Planning Comm MINS 03-05-2003K:\Planning Commission\2003\Meeting Summary 03-05-03.doc
City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
March 5, 2003 City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING SUMMARY
Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Grant Newport, and Bill Drake.
Commissioners absent (excused): Dini Duclos and Marta Justus Foldi. Alternate Commissioners present:
Merle Pfeifer, Lawson Bronson, and Christine Nelson. Alternate Commissioners absent (unexcused): Tony
Moore. Staff present: Community Development Director Kathy McClung, 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 7:06 p.m.
APPROVAL OF SUMMARY
The December 4, 2002 summary was tabled to the next meeting.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
None.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING – Design Guidelines and Definition of Height Code Amendments
The public hearing was opened at 7:10 p.m. Ms. Clark delivered the staff report. A copy of the staff report
was sent to all churches in Federal Way. City staff has received two phone calls on this issue. The first was
in support and the second had a few questions (that staff answered) and expressed concern that there was
not enough time to study the staff report. Ms. Clark noted that the amendments will affect large
institutional uses in all zones, not just residential. Because of recent projects, the staff has discovered that
the guidelines need some tweaking, hence these code amendments.
Ms. Michaelson continued the staff report with an explanation of the definition of height code amendments.
She stated that the City has received a letter from Stephen Hammer (copy given to the Commissioners) that
is generally in favor of the proposed amendments. He does recommend some changes and she and Ms.
Clark will discuss those recommendations at the appropriate points of the staff report. Ms. Michaelson went
Planning Commission Summary Page 2 March 5, 2003
K:\Planning Commission\2003\Meeting Summary 03-05-03.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 2:52 PM
on to explain that the proposed changes to the definitions of average building elevation and height are for
clarification. In his letter, Mr. Hammer comments that we should use more than two points to determine the
average building elevation. Staff feels that two points are adequate (we have not had any problems with
using just two points) and do not think we need to change. Mr. Hammer commented that a gable only
occurs on gable roofs and a pitched roof is any sloped roof in any configuration; therefore, the wording of
the height definition should be changed to, “…the highest principal gable of a pitched, hip, gambrel, or
similar sloped roof.” Staff concurs with this change. The only substantive change to the definitions is the
addition of the last sentence to the height definition. The Building Division has experienced problems with
the number and size of dormers on some houses; they are intrusive, add to the “mass” of the home, and
block views. The additional sentence will limit dormers.
The intent of the façade and roof guidelines is to have the use blend in with neighboring uses. The staff has
encountered problems when applying these guidelines to institutional uses. Therefore, new section (22-
1639) is proposed to be added to the Community Design Guidelines to apply to institutional uses. Sections
22-1639(3) and (4) are intended to breakdown the horizontal mass of the building. Section 22-1639(5) still
requires some modulation, but allows for creativity. Mr. Hammer thinks the City is excessive by requiring
10 percent for the offset. Staff feels that it does give flexibility and thereby disagrees with Mr. Hammer.
The current guidelines require landscaping after every 10 parking stalls. Staff has discovered that this does
not work well with large sites, especially those with natural features worth preserving. New Section 22-
1639(6) would allow flexibility in the placement of landscaping and preserves natural features.
The Commission discussed the staff report as presented to this point. In regards to dormers and the
sentence added to the height definition, Commissioner Drake asked if the City has received complaints
from neighbors? He also asked what are other cities doing and are we going against a new housing trend?
Ms. Michaelson said that the City has not received any complaints, but Ms. Kirkpatrick said that the City
has received inquires from attorneys about how height is measured, indicating that there is a problem. Ms.
Michaelson went on to reply that the staff has not researched what other cities are doing and she would
have to ask the Building Official if this is a new housing trend. Chairman Caulfield asked if standards were
being proposed to protect views in view corridors and if so, could these standards be considered a
“taking”? Ms. Michaelson replied that while the code does have a note in some of the use charts stating
that views designated in the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) should not be blocked, the FWCP
does not have any designated view corridors. The City Council wanted this language in case view corridors
may be designated in the future. Chairman Caulfield asked if this sentence was likely to draw the City into
a lawsuit about views? Ms. Kirkpatrick replied that it would not. The intent of the sentence is to not add to
the “bulk” of a home. By not adding to the bulk of a home you may preserve someone’s view, but that
would be a coincidence.
The Commission discussed modulation and staff clarified that this code amendment would apply to all
institutional uses no matter in which zone they are located and would apply to the façade of the building
that faces a residential zone, right-of-way, or public park or other recreation area. This code amendment
does not apply to commercial buildings because the City hasn’t had any with a 120-foot façade and they
have other guidelines as well.
Ms. Clark continued the staff presentation. She went over the proposed changes to the use zone charts.
When researching the height issue, staff discovered that the Community Business (BC), City Center-Core
(CC-C), and City Center-Frame (CC-F) zones already had adequate provisions to increase height, and no
changes are proposed. With the exception that staff does recommend that the note allowing an additional
15 feet for crosses and other religious icons be added to the BC zone. For all zones where it is proposed,
Planning Commission Summary Page 3 March 5, 2003
K:\Planning Commission\2003\Meeting Summary 03-05-03.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 2:52 PM
this additional 15 feet is be added to the underlying approved height. The Commission suggested that
rather than using the word “crosses,” the note should just refer to religious icons.
A number of churches have expressed the need for an increase in height for sanctuaries with high ceilings,
raised pulpits, or multi-level seating. In response, staff is recommending that a height increase to 40 feet be
allowed in Suburban Estates (SE), Single-Family Residential (RS), and Multifamily Residential (RM) if
certain restrictions are met. The restrictions are that the increased height must be necessary to
accommodate a particular use conducted in the building; one-foot of additional setback is provided for
each one-foot of additional height; and it shall not block views designated by the comprehensive plan. In
addition in each of these zones, the height of the sanctuary or principal worship area may be increased to
55 feet if one-foot of additional setback is provided for each one-foot of additional height; it shall not block
views designated by the comprehensive plan; and the footprint of the sanctuary may not exceed 50 percent
of the total area of the church footprint. In order to support good design, the proposed code amendment
will allow architectural extensions (such as parapets and cornices) to exceed the 30-foot base height in RM
and RS zones by three feet; this provision is not proposed in the SE zone since the maximum allowable
height (35 feet) already exceeds 30 feet.
The code amendments include a number of small miscellaneous “housekeeping” changes. One of these
changes is that the 20-foot height limit for lighting fixtures should not apply to large institutional uses. The
staff had already discovered that because of the size of the area, the 20-foot height limit for lighting
fixtures was not adequate for public parks and school stadiums. Without this restriction, the height of
lighting fixtures can be the same as the underlying base height allowed the building.
The Public Testimony was opened at 8:50 p.m.
John Manuel, Austinicina Architects – He is working with Calvary Community Church on their
current proposal and is pleased to see many of the proposed amendments. He does have some
concerns regarding modulation. He stated that the Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters has a
long façade without modulation, and it has won awards for its design. Who determines what is a
good-looking building? He commented that the new high school added an arbor to one edge of
their building just to meet the modulation standards. This cost them thousands of dollars.
Churches do not have that kind of money; they rely upon donations from their members. Some
building materials cannot be modulated at the distances required in the proposed amendments.
The modulation could cause seismic problems. Another concern regarding modulation is that the
required landscaping is likely to hide the modulation. He also stated that the roof pitch
requirement (#13 on page 14 of Exhibit A) should be clarified. One would never see a roof pitch
of 4:12 on a large building. He requested the City consider the social and economic impacts of
the proposed amendments.
Lawson Bronson, Alternate Planning Commissioner – He sated he has four concerns: 1) there
was not enough time for the public to study the staff report; 2) he agrees with the previous
testimony in regards to who decides what is a good-looking building; 3) was there any
engineering input, some of the proposed modulations would not fit well; and 4) would the
modulation requirements cause seismic problems? He requested the Commission continue the
public hearing in order to study these concerns.
Roddy Nolten – He commented that undulating the footprint of a building as required by modulation
could cause seismic problems. It would make it more difficult to engineer the building.
Planning Commission Summary Page 4 March 5, 2003
K:\Planning Commission\2003\Meeting Summary 03-05-03.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 2:52 PM
Wade Fisher, Brooklake Church – He thanked the Commissioners for their service. He asked for
a clarification. Their church is in a Suburban Estates (SE) zone, but they have a large school
ministry. How is church defined? Does the City view churches as Little House on the Prairie, or
as modern large churches?
The Public Testimony was closed at 9:00 p.m.
Commissioner Hope commented that she has problems with the proposed amendments. The City should
take cost into account. Landscaping is expensive and a church could use that money for an additional
room. If a project is not infringing on their neighbors, why should the City regulate it. Gateway Center was
built without these guidelines and it is a nice looking facility. She is concerned the City is placing too
many restrictions on developers.
Commissioner Osaki would like additional comment on three items: 1) he would like to see a side
elevation of dormers on a home that is considered too massive; 2) clarification on lighting fixtures and
their use on site; and 3) modulation and landscaping, what landscaping is required, does it detract from the
modulation, and does the landscaping screen the modulation? Commissioner Drake would like the staff to
address the seismic issue and to provide the Commission with a copy of the proposed code amendments
incorporating Stephen Hammer’s comments.
Ms. Michaelson stated that the City is not in the business of regulating beauty. What the staff looks for is
whether the project meets code or not.
It was m/s/c to continue the Public Hearing to March 19, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
Ms. McClung thanked the audience for coming. She told them to feel free to call the staff and ask
questions. This is just the first step of the process. After Planning Commission, the code amendments will
go the City Council’s Land Use/Transportation Committee, and then to the City Council. Public comment
will be accepted and considered at each step.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Commissioner Drake asked if the Commission could be sent the staff report via email, as opposed to
mailing. There may be some members who do not have email and it would have to be mailed. Ms. Clark
replied that she would look at the code to see if it states the staff report must be mailed.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.