HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUTC MINS 08-07-2006G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\08-07-06 LUTC Minutes - FINAL.doc City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee August 7th, 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; Council Member Jeanne Burbidge, Community Development Director Kathy McClung; Associate Planner Isaac Conlen; 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; Deputy City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick; Administrative Assistant II Marianne Lee; City Manager Neal Beets 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Dovey called the meeting to order at 5:33 pm. Council Member Eric Faison was excused. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The July 17th 2006, minutes were approved. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Art Felzenberg; 31318 36th Ave SW – Re: 314th Thru Way. He spoke against opening the gate and allowing traffic through their area. Chair Dovey asked which gate he was referring to. Mr. Felzenberg said he meant the crash gate at 36th Avenue, right by Bayview Estates and Twin Lakes. Morel Guyot; 31228 36th Ave SW – Re: 314th Thru Way. He purchased his property in 1989. At the time he was advised that the gate was there as a crash gate for emergency vehicles to come through; it was never to be opened otherwise. He understands that any development is supposed to have two entry or exits. Why can’t they just put a U-shaped road in their development to take care of this problem? Teri Jones; 31503 36th Ave SW – Re: 314th Thru Way. She opposes opening the crash gate, if that’s the intent. She would like to know if there is an agreement by previously seated Council Members to complete roads when there is a crash gate. Apparently there was a plan initiated and submitted by the developer with two entries that was resubmitted with one. Chair Dovey made a statement to those that came forward to testify about the Bayview crash gate and the connectivity of the road that has been talked about by the Twin Lakes Homeowners Association. He said that on September 11th , at the Land Use and Transportation Committee meeting, there will be a presentation by staff regarding land use and connectivity of roads. The project people are talking about has not yet come to our city. Staff will be talking about the basics: the comprehensive plan, how connectivity works; the Council will be briefed. Kathy McClung said that at this point the City has not received an application from the developer. The City has had preliminary discussions with them and anticipates that an application will be submitted but does not have one at this time. Ms. McClung said she has committed to the homeowners association that as soon as the application comes in she will let them know by e-mail that staff have received it and then will start the formal public process. The discussion Council Member Dovey is talking about [on Sept. 11th] is a policy discussion related to the policy which would require a connected road and which can be changed by the City Council. It is not specific to this plat discussion; that will happen later. Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 June 19th, 2006 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\08-07-06 LUTC Minutes - FINAL.doc 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. 21st Ave SW Extension – SW 356th St to 22nd Ave SW – Improvements Project – 100% Design Status Report Marwan Salloum provided the background information on this item. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the Sept 5th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda. B. Setting a Public Hearing Date for the Street Vacation of Campus Highlands Divisions 1, 3, & 5 Marwan Salloum provided the background information on this item. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the Sept 5th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda. C. S 320th St at 1st Ave S Intersection Improvement Project – 100% Design Status Report Marwan Salloum provided the background information on this item. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 2 on to the Sept 5th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda. Council Member McColgan asked why the City should acquire the property and then shelve the project. Mr. Salloum responded that the project available budget has adequate funding at the present time to acquire the Right of Way (ROW). If the City acquires the ROW today, it is acquired at today’s price and avoids the escalated property costs of the future. You will have the ROW and the project becomes ‘construction ready project’. Construction ready projects always get a higher score in the grant funding arena. This project is designed and environmental approval is already done; the only item remaining is ROW acquisition. It just makes sense to acquire the ROW and have the project ‘construction ready’, especially if the project is on the City TIP and required to be constructed in the near future. Council Member McColgan asked if the ROW acquisition is $864,000. Mr. Salloum said yes this estimated total ROW acquisition amount includes the acquisition of strip-take for 10 parcels. The acquisition cost from one vacant parcel in particular makes up 50% of that cost. That parcel is on the north east corner of the S320th and 1st Ave intersection. Committee Chair Jack Dovey asked what would happen if the parcel was developed sometime in the future; would that parcel then pay for part of the improvement? Mr. Salloum said it all depends on the timing of the improvements. If they come in prior to the project being completed then they will be required to mitigate that project and pay toward that project cost; mainly the frontage improvement costs on that particular piece of property. If the improvement does not take place until after the city project is completed and accepted by the City Council then they will not be contributing anything toward the project. Chair Dovey said then that if the City did not acquire the ROW and shelved the project and then someone comes in to build something on that property then would they be required to contribute to the project? Mr. Salloum said they would be required to dedicate the ROW as part of their improvement and also contribute the portion that constitutes their frontage improvements to the City project. Mr. Salloum said it depends on if they are developing before the City constructs the project or after the project gets constructed and accepted by the City Council. Council Member Burbidge said that the result of this project, then, will be how many lanes north/south and how many lanes east/west? Mr. Salloum said there would be 6-7 lanes in each direction. There would be seven lanes on 1st Ave and six lanes on S 320th Street Chair Dovey said his last question is that, if the Committee votes to 100% design and buy the ROW; staff has the money to buy the ROW and avoid the escalated property costs of the future. If staff shelves it and then someone comes forward and wants to develop it, would they be responsible to pay the $400,000 for the property, because it would be part of a development agreement, and the City would not have to buy it? Chair Dovey said the project is definitely needed or staff would not be at this point right now. Mr. Salloum Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 3 June 19th, 2006 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\08-07-06 LUTC Minutes - FINAL.doc agreed. Chair Dovey said if the City does not authorize spending money to do it and that property does not develop for ten years the City will still have to buy it sometime. Mr. Salloum said that is correct and the cost of acquisition will be a lot more than $800,000. Council Member McColgan asked if staff knows whether increasing the number of lanes, and cars going through an intersection at a given time, increases potential safety issues? Mr. Salloum said that the added double left turn will hopefully reduce congestion and therefore reduce the number of accidents. Council Member Jeanne Burbidge asked if there was a concurrency issue related to this topic, in terms of the design and the number of lanes. Mr. Perez said yes; this intersection is currently failing its level of service (LOS) standard and is forecasted to continue to fail a concurrency test. That’s why it is in the six-year improvement plan. He cited as an example the 320th & SR99 improvement project. The total number of collisions was reduced by 40% by doing that intersection improvement. So, although it is disadvantageous to pedestrians to cross a wider street, from a total societal cost perspective that is more than offset by the improvement in safety for all the users of the intersection. Council Member Dean McColgan asked where this project rated on the TIP. Mr. Perez said it is about number six; it is fairly high up on the list. Additionally, with the LOS the City is experiencing right now this intersection currently operates at about 10% over capacity in the evening peak hour. In the next six years that is forecasted to go to 24% over capacity. Council Member Dean McColgan said that it seems that from a safety perspective from the ranking on the TIP it makes financial sense to acquire the property now. However, he does not like the language ‘to shelve the project’. The project is staying on the TIP, it’s going to be resubmitted, and the project is not being shelved. Mr. Salloum said he is 100% correct; staff will continue to evaluate the project anytime there is an agency that has money available for transportation projects. When staff says ‘shelve the project’ the project is ready for construction as soon as money becomes available. The money becomes available when Council obligates enough money to fund the project or staff is able to acquire some grant funding to match whatever the City puts toward the project. Chair Dovey said it seems to him that if this is a number six on the TIP list and if, for some reason, the City does not get grant money then the City should be looking at it’s budget, if it is that important, and asking how the City can fund it itself. Mr. Roe said that staff will be doing that. It will be in the next budget cycle for 2007/2008. This is not one of the projects that Council will hear in the next month or two that he is proposing to fund. Council can anticipate Public Works evaluating this project not just in the grant arena but from a general fund and a utility tax perspective in the 2009/2010 timeline. Staff believes that this is an important intersection and an important corridor. The City has two main accesses to the freeway, 320th & 348th and this falls in that corridor. 1st Avenue parallels SR99; it’s another option for people going North/South in our community. 1st Avenue is an important road, as 320th is, so Public Works will continue to look at this project, in the grant arena as well as in the 2009/2010 timeline. The owner of the property in the NE corner is able to sit on the property. They do not need to develop; they can be selective and get the dollar-per-square foot they want. Staff will continue to look at this project in terms of both grants and the City’s ability to put money towards it in the 2009/2010 budget. There is a high probability that Council will see it rise to that priority in that timeframe. Item passed unanimously. Council Member Kochmar asked if the intersection is improved with that help the other properties redevelop. Mr. Salloum said that other properties will benefit if that intersection is improved. D. Cottage Housing Code Amendment Isaac Conlen provided the background information on this item. Public Comment: Phil McCullough He said he appreciates the opportunity to address the Council. He is excited that Federal Way is looking at an alternative to the typical suburban development. He has taken the time to edit the draft Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 4 June 19th, 2006 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\08-07-06 LUTC Minutes - FINAL.doc ordinance and has provided a key to his comments. His first point is that he added the dual owner household to the household types that were identified as changing household demographics. His second point was about determining the number of cottage housing units or the number of Compact Single Family (CSF) units. His third point addresses the square footage target for cottage housing. He would change the line of demarcation between Cottage and CSF from 1000 feet to 1,100 feet. His fourth point would be that if you increase the upper limit for Cottage housing you have to increase lower limit of the CSF. Item 5, the one he is most interested in seeing modified, is the restriction on the second story. He thinks that limiting the upper floor to 35% really limits the demographic of the type of home that can be built. He thinks the real importance is to try to avoid the bad things that have happened in other cottage housing developments. And then, item 6, he wasn’t quite sure if it was intended to only allow the bonus if you had at least 12 units or if you can apply for the affordable bonus even if you have less than 12 units. Mr. Conlen said that was intended to only allow that in situations where you have 7 to 12. You must have 8 or 6 units in Cottage housing before you can have the bonus. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED this item WITHOUT recommendation on to the Sept 5th, 2006 City Council Agenda. Council Member Dean McColgan asked if he currently has a home on a 7.2 lot and he has a vacant 7.2 lot next to him, can he build cottage housing on those lots? Mr. Conlen said no. There is a minimum starting size of .75 acres, so you’d need about 32,000 sq ft. Also, there is not a buffer between the single family 7.2 home and a cottage project; what was talked about last time was a separation requirement between cottage housing projects so you wouldn’t have 2 or 3 squished in right next to each other. Council Member McColgan said that getting to some of the comments Mr. McCullough made, he can see the extra 100 square feet. Has staff has a chance to look at the 35% top floor limit? He assumes this ordinance came from another jurisdiction that already has this in place. Mr. Conlen said that the intent there is to keep ‘tall skinny houses’ from manifesting themselves in these projects. He said with the 35% sq footage limitation on the second floor you are starting to limit the flexibility the builder has in terms of design issues. You can’t do the dual master upstairs, which is one of the examples in one of the projects that this particular builder is interested in building. There are other ways to accomplish the limitation that would still prevent the ‘tall skinny houses’ but would provide more flexibility in terms of design. Staff could look at two or three different options that would accomplish the objective that would not have the same limitation on square footage. Chair Dovey said he agrees with Council Member McColgan that going from 1,100 to 1,000 sq ft does not make sense. The extra 100 feet probably opens the market a bit more. He does not have a problem with that. 1,300 sq ft does not make sense. He asked for an explanation on how the 1.5 or 2 point factor works. As he understands it, if he puts together an acre of 7,200 sq ft lots, which he could do anywhere that 7.2 is, he could build 12 cottage houses? Mr. Conlen said you’re probably looking at a lower number, like nine cottages; when talking about the CSF you will get a number lower than that. Chair Dovey said if you could put nine cottages on an acre and if you’re building 1,300 sq ft units you could fit six or seven, it seems counter productive to what the City is trying to do. The City is trying to make a different type of housing that is still dense. Mr. Conlen said that the concept is that there should be a trade-off when you ask for increased density and the proposed ordinance recognizes that with cottage housing. It says that developers are getting twice the density; they are asked to keep these as very small units. What is being talked about with the CSF is somewhere in between the traditional unit and the cottage unit. It says developers get 1.5 times the density they would otherwise be able to achieve and also limits them, but not as much as the cottages. It’s a continuum, with single family units at 1 to 1, cottages houses at 2 to 1, and CSF right in the middle. You have a larger unit so as a trade off you get a somewhat of a lower density. That is the concept staff is going for. That is where the other 35% criteria comes into play; it says that the CSF style would be limited to 35% of the units. That forces there to be a mix of unit types within the property. That is one of the issues that Mr. McCullough objected to; he felt it was too limiting in terms of the overall ability of the developer to build those types of units. Council Member McColgan says that what he is still struggling with is, if he owns a house in the 7.2 zoned lot and someone owns four contiguous lots next to him, they can build a cottage development. That tells him that the City has allowed those four 7.2 lots to be down-zoned to R2000 or R2200. That is the argument the Council will get from the community. Mr. Conlen said he does not want to pretend that there is no Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 5 June 19th, 2006 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\08-07-06 LUTC Minutes - FINAL.doc controversial element to this. He believes that the counter argument to that is that these are extremely small units. The overall impact is going to be similar to what four 3,000 – 3,500 sq ft homes on that site would have. Council Member McColgan asked if there is any way to have a demonstration project that avoids being put next to developed 7.2 lots. Mr. Conlen said given the level of build-out in Federal Way it would be tough to find a site that could be isolated that way. He said it’s an interesting issue because reactions have been different in the various communities where this product has been permitted. There have been some strong objections; there are other areas where the projects have been well accepted. Chair Dovey asked how big a project can be done. Mr. Conlen said there is not a limit on the acreage but there is a limit on the total number of cottages to a base level of 12. The planning commission decided to allow four additional units if ½ of the additional units were affordable housing units. The maximum total units could be up to 16 cottages. That is within the single-family type zoning. The multi-family type zoning is treated differently because there are different issues there. Chair Dovey asked that, if there were four demonstration projects, and there are 32 people that come to the City and say they would like to be one of the four, has the City developed the criteria with which to choose? Mr. Conlen replied that the identified process is administrative so staff would make that decision. A staff member would make a recommendation to Ms. McClung and she would then make a decision. He said it would be similar to accepting requests for comp plan amendments; it would be a docketed process where you have a deadline to get your application in so that way staff can evaluate them side-by-side rather than piecemeal. Council Member McColgan said the reason for a demonstration project is to see if it is something that fits in our community. If there are four projects and all four don’t work then you have quadrupled your problem. Mr. Conlen said the value of doing more than one is that, if you do four and three turn out great and one turns out badly, you have a more realistic idea of how they are going to fit into the community. If you just do one and it’s bad, that may not be an accurate representation; you’re just not getting as wide of a sampling. The other thing to keep in mind is that this is an ordinance that Council is permitting. It can be repealed at any time. The benefit of the demonstration is that it sets up a formal evaluation process. Council Member McColgan said once the project is up and the land is developed that does not do any good if it is a bad project. He said that some of his colleagues who are not present have questions; he is wondering if this is a topic that they just need to move to full Council and have a discussion about it there. Chair Dovey he’s not opposed to moving it to Council to have the discussion. He personally think thinks this is a discussion the full Council should have; he thinks it’s an important enough ordinance that, like most zoning issues, it is important enough for Council to talk about. Chair Dovey asked if LUTC should make a motion to move this item forward to Council to put on the agenda. Mr. Conlen asked if there is any direction to be provided to staff here regarding the comments received and presented as this discussion played out. Chair Dovey responded that the square footage should be changed to 1,100 instead of 1,000. It is fine to adjust the 35% second floor limitation. Council Member Jeanne Burbidge said the 1,100 sq ft makes sense to her as well, but she would find it helpful for the Council to have more illustrative material available so they have a more complete understanding of the issues that are being raised. Mr. Conlen said that Mr. McCullough’s position is that the multiplier from 2 to 1.5 on the number of Compact Single Family units is not necessary. He said it is a philosophical topic for the Committee: Do you want to see a more traditional cottage development or are you willing to accept a product that could be entirely CSF? Chair Dovey commented that Federal Way is looking at different cities that are accepting cottages; how big are they, generally? Mr. Conlen said the majority that he has seen limit cottages to 1,000 sq ft. The example staff has seen involving CSF is Kirkland; they allow those up to 1,500 sq ft. They do the same thing with the multiplier. They reduce it from 2 to 1.5; that’s the only example he has seen that allows the CSF housing. Chair Dovey said that if Federal Way goes to 1,100 sq ft, this city is being more generous, potentially, than many other locations and are just cutting out the market for someone who wants 1,300 or 1,500 in a cottage development. Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 6 June 19th, 2006 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\08-07-06 LUTC Minutes - FINAL.doc Ms. McClung said that when staff met with the developer on the proposed projects he has in mind, the unit he displayed was very attractive and she thinks it would be complementary in a cottage housing development. Her personal preference would be that if the Council was going to eliminate one of the other (the 35% or the 1.5 multiplier for CSF) she would prefer to eliminate the 1.5 multiplier and keep it that 35% of the units can be the larger ones. That way you can get a mix. Council Member McColgan said that was fine with him and Chair Dovey thought that was reasonable. Ms. McClung thinks that an opinion about how they fit into other residential neighborhoods from either a real estate broker or an appraiser might be helpful. She thinks it will be more likely to positively impact them than some of the usual developments. Council Member McColgan said he would welcome anything that would address that issue. If those things can be addressed up front and Council can have a full understanding of how that would work that would be great. Council Member McColgan asked Chair Dovey if he was saying ‘no’ to 1,300 sq ft CSF? Chair Dovey said he was not interested in having a whole bunch of 1,300 sq ft houses. He is not opposed to having a mix with some 1,300 in there but he does not want to turn around and find that the Council has zoned cottages but has gotten all 1,300 sq ft cottages instead of what the cottages were intended to be. Council Member McColgan said he would agree with that; he thinks if there is a demonstration project it would seem better to limit what can be done on it so it the impact of that demonstration project can be fully studied. Council Member Burbidge said she understands what Council Member McColgan is saying but she also believes that having some variation could be useful as long as there is a provision that it is variation and not standardization. Council Member Kochmar asked if only 35% of a project’s units could be 1,300 sq ft; she thinks that makes a lot of sense. 1,100 sq ft with 35% being 1,300 sq ft but no more than 35%. Chair Dovey said he could live with that. Ms. McClung responded that if the Council was going to eliminate one provision or the other, she would eliminate the 1.5 and keep it at 35%. Chair Dovey concurred that it would be more consistent. Ms. McClung said that the maximum number of 1,300 sq ft units in the biggest project will just be 35% of 16. Chair Dovey said they are agreed that this item will be on the agenda of the next Council Meeting, to be voted up or down, with no recommendation from the LUTC. He asked Mr. Conlen if a motion was needed. It is not. E. 2006/2007 Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Area FlexPass for City Hall Rick Perez was not required to give the background information on this item. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the Sept 5th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda. F. PAA Annexation Update – Stone Creek & Van Doenhoff Kathy McClung said staff has not yet met with the City of Milton staff; a meeting has been scheduled. She has spoken to the property owner that attended the last meeting and will be raising this issue with the City of Milton. Ms. McClung said that the City of Federal Way will approach Milton first and then talk to the resident. Staff also has a draft inter-local-agreement from King County that was received late last week. Derek Matheson, Ms. McClung and Isaac Conlen will be meeting on that, perhaps with other staff including Iwen Wang and Cary Roe. There will also be another meeting on putting together a schedule for public information and getting more details on the schedule. To sum up, there is still a lot to do. 5. FUTURE MEETINGS The next scheduled meeting will be August 21st, 2006. 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 7:18 p.m.