Loading...
Planning Comm MINS 10-07-2009 K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 10-07-09.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION October 7, 2009 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Hope Elder, Sarady Long, Lawson Bronson, and Tim O’Neil. Commissioners absent: Tom Medhurst (excused) and Wayne Carlson (excused). Staff present: Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Associate Planner David Lee, Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, and Administrative Assistant Tina Piety. Chair Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of September 16, 2009, were approved as written. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Mr. Conlen announced that Lawson Bronson was reappointed to a four year term last night by the city council. We will hold elections for Planning Commission officers the first meeting in November. We will meet November 4th. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING – Code Amendments to Personal Wireless Service Facilities (PWSF) Mr. Lee delivered the staff presentation. The proposed amendments are intended to reduce redundant language, remove sub-prioritization of location preferences, remove submittal requirements for electromagnetic field (EMF) implementation reports, and remove the 10 year expiration period. Zoning charts are also proposed to be modified to change the minimum review process from a Process III to a Process II. One concern was expressed by a HAM radio operator and staff met with him to discuss his concerns. He did not make a formal comment. One formal comment was made by RealComm Associates. Staff met with representatives of RealComm Associates and as a result, incorporated some of their concerns/suggestions into Exhibit A, Second Version. Staff requests the Commissioners base their questions, comments, and any decision on Exhibit A, Second Version. Staff provided copies of Exhibit A, Second Version and the email from RealComm Associates stating their acceptance of Exhibit A, Second Version. There was no public comment. Commissioner Bronson asked if the PWSF regulations apply to HAM radio operators. Mr. Lee replied that it does not apply to them. HAM radio operators are regulated by the FCC. Commissioner O’Neil asked for clarification on what are the sub-prioritizations of locations. Mr. Lee explained that under the current code there are five levels of site prioritization for where a PWSF may be located. Those levels are: structures located in the BPA trail; existing broadcast, relay, and transmission Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 October 7, 2009 K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 10-07-09.doc towers; publicly used structures; appropriate business, commercial, and city center zoned sites; appropriate public rights-of-way; and alternative location as approved by the Director of Community Development. Of those levels, two have sub-priorities: appropriate business, commercial, and city center zoned sites; and appropriate public rights-of-way. For example, under the appropriate public rights-of-way, the sub- prioritization is a preferred order of street classifications (first principal arterial, then minor arterial, then principal collector). Staff has concluded that the five main prioritized locations serve as adequate measures to ensure that PWSFs are located appropriately. Commissioner O’Neil asked how many PWSF applications has the city received. Mr. Lee replied that since incorporation, the city has received 48 applications. Of those, 45 have been erected and 3 were approved, but the applicants did not build them. Commissioner O’Neil asked if the proposed amendments were modeled after other city’s regulations. Ms. Clark responded that when the regulations were first developed in 1997, the consultant did research regulations from other cities. Staff felt that since the current proposed amendments mainly streamline and simplify the process, it was not necessary to research regulations from other cities. Commissioner Long asked if the city has regulations specifying how many antennas may be placed on a site. Mr. Lee replied that the city leaves that to the applicant to decide. Commissioner Long stated that the current code requires that within six months the applicant shall submit a project implementation report that provides cumulative field measurements of radio frequency (EMF) power densities of all antennas on their site. How many applicants have submitted this report? He is concerned because of studies done in Europe that show higher levels of cancer in areas near cell towers. Mr. Lee replied that few reports have been submitted. Any applicant must first obtain approval from the FCC to site a tower. The city cannot deny an applicant as long as they meet normal standards. In regards to Commissioner Long’s concern about cancer, staff researched the issue and has found that a person must be standing directly in front of an antenna to be effected. The research also stated that antennas are generally located higher then where people are likely to be and are directed away from taller buildings Staff has included a Brief Technical Summary on PWSFs with the staff report to address safety concerns related to EMFs and radio frequencies. Commissioner Long asked if the city has design standards for cell towers. Mr. Lee replied that the city requests the applicant to design the tower to blend into the existing environment as much as possible. The city wants to achieve aesthetic harmony with the existing environment. Chair Pfeifer commented that it would have been helpful to have pictures of cell towers. He asked where setbacks are addressed. Mr. Lee replied they are addressed in 19.255.020(5)(b), top of page 7 of Exhibit A Second Version. Commissioner Bronson moved (and it was seconded) to forward the proposed amendments (Exhibit A, Second Version) to the City Council for approval. The motion carried unanimously. The public hearing was closed. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None AUDIENCE COMMENT None Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 October 7, 2009 K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 10-07-09.doc ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.