The URL can be used to link to this page

LUTC PKT 10-04-2010City of Federai Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee October 4, 2010 5:30 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) 3. COMMITTEE BUSINESS Topic Title/Description A. Approval of Minutes: September 20, 2010 B. Shoreline Master Program Update — Revisions (continued from 9/20/2010 LUTC meeting) C. 2011 Asphalt Overlay Program Preliminary Project List and Authorization to Bid Presenter LeMaster Shull Huynh Action Council or Info Date Time Action N/A 5 min. Action Oct. 19, 2010 ZO min. Consent/Reso. Action Oct. 19, 2010 5 min. Consent 4. OTHER 5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS: The next LUTC meeting will be held Monday, October 18, 2010 at 5:30 PM in City Hall Council Chambers. G'�-��L�111:7►1 Committee Members City Staff Dini Dudos, Chai� Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, Public Wo�ks and Emergency Management 1im Ferrel% Membe� Dar/ene LeMaster, Administrative Assistant II Jack Dovey, Member 153-835-1701 G �LUTL7LUTCAgendas and Summaries 2010�10-4-10 LUTCAgenda.doc City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee September 20, 2010 City Hall 5:30 PM City Council Chambers MEETING SUMMARY Committee Members in Attendance: Committee Chair Dini Duclos, Committee Member Jack Dovey and Committee Member Jim Ferrell. Council Members in Attendance: Mayor Linda Kochmar and Council Member Burbidge Staff Members in Attendance: Director of Community Development Services Greg Fewins, Deputy Public Works Director Marwan Salloum, Deputy Public Works Director Ken Miller, City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Senior Planner Deb Barker, Senior Planner Janet Shull, Principal Planner Margaret Clark, Building Official Lee Bailey, Street Systems Engineer Jeff Huynh, Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Associate Planner Matt Herrera, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, and Administrative Assistant II Darlene LeMaster. 1. CALL TO ORDER Committee Chair Duclos called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. 3. BUSINESS ITEMS Forward Topic Title/Description to Council A. Approval of the August 2, 2010, LUTC Minutes N/A B. Committee approved August 2, 2010, LUTC minutes as presented. Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 2010 Asphalt Overlay Project — Project Acceptance Street Systems Engineer Jeff Huynh presented information on this item. 'There was no public comment or discussion. Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented. � Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 10/5/2010 Consent C. Interlocal Agreement with WSDOT for Fiber Optic Installation 10/5/2010 Consent City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez presented information on this item. There was no public comment or discussion. Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented. Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 September 20, 2010 � Amendments to the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) — Submittal Requirements for Plats and Commercial Projects; 10/5/2010 1 S ` Reading Ordinance E. F. and Amendments to the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) — Clarifying Complete Application and Review Standards and Housekeeping Amendment Senior Planner Deb Barker presented information on these items together. There was one public comment. A letter from Sam Pace of Seattle King County Realtors was acknowledged into the record during Ms. Barker's presentation. Mr. Pace's and the Planning Commission's comments were consistent with each other. There was no other discussion. Committee forwarded Option #1 from agenda item A and Option #1 from agenda item B as presented. Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 Shoreline Master Program Update - Revisions Senior Planner Janet Shull presented information on this item and highlighted the changes requested by WA State DOE as well as one staff proposed change. There was one public comment. Norm Kustcha, 33021 38` Avenue S(Northlake resident) — Mr. Kutscha is proposing an addition to the SMP revisions and is advocating to preserve the views of existing lakefront homes by utilizing the stringline setback rule for new construction, where new construction would have to be set back according to the stringline guideline, but no more than 100 feet. Mr. Kutscha also requested the committee to acknowledge the differences between marine setbacks and lakefront setbacks and treat each separately. Councilmember Burbidge spoke in favor of Mr. Kutscha's proposal and noted that if approved, would result in the stringline guideline being even more effective than it already is. It would preserve views for existing homes. This proposal would be very accommodating to both lakefront and marine shoreline homes. Committee Member povey asked staff for a visual aide to help illustrate what the stringline setbacks look like compared to what the Kutscha's have proposed. What are the effects and what would happen if a home owner wanted to rebuild. Ms. Shull further explained that currently the minimum setback for single-family residences is 50 feet, and how the Kutscha's are requesting this to be modified. New construction would be subject to new setback guidelines. Ms. Shull said the Kutscha's proposal applies only to lakefront. Committee Member povey also asked exactly how many parcels may be affected by this change. Ms. Shull shared information on vacant and underdeveloped parcels that had potential redevelopment or subdivision activity includes 14 from North Lake and 18 from Steel Lake. Lakefront parcels within the PAA include 21 parcels from Lake Killarney, 37 from Lake Dollaff, 23 from Five Mile Lake, 16 from Lake Geneva and 18 from Star Lake. Chair Duclos inquired as to when the Kutscha's home was built. Why were homes set back so far to begin with? Chair Duclos was concemed that an existing home's view may be compromised due to new construction, resulting in the existing home being devalued. Conversation between staff and the Committee suggested that in 1927, when the Kutscha's home was built, there may have been septic regulations, dictating the required setback for homes. 10/5/2010 1 S ` Reading Ordinance N/A G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2010\9-20-10 Minutes.doc Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 3 September 20, 2010 Mayor Kochmar asked staff for the setback requirement in King County. Ms. Shull responded that the current setback requirement in unincorporated King County is 20 feet for lakefront homes. Ms. Shull also noted there may have been many variables contributing to the historical setback requirements, the major one being a designated wetland. Mayor Kochmar also made note that she would like to bring back the 200 foot setback for Category 1 Wetlands at a future time. Chair Duclos talked about respecting the boundaries of homes that sit close to the lakefront, but what about the homes that sit further back? Staff noted that three years ago and after much comment both for and against, Council approved doing away with the greater setback. The Kutscha are bringing new testimony to this prior topic. Councilmember Burbidge asked if in the existing guideline, are there exceptions to the rule. Ms. Shull explained that residents may apply for a shoreline variance and gave a brief synopsis of that process. Committee Member povey asked for a bit of clarification on the marine bluff 50 foot setback. Ms. Shull responded that the 50 foot setback for marine bluff is in response to comments from the WA State Dept. of Ecology, suggesting greater than the current 25 foot setback in regard to safety, ecological functions of the Sound, and erosion. Mr. Pater from the WA State Dept. of Ecology reiterated Ms. Shull's response. Committee Member Ferrell asked if at the time these SMP updates went through Planning Commission, was the Commission aware of the Kutscha's proposal? Ms. Shull noted that Planning Commission was aware of the Kutscha's request and voted not to include it into their recommendation to the Land Use and Transportation Committee. Committee Member povey asked for the Kutscha's interest in this issue. Mr. Kutscha stated that there is vacant land on one side of their home, and an older home on the other side, which will likely be torn down and rebuilt in the future. Chair Duclos asked Ms. Shull which takes precedence, "no net loss" or "best available science"? Ms. Shull answered that for the Shoreline Master Plan, "no net loss" takes precedence and best available science may be used to determine net loss. No net loss is the goal. Committee Member povey doesn't agree with changing marine bluff setbacks from 25 feet to 50 feet. He feels that 25 feet has been working just fine. Committee Member Burbidge stated that there is lots of wisdom in trying to anticipate future erosion. She is in support of a 50 foot marine bluff setback. Mayor Kochmar asked what King County is establishing for their marine bluff setbacks. Mr. Pater responded that King County is currently doing their own SMP update and are incorporating many of their critical areas into their shorelines and is not sure about lakefronts. King County's SMP updates are currently at the State for review and have not yet received comment. Mayor Kochmar suggested finding out what King County is implementing prior to making any decision. Committee deferred item to October 4, 2010 Land Use and Transportation Committee meeting. Staff will get additional information on what King County is doing. Staff will also provide more visuals of how the proposed changes compare to the existing requirements of both lakefront and marine bluff setbacks. Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2010\9-20-10 Minutes.doc Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 4 September 20, 2010 G. Residential Off-Street Parking 10/5/2010 1 SI Reading Associate Planner Matt Herrera presented information on this item. Collectively, there were Ordinance four public comments. Diana Noble-Gulliford, 2754 SW 314`" St — Thanked staff for revisiting this topic. Ms. Noble- Gulliford still opposes increased impervious surfaces and added costs to the homeowner, especially in our current economy. H. David Kaplan, 30240 27` Ave S— Mr. Kaplan feels unsure how to solve this issue but agrees with the existing code not allowing parking on the grass. Let's keep it that way. Julie Yance, 31003 22" Ave S— Ms. Vance opposes this code amendment and feels that if one resident needs to pave, everyone should be held to the same standard. Clara McArthur, Federal Way — Ms. McArthur feels that the City is meddling in people's rights too much. Unless a resident is clearly in violation, the City should mind their own business. Mayor Kochmar stated she had three words to say..."KILL THE BILL." Chair Duclos noted many areas in Federal Way that need parking restrictions, while other neighbarhoods put the restrictions on themselves. There are those homes on larger parcels and much older and more established areas. These various areas need to be treated differently in her opinion. One size doesn't fit all in this case. Committee Member Fenell talked about the uniform application of code regulations and how it sometimes can be problematic. Enforcing the code is complaint driven and that becomes a resource issue....equal treatment under the law for all residents, regardless of who picks up the phone and calls. Committee Member povey feels that staff needs to compromise due to all of the controversy over parking on grass and trying to treat everyone equally. Mr. Herrera commented that the purpose of this amendment is to try to make this parking ordinance less ambiguous. The proposed ordinance is less restrictive than the existing ordinance. Conversation continued back and forth between Committee Members and Ms. Vance. Ms. Vance explained in detail how she has established a gravel parking pad in her back yard for her RV and her boat. Ms. Vance said it was very expensive ($2,000 -$3,000) to level and gravel the parking area for her boat and RV. More conversation continued as to whether or not Ms. Vance would be currently in compliance with her current RV and boat parking, using Ms. Vance's situation as an example to illustrate the complexity of this issue and the repercussions to the property owner. A regulation for residents wanting to park in their back yards and what that requires for a driveway to get to their backyards was also discussed. Mayor Kochmar asked for clarification as to what "impervious surface" means. Mr. Herrera reiterated what staff is trying to do with this amendment. Mayor Kochmar was not in favor of more impervious surfaces. Committee Member povey summarized that the real issue at hand in this amendment is whether or not residents will be allowed to park on grass, something that is not allowed today. Committee Member Ferrell asked if this amendment does not pass, would it be legal for people to park on the grass. Mr. Herrera stated that if this amendment does not pass, it will continue to be illegal for residents to park on either the grass or gravel and they can be sited for it. G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2010\9-20-10 Minutes.doc Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 5 H. 4. OTHER None Committee Member povey stated the majority of the complaints received are about residents parking in their front yards and suggested allowing residents to park on the grass in either their side or back yards. There was conversation between the Committee members regarding what the goal should be. How does Council want our city to appear? What will be the public's perception? Mr. Herrera reviewed that staff did not recommend that parking be allowed in grass is because parking in grass eventually turns the grass to dirt. Dirt then gets tracked onto the roads and washes down into the stormwater system. Chair Duclos asked if the proposed ordinance was okay with people - residents in the audience and fellow council members. Chair Duclos also asked if residents would need approval for any of the items listed in the proposed amendment (asphalt, cement, gravel, pavers, LID). Driving from the street to the backyard over grass and whether or not that is considered a driveway is another issue and would be dealt with as a different code amendment at another time. Committee Member Ferrell stated parking should be acceptable without any extra staff approval, contrary to staff's recommendation for gravel, pavers and LID options. Committee forwarded Option #2 as amended to include asphalt, cement, gravel, pavers, LID with approval, and grass, provided it is not in the front yard. Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Principal Planner Margaret Clark presented information on this item. There was no public comment. Committee Member povey commented that he would like to pull the portion of Chapter 6 that outlines the Performing Arts Center, Conference Center and the Recreational Facility. Staff still needs to work out some details as far as the Comprehensive Plan is concerned. Ms. Clark clarified that language in Chapter 6 will not be modified at this time except for the recommendations regarding Camp Kilworth and SCORE. Chair Duclos concurred. Committee forwarded Option #2 as amended to keep Chapter 6 the way it was for the Performing Arts Center. Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 5. FUTURE MEETING The next LUTC meeting will be held Monday, 10/4/10 at 530 PM in City Hall Council Chambers. 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 7:53 PM. Attest: COMMTTTEE APPROVAL: Dini Duclos, Chair zo, aoio 10/5/2010 1 S ` Reading Ordinance Darlene LeMaster, Administrative Assistant II Jim Ferrell, Member Jack Dovey, Member G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2010\9-20-10 Minutes.doc COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 19, 2010 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL ITEM #: SUBJECT: REVISIONS TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM BASED ON ECOLOGY COMMENT POLICY QUESTION Should the City Council pass a Resolution approving revisions to the City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and authorizing submittal of the revised SMP documents to the Deparhnent of Ecology for their formal review as required under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). COMMITTEE Land Use and Transportation CATEGORY: � Consent ❑ City Counci Business STAFF REPORT BY: Senior Planner Janet ❑ Ordinance � Resolution AICP MEET�1vG DATE: OCt. 4, 201 O ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Other DEPT: CD Attachments: A. Staff Report that responds to Committee Member questions raised at the September 20, 2010 LUTC meeting. Options Considered: 1. Recommend City Council pass a resolution approving the revised SMP as recommended by the Planning Commission and authorize submittal to Department of Ecology for their formal review and approval. 2. Recommend City Council pass a resolution approving the revised SMP with specific modifications, and autharize submittal to the Department of Ecology for their formal review/approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Option 1 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ;/� ��JM�1 �� DIRECTOR APPROVAL: Committee Council Co� Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION I move to forward the proposed resolution to the October 19, 2010 consent agenda for approval. Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION "I move adoption of a resolution approving revisions to the City of Federal Way SMP and authorize submittal of the revised SMP to the Department of Ecology for review and approval as required under the SMA. (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # ❑ DENIED isT reading ❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading ❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED — 08/12/2010 RESOLUTION # ` � CITY OF � Federal Way CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DATE: To: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: September 27, 2010 Dini Duclos, Chair Members of the Land Use/Tra s Committee (LUTC) Brian Wilson, City Manage� �� Greg Fewins, CDS Directq� Janet Shull, AICP, Senioi�Planner �: �� „ Revisions to Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update in response to Department of Ecology review and comment. MEET�G DATE: October 4, 2010 A. POLICY QUESTION Should the City Council pass a Resolution approving revisions to the City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and authorize submittal of the revised SMP documents to the Department of Ecology for their formal review and approval as required under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA)? B. INTRODUCTION This staff report responds to questions raised by members of the LUTC during the September 20, 2010 meeting and contains additional information regarding: 1. Application of the Stringline Setback method; 2. Information on existing and proposed Shoreline setback requirements under the King County Code; and 3. Additional information on setbacks from marine bluffs C. BACKGROUND The LUTC discussed the proposed revisions to the SMP at their September 20, 2010 meeting. T'here was public comment from one citizen who requested that the City Council consider a modification to the application of the stringline setback method as proposed in the SMP Update. The LUTC discussed the request and determined that they would like staff to bring back additional information and examples of how the stringline setback method is applied to development proposals. In addition to the discussion centering on the stringline setback, members of the LUTC also requested that sta.ff return with information regarding King County's existing and proposed setback standards for lake shoreline properties and additional information regarding the proposed 50 foot setback from marine bluffs. City Council Committee Staff Report Meeting Date: October 4, 2010 Revisions to Shoreline Master Program Update Page 1 D. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON APPLICATION OF THE STRINGLINE SETBACK METHOD The following table compares the existing regulations, current SMP Update that was recently recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, and the modifications proposed by a citizen for consideration by the City Council. 1. Existin 2. SMP U date 3. Citizen -Pro osed 1.Applicant can propose to use l. Applicant can propose to use 1. Applicant can propose to use stringline setback in cases stringline setback in cases where stringline setback in cases where where structures on structures on neighboring structures on neighboring neighboring properties are properties are located closer to properties are located closer to the located closer to the OHWM the OHWM than the minimum OHWM than the minimum than the minimum shoreline shoreline setback. This enables shoreline setback. This enables setback. This enables the the proposed structure to also be the proposed structure to also be proposed structure to also be closer than the minimum setback closer than the minimum setback closer than the minimum as long as no closer than 30 feet as long as no closer than 30 feet setback as long as no closer from the OHWM. from the OHWM. than 30 feet from the OHWM. 2. No provision for applying 2. In cases where existing 2..In cases where eausting stringline method in cases where structures on either side of a structures on either side of a neighboring structures are vacant parcel are further back vacant parcel are further back located further back than the than the minimum setback, the than the minimum setback, minimum setback. proposed structure must be the proposed structure must setback to be at least as far back be setback to be at least as far as the neighboring structures back as the neighboring based on stringline method, but structures based on stringline no greater than 100 feet. method. There are essentially two ways the stringline setback method can be applied. 1. Stringline Method applied as an optional method of determining setback. An applicant may request to use the stringline method of determining minimum setback in order to build closer to the OHWM than the established minimum setback in cases where structures on adjacent parcels are built closer to the OHWM than the minimum setback. However, there is a limit to the application of the stringline method in that a new structure can not be located closer than 30 feet from the OHWM unless a Shoreline Variance is granted. This stringline provision is the same in both the existing and the proposed SMP and the citizen requested modification would not change this provision. Z. Stringline Method as a required minimum setback standard. This second stringline setback provision is not optional. The stringline method of determining setback becomes a required minimum exceeding the specified standard minimum setback in cases where a vacant parcel has development on adjacent parcels that are located further back from the OHWM than the required minimum shoreline setback. In the current SMP regulations (Title 15, FWCC), there is no specified ma�cimum application of this standard. In the proposal submitted by a citizen, there would be a maacimum application of this provision of 100 feet. � This is the SMP Update approved by the City Council in June, 2007 and submitted to DOE for review. City Council Committee Staff Report Meeting Date: October 4, 2010 Revisions to Shoreline Master Program Update Page 2 Please see the attached e�ibits X-X that depict various potential applications of the stringline setback method. E. KING COUNTY SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR LAKE SHORELINE DESIGNATIONS Staff consulted with our Department of Ecology Shoreline Planner, David Pater, who in turn consulted with his colleague working with King County who supplied information regarding existing and proposed setback standards that would apply to lake shoreline areas within our PAA. The existing and proposed minimum setback is 115 feet. The standard buffer for shorelines designated "Urban" is 20 feet. However in the case of lake shorelines the 115 buffer is overlaid due to its designation as a Type S water. There is an additional building setback from the buffer that must be maintained. F. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON PROPOSED SETBACK FROM A MARINE BLUFF Staff have consulted with our Department of Ecology representative and done some additional research as to what other jurisdictions planning under the SMA are looking at for setbacks from marine bluffs. The table below, provides a summary of findings: Com arison of Marine Bluff Setback with other 'urisdictions that have this rovision JURISDICTION Federal Wa Des Moines Tacoma Thurston Co. Setback from SO-foot minimum ' S0-foot minimum 50-foot minimum 2X height of slope Marine Bluff (.�ate: minimum (Note: minimum for slopes over 10 or 50-foot, shoredine setback shoreline buffer is feet in height whichever is is �0 feet from ' I1 S feet from (Note: minimum greater. OH�f'M in= OHWM in buffer ranges from residential residential SO to 200 feet for enviro�ment} environment) Marine shoreline.) Method for Shc�reline Variance With geotechnical 50 foot may be Reduction allowed modification to analysis, may reduced to 30 foot to the 2X height the marine Bluff ' reduce the setback minimum for ratio with geotech setback. to minimum of 10 slopes less than 20 study, but no feet. feet height. With reduction to the geotechnical 50 foot minimum analysis, may except through reduce the setback Shareline to minimum of 10 Variance. feet. Some jurisdictions do allow for a buffer reduction when a geotechnical report can prove that a reduced buffer will not result in hazard to proposed development, development on neighboring properties or to the critical area environment. Staff has consulted with the Department of Ecology on this matter and they have indicated that they favor the draft regulations as currently presented where the 50 foot setback is a minimum and reductions axe subject to the Shoreline Variance. G. COUNCIL OPTIONS FOR MOVING FORWARD The LUTC has the following options to proceed with the Shoreline Master Program: 1. Move to forward the revisions to the SMP UPdate to the full City Council with a recommendation to approve it as recommended by the Planning Commission and authorize staff to forward the approved SMP on to the Department of Ecology for review and approval; or City Council Committee Staff Report Meeting Date: October 4, 2010 Revisions to Shoreline Master Program Update Page 3 2. Move to modify the proposed revisions to the SMP Update and forward the modified SMP Update to the full City Council with a recommendation to approve it as modified and authorize staff to forward the SMP on to the Department of Ecology for review and approval. H. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends that the proposed revisions to the SMP Update, including: Section 1- Introduction; Section 3- Goals and Policies; Section 5- Shoreline Regulations; Section 6- Restoration Plan; Section 7 - Definitions; and Appendix A- Cumulative Impact Analysis, as forwarded by the Planning Commission, be recommended for approval to the City Council. Exhibit A: Aerial photo showing potential application of citizen proposal of stringline setback. Exhibit B: Aerial photo showing potential application of 50 foot minimum shoreline setback . K:�Shoreline Master Program�2010 RevisionsU.UTG70ct 4 LiJTC Report.DOC City Council Committee Staff Report Meeting Date: October 4, 2010 Revisions to Shoreline Master Program Update Page 4 Legend Kutscha Pro 0$a� Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) p _ _ _ Typical 50' Setback Stringline Setback (Kutscha Proposal) Exhibit A Exhibit B Legend 2007 Approved SMP Update ___ °;,p;�a 50 �setb ckr Mark (OHWM) COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 19, 2010 ITEM #: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUB,TECT: 2011 Asphalt Overlay Program Preliminary Project List and Autho rization to Bid POLICY QUESTION Should the Council approve the 2011 Asphalt Overlay Program Preliminary Project List and authorize staff to proceed with the design and bid of the proposed 2011 Asphalt Overlay Program? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee CATEGORY: � Consent ❑ City Council Business ■ � Ordinance Resolution MEETING DATE: October 4, 2010 � � Public Hearing Other STAFF REPORT BY: Marwan Salloum, P.E., De u Public Works Dire�r DEPT: Public Works _... __._... _ ____...._......._....._.........._....P �3' _ ................._._......____......._....___.___.........._........._ ............ __..._...................._. .._................._..._.. ..___.........._............... Attachments: Land Use and Transportation Committee memorandum dated October 4, 2010. Options Considered: _.... _ _ _ 1. Approve the list of streets for the 2011 Asphalt Overlay Project as presented. Furthermore, authorize staff to bid all ar part of the 2011 Asphalt Overlay Project, returning with a request for permission to award the project within the available 2011 Asphalt Overlay Budget to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. 2. Direct staff to modify the preliminary list and return to Committee for further action. 3. Take no action and provide direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends forwarding Option 1 to the October 19, 2010 City Council Consent Agenda for approvaL CTTY MANAGER APPROVAL: �� b�� DIRECTOR APPROVAL: Committee Council ommittee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION I move to forward the 2011 Asphalt Overlay Project Preliminary Project List and Authorization to Bid to the October 19 2010 Council Consent Agenda for approval. Dini Duclos, C hair Jim Ferrell, Member Jack Dovey, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION "I move approval of the list of streets for the 2011 Asphalt Overlay Project as presented. Furthermore, I authorize staff to bid all or part of the 2011 Asphalt Overlay Project, returning with a request for permission to award the project within the available 2011 Asphalt Overlay Budget to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # ❑ DENIED 1sT reading ❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading ❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED — 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: October 4, 2010 Land Use and Transportation Committee Brian Wilson, Interim City Manager Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, Public Works and Emergency Management Jeff Huynh, Street Systems Engineer •� 2011 Asphalt Overlay Program Preliminary Project List and Authorization to Bid BACKGROUND' Public Works staff has developed a list of recommended streets for the 2011 Asphalt Overlay Program. The total estimated budget for the program is $2,479,767 and is comprised of the following: • 2011 Proposed Overlay Budget • 2011 Structures Budget • 2010 Carry Forward (estimate) • Proposed reimbursement agreement with Quadrant Corporation for S 320` Street overlay TOTAL FUNDING AVAILABLE $1,513,500 $146,267 $500,000 $320,000 $2,479,767 The $146,267 from the structures budget is for the City's annual Sidewalk Maintenance Program, and will cover the costs associated with the replacement of substandard wheelchair ramps, and repairing existing curb, gutter, and sidewalks within the overlay project area. The following is a preliminary list of streets to be included in the 2011 Asphalt Overlay Program. The streets were selected using the City's Pavement Management System and were verified by field reconnaissance. The costs shown are estimated and will be refined as the design of each schedule is completed. A project vicinity map and more detailed area maps are attached for your information. SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION A S 320`" Street — I-5 limited access to Weyerhaeuser Way B S 320` Street — Weyerhaeuser Way to City Limit C S320th Street — 3` Pl SW to 6�' Ave S. D Madrona Trails E Lakota Trails F Decauter Glen G 21 Ave SW — SW 337`�' Pl to SW 346`" St H 21 S ` Ave S W— S W 346�' St to S W 348` St ESTIMATED SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT COSTS: 10% Construction Contingency Pavement Management System In-house Design Construction Administration City's Administrative Fee Printing and Advertising ESTIMATED TOTAL PROGRAM COST: AMOUNT $307,800 $127,400 $427,000 $416,000 $262,300 $222,000 $417,800 $133,400 $2,313,700 $231,370 $40,000 $63,000 $115,000 $72,000 $3,500 $2,838,570 October 4, 2010 Land Use and Transportation Committee 2011 Asphalt Overlay Program Page 2 of 2 The estimated cost of $2,838,570 is a preliminary figure used for estimating purposes only and includes construction administration, ten percent construction contingency, in-house design and construction management, printing and advertising. The 2011 Asphalt Overlay Project will be awarded within the available overlay program budget. Once Council approves the list of streets for the Overlay Program, staff will begin the final design. The anticipated date for advertising is February 2011, with construction beginning in May 2011. k:Vutc�2010\10-04-10 2011 Asphalt Overlay list.doc � � � � � � �� A - S 320th St B - S 320th St C - S 320th St D - Madrona Trails E - Lakota Trails F - Decauter Glen G-21stAveSW H-21stAveSW Map made by �il 2011 Asphalt Overlay Preliminary List N Federal Way CityMap Map P�inted-Sep 29 2010 Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representatron only. The City of Federal Way makes no warrarrty as to its accuracy. N A- S 320th St N B- S 320th St Map rtade by -kcm A - S 320th St B - S 320th St N Federal Way CityMap Map Printed�ep 29 2010 Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to !ts accuracy. N C- S 320th St Federal Way CityMap Map Printed-Sep 29 2070 Note: This map is Intended for use as a graphical represerrtation onty. �� The Cfty of Federal Way makes no wananty as to its accuracy. N D- Madrona Trails Federal Way CityMap Map Printed-Sep 29 2010 Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical represeMafion only. M � �� *� The City of Federal way makes no wanarrty as to its accuracy. . �_ _� E- Lakota Trails Federal Way CityMap Map P�irrted�Sep 29 2010 Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical represeMation onty. Map made by -kcm The City of Fede�al Way makes no wairanty as to its eccwacy. 316 ST N D 317 � ST 317 PL � PL ¢ M J �V` �,P S w323 ST � �O 9G � � Q� Map made by -kem � � ¢ � N` L SW 316 ST 317 SW 317 PL SW 318 ST Q - .,, N A� SW 320 ST SW 320 PL a ,��?� co 3 22 SW 322 ' PL Q N c n qL � p� s � `�ti� ¢ N fA SW 322 ST SW 322 PL 322 PL a ¢ J ` � � Q �-- N SW 317 PL SW 318 SW 320 SW 321 LN z J. �j � N � / � N 23 P SW 323 ST � 5 3 � � S� ��g'� N � � � sw w > o � y a Q`� SW 324 ¢ 325 � `�'z N i SW 325 PL F - Decauter Glen N Federal Way CityMap Map Pri�ted�ep 29 2010 Note: This map is intended for use as a graphlcal represerrtation only. The City of Federal Way makes iro warranty as to its accuracy. N �� G- 21 st Ave SW N H- 21st Ave SW G- 21 st Ave SW H- 21 st Ave SW Federal Way CityMap Map Printed�Sep 29 2010 Note: This map is lntended for use as a graphical representation only. Map made by �kcm The City of Fede�al Way makes no wananty as to its accurncy.