Loading...
Planning Comm MINS 11-06-2002K:\Planning Commission\2002\Meeting Summary 11-06-02.doc City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting November 6, 2002 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING SUMMARY Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Hope Elder, Bill Drake, Marta Justus Foldi, and Grant Newport. Commissioners absent (excused): Dave Osaki and Dini Duclos. Alternate Commissioners present: Tony Moore and Lawson Bronson. Alternate Commissioners absent (excused): Merle Pfeifer and Christine Nelson. Staff present: Community Development Director Kathy McClung, Community Development Deputy Director Patrick Doherty, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Assistant City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Councilmembers Linda Kochmar and Eric Faison were also in attendance. Chair Caulfield called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF SUMMARY None. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT None. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING – 2002 Comprehensive Plan Update, Chapters 1 – 5 Ms. Clark presented the staff report and gave the Commissioners an outline of her presentation. She gave a background for the 2002 Comprehensive Plan Update process and a history of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. She than began explaining the changes proposed for the different chapters, skipping over grammar and small housekeeping changes. Chapter One, Introduction – There were no major changes to this chapter. The Commission had no questions or comments on this chapter. Chapter Two, Land Use – Ms. Clark explained the meaning of “capacity,” and how it relates to the Buildable Lands Methodology and housing targets. The Commission asked where does Federal Way’s Potential Annexation Area (PAA) fit into capacity and housing targets? Ms. Clark replied that the PAA has an excess of capacity in regards to housing targets. It was noted that the vertical strips in Map II-2 should be gray. Planning Commission Summary Page 2 November 6, 2002 K:\Planning Commission\2002\Meeting Summary 11-06-02.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 3:54 PM Chapter Three, Transportation – Mr. Perez delivered the staff report for this chapter. He stated that most of the changes are updates to existing information. He noted that the information on traffic volumes (found on page III-14) shows that the rate of increase is dropping; however the average daily traffic is increasing. The drop in the rate of increase is because the City continues to grow. Policy TP21 (on page III-41) has been updated, and a code amendment will be proposed to loosen the block perimeter standards in low- density zones. It is felt that current standards may have discouraged development. Table III-14 (on page III-64), shows the City has been meeting their Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) goals. In response to a question on Table III-17, TIP (Transportation Improvement Program) HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) Improvements Federal Way (on page III-8), Mr. Perez responded that the proposed costs are based on current dollars, while the completed items are the actual cost. He commented that much of the increase in funding needs (on page III-102) is due to the cost of adding traffic signals and because the City has more streets. The City has been very successful in obtaining grant funds to help meet the funding need. Mr. Perez said he will add a table on Highways of Statewide Significance, discussed on page III-106. Commissioner Elder commented that it is her understanding that City is required by the state to provide a way off of I-5. She stated that the 320th Street exit becomes very backed-up; is the City, or state, planning to improve that intersection? Mr. Perez replied that an off-ramp is exempt from this requirement. The state is aware of the problem, but any improvements will be awhile in coming. The state hopes to replace the 320th overpass. Commission Elder went on to ask why is Metro planning another park-and-ride, when the 21st Avenue park-and-ride is barren? Mr. Perez replied that the City will work with Metro to research this issue and look at service improvements. One problem is that there is only one express bus from that park- and-ride to downtown Seattle. Buses that travel to downtown Seattle may end in the bus tunnel, or along Seneca Street. Riders generally have strong preferences for one or the other. Metro is considering adding an express route to the 21st Avenue park-and-ride so that one route will end in the bus tunnel and the other along Seneca. Pierce Transit is also involved in this effort and they are researching the possibility of a route from Northeast Tacoma to the 21st Avenue park-and-ride. Mr. Perez noted that ridership at the 21st park-and-ride is gradually increasing. He also noted that the City is trying to get all hourly transit service upgraded to ½ hour service. Commissioner Elder begged the Commission’s indulgence, but while Mr. Perez is here, she asked for an update on the Christian Faith Center traffic agreement. Mr. Perez replied that a consultant who has experience with projects of similar size has been hired for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). They will be taking a fresh look at the long-term and short-term traffic impacts. Commissioner Drake inquired about the proposed HOV ramp for the proposed Transit Center. Is it coordinated with what improvements that may be made to the 320th Street interchange? His concern is that he doesn’t want to see money spent on the ramp if we have to turn around and tear it down because of improvements to the 320th interchange. Mr. Perez said that the City and state will keep the proposed HOV ramp in mind. Commissioner Newport noted that the second paragraph on page III-70 was updated to state that Federal Way has four park-and-ride lots. The following sentence states that the lots are nearly always at capacity, which is not true of the fourth lot. Mr. Perez said the paragraph will be reworked. Commissioner Newport also noted that the planned streets are not shown on Map III-5. Chairman Caulfield inquired about the City’s policy for sidewalks by schools. He is concerned about the lack of sidewalks along the section of Hoyt Road located near a school. Mr. Perez replied that the state requires a safe walking route with new subdivisions. The City usually requires that a shoulder walkway be provided for the safe walking route. One problem with sidewalks is that they have expensive drainage impacts. The City does not have a program for new sidewalks. There are funds in a safety budget that has Planning Commission Summary Page 3 November 6, 2002 K:\Planning Commission\2002\Meeting Summary 11-06-02.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 3:54 PM been used to purchase flashing lights for areas near schools. The City works with the School District to prioritize the placement of these “flashers.” Chairman Caulfield commented that he hopes the City Council will consider making sidewalks near schools a higher priority. Mr. Perez commented that on the collision maps (Map III-14 through III-17) the City now includes severity in addition to collision rate. Collision rate is derived by dividing the number of collisions by the volume of traffic through the intersection. This means that while an intersection may have a large number of collisions (say 320th and Pacific Highway South), it’s rating may be lower that a lesser used intersection. This ensures that local streets are awarded an “equal” importance as higher volume arterials. Commission Grant asked if a collision means more than one vehicle? Mr. Perez answered that even if only one vehicle is involved, if the collision is reported it is counted. Commissioner Drake asked, on Map III-27A, what does signal communications refer to? Mr. Perez replied that it refers to connecting the signals along the indicated stretch to the City’s signal system, which lets the City know right away if there is a problem. In addition, on this map non-motorized projects are noted. They include a bike route that will parallel Pacific Highway South, thereby offering a safer alternative to bicyclists. The bike route will connect with Enchanted Parkway. Commissioner Newport noted that the helicopter landing areas on Map III-23 are all different from the Recommended Heliport Siting Areas on Map III-24. What is the reason for this? Mr. Perez replied he would have to research this question. These maps have not been reviewed since they were first prepared in 1995. Chapter Four, Economic Development – Mr. Doherty presented the staff report for this chapter. The format of the chapter has been extensively reworked, but most of the text changes are updates. The section on Human Resource Programs (page IV-27) has been deleted. Such programs are a good idea and a worthy goal, but the City does not presently have the plans or funds to support such programs. Goal EDG6 was added (page IV-30) because most growth occurs though existing businesses, not new ones. Policy EDP8 was added because the staff feels it is important to encourage the development/ redevelopment of existing commercial land, rather that create more though rezones. This does not mean that rezones will not happen, just that this issue will be considered. The Commission had no questions or comments on this chapter. Chapter Five, Housing – Ms. Clark reclaimed the staff report discussion at this point. A complete update of this chapter will occur next year when the Human Services Plan is updated. Updates have been made to the chapter based on Census data and newly adopted household targets. She noted that the City has a lot of existing affordable housing, but not a lot of new affordable housing. The Commission had no questions or comments on this chapter. Commissioner Drake thanked the staff for all the time and effort they have put into this project. Commissioner Newport asked for changes to the zoning map due to the site-specific requests, how are they handled? Ms. Clark replied because the comprehensive plan and site-specific requests are reviewed together, changes to the zoning map because of site-specific requests are done at a later date. There was no public testimony. It was m/s/c to continue the Public Hearing on the 2002 Comprehensive Plan Update to the November 20, 2002, Planning Commission hearing at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None. Planning Commission Summary Page 4 November 6, 2002 K:\Planning Commission\2002\Meeting Summary 11-06-02.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 3:54 PM AUDIENCE COMMENT Councilmember Faison addressed the Commission in regards to the proposed “big box” code amendment. He asked if there was any interest in holding a joint Planning Commission, Land Use/Transportation Committee meeting to further discuss the issue. Chairman Caulfield replied that the Planning Commission is not against the concept, but felt it is too soon and more work needs to be done on the proposal. Commissioner Elder commented that the Commission felt that there hadn’t been enough discussion on the proposal and more dialog needed to happen with property and business owners in the area. Given this the Commission is willing to attend a joint meeting. Councilmember Faison replied that he would try to invite owners of large parcels to the joint meeting and would make arrangements for the meeting. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m.