Loading...
Planning Comm MINS 03-19-2003K:\Planning Commission\2003\Meeting Summary 03-19-03 - Corrected.doc City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting March 19, 2003 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING SUMMARY Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Grant Newport, Dini Duclos, and Bill Drake. Commissioners absent (excused): Marta Justus Foldi. Alternate Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Lawson Bronson, Tony Moore, and Christine Nelson. Staff present: 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 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF SUMMARY It was m/s/c (one abstain) to adopt the December 4, 2002, minutes. It was m/s/c to adopt the March 5, 2003 minutes. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Ms. Clark announced that the City Council approved the text changes to the 2002 Comprehensive Plan. Site-Specific Request #1 was denied and the other site-specific requests were approved. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING – Design Guidelines and Definition of Height Code Amendments, Continued It was m/s/c to re-open the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Ms. Clark gave the staff report, which was a response to the Commissioner’s questions and concerns. She stated that these code amendments are proposed to address problems with the current code. Some churches have sought a variance to the height requirements. The purpose of the code amendments is to make this unnecessary. In addition, there have been difficulties with the interpretation of the definition of height. The intent of the proposed code amendments is to make the definition less ambiguous. One question the Planning Commission had regarded light fixtures and how the height would be determined for institutional uses. Staff researched the issue and determined that the base height for buildings in zones where institutional uses are allowed is 30 to 35 feet. In addition, the Public Works Planning Commission Summary Page 2 March 19, 2003 K:\Planning Commission\2003\Meeting Summary 03-19-03 - Corrected.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 2:53 PM Department uses 30 feet for streetlights on local streets. Based on this, staff determined the height for lighting fixtures would be 30 feet and that cutoff shields shall be included. One other aspect taken into consideration is that if the height for lighting fixtures were left at 20 feet, the developer would have to use more fixtures and those fixtures would be out of scale with the building. The Planning Commission asked if landscaping requirements for buildings adjacent to right-of-ways and residential zones would provide sufficient visual screening so that the need for building modulation could be reduced or eliminated. Staff responded that the code says that modulation is required only if the building is visible. The landscaping required varies from “partial visual separation” to “solid screening.” The final issue the Planning Commission was concerned with is whether there is a cost impact to designing a building with a major structural modulation in order for it to comply with seismic requirements. The staff spoke with the Building Official and an outside architect (with input from a structural engineer) and determined there should not be a quantifiable cost. The Public Testimony was opened at 7:40 p.m. John Manuel, Austinicina Architects – He spoke at the last meeting. He wanted the Commission to know that he has spoken with the staff and supports the proposed code amendments. Gil Hulsmann, Abbey Road Group – He was in charge of the new Windermere building, and therefore, is very familiar with the zoning code. He said they are very happy with the results, which came from following the zoning code’s design guidelines. He said the code amendments should bring about more flexibility. He is currently working on a project that will need a variance and is hopeful these code amendments are adopted because they would help with the variance. He is impressed that at Federal Way, the planners start at the preapplication stage and go through the whole process. No other city he has worked with has done the same. Cleveland Hobdy, Pastor of the Love of Life Fellowship Church – He is concerned about the definition of church and school. What if there are two uses in one building? How can they be called a dual use if they are in the same building? It is the same space. Wade Fisher, Brooklake Church – He thanked the staff for their clarification and stated he agrees with the previous testimony. They have a multi-use auditorium that is used for more than just a church. How are setbacks determined for a multi-use building? Rick Bud, Calvary Community Church – He thanked the staff for the opportunity to comment. He stated that they welcome most guidelines. He said they find them helpful and they have a great deal of flexibility. Merle Pfeifer, Alternate Planning Commissioner – He commented on the proposed code amendment for dormers that says if the total roof area of dormers exceed 35 percent of the total area of the underlying sloped roof, height will be measured to the ridge of the highest principal gable. He feels this is dictating to architects. He said the side view of a residential structure with multiple dormers does not look too bulky. Steve Hammer, Broweleit, Peterson, Hammer Architects – He commented on the seismic design issue. He stated that at the last meeting the comment was made that if the applicant is required to do significant structural modulation, it could impact the cost of the seismic design of the Planning Commission Summary Page 3 March 19, 2003 K:\Planning Commission\2003\Meeting Summary 03-19-03 - Corrected.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 2:53 PM building. This is not true. Design guidelines do impact the cost if modulation is required, but not the cost of the seismic design. He supports the proposed code amendments. For lighting fixtures, he would like the code to define what is “large” (in regards to large institutional use) and suggested five acres. He stated that the design guidelines cannot address all issues and feels the staff interprets some “should” regulations as “shall.” The more you define terms, the more success you will have. He feels this code amendment is headed in the right direction by clarifying definitions. He questioned whether 15 feet for religious icons is enough and said he would support higher for larger buildings. Lawson Bronson, Alternate Planning Commissioner – He asked if other cities regulate religious icons and if they do not, why are we? Also, why restrict to just one religious icon? He would support no restriction of religious icons. He also wonders since there are no view corridors in Federal Way, why are we restricting height? He agrees with Mr. Pfeifer on the issue of dormers. He asked if putting a definition for height in the zoning code is repeating information found in the building code. Roddy Nolten – He is not criticizing modulation, but feels it could increase the cost. He would like the staff to consider what the building would look like, rather than just follow the rules. The Public Testimony was closed at 8:13 p.m. Ms. Clark commented that there can be flexibility in regards to churches with multiple-uses. The staff would work with the applicant to determine the primary use of the building. The Planning Commission then went over each proposed code amendment. In response to the comment on defining what is “large,” the staff would prefer to leave the determination of what is “large” up to staff. In regards to the use zone charts, the Chairman Caulfield asked why there is a statement protecting view corridors when the City does not have any and is there any risk or liability to the City from this statement? Ms. Clark replied that the language had always been in the code and when the staff had previously suggested it be removed, the City Council wanted it kept as a “placeholder,” in case view corridors are recognized. Ms. Kirkpatrick responded that there is no risk or liability to the City as a result of this statement because it is a placeholder. It was m/s/c to recommend adoption of the proposed code amendments as amended in the March 19, 2003, memorandum. It was m/s/c to close the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS There was some confusion over whether the vote should be held before or after closing the public hearing. Ms. Kirkpatrick said the vote could stand and she would research the issue. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.