HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUTC MINS 07-17-2006G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\07-17-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee July 17th, 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; Mayor Mike Park; Interim City Manager Derek Matheson, MIS Director Iwen Wang; Community Development Director Kathy McClung; Community Development Deputy Director Greg Fewins; Associate Planner Isaac Conlen; Senior Planner Margaret Clark; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Public Works Deputy Director Ken Miller; Street Systems Manager Marwan Salloum; Streets Project Engineer Al Emter; City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; SWM Project Engineer Fei Tang; Deputy City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick; Administrative Assistant II Marianne Lee; Kevin Kiernan & Diane Yates from King County’s Solid Waste Division 1. CALL TO ORDER Councilman Dovey called the meeting to order at 5:32 pm. Eric Faison is out of town and was excused. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The June 19th 2006, minutes were approved. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously 3. PUBLIC COMMENT None 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Regional Solid Waste System Planning Rob Van Orsow introduced this item; Kevin Kiernan from King County’s Solid Waste Division provided the background information on this item. This item was information only. Council Member McColgan thanked Mr. Kiernan for his presentation. He asked for clarification that the Algona Transfer Station will remain open until it is replaced with another facility. Mr. Kiernan assured him that in the document it says that no facility will be closed until replacement capacity is available. Council Member McColgan asked for an ETA on the replacement facility. Mr. Kiernan said 2015; with the site selection, land use permitting, planning and public comment and then construction required the process will be completed around 2015. The new location will be close to the current Algona facility. Kent, Federal Way, Algona & Auburn are in the service area and King County is looking to replace it within the service area. The export system plan will include a facility sighting plan. King County went through a process where they talked about criteria with both Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee (MSWMAC) and Interjurisdictional Technical Staff Group (ITSG) and that document was adopted in May so there are new established criteria. The public process is a very important part of that. Council Member McColgan asked a final question: Is recycling a part of the County’s plan? Mr. Kiernan responded that it is. One of most significant changes in the new facilities is that they all provide for separate yard waste/organic waste collection. The facilities in use now have been around 40 years; no one could conceive of the range of things we want to collect now. They want to have space so that if there’s a material that suddenly becomes recyclable in a few years they will have space for bins, space for collecting that & Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 June 19th, 2006 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\07-17-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc recycling it. This item was information only; it will return to the Council at a future date. B. Grant Funding for Transportation Improvement Projects This item was passed without a presentation. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the August 1st, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda. C. South 348th Street HOV Lanes Project – 30% Design Status Report This item was passed without a presentation. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the August 1st, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda D. 26th Ave SW Drainage Trunk Replacement Project – 50% Design Status Report This item was passed without a presentation. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the August 1st, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda E. Mark Twain NTS (20th Ave S) Rick Perez provided the background information for this item. Staff recommends Option 3, which combines Options 1 and 2. Council Member McColgan noted that Mr. Perez has said the price for this would be $2,000 over the limit. How is the City doing on a year-to-date basis, on this budget? Mr. Perez responded that this is the first NTS project that would come out of this year’s budget; we also have the one to be presented next. There’s another in the hopper that staff thinks will be under the $10,000 so staff thinks it will be OK for the budget this year; unless a whole slew of petitions come in in the next few weeks. Mr. Perez responded that the public Right of Way (ROW) extends ten feet back from the curb. Chair Dovey said if the City comes and says “We’re going to put in these speed bumps and, by the way, take out this juniper and we’re going to have people walk on your grass,” is that going to go over very well? Mr. Perez said there is the potential for some controversy on that topic which is why staff is alerting Council to the issue. When this topic came up, that was one of the reasons why staff decided to have the neighborhood vote on it: to see if there was a strong consensus within the neighborhood to address this issue. 71% of those that voted said yes that we should attempt to remove them. Chair Dovey then asked if the residents owned that land; Mr. Perez explained that the City owns that land. It’s ROW. Mr. Perez discussed the issue and the need to reclaim sight distance at intersections and to enable residents to walk along the street and not in the road. The City usually deals with these issues on a complaint basis. If a complaint is made, the City investigates and resolves the issue. Now that the City has been notified of this issue, and we’ve identified the fact that it’s not compliant with City Code for sight distance at intersections, if there was ever a collision there, the City could be liable for not acting. Chair Dovey agreed and asked if staff has knocked on doors and told residents there is a sight distance problem. Mr. Perez said staff has not yet; that’s one of the things staff was looking for out of this LUTC meeting. The City does not have the staff to go out and investigate the sight distance at every intersection. Therefore, the City only responds on a complaint basis. Mayor Park asked what happens if the property owner claims they have ‘owned’ that property for many years? City Deputy Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick said under the statute there is no adverse possession against a government entity. [Residents cannot claim adverse possession against the City.] Mayor Park asked that if they Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 3 June 19th, 2006 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\07-17-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc must remove the fence, will the property owner bear the cost of the removal? Mr. Perez said Federal Way’s code does not address this issue. Chair Dovey asked if the real issue for safely walking is cars parked on the street. Mr. Perez said that contributes; when this development went in there were no sidewalks placed on this segment of the street. [Referencing the slide on the screen, which shows cars lining both sides of the street and no sidewalks he said] This is not necessarily indicative of parking utilization on the entire street this just happened to be the picture staff picked, that best illustrated the landscaping being in the way. Council Member McColgan said that at this point, since it has been identified as a safety issue the City is obligated to go forward and have the fence moved by the property owner. Mr. Perez clarified that this may not be the only fence; that there may be areas where the landscaping creates a sight-distance hazard at the intersection as well. It is not just that the landscaping is creating a problem for people trying to walk along the street; it is also a sight-distance hazard. Council Member Kochmar pointed out that residents are not to plant landscaping – junipers or anything else – in the ROW. She asked Mr. Perez if city staff notify people when their landscaping causes a sight obstruction. Mr. Perez responded that residents are notified on a complaint basis. Council Member McColgan asked if staff has the resources to go look at every sight obstructing landscaping in the City to give Council an adequate report? Public Works Director Cary Roe confirmed that staff does not have the resources to do that. Mr. Roe said that when identified, city staff work with the property owners to minimize the amount landscaping and/or fence removal or trimming of trees – whatever that is. The City’s intent is trying to minimize the safety impacts to the traveling public and the pedestrians who use the road. Staff works hard to minimize the impact to the property owners. Mayor Park suggested that talking to the property owners should include not only the sight problem but also any public ROW encroachment. Some areas without any sight problems will have property owners encroaching upon the City ROW. Mr. Perez said City staff do occasionally run across a situation where somebody will put a non-conforming structure or something like that within the ROW or within the set-back from the ROW. Typically those are code enforcement issues rather than a Public Works Traffic Department issue. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Cmte PASSED Option 1 and part of Option 2 (to remove sight obstructions at intersections, but not pedestrian obstructions mid-block) on to the August 1st, 2006 Council Consent Agenda. F. Sherwood Forest NTS (12th Ave SW) Rick Perez provided the background information for this item. Staff recommends Option 1 Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the August 1st, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda G. Commute Trip Reduction Program Interlocal Agreement with King County This item was passed without a presentation. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the August 1st, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda H. Cottage Housing Code Amendment Isaac Conlen provided the background information on this item. Public Comment: Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 4 June 19th, 2006 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\07-17-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc Randy Forsyth, Stanton Properties. It’s actually a pretty good ordinance, if you look at it, the way that it’s written. They have comments on a couple of key elements of the ordinance. The limiting of the square footage to 1,100 is really small. He believes that they don’t necessarily have to be limited to such small units to still be an effective ordinance for a cottage housing development. The other issue is the roof pitch; having a minimum of 6:12. [Their plans use] a 4:12 pitch to allow for architectural flatter features, not necessarily for the whole roof. You would keep that same cottage look. Jim Soules, President of the Cottage Company, developer of the four projects just shown on the screen. He commended the Council and staff for bringing forward this concept. There’s a great deal of interest in it all throughout the Puget Sound Region and he feels that that Isaac and the staff have done a good job responding to some of the problems that happened in Shoreline. Shoreline did not have a strong design review process and in the process staff kind of felt that it was boxed into a code that was not very prescriptive. He also commented on equivalent density. These were clearly intended to be 2-bedroom or smaller homes. A great number of people, probably 2/3 to 75% of the purchasers of cottage housing are, in fact, single. He also commented on “affordable” [vs] “attainable”. These are for people looking for an alternative to living in an attached condo where they still would pay $300,000 or $400,000 for a home but they still want a single family experience and they want to be in a single family residential neighborhood. End Public Comment Council Member McColgan asked if you have a 7.2 zoned piece of property, you can have two units on that property? Mr. Conlen said the basic concept is that you get pretty close to twice the number of conventional units that you get. Council Member McColgan asked how staff would deal with that project, or that development, abutting another development that is already built out with the regular zoned houses. Mr. Conlen said there are a number of provisions that staff intends to use to address compatibility with surrounding uses. They include: limitation on the height, the limitation on the location and orientation of the parking structures, landscaping to buffer the parking, and also a separation requirement so you don’t have an influx of a large number of cottage projects within the same neighborhood. Staff would like projects to integrate on a smaller scale into the neighborhood. Limitation on the number of cottages within the project is one component of this. It’s a trade off; it’s a higher density but there’s the smaller lot size so staff has identified criteria to mitigate those impacts. Council Member McColgan asked if it would have a negative impact on those homes that are already built and established that are 2,400 to 3,000 sq ft and now you have, abutting to your property, two or three 1,100 sq ft units? Mr. Conlen replied that he does not think so. The ultimate square footage may be very similar to what you could do in a conventional project. Traffic volumes are going to be lighter per unit because there aren’t as many people living there. What staff is trying to do is limit the impacts to no more than what you would have with a conventional type project. Mr. Conlen said cottage housing is not for a family with a couple of kids. It’s for a certain demographic that, like previously said, is looking for this type of use but this product is not available in the region. Council Member Kochmar said Randy Forsyth showed a very attractive design for something that was 1,300 sq ft or more. Mr. Conlen said the main reason why staff limits the size of the units is because of the impact of those units. You are talking about a higher density and so staff is trying to keep these on a scale that keeps that trade- off in effect. The higher the density the smaller the unit. If you start getting too big you’re not talking about cottage housing you’re talking about single family higher density housing. Community Development Director Kathy McClung added that this [cottage housing] is just one housing option, or tool, that staff would like to add to their different options for housing. They also have zero-lot line and small-lot subdivisions that are going to the planning commission this week. Chair Dovey asked Mr. Conlen to elaborate on the 660 ft set-back he mentioned. Mr. Conlen said it is not a set-back, it is a separation requirement between cottage housing projects. If a cottage housing project comes into a neighborhood the second applicant would need to locate a minimum of 660 feet from that project. Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 5 June 19th, 2006 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\07-17-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc Chair Dovey asked how many parcels of land in Federal Way this could actually take place on? Mr. Conlen said he would guess they are talking about 100 sites. Chair Dovey said, if someone has an acre somewhere in Federal Way and they want to develop cottage housing if Council passes this ordinance but their zoning is 30,000 sq ft so they are out of the game? Mr. Conlen said it is a decision for the Committee and for the Council. Staff has taken a more conservative approach in making this applicable and the more medium to high density single family zones that the City has. Jim Soules noted that no one has gone beyond the 7.2. Council Member McColgan said there’s not a lot of history on cottage housing. Without a lot of history or a proven a track record, he thinks it is more of a risk for the City to adopt a cottage style housing development. At 1,100 sq ft he guesses they are still in the $250,000 range, given what he’s looked at. Chair Dovey said he thinks $350,000 - $400,000. Council Member McColgan said he hopes not; he thinks they’re trying to create housing for people who are entry level- workers and single moms. Chair Dovey said that what he’s been told about cottage housing is that it’s more for the single, professional and the empty nester who does not want the 4,000 sq ft house any more; that wants to stay in the community. Mr. Conlen agreed Council Member Kochmar said she agrees with Chair Dovey; there is no housing available for our seniors. She said the City must provide different housing types for different niches. There is still affordable housing in our City for low income. Cottage housing is simply for a different market. Mayor Park said that cottage housing can be built not only in 7,200 but also in the RM, the multiple residential. Council Member McColgan asked if there has been an instance where something like this has been approved on a test basis? Mr. Conlen said that the City of Kirkland approached it on this basis. They allowed demonstration projects; he thought they had a demonstration ordinance. He said the trade-off is that that is a more conservative approach; it’s like putting your toe in the water to see what the response is. The benefit is that: if people don’t accept this type of housing you can cut it off and you won’t get a lot of it. However, if it is accepted it delays the benefits of implementing this type of housing on a larger scale. Senior Planner Margaret Clark said that there is also the demonstration project that Quadrant wants to do in what staff call Res North (north of 320th). Those would be 1,400 – 1,500 sq ft houses on 2,400 sq ft lots; a lot more attractive, creative, flexible type of development. Chair Dovey asked if staff know where 7,200 is in the City. He thinks that is something Council gets before they make a final decision on the ordinance. Council Member McColgan said he would favor a demonstration with 3-5 projects and have staff work on the next steps for that and forward the recommendation to Council. Mr. Conlen said staff has looked at how the City of Kirkland did it. They identified neighborhoods within their community and specified no more than one or two projects within a particular neighborhood. Federal Way could approach it that way and divide the City up into geographic regions based on the type of zoning staff is looking at and allow one project in each area and a period of time to evaluate the project after it was built. Jim Soules commented that Kirkland had a once a year submission program so that it was a comparison of all the projects at the same time; it was not that the first one in was approved. Five were submitted the first time and they chose two. Chair Dovey said, so it can be moved out of the Committee, he would second that the LUTC move the ordinance forward and have staff come back with a criteria on how to do 3-5 projects in a demonstration and that options be presented for the rest of the Council to discuss at the council level. The committee directed staff to come back in two weeks, do some fine tuning, so the City can move forward. Chair Dovey thanked staff and complimented them on the process. I. Annexation Update Kathy McClung provided background information on this item; it has been presented at LUTC in the past. Public Comment: Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 6 June 19th, 2006 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\07-17-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc Jane Von Doenhoff, 1414 S 376th St. She has lived on the property for 48 years and they have always associated with Federal Way although they were not ‘in the city limits’ at that time. They are, unfortunately at this time, split between being in the City of Federal Way and potential annexation into Milton. Their desire is to be all in one city or the other and since the north half is in Federal Way they would appreciate having the south half in Federal Way. They did send a letter expressing that wish back in February of 2005 and it was addressed to Mr. Greg Fewins. It was asking that they request the south half of their parcel to be annexed into Federal Way. At this point, having it separated like that has created tax-property nightmares so it would be easier for them if they were included in Federal Way. Thank you. Council Member McColgan said Federal Way has been walking a fine line on the 20,000 annexation population number that triggers the legislation out of Olympia. If the City gave up the Stone Creek sub- division to Milton would Federal Way fall under the 20,000 number? MIS Director Iwen Wang said that at this time City staff are still working with the Department of Revenue (DOR) and Office of Financial Management (OFM) in terms of how the annexation population will be determined and if they will rely on the City’s estimate and assumption of the number or if they want to make a modification of that assumption. So it would be preferable if the City did not give up a large number of households. Council Member McColgan said he thinks it comes down to asking what the citizens in that subdivision want. Council Member Kochmar agreed with Council Member McColgan; she said the most sensible thing would be to keep the upper portion [of this sub-division] in Federal Way’s PAA. As for the three lots, as Ms. Von Doenhoff said, it’s a little bit of a nightmare if there’s a call for service and the boundary is split like that. Who responds? Mr. Conlen said the sense that he got, in discussing this with Milton’s staff, was that they want a trade. They will give Federal Way ‘their’ portion of the Von Doenhoff parcel in exchange for Federal Way’s portion of the Stone Creek sub-division. With that scenario, Milton seems willing to give up the Von Doenhoff parcel. Chair Dovey said he moved staff go to Council on the annexation and that this parcel is not part of it and then staff return to LUTC with the three lots. Ms. McClung said staff won’t be ready by the next Council meeting but they will work on it and can present these topics at the next LUTC. Chair Dovey moved to pass the annexation of the entire PAA. Council Member McColgan seconded. Ms. McClung clarified that the Von Doenhoff parcel can be annexed at any time. It does not have to go with the entire PAA. Staff will find out from Milton what their position is on that. If they are agreeable staff will work with the property owners to figure out when the best time to amend the PAA boundary is and then what works best for annexation. Council Member McColgan said Council is in favor of assuming this parcel. Ms. McClung said that staff will have another conversation with the City of Milton to resolve the issue of the three Stone Creek lots that straddle the annexation boundary. J. BP/BC Amendment Concepts Margaret Clark provided the background information on this item for Lori Michaelson. Public Comment: Rob Rueber 6220 29th St NE Tacoma. They are in favor of the merger of the zones. They’re in favor because most of what they see coming to Federal Way is from a broker’s perspective … We allow 50-seat restaurants in the BP zone but require 1.5 acre minimum lot size… You have a really comprehensive set of rules that everyone has to follow. Council Member McColgan asked what the total BP acreage is. Ms. Clark said the amount varies but right now there are about 94 vacant BP acres; a lot of it includes wetlands & buffers. Council Member McColgan says it seems that BP has not been developed in a long time. He leans toward merging the BP & BC and coming up with some kind of compromise zone. Regarding hotels; he would actually prefer to see a taller hotel. He does Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 7 June 19th, 2006 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\07-17-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc not want to compete with downtown but he also believes that there is a tremendous need, in a city of Federal Way’s size, for more hotel space. For the events held at the aquatics center, Celebration Park, the [Subaru] triathlon, there are so many people staying outside the City and Federal Way is continuing to lose good revenue dollars and economic development dollars. Increased hotel heights make the properties more marketable and creates an economic development opportunity; he’d like to see it taller. The set-backs in the 5- acre suggestions make sense; he would support those changes. Chair Dovey said to merge the two zones; make them as open as can be. On the heights; if it makes sense to go to four floors, go to four floors. If it needs to be 50 feet, so be it. That’s just common sense. Council Member Kochmar agrees with her colleagues; she thinks the two zones should merge. She would also be in favor of taller hotels; so many of the city’s business spaces are sitting vacant and are in need of redevelopment and she hopes this will help that as well. Council Member McColgan thinks it’s healthy to look at the zoning and think about the long-term development future of the City. The City faces a budget issue every single biennium and if they can improve Federal Way’s economic health and make it more desirable to develop he does not see why staff would not entertain those positive steps. Ms. Clark said that eventually it will go to Council as part of the Code Amendment, probably sometime before the end of 2006 5. FUTURE MEETINGS The next scheduled meeting will be August 7th, 2006. 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 8:11 p.m.