Planning Comm MINS 03-07-2001
City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
March 7, 2001 City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING SUMMARY
Commissioners present: Karen Kirkpatrick Hope Elder, Nesbia Lopes, John Caulfield, Dini Duclos, and
Dave Osaki. Commissioners absent: Bill Drake. Staff present: Community Development Services Deputy
Director Greg Fewins, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Consultant David Graves; City Attorney Bob
Sterbank; Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety.
Chairwoman Kirkpatrick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. It was m/s/c to amend the agenda to
include an Executive Session just before the Public Hearing.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The February 21, 2001, meeting minutes were approved as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
None.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Commissioner Lopes excused herself from this portion of the meeting due to a possible conflict of interest.
Executive Session
At 7:05 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed to Executive Session to discuss potential litigation under
RCW 42.30.110(l)(i) for seven minutes. At 7:12, the commission announced they would take another five
minutes. The meeting resumed at 7:20 p.m.
Public Hearing Continued – Mega-Churches Code Amendments
David Graves presented the staff report. He went over the material given to the commission at the meeting.
He then reviewed the staff report, which is a response to questions raised at the last meeting.
The commission questioned whether the city can legally allow a private school where public schools are
not allowed and whether the city can limit the number of students at said school. Staff replied that the
school would not be there without the church, and hence, is an accessory use. As such, the city can
correlate the size of the school to the size of the church.
Planning Commission Page 2 March 7, 2001
K:\Planning Commission\2001\Meeting Summary 03-07-01.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 5:01 PM
The commission asked if the city has considered other zoning districts. Staff replied that they have not
considered any other zoning district in depth. However, many districts do not have many large parcels,
some are intended for smaller “Mom & Pop” type businesses, and because traffic is such an issue, the city
chose a zone in which much of the land is near arterials.
The commission requested the staff provided employee information and size from Overlake Christian
Church as a comparison. They also requested information on which zones is development occurring along
SR 99. Staff will provide this information.
Chairwoman Kirkpatrick opened the Public Testimony.
Gil Hulsman, 1001 Shaw Road, Puyallup – He presented the commission with a chart
comparing normal uses allowed in Business Park (BP) zones to a Mega-Church. The chart
compared the traffic, permit process, storm requirements, minimum lot size, set backs, parking,
landscape requirements, lot coverage, and building heights associated with each use. He
remarked that the developer is responsible to mitigate for any impacts, and a school/church
would have more stringent requirements than a business.
Morgan Llewellyn, 603 West Gowe Street, Kent – He thanked the commission and staff for their
work. He spoke to the market study. Currently, there is four million square feet of BP area
available in the city, which could provide for 4,900 jobs. Yet the market study shows that only
500 BP jobs will be generated in the near future. The growth is in retail, finance, and real estate.
Tim Babcock, 30424 8th Avenue SW – Due to the problems this area has had with young people
(drugs, gangs, loitering, cruising, etc.) having a safe place they could go would be a benefit to
the community. The proposed church would provide such a place.
Gary Robertson, 2100 South 336th, #H3 – He lives in the Forest Lane Townhomes. He is against
the proposed code amendment. This would not be an appropriate place for a church. He is
concerned with the traffic. The area is already congested, and this would just add more. He is not
convinced the church could develop a traffic plan that could deal with the problem. He is
concerned that traffic from the church’s first service would compete with that of the second
service. He feels the congestion would lower property values.
Mary Sawyer, 2005 South 331st – If we open up to one large church, how can we stop another?
We would be facing the same problems all over again. She is concerned with traffic and
depressed property values. This proposed code amendment disregards three comprehensive plan
goals. It would lead to more pollution, loss of tax revenue, and be a heavy impact on public
services.
Walter Vadai, 1830 South 336th, #E101 – He has been a homeowner since 1991 and is
associated with the church. He would rather have a church on the property than a business. He
feels a business would cause bigger problems. What the church would bring to the community is
worth any problems. It would bring an economic boom to the area.
Rick Brassfield, 5590 Bevery Avenue, Tacoma – He commented that the Federal Way business
community supports the amendment. It would create a healthy environment for business. He
asked the audience members to stand if they support the amendment (many stood).
Planning Commission Page 3 March 7, 2001
K:\Planning Commission\2001\Meeting Summary 03-07-01.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 5:01 PM
Elizabeth Kari, 2012 South 331st Street – She presented a letter to the commission opposed to
the amendment. She commented that it has been stated that people have a right to religion; hence
the city has to allow the church. She disagrees. The church would have a negative impact on the
community. She feels the commission (and city) is just looking for reasons to approve the
amendment. Why is the church more important then our quality of life?
Don Putman, 2656 SW 343rd Street – He asked, since the school enrollment is limited to 50
percent of the size of the church, what do you base the size of the church on? Is it the number of
members, or how many attend? He attends a church where the membership is about 400, but the
number who attends each weekend is closer to 2,000. He expressed concern that since this will
be a private school, many parents will be driving their children to and from school, adding to the
traffic congestion. He also questions whether the city can legally restrict the number of school
attendees.
Martin Durkan, 330 SW 43rd Street, Renton – He commented that both sides of this issue have
gotten off track. The Planning Commission should consider the possible impacts of the code
amendment. He believes Abbey Road [Gil Hulsmann] has done a good job of laying out the
possible impacts. There is a 20-year supply of BP land in Federal Way. We have seen an
increase in that demand, but the economy is now slower, so that demand will probably slow
down. The Market Study shows that the growth isn’t in the BP zone. There is very little land
25+ acres in size available in Federal Way. As far as the loss of taxes goes, there would be
mitigation fees and ongoing utility taxes. There would be intangible benefits associated with a
church.
Jodi Putman, 2656 SW 343rd Street – She is worried about this property being taken off the tax
rolls. It would hurt schools, which depend on taxes. Federal Way is trying to build up our city
and therefore, we need to increase the tax roll, which would help schools. How much land is
available and how much would potentially be taken off the tax rolls?
Chairwoman Kirkpatrick closed the Public Testimony.
The commission requested a copy of the Market Study because it is referred to so often. Staff will
provide them with a copy, and noted that it is also available on the city’s web page. The commission
asked about Don Putman’s question of what would the size of the church be based upon and how that
would effect the school enrollment. Staff remarked that development capacity also plays a role in
determining the school enrollment number.
The commission asked for clarification of Note #3 on the BP use chart that discusses using the
parking lot as a Park & Ride lot. Has this been taken into account in the traffic information the
commission has received? Rick Perez, Traffic Engineer, replied that the city has not assumed a Park
& Ride in the traffic information given. He noted that many jurisdictions use churches for Park &
Ride lots because of their availability during the week. Also, a Park & Ride depends on the transit use
in that area. The area in question is not a major transit route.
The commission asked for clarification of Note #2 on the BP use chart that discusses the use of
church facilities by the public for such things as community meetings, public performances, etc. Is
this enforceable and would it apply to other churches that are not mega-churches? Staff replied that
this note would not apply to non-mega-churches. In addition, it is not enforceable. It was placed here
so that mega-church projects would consider allowing public use of their facilities.
Planning Commission Page 4 March 7, 2001
K:\Planning Commission\2001\Meeting Summary 03-07-01.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 5:01 PM
It was m/s/c to continue the Public Hearing to April 4, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council
Chambers.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
None.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.