Loading...
LUTC PKT 05-15-2000May 15, 2000 5:30 pm City of Federal Way City Council ' Land Use/Transportation committee City Hall Council Chambers 2. 3. 4. MEETING AGENDA CALL TO ORDER. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the May 1, 2000, meeting PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) BUSINESS ITEMS B. C. D. E. Community Design Guidelines Set Public Hearing for Adoption of the TIP 2000 Benchmark Report Sound Transit Update Briefing Roundabouts FUTURE MEETING AGENDA ITEMS. SWM/CIP West Hylebos Channel Stabilization 6. ADJOURN Action Clifton/15 min Action Perez/5 min Information Clark/20 min Information Clifton/i 5 min Information Perez/10 rain Committee Members: Phil Watkins, Chair deanne Burbidge Dean McColgan City Staff: Stephen Clifton, Director, Community Development Services Sandy Lyle, Administrative Assistant 253.661.4116 I:~LU-TRANS~Iay 15, 2000 LUTC AGN.do¢ May 1, 2000 5:30 pm City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee City Council Council Chambers MEETING SUMMARY In attendance: Committee members Phil Watkins, Chair, Jeanne Burbidge and Dean McColgan; Director of Community Development Services Stephen Clifton; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Assistant City Attorney Bob Sterbank; Deputy Director of Public Works Ken Miller; Street Systems Manager Marwan Salloum; Senior Planner Margaret Clark; Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; Traffic Analyst Sarady Long; Engineer Fei Tang; Surface Water Engineer Will Appleton; Administrative Assistant Sandy Lyle. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Watkins called the meeting to order at 5:35 pm. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the April 17, 2000, meeting were approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENT Doug Smith, SeaTac Mall, commented that the Mall management was as frustrated as the City that the SeaTac Mall owners have no current plans for redevelopment of the property. 4. BUSINESS ITEMS SeaTac Mall Drainage Phase II Improvement Project - SeaTac Mall Detention Phase II improvements will consist of replacing and up-sizing approximately 3,400 linear feet of pipe with reinforced concrete pipe ranging in size from 12-inch to 84-inch diameter; the installation of manholes and catch basins; removal of existing pipes and drainage structures; curb, gutter and sidewalk removal and replacement; landscaping, and other work incidental to the storm drain; as well as the conversion of the large substandard storm water retention/detention facility (southeast corner of the SeaTac Mall property), to a water quality facility and removal of contaminated sediment from within the pipe alignment and detention facility. On March 2, 1998, the Land Use Transportation Committee was presented with an 85% Design Status Report, estimated at the time to be over budget. Now better defined, the project design is 100% complete. Easement agreements are currently being negotiated and will be completed and executed prior to contract award. Four issues that have impacted project costs are: 1) pipe realignment through the Mall property; 2) disposal of contaminated soils in the detention facility; 3) contaminated soil and groundwater within the proposed storm drain alignment; and 4) design alteration of the lateral storm drain extending west along South 320th from the entrance to SeaTac Plaza and Center Plaza to the west side of 20th Avenue South. Total estimated project costs are $4,272,180. Appropriated budget is $3,071,630. To cover the budget shortfall of $1,200,550, a 20-year, low interest loan for $2,750,000 from the Washington State Public Works Trust Fund will be obtained. Bidding is anticipated in May and awarding in June. The schedule allows project completion by the end of the year. The Committee m/s/c recommendation to the City Council at its May 16, 2000, meeting, to approve the SeaTac Mall Drainage Phase II Improvement Project, adjust the budget to cover design and construction cost increases amounting to $1,200,550, and authorize bidding of the project when all necessary easements and agreements are executed. Star Lake Road Drainage Improvement/Water Main Replacement 100% Design Submittal - The Committee m/s/c recommendation to the City Council at its May 16, 2000, meeting to approve the Star Lake Road Drainage Improvement and Water Main Replacement 100% Design Submittal. Also recommended for approval was the Interlocal agreement with the City of Kent addressing storm water discharge into the wetlands located on the north side of272na Street. The storm drainage improvement portion of the project will consist of constructing approximately 2,000 linear feet of storm drain pipeline of varying diameter (12 to 60-inch pipe), associated manholes and inlets, and approximately 1,200 linear feet of concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk replacement. The water main replacement portion of the project involves the replacement of approximately 2,300 linear feet of 12-inch water main, associated appurtenances, and service relocations replaced as part of the storm drain project. Co 2000 Transportation Modeling Contract - The Committee m/s/c recommendation to the City Council at its May 16, 2000, meeting to execute the 2000 Transportation Modeling Update contract with Mirai Associates in the amount of $49,991.00. Transportation models are used for forecasting travel demand for long term planning activities such as the City Comprehensive Plan, corridor analyses, and alternatives analyses. The model output could be used to analyze the level of service at intersections and evaluate trip distribution for development projects. In addition, the model would also assist in growth management issues like concurrency and traffic impact fees. Single Family Residential Density Increase - Based upon information presented to the Committee regarding development of single family homes on small lots zoned RS5.0, staff asked permission to facilitate contact between developers and owners of property in the area off 21 st Street SW between the Fred Meyer store and Northwest Church. If an agreement can be reached, draft standards would be developed then presented to the City Council. The Council could approve, modify or deny the proposed standards. The Committee m/s/c to direct staffto explore the possibilities. FUTURE MEETINGS The next meeting will be held in Council Chambers at 5:30 pm on May 15, 2000. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 6:50pm. I :~LU-TRAN S~,layO 100LUTC sum.doc CITY OFfs, ~'~ii~~ 33530 1STWAY SOUTH (253) 661-4000 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003-6210 Date: May 10, 2000 To: Federal Way Land Use and Transportation Committee Chair: Phil Watkins, City Councilmember Via: David Mosele~~nager From: Stephen Cliff:on, Community Development Services Director RE: Community Design Guidelines Building Facades Facing Public Rights of Way In 1996, the City of Federal Way adopted community design guidelines for commercial zones. These guidelines were adopted as a community response to the appearance of the Good Guys, constructed in 1995, and located at the northeast corner of South 320th Street and Pacific Highway South. Since the adoption of the design guidelines, several new and remodeled projects have been constructed which add to the positive image of Federal Way, e.g., Holiday Inn, IVlarie Callendars, SeaTac Village, Rite Aid, Extended Stay, Walmart, etc. Additionally, as part of the redevelopment process, a few projects within the City Center now include pedestrian pathways connecting commercial store fronts to sidewalks along the public right-of-way. The City has recently received several negative comments regarding the Pep Boys building, now under construction in the 8Czone along Pacific Highway South, due south of South 324th Street. When reviewing the operations of the Pep Boys, City staff required that the developer orient the auto service bays towards the west, away from the public right-of-way (Pacific Highway South). The next goal was to orient the entrance, as much as possible, towards the street, which the developer agreed to do. Although the entrance is near Pacific Highway South, it faces a southeast direction, thus it is not as visible from the east and not at all from the north. In a 8Czone, a building's facade is not required to incorporate windows. Instead, a list of methods to articulate blank walls is available to a project's owner, e.g., recessed windows, modulation, vertical trellis, landscaping, artwork, architectural features and varying materials. The Pep Boys meets the current minimum design requirements by incorporating modulation, landscaping and vertical trellis. Department staff requested the developer incorporate windows into the facade facing Pacific Highway South, however, as convincing as we thought we were, Pep Boys chose to meet the minimum existing design guidelines. In 1996, the City chose to adopt regulations that encouraged rather than mandated that some guidelines be met, however, this doesn't always work. The inclusion of windows or faux windows in the Pep Boys project would have resulted in a more attractive facade along the east side of the structure. However, existing design guidelines reference a should instead of shall related to the installation or placement of windows within facades that face public rights of way; thus we could not require windows. Staff Recommendation: Based on the above information, City staff requests authorization to initiate a review of existing Federal Way design guidelines and those from other Jurisdictions and eventually propose amendments to the Federal Way City Code Article XIX, Community Design Guidelines. Specifically, staff will be looking at methods to improve upon the visual appearance of facades that face public rights of way in all commercial, office and business park zones. If possible, a proposed amendment could be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council as part of this year's miscellaneous code amendments. DA TE: May 12, 2000 TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: Phil Watkins, Chair Land Use/Transportation Committee Perez, Traffic Engineer /~ Rick David H. Mos~Manager Setting the Public Hearing Date for the Proposed 2001-2006Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and Arterial Street Improvement Plan (ASIP) BACKGROUND In accordance with the requirements of Chapters 35.77 and 47.26 of the Revised Code of Washington, the City of Federal Way adopted its original TIP and ASIP on July 23, 1991. The City is also required to adopt a revised TIP and ASIP on an annual basis that reflects the City's current and future street and arterial needs. The City is required to hold a minimum of one public hearing on the revised plans which is proposed for the June 20, 2000 City Council meeting. Once the revised plans have been adopted by Resolution, a copy of the respective plans must be filed with the Washington State Secretary of Transportation and the Washington State Transportation Improvement Board. The attached resolution sets the public hearing date for the June 20, 2000 City Council meeting. The TIP will be presented to the Land Use / Transporation Committee at the first meeting in June, 2000. RECOMMENDATION Staff is requesting the Committee forward to the City Council a recommendation to authorize scheduling a public hearing for the June 20, 2000 City Council meeting for the review and adoption of the 2001-2006 TIP and ASIP. Attachments K:\LUTC\2000\01-06IIP.Wpd RESOLUTION NO. ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2000 FOR ADOPTION OF A REVISED SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND ARTERIAL STREET IMPROVEMENT PLAN. WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Chapters .35.77 and 47.26 RCW, the City Council of the City of Federal Way must adopt a revised and extended Six-year Transportation Improvement Program and Arterial Street Improvement Plan annually; and WHEREAS, a public hearing must be held for adoption of the revised and extended Six-year Transportation Improvement Program and the Arterial Street Improvement Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDEP~AL WAY, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Public Hearinq. A public hearing shall be held on the 2001-2006 Federal Way Transportation Improvement Plan and Arterial Street Improvement Plan at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 20, 2000, at the Federal Way City Hall Council Chambers. Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution. Section 3. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of the resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 4. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by the Federal Way City Council. RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, this day of , 2000. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, MICHAEL PARK ATTEST: CITY CLERK, N. CHRISTINE GREEN, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, LONDI K. LINDELL FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. K:~LUTC~2000~01-06 TIP.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM May 10, 2000 TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) Phil Watkins, Chair Stephen Clifton, AICP, Director of Community Development Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner ~ David Mosel~~Y~Manager 2000 King County Benchmark Report This memorandum includes a summary of the King County Benchmark Program, a list of Year 1999 Benchmark Indicators sent to King County for the 2000 Report, and examples of selected indicators from the 1999 King County Benchmark Report (covers Years 1995 through 1998). I. THE KING COUNTY BENCHMARK PROGRAM In 1990, the Washington State Legislature passed the Growth Management Act (GM~I). All urban counties and their cities were required to develop and adopt comprehensive plans and regulations to implement this Act. In order to achieve an interjurisdictional coordinated countywide plan, GMA also required that King County and its 35 cities adopt framework policies, the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs), to guide the development of the jurisdictions' plans. Adopted policies must include the following: 1. Policies to implement Urban Growth Areas. Policies for promotion of contiguous and orderly development and provision of urban services to such development. o Policies that consider the need for affordable housing, such as housing for all economic segments of the population and parameters for its distribution. Beginning in the fall of 1991, the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC), a group of 15 elected officials representing King County, the City of Seattle, and the Suburban Cities of King County met jointly to develop and recommend countywide planning policies for King County. In July of 1992, the King County Council adopted the countywide planning policies recommended by the GMPC. These were called Phase I policies and included targets for each city and unincorporated King County. In May 1994, the GMPC took final action on the Phase II policies. These policies included designation of Urban Centers for purposes of pursuing a regional plan, and affordable housing. The CPPs mandate that King County and its jurisdictions track how they are meeting the countywide planning policies. In 1995, the GMPC and citizens throughout the County helped develop 45 indicators, which are part of the Benchmark Program. The purpose of the Benchmark Program is to provide the GMPC, other policy makers and the public with a method for evaluating a jurisdiction's progress in implementing the countywide planning policies. The 1999 Benchmark Report is the fourth annual report to monitor the CPPs. II. 1999 BENCHMARK INDICATORS AND SELECTED EXAMPLES FROM THE 1999 KING COUNTY BENCHMARK REPORT Each April, King County collects Benchmark Indicators for the previous year from all cities and unincorporated King County and consolidates them into one report, which is published in the fall as the Annual Benchmark Report. On April 30, 2000, Federal Way provided King County with the attached worksheets for Indicators 28, 30, 32, 37, and 45, which included information on the 1999 Benchmark Indicators. The following are examples of Benchmark Indicators from the 1999 King County Benchmark Report: (a) Indicator 29 - Chart showing Existing housing Units Affordable to Low Income Households (Households with income at 80 percent of median) and Table showing Affordable Housing Indicators. (b) Indicator 30 - Table showing New Housing Units Permitted in Urban Centers. Federal Way has no units in its Urban Center (City Center Core). A correction was forwarded to King County as part of the 2000 Benchmark Report. (c) Indicator 30 - Table showing Land Use Indicators. This table shows number of residential units permitted by jurisdiction from 1995 through 1998. Please call Margaret Clark at (253) 661-4111 should you have any questions or need additional information. I:\BENCHMRK\51500 Benchmark Report to the LTC.doc/5/10/00 9:53 AM Metropolitan King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program 2000 King County Benchmark Report Indicator Worksheets Indicator//28 Public dollars spent on low income housing This Indicator measures more than the expenditure of public dollars on low income housing. It also measures a range of local actions which foster affordable housing; and the number of units in your city affordable to all income groups regardless of public money was used or not. This last measurement is important since most housing in your jurisdiction is produced by the private sector without public money. In addition, some jurisdictions do not have the local resources to spend on housing. Therefore, we want to acknowledge all local activities which facilitate affordable housing. Examples of such activities include: regulatory actions such as accessory housing or density bonuses and in-kind contributions such as fee waivers or local land donations. In calendar year 1999 record in the following table: · what type and amount of public dollars, including in-kind contributions, were spent on units affordable to households at or below 80% of median income; · how many units were constructed, preserved, rehabilitated with those dollars. Notes about the table · For income guidelines, see chart on next page · Public dollars are defined as bonds, levies, general fund and any in-kind contribution that can be quantified such as a waiver of fees or donation of land Only report local bond funds the year the bond funds are issued Do not report th.e annual bond payments. · ,4 preserved unit differs from rehabilitated or constructed unit. It is an existing unit of housing which is required to remain or to become affordable for a specific amount of time. For example, with the help of public funds, a non-profit agency purchases a market rate housing development which is then rented or sold with a requirement of long term affordability. ,4 rehabilitated unit refers to repair or restoration of existing affordable housing. It is important to note that for most rehabilitated units, there is no guarantee of long term affordability; therefore such units do not increase the affordable housing stock · Only report the number of units your city's funding directly benefits, not necessarily all the units in the project. · For multi-city shared housing projects, indicate total dollars for project andyour city's contribution. Indicate number of units based on the proportion you pay. For example: Total Project = 30 houses rehabilitated; Cost = $300,000; Your citypaid = $75,000 = 25% = 7.5 housing units rehabilitated byyour city. For Units Affordable to Households at or Below 80% of Median Income Dollar Amount Used in 1999 Fund No. of Units Preserved, Rehabilitated Source: 1999 CDBG or constructed with these public funds* Total Project Cost Your City's Share Rehabilitated PreservedConstructed $83,400 $83,400 80.00 $140,000 $140,000 15.00 $103,662 $20,000 3.86 $715,000 $40,000 0.56 $181,592 $22,500 0.12 $390,000 $30,000~ 0.08 $40,000 $40,0001 1.00 $1,750,000 $5,000 0.02 cost: (e.g. 12 unit project, your city pays 33.3%, your city claims 4 units) Worksheets due: April 30, 2000. Return worksheets to Cynthia Moffitt or Rose Curran, King County Office of Regional Policy and Planning, 516 Third Ave., Rm 420, Seattle WA 98104; faxr 206.205.0719. If you have questions, contact Cynthia at 206.205.0709 or Rose at 206.205.0715. . Metropolitan King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program 2000 King County Benchmark Report Indicator WOrksheets Indicator #28 (continued) Public dollars spent on low income housing Were any local dollars used as an operating subsidy for housing affordable to households at 80% or below of median income? If so, note much was allocated as operating subsidy in 1998. $37,000. Note: do not include federal funds, such as Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), which your city uses as operating subsidies. An operating subsidy pays for items such as utilities, rent or case management services located at the housing site. This includes operating subsidies for emergency and transitional shelters as well as permanent housing. The above information was provided by Camron Parker (253) 661-4153 · How many units affordable to households at or below 80% of median income were produced in 1999 because of regulatory measures enacted by your city. This includes accessory dwelling units or density bonuses. Number of units 1 ADU · Regulatory measures enacted to produce the units: Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance. Two (2) manufactured homes on single family lots (The City allows manufactured homes outside of parks if certain dimensional and design standards are utilized) Please add a footnote if there are any regulatory measures your city has adopted in 1999, but that have not yet resulted in an increase of housing units. You may wish to note regulatory measures that reduce housing costs, but cannot be tied directly to affordable units (e.g. flexible subdivision standards) or facilitate affordable housing or transfer of development rights. (Note: An affordable rental payment is considered to be 30% of household income, while an affordable monthly mortgage payment is considered to be 25% of household income, because in the case of home ownership other housing costs such as utilities and taxes must also be paid out of the household's housing budget. This means that an affordable monthly mortgage payment is about 83.3% of an affordable rental payment. Example: In 1999, a household earning 80% of the median income in King County made about $50,080. At this income, the family could afford $1252 in rent, or a house payment of about $1043 per month. They could afford to purchase a home costing no more than $178, 000.) Worksheets due: April 30, 2000. Return worksheets to Cynthia Moffitt or Rose Curran, King County Office of Regional Policy and Planning, 516 Third Ave., Rm 420, Seattle WA 98104; faxr 206.205.0719. If you have questions, contact Cynthia at 206.205.0709 or Rose at 206.205.0715. Metropolitan King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program 2000 King County Benchmark Report Indicator Worksheets Indicator #28 (continued) Public dollars spent on low income housing 1999 Annual Income Levels Affordable Monthly Housing Payments (30%) for Rentals by Household Size Household Size & Corresponding Unit Type Unit Type: Studios 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4 Bed 5 Bed Upper Income (120% of Median) Affordable Monthly Pmt Median Income (100% of Median) Affordable Monthly Pmt Low Income (80% of Median) Affordable Monthly Prat Very Low Income (50% of Median) Affordable Monthly Pmt Extremely Low Income (30% of Median) Affordable Monthly Pmt $52,560 $60,120 $67,560 $75,120 $81,120 $87,120 $1,314 $1,503 $1,689 $1,878 $2,028 $2,178 $43,800 $50,100 $56,300 $62,600 $67,600 $72,600 $1,095 $1,253 $1,408 $1,565 $1,690 $1,815 $35,040 $40,080 $45,040 $50,080 $54,080 $58,080 $876 $1,002 $1,126 $1,252 $1,352 $1,452 $21,900 $25,050 $28,150 $31,300 $33,800 $36,300 $548 $626 $704 $783 $845 $908 $13,140 $15,030 $16,890 $18,780 $20,280 $21,780 $329 $376 $422 $470 $507 $545 Notes: (1)An Affordable Monthly Housing Payment is defined as a housing cost/payment that is no more than 30% of a household's monthly income (for rentals). This amount does not include a deduction for utilities; it assumes the entire payment goes towards the rent. (2) For affordability calculations: a studio should be affordable to a one person household, a one-bedroom unit should be affordable to a 2 person household, a three bedroom unit should be affordable to a 4 person household, and so on. Worksheets due: April 30, 2000. Return worksheets to Cynthia Moffitt or Rose Curran, King County Office of Regional Policy and Planning, 516 Third Ave., Rm 420, Seattle WA 98104; faxr 206.205.0719. If you have questions, contact Cynthia at 206.205.0709 or Rose at 206.205.0715. Metropolitan King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program 2000 King County Benchmark Report Indicator Worksheets Indicator #30 Percent of New Housing Units in Urban Areas and Rural/Resource Areas Part I: New Housing Units Permitted in 1999 King County's records, the monthly C-404 reports submitted by your city to King County, indicate that you issued permits in calendar year 1999 for · a. 119 single family permits 117 units were reported to King County in 2/28/00 correspondence to Nanette Morales; one of these was an ADU, which will be reported for Benchmark purposes as redevelopment. Two Manufactured homes on single-family lots were included in this category since they are outside of parks on permanent foundations on single- family lots and they are not accounted for anywhere in the Benchmark Worksheets. b. 225 multifamily permits ¢. 344 Total residential permits 225 units were reported to King County in 2/28/00 correspondence to Nanette Morales; two of these were converted from storage units in an existing multi-family complex. These two units will be reported for Benchmark purposes as redevelopment. For your information, Indicator #30 is intended to be a count of building permits issued, not a count of units completed or certificates of occupancy issued. This information was verified for us after the end of the year by Margaret Clark (253) 661-4111. Number of housing units demolished during 1999: d. 3_ single family units demolished e. 0 multifamily units demolished f. 3 Total residential units demolished Net New Housing Units during 1999: g. 116 Net New Single Family (a - d ) h. 225 Net New MultiFamily units (b - e) i. 341 New Housing Units (c- f) This is the number of net new housing units that we plan to count for your City in the 1999 Benchmark Report. If you wish to make a change to this number, please describe the change. The numbers you submit here should be the same as the summary of permits, demolitions and net new units recorded on Tables 4 and 7 of the 1999 Buildable Lands Residential Worksheets. Worksheets due: April 30, 2000. Return worksheets to Cynthia Moffitt or Rose Curran, King County Office of Regional Policy and Planning, 516 Third Ave., Rm 420, Seattle WA 98104; faxr 206.205.0719. If you have questions, contact Cynthia at 206.205.0709 or Rose at 206.205.0715. Metropolitan King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program 2000 King County Benchmark Report Indicator Worksheets Indicator #30 Percent of New Housing Units in Urban Areas and Rural/Resource Areas Part II. New Housing Units Permitted in Urban Centers 1999 How many of the new units permitted in 1999 were located within your Urban Center(s)? a. 0 How many of the permitted units were completed in 1999 (an estimate is OK) b. 0 The 2000 Benchmark Report shows that in 1998 your Urban Center had the following number of units: c. 200 Please note that Federal Way has 0 units in the Urban Center, which is the City Center Core and 892 units in the City Center Frame which surrounds the Urban Center (City Center Core) How many Urban Center units were demolished in 1999 or otherwise removed from the housing stock d. 0 The current stock of housing units in your Urban Center is: e. 0 Note: (b+c-d = e), Do you wish to add any footnotes to the Benchmark Report to further describe the number of units in your Center(s)? Footnotes: Worksheets due: April 30, 2000. Retum worksheets to Cynthia Moffitt or Rose Curran, King County Office of Regional Policy and Planning, 516 Third Ave., Rm 420, Seattle WA 98104; faxr 206.205.0719. If you have questions, contact Cynthia at 206.205.0709 or Rose at 206.205.0715. Metropolitan King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program 2000 King County Benchmark Report Indicator Worksheets Indicator//32 Percent of new residential units that could be counted as redevelopment Estimated number of units that could be counted as redevelopment Redevelopment is generally defined as the development of a more intense use on land that already had a less intense use, as opposed to development on vacant land. Please see the 1999 Buildable Lands residential worksheets, notes, and guidelines for a suggested methodology for collecting data on residential redevelopment. How many new units were built on land with a pre-existing use (i.e. previous structures or improvements)? 3 Please note that the units in redevelopment should be a subset of the units for which building permits were issued as defined in Indicator #30 Percent of New Housing Units in Urban Areas and Rural/Resource Areas, and as reported on Tables 2 through 7 of the 1999 Buildable Lands worksheets. Worksheets due: April 30, 2000. Return worksheets to Cynthia Moffitt or Rose Curran, King County Office of Regional Policy and Planning, 516 Third Ave., Rm 420, Seattle WA 98104; faxr 206.205.07 i 9. If you have questions, contact Cynthia at 206.205.0709 or Rose at 206.205.0715. Metropolitan King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program 2000 King County Benchmark Report Indicator Worksheets Indicator #37 Acres of Urban Parks and Open Space In the 1999 Benchmark Report the acres of parks and open space in added in 1998 is a. 818.54 Acres of city-owned urban parks and open space added (including annexations) in 199 b. 4.46 Acres of city-owned parks and open space removed from your city in 1999 c. 0 Total existing acres in parks and open space at end of 1999. d. 823 Note (a+b-c=d) Notes about this Indicator · 'Urban' means within the an Urban Growth Area · City-owned means parks and open space property owned by your city, or for which you city has acquired development rights. Park land that owned but not yet developed may be counted. · Do not count parks or openspace owned by the state or county. Do not count parks or open space privately owned, unless primarily maintained by the city and open to the public. Do not count watersheds unless open for public recreation use. This information was provided by Jon Jainga Telephone (253) 661-4043 Worksheets due: April 30, 2000. Return worksheets to Cynthia Moffitt or Rose Currath King County Office of Regional Policy and Planning, 516 Third Ave., Rm 420, Seattle WA 98104; faxr 206.205.0719. If you have questions, contact Cynthia at 206.205.0709 or Rose at 206.205.0715. Metropolitan King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program 2000 King County Benchmark Report Indicator Worksheets Indicator #45 Number of lane miles of city, county and state roads and bridges in need of repair and preservation. · The policy rational for this indicator stems from Countywide Planning Policies FW~20, FW-23 and T-8. This Indicator attempts to measure our ability to protect and preserve our existing infrastructure, and to eliminate, lessen or defer the need to invest in new facilities. A key outcome of the CPP Transportation policies is to protect and improve the transportation infrastructure. Total centerline miles in your city in 1999. a. 234.9 Total lane miles in your city in 1999.* b. 475.29 Estimated number of lane miles in need of repair or preservation in1999. c. 50.49 Roads budget for your city in 1999. d. Roads maintenance and preservation (including repaving, etc.) d. $4,152,206 e. New construction (roads, bridges, etc.) f. All other roads budget items g. Total Roads Budget (d + f+ g) e. $16,687,842 f. $0 g. $20,840,048 *Total lane miles should be equivalent to the number of lanes per segment times the number of centerline miles in that segment. E.g.: 3 centerline miles of 2 lanes in each direction equals 3 x 4 or 12 lane miles. Also, if your figures are for more than one year, please note an estimate for one year. This information was provided by Marwan Salloum Telephone (253) 6614095 If you wish to add footnotes to the Benchmark Report about your data for this indicator, please note below. ISBENCHMRK~2000 Benchmark Worksheets.doc/4~28/00 1:54 PM Worksheets due: April 30, 2000. Return worksheets to Cynthia Moffitt or Rose Curran, King County Office of Regional Policy and Planning, 516 Third Ave., Rm 420, Seattle WA 98104; faxr 206.205.0719. If you have questions, contact Cynthia at 206.205.0709 or Rose at 206.205.0715. Metropolitan King County Coun~.,wide Planning Policies Benchmark Program AFFORDABLE HOUSING INDICATORS HOUSING INDICATOR 29: Existing housing units affordable to low income households. Affordable Rental or Ownership Opportunities as Percent of Total Homing Stock Beaux Arts DesMoinesRent°n i I Algona Tukwila Auburn ' I " ' " " I Clyde Hill Hunts' Point Duvall 1 O g~ l 0 qo 2 0 ~ 3 0 go 40 go 5 0 ~* 6 0 ~ 7 0 g* 1999 King County Benchmark Report 95 Affordable Housing Metropolitan King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program AFFORDABLE HOUSING INDICATORS HOUSING Percent of Single Percent of Total Total Rental Rental Family & S.F. & Affordable Units Units Condos Condos Affordable Affordable Affordable at 50% of Rental or Median at 50% of under 80% Under 80% Median of Median of Median Ownership 7,054 88.1% 2,683 35.1% 9,737 3,741 75.5% 2,309 41.0% 6,050 Tukwila 2,723 61.3% 1,316 44.3% 4,040 ^lgona 29 13.1% 407 63.4% 436 Pacific 644 67.9% 344 33.2% 988 Federal Way 8,494 60.3% 5,492 31.3% 13,986 Burien 3,900 66.2% 1,807 25.8% 5,707 Enumclaw 990 63.8% 656 25.1% 1,646 DesMoines 2,741 56.0% 1,509 23.4%I I 14'250 11,331 38% Renton 4,506 43.3% 2,559 25.1% 7,065 20,605 34% Skykomish 0 0.0% 47 40.0% 47 178 26% Black Diamond 23 9.8% 394 27.2% 417 1,678 25% Covington 0 0.0% 916 25.3% 916 4,313 21% Snoqualmie 0 0.0% 145 34.2% 145 713 20% Seattle 38,047 28.4% 12~615 10.6% 50,663 252,699 20% i Normandy Park 434 47.7% 78 4.5% I 512 , 2,659 , 19% Carnation 60 32.1% 31 6.9%I I 190 629 14% Shoreline 1,871 29.1% 909 6.8% 2,780 19,750 14% Unincorp. King Cty 6,834 24.2% 11,678 10.2% 18,511 142,787 13% Bothell 301 12.3% 526 13.2% 827 6,424 13% Kirkland 711 8.0% 1,501 12.7% 2,212 20,710 11% Bellevue 2,122 12.5% 2,458 8.9% 4,580 44~650 10% Kenmore 551 29.4% 18 0.4°/o ] 569 ] 6,314 ] 9% Maple Valley 220 30.0% 147 3.8%I I [368 4,604 8% Lake Forest Park 275 25.0% 89 2.3% 363 5,031 7% Issaquah 5 0.2% 267 11.1% 273 4,538 6% Newcastle 0 0.0% 189 8.0% 189 3,214 6% Redmond 114 1.3% , 931 9.2% 1,046 19,302 5% Duvall 71 33.4% · 0 0.0% . 71 1,493 5% W oodinville 35 2.9% 80 3.4% 116 3,535 3% North Bend 0 0.0% 39 3.7% 39 1,517 3% Mercer Island 50 2.4% 11.5 1.7% 165 8,925 2% Yarrow Point 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 399 0% Milton 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 332 0% Medina 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1,209 0% Hunts' Point 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 197 0% Clyde Hill 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1,099 0% Beaux Arts 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 118 0% All of King County 96,807 33.2% 26,895 6.5% 123,701 705,964 18% *This total excludes owner-occupied duplex, triplex, or fourplex units, since there is no reliable data on the cost of those units 1999 King County Benchmark Report 98 Affordable Housing Metropolitan King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program LAND USE INDICATORS Outcome: Encourage a Greater Share of Growth in Urban Areas and Urban Centers; Limit Growth in Rural/Resource Areas INDICATOR 30: Percent of new housing units in Urban Areas and Rural/Resource Areas, and in Urban Centers. Urbanll/~lll'~ IIII187.4199511~I/II~1% 92 1996% I'~i'~l"~/~19981911997% 94% Rural/Resource 12.6 % 8 % 9 % 6 % 1995 1996 1997 1998 New Housin~ Units in Urban Centers 406 819 1,761 916 Percent of Total King County New Housing Units in Urban Centers 6 % 7 % 14 % 6 % The total number of new units in Seattle's Urban Centers is incomplete and therefore lower than the number of units actually permitted in 1998. Currant data sources in Seattle's Permit Tracking System are such that it is not possible to make a precise estimate of units permitted in four of the five Urban Centers. 1996 Units 1997 Units 1998 Units 95-98 Units Total Existing & New Units 819 !,761 916 3,902 62,249 3750 6230 3260 1,3240.,~2'170-'<~> 113 0 0 213 715 119 0 124 243 1,073 0 11 112 130 1,218 47 0 12 59 3,953 165 1,127 342 1,933 52,909 18 465 342 840 80 136 na 453 32 168 na 190 17 212 na 261 18 146 na 189 0 0 0 0 11 'l ! [ I See note above regarding Seattle's units. Even though no new units were permitted in Kent's Urban Center, the majority of new multifamily units permitted in 1998 in Kent were sited at a master planned community (127 units) located approximately one mile from the Urban Center. 1999 King County Benchmark Report 108 Land Use Metropolitan King County Countywide Planning Policies Benchmark Program LAND USE INDICATORS Indicator 30: Background Information 1995-1998 20 Year Household Annual Avg Units to 1995 Units 1996 Units 1997 Units 1998 Units Units Target Meet 20 Year Target Auburn 200 ~_~1310~ I 375 731~ 1,616i 7,030 352 Beaux Arts 0 ~-- 13 I 1 0 4 0 0 __ Bellevue 157 i, 506 1,406 1,077~ 3,146 i 8,600 430 ~Black Diamond 46 ~ 39 68 43 196 I 2,045 102 Bothell ~ 14~4~44~ 30 121 745 [___ 1,700 __ 85 Burien 24 ! 32 ~ 67 83 206 1,596 80 __Carnation 13 ~__2~0~__ 27 16 76 404 20 C~_de mn 3 i 2 -4 6 2 13 13 1 ~ na ~_ nai na 26 26 na na DesMoines 34 [ 17 47 28 126__ 2,335 117 Duvall 54 [ 51__ 126 116 347 ! 2,044 102 Enumclaw 53 i 114 28 19 214 [ 2,7_ 00 135 Federal Way 214~[ 232 507 199~ 1~_152 I 13,425 to 16,556 671 - 828 Hunts Point 0 / 1 2 2 5__~ 4 0 Issaquah 187 151 140 5221,000 ~1,000 2,940 147 Kent 365 906 502~ 446 2,2194 7,520 376___ Kirldand 323 534 615 434 ~~ 5,328 to 6,346 266 to 317 Lake Forest Park 17 15 0 27 59 153 8 Maple Valley na ~na na 238 nd__ na na Medina na 9 11 12 32 17 1 Mercer Island 44 69 68 50 231 1,610 81 Milton 24 i 51 _ _ 3 2 80 18 Newcastle 47 t 68 45 50 210 na na Normandy Park 114 ~__7 7 11 139 181 9 North Bend 69__I 105 114 251 539 1,527 76 Pacific 38 ! 0 i 4 6 48--7 606 to 1,818 30 to 91 Redmond 433 ~ 457 454 1,92~5i 9,878 494 Rent__on 1._51 _' '] 319 ~ 912 9~36 2,318~i 7,925 396 SeaTac 25 ] 73 I 35~ 40 173 '~q _ 5,789 [ 289 __Seattle 1,094 ~1,091 ~ 2,394 3,933 8,512 ~ 50,000 to 60,000 } 2,500 to 3,000 Shoreline 113 ! 42I 154 141 450/ ~~ na na __~komi sh 2~~00 2 6t 17 1 Snoqualmie 16 [ 10 ' 71 142~ 239 2450 to 3100 123 to 155 Tukwila 12 i 49 48 32 141 j 4,791 to 6,014 240 to 301 Woodinville 35__~ 192 140 267 634 1,800 90 Yarrow Point 2 I 4 1 1 8 ! 18 1 u*anUnin o KC 1,680 2,663_4 2,354 2,915 9,612 Rum' KC ,8~ [ ~99 I 1,081 867 3,6471 Total 6r544 ! 9~634 i 11~859 14~251 42?288 i 184~914- 212~148 ~ 9~270- 107607 LAND USE 1999 King County Benchmark Report 1 10 Land Use CITY OFfs, (253) 661-4000 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003-6210 Date: May 9, 2000 To: Federal Way Land Use and Transportation Committee Chair: Phil Watkins, City Councilmember //~::7 j From: Stephen Clifton, Community Development Services Director Via: David Mo~nager RE: Sound Transit Update Sound Transit proposes a series of improvements that address the long-term transit needs of Federal Way, Kent and Southwest King County. Three specific projects proposed for the Federal Way area include: 1) Federal Way Transit Center and Parking Structure (City Center) with HOV direct access ramps from 1~- 5, 2) Star Lake Park & Ride Lot with direct access to an in-line station within the median of I-5 or HOV Direct Access Ramp, and 3) SR-99 Pacific Highway South Park & Ride Lot, due south of South 272nd Street (plans not available at this time). BACKGROUND On August 5, 1999, Sound Transit presented preliminary concepts of the Federal Way Transit Center and Parking Structure to the City of Federal Way Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTC), Councilmembers and interested commission members. At that time, preliminary concepts had not been prepared for the Star Lake and Pacific Highway South projects. The Federal Way Transit Center and Parking Structure concepts, which emerged from a community design charette held in March of 1999, and subsequent Sound Transit Project Management Team (PMT) meetings, included facade elevations, site and landscaping plans. LUTC members and those in attendance unanimously supported the concepts (see attached plans and elevations). The concepts, if realized, would accomplish the creation of a focal point or landmark (clock tower), strengthen pedestrian connectivity, incorporate mixed use development, enhance the area's development potential, reinforce the street grid, create open space and leave a portion of the site for future transit oriented development. Since the August 1999 LUTC meeting, the PMT, which consists of Sound Transit, Washington State Department of Transportation, King County METRO, SVERDRUP (Sound Transit Environmental Consultants) and City of Federal Way Staff, have met several times to discuss the environmental assessments for each project, site layouts, HOV access, alternatives related to the Star Lake Project, access management, mitigation, etc. Additionally, Sound Transit has met with the Executive Advisory Committee (EAC) in September of 1999, and .lanuary and May of 2000 to discuss progress to date for all three projects. During the May 3, 2000 F_AC meeting, Sound Transit representatives stated that the Star Lake (see attached alternatives) and Pacific Highway South projects may be under budget, while the Federal Way Transit Center is most likely over budget. The specific amounts are not available at this time and Sound Transit only talked in general numbers. Regarding the Federal Way Transit Center and Parking Structure, Sound Transit did state that, if funding can't be found by either transferring savings from other projects, securing additional grants, or reducing the cost of the City Center project, they are considering options to reduce the project cost. Options that have been mentioned by Sound Transit, include eliminating the clock tower and top floor of the parking structure, and revising the design of the facade. City staff have stated to Sound Transit that these are not acceptable alternatives, thus, Sound Transit needs to find ways to make the project financially work. FUTURE SCHEDULE The following timeline, initially published in the November 1999 Sound Transit Express Connections Bulletin, has been modified per discussions with Sound Transit representatives. 2000 · Environmental Assessments Completed - Summer · Public Hearing on the Environmental Assessments - Summer · Final Design begins on all project components 2001 · Final Design of project components completed · Construction begins on Federal Way Transit Center and Parking Structure - Late Spring/Summer · Construction Begins on Star Lake's additional parking and Pacific Highway South Park & Ride Lot - Late Spring/Summer 2002 · Construction completed on Federal Way Transit Center and Parking Structure, and Pacific Highway South Park & Ride Lot. · Construct begins on Federal Way's HOV direct access ramp for the Federal Way Transit Center. · Construction begins on Star Lake's In-Line Freeway Station or HOV Direct Access Ramp. 2003 · Construction of Federal Way HOV Direct-Access Ramp to Federal Way Transit Center project completed. Construction of Star Lake In-Line Freeway Station or HOV Direct Access Ramp Project completed. If you have any questions related to this project, please contact me at (253) 661-4109 or e-mail at Stephen.Clifton@ci.federal-way.wa.us. Date: May 9, 2000 To: Federal Way Land Use and Transportation Committee Chair: Phil Watkins, City Councilmember From: Stephen Clilton, Community Development Services Director Via: David No~nager RE: Sound Transit Update Sound Transit proposes a series of improvements that address the long-term transit needs of Federal Way, Kent and Southwest King County. Three specific projects proposed for the Federal Way area include: 1) Federal Way Transit Center and Parking Structure (City Center) with HOV direct access ramps from 5, 2) Star Lake Park & Ride Lot with direct access to an in-line station within the median of T-5 or HOV Direct Access Ramp, and 3) SR-99 Pacific Highway South Park & Ride Lot, due south of South 272nd Street (plans not available at this time). BACKGROUND On August 5, 1999, Sound Transit presented preliminary concepts of the Federal Way Transit Center and Parking Structure to the City of Federal Way Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTC), Councilmembers and interested commission members. At that time, preliminary concepts had not been prepared for the Star Lake and Pacific Highway South projects. The Federal Way Transit Center and Parking Structure concepts, which emerged from a community design charette held in March of 1999, and subsequent Sound Transit Project Management Team (PMT) meetings, included facade elevations, site and landscaping plans. LUTC members and those in attendance unanimously supported the concepts (see attached plans and elevations). The concepts, if realized, would accomplish the creation of a focal point or landmark (clock tower), strengthen pedestrian connectivity, incorporate mixed use development, enhance the area's development potential, reinforce the street grid, create open space and leave a portion of the site for future transit oriented development. Since the August 1999 LUTC meeting, the PMT, which consists of Sound Transit, Washington State Department of Transportation, King County METRO, SVERDRUP (Sound Transit Environmental Consultants) and City of Federal Way Staff, have met several times to discuss the environmental assessments for each project, site layouts, HOV access, alternatives related to the Star Lake Project, access management, mitigation, etc. Additionally, Sound Transit has met with the Executive Advisory Committee (FAC) in September of 1999, and .lanuary and May of 2000 to discuss progress to date for all three projects. During the May 3, 2000 FAC meeting, Sound Transit representatives stated that the Star Lake (see attached alternatives) and Pacific Highway South projects may be under budget, while the Federal Way Transit Center is most likely over budget. The specific amounts are not available at this time and Sound Transit only talked in general numbers. Regarding the Federal Way Transit Center and Parking Structure, Sound Transit did state that, if funding can't be found by either transferring savings from other projects, securing additional grants, or reducing the cost of the City Center project, they are considering options to reduce the project cost. Options that have been mentioned by Sound Transit, include eliminating the clock tower and top floor of the parking structure, and revising the design of the facade. City staff have stated to Sound Transit that these are not acceptable alternatives, thus, Sound Transit needs to find ways to make the project financially work. FUTURE SCHEDULE The following timeline, initially published in the November 1999 Sound Transit Express Connections Bulletin, has been modified per discussions with Sound Transit representatives. 2000 · Environmental Assessments Completed - Summer · Public Hearing on the Environmental Assessments - Summer · Final Design begins on all project components 2001 · Final Design of project components completed · Construction begins on Federal Way Transit Center and Parking Structure - Late Spring/Summer · Construction Begins on Star Lake's additional parking and Pacific Highway South Park & Ride Lot - Late Spring/Summer 2002 · Construction completed on Federal Way Transit Center and Parking Structure, and Pacific Highway South Park & Ride Lot. · Construct begins on Federal Way's HOV direct access ramp for the Federal Way Transit Center. · Construction begins on Star Lake's ]:n-Line Freeway Station or HOV Direct Access Ramp. 2003 Construction of Federal Way HOV Direct-Access Ramp to Federal Way Transit Center project completed. Construction of Star Lake in-Line Freeway Station or HOV Direct Access Ramp Project completed. you have any questions related to this project, please contact me at (253) 661-4109 or e-mail at Stephen.Clifton@ci.federal-way.wa.us. 0 Z LU 0 I I I I I "' ":':' , I Rick Perez will do a Power Point presentation in lieu of agenda packet attachments re: ROUNDABOUTS.