Planning Comm PKT 05-21-2003
City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 21, 2003
7:00 p.m.
City Hall
Council Chambers
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF SUMMARY
4. AUDIENCE COMMENT
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
6. COMMISSION BUSINESS
1& PUBLIC HEARING
Changes to Business Park Use Zone Charts Code Amendment
7.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
8.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
9.
ADJOURN
Commissioners
John Caulfield, Chair
Dini Due/os
William Drake
Grant Newport
Tony Moore (Alternate #2)
Lawson Bronson (Alternate #4)
Hope Elder, Vice-Chair
Dave Osaki
Marta Justus Foldi
Christine Nelson (Alternate #1)
Merle Pfeifer (Alternate #3)
City Staff
Kathy McClung, CDS Director
Margaret Clark, Senior Planner
E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant
253-661-4105
H'ww. citvoffederalwav. com
K:\Planning Commission\2003\Agenda 05-21-03.docILast printed 05/14/2003 0108 PM
ij.¡:~::;;:!;i::{:i;;::'" .
:;l:~.:'.::~.:.~:.'.-::...:::'.,;,::,'.':":.:.'..::,.,..:.:,.:'.'.'.:.,'.:.:....i,'.:':.,:.:.".,:".{.',::.:::.':.'"..,',;'
. '::~::.':¡;:~¡!:<t::~J¡¡:¡,t~::::.
;:. ~~6C~;~,"'~g~t7/:'):~.;:::¡:'~;:;'::!':¡':::':;":';;"::':"~':;:;:;~':".
~~9E~~~Fra~J\\Ia*,:~t~:\/ ::;::::¡1¡!:~~: "
. "lNG:CPMMISSION;:::ij;
;' ,,:,,',::::'\~:~~~J~:!~~eting'::,. ~;:~~,:¡~L~~:; ::'.': .".:.
. " '::i'!:::"~,,:¡,
MEETING SUMMARY
Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Grant Newport, Dini Duclos, and Bill
Drake. Commissioners absent (excused): Marta Justus Foldi. Alternate Commissioners present: Merle
Pfeifer, Lawson Bronson, Tony Moore, and Christine Nelson. Staff present: Senior Planner Margaret
Clark, Senior Planner Lori Michaelson, Assistant City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick, and Administrative
Assistant E. Tina Piety.
Chair Caulfield called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ApPROVAL OF SUMMARY
It was m/s/c (one abstain) to adopt the December 4,2002, minutes. It was m/s/c to adopt the March 5,
2003 minutes.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Ms. Clark announced that the City Council approved the text changes to the 2002 Comprehensive Plan.
Site-Specific Request #1 was denied and the other site-specific requests were approved.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING - Design Guidelines and Definition of Height Code Amendments, Continued
It was m/s/c to re-open the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Ms. Clark gave the staffreport, which was a
response to the Commissioner's questions and concerns. She stated that these code amendments are
proposed to address problems with the current code. Some churches have sought a variance to the height
requirements. The purpose of the code amendments is to make this unnecessary. In addition, there have
been difficulties with the interpretation of the definition of height. The intent of the proposed code
amendments is to make the definition less ambiguous.
One question the Planning Commission had regarded light fixtures and how the height would be
determined for institutional uses. Staff researched the issue and determined that the base height for
buildings in zones where institutional uses are allowed is 30 to 35 feet. In addition, the Public Works
K:\Planning Commission\2003\Meeting Summary 03-19-03.doc
Planning Commission Summary
Page 2
March 19,2003
Department uses 30 feet for streetlights on local streets. Based on this, staff determined the height for
lighting fixtures would be 30 feet and that cutoff shields shall be included. One other aspect taken into
consideration is that if the height for lighting fixtures were left at 20 feet, the developer would have to
use more fixtures and those fixtures would be out of scale with the building.
The Planning Commission asked if landscaping requirements for buildings adjacent to right-of-ways and
residential zones would provide sufficient visual screening so that the need for building modulation
could be reduced or eliminated. Staff responded that the code says that modulation is required only if the
building is visible. The landscaping required varies from "partial visual separation" to "solid screening."
The final issue the Planning Commission was concerned with is whether there is a cost impact to
designing a building with a major structural modulation in order for it to comply with seismic
requirements. The staff spoke with the Building Official and an outside architect (with input from a
structural engineer) and determined there should not be a quantifiable cost.
The Public Testimony was opened at 7:40 p.m.
John Manuel, Austinicina Architects - He spoke at the last meeting. He wanted the
Commission to know that he has spoken with the staff and supports the proposed code
amendments.
Gil Hulsmann, Abbey Road Group - He was in charge of the new Windermere building, and
therefore, is very familiar with the zoning code, He said they are very happy with the results,
which came from following the zoning code's design guidelines. He said the code amendments
should bring about more flexibility. He is currently working on a project that will need a
variance and is hopeful these code amendments are adopted because they would help with the
variance. He is impressed that at Federal Way, the planners start at the preapplication stage and
go through the whole process. No other city he has worked with has done the same.
Cleveland Hobdy, Pastor of the Love of Life Fellowship Church - He is concerned about the
definition of church and school. What if there are two uses in one building? How can they be
called a dual use if they are in the same building? It is the same space.
Wade Fisher, Brooklake Church - He thanked the staff for their clarification and stated he
agrees with the previous testimony. They have a multi-use auditorium that is used for more
than just a church. How are setbacks determined for a multi-use building?
Rick Bud, Calvary Community Church - He thanked the staff for the opportunity to comment.
He stated that they welcome most guidelines. He said they find them helpful and they have a
great deal of flexibility.
Merle Pfeifer, Alternate Planning Commissioner - He commented on the proposed code
amendment for dormers that says if the total roof area of dormers exceed 35 percent of the
total area of the underlying sloped roof, height will be measured to the ridge ofthe highest
principal gable. He feels this is dictating to architects. He said the side view of a residential
structure with multiple dormers does not look too bulky.
K:\Planning Commission\2003\Meeting Summary 03-19-03,docILast printed 05114/2003 01:07 PM
Planning Commission Summary
Page 3
March 19,2003
Steve Hammer, Broweleit, Peterson, Hammer Architects - He commented on the seismic
design issue. He stated that the price of a building would not be affected due to seismic
consideration, but that modulation would increase the cost. He supports the proposed code
amendments. For lighting fixtures, he would like the code to define what is "large" (in regards
to large institutional use) and suggested five acres. He stated that the design guidelines cannot
address all issues and feels the staff interprets some "should" regulations as "shall." The more
you define terms, the more success you will have. He feels this code amendment is headed in
the right direction by clarifying definitions. He questioned whether 15 feet for religious icons
is enough and said he would support higher for larger buildings.
Lawson Bronson, Alternate Planning Commissioner - He asked if other cities regulate
religious icons and if they do not, why are we? Also, why restrict to just one religious icon? He
would support no restriction of religious icons. He also wonders since there are no view
corridors in Federal Way, why are we restricting height? He agrees with Mr. Pfeifer on the
issue of dormers. He asked if putting a definition for height in the zoning code is repeating
information found in the building code.
Roddy Nolten -He is not criticizing modulation, but feels it could increase the cost. He would
like the staff to consider what the building would look like, rather than just follow the rules.
The Public Testimony was closed at 8: 13 p,m. Ms. Clark commented that there can be flexibility in
regards to churches with multiple-uses. The staff would work with the applicant to determine the primary
use of the building. The Planning Commission then went over each proposed code amendment. In
response to the comment on defining what is "large," the staff would prefer to leave the determination of
what is "large" up to staff. In regards to the use zone charts, the Chairman Caulfield asked why there is a
statement protecting view corridors when the City does not have any and is there any risk or liability to
the City from this statement? Ms. Clark replied that the language had always been in the code and when
the staff had previously suggested it be removed, the City Council wanted it kept as a "placeholder," in
case view corridors are recognized. Ms. Kirkpatrick responded that there is no risk or liability to the City
as a result of this statement because it is a placeholder.
It was m/s/c to recommend adoption of the proposed code amendments as amended in the March 19,
2003 memorandum. It was m/s/c to close the public hearing at 8: 18 p.m.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
There was some confusion over whether the vote should be held before or after closing the public
hearing. Ms. Kirkpatrick said the vote could stand and she would research the issue.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
K:\Planning Commission\2003\Meeting Summary 03-19-03doc/Last printed 05/14/2003 01 :07 PM
~
CITY OF 4J!!III' - ~
Federal Way
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Amendments to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 22, Article XI
District Regulations (Business Park Zoning Charts)
File No. 03-101758-00-UP
Planning Commission Meeting of May 21, 2003
I.
BACKGROUND
The Growth Management Act requires jurisdictions to allow the public to suggest updates to their
codes and comprehensive plans once a year. Pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section
22-523, after the deadline for accepting applications, the City Council shall hold a public hearing
and select those docketed amendment requests it wishes to move to the Planning Commission for
further consideration. In September 2001, the City received the following two citizen requests for
zoning text amendments:
1) Allow more office space per tenant in the Business Park (BP) zone.
2) Allow existing nonconforming single tenant office buildings in the BP zone to be
permitted outright.
The Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) reviewed the requests at their meeting on May
20, 2002, and recommended that they move forward to the City Council for a public hearing and
determination on whether they should be studied further. The City Council reviewed the requests at
their meeting on June 18, 2002, and recommended that the requests be studied further and that text
amendments be prepared for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Staff has studied both requests further and has prepared this report along with recommended zoning
code amendments for consideration by the Planning Commission (Exhibits A and B). The purpose
of the proposed code amendments is to respond to the applicants' requests and to provide greater
flexibility in the allowable mix of uses in the Business Park zone.
The purpose of the BP zone according to the comprehensive plan is:
"... intended to capture the demand for higher quality, mixed use business parks which
permit a mixture of light manufacturing, warehouse/distribution, office and limited retail
uses to serve the immediate needs in the area. In the past few years, the City has observed a
marked increase in requests to change parcels from the Business Park designation to
another comprehensive plan designation. As a result, the city should explore potential
changes to the allowable mix of uses in the Business Park zone in order to meet changing
market conditions. "
Á. Large developments are proposed within the BP zoned area.
Within the area designated as Business Park, two large developments, totaling approximately
100 acres in size, are being reviewed by the City pursuant to development agreements.
I. Kitt's Comer is a proposed mixed use commercial and residential development.
2. Christian Faith Center is a proposed church/school development.
These two developments represent approximately 60 percent of the vacant land currently
located within the BP zone. A Market Study to determine the availability of commercial land
to accommodate anticipated growth was prepared in early 2000. The study indicated that there
would only be a demand for 11 to 13 percent of available BP-zoned land between the years
2000 and 2020. However, assuming the two projects described above are developed as
currently proposed, there will be few large vacant parcels remaining in the BP zone.
B. Remaining vacant parcels are small and/or environmentally constrained.
Additional vacant parcels within the BP-zoned area are identified on the City's Sensitive Areas
map as containing wetlands. There are 53 vacant parcels remaining in the BP zone. Forty of
the 53 parcels are less than five acres in size. Of those under five acres in size, over half (22)
are under 1.5 acres, which is the minimum lot size required for most new development within
the BP zone. (Note: FWCC Sections 22-861, 22-862, 22-863, 22-864, 22-865, 22-867, and 22-
868 allow for the development of existing nonconforming parcels.)
While it appears that there has been limited demand for light manufacturing and warehouse/
distribution development, there is also limited potential to site such development in the City of
Federal Way due to diminishing acres of vacant BP-zoned land.
C. Other cities' treatment of office development in Business Park zoned areas.
A review of other Puget Sound cities' zoning codes indicates that some communities limit
office development in heavy industrial zones, but consider it a principally permitted use in the
light industrial zones. Other communities require that office space either be accessory to a
primary use or limited to a certain percentage of the overall building or project. The following
is a listing of zoning codes reviewed:
1.
City of Kent: Allows office as a principal use in the Ml/MI-C Industrial Park and the M2
Medium Industrial zones. Office space is limited to no more than 25 percent of gross
floor area in the M3 Heavy Industrial zone,
2.
City of Kirkland: Allows office as a principal use in the LIT Limited Industrial
Technology and the ILC Industrial Limited Commercial zones.
3.
City of Renton: Office uses must be accessory to a primary use for the IL Industrial
Light, 1M Industrial Medium, and IH Industrial Heavy zones. Accessory is defined as,
"subordinate in size and typically on the same lot occupied by the principal use."
Business Park Code Amendments
Planning Commission Staff Report
File #03-101 758-00-UP / Doc 1023057
Page 2
4.
City of SeaTac: Professional office is limited to 20 percent of gross floor area in the BP
Business Park Zone.
5,
City of Tukwila: Office is a permitted use in the Commercial/Light Industrial Zone. Office
is only allowed on a limited basis in the Heavy Industrial Zone, Tukwila monitors the mix
of office vs. manufacturing/industrial use on a project or building scale rather than
individual tenant. (Note: The City of Tukwila is currently considering allowing more
office development in the Heavy Industrial Zone due to market conditions and the
potential of Boeing pulling out of the Northwest. However, the areas designated Heavy
Industrial are within a Designated Manufacturing/Industrial Center under the GMA, so
manufacturing job potential must be retained to maintain the designation.)
II. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS
A.
Distinction of Office as an Accessory Use in the BP Zone
Under the current zoning code, office development is specifically allowed in the BP zone as an
accessory use. Office development is subject to the special regulations outlined in Sections 22-
861, 22-862, 22-863, and 22-864 as follows:
"Under this section this use may include an accessory office utilizing no more than
50% of the gross floor area of this use and accessory retail sales and service facilities
utilizing no more than 20% of the gross floor area of this use; provided, however, that
the primary use utilizes a minimum of 5 0% of the gross floor area of this use. "
Office development is subject to the special regulations outlined in Section 22-866 as follows:
"Under this section these uses may include an accessory office utilizing no more than
50% of the gross floor area of this use.
Section 22-1 of the FWCC defines Accessory as follows:
"Accessory means a use, activity, structure or part of a structure which is subordinate
and incidental to the main activity or structure on the subject property. "
Section 22-1 of the FWWC defines Subject Property as follows:
"Subject Property means the entire lot or parcel or series of lots or parcels, on which a
development, activity or use is or will locate or on which any activity or condition
regulated by or subject to this chapter is or will occur or take place. "
The current interpretation of the zoning code is that the amount of office development is
considered on a per use (per tenant) basis as opposed to a per structure or per property basis.
This means that where allowed, an office must be accessory to the principal allowable use and
utilize no more than 50 percent ofthe gross floor area ofthe use.
Business Park Code Amendments
Planning Commission Staff Report
File #03-10 1758-00-UP / Doc lD 23057
Page 3
Three options have been identified for adding flexibility to the BP zone with regard to office
development.
Option A: Allow office as a permitted use in the BP zone. Under this option, individual
tenants with 100 percent office use would be able to locate on a parcel of any size in the BP
zone subject to applicable development standards. Additionally, structures could have a tenant
mix of up to 100 percent office use.
The potential advantages of this option are:
1)
It would be easier to administer because there would be no need to calculate and keep
track of percentage usage of structures or developments as in Option B.
It may be easier to develop small and/or environmentally constrained vacant parcels.
It also addresses the concerns related to existing nonconforming office development in
the BP zone eliminating the need for further amendments to the BP zone as presented in
Section II.B, below.
2)
3)
The potential disadvantages of this option are:
1)
It may result in a further loss of manufacturing/light industrial/warehouse development
potential if remaining vacant/underdeveloped parcels are developed with office structures.
The value ofland could be artificially inflated to that of Office Park zoned property,
further discouraging future light industriallbusiness park type development.
Traffic could be increased as office development typically generates greater trips per
square foot.
2)
3)
Option B: Calculate percentage usage on a per building or per lot basis. Under this
option, individual tenants within one or more buildings located on the same parcel could have
up to 100 percent office use, as long as no more than 50 percent of the gross floor area within
the building(s) located on the same parcel is in office use.
The potential advantages ofthis option are:
1)
2)
It provides increased leasing and development flexibility within the BP zone.
It maintains the requirement that development within the BP zone have a manufacturing/
light industrial warehouse presence.
The potential disadvantages of this option are:
1)
It does not address the concerns related to existing nonconforming office use (office uses
that utilize 100 percent of a building) in the BP zone necessitating the need for further
amendments to the BP zone language as presented in Section II.B, below.
Staff would have to assess and track tenant mix as a percentage of gross floor area to
ensure that overall tenant mix for each lot meets the use parameters,
Future development of vacant, small, and/or environmentally constrained lots may be
more difficult to develop since they would need to provide for truck access and
maneuvering on site.
2)
3)
File #03-10 1758-00-UP / Doc 10 23057
Page 4
Business Park Code Amendments
Planning Commission Staff Report
B.
Option C: Require there be a manufacturing/light industrial/warehouse use on a per
structure or per subject property basis, but maintain no limitations on percentage. Under
this option, individual tenants within a structure or a subject property as defined by the FWCC
could have up to 100 percent office use as long as the structure or subject property had a mix
of uses that included at least one manufacturing/light industrial/warehouse use.
The potential advantages of this option are:
I)
2)
It provides increased leasing and development flexibility within the BP zone.
It would be easier for staff to administer eliminating the need for gross floor area
calculations.
It maintains the requirement that development within the BP zone have a
manufacturing/light industrial/warehouse presence.
3)
The potential disadvantages of this option are:
1)
It does not address the concerns related to existing nonconforming office uses (office uses
that utilize 100 percent of a building) in the BP zone necessitating the need for further
amendments to the BP zone language as presented in Section II.B, below.
New projects could be developed with a limited amount of manufacturing/light industrial/
warehouse space resulting in a predominance of office developments.
Existing projects could shift tenant mix more toward office uses over time,
The future manufacturing/light industrial/warehouse presence could be reduced over time
within the City of Federal Way.
2)
3)
4)
Existing Nonconforming Office Use in the BP Zone
Within the BP zone, some developments do not meet the current requirement that office
development be an accessory use as defined in the FWCC. Examples of these developments
include both structures that were built as solely office buildings and buildings with a mix of
tenants, where some tenants are 100 percent manufacturing/light industrial/warehouse uses and
some are 100 percent office uses. These existing nonconforming uses came into being prior to
Federal Way's incorporation and were developed under the King County Zoning Code. The
county code allowed office development as a permitted use within the King County
Manufacturing Park (MP) Classification. For the most part, those areas previously zoned MP
under King County are now zoned BP under Federal Way.
These nonconforming uses can legally remain, but are subject to the provisions of FWCC
Section 22-332, "Nonconforming Use." Under this section, if an applicant wishes to increase
the size, make structural alterations, or make other changes/alterations to a structure that
exceeds 15 percent of the assessed or appraised value of the structure, the nonconforming use
must be terminated. This requirement as applied to the nonconforming office buildings located
within the BP zone is a disincentive to upgrading structures.
Most of these nonconforming uses are located in buildings built to serve as office buildings.
They have no provisions within the structure or on site for truck access. They are also
primarily located on lots that are less than 1.5 acres in size, which is the minimum required for
Business Park Code Amendments
Planning Commission Staff Report
File #03-10 1758-00-UP / Doc 10 23057
Page 5
most permitted uses in this zone. In addition, many of the nonconforming uses are located
adjacent to developed parcels. Therefore, it is unlikely that the sites with nonconforming office
uses could be redeveloped to conform to the current use requirements.
According to a GIS mapping of the BP-zoned area, there are 67 parcels that are less than 1.5
acres in size. Of these, 22 parcels are identified as vacant. Of the 45 developed parcels, 21 are
developed with single-family residences, five are developed with nonconforming office uses,
and 19 are developed with principally permitted uses.
Three options have been identified for addressing nonconforming office uses within the BP
zone.
Option A: Allow office as a permitted use in the BP zone. Under this option, existing office
development that is currently nonconforming in terms of land use would be permitted outright.
The potential advantages of this option are:
1)
Existing office buildings and 100 percent office tenants could improve their
buildings/spaces without being required to limit office to an accessory use.
It also addresses the concerns related to new development as presented in Section II.A,
above.
2)
The potential disadvantages of this option are:
1)
It may result in a further loss of manufacturing/light industrial/warehouse development
potential if remaining vacant/underdeveloped parcels are developed with office structures.
The value of land could be artificially inflated to that of Office Park zoned property,
further discouraging future light industrial/business park type development.
Traffic could be increased as office development typically generates greater trips per
square foot.
2)
3)
Option B: Allow properties developed prior to Federal Way incorporation to be
exempted from the requirement that office use be an accessory use.
The potential advantages of this option are:
1)
Existing office buildings built prior to Federal Way incorporation could be
improved/expanded without being required to limit office to an accessory use.
Existing mixed tenant buildings built prior to Federal Way incorporation would have
greater flexibility in leasing/improving spaces that may not lend themselves to a
manufacturing/light industrial use.
2)
The potential disadvantage of this option is:
1)
City staff would have to determine whether or not properties were developed prior to
Federal Way incorporation.
File #03-10 1758-00-UP / Doc ID 23057
Page 6
Business Park Code Amendments
Planning Commission Staff Report
Option C: Allow parcels less than 1.5 acres in size and platted prior to Federal Way
incorporation to be exempted from the requirement that office be an accessory use. Under
this option, both existing development and potential future development on parcels less than 1.5
acres in size could have any mix of office and light industrial uses permitted in the BP zone.
The potential advantages of this option are:
1)
It provides increased leasing, property improvement, and development flexibility for
small lots within the BP zone.
It would be easier for staff to administer eliminating the need for determining year of
development for existing buildings; however, staff would still need to determine when the
parcel was created.
2)
The potential disadvantage of this option is:
1)
One or more office developments built prior to Federal Way incorporation are located on
parcels larger than 1.5 acres and would remain nonconforming with regard to use.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the following alternatives be recommended for approval to the City Council:
l.
Alternative Option B, Section II (A) of this staff report, which is to allow office use to utilize
up to 50 percent of the total gross area of one or more buildings located on the same parcel in
the BP zone.
2.
Alternative Option C, Section II (B) of this staff report, which is to allow office use as a stand-
alone use only on parcels in the BP zone that are less than 1.5 acres in size, were platted prior
to City incorporation, and have not been under common ownership with a contiguous parcel
since incorporation.
These changes would require the addition of a new Use Zone Chart for Office Use under Business
Park Zoning (Exhibit A). In order to clarify the existing Use Zone Charts, it is recommended that
any reference to the amount of either accessory office or accessory retail use in the existing charts
be removed and that consistent with other sections of the code, they be allowed as accessory uses to
the principal allowed use pursuant to the definition of "Accessory" (Exhibit B).
IV. REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
FWCC Chapter 22, "Zoning," Article IX, "Process VI Review," establishes a process and criteria for
zoning code text amendments. Consistent with Process VI review, the role of the Planning
Commission is as follows:
Business Park Code Amendments
Planning Commission Staff Report
File #O3-101758-00-UP / Doc lD 23057
Page 7
1. To review and evaluate the zoning code text regarding any proposed amendments.
2. To determine whether the proposed zoning code text amendment meets the criteria
provided by FWCC Section 22-528.
3. To forward a recommendation to City Council regarding adoption of the proposed
zoning code text amendment.
V. DECISIONAL CRITERIA
FWCC Section 22-528 provides criteria for zoning text amendments. The following section
analyzes the compliance of the proposed zoning text amendments with the criteria provided by
FWCC Section 22-528. The City may amend the text of the FWCC only if it finds that:
1.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the
comprehensive plan.
The proposed FWCC text amendment is consistent with the following Federal Way
Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) goals and policies:
LUG5
Develop a quality business park area that supports surrounding
commercial areas.
LUP35
Encourage quality, mixed-use development for office, manufacturing,
and distribution centers.
EDG6
The City will encourage and support existing businesses to remain
and/or expand their facilities within Federal Way,
2.
The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or
welfare.
The proposed FWCC text amendment bears substantial relationship to the public health, safety,
and welfare because it facilitates the leasing and improvement of existing sites of employment
within the City.
3.
The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents ofthe City.
The proposed FWCC text amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the City because
it facilitates development of new projects that would provide additional employment
opportunities for citizens of Federal Way.
Business Park Code Amendments
Planning Commission Staff Report
File #03-10 1758-00-UP / Doc ID 23057
Page 8
VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Consistent with the provisions of FWCC Section 22-539, the Planning Commission may take the
following actions regarding the proposed zoning code text amendments:
I. Recommend to City Council adoption of the FWCC text amendments as proposed;
2. Modify the proposed FWCC text amendments and recommend to City Council adoption of
the FWCC text amendments as modified;
3. Recommend to City Council that the proposed FWCC text amendments not be adopted; or
4. Forward the proposed FWCC text amendments to City Council without a recommendation.
VII. EXHIBITS
Exhibit A - New Office Use Zone Chart
Exhibit B - Example of Changes to Existing Charts
I:\DOCUMENnChanges to BP Zone Charts\Planning Commission StaffReport.doc/O5/14/2003 I :41 PM
Business Park Code Amendments
Planning Commission Staff Report
File #03-10 1758-00-UP / Doc ID 23057
Page 9
EXHIBIT A
This entire land use chart is new; therefore, it has not been underlined.
22-872 Office use.
The following uses shall be permitted in the business park (BP) zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this section:
USE ZONE CHART
DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use. ,. THEN, across for REGULATIONS
Minimums
Required Yards
USE
rJJ
Z
0
¡::
<
..¡
;;;
"
¡.¡
¡:¡::
'"
~
u
8
""p.,
~ ~
.- '"
::>,-
C">
'" '"
~~
Office use
Process II I 1.5
Possible acres
Process III
See
See note 3 I notes I
and 2
Process I, II, III and IV are described in
§§ 22-351 - 22-356,
22-361 - 22-370
22-386-22-411,
22-431 - 22-460, respectively.
File #03-101 758-00-UP
'"
N
¡;;
Õ
..¡
;;::
u
'"
~
'"
""
¡;;
::
8
I.J..
25 ft. 120 ft, 120 ft,
or
35 ft, 1 2 OftT2 0 ft,
æ
'"
~
....
0 '"
- 5
.<::-
ooU
,- ::>
'" ...
:r:t/5
40 ft,
above
average
building
elevation
or
50ft. 120ft. lOft.
See notes 4, 5, and 8 I See notes
3 and 5
'"
'"
g
Q.
""VJ
'" 00
,= 0:
::>.-
0--'<:
~J:
Determined
on a case-
by-case
basis
ZONE
BP
SPECIAL REGULA nONS AND NOTES
I, Office use may not exceed 50 percent of the total gross floor area of all buildings on any parcel that is 1.5 acres or
greater in size.
2. Office use may be allowed on any parcel that is less than 1.5 acres; provided:
a. The lot lines defining the lot were lawfully created prior to March I, 1990; and
b, The applicant has not owned any contiguous lot or lots since March I, 1990,
3. If approved through process III, the height of a structure may exceed 40 ft, above average building elevation, to a
maximum of 55 ft. ifall of the following criteria are met:
a, The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and
b, The subject property does not adjoin a residential zone; and
c. Each required yard abutting the structure is increased one ft. for each one ft. the structure exceeds 35 ft, above average
building elevation; and
d. The increased height will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and
e. The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the
comprehensive plan.
4, Front yard setback: 25 ft. if entry is visible from right-of-way and front facade is 15% glass; 35 ft, if landscape buffer
and stormwater facilities are located in the front yard or 50 ft. if parking and driving areas are located in the front yard,
5, If any portion of a structure on the subject property is within 100 ft, of a single-family residential zone, then that portion
of the structure shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of
20 ft, from the property line of the residential zone,
6. No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be determined by other site development
requirements, i.e., required buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc.
7, For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIX,
8. For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII.
9. For sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII.
10. Refer to § 22-946 et seq, to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property..
L For other infonnation aboul parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq.
For details of what may exceed this height limit, see § 22-1046 et. seq.
For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq.
Doc ID 23058
EXHIBIT B
22-862 Photographic, communication and research.
The following uses shall be permitted in the business park (BP) zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this section:
USE ZONE CHART
rJ] DIRECTIONS: FIRST, read down to find use, ., THEN, across for REGULATIONS
i!5 Minimums
¡:: Required Yards
<
"""
;;;;
"
'"'
¡:¡::
USE
Commercial or
industrial
photography,
cinematography
and video
production
Broadcast studios
Research and
development
facilities
'"
'"
0
OJ
e
.",Q.,
~ ~
,- 0
::s ,-
r:r'>
~~
Process I 1.5
II acres
Possible
Process
III
0
N
Vi
Õ
"""
::c
OJ
'"
~
0
.",
Vi
1::
e
¡.¡.
25 ft, 120 ft, 120 ft,
or
See note
I
Process I, II. III and IV are described in
§§ 22-351 - 22-356.
22-361-22-370
22-386 - 22-41 I.
22-431 - 22-460, respectively,
æ
"
¡:>:::
.....
0 ~
..... ::s
..c"'"
OJ) OJ
,- ::s
OJ:::
:I:VJ
'"
0
OJ
'"
Q.
.",VJ
" OJ)
.... c
'g.~
" '"
¡:>:::Q.,
Determined
on a case-
by-case
basis
File #03-101758-00-UP
(Ord. No, 96-270, § 5, 7-2-96; Ord. No, 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97; Ord. No. 99-333, § 3.1-19-99)
40 ft,
above
average
building
elevation
See notes
I and ~ i
ZONE
BP
SPECIAL REGULA nONS AND NOTES
I. If approved through process III, the height of a structure may exceed 40 ft, above average building elevation, to a
maximum of 55 ft, ifall of the following criteria are met:
a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the particular use conducted in the building; and
b, The subject property does not adjoin a residential zone; and
c, Each required yard abutting the structure is increased one ft, for each one ft, the structure exceeds 35 ft, above average
building elevation; and
d. The increased height will not block views designated by the comprehensive plan; and
e, The increased height is consistent with goals and policies for the area of the subject property as established by the
comprehensive plan,
2. Front yard setback: 25 ft. if entry is visible from right-of-way and front facade is 15% glass; 35 ft. iflandscape buffer and
stormwater facilities are located in the front yard or 50 ft. if parking and driving areas are located in the front yard.
3. Under this section this I:Ise may incll:lde an a.cessory office I:Itilizing no more than 5Q% of the gross floor area of this I:Ise
and accessory retail sales and sef\'ice facilities I:Itilizing no more than 2Q% of the gross floor area of this I:Ise; provided,
however, that the primary I:Ise I:Itilizes a miniml:lm of S()% of the gross floor area of this loIse,
4-.:L The subject property must be designed so that truck parking, loading and maneuvering areas; areas where noise
generating outdoor uses and activities may occur; and vents and similar features are located as far as possible from any
residential zone and secondarily, from any public right-of-way,
~ 1.-. If any portion of a structure on the subject property is within 100 ft. of a single-family residential zone, then that portion
of the structure shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation and the structure shall be set back a minimum of20
ft. from the property line of the residential zone,
G-. ~ No maximum lot coverage is established. Instead, the buildable area will be determined by other site development
requirements, i.e" required buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc,
+-. §., For community design guidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIx.
&-. L For landscaping requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVII,
9-. ,LFor sign requirements that apply to the project, see Article XVIII.
.w... 2., Refer to § 22-946 et seq, to determine what other provisions of this chapter may apply to the subject property.
.u,lQ, The development must contain at least 1,5 acres; provided, however, this use may be conducted on a lot of any size if:
a, The lot lines defining the lot were lawfully created prior to March I, 1990; and
b, The applicant has not owned any contiguous lot or lots since March I, 1990.
12, For comml:lnity design gl:lidelines that apply to the project, see Article XIx.
L For other infonnation about parking and parking areas, see § 22-1376 et seq.
For details of what may exceed this height limit. see § 22-1046 et. seq.
For details regarding required yards, see § 22-1131 et seq.
Doc 10 23060