Planning Comm PKT 02-16-2005
':" " "
"",,',', ",
,:t,':"',
, ,: :,:);~r::.::~.~;¡i/;¡~';,:i:,
" ,
, , ,
',:, ~:' f~,;<::, :::":::i,,'
f'ëbhìary: 1!6~ 1005
"" "",,' , ',',,'" "
7:00 p.rn: ,;.
, ,City öf Federal W'ay
;, ,', PLANNING CO lVI,MisSI ØN\~J.:
, ". 'I,
':;:~I¡;,i ,¡t.:;", "
, ,,:'d,it.'
~:'; ,,'
"'-:':, :,
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4. AUDIENCE COMMENT
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
6. COMMISSION BUSINESS
. WORKSHOP
Transportation
7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
8. AUDIENCE COMMENT
9. ADJOURN
, :.'¡ "",' ',c, 'i
, ,.
" btYÅaU"!
, ,,' Council cham"berS";:
Commissioners
John Caulfield, Chair
Dini Duclos
William Drake
Lawson Bronson
Tony Moore (Alternate #2)
Hope Elder, Vice-Chair
Dave Osaki
Merle Pfeifer
Christine Nelson (Alternate #1)
Pam Duncan-Pierce (Alternate #3)
K:\Planning Commission\2005\Agenda 02-16-05.doc
City Staff
Kathy McClung, CDS Director
Margaret Clark, Senior Planner
E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant
253-835-2601
www,citvoffederalwaV.com
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Dini Duclos, Bill Drake, Merle Pfeifer,
and Lawson Bronson. Commissioners absent: None. Alternate Commissioners present: Pan Duncan-
Pierce. Alternate Commissioners absent: Christine Nelson (unexcused) and Tony Moore (unexcused). Staff
present: Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Code Compliance Officer Betty Cruz, Deputy City Attorney
Karen Kirkpatrick, Assistant City Attorney Amy Jo Pearsall, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety.
Chair Caulfield called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ÁPPROV AL OF MINUTES
It was m/s/c to adopt the December 8, 2004, minutes as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ÁDMINISTRA TIVE REpORT
Ms. Clark provided the Commission copies of the proposed 2005 Planning Commission and Long Range
Planning Work Program that is going to the Land Use/Transportation Committee January 24,2005. Also,
she told them that Ms. McClung is working on setting a date between Commissioners and the Mayor and
will email them when the date is set.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING - Signs in Annexation Areas Code Amendment
Ms. Clark delivered the staff report. The purpose of this code amendment is to formulate and codify how
signs will be addressed in the City's newly annexed areas, and to clarify unclear sections ofthe code. Ms.
Clark told the Commission that due to a citizen's concern, staff is proposing an additional change to the
proposed amendment. The proposed additional change was handed out to Commissioners and is attached
to these minutes. Ms. Clark stated that the Law Department wants to review the wording of the proposed
change, so she asked if the Commission would be willing to approve the concept of the change, and the
exact wording will be worked upon and sent to the Land Use/Transportation Committee.
Currently, the Federal Way City Code (FWCC) states that if a legally nonconforming sign is moved, it
must be brought into conformance. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) will be
widening some roads in the newly annexed Redondo area. As a result, some of the signs in the area must
be relocated. The concerned citizen came to the City because he had already made arrangements with
K:\Planning Commission\2005\Meeting Summary Ol-19-05"doc
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
January 19,2005
WSDOT regarding moving his sign. His concern is that now he will have to spend more money to bring
his sign into conformance, even though the currently proposed Signs in Annexation Areas Code
Amendment proposes to give sign owners in the newly annexed areas a 10-year amortization period to
bring their legal nonconforming signs into conformance.
The staff s additional proposed change states in effect that if an owner of a legal nonconforming sign has
entered into an agreement with a governmental entity before the effective date of the annexation regarding
moving the sign and the agreement does not compensate the owner to bring the sign into compliance with
the FWCC and the relocation does not increase the nonconformance of the sign, the owner will still be
eligible for the 10-year amortization period.
There was no public testimony.
The Commission asked if there would be a financial incentive to owners to bring their signs into
compliance before the end of the 10 years, as there was with the original sign code. Staff stated that no
such financial incentive is being considered at this time. The Commission as a whole concurred strongly
that they would like the City Council to consider such a financial incentive.
The Commission discussed the staff s additional proposed change and two Commissioners expressed
concern over adopting it when they do not know the exact wording.
It was m/s/c (five yes, two no) to adopt the staffs proposal with the proposed amendment concept as
reviewed by the Law Department.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
The Commission held elections for chair and vice-chair. John Caulfield was nominated for chair. The vote
was held and he was unanimously voted as chair. Hope Elder was nominated for vice-chair. The vote was
held and she was unanimously voted as vice-chair.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
Betty Atkinson - She stated that they have a sign that has been in compliance for 40 years. She
asked why their sign has to be brought into conformance, but billboards do not.
Ms. Kirkpatrick replied that billboards will also be subject to the 10-year amortization period.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 7:38 p.m.
K:\Planning Commission\2005\Meeting Summary Ol-19-O5.doc