Planning Comm MINS 04-23-2008
K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 04-23-08.doc
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 23, 2008 City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Hope Elder, Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson, Tom Medhurst, and Sarady Long.
Commissioners absent: Bill Drake (excused). Alternate Commissioners present: Kevin King. Alternate Commissioners absent:
Tim O’Neal. Staff present: Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Associate Planner David Lee, and Administrative Assistant E.
Tina Piety.
Chairman Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved and seconded to approve the minutes of March 19, 2008, as presented. The motion passed; no nays.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
STUDY SESSION – Height Increases in Commercial Zones
Ms. Clark introduced Associate Planner David Lee, who is also working on this issue. Ms. Clark delivered the staff
presentation. The purpose of this study session is to brief the Commission on the issue and obtain direction. The
2008 Planning Commission Work Program contains 11 proposed code amendments. Once staff started researching
these amendments, it became apparent that some could be combined. It was decided to combine the following
proposed code amendments:
• Increase the maximum allowable height in the City Center-Core (CC-C) and City Center-Frame (CC-F).
• Increase building height in the Community Business (BC) and Neighborhood Business (BN) zones.
• Amend regulations related to the maximum 120-foot facade length.
• Delete the maximum allowable density for senior housing in the Community Business (BC) zone. (No
maximum in other commercial zones that allow senior housing [CC-C & CC-F].)
Ms. Clark noted that she reviewed all of the nonresidential zones in preparation for this proposal and found a
number of inconsistencies among the chart notes. She will use this proposed amendment to clean up as many of
those inconsistencies as possible.
One reason for combining the proposed amendments is that if a change is made to heights in the BC zone without
considering the CC-C & CC-F zones, then heights in the BC zone would exceed the CC-C & CC-F base height of
70 feet.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 23, 2008
K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 04-23-08.doc
A more flexible requirement for façade length is needed because as buildings become taller, they frequently become
wider. The proposal looks at not only increasing the façade length, but breaking up the façade to add visual interest.
There is no maximum density in other commercial zones for senior housing. Density should be governed by the
maximum allowable height and other development regulations such as required landscaping, parking, and
provision of detention facilities. If units are smaller or underground detention facilities are provided, the total
number of units could be increased.
The proposal would also delete the maximum allowable density for mixed use in the BC and BN zones.
A question before the Planning Commission and City Council is should the city increase heights in the CC-C and
CC-F zones and if yes, by how much. The city has received many inquiries for taller building heights in the CC-C
zone. As part of the proposal to increase heights, staff will study whether we should amend the provisions for
limiting height adjacent to residential zones. Allowing additional height in the CC-C zone would require additional
SEPA review. The current Planned Action SEPA did not take into consideration the increased density additional
height would bring. One possible way to avoid additional SEPA review would be to allow increased height without
higher density. This could result in fewer total buildings or taller, skinnier buildings.
Inquires for taller building heights in the CC-F zone has been for east of Pacific Highway South. A potential
solution is an overlay zone with increased heights in the area between 316th and 312th. The City could require
decreased heights as you go north closer to the residential zones. Another option for increased heights would be to
allow building height increase without higher density.
There has been interest among the Council to increase heights in the BC zoned area along the northern portion of
Pacific Highway to take advantage of views of the Sound and Mt Rainier. Staff is doing some view analysis to
determine at what height views become available. One suggestion is to increase heights just on the east side of
Pacific Highway. Commissioner Elder expressed concern about increased heights possible obstructing neighbors’
views and suggested regulations to protect neighbors’ views. Commissioner Medhurst asked how the word “views”
is defined. There is no definition in the Federal Way City Code.
Commissioner Bronson suggested that rather than stating a height in the code, we allow developers tell us what
height they want and use other criteria to decide if the height they want would be appropriate or not. Commissioner
Medhurst commented that if he were a developer, he would want to know the height requirement before applying.
Commissioner Carlson asked how does height vary. Ms. Clark responded that height varies by zone, but it is
inconsistent in that a use may have a different height limit in a different zone.
Chair Pfeifer commented that he can agree to staff researching varying the heights along Pacific Highway South for
views, but the city should consider the entire corridor.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
None
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m.