Planning Comm MINS 07-18-2012
K:\Planning Commission\2011\Meeting Summary 07-18-12.doc
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 18, 2012 City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson, and. Tim O’Neil
Commissioners absent: Tom Medhurst, Hope Elder, and Sarady Long (all excused). Staff present:
Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Senior Planner Janet Shull, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, and
Administrative Assistant II Tina Piety.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of April 4, 2012, were approved as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
Diana Noble-Gulliford, Federal Way Historical Society President – She noted that research and
adoption of an ordinance addressing historic preservation is on the Planning Commission’s 2012
Work Program and she presented the Commission with some background on the issue. She gave
the Commissioners a handout where it was noted that research shows that 546 properties within
the City of Federal Way were built in 1950 or before and 28 were built in 1920 or earlier. Some
examples of potential Federal Way landmark status properties include the Federal Way High
School, Camp Kilworth Rotary Lodge, Dumas Bay Retreat, and the Robert Verzani Home. She
stated there are many others. She commented that one of the primary benefits of a historical
preservation program is that owners of designated landmark properties would be eligible to apply
for a variety of incentive programs for preservation. A historical preservation program would
implement the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan’s policies.
A discussion was held regarding Federal Way High School being a potential Federal Way
landmark. It was noted that Federal Way Public Schools is considering demolishing the school
and replacing it with a new one. It was noted that portions of the school could be preserved. The
entire building does not necessarily have to be preserved if it is declared an historical landmark. It
would depend upon the landmark preservation policies adopted by the city. Developing these
policies will be part of the proposed code amendment.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
None
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 18, 2012
K:\Planning Commission\2011\Meeting Summary 02-22-12.doc
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING – Proposed Amendments Related to Open Space Standards for Multi-Unit
Residential Development Within the City Center-Core and City-Center Frame Zoning Districts
Ms. Shull delivered the staff report. The proposed amendment will reduce the minimum amount of
required on-site open space for residential development in the City-Center Core (CC-C) and City-Center
Frame (CC-F) zoning districts. In addition, it includes design guidelines that will emphasize quality over
quantity and help ensure the on-site open space is usable. It will modify the open space definitions to
make them more consistent with the way they are referenced throughout the code. Finally, it will add the
option of a fee-in-lieu for open space related to residential development in the CC zones.
Currently, the code requires a minimum of 200 square feet of usable open space per unit of residential
development. Reviews of recent development proposals for high-rise, mixed-use development has shown
that this requirement results in a required open space area that exceeds the size of the building site. Staff
recommends that the amount of required usable open space be reduced to a minimum of 100 square feet.
Ms. Shull stated that in 2010, the City Council approved the recommended reduction of usable open space
area in the Community Business (BC) zoning districts from 300 square feet per unit to 150 square feet per
unit due to similar circumstances. This resulted in a lesser open space requirement in the BC zone as
opposed to the CC-C and CC-F zones. It is anticipated that development in the CC zones is more intense
than the BC zone and therefore, it makes sense to consider a reduction to the open space requirement in the
CC zones.
A new section is proposed for Chapter 19.115 that will provide recommended minimum sizes and
dimensions for private and common open space areas to be considered “usable.” The proposed section
will allow for common (such as gyms, pools, and gathering spaces), private (balconies, etc.), and publicly
accessible open space (when directly accessible to residents) of particular dimensions. Common open
space areas will be required to provide amenities that will make them engaging and will allow for active
use (such as child play areas). In addition, the proposed new chapter will allow a fee-in-lieu option for a
maximum of 50% of the total open space requirement. The fees will be used for park facilities within the
parks planning areas that coincide with the CC zoned areas.
Commissioner O’Neil asked what percentage of the open space must be public access. Ms. Shull replied
that the open space is intended for the residents and does not necessarily have to be accessible to the
public. Commissioner O’Neil expressed his concern that if a developer chooses the fee-in-lieu option, the
money may not be used in a way that is directly beneficial to the residents. Commissioner O’Neil
expressed his concern that if the open space is to benefit the residents he is uneasy with the option of a
fee-in-lieu which will go to a park that may not benefit the residents.
Commissioner Bronson stated he finds the proposed definitions confusing and asked for clarification. Ms.
Shull replied that the city has a number of different types of open space and the definitions are staff
attempts to capture them all. Commissioner Bronson asked what the reason is for choosing 100 square feet.
Mr. Shull replied that staff used the Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington (MRSC)
report titled, “Providing for Usable Open Space for Multifamily Developments,” that is an exhibit to the
staff report. The report compares the open space requirement for various cities in Washington. Staff also
researched comparable cities outside of Washington. Some cities used a percentage of gross square
footage, but staff felt this would be difficult to implement. Commissioner Bronson expressed his concern
that the 100 square feet is not based on objective data, but he recognizes that objective data may not exist.
Commissioner Carlson expressed his concern about the aesthetics of the buildings. He suggested that a
certain percentage (say 10%) of the open space be required to be on the ground level. Commissioner
O’Neil agreed and stated what he is missing is how this proposal fits into the overall vision for the city
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 18, 2012
K:\Planning Commission\2011\Meeting Summary 02-22-12.doc
center. He is concerned that not requiring a percentage of open space on the ground level could result in
the city center looking and feeling like a “closed compound.” Ms. Shull replied that currently the code
does not require that residential open space be provided on the ground level. The proposed amendment is
not intended to address the issue of public open space, but rather private, residential open space (some of
which can be public open space).
Commissioner Bronson expressed concern that the option of a fee-in-lieu will not meet the intent of the
proposed code amendment to provide open space for the residents of the building. Other Commissioners
agreed with him. Ms. Shull explained that staff wanted to give developers the flexibility of the fee-in-lieu
in cases where they are not able to meet the open space requirement on-site. Mr. Conlen commented that
it is expected that developers will choose the fee-in-lieu option only as a last resort. Mr. Beckwith
commented that state law requires that fee-in-lieu payments provide a direct benefit to those making the
payment and that the funds be spent within five years of receipt. The Commissioners agreed that this is
acceptable.
Commissioner Bronson moved (and it was seconded) to recommend approval of the staff’s
recommendation as stated on page 5 of the staff report. There was no further discussion. The motion
carried unanimously.
The public hearing was closed.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
The next Planning Commission meeting will be August 15, 2012, or September 5, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers. It will be a public hearing regarding parking.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.