HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUTC MINS 06-19-2006G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\06-19-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee June 19th, 2006 City Hall 5:30 pm City Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES In attendance: Committee Chair Jack Dovey; Council Member Linda Kochmar; Committee Member Dean McColgan; Council Member Jeanne Burbidge; Committee Member Eric Faison; Community Development Director Kathy McClung; Community Development Deputy Director Greg Fewins; Associate Planner Andy Bergsagel; Engineering Plans Reviewer Kevin Peterson; Traffic Engineer Sarady Long; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Public Works Deputy Director Ken Miller; City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; Deputy City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick; Administrative Assistant II Marianne Lee; and King County DDES Land Use Services Div. Engineer II Pat Simmons 1. CALL TO ORDER Councilman Dovey called the meeting to order at 5:32 pm. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The June 5th 2006, minutes were approved. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Faison Passed: Unanimously 3. PUBLIC COMMENT None 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. 2007-2012 Transportation Improvement Plan Adoption – Presentation Rick Perez provided the background information on this item. Staff recommends Option 1. Committee Member Faison asked when the TIP has to be completed. Mr. Perez responded that staff must have it transmitted to the State and the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) by July 31st. Committee Member Faison asked if the Council wanted to revise the Comprehensive (comp) Plan to reflect different priorities, which would in turn result in the revision of the TIP, how would that process take place? When could it take place? Mr. Perez said that it would require an amendment to the Comp Plan. How quickly that can be done depends on the scope of the analysis being requested. Staff has the ability to amend the six-year TIP at any time. Committee Member Faison asked, if we were talking a pretty substantial change in the Comp Plan, what is staff’s estimate on how long that would take? Mr. Perez said staff is currently funded to do a model update and that will probably take the remainder of the year so any analysis that was done that would be dependent on the latest traffic forecasts (forecasts are developed by staff using the travel demand model) would probably not be able to occur until the beginning of next year. Committee Member Faison asked if it would be part of next year’s Comp Plan amendment process. Mr. Perez answered, realistically, yes. Committee Member Faison asked how much would an on-ramp at 312th, a complete revision of the interchange, including the overpass at 320th cost. Mr. Perez said that staff’s last estimate was about a $150 million dollars to do either of the alternatives proposed in the City Center Access study. That figure would probably be quite a bit higher if staff updated that cost estimate now. Committee Member Faison next asked how extensive a review was done to identify non-motorized capital means. Mr. Perez said that primarily the non-motorized portion of the TIP is driven by what is in the capital improvement program in the transportation element of the Comp Plan. Staff goes through the plan and Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 June 19th, 2006 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\06-19-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc identifies missing links in the non-motorized system that’s proposed in the Comp Plan. Committee Member Faison said the Council has talked several times about the idea of amending Federal Way’s Comp Plan to reflect less focus on widening of streets and widening of intersections more concentration on pedestrian orientation and making connections between streets that could serve as the basis for reducing traffic on other streets. One question Council Member Faison posed to his colleagues is: Is that something we would be interested in doing further exploration of as part of next year’s Comp Plan amendment process or do we want to just continue this as usual? Committee Member McColgan said the city does a lot on its major intersections and trying to create better traffic flow. How about things like grid roads and connections? Mr. Perez responded that the way staff has been addressing that historically is that staff assumes that if an intersection is failing, as in the case of the 352nd extension by Lowe’s where there is also failure at 348th & Enchanted, 348th & SR99, 356th & Enchanted, and 356th & SR99, the 352nd extension would divert traffic from all those intersections. So staff would assume that that, for instance on the concurrency requirement, it would be five points if you have an existing failure. Staff assumes that because that extension helps alleviate the problem that it gets the five points as well. Staff does try to address those by saying that if an extension helps mitigate a concurrency problem then it’s going to get the same points as if staff were doing the improvement at the intersection. There is some judgment by staff about what’s going to get the biggest bang for the buck. Historically that has been on the intersection improvement projects. Currently staff tries to maintain adequate time for a pedestrian to cross in their capacity analysis. As you add lanes, you need to add more time for pedestrians to cross. That frequently runs counter to the capacity improvement you are trying to achieve by adding lanes. But, anytime you are buying large pieces of ROW in order to punch a street through it’s not going to score as well, in the short term, for benefit cost. That is really what’s been hurting some of the proposed street improvements. Cary Roe said that staff also takes into account what the potential is from a developer perspective. Another street that staff thinks is akin to 352nd (staff is very interested in 352nd and it’s on the TIP) is 10th extension from SW Campus Drive to 21st. There is a lot of residential activity up there and it is being done in parts and pieces, as the development occurs. 352nd is an area that is in the process of redeveloping. So, I think there will be some push in the economic development arena that will help facilitate the extension of 352nd, for instance, and/or 10th, between Campus and 21st. Both of those projects are also on the TIP so it’s not the fact that they’re not there, it’s a question of where do you invest the money. Cary Roe said that the question is “What is your prescribed level of service?” What’s driving the projects is Level of Service (LOS). It is: how much delay is associated with that particular location and what’s the remedy? Is it turn lanes, is it through lanes… those occur at intersections and make them wider. Rick’s comment about pedestrian crossings starts hurting you at some point. The more lanes you put in the further the distance they have to travel. What follows behind that is, when the intersections can’t get any bigger you start increasing corridors. But, if you look at projects on the TIP they are on the two main East-West corridors. That’s how you access I-5 from our city, from 320th & 348th. That’s where these HOV lanes are being proposed and that’s where these large intersections are occurring- because that’s where your volume is. Mr. Roe thinks it would be appropriate if staff brought back this topic, narrowed to the issue of LOS, what might the TIP list look like if you were to make some assumptions about lowering that level of service. That would help better inform the Council about what the options and alternatives are. Mr. Roe thinks that the TIP is reaching a point where almost every project on it is driven by LOS. If Council is going to shorten the list and focus its funds elsewhere then the LOS will have to be lowered. What comes with that is increased accident history. It’s a series of trade offs and the Council will benefit from discussions on the topic. If the Council so directs, staff would work to that end on the work plan that Mr. Perez is doing for the 2030 forecast with the transportation model and bring that back in the first part of 2007 saying “here’s what your list would look like” if you considered a lower LOS. Staff would also look into answering the question ‘what’s the process?’ does it have to be a Comp Plan amendment to lower your LOS? Mr. Roe said he thinks there are a variety of issues that are on point with this question and, if the Council is generally interested, that would be a good topic for staff to bring back in the next 30-60 days. Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 3 June 19th, 2006 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\06-19-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc Council Member Faison said he wants to make sure he’s not the only one who’s interested in the topic and in having staff do research. He added that it is not just a LOS question; it’s also one of prioritization. Does the Council take the short term view or the long term view? A good example on this list is 320th & I-5 City Center Access (item 1b) and the spending of $3 million dollars to add additional turn lanes on I-5. That $3 million dollars also could go towards the $150 million to build a new on-ramp. Look at items 4 & 6. They combine for a total of $13 million dollars to make improvements on 320th. That money could also be used in creating a new onramp that would alleviate some of the traffic on 320th. Between those few projects there is $15 million dollars and it’s a start towards partnering with the State or the Fed’s in making other improvements. So it is not just a LOS issue, it’s also how do you go about prioritizing. The last thing Council Member Faison brought up is a lack of focus on the non-motorized portion. He recognized that this is all based off of concurrency requirements, accident histories, but he thinks the Council should look further beyond those as well and look at some of the things that go more towards quality of life as well. Quality of life things are totally not on the list and somewhere those sorts of things need to appear. Council Member Burbidge said she has also had some background conversations with staff about this issue. She would like to see some alternatives presented at Council. She understands the investment, the cost- effective features Council and staff have been keeping in mind. Council wants to have increasing pedestrian traffic and bicycle traffic and non-motorized of various kinds. Increasing the size of so many intersections is really problematic in that regard. She does not want the City to be investing funds in intersections and roadways in such a way that we later regret that investment and find the City unable to reasonably change to a different format. Council Member McColgan said he supports what Council Member Faison and Council Member Burbidge have said: it’s a good idea to take a look. He has looked at Council’s desire to develop the downtown core. We talk a lot about retail and adding condominiums downtown and right now, it’s a difficult stretch, talking about 320th. Can we afford to continue our vision of creating jobs, and residences, and denser downtown with our current traffic arterial streets? It is great to have a vibrant, dense, lifestyle center and downtown core. Council Member McColgan is still concerned about whether or not Federal Way streets can handle the added impact of extra cars and extra traffic. Chair Dovey said it sounds like Council is not going to change the TIP as it is now but is going to ask to have different alternatives in the future because of timing. A specific question he has has to do with City Center Access Phase II. The City has spent half a million dollars, has $200,000 in the budget, and has $2.8 million coming up. The City is not that far away from the next budget year and part of that money was earmarked; we could spend it if we got matching grants. Where are we at on the update? Is anything on the horizon or are we going to end up reallocating that money in another year or so? Cary Roe responded that two arenas best lend themselves to this project. One is the PSRC regional pot and we just put our Phase IV project in. Early indications are we asked for $7 million and, we’ll be getting $2 million towards that project. So, you get this issue where you end up competing with yourself. There has been an emphasis on SR99; this is the last phase of SR99 and staff has concentrated the regional money on that project. Mr. Roe was thinking about City Center Access for that same regional funding. There is no way the City would win both projects (SR99 Phase IV and City Center Access). Staff felt that SR99 had a better chance because of the continuity of the investment in the corridor to date plus it completes the gap that we would have if we did not do Phase IV. The next cycle, when PSRC money is up, is 2-3 years and that will be a project that will be thrust in that location. The other arena is TIB but it [the City Center Access Phase II project] does not lend itself very well to TIB because it is on the freeway system. Again, how many projects do you put in to compete with yourself against? Those are the two arenas for funding and I would say the regional PSRC funds are probably set up the best to compete well with the other regional projects. But it is, as we’ve seen in the last cycle that just came out Friday, it’s the large projects that win. It’s the 520’s, the viaducts, I-405: those are the projects that are getting the money. Federal Way’s ability to compete at a city level with those large projects is becoming more and more difficult. Our corridor project was the top project the last three cycles out – ahead of every other project in the region – we dropped 20 points from last time’s score to this time’s score. We asked for $7 million we got $2 Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 4 June 19th, 2006 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\06-19-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc million, and we barely got the two. We were well on our way to getting zero. We had some key people who were also partners on the SR99 corridor project and sat on the RPEC committee that got us that $2 million dollars. It’s getting tougher and tougher to find grant money for our projects let alone competing with I-405 and some of the others. I think the City Center Access study is going to do better in that kind of an arena and staff intend to submit that at the next opportunity to the regional fund, when it presents itself which is roughly two years out. Mr. Perez said the current opportunity for City Center Access is a Federal discretionary grant that staff did submit for under the Transportation, Community, and System Preservation program which is pretty much a direct earmark. Staff will see how that shakes out. The Federal funding picture is pretty tight and, as Cary was describing, we are also competing against ourselves in that arena because we also submitted a discretionary request towards the Triangle Project which our elected officials are probably more familiar with and have supported in the past. Mr. Perez thinks it is in the best interest of the City Center in the long run to provide another alternative access to the city center from the freeway system. The City cannot rely on a single arterial at 320th to feed the city center for the density that is being proposed. Chair Dovey asked about looking at grid roads versus intersections. As he thinks about it long term that’s probably a good solution but in the short term, because everything is so integral from going from the Twin Lakes area to the freeway, the minute you stop improving the intersections and start putting grid roads in it would stop the flow that goes to the freeway. Most of those grid roads are going to affect the downtown core. Until we have something to build in the core the need is to concentrate on getting the people to the freeway. Council Member Kochmar said she’s really not clear and he really did answer her question but perhaps he could elaborate a little further. How much development can occur downtown if, in fact, there is not another access? Mr. Perez said the answer to that depends in part on the LOS the Council is willing to accept, on 320th in particular. For instance, the south-bound off-ramp of I-5 is right at capacity right now. But, because we have such close signal spacing, when you get off of the freeway onto 320th it’s very difficult to flush all that traffic out. The part of that project that would add the second left turn lane and the third right turn lane at that off- ramp is specifically to address that short-term issue so staff can continue developing the City Center while trying to develop the support for a larger project. So, it’s an interim fix although the need for it wouldn’t necessarily go away, in fact the City Center Access study concluded that was going to be an integral component of the long term need to address that. But, 320th is still going to be the primary access point for a lot of people regardless of whether we put another access point at 312th or 324th or anywhere. Because of freeway access, because it’s centrally located with the City’s retail base, people want to use 320th. Council Member McColgan asked, if the City widens the bridge over I-5, does your LOS go from an E to a D, or even that much? Council just heard staff mention all the money we just spent on the new south-bound ramp improvements and it’s already at capacity. Mr. Perez said the 320th ramp was reconstructed by WSDOT simply because they had to realign it a bit to fit in the direct access ramp at 317th. It was just realignment; it did not improve capacity. Mr. Perez also said it’s something of a resource issue. No funding source has enough funding available all at once for these large projects. You have to do it in phases. Mr. Perez said it is frustrating for staff as well as the Council. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Faison Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the July 18th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda. Cary Roe asked for clarification from the discussion. Does Council want staff to bring back the question of LOS and priorities and what the TIP may look like if you considered some of those in a future meeting? Chair Dovey said he thought the committee would want to have at Land Use the discussion on grid roads and priorities. He does not think it’s something that they would like to see in July or August but they do want it on the calendar sometime before the end of the year so they can at least plan for the following year. Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 5 June 19th, 2006 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\06-19-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc B. CTR Grant Agreement Amendment Moved: Faison Seconded: McColgan Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the July 5th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda. C. Maggie's Meadow Preliminary Plat Andy Bergsagel, Associate Planner, provided the background information on this item. Staff recommends Option 1. Chair Dovey asked about when the road connects in the future. [4th Avenue S would connect to 3rd Avenue S at the north end of the property.] Would that only happen if the adjacent property [to the west] redevelops? Mr. Bergsagel said yes. Chair Dovey asked is the property developer in the adjacent property going to bear all the costs of that connection or will some of it be sent back to the original plat holder? Mr. Bergsagel deferred that question to the Traffic Division. Mr. Roe said if it was in the Comp Plan for connectivity it would likely fall on the shoulders of the developer of that adjacent property to make the connection. How that affected them from a nexus perspective (was it too burdensome) may preclude the connection but that would be an initial start on staff’s part. That’s the connection where it should be and we look at what the impacts to the property are and if it was too much maybe reconsider that. Generally, it would fall on the adjacent property owner to make the connection. Chair Dovey said if Council is going to be looking at grid roads they should be looking at it more universally. The City has a lot of property like this that’s developed and there are these future connections that have come here and they’re not going to happen until the next property develops and that could be something we want to look at because it causes more traffic on an intersection in stead of connecting. Mr. Roe said that often what happens in these situations, particularly residential connections, is that they don’t want them. Council has experienced this with Ventana. Street connectivity issues in a residential neighborhood, where an adjacent property develops and staff suggests making the road connection, often have both the citizens and the council against making the connection. Chair Dovey said that if people obey the speed limits and the City does not have to put in speed humps it does alleviate traffic congestion, potentially. Mr. Roe agreed and said that’s why you see it in the Comp Plan as policy about street connectivity. There is a significant portion of Federal Way that was built with that not in mind. A lot of dead-end streets, and no through connectivity. But Mr. Roe said that when that plat is in front of the Council and residents who live in the existing plat loudly suggest to Council not to make that connection whereas from a street connectivity and from a traffic flow & distribution perspective it makes a lot of sense. Chair Dovey said he understands that but there is also a fairness issue too between the person who’s developing now and the person who has to come later. If the one who comes later has to put the improvements in then, because the other one got there first and did not do it, there is more burden on the guy who comes second. And, again, we’re not making our traffic flow. Committee Member McColgan asked Kathy McClung where the City currently is on its tree retention policy. Ms. McClung said it is on the list of the priorities for the planning commission this year. The on-call planner has started working on it. However, because the City lost a Senior Planner last week she has been pulled from that project temporarily to fill in until staff can hire somebody to fill the open position. It is being worked on. Chair Dovey said he does not have a problem moving this item ahead but asked about #5 where it says “Wildlife & Habitat” it says “no wildlife specific recognized”… Chair Dovey says he has to believe that any place that is being developed now has wildlife. It may not be endangered or specific but it is going to effect the migration of whatever birds are there and bring more crows or whatever it is. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Faison Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the July 5th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda. D. Northlake Ridge Division 3 Final Plat Approval Chair Dovey introduced this item and noted it is unique because it’s a King County plat under Federal Way Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 6 June 19th, 2006 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\06-19-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc jurisdiction. Greg Fewins introduced Pat Simmons, from King County. Mr. Simmons provided the background information on this item and recommends Option 1. Committee Member Faison asked, under King County, when a lot is zoned R4, what is the maximum number of units that can be built on an R4 – outside of any ‘cluster’ subdivision? Mr. Simmons said that typically four units per acre is an R4 zone. Now, you can cluster, based on the fact that you have a critical area or a sensitive area on that particular lot so that lots can actually end up being smaller. King County also has a program called the Transfer of Developmental Credits Program where you can buy developmental credits from areas in rural King County that are basically undevelopable, they are critical areas: wetlands or steep slopes or whatever. These are recorded with the County and then the developer can increase his density above what the base is up to 150%. This particular plat has seven additional lots that were approved because of that program. Chair Dovey asked: Is lot averaging used in this? Mr. Simmons said it was. There is a significant critical area in the middle of the lower development there. If you look at your maps, where it says ‘C’ on the front page, that is a critical area wetland and therefore the lots were allowed to be smaller based on that. Chair Dovey asked Ms. McClung, under Federal Way code, if this had been Federal Way, they probably would not have gotten as many lots as they did because Federal Way does not average. Ms. McClung said that Federal Way does not have a provision for lot averaging however there are other types of allowances when there is a critical area on the property. It is Ms. McClung’s thought that King County allows lot averaging even when there is not a critical area. Mr. Simmons said if you have Right of Way (ROW) dedication and detention facilities, you know, King County just takes… if you have 10 acres, R4 zoning, you can have 40 lots; it’s pretty basic. Whether some of that is used as detention area, ROW, or whatever, is kind of up to the developer. It is kind of a lot averaging that every lot is not 10,000 or so many square feet but it is not typically what we would consider lot averaging. Chair Dovey asked if this developer had come to Federal Way and said “I want to do this”, would they have been able to do it under Federal Way’s code (as opposed to King County code)? Ms. McClung said it would probably not have been exactly like this. Greg Fewins said the biggest difference is that the County goes off of gross acreage while the City of Federal Way goes off of net acreage after they take out Right of Way (ROW), detention ponds, and open spaces, and things like that. Chair Dovey suggested then that a developer would rather develop in King County than in Federal Way if they wanted to maximize development on their land. Mr. Fewins agreed with that, from a density standpoint. Chair Dovey said that the Council might want to have a discussion on this issue at LUTC sometime in the future. Mr. Roe said that it goes beyond the density standpoint. There are a lot of other issues about King County Code that are more favorable to the developer in regards to street cross sections. Whether you have street lights, whether you have planter strips, whether you have street trees, whether you have roll curbs, vertical curbs, width of the street, street connectivity… he said he could go on for about 20 minutes detailing other issues. There is a lot more than just density issues associated with the developer’s desire or not to develop under the City’s code versus King County code. There are quite a few issues there. Moved: Faison Seconded: McColgan Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the July 5th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda. E. King County Policy Update Kathy McClung provided the background information for this item. Staff recommends Option 1. If LUTC moves to ratify this it will go to the full City Council for adoption. Council Member McColgan said that both of these proposed changes (the addition of 30 acres to Kent’s PAA and allowing another Urban Center to be developed on the south end of Lake Union) really don’t have an impact directly on our City but he understands that from a County standpoint Federal Way needs to approve it. Does it impact Federal Way if they decide that South Lake Union, with all of its development, is deemed an urban center? Council Member Faison said that he sits on Growth Management Plan Council (GMPC). Both of these came before the GMPC and are being forwarded here. At that body Council Member Faison says he has many times Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 7 June 19th, 2006 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\06-19-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc commented on the criteria for Urban Center designation. There is going to be a review. It’s going to be broader than just looking at “Should a new Urban Center be designated?” It’s going to look at issues such as: which of the existing urban centers are achieving some of the goals of the Urban Center designation (of which Federal Way is not)? Should they reprioritize funds that would be allocated to Urban Centers to those that are “Super Regional Urban Centers” which is what South Lake Union probably is, given the number of jobs and housing being built? Bellevue’s downtown, and then other urban centers, including Federal Way. So, eventually it does come down to money. People want to be designated because it adds points in certain transportation criteria. It is being looked at, both at PSRC and GMPC as to what criteria we actually want to use. It does have an impact on us eventually. Council Member McColgan said he would think that as they started to divvy up the pie some more in points, then eventually smaller urban centers may lose out. Chair Dovey said Federal Way has always voted for them but if you think about it, it says here that an urban center has to have 15,000 jobs within a half mile of a transit center, 50 employees per gross acre and a minimum average of 15 households per acre. Federal Way does not meet at least the first two in its Urban Center. He referenced exhibit C, page 2 of 2. He suggested that one day in the future somebody’s going to say ‘We’ve got all these Urban Centers, here’s the criteria, who doesn’t meet it? Council had that presentation on the 2020 Vision a month ago where they are reviewing where these places are and how things will be done. Federal Way may ultimately be putting a nail in the coffin of our Urban Center 10, 15, 20 years down the line because we said we don’t care if South Lake Union gets one. Council Member Faison responded by saying that the criteria that are set out, which Federal Way does not meet and South Lake Union does meet, were adopted by Federal Way. Council Member Faison said that Federal Way operates within the region. What happens when Federal Way wants something and Seattle, who has a lot of votes in a lot of places, says ‘wait, Federal Way didn’t vote in favor of our designation, meeting the criteria for which they voted to support and which they took advantage of’… It looks really disingenuous. It could be problematic for Federal Way politically down the road. Chair Dovey said being problematic and being what is right for the City are two different things. Council Member Faison said it’s being right for the City long-term. He suggested Council needs to look at the criteria and concentrate on Federal Way achieving these criteria by doing economic development efforts. Ms. McClung reminded Council Members of the housing targets discussion where Federal Way, sitting around the table with all the cities of King County, was in the position of having to significantly reduce its housing targets in order to have something that was even realistic. It really depended on the cooperation of Seattle, and others, to take what Federal Way could not supply. Moved: Faison Seconded: McColgan Passed: 2 to 1 Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the July 5th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda. 5. FUTURE MEETINGS The next scheduled meeting will be July 17th, 2006. 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.