Planning Comm MINS 04-18-2001
City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
April 18, 2001 City Hall
7:30 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING SUMMARY
Commissioners present: Karen Kirkpatrick Hope Elder, Bill Drake, Nesbia Lopes, John Caulfield, Dini
Duclos, and Dave Osaki. Commissioners absent: none. Staff present: Community Development Services
Director Kathy McClung, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Consultant David Graves, City Attorney Bob
Sterbank, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety.
Chairwoman Kirkpatrick called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The April 4, 2001, meeting minutes were approved as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Moved to after the second Audience Comment section.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Commissioner Lopes excused herself from this portion of the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest.
DISCUSSION CONTINUED – Mega-Churches Code Amendments
Mr. Graves clarified that the definition of mega-church under discussion is a seating of 1000, not 2000 as
shown in the written definition. This change was verbally made at the Planning Commission meeting of
February 21, 2001. The commission asked what would be the status of a current church that grows to over
1000. Mr. Sterbank replied that any current church that has a seating capacity of over 1000 (and there are
none in the city) would become a legally nonconforming use if this code amendment is adopted. A current
church that grows to over 1000 would become a nonconforming use.
Commissioner Drake commented that he has closely studied the city’s Market Analysis. He noticed that
some charts in the analysis included areas in the city’s Potential Annexation Area (PAA) and others did
not. He asked the staff how does the code amendment relate to the PAA. Staff replied that it might be a
problem for a church with a seating capacity over 1000 that annexes into Federal Way, and then wishes to
Planning Commission Summary Page 2 April 18, 2001
K:\Planning Commission\2001\Meeting Summary 04-18-01.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 4:59 PM
expand. Commissioner Drake also stated that some of the comment letters expressed concern over the
amount of impervious surface area and the resulting water runoff. Would a mega-church have a different
standard in this area than other uses? Staff replied that the same standard applies to all development.
Commissioner Drake inquired if the mega-church were to sell items (such as books) would it generate
taxable revenue. Commissioner Duclos responded that non-profits are not exempt from sales tax.
The commission asked what would cause a nonconforming church to become conforming? Staff replied
that if a nonconforming church seeks to increase its gross floor area, make structural alterations, or make
improvements at a value of more than 50 percent of the appraised value of the building.
Commissioner Caulfield asked if any other cities have a distinct definition for mega-church. Staff replied
that the jurisdictions they researched do not. Some have definitions that distinguish churches by size. Some
jurisdictions in other states do have a definition for mega-church. Commissioner Caulfield inquired how
restrictive is our code compared to others? Ms. McClung responded that she is familiar only with one other
code, and that is more restrictive.
Commissioner Osaki asked how the staff is defining congregation. Is it by membership, or who attends
(which can be very different numbers)? His concern is the number of students who may attend the church
school, and the traffic generated thereby. According to this code amendment, the school would be limited
to a capacity equal to 50 percent of congregation. If a church with a seating capacity of 1000 holds four
services a weekend (and there are churches in the area that hold four services a weekend), then the number
attending would be 4000, allowing a school capacity of 2000. However, there may only be 2000 actual
members, cutting the allowed school capacity to 1000. Staff replied that there is no definition for
congregation; it would probably be based on who attends.
Commissioner Drake asked if there would be additional impacts fees for a church intending to locate in the
Business Park (BP) zone, and if so, would they be one-time fees or annual fees. Staff replied that the land
use review process and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review might require mitigation fees
that would be one time payment.
It was m/s to recommend to the City Council adoption of the revised version (March 7, 2001) of the staff’s
recommendation of the mega-churches code amendment.
Commissioner Hope commented that she has a problem with allowing a private school to locate in a zone
that public schools are not allowed. In addition, there is very little BP land available and she feels it isn’t
prudent to allow a church to take 1/3 of what is left.
Commissioner Caulfield stated that limiting the size of churches would not be good policy. He would
support a dialogue between churches and the city on this issue. He believes that no evidence has been
presented that shows the BP land is needed for churches. There is land available in zones that currently
allow churches. The city has spent a lot of time developing a Comprehensive Plan and he feels this
amendment goes against many of the plan’s goals and policies. He does not view mega-churches as a threat
to residential areas.
Commissioner Osaki expressed his support of the motion. The original staff report stated that there are
three decisional criteria that must be met to make a code amendment. He feels that report showed that these
criteria are met. It is not unusual for uses to be regulated by size and codes that protect residential areas.
This amendment would protect residential areas by limiting the size of churches allowed in them. He had
been concerned that a church would not generate as many jobs as other BP uses, but feels the staff has
Planning Commission Summary Page 3 April 18, 2001
K:\Planning Commission\2001\Meeting Summary 04-18-01.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 4:59 PM
shown that it would. As far as taxes go, government uses are allowed in the BP zone and they do not
generate property tax. He feels the land use review process (which requires a public hearing before the
city’s hearing examiner) would mitigate any potential negative impacts.
Commissioner Drake commented that he has spent a great deal of time studying the information provided
and comment letters. He was concerned with the loss of taxes, traffic problems, and the supply of BP land,
but feels these issues have been adequately addressed.
Commissioner Duclos stated that this has been a difficult issue. She looked carefully at the city’s Market
Analysis and it clearly shows that the city has enough BP land, but not enough residential land. This
amendment would help protect residential land by limiting church size. The land use review process has
many checks and balances, which would help mitigate any potential negative impacts.
It was m/s to amend the motion by making the following changes to the March 7, 2001, BP Use Zone
Chart: delete Note #2 (encouraging churches to provide opportunities for the use of their facilities for
public purposes); delete Note #3 (allowing the church’s parking to be used as a park & ride lot); and
modify Note #5 (school capacity) by changing the word congregation to seating capacity. Commissioner
Osaki feels Note #2 should be deleted because it would be difficult to regulate and would encourage more
traffic. Note #3 should be deleted because it also would encourage more traffic. He supports public
transport, but feels this is not the best way to deal with the issue. The hearing examiner could make a park
& ride a condition of site approval on a case-by-case basis. In regards to Note #5, congregation is an ever-
changing number that is hard to define. Seating capacity would be a fixed number.
Commissioner Duclos asked for clarification that deleting Note #2 would not preclude churches from
encouraging public uses, it just means that it would not be part of site approval. Staff concurred.
Commissioner Drake expressed his concern that if the size of the church’s school was limited to 50 percent
of the seating capacity, and the church held multiple services, many parents would not have the
opportunity to send their children to the church’s school because it would be too small. The vote was held
and the motion failed (one yes, four no).
It was m/s/c (three yes, two no) to amend the motion by making the following changes to the March 7,
2001, BP Use Zone Chart: delete Note #2 (encouraging churches to provide opportunities for the use of
their facilities for public purposes); and delete Note #3 (allowing the church’s parking to be used as a park
& ride lot).
The vote on the main motion, as amended, was held and the motion passed (three yes, two no).
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
None.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
Planning Commission Summary Page 4 April 18, 2001
K:\Planning Commission\2001\Meeting Summary 04-18-01.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 4:59 PM
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Ms. McClung informed the commission that the department has received seven proposals for the
downtown market study. She will be interviewing the top three next week. She expects it will take three to
four months to complete the study. Advertising for the department’s deputy director’s position has been
extended because of the small number of applications received.
The mega-church code amendment will probably go to the council’s Land Use/Transportation Committee
(LUTC) at the second meeting in May to give them time to study the issue. Ms. McClung suggested that at
least two commissioners attend the meeting. Commissioner Elder responded she will attend and
Commissioner Caulfield said he would try to attend.
This is Chairwoman Kirkpatrick’s last meeting and the commission and staff thanked her for all her work.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.