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.