15-105485'N�
CITY Of
Federal Way
RECEIVED
7 �Q�J REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
OCT 2 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
33325 8" Avenue South
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
CDS 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609
www.ci[yoffederal way.com
FILE NUMBER Date
Applicant
NAME Steve Hammer
PRIMARY PHONE (425) 774-4701
BUSINESS/ORGANIZATION BPH Architects
ALTERNATE PHONE
MA=G ADDRESS 19624A 76th Ave. W
E-MAD. steve@bpharch.com
CITY Lynnwood
STATE WA
zIP 98166
FAX
Property Address/Location 515 S. 312th St.
Description of Request Provide clarification of parking setbacks landscape buffer Muirenients, and driveway
width re uirements from File #15-102298-00 Preapplication Conference Spamma for St_ Luke's Lutheran Church
master plan.
List/Describe Attachments Existing and proposed site 21ans and a detailed written reguest.
For Staff Use
Code Interpretation/Clarification
Critical Areas Letter/Analysis/Peer Review
Request for Extension (Land Use/Plat Approval)
Revisions to Approved Permit
Tree Removal
Work Hours Variance
Zoning Compliance Letter
No Fee
No Fee (Actual Cost if Applicable)
$62/hour
$62/hour
No Fee
$62/hour
$100
Bulletin #079 — September 10, 2015 Page 1 of 1 k:\Handouts\Request for Administrative Decision
bpharchitects
DATE: 10/25/15
TO: City of Federal Way
ATTN: Isaac Conlen, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Administrative Decision Request 3
File #15-102298-00-PC, Preapplication Conference Summary
St. Luke's Lutheran Church Master Plan
Mr. Conlen,
We are hereby requesting a 3rd Administrative Decision on the following issue related to the above
referenced project. Please refer to the attached site plan and supporting documents.
From the pre-app conference notes, Planning Division Comments, item 6;
Nonconforming Development — An expansion of gross floor area to an existing building
(Future Family Life Center) requires the applicant to comply with all development
regulations in effect at the time the expansion is proposed (FWRC 19.30. 090(lxa)(i)).
Therefore, any aspect, structure, or improvement on the site today that does not meet
current codes must be brought into conformance as a component of the building addition.
New and separate structures (Field House) on a developed site shall comply with all
development regulations applicable to the geographic portion of the site (FWRC 19.30.090
The canopy structure or port cochere (sic) within the parking area & not considered
gross floor area as defined by FWRC 19.05.070 and therefore the structure would not
trigger site conformance with current code.
A cursory review of the site plan and codes indicate the existing church building does not
meet 30- foot required front yard requirements. It appears this item of compliance was not
Identified during the permitting process for the classroom addition associated with file 10-
100599-UP. At the time of the proposed Future Family Life Center addition, the building
will need to come into compliance with the 30-foot required yard. The 30-foot required
yard will be measured from the property line along South 312th Street as it existed prior to
the 8-foot frontage dedication (FWRC 19.30.160(2)). Please be advised that this is not a
cam,plete aadlis ofsite conditions. Any additi n 1 nonconforming items found duringsite
plan r vi w se Process a h tin will need tg be a dressed aor or to any a r val .
Staff will be recommending text amendments to the nonconformance code this year as part
of the Planning Commission work program. Please contact Leila Willoughby -Oaks,
Associate Planner for more information on the code update.
We contacted Leila Willoughby -Oaks as suggested and got information on the new wording of the
nonconformance code. As a result of this, we submitted our first Administrative Decision request
related to replacement of existing square footage counting towards the new exception 2 (10%
increase in area).
We received a verbal response to the first Administrative Decision request (and are awaiting final
written response) that if we tear down and rebuild the existing gymnasium building, it will count as
new square footage, and that would push us over the 10% limit of the existing area. Therefore,
we are now considering what it would take to bring the existing church building into conformance
at the north property line setback along South 312th Street.
F,Pli Ar==13i.ec::s , .,..2ate Ave.. '." 'vrnw:;ac1, '.rs 98..^. ,u circn.;:airi
A key question then becomes; where do we have to measure the 30' setback from?
According to the highlighted portion above, the setback should be measured from the property line
as it existed prior to the dedication of additional ROW for street widening. This makes sense
because if the nonconformance is created or made worse by the actions of a government agency,
not by the property owner, the owner should not be penalized for this action. So if dedication of
ROW creates the situation, the measurement should be from the line prior to the dedication.
Following is an excerpt from FWRC that applies.
(2) Governmental acquisition of property for right-of-way expansion. A proposal for structural alterations or
change in use shall not trigger a requirement otherwise applicable under FWRC 19.30.090 that an applicant
correct an existing nonconformance as to lot coverage, minimum lot size, parking, landscaping, or setback
requirements, if the nonconformance was created solely by a local, state, or federal government acquisition of
property for right-of-way expansion, and if the proposal meets the following requirements:
(a) The nonconformity is not, in any way, enlarged, expanded, increased, intensified, compounded, or in
any other way made greater;
(b) The applicant is making any alterations or changes or doing any work, other than tenant
improvements, and the fair market value of the alteration, change or other work, in any one consecutive
12-month period, does not exceed 75 percent of the assessed or appraised value of the improvement.
The appraisal must be from a state -certified real estate appraiser. For purposes of determining value
under this subsection, improvements required pursuant to FWRC 19.30.090 (nonconforming
development) and/or 19. 0.110 (street/sidewalk improvements) shall not be counted towards the 75
percent threshold which would trigger application of this subsection; and
(c) The proposal is otherwise consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare.
(3) Other government regulations. Other than as specified in subsection (1) of this section, the city may, using
process IV, exempt a property or use from any of the requirements of this chapter if:
(a) The actions or events which form the basis of requiring that nonconformance on the subject property
be corrected are necessitated solely to comply with local, state or federal regulation;
(b) The actions necessitated to comply with those regulations will not significantly extend the expected
useful life of the nonconforming aspect; and
(c) The public benefit of complying with the local, state or federal regulation clearly outweighs the public
benefit in correcting the nonconformance.
2
First, there was some confusion by City staff related to the ROW dedication. They state the yard
should be measured from the "property line along South 312th Street as it existed prior to
the 8-foot frontage dedication". This implies that the 8' ROW dedication has already been
done, but in reality, that did not happen as part of the classroom addition because the value of that
addition did not exceed 25% of the value of existing property improvements based on a qualifying
real estate valuation. Therefore no frontage improvements were required. And since no frontage
improvements were required, then no dedication of additional ROW was required either. See
attached email identifying the decision by Ken Miller to dismiss the ROW dedication. The complete
appraisal is available upon request.
Second, there was a previous ROW dedication in 1986. The church deeded 12' of ROW to King
County for street widening. This was done before Federal Way incorporated in 1990, but the same
principal should still apply. See attached Master Plan Approval and Variance Requests dated
3/19/1996, File Number UPR95-0009, Item III, bottom of the first paragraph identifying the ROW
dedication.
The existing nonconformance was created not by something the church did, but by the jurisdiction
taking additional frontage from the church. So measuring the 30' setback from the existing
property line does not seem fair. It would result in the church having to demolish over 5000 SF of
usable square footage, which they obviously would not do.
So, we would propose that the yard should be measured from the property line along South
312th Street as it existed prior to the 12-foot frontage dedication. See attached partial site
plan. This would result in only a small portion of the existing church extending about 5'-4" into the
30' setback if it is measured form the original property line. However, it would still a major burden
for the church to have to cut the existing building back to the 30' setback line because it is a 3
story building, and we would have to cut it back to the next line of structure, about 18' in.
Finally, the existing church building met the setback that was in place at the time it was completed
in 1963. Before 1963, there was a 20' required setback (See attached highlighted excerpt from the
zoning code that was in place at the time). It looks like it was increased to 25' around 1963 at the
time the old sanctuary was built. See attached Master Plan Approval and Variance Requests dated
3/19/1996, File Number UPR95-0009 (page 6, Item I, City Response). It was increased to 30' after
that. So again, the nonconformance was created not by an action of the church, but by a code
revision that occurred after the building was completed.
We will be going through the Process IV on this project, so it seems that the City has a way to
allow this nonconformance to remain. Our understanding is this same conversation took place as
part of the recent classroom addition. We disagree with the statement in the pre-app conference
summary;
It appears this item of compliance was not identified during the permitting process for the
classroom addition associated with file 10-100599-UP.
More likely, the City staff identified the nonconformance and under section 19.30.160, they
allowed the existing nonconformance to remain because it was created by government action.
Doing the same here would be consistent with that previous decision.
And, we would point out that there was a Variance granted as part of the 1996 decision (attached)
that included the 30' setback encroachment (see page 20, Item XI.B APPROVED). The church has
done nothing to warrant that an existing variance granted by the City of Federal Way be rescinded.
So in conclusion, based on our understanding of FWRC nonconformance code and the exceptions
excerpted above, we feel that the north property line setback from South 312th Street is an
existing nonconformance that should be allowed to remain. Therefore, we should be able to
add any amount of square footage to the existing building (not limited to a 10% increase)
without having to modify the building at the north property line as long as we don't
increase the existing nonconformance.
Ica
We recognize there are other triggers such as 25% of the existing value of improvements on the
existing property to require frontage improvements on 312th, but we will address that in our
master plan and phasing plans.
Please let us know if you feel the City would support through Process IV the existing
nonconformance remaining. This is a very important issue and timely because it could have a huge
impact on the design of the building moving forward. So we look forward to your Administrative
Decision as soon as possible.
Let me know if you have any questions or need clarifications on any parts of this Administrative
Decision request.
After reviewing this request, if you determine, because of the complexity of the issues involved, it
would be better handled with a second pre -application conference, we are open to that.
Thank you for your consideration.
Steve Hammer
BPH Architects
(425) 774-4701, Ext. 14
steve@bpharch.com
C!
REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
CITY OF
Federal Way
FILE NUMBER - _ Date
Annlicant
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
33325 81' Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
253-835-2607;Fax 253-835-2609
w wtiv .cit vo f fedet'a l way. corn
NAME Steve Hammer
PPIMARY PHONE (425) 774-4701
BUSINESS/ORGANIZATION BPH Architects
ALTERNATE PHONE
MAILING ADDRESS 19624A 76th Ave. W
E-MAIL steve0abpharch.com
CITY Lynnwood
STATE WA
zip 98166
FAX
Property Addres"ocation 515 S. 312th St.
Description of Request St. Luke's Lutheran Church — Master Plan. Existing building encroaches into
the rqQuired 30' setback on the north side of the property. We are looking into what would be required to bring this into
conformance under the current nonconformance code, so we need to know if we can meet the setback in place when the
existing church was builL and measure from the proRerty line in place before the revious 12-foot ROW dedication in 1986.
List/Describe Attachments Existin>� artial sate ian and a detailed wr tten rc uest with su ortin documents.
For Staff Use
❑ Code Interpretation/Clarification
❑ Critical Areas Letter/Analysis/Peer Review
❑ Request for Extension (Land Use/Plat Approval)
❑ Revisions to Approved Permit
❑ Tree Removal
❑ Work Hours Variance
❑ Zoning Compliance Letter
No Fee
No Fee (Actual Cost if Applicable)
$62/hour
$62/hour
No Fee
$62/hour
$100
Bulletin #079 — September 10, 2015 Page I of I k:\Handouts\Request for Administrative Decision
bpharchitects
DATE: 10/25/15
TO: City of Federal Way
ATTN: Isaac Conlen, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Administrative Decision Request 2
File #15-102298-00-PC, Preapplication Conference Summary
St. Luke's Lutheran Church Master Plan
Mr. Conlen,
We are hereby requesting a second Administrative Decision on the following issues related to the
above referenced project. Please refer to the attached site plan detail sheets 1 and 2 for the
referenced keynotes and sheet 3 for the existing site plan.
A. From the pre-app meeting notes, Planning Division Comments, item 7; Required
Yards... Parking may be located within the required 30' yards, but no closer than 15' from
property line.
At the property line between St. Luke's Lutheran Church and Federal Way Mission Church (the
property directly to the west), the existing parking and drives are right up to the property lines (see
existing site plan). We are proposing that this parking be expanded without providing a 15'
setback on either side of the property line. This was not addressed in the pre-app conference but
we want to make sure it is not going to be an issue during the Process IV review because it would
have a huge impact on the parking lot layout and civil engineering design.
We should note that having a 30' space between the parking on the 2 properties (15' on either
side of the property line) would eliminate a significant amount of parking accessible to the
churches. Also, under the Community Design Guidelines, section 19.115.050, Paragraph 2.c states
"Driveways should be shared with adjacent properties to minimize the number of driveways and
curb cuts."
This issue did not come up in the previous building addition completed last year, so we assume the
City would continue to support the shared driveway concept without the 15' setback. Please ;w„J s4-Z>11� n
confirm.
Note, this issue was addressed in a previous land use process in the City of Federal Way, Master`s tia�k—
Plan Approval and Variance Requests dated 3/19/1996, File Number UPR95-0009 (attached). See
page 20, item XI.0 APPROVED. We assume this approved Variance will be allowed to remain.
B. From the pre-app meeting notes, Planning Division Comments, item 11.b; Perimeter
Landscaping..."at such time when gross floor area is added to the building, any remaining
perimeters not meeting the 10-foot-wide landscaping screen and type will be required to be
brought into conformance."
First, has this wording been change as part of the revised nonconformance section in the code? It
does not define any amount of new building area, so if 1 square foot is added, does it trigger this
requirement?
Second, in the same area of the site as item A above, we have a question about required landscape
buffers. From the FWRC, " Type l// landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all property
lines of nonresidential uses /n the RSzoning districts "
BPH Architects 19624A 76th Ave. W Lynnwood, WA 98036 (425) 774-4701 www bphorch.com
We recognize both churches are located in RS 7,200 zones, but they are also both commercial uses
in that zone under approved land use processes. So it does not make sense to provide a landscape
buffer between these same uses. And it is highly unlikely that either of these properties would ever
become a residential use. If they were ever to change, the buffer could be addressed at that time.
But more important, since it is perimeter parking lot landscaping, would this 10' buffer actually
need to be a Type I buffer rather than Type III? That makes even less sense to have a solid view
obscuring buffer between 2 identical uses.
From FWRC "Parking adjacent to residential zones shall reduce the visual impact of parking areas
and buffer dwelliry units from light, glare, and other environmental intrusions by providing Type l
landsc, :vllT within required perimeter landscape areas. "
It appears from the wording of this section, the concern is impacts on dwelling units. So again
since both properties are commercial developments, this does not seem to apply either. Please
confirm.
C. From the pre-app meeting notes, Planning Division Comments, item 11.b; Perimeter
Landscauing .."A ten -foot -wide Type I landscaping screen along the western property line will
be required to screen the proposed parking lot."
From FWRC, " Parking areas adjacent to public right-of-way shall incorporate berms at least three
feet in height within perimeter landscape areas,- or alternatively, add substantial shrub plantings to
the required perimeter landscape type, and/or provide architectural features ofapprQpn;7te height
with trees, shrubs andgroundcover, in a number sufficient to act as efficientsubstitute for the
three-foot berm, to reduce the visual impact of parking areas and rAAr? automobiles, andsubject
to approval by the director of community development. "
First, this code section seems to address concerns with parking along the public ROW. There is no
mention of a Type I buffer. We recognize there are residences across the street, but the street itself
would be a source of visual impact on those properties as much or more than a parking lot across
the street.
From the FWRC, " Type 111 landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all property lines of
nonrFsidon tia/ uses in the RS zoning districts "
So we have 2 sections that seem to address this location. It appears the Type I requirement is
coming from a 3rd section
From FWRC 'Parking adjacent to residential zones shall reduce the visual impact ofparking areas
and buffer dwelling units from light, glare, and other environmental intrusions by providing Type l
landscaping within required perimeter landscape areas. "
Again, it appears the concern is impacts on dwelling units and we have a public street adjacent to
the parking, not really a residential zone and definitely not dwelling units. Please clarify.
Second, if we phase the project so the parking next to the west property line is not built in the first
phase, we assume the landscape buffer can be deferred to the future when the parking is actually
constructed? We understand as previously identified in item B above that all perimeters have to be
completed when the building is expanded (depending on the clarification on this trigger), but if
there is no parking in this location, we assume a Type III buffer would be adequate? Please
confirm.
D. From the pre-app meeting notes, Planning Division Comments, item 11.b; Perimeter
Landscaping..."The remaining areas along the western perimeter will require a 10' Type III
landscape screen ... At such time when gross floor area is added to the building, any remaining
perimeters not meeting the 10-foot-wide landscaping screen and type will be required to be
brought into conformance.
2
Same as item B above. Please clarify the trigger for requiring a landscape buffer at the informal
play field for church use and the storm detention system. Can we build these 2 elements and not
have to provide a buffer if no building expansion occurs?
And again, what is the threshold for building expansion. Is it 1 square foot or perhaps a
percentage, like 10% under the new exception 2 in the nonconformance code, or the 25% trigger
for frontage improvements?
Incidentally, the applicable code section does seem to apply here.
Type /// landscaping 10 feet in width shall be provided along all property lines of nonresidential uses
in the RS zoning districts
We understand if we provide a chain link fence, it would need to meet City standards to avoid the
requirement for a Type I buffer in front of it.
E. From the pre-app meeting notes, Planning Division Comments, item 11.b; Perimeter
Landscaping... "The expanded parking area across the street from 6th Ave. S will also require a
10-foot-wide Type I landscaping screen when the alteration occurs. At such time when gross
floor area is added to the building, any remaining perimeters not meeting the 10-foot-wide
landscaping screen and type will be required to be brought into conformance.
The church has decided not to expand the parking at this location. The cost was too high for the
number of new spaces added so they decided to not move forward with that work.
First, it appears the 10' Type I buffer is triggered by the parking expansion ("when the alteration
occurs"). If we don't expand the parking, we assume the buffer is not required. Please confirm.
Second, we question whether this property should be considered as part of the "subject property".
The parking in this lot is not required to meet the minimum number of spaces required in the code
for the church (1 per 5 seats and 10' of pew in the sanctuary). We have calculated 91 spaces are
required, and there are more parking.spaces than that available in the main church property.
This property is separated from the main church property by a public street. We have to ask what
the definition is for "subject property". What if a land owner had 2 separate parcels separated by
a mile? Obviously that would not be considered as part of the same subject property just because
it was owned by the same person. So we would argue the same here.
If that is the case, then we assume the nonconformance code would not apply to this property
even if the building on the main church property is expanded. We look forward to your response
to this issue.
Second, we again strongly question the requirement for a Type I buffer, even more at this location.
The property is adjacent to a major arterial, public street, not adjacent to residential lots.
From FWRC '`Parking adjacent to residentia/zones shall reduce the visual impact of parki�?g areas
and buffer dwelling units from light, glare, and other environmental intrusions by providing Type l
landscaping within required perimeter landscape areas. "
Again, it appears the intent is to address impacts on dwelling units. Clearly the traffic on 312th
would be a much greater impact on the residences than parking across the street. We would argue
that the other section would be more appropriate here.
From FWRC 'Parking areas adjacent to public right-of-wayshall incorporate berms at least three
feet in height within perimeter landscape areas; or alternatively, add substantial shrub plantings to
the required perimeter landscape type, and/or provide architectural features ofappropriate height
with trees, shrubs and groundcover, in a number sufficient to act as efficient substitute for the
three-foot berm, to reduce the visual impact of parkll7G areas and screen automobiles, and subject
to approval by the director of community development. "
3
In reality, this parking lot, being separate from the church, presents a potential security issue. By
nature, it is less closely supervised at times when it is not being used, so having it more visually
open would be more in line with CPTED principles. It is obvious from the following photograph
that the City has already accepted a berm and not a Type I buffer at this location.
In fact, the goal of the church is to remove this berm. The berm was created as a way to minimize
excavation and soil export when the sanctuary was built in the early 1990s. It is much higher than
the 3' required. And it is a real challenge for maintenance, so it ends up being quite an eyesore.
By removing the berm, it would make the church more visible and would therefore be safer for
drivers on 312th looking for the church (many have missed the turn).
Existing berm on South 312th Street
But if they spend the money to remove the berm, they don't want to end up having to pay for a
Type I buffer that would once again hide the church approach from view, and recreate an even
worse potential security issue by hiding the parking lot from view even more.
We understand when the berm is removed, it would create a nonconformance. So even though
the parking lot is not being expanded, we understand that a 3' high berm or equivalent would be
required.
But we don't feel a Type III landscape buffer should be required (when the building is expanded)
because this is not part of the "subject property". And we definitely don't feel a Type I buffer
should be required as noted above.
F. From the pre-app meeting notes, Public Works Traffic Division comments, Access Management,
item 3. "Driveway widths may be increased ... as determined by the Public Works Director. The
driveway modifications for the parking lot located between 6th and 7th Avenue SW (sic) show
25'-foot driveway widths. Due to the proximity to S 312th St., these driveways should be
widened to the maximum 30'.
C!
Again, the church has decided not to expand the parking at this location, so no modifications to
the driveways are proposed. This appears to be the trigger for suggesting the wider driveways.
The church has no desire to widen these driveways and it would result in a loss of 8 parking spaces.
We assume the nonconformance codes does not apply to this, so the existing 25" wide driveways
will be allowed to remain. Please confirm.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need clarifications on any parts of this
Administrative Decision request.
After reviewing this request, if you determine, because of the complexity of the issues involved, it
would be better handled with a second pre -application conference, we are open to that.
Thank you for your consideration.
Steve Hammer
BPH Architects
(425) 774-4701, Ext. 14
steve@bphar_ch.cam
Matt Herrera
From: Steve Hammer <steve@bpharch.com>
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 1:43 PM
To: Matt Herrera
Subject: RE: St. Lukes Lutheran Church Follow up
Matt,
Thanks so much for your help with this. 1 have let the church know and they were very pleased because it keeps their
options more open.
Steve Hammer
BPH Architects
(425) 774-4701, Ext. 14
steve@bnharch.corn
From: Matt Herrera [maiIto:Matt.Herrera@citvoffederalway.com]
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 1:42 PM
To: Steve Hammer <steve@ b harch.com>
Subject: RE: St. Lukes Lutheran Church Follow up
Steve,
Following up on the 1996 variance issue related to the Administrative Decision 3 request:
It has become clear after speaking with the City Attorney's office that the approved variance from 1996, that allowed
the existing nonconforming setback encroachment on the north building facade, will continue to be allowed and the
variance decision for that encroachment was not intended to be a rider to the 1996 building addition permit. In other
words, the building portion encroaching into the setback does not need to be removed as a component of your
proposed upcoming addition.
I hope this clarifies matters. Let me know if you have further questions. —Matt
Matt Herrera, AICP
Senior Planner
Federal VV,�
y
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone:253.835.2638 Fax: 253.835.2609
www.citvoffederalway.com
From: Steve Hammer [mailto:steve@bpharch.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 1:04 PM
To: Matt Herrera
Subject: RE: St. Lukes Lutheran Church Follow up
Sounds good. Thanks.
Original Message-----
From: Matt Herrera [Matt.Herrera@cityoffederalway.com]
Received: Tuesday, 24 Nov 2015, 12:19PM
To: Steve Hammer [steve@bpharch.com]
Subject: RE: St. Lukes Lutheran Church Follow up
Hi Steve,
Likely not this week. I should hear something by next week. -Matt
From: Steve Hammer [mailto:steve@bpharch.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 12:09 PM
To: Matt Herrera
Subject: RE: St. Lukes Lutheran Church Follow up
Matt.
Just checking in. Any idea when we might hear back from legal on whether the previous variance still applies?
Thanks.
Steve Hammer
B]PH Architects
(425) 774-4701, Ext. 14
steveQbuharch.com
From: Matt Herrera fmaiito:Matt.Herrera@cityoffederalway_com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 2:27 PM
To: Steve Hammer <steve@bpharch.com>
Subject: St. Lukes Lutheran Church Follow up
Steve,
Here are my responses to question from your administrative decision memorandums and our meeting last Friday:
Administrative decision 2
A. The new parking spaces south of the existing adjacent church cannot be within 15-feet of the property line.
Since this will be a shared parking area no perimeter landscaping will be required between the parking area. The
existing shared driveway between the two churches is not considered parking so it is unaffected by the required
15-foot parking space setback requirement.
B. The remaining perimeter landscaping trigger is the when the church exceeds the new nonconforming
development trigger of 10% new GFA.
C. The code requires the increased planting within parking areas due to nonresidential use impacts within
residential zones. The landscaping code allows modification of the code provisions if the applicant presents a
plan that is equally as good and adequately mitigates the impacts of the parking lot on surrounding properties.
Please see the modification section in the landscaping code for criteria and instructions for submittal.
D. The landscaping will need to go when the playfield is no longer informal, to the stormwater facility when it is
built, or when the 10% threshold is exceeded.
E. The parking across the street is subject property and the perimeter landscaping will need to be brought into
conformance when the 10% threshold is exceeded. Alternatively you could request a modification as mentioned
in item C.
F. Please clarify with Traffic Division staff.
Administrative decision 3
Still waiting to hea.r back from the City Attorney's office regarding the variance.
On Friday, we spoke about measuring the setback from the line previous to the 12-foot dedication to King County as the
8-foot dedication in the preapp letter never occurred. This is in line with 19.30.160. We'll need documentation of this.
Let me know if you need any clarification on the above. I'll let you know as soon as I get an answer from the City
Attorney's office.
-Matt
Matt Herrera, AICP
Senior Planner
Cy" a
1 Federal Way
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone:253.835.2638 Fax: 253.835.2609
www.citvoffederalway.com
4
SOUTH 312T�4 STREET
EXISTING FACE OF CURB
PRE V IOb3 ZROPERTY LINE- BE
DEEDING If' OF ROW_ iN '198&
/IE?;IS�G,PfROPERTY LINE
A rJJ
PROPOSED PERTY LINE AFTER DEEDING
8' OF ROW (III TNROESNOLD IS MET) +
I
-- i� 30' SETBACK FROM ORIGINAL
PROPERTY LINE— -- - � -- — — — --
30 SETBACK ROM EXISTI - PROPERT
LI (AFTER EDING 12' ROW) �.7
I
i
G rry 7 77
FAFR)TIAL SITE FLAN MAIN FL00fR FLAN
I
I
I
I
I 1
f'
O PI N OF CNURCN BUILT IN 1963, MEETS:,
TWESETBACK REQUIRED AT THE TIME-'
f
3/32" s I' _O'' NORTH
VERIFY STORM WATER
TREATMENT AND
DETENTION WITH CIVIL
ENGINEER TO MEET NEW
DRAINAGE MANUAL
1 �
29 BUFFER
REDUCTION
Ar)DlTld4,gAL LANDSCAPING
TRADE OR BUFFER
- AVEt24<i1NG
----------------�`
u..r
4TH AVENUE SOUTH C FUTURE FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS I
--------------------------- r --- ----------------
jjj--
FUTURE F�NG FOR 124 (SHARED
BE E H CHURCHES) r
NEW CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH VINYL
{ �( COATED FABRIC, POWDER COATED Tq
POSTS AND DECORATIVE CAPS TYP. -- i
NEW INFORMAL PLAY - I — --� k T!Fa EXIS
FIELD FOR CHURCH USE16,
FOR
f - i FOR 45
= ES (GAIN
pp
EXISTINIS
Fj1P f - �T B ADJACENT
7--- CHURCH
-- if PROPERTY
+ 7_
EXISTING BUFFERS APPROVED ••'—. 'i
�•\� UNDER PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT PICNIC PICNIC / SHELTER; L
--------------------- r> B BIG TO
r , 4 rryh r
'.�._..�.� r+m•L{'ME ��'n•�f• � ��4 I'I��L '1 �DD��U 4� FUTU OP -OFF
�nsmG �n,vm \ \h UMPS
�fl+~- .� •�. 7 NEW I- N,
f FOR 48 f6AIN i
14) FUTURE + ,
ADDITION CLAS
SROOM
ROOPI
�.
ADDITION
' NCs
FUTURE EXISTI
TERRACED FUTURE EXPANDED MULTIPURPOSE
COMMUNITY PLAY YARD BUILDItJCs TO FUTURE a
! GARDEN AMAIN WILL
P I \ J
a
EXISTING cHURC{-I
5UILDING
EXISTING
REVISED PARKING 6 b 4 SETBACK NON -
FOR 123 (LOSS OF 7) a CONFORMANCE €;
b
-{- - -� -- -- - - - - - - -- ----------
1 --------- --_�
6TH AVENUE
ADM INIST ATIVE 1DECISION REQUEST 2 - DETA L 1
NORTH
--
mjm
opm
FIARKI
rING FOR 48 k--AJN
14) FUTURE
NEW
-- ---- - �r ADDITION
TERRACED.
,1,M 1NkTT 6J .
ARDEN —
z
AOM INISTRATIVE DECISION REaUEST 2 - DETA L 2
s EXISTIWs
FUTURE EXPANDED MULTIPURPOSE
PLAY YARD BUILDING TO
REMAIN
a e 6 4
REVISED PAI�rums-
FOR f23.(LOSS OF 7)
b
— --Litt. --- - --- -4
M
6TH AVF-NM
EXIST. 25' WIDE
DRIVEWAYS AT %TH
AND 77FI AVE. 5 -
VERIFY THEY DO NOT
NEED TO BE WIDENED
TO 30'
ii
RECENT
„-}
CLASSROOM
ADDITION
FUTURE
INFILL
p
EXISTW-s CHURCH'
BUILDINGS
Fl'
EXISTING
SETBACK NON—
CONFORMANCE
GE$T. PAR!
6 STALC$
6
AC
Di
C
7TH AVENUE SOUTH `'"�✓ �-�
�„ = 80,_0„ NORTH
- - 4TH AVENUE SOUTH
---- --�
r. -• -- -"- --- _' - IS' PAPoCING SETBACX ~�
�� J ,}'��. .r• � � � Jul
1 •� M
1 S 4
S
7-
EXISTING EXISTINCs
+ PARKIi G PAW!
EXISTING i
y , ADJACENT
CHURCH I
PROPERTY
EXISTING PAWING L
'-y { � ,�� e.� - •.-_ -,fig I _ :;,_
EXISTING SHARED _
- I a �, - ,.,..� - _ = DRfVEWA
lWL
Y
WL ti
z `b._ _ {
WL
EX15TW, WETL/dJD '
EXISTING PAWING p
FOR 34
EXISTINC
CLASSROOM
WINCE
I 1 .-
. EXISTING �
r GYMNASIUM/ I
CLASSROOM
I - — BUILDING �. r-
a
I - a aaa>> a alaiay, ] EXISTING �
r 1 lCI w F ;•;,
� _ •� � — ,r. ,.: _ CHURCH I I
Y s BUILDING
EXISTING PARKING= s I
FOR 13m I
- - - 6T1 I AVENUE SOUTH
- - _.
- - - - _ _
.orax c `
Lu
ADMINISTFATIVE DECISION FF-OUF-ST 2 - [DETAIL 3 (EXISTINC3 SITE FLAN)
1" a 001-0"
NORTH