Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/05/2002

Home

22 Page 2 -- October 25, 2002 Conditional Use Permit -- CoUnty reduces proposed size of church construction project Church and neighbors.dispute decision WASHINGTON (09/23/02) -- Timberlake Christian Fellowship applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to build an 80,000 square foot church in I996. The church was to be built on a 63-acre site located outside King County's designated urban growth area..The project was to be completed in two phases, the fn:st being the construction of a 53,000 sqUare foot building with a large assembly hall, offices, and classrooms, and the second was to be built as an addition to one end of the new building. Timberlake"s proposal involved cleating 18 acres of forest, leaving 33 acres as permanent undeveloped space: Churches were allowed as conditional uses in the county's rural areas, so long as they did not require the expansion of Sewer systems and Otherwise met CUP criteria provided in the county's code. Citizens for a Responsible Rural Area Development was a group of residents in the rural area near the proposed site that opposed the application. Citizens asked the county to Limit the size of the new church to 20,000 feet. Other churches in the area ranged from 10,000 to 20,000 square feet. The county's Department of Development and Environmental Services approved the application but limited the proposed church to 48,500 square feet and a reduced parking lot. Timberlake and Cit/zens appealed to a hearing examiner. The heating examiner found the county's size limitations illegally burdened Timbertake's religious freedom and remanded the matter to decide whether the visual impact of the church would adversely affect the character of the area. The hearing examiner also concluded other CUP criteria lxad been met. Timberlake, Citizens, and the county f'rled land use petitions, each ChaI- lenging certain aspects of the heating officer's decision. The court found the examiner erred when it found the 'size limitations violated Timberlake's reli- gious freedoms and remanded the matter for further review. The second hearing examiner reviewed the CUP and found the size limita- tions were justified under the code's CUP criteria, as well as under th~ county's comprehensive plan. T/mberiake had reworked its proposal so that the f'zrst phase of the project would be a 48,500 square foot structure, with the second phase making up the remainder of the 80,000 square foot Structure originally planned. The examiner noted the proposal was a "proposal for urban ~owth" under the state's Growth-Management Act (GMA) but the Second phase would probably not be allowed in the rural area. Finally, the e:~ammer concluded phase one of the project was designed "in a manner that [was] compatibie With the character and appearance of ex/sting and proposed development within the rural area." Citizens and Timberlake filed land use petitions. The court affirmed the heating examiner's decision but ruled the examiner had erred by using com- prehensive plan policies as criteria to make site-specific decisions, stating the plan could be Used for guidance, but should not have been relied upon as an additional zoning regulationJ I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I i I, I I !