City Council

LAKEWOOD CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Monday, July 30, 2018 6:30 P.M. City of Lakewood City Council Chambers 6000 Main Street SW Lakewood, WA 98499 CALL TO ORDER R E G U L A R A G E N D A NEW BUSINESS (2) Review of Downtown Subarea Plan. ADJOURNMENT The Council Chambers is accessible to persons with disabilities. Persons requesting special accommodations or language interpreters should contact the City Clerk’s Office, 589-2489, as soon as possible in advance of the Council meeting so that an attempt to provide the special accommodations can be made. http://www.cityoflakewood.us City Hall will be closed 15 minutes after adjournment of the meeting. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tiffany Speir, Planning Manager, Special Projects THROUGH: David Bugher, Assistant City Manager for Development Services John Caulfield, City Manager DATE: July 30, 2018 (City Council Study Session) SUBJECT: Downtown Subarea Plan A Video of the potential development build-out in Downtown Subarea is available at www.lakewooddowntownplan.org Subarea Planning: Introduction The Growth Management Act (GMA) includes the following mandatory and optional Comprehensive Plan elements for local jurisdictions. Once a jurisdiction adopts an optional element, it becomes enforceable as part of its Comprehensive Plan just as the mandatory elements are enforceable. Mandatory Comp Plan Elements Optional Comp Plan Elements (RCW 36.70A.070) (RCW 36.70A.080)  Land Use  Conservation  Housing  Solar Energy  Capital Facilities Plan  Recreation  Utilities  Subarea Plans (neighborhoods, rural  Rural Development (counties only) villages, urban growth areas, tribal areas,  Transportation etc.)  Economic Development  Ports (optional for cities with annual  Parks and Recreation maritime port revenues of $20 million to $60  Ports million, RCW 36.70A.085) 2 A county or city planning under GMA may designate specified planned types of development within a defined geographic area – a “subarea.” A planned action is a development project (which can be multiple buildings, parcels, acreage, etc.) whose impacts have been addressed by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) associated with the subarea plan before individual projects are proposed; it serves as the “umbrella” environmental review document for planned development within the defined area. Such up-front analysis of impacts and mitigation measures then facilitates environmental review of subsequent individual development projects. EISs prepared for planned actions more effectively review cumulative and regional effects than individual project EISs. They also take an overall view of natural amenities within the planning area, and formulate ways for preserving and enhancing these. A planned action EIS identifies mitigation measures in addition to applicable development regulations that shall be applied to projects that implement the planned action. If a project’s application review satisfies 1) that a development proposal is consistent with the land use plan for the planned action area, 2) that the proposal will implement applicable conditions and mitigation measures, and 3) that probable significant adverse impacts of the project are adequately addressed in the planned action EIS, then environmental review can be declared complete on the basis of an environmental checklist without even a SEPA Threshold Determination. Examples of Downtown SEPA Planned Action documents adopted by other jurisdictions, including Bothell, Everett, Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline, are available here: http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Planning/Land-Use-Administration/Planned- Action.aspx Benefits of Adopting a SEPA Planned Action Ordinance Time and Cost Savings for private development with completed SEPA Planned Action • Avoid delays • Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – up to12 months • Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) – up to 90 days • Avoid costly individualized SEPA process and technical studies, e.g. transportation modeling • Consultant cost for an EIS is typically at least $100,000 unless it’s a supplemental EIS relying on other information • Consultant cost for a DNS/Checklist varies depending on technical reports required. The cost is roughly ~$10,000 plus $15,000-25,000 for a standard transportation report, plus more for other topics. • Streamlined review - follow ordinance and clear bookends • Avoid appeals under SEPA – rely on Planned Action EIS Clarity for private development with completed SEPA Planned Action • Know rules of the road upfront – e.g. fair share of road improvements • Make informed investment – expectations of development known • Plan & EIS establish City intent about public investment 3 As explained during the July 9 joint Council and Planning Commission study session, experience with subarea plans in Washington has demonstrated that private development is willing to invest up to roughly four times what a municipality invests into public infrastructure and placemaking. Council Discussion During its deliberations, the Council may wish to concentrate on the content of particular pieces of the Downtown Plan “Packet”: The Downtown Subarea Plan (discussed on July 23): • Existing Conditions • Vision • Guiding Principles • Concept Plan and Concept Maps/Illustrations • Policies, Strategies for Nine Issue Areas • (Urban Design + Land Use; Economic Development; Housing; Street Grids, Streetscapes & Public Spaces; Transportation; Parks, Open Spaces, & Trails; Stormwater and the Natural Environment; Utility Infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Power); Community Partnerships and Organization) • Implementation Plan (Short-, Mid-, Long-Term, Ongoing) • Colonial District Design Elements • Capital Facilities Plan • Transportation Improvements • Park Improvements The Downtown Development Code: • New LMC Title 18 Chapter to regulate land use in the Downtown Subarea • Creates Downtown District • Includes Regulating Map based on Street Types • Summarized list of prohibited and allowed uses • Provides District-wide as well as Colonial District-specific and Transitional Overlay District-specific standards • Describes Administrative Form-Based Code Review Process The Comprehensive Plan Amendments: • The Downtown Plan, a subarea plan and element of the City Comprehensive Plan, requires that some map, text and policy amendments be made for consistency. • Basic land use and urban design related changes are included in DSAP Packet for current action. • Further edits to the Transportation Element and Capital Facilities Element will be needed once the DSAP Packet is refined by the City Council; additional Comprehensive Plan amendments will be included as part of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan amendment package. The Planned Action Ordinance (PAO): • An area-wide “pre-review” of environmental impacts performed at an intensity level (e.g., number of units, building height, etc.) up to that anticipated in Alternative 2 for the area, so when a specific project is submitted that proposes development 4  within that intensity level, environmental impact review does not have to be repeated. • Identifies qualified land uses for the Downtown Subarea • Includes development thresholds for Planned Action projects • Includes mitigation measures that, along with adopted City regulations, provide the framework the City will use to apply appropriate conditions on qualifying Planned Action Projects • Includes Planned Action Project Review Criteria and Permit Process • Includes direction to the City to periodically monitor and review performance of Planned Action to ensure Downtown develops as desired. • Identifies “Public Agency Actions & Commitments” over time Transportation Funding:  The Downtown Subarea Planned Action EIS traffic modeling identified approximately 30% pass-through traffic in the study area under recommended Preferred Alternative 2 (the share would be 39% under Modified Alternative 1) to support citywide or regional travel the City would provide some funding and much of it would come from grants or other funding sources.  Per these calculations, the maximum possible responsibility of cumulative planned action (private) development would thus equal 70% of the DSAP area non-TIP projects (61% under Modified Alternative 1) unless the combination of City and grant resources was increased and/or other funding sources were utilized instead.  Under SEPA, the mitigation fees calculation must be based on an individualized assessment of a development's direct impact on each improvement. The proportionate share of costs for each Planned Action development would be determined based on their proportionate share of PM peak hour trips identified in the Planned Action Ordinance. Each development would pay some amount toward all Subarea Plan-related transportation projects within the Downtown Subarea. Page References in Commissioner James Guerrero’s 1 st Comment Letter Question 3: pages 137-146 re frontage standards = pages 24-33 of the Downtown Development Code (DDC) Question 4: pages 134-135 re weather protection = pages 21-22 of the DDC Question 5: page 147 re civic uses = page 34 of the DDC Question 6: page 150 re common open space = page 37 of the DDC Question 7: page 152 re parking = page 39 of the DDC Responses to Planning Commissioner James Guerrero’s 2nd Comment Letter Comment Responses The item I am most concerned with is item Understanding that commercial use may not be 3, the window transparency percentage and continuous on the ground floor due to the floor height of 16’. I think this is totally underbuilding parking and transition to appropriate on the retail streets. It is other residential or office lobbies or elevators, etc.: streets where I am concerned that this requirement will potentially limit  Amend all frontages to indicate that ground 5 Comment Responses development as there are several locations floor height requirements only apply for a within the CDB that are not that well suited depth of 30' from the street. for retail on the first floor but might be attractive to a multi-family development. At  Eliminate the first-floor height requirement for that point the window area percentage and the Landscape, Parking, and Porch/Stoop floor height add substantial cost and lose Frontages (the frontages that would be used functionality. for ground floor residential) unless a first-floor commercial use is proposed, in which case the first-floor height would be 16' minimum. These frontages don't have transparency requirements, but if a retail or commercial use is proposed, then the height and transparency requirements would apply for those frontage types.  Where transparency is required in the various frontages, alter the minimum transparency to be 50% instead of 60% or 70% when buildings do not front a Retail Street, Green Street Loop, or Arterial Mixed-Use Street. I am currently working on a mixed- Puyallup recently adopted a minimum ground use/multi-family project in Puyallup’s CBD floor height in Planned Action Area of 14 feet in zone. Puyallup’s CBD zone requires the Downtown area including the CBD, CBD- commercial building on at least 25% of the Core, CL and CG zones as of July 10, 2018. The frontage with similar requirements to the purpose was to be consistent with the historic proposed Lakewood code for the pattern of storefronts. As noted by LMN commercial building but the remaining 75% Architects in 2012 when the code effort began, of the frontage does not have this same allowing less than that results in a visually jarring limitation. Below is a massing study for that condition and makes it difficult for true retail uses project in Puyallup. The tan buildings are to occupy the space. townhouse units that would meet the stoop standards in the proposed Lakewood code, As of July 10, 2018, Puyallup’s code changes also but would not meet the floor height or focused its retail requirements more directly along window area. The red building is Meridian and side streets within a block to keep a commercial on the first floor with a 16’ floor retail energy and along Meridian the percentage is height and a significant quantity of windows now 75 percent: that would meet the proposed Lakewood requirements. This project is on the main “In the CBD and CBD-Core zones, residential north south arterial in Puyallup with three uses are permitted with no density limit imposed; lanes of one-way traffic. The townhouses provided, that along Meridian Street and on with stoops may be able to work in this area intersecting side streets for one block, a minimum with the main floor raised 5’ above the of 75 percent of any sidewalk level frontage shall sidewalk, but the floor to floor height is only consist of, or be adaptable to, commercial space; 9’ and windows will not start at 30” above and further provided, that such structures grade. The commercial building may have conform to the building design standards in the difficulty renting up in this location (per a downtown design guidelines and to all other developer’s recommendations). applicable standards. Location of entries shall 6  Comment Responses meet City of Puyallup Downtown Design Guidelines.” That said, please see the prior response for suggested revisions to the draft requirements. Regarding item 6. In the Puyallup CDB The current Lakewood proposal does not require zone, there is no open space requirement for open space for commercial uses except when the the multi-family development portion of the Plaza frontage is selected (then a plaza is project. With this Puyallup project, there required.) are (11) townhouse units. We would have been required to have 1,100 s.f. of common Comment noted. Puyallup’s commercial zones in area based on the proposed Lakewood their Downtown incentivize open space but do code. We do have space on the site for not require it, though their multifamily zones in this. If you start building more density, the Downtown do have such a requirement (e.g. however, it will become a burdensome RM-Core). standard. I expect that a developer would reduce units at that point rather than paying Creating high quality mixed use and multifamily the in lieu of fee as it is set (quite high) at the developments was noted in the community cost of land. If we are promoting density, a outreach for the Lakewood Downtown Plan in smaller common area requirement or a surveys fall 2017 and spring 2018. These survey lower in lieu of fee will help a developer’s summaries are available at the project website: pro-forma calculation. www.lakewooddowntownplan.org/ under plans and documents. Examples of Window Transparency In relation to the Downtown Development Code, “transparency” refers to physical transparency made possible by making large sheets of plate glass a prominent feature of a building. Transparency is a medium to open up closed spaces to light and air. Transparency percentages relate to how much of a building façade is comprised of windows versus opaque (non-see-through) materials. Generally speaking, retail and some commercial uses have more transparency in order to entice customers. Residential uses have less for privacy reasons. 7 8 Civic Uses as defined in LMC The current definition in LMC Title 18A.20.400 of Civic Uses includes “facilities or services that serve a demonstrated public function and are generally considered to be of community importance, such as educational, cultural, medical, protective, and governmental facilities and uses.” These include, at multiple levels of intensity: A. Community and Cultural Services. H. Outdoor Recreation. B. Daycare Facilities. I. Postal Services. C. Education. J. Public Maintenance Facilities. D. Essential Public Facilities. K. Public Safety Services. E. Government Administration L. Religious Assembly. Facilities. M. Social Services. F. Health Services. N. Transportation. G. Military Installations. At proposed 18A.35.220 (A)(2), the Downtown Development Code allows all Civic Uses except: 2. Prohibited Civic Uses: a. Military Installations b. Postal Services, Level 3 (Terminal postal processing facilities which provide no or limited customer services.) c. Public Maintenance, Level 2/3 ( Level 2: Indoor maintenance and storage facility not exceeding five thousand (5,000) gross square feet with outdoor storage not exceeding two thousand (2,000) gross square feet. Level 3: City-wide or regional maintenance and storage facility exceeding five thousand (5,000) gross square feet and/or exceeding two thousand (2,000) gross square feet of outdoor storage.) d. Public Safety Services, Level 3/4 (Level 3: City correctional facilities. Level 4: County, state, federal, or private correctional facilities.) e. Transportation, Level 4/5 (Level 4: Taxi, shuttle, and bus “barns” and yards, and motor pool facilities. May include usable and/or scrap tire piles of up to a total of two hundred (200) tires as an accessory use. Level 5: Airports, heliports, landing fields or waterways, and ferry docks.) 9 10 11 12 13  Examples of Transportation Cost Calculation with Planning Commission-Recommended 50/50 Private/Public Cost Split 1. Total cost of Subarea Plan Projects: $42,962,000 2. 50% private planned action share: $21,481,000 3. Total PM Peak hour trips anticipated under Alternative 2: 6,658 4. Total cost per single PM peak hour trip = #2 divided by #3: $3,226 30 Unit Apartment Complex (# of units x ITE trip rate) generates 19 PM peak hour trips $3,226 x 19 = $61,294 Planned Action Share 50,000 sq. ft. Office Building (# of units x ITE trip rate) generates 74 PM peak hour trips $3,226 x 74 = $238,724 Planned Action Share 10,000 sq. ft. General Industrial (# of units x ITE trip rate) generates 10 PM peak hour trips $3,226 x 10 = $32,260 Planned Action Share Mixed Use Developments use sum of PM peak hour non-residential plus residential trips 20,000 sq. ft. retail space below with 50 apartments above (# of units x ITE trip rate) generates 54 plus 31 = 85 trips $3,226 x 85 = $274,210 Planned Action Share 10,000 sq. ft. office space below with 10 townhouses above (# of units x ITE trip rate) generates 15 plus 5 = 20 trips $3,226 x 20 = $64,520 Planned Action Share Projects also responsible for on-site and off-site improvements that are not part of the Subarea Plan list of projects; however, they cannot be charged twice for the same mitigation requirement. Hypothetical proposed 30 unit townhouse project at NW corner of Gravelly Lake Dr. and Alfaretta St. SW*: - Calculate Planned Action Share based on type of project • 16 PM peak hr trips x $3,226 = $51,616 - Calculate required frontage improvements required per LMC Title 12 and Public Works Standards • Gravelly Lake Dr. = $15,000* • Alfaretta St. SW outside of Downtown = $10,000* - Subtotal owed = $76,616 - Subtract frontage improvement value that assists City to complete Planned Action projects from subtotal • $76,616 - $15,000 = $61,616 owed *This location and these numbers are completely arbitrary and intended for illustration only. 14 Potential amendments to DSAP Packet: 1) Amend Colonial District Boundaries to reduce its size. a. Consider attached maps (Current Proposed Colonial Overlay, Options 1-4) b. Other options per Council? 2) Refer within Downtown Development Code 18A.35.220 to the definition of Civic Uses located in LMC 18A.20.400. 3) Insert Planned Action Share Transportation Fees (PASTFs) into Lakewood’s Master Fee Schedule per LMC Title 3 and review as part of the City’s biennial budget process. These would be finalized once the Council determines the public/private split percentage for the PASTFs 4) The current proposal at Exhibit D of the Planned Action Ordinance would require that Lakewood refund any unused PASTFs after ten years. This is not legally required, but was included in the proposal as an option for consideration since the City refunds frontage improvement monies per RCW 82.02.080 after ten years; SEPA does not require that the fees be refunded. Does the City wish to include refund PASTFs after ten years, after some other time period, or not? 5) Renumber the Downtown Development Code as a new Title 18B. This will preserve the code as adopted by the Council when the pending Title 18A update is considered. 6) Amend Exhibit D of the Downtown Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) to clarify that the Planned Action Share Transportation Fees will be incorporated into the city’s master fee schedule and subject to biennial review and/or inflationary escalators. 7) Amend Exhibit D of the PAO to include all of the following text (underlining included below for emphasis): The per trip mitigation fee was determined using the gross number of PM peak hour vehicles trips generated by the proposed land use calculated using unadjusted Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE] trip generation rates. For consistency, individual development projects should also calculate their total number of trips using the same methodology (raw ITE rates) without any reductions for internal capture, pass-by travel, or transit/walking/biking. Though not included in the fee calculation, these types of vehicle trip reductions were included in the Lakewood travel model to produce intersection forecasts, calculate LOS, and determine required mitigations (and by extension the cost of the mitigation that is considered in the mitigation fee). Since these reductions have already been included in the analysis, it would be considered double counting to allow individual development projects to again take credit for them. For Inclusion in Future Title 18A Update: 1) Amend the citywide open space dedication requirements to be in keeping with current requirements in area jurisdictions. 15 16 17 18 19 20