Planning Comm MINS 10-18-2006
K:\Planning Commission\2006\Meeting Summary 10-18-06.doc
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 18, 2006 City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Dini Duclos, Merle Pfeifer, Bill Drake, Pam Duncan-Pierce, and
Lawson Bronson. Commissioners absent: none. Alternate Commissioners present: Richard Agnew. Alternate
Commissioners absent: none. Staff present: Economic Development Director Patrick Doherty, City Attorney Pat
Richardson, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety.
Chairperson Elder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Duclos moved and it was seconded to adopt the August 16, 2006, minutes. The motion was carried.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Ms. Piety informed that Commission that since the City Council will be holding a budget meeting November 1st,
the next Planning Commission meeting will be a special meeting on November 8, 2006 (it is a special meeting
because it is not being held on a regularly scheduled meeting day). She also reminded them that a Planners Short
Course will be held November 15, 2006. The Short Course will start at 6:30 p.m.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING – City Center-Core Height Limits Code Amendment
Mr. Doherty delivered the staff presentation. The proposed change is to allow greater maximum height for
structures containing residential dwelling units from the current limit of 85 feet to either 145 or 200 feet.
Commissioner Bronson asked why the city should allow residential buildings to be taller than hotels. Mr. Doherty
replied that currently, the maximum height for residential is much lower than for commercial. The City Council
considered this issue and concluded that there may be more potential for residential developments than for hotels. It
was noted that all residential development in the City Center-Core would be part of a mixed-use development.
Commissioner Osaki commented that on figure 5 of the City Center Planned Action Final Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), three alternatives are listed and for Alternates 1 and 2, the total number of residential units is 750.
Does the proposed change in height make any difference on the number of units anticipated to 2014? Mr. Doherty
responded that the growth assumptions are not dependent on the proposed height limit change. Staff believes it is
possible to meet the growth assumption with or without the proposed height change. It is believed that the
proposed height change would give a greater incentive to developers.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 October 18, 2006
K:\Planning Commission\2006\Meeting Summary 10-18-06.doc
Commissioner Osaki asked how many more units are anticipated at the proposed 200 foot height limit as opposed
to the proposed 145 foot height limit. Mr. Doherty replied that the proposal was not analyzed that way, especially
since there is no density limit in the City Center currently. It is more a redistribution of units as opposed to have
more units (such as larger units). The proposed height limit change would offer greater choice.
Commissioner Drake asked what drives the proposed limitation of the floor plate above 145 feet to no more than
80 percent of the area of the floor plate immediately below the 145-foot level (80 percent “taper” clause). Mr.
Doherty replied it is mainly aesthetics. Commissioner Drake then commented that he is concerned this requirement
could turn away potential development.
Commissioner Drake asked if the city was considering increasing the height for commercial development in the
CC-C. Mr. Doherty replied that it was not considered as part of the City Center Planned Action EIS. If the city was
to consider increasing the height for commercial development in the CC-C, it would require another EIS to address
the impacts.
Commissioner Drake moved to approve the staff recommendation of increasing the height limit in the CC-C to 200
feet maximum for structures containing multifamily dwelling units, but to not include the proposed upper-level
bulk limit (the 80 percent “taper” clause). The motion was seconded. Chairperson Elder called for a roll-call vote,
results of which were: Elder – yes; Duclos – yes; Drake – yes; Bronson – no; Osaki – no; Pfeifer – yes; and
Duncan-Pierce – no. The motion carries.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
The Commission discussed their concerns about increasing the height for commercial buildings in the CC-C. It
seems to them that a lower height limit for commercial could limit development. Mr. Doherty commented that the
Commission could suggest the City Council place this issue on the Planning Commission work program. He also
stated that it is common for cities to have different height limits for different uses in order to encourage more of
one type of development. Chairperson Elder stated she would talk to the LUTC chair about this issue and the
Commissions concerns.
Commission Bronson stated that the Commission’s Rules of Procedure state that elections will be held the first
meeting in October. Ms. Piety commented that the City Council will be appointing Commissions for those terms
that expired September 2006 on November 7, 2006, and elections will be held the first Planning Commission
meeting after this (November 8, 2006).
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m.