles off-street in residential zones, Staff anticipated that parking of commercial vehicles might shift to public right-of-way as a result. At the January 10, 2005 Land Use and Transportation Committee meeting, four citizens spoke in favor of further restrictions for parking commercial vehicles in residential zones. The concerns presented included: 1. Larger vehicles create safety issues, including sight distance restrictions at driveways and ability of emergency vehicles to turn around in cul-de-sacs; The current restrictions require vehicles to be moved by midnight and the resultant noise disturbs the neighborhood; Enforcement of the existing code is lacking, 2, 3, Regarding safety issues, it should be mentioned that the potential exists for any large vehicle, not merely commercial vehicles, to create sight distance issues, Many times, these can be resolved by removal of landscaping near driveways. A universal ban of larger vehicles, however, would also restrict recreational vehicles, delivery trucks, and moving vans; therefore, some exceptions would need to be drafted in any such code amendment. If on-street parking is creating a problem for emergency vehicle access, staff can restrict parking of all vehicles pursuant to Section 15-96 (see Attachment A), This requires staff to verify that a safety problem exists that can be corrected by removal of on-street parking, The Public Safety Department reports that they do respond to complaints regarding illegal parking in residential zones and enforce violations that are observed; however, these calls or complaints to 911 are infrequent. Our practice has been to wam the vehicle owner first, and issue an infraction/citation if there are repeated offenses, In many cases with these complaints, no violation is observed, If lack of enforcement is the problem, then revising the code to provide further restrictions will not resolve the problem, It should be noted that Ordinance 04-457 generated opposition from employees and small business owners where late-night response to customers is critical to their work. OPTIONS: 1. Further restrict hours for on-street parking of commercial vehicles m residential zones 2. Eliminate commercial zones, with vehicles on-street parking of vehicles m residential exceptions for delivery 3, No action Staff Recommendation: Staff seeks Council direction on this issue, Committee Recommendation: Forward option to the Reduces potential safety Issues; Improves vehicle access; Reduces late night noise in neighborhoods; Reduces diesel fumes m neighborhoods Reduces potential safety Issues; Improves vehicle access; Reduces late night noise in neighborhoods; Reduces diesel fumes m neighborhoods Positives . . . . . . . . . No impact emergency emergency Negatives . Potential impacts to home-based business owners/operators that utilize commercial vehicles. . Potential impacts to home-based business owners/operators that utilize commercial vehicles. . Could be perceived as unresponSIve to citizen concerns regarding: a, Potential traffic safety Issues; b, Emergency access; c, Noise and diesel fumes in neighborhood vehicle (date) City Council Consent Agenda, APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORT: '.....-..-.-- ... . ......-.-.-.---.. . . ......--- "'..."""'-'--- -'." ~?1imbir' ---- Michael Park, Member K:'LUTC':OO51 ..2'Hh ON.STkLET p.\RKrNCi OF CO'\.1\-lLPC.-\L. VLfnCLS.!X)( ATTACHMENT A Article IV, STOPPING - STANDING - PARKING Division 1. Generally 15-81 Penalty for violations. . Unless another penalty is expressly provided by law, any person found to have committed an act which violates the provisions of this article, shall be guilty of a traffic infraction and shall be punished by a penalty of not more than $250,00, (Ord, No. 90-46, § 5,3-20-90; Ord, No, 91-97, § 1,5-21-91) 15-82 Parking commercial vehicles in residential areas, No person shall park a commercial vehicle which is more than 80 inches wide overall on any street or alley in residential areas zoned SE, RS and RM between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 6:00 a,m. (Ord. No. 90-46, § 4, 3-20-90; Ord. No, 91-97, § 1,5-21-91) 15-83 Parking privileges for disabled persons. The following state statutes, including all future amendments, additions or deletions, are adopted by reference: (1) RCW 46,16,381, Special parking privileges for disabled persons - Penalties - Enforcement, (2) RCW 46,61.581. (3) The department of public safety may appoint volunteers to enforce the parking laws for disabled persons as set forth in RCW 46.16,381(13) as currently written, or amended in the future, (Ord, No, 01-391, § 7, 6-19-01) 15-84 - 15-95 Reserved, Division 2, Specific Streets 15-96 Authority to impose limitations. The public works director has the authority, with respect to public highways, streets, roads and thoroughfares Under the city's jurisdiction, to prohibit or limit the times that on-street parking is to be legally permitted, (Ord, No, 90-42, § 1,2-27-90; Ord. No, 90-47, § 1,3-20-90; Ord, No. 03-449, § 2, 9-16-03) 15-97 Signs, When the public works director determines parking restrictions are necessary, pursuant to FWCC 15-96, he or she shall erect, or cause to be erected and maintained, signs designating the parking restrictions, No such limitations shall be effective unless signs are in place, In no other case shall enforcement and effectiveness of this division be conditioned on signage, (Ord, No, 90-42, § 2,2-27-90; Ord, No, 03-449, § 3, 9-16-03) 15-98 - 15-110 Reserved, ATTACHMENT B Division 11, Vehicles and Boats 22-1176 Size and use in residential zones limited. Except as specified in FWCC 22-1177, it is a violation of this chapter to park or store any vehicle or boat on any lot in a residential zone if that vehicle or boat is both more than nine feet in height and more than 22 feet in length, (Ord, No, 90-43, § 2(115.145(1)), 2-27-90) 22-1177 Exceptions, (a) A vehicle of any size may be parked on any lot in the city for not more than 48 hours for the exclusive purpose of loading or unloading the vehicle, (b) The city may, using process III, approve a request to park or store a vehicle or boat of any size on a lot in a residential zone if: (1) The parking or storage of the vehicle or boat will not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood; (2) The property abutting the subject property will not be impacted by the parking or storage; (3) The placement of the vehicle or boat will not create a potential fire hazard; and (4) The parking or storage is clearly accessory to a residential use on the subject property and the vehicle or boat is operated by a resident of the subject property, (Ord. No, 90-43, § 2(115,145(2)), 2-27-90; Ord, No, 00-375, § 25, 10-3-00) 22-1178 Additional requirements. The city may impose screening requirements, limit the hours of operation and impose other restrictions to eliminate adverse impacts of the parking or storage, (Ord, No, 90-43, § 2(115,145(2», 2-27-90) 22-1179 Limitation on use, It is a violation of this chapter to sleep in, or use for any other residential purpose, a vehicle or boat parked in a residential zone for more than 14 days in any 180-day period, (Ord. No, 90-43, § 2(115.145(3», 2-27-90) 22-1180 - 22-1195 Reserved. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: January 24, 2005 Land Use and Transportation Committee David H, Mos~anager Paul A. Bucic~, pJ" ;urface Water Manager '~- AG 03-058 East Branch Lakota Creek Restoration; 100% Design Approval and Authorization to Bid POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council approve design of the East Branch Lakota Creek Restoration Project and authorize Surface Water Management Division staff to advertise the project for bid? BACKGROUND: This project restores approximately 2,625 lineal feet of the East Branch of Lakota Creek from the mouth of the creek, upstream to SR-509 at Lakota Park (the upstream limit); including an unnamed tributary (hereafter referred to as the North Tributary) which extends approximately 500 feet off of the right bank halfway through the project limits, Several fish passage impediments will be eliminated; selected stream banks stabilized, and fish habitat structures added, In addition, stormwater flows will be tight lined from the upper end of the North Tributary to the East Branch to reduce channel erosion in the North Tributary and reduce sediment input to the East Branch, The LUTC Committee approved the 85% design stage of the project on November 15, 2004. Currently, the project design is completed and hereby presented for your consideration and approval to bid. PROJECT COSTS AND CONTINGENCY: ESTIMATED PROJECT EXPENDITURES: Preliminary Design Pinal Design Year 2004 Construction (Estimate) 10% Construction Contingency 15% Construction Management TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 162,518 $ 57,844 $ 486,744 $ 48,674 $ 73,012 $ 828,792.00 A V AILABLE PROJECT FUNDING: $1,480,597.00 PROJECT SAVINGS: Current project estimates indicate a savings of up to $651,805, contingent upon final bids and the stream's response to winter storms this year. If a large event occurs, the design may need to be modified as was necessary on earlier stream restoration projects, January 24, 2005 Land Use and Transportation Committee AG #03-058; East Branch Lakota Creek Restoration-l 00% Design and Authorization to Bid Page 2 OPTIONS: 1. Approve the 100% design for the East Branch Lakota Creek Restoration Project and authorize Surface Water Management Division staff to bid the project and return to the City Council for permission to award the project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder based on available funding. This option complies with the SWM Capital Facilities Plan. 2. Recommend Suiface Water Management Division discontinue this project, This option would be a cost savings to the Utility; however, there would be continued degradation to an aquatic resource. There would likely be damage to recent main stem restoration efforts due to deposition of erosion materials ITom the East Branch, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding Option 1 to the February 15,2005 City Council Consent Agenda for approval: Approve 100% design and authorize Surface Water Management Division staff to advertise project for bid, returning to Council for authorization to award the contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward the above staff recommendation to the February 15,2005 City Council Consent Agenda, APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE RE:.r°RT: ----r-- Michael Park, Member z;;i l . ric Faison, Member cc: Project File - East Branch Lakota Creek AG 03-058 Day File -2-j05 !OU% CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: January 24,2004 Land Use and Transportation Committee David H, Mos~ Manager Paul A. Buci;h, p\:, Surface Water Division Manager~ AG 04-107, Lakota Wetland Regional Storm water Facility Improvements Project- Project Acceptance POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council accept the Lakota Wetland Regional Stonnwater Facility Improvements Project constructed by Lloyd Enterprises, Inc, as complete? BACKGROUND: Prior to release of retainage on a Public Works construction project, the City Council must accept the work as complete to meet State Department of Revenue and State Department of Labor and Industries requirements, With the exception of landscaping/seeding maintenance, the above referenced contract with Lloyd Enterprises, Inc, is complete. Per the project contract, landscaping/seeding will be maintained by the contractor for two years, and portions of the landscaping/seeding cost will be paid after the end of the maintenance period, Upon City Council's acceptance of the project, and meeting certain conditions by State law, the City will release and pay in full the amounts retained during perfonnance of the contract (other than continuing retention of five percent of the monies earned for landscaping/seeding). PROJECT SAVINGS AND CONTINGENCY: The final construction contract amount is $215,132.26 (including monies held for landscaping/seeding maintenance that will be paid in two years), This is $24,328,85 below the $239,461.20 original bid price, and $48,274.75 below the $263,407,00 budget (including contingency) that was approved by the City Council on June 1, 2004. The saving primarily comes from eliminating restoration of the existing track as it was not damaged during construction. OPTIONS: 1. Authorize final acceptance of the completed Lakota Wetland Regional Stonnwater Facility Improvements Project, constructed by Lloyd Enterprises, Inc" in the amount of $215,132,26 as complete. 2. Do not authorize final acceptance of the completed Lakota Wetland Regional Stonnwater Facility Improvements Project, constructed by Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. as complete and provide direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding Option 1 to the February 15, 2005 City Council Consent Agenda for Approval: Authorize final acceptance of the completed Lakota Wetland Regional Stormwater Facility Improvements Project, constructed by Lloyd Enterprises, Inc" in the amount of $215,132,26 as complete, COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward the above staff recommendation to the February 15, 2005 City Council Consent Agenda, . . i APPROVAL QF'C'oMMITTEIt REPO,RT::,> ..' ... " "'. ~ . .. . .' .. . ... . .' , . . .,' , .. , , Eriè Îi'aiso~" Member i I J ;J f ' M~~hael Pârk,';Member , .,,' ..'" '.,..' cc: Project File - AG 04-107, Lakota Wetland Regional Stonnwater Facility Improvements Project Day File . .:"..1'[).' Lokma \Vdhnc! Fr,,)",,\. hn:;] .\,,11'\.(1.,(