Loading...
Planning Comm MINS 04-04-2001 City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting April 4, 2001 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING SUMMARY Commissioners present: Karen Kirkpatrick Hope Elder, Bill Drake, John Caulfield, Dini Duclos, Dave Osaki, and Alternate Commissioner Sophia McNeil. Commissioners absent: Nesbia Lopes. Staff present: Community Development Services Director Kathy McClung, Community Development Services Deputy Director Greg Fewins, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Consultant David Graves, Consultant Rick Sepler, City Attorney Bob Sterbank, Parks Director Jennifer Schroder, Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Chairwoman Kirkpatrick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The March 7, 2001, meeting minutes were approved as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT None. COMMISSION BUSINESS Ms. McClung presented the commissioners with Certificates of Appreciation for their volunteer work on the Planning Commission. Public Hearing Continued – Mega-Churches Code Amendments The Public Hearing was reconvened. David Graves presented the staff report. The report consisted of issues the commission had requested additional information. One issue was whether the city could limit the size of churches. Mr. Sterbank replied that it is difficult to give a clear answer on this issue. The federal government’s Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA, or Hatch Act) prohibits federal, state, and local governments from imposing or implementing any land use regulation that places “a substantial burden” on religious activity, or that treats them on a “less than equal term” then nonreligious uses. He noted that the city does have zones in which there are no size limitations on commercial uses. However, there is a Washington State Act that upholds zoning restrictions on churches, and there are questions of the constitutionality on the RLUIPA. Mr. Graves went over a chart of, “Recent Development in Commercial Districts.” He noted that 1996 is the first year the city had good data. Planning Commission Page 2 April 4, 2001 K:\Planning Commission\2001\Meeting Summary 04-04-01.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 4:59 PM Mr. Perez presented a chart of, “Comparison of Trip Generation Characteristics” that compared a warehouse with a mega-church. The chart looked at weekday and weekend trips, as well as breaking them down into peak times. The warehouse generated the most trips during the weekdays and evening peak hours, with the mega-church generating more trips the rest of the time. Mr. Perez explained that the city bases its traffic mitigation fees on the evening peak hour. However, according to the current code, the city can require the applicant to study times other than the evening peak, which is what the city would probably do with a mega-church application. The city has required studies of other peak traffic times from some applicants (such as the Costco gas station and Northwest Church). Commissioner Osaki asked if the city had a concurrency management ordinance and Mr. Perez replied that it does not, but he is working on one. The staff was asked if there is any other avenue Christian Faith Church (CFC) could explore in order to site their church in Federal Way? Staff replied that churches are allowed in residential areas. In addition, CFC could seek a site-specific zoning change. The commission chose not to hear any more public testimony. The Public Hearing was closed. It was m/s to recommend to the City Council that the proposed text amendments not be adopted. Commissioner Caulfield made the motion and went on to explain his reasoning. He commented that the first question we should ask is, should we limit the size of churches in zones they are currently allowed? He feels this would place a substantial burden on existing churches. In addition, it would go against the RLUIPA. Because of this, he cannot support creating a definition for mega-churches that would place size limitations on churches. He does agree with the letter from the Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle, which suggests the city enter into dialogue with churches in our community on this issue. The second question is whether the city should allow mega-churches in the Business Park (BP) zone. Commissioner Caulfield commented that this community spent considerable time and resources developing its current Comprehensive Plan and associated Economic Development strategy, and while he believes the city must be flexible, he does not feel the commission has been presented with enough empirical evidence to merit changing the current code. According to tables 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, and 3-9 of the recent Market Analysis, there is enough available land, either vacant or undeveloped, in zones that currently allow churches for any type of church. The city needs to reserve our BP zones for what they are intended for—warehouses, manufacturing distribution centers, etc. There has been an upswing recently in the amount of current and projected construction activity in BP zones. The city needs this area to ensure the continued diversification of our economy. Commissioner Osaki commented that the commission should base their decision on the decisional criteria cited in the first staff report. He remarked that the staff did a good job showing that this criterion has been met. He feels limiting church size would protect residential areas. At first, he was concerned that the amendment would hurt the number of jobs generated, but feels the staff showed that it would not. He commented that the land use review process a church would need to go through in order to be allowed in the BP zone would protect the area and mitigate any negative impacts. As far as the loss of tax revenue, government uses are currently allowed in BP zones and they generate no tax revenue. Commissioner Elder commented that she is concerned over the limited about of land available in the BP zones and she feels they should be protected from encroachment by other uses. Commissioner Drake stated that he would be abstaining from the vote because he missed the last meeting and has not had the chance to listen to the tape from it. However, he commented that traffic was a concern to him, and he feels the land use review process would adequately mitigate the traffic. Planning Commission Page 3 April 4, 2001 K:\Planning Commission\2001\Meeting Summary 04-04-01.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 4:59 PM Commissioner Duclos commented that the city has a shortage of residential area and anything that eases that (as this amendment would do by restricting mega-churches to the BP zone) is a good thing. The vote was called. There was one abstain, two yes, and two no (the chairwoman exercised her prerogative to not vote). The motion failed for a lack of majority. It was m/s to send the amendment on to the City Council without a recommendation. The commission was reluctant to consider this motion because the whole purpose of the Planning Commission is to make recommendations to the City Council. Commission Drake commented that he would be willing to listen to the commission’s tape of the March 7, 2001 meeting, within the next two weeks, and would then be eligible to vote. The vote was called and the motion failed (two yes, three no). It was m/s/c (unanimous) to continue the Discussion to April 18, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. Public Hearing – Park & School Heights & Landscape Requirements Code Amendments Chairwoman Kirkpatrick opened the Public Hearing. Rick Sepler gave the staff report. The amendments would allow flexibility in the maximum height of minor and supporting structures (such as sports field lighting and backstops). It would also allow flexibility to landscaping requirements for parks and schools in order to promote public safety in adherence to Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Standards (CPTED). The commission noted that the amendment states that the maximum height could be exceeded, “…provided that the director of community development services determines that such structures will not significantly impact adjacent properties.” How would this decision be appealed? Staff replied that the required land use review process has an appeal process and this is what would be used. Staff also remarked that impact on adjacent properties would be reviewed through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the land use review process. The commission asked what are CPTED standards? Staff replied, for example, a park might be required to have no-see-through landscape screening. This amendment would allow that to be mitigated to see-through landscape screening, thus making it possible for passers-by to see a crime, and thus making it less likely a criminal would attempt a crime where it can be easily seen. The commission asked if there is a definition for minor and supporting structures? Staff replied that they did not attempt to write a definition because there are so many minor and supporting structures; it would not be possible to list them all. The first page of the staff report indicates the intended types of structures. There was no public testimony. Chairwoman Kirkpatrick closed the Public Hearing. It was m/s/c (unanimous) to recommend adoption of the code amendments. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS The commission asked for the status of the cluster subdivision code amendments. Ms. McClung replied that City Council made some changes to the amendments and adopted them on January 16, 2001. She will send the commission a copy of the ordinance. Planning Commission Page 4 April 4, 2001 K:\Planning Commission\2001\Meeting Summary 04-04-01.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 4:59 PM Ms. McClung said that the only item on the agenda for April 18 will be the mega-churches discussion. The group homes code amendment is next, but it might not be ready for another month or so. The commission asked what is the next area likely to be annexed to the city? The Jackson property, which is near 320th and I-5 is in process. Nothing else is pending. The City Council has approved a study of the city’s Potential Annexation Area (PAA). Due to the current workload, the staff probably won’t start that study to near the end of the year. Ms. McClung commented that she might bring the department’s quarterly report to the next meeting. The Request for Proposal for the downtown study is due Friday. The commission inquired as to the status of the new Public Safety/City Hall building. Ms. McClung replied that no formal application has been made. The City Council has met to discuss such issues as size of the building, parking, and timeline. It has been proposed that this be a joint effort with the School District, but the District is not ready. The City Council would like to place the building in the City Center and use it as a demonstration project that would hopefully spur development in the downtown. Chairwoman Kirkpatrick announced that she would be resigning after the April 18, 2001, meeting. She has accepted the position of Federal Way’s Assistant City Attorney. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.