Planning Commission MINS 10-24-2018CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 24, 2018 City Hall
6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Lawson Bronson, Hope Elder, Tim O'Neil, Diana Noble-Gulliford, Dawn Meader
McCausland, and Dale Couture. Commissioners absent: Wayne Carlson (ex), Tom Medhurst (ex) and
Anthony Murrietta (ex). City Staff present: Principal Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Traffic Engineer Erik
Preston, City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Deputy City Attorney Mark Orthmann, and Administrative
Assistant E. Tina Piety.
CALL TO ORDER
Vice -Chair Bronson called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The September 19, 2018, minutes were approved as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING — Complete Streets Policy
Vice -Chair Bronson opened the public hearing.
Senior Traffic Engineer Preston delivered the presentation. He discussed what is meant by Complete
Streets and why the city should have (and currently does have) a Complete Streets Policy. Grant funding
agencies are asking jurisdictions to have stronger complete street policies. Strengthening the city's current
complete street policy will improve the city's eligibility for grant funds. Proposed changes include:
1) Clarify all the users, legitimate and equal.
2) Better define Complete Streets (CS) and infrastructure.
3) Include CS infrastructure in all relevant planning, standard documents, regulations, and programs.
4) Foster partnerships with funding agencies and stakeholders.
5) Modify, develop, and adopt CS policies and CS design criteria and standards within Public Works
to match current industry standards.
KAPlanning Co=ission\2016\Meeting Summary 10-24-18.doc
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 October 24, 2018
6) Exceptions: CS facilities for all ages & abilities provided in all projects except...
a) When prohibited by law (freeway, BPA trail), and accommodate elsewhere; remove
"contrary to public safety", too easy to justify.
b) No current or long-term need; remove source names (too narrow, infrequent update).
c) Cost excessively disproportionate (>20%) to need/use; removed "short sections" because
short sections are good start and can be done safely.
d) Routine maintenance or repair; removed ROW modifications (private, any exception)
e) Emergency repairs, depending on severity.
f) If equivalent CS project on same corridor is programmed.
Staff received comments from Commissioner Meader McCausland which were incorporated into the
proposed code amendments. Traffic Engineer Preston went over how the proposal relates to the city's
comprehensive plan and the next steps. Staff would like to have the amendments adopted soon in order to
have it in place when they apply for a particular grant.
Discussion was held concerning the city's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and how it relates to
Complete Streets. Additional discussion was held concerning the lack of sidewalks for long stretches of
city roads and landscaping within the right-of-way (including street trees). Vice -Chair Bronson opened
the hearing for public testimony.
Judy Zurilgen, Protect Lakota Citizens — She presented written comments and read them into the
record (enclosed). She spoke against the proposed amendment and stated her reasons. One
concern is the rushed nature of this amendment.
Suzanne Vargo, Long -Time Resident — She asked staff to reject this "thoughtless" proposal. It
undermines the codes that protect the environment. The proposal will benefit the property owner
as opposed to the citizens and environment of Federal Way. She feels the proposed amendment
will not inform citizens regarding proposed projects and thereby, the right of citizens to comment
on proposed projects.
Commissioner O'Neil asked the commenters if they could tell the Commission what specific aspects of
the proposed amendment they object to. What specific sentences or sections of the proposed changes.
Judy Zurilgen — She feels this proposed amendment will allow decisions without public comment.
She stated that the current code is not being enforced.
Suzanne Vargo — She feels the proposed amendments have a number of loop -holes that would
allow for exceptions that would not benefit the environment.
Vice -Chair Bronson commented that it seems the commenters feels the Commission should reject the
proposal and send it back to staff to be reworked. The commenters agreed.
Commissioners discussed the commenter's concerns and how the proposed amendment relates. Staff
commented that the proposed amendments are intended to make the process more transparent by
.requiring city council oversight. Any new development would have to comply with all sensitive area
regulations. The proposed amendment does not address where a street can be located, but how streets can
be improved (the design of streets). It applies to public streets and right-of-ways.
Commissioner Noble-Gulliford noted that an exception would be made for projects where the cost of
accommodation would be considered excessively disproportionate to the need. She noted staff considers it
excessive if the cost is >20%. Does this refer to the entire project? Traffic Engineer Preston commented
KAPlanning Commission\2016Neeting Summary 10-2418.doc
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 October 24, 2018
that for example, if requiring a wall comes out to more than 20% of the project, the city may work out
something slightly different. Discussion was held on public notification of future proposed projects.
Discussion was held on how the proposal relates to the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP).
Discussion was held on design guidelines.
Commissioner O'Neil moved (Commissioner Meader McCausland seconded) to recommend approval of
the proposed code amendment with corrections as done by staff. There was no further discussion. The vote
was three yes and one no; the motion failed. Since it failed, staff will forward the proposed amendments to
the Land Use/Transportation Committee with a recommendation of denial.
Vice -Chair Bronson closed the public hearing.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Discussion was held on traffic problems on South 356t1i and possible future plans. City Traffic Engineer
Perez stated that the city is working with Tacoma on possible solutions.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 P.M.
K.Owning Commission\2016\Me ting Summary 10-24-18.doc
DATE: October, 24,2018
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Protect Lakota Citizens, Representative Judy Zurilgen
SUBJECT: Proposed Text Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code
(FWRC) Complete Street Policy
New developments, future roads, and streets must be safely constructed to the
highest standards. The few remaining fragile environments in our beautiful city
must be protected.
The proposed text amendments to the Federal Way Revised Code regarding The
Complete Street Policy definitely should not be passed in the format presented.
Please do pass any of these amendments or forward this on to the LUTC. These
code revisions with deletions and additions to the FWRC 19's policies are frankly
frightening and deceitful. It is being done and pushed forward under the guise of
getting additional funding. It contains provisions for a few select city employees
to make exceptions and allowances for dangerous and substandard road
construction. Such power to affect the delicate environment here in the Puget
Sound Basin should not be surrendered to a few individuals.
In flat cities, such as Phoenix, you see a graph -paper like grid of roads. Such city
planning and road construction can be done in areas like these because there are
very few topographical limitations that would prevent this predictable type of road
structure. This is not what we have in Federal Way, except in the downtown core.
There is a reason why there are only a few pockets of undeveloped land in Federal
Way. Most of those areas have topographical features that limit construction. As
you are aware road developments near coastal areas must take into consideration
the wonderful variations of topography and the numerous types of water features.
Yes, making slight modifications to receive funding from available sources is
good. But doing so in an artificially rushed way is very unwise. The wrongful push
to meet a city nomination cut-off date of December 14 looks to be just a ruse for
another subversive power grab. On page #2 section V-2 not only redefines a
"Complete Street" it changes the decision-making process. You should see there
are "red flags" all over the place in this revision. V-4 has the city partnering with
various undefined interest groups, really? Does this include unscrupulous
developers and friends of the elected as well? V -S gives the public works director,
or their designee, the ability to: modify, develop, adopt policy and a whole lot
more. Read it thoroughly and explore the problems contained in it.
I have provided an example of what may happen should these modifications be
accepted. I invite you to visit the area and am happy to meet with you to show you
what has happened and could happen. I know the provisions are not site-specific.
But viewing a real example would allow you to see why these amendments must
not be allowed.
Page #1 of 2
In 2013 the Creekwood developer purchase nearly 20 acres of critically sensitive
lands along the Dash Point corridor. The Lakota Stream wetland and slides area
are not suited for the kind of housing he wishes to build. The City has already
spent more than three million dollars in this area on numerous projects. For
years, the city has appropriately denied this road construction. Any kind of road
across an active slide and the North fork of Lakota stream over a very steeply
sloped ravine should never be allowed. Provided to you is a document that shows
an ugly change allowing plans for a new narrow substandard road. Thankfully it
expired this month on Oct. 4th.
Why would a city make exceptions for new construction when, it is in the
application process, that changes can be made, and standards can be adhered to?
I am a part of a group of citizens called Protect Lakota citizens. Last Tuesday I
went to the city desk and asked to view a developer's file. Unlike before, I was
told I would have to do a PDA to view them; so I filled out the form right then and
there. 11 days later the "prepared file" became available for public view. When I
finally made time to go City Hail and look through the file in preparation for a
meeting, I found that the file had been totally stripped of all pertinent and current
information. I inquired as to why that box had shrunk so dramatically in content.
That's when I was told that this developer file had been sorted into two separate
boxes; one for public view and the other containing "protected information." Even
the things I had seen before were no longer in the box. This seems wrong and in
violation of The Public Records Act. All I was told was that it was attorney
protected and 1 was not allowed to see it. I wrote to a Seattle Corporate Land Use
Attorney about this and I'm waiting to hear back.
The Protect Lakota Citizens are respectfully requesting that the Proposed
Amendments regarding the Complete Street Policy Not be passed on to the LUTC
as it has been written.
The codes as they currently are written, establish and protect standards. Do not
let them be undermined without thoroughly researching the ramifications of these
wild revisions. Completely revising the FWRC street code is too important and will
have calamitous long-term effects to this city, our environment, and the safety of
the citizens who live and travel in the greater Puget Sound Basin.
Page #2 of 2
CITY OF CITY HALL
Federal Way ral Wa 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
V�k� (253) 835-7000
www. cityolfederalway.. com
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
October 4, 2017
Core Design
Josh Beard, P.I.A.
14711 NE 29s' Place, Suite 101
Bellevue, WA 98007
RE. Permit #17 -103950 -00 -SM; CREEKWOOD SUBDIVISION, 21st Ave SW, Federal Way
Right -of -Way Modification Request
Dear Mr. Beard:
This letter responds to your request to modify required right-of-way improvements for proposed `Road B'
within the Creekwood Subdivision. Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Section 19-135.070,
Modifications, Deferments and Waivers allows the Public Works Department to grant a request to
modify, defer, or waive the required street improvements only after consideration of four specific reasons.
The reason most applicable here is contained in Section 19-135.070 (2) Unusual topographic or physical
conditions preclude the construction of the improvements as required.
After evaluating the existing site conditions, review of FWRC provisions (Section 19.135.030 through
19.135.070), and direction provided by the City Council, the Public Works Department hereby
conditionally approves a modification to the typical City standard street section as follows:
`Road B' is classified as a Type "W" Local street. If built to full standard, it would include a 28 -
foot street with curb and gutter, four -foot planter strips with street trees, five-foot sidewalks and
street lights in a 52 -foot right-of-way (ROW). The applicant has proposed two areas in which
this cross-section would be narrowed to reduce impact to the stream buffer and steep, erosive
slopes. While staff is supportive of a reduced cross-section for the ravine crossing and the east
leg of Road `B', expected traffic and pedestrian safety requires more improvements than the
applicant has proposed. The approved cross sections are described below.
1. Approved Reduction of Road B for Stream Crossing (Section B) for a distance of
approximately 150'
The total cross-section shall be 24' paved roadway consisting of two 12 -foot lanes, 0.5' curb and
5' sidewalk on both sides; additional 1.0' on south side to accommodate a chain-link fence
between the sidewalk and ravine for pedestrian protection; and additional 2' (+/-) to
accommodate Jersey barrier on the south side between the curb and sidewalk for
pedestrian/vehicle separation. This will be within a total right-of-way width of no less than 38
feet. Actual right-of-way width will be determined when a design is approved for the ravine
crossing, to assure that all required improvements are fully within public right-of-way.
\\CFWFILE 1 \Applications\CS DC\PROD\docs\save\ 147311_76635_04102309. DOC
Planter strip is eliminated on both sides. The utility strip may be located under sidewalk. Ramp
locations for the intersection of Road B and 22'd Ave SW will be determined during engineering
review.
2. Reduction of Road B between 22nd Ave SW and 21" Ave SW (Section C)
The total cross-section shall be 28' paved roadway; 3.5' planter strip, and 3' utility strip on the
south side; 0.5' curb and 5' sidewalk on both sides; all within a total right-of-way width of 45.5
feet.
On the north side of the street, planter strip is eliminated and the utility strip may be placed under
the sidewalk. The utility strip on the south side shall be 3'wide.
Additional Requirements / Conditions of Approval
This right-of-way modification is limited to the roadway sections discussed in this letter. The proposed
Sierra Scape Wall will be further reviewed during SEPA, preliminary plat and engineering review. A
different method of crossing the ravine may be required.
This right-of-way modification is approved only for this project, and is therefore contingent upon Hearing
Examiner approval of the preliminary plat.
The conditions of this right-of-way modification will be applicable for a period of one year from the date
of this letter. If the project is not completed within the one-year time limit, this waiver will be void and a
new request for modification must be submitted.
If you have any questions regarding this letter please contact Ann Dower, Senior Engineering Plans
Reviewer, at (253) 835-27342 or ann.dower@cityoffederalway.com.
Sincerely, A
EJ)�G
a1sh,P.E.
Deputy Public Works Director
EJW/AD:av
cc: ESM Consulting Engineers LLC; Eric LaBrie; 33400 8th Ave S Suite 205; Federal Way, WA 98003
Cole Elliott, P.E., Development Services Manager
Erik Preston, Senior Traffic Engineer
Jim Harris, Senior Planner
PF/ad
Day file
\\CFWFILE 1 \Applications\CSDC\P ROD\docs\save\ 147311 _76635_04102309. DOC
01
to 4
aj
Vol
M
W
W
Z
9
King County
i , .w _............ r ..
f 1 7(tG3S
_1 41J t361 it�4 ,41� a23�k21w Ukrt huG7s- 2.>,� {� 1 a< 1 )U.4 ft
'rl r{ - k - :U t ,Ilhl A lU1 �3/ta•i3 201i1"Y"4v !a'�'M e�'i' +rl „rl N'11w G1
t r2'72' S i J Ic 2, r 1 to 27y2 :? gL4y`
3C`7
;^.—_— •, 16tH it *1717 ., •
,._,,,•� � 1t -t t ,•e t � �.3�3t{ ��xr l4T�t��,trt}i'�'��'�i���,:.3''«4rlrtri�'
, . 10?i;J
Mme- t e e x�Ils -
7071.1 }lr!r7rl.,t
1 � 1 r.•2 • 'A• so�2S .ill 1
', e f U§ r° ti�� �, � w — ,.._... �`t"�'7 to•- s .1 w 'fli' yr "" • fit., i�r
'I i 2�4z7,:�a1,�, i yt ' i 2 �) 12 `` 1�'� �xzzt'' �` ,, ❑/ts�-is-i—sir lKin"'' 7 ..
• '. :� ,°' y: _ ♦ ... 4 ,125 ` r rr, #t 21 .w t 0.0 •; 3UBUa3� » I+ Ufl er40 `47;15
* mm ly('
sY . �1 sat a1J ___�'( 4•,, ii '• "Wy,rS gpry itSfSI.
Ak
...,> r` is ek tug -',,i, - ORt y4Ni ct1'Qjkl
all, t7tNr1 Il.: ?110
„43U � Ifr R 1 � .. �..._.1 r).#t� tIM •. ( ,-� 41918 � ♦ ,
'''�. + t.rty22_,.�--..,,_,• '"' .l' 124 Gk12�(kL30 w 13rtGfteS„} ih17 rt4lhiur p9US a1
l'ti$1i�z{{os..•�� 0 �3�3�333G �+n'Ii 14,1413 „� . � •
A, f 3G 111 3(y� IR jI�{� y7 LGU.t
t.. _ 23 tic lt}a.'. 3oPls ®'4sss/, ,*sql^;rr tr•kkIt s
.Y 4 k r. 1t3a is 3G; 2r? u,l> tiS%,ii +r4v1 n'
i 1 r _23)1 iti � itl?r i1�k`-
, it o t4 25 Mt t09
U
tnu
1949
ltaS!r /17 1637 �4A
J lih 5'r I N.' 1+1rr3t3 '1 A'rtt iIUU/t,Tb4
' 4
1 70 11f I
UtiUaU
,Ik .31% 17 y
1 747
�
-•--•� .....4-.-•-.., 1i x. 4 1 7471� 1. t l
1rt rl4a1 ' _
`y1P
i* N,S 7`9I2 29�(}; 42743 23
rt,r +134 311`5 •,* .. i ” ,...,.,�-�....�." -...rm. '
170 •1710 Va ..,.. x . , -... S>• ,. >V ,
3112g,,. ''2li21�72'4 �+ F111S1. .. 7 ..,. tl
°r�2Z I�t.7yJ i` ,... • q•'�� X31233 �I'1?
•`t aL'iV.' ~ 1 ; �• t1`jtrt117 h,.. e• r ,..• 422•w
J 3 �. 4 '1 2 { �n44
h(1r,; L { �jiil'b i' t • •yi 1S,.tE, i,iklYa et 1S 1 /.. > ' ---�'` ,. `31233 1 1 •,`t
�7(ttxsl.k.-_� rfn �1.127t �l(6iz - sslz•tovn
7�
•JU -Xlll ...-271;1,^ 7Gik 1•lldkt.. ;.`(• -: , f r .,:..r e '-
thea, rurmabon—ueled d nlbs mvp he s be0. templed by K,ngC—ty staff Ro,Aa•rausly of—c—d't tu(yoct to Charge N
withoutnorce.Kmgcawymat`no reprexertoea,smmtaniies,mpmssorimp„ad asloa sacycompldm
nne,s rataess. %. LM King County
or rghts to IM use d auN, inormntlon. Thls tlpCUm%a n rot ,MenJed for uxo as a xoreay poduC+ IWg cWeay aAetl na ce bbte N
for any general,special,hdirW,i,cidenial,,rconsequentiald ages including, but nol lmiled to, lost reVe,.—bet pmGls GIS CENTER
resultng Ran the use or misuse of the tnl—tion cunleirwd on [his map Any sale of this map or information a n this map us
txoh0 iced—z plby-.ft-permission of King County
Date: 219/201 B
LA Track "A" Belongs to Landowners in T, 1/32
Lakota Creek and Tributary (East branch) is not noted on all maps
Inappropriately labeled as stream "Y" by developer
Creekwood- The only area disclosed, purchase 12/2013
$ _ Surveyed as a Unit by Center Point in 2008 for previous owner Koszarek
Slide Areas in critically sensitive and fragile land areas
Illegal, Inappropriate, and/or Premature activities of development.
Homes with Probable Affiliations, occupied by people with undisclosed
agreements and/or connections with developer,
Vulnerable Open Areas and Tracks that may be "taken" by the city and or
sold or given to developer. `''