Planning Comm MINS 08-18-1999
City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
August 18, 1999 City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
SUMMARY
Commissioners present: Robert Vaughan (Chair), Karen Kirkpatrick, Hope Elder, Eric Faison, John
Caulfield, and Ed Soule. Commissioners absent: William Drake. Alternative Commissioners present:
None. Staff present: Deputy Director of Public Works Ken Miller, Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Senior
Planner Margaret Clark, Contract Associate Planner Tim McHarg, and Admin Assistant E. Tina Piety.
Chair Vaughan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of June 2, 1999 were approved.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Mr. Miller and Mr. Perez gave a presentation of the various street projects planned (and under
construction) throughout the city. These include: Pacific Highway South, South 320th and Pacific Highway
South intersection, BPA Trail Phase III, Sound Transit Center, and other projects.
COMMISSION BUSINESS - Personal Wireless Service Facilities Code Amendments - Continued
The Public Hearing reconvened at 8:10 p.m. Commission Kirkpatrick excused herself from the Public
Hearing due to the appearance of a conflict of interest. The Public Testimony was opened at 8:12 p.m.
Lisa Verner, Commercial Development Solutions, PO Box 70372, Seattle, WA 98107 - She
represents AT&T. She requested that public facilities in right-of-ways (ROW) be number 3 on
the priority list and that collocation be allowed. The ROW is the appropriate place for
infrastructure, which is what PWSF’s are. She requested that the word “appropriate” be deleted.
The staff definition (a principal arterial, minor or collector street) is not clear. She requested that
the one-year limitation be deleted and that PWSF’s be allowed to locate in the setback area in
order to take advantage of existing vegetation for screening on all four sides. She requested that
the use zone charts be amended to allow monopoles in residential areas under Process IV. Not
allowing them could prevent providing service to the entire city.
Josh Lonn, 120 Lakeside Ave, Ste 310, Seattle, WA 98122 - He represents Airtouch. He
thanked the staff for their hard work and stated that he agrees with Lisa. Why should equipment
be undergrounded? The equipment for undergrounding is not available.
Planning Commission
August 18, 1999 2
Brian Johnson, Voice Stream Wireless, 19307 N Creek Pkwy, #101, Bothel, WA 98011 -
He also thanked the staff for their work. He requested that the process be lowered to a Process I
when locating on an existing structure in the ROW in residential zones.
The Public Testimony was closed at 8:30 p.m. Mr. McHarg gave the staff presentation. He summarized the
significant changes. Additional changes were distributed. He went over the standards for equipment
enclosures. The city has developed a hierarchy for the placement of equipment enclosures. The size for
equipment enclosures in the ROW is the one approved by the Public Works Department. He stated that the
regulation for temporary PWSF’s has been changed to allow all providers on a site to locate a temporary
PWSF, on-site, for up to 30 days.
The city wants to encourage location of PWSF’s on private property rather than the ROW, hence the lower
priority on the location hierarchy. In addition, it is felt that ROW’s are intended to accommodate items of a
linear nature, such as conduits; PWSF’s are not linear in nature. Mr. McHarg remarked that the staff
believes the term “appropriate” is self-referential. The commission disagrees and requested staff to add a
sentence that clearly defines “appropriate.”
Mr. McHarg went on to say that without the one-year limitation, the attempt could be made to circumvent
the height restriction. PWSF’s are not allowed in the setback in order to screen them from the ROW.
Allowing them in the setback could decrease the amount of vegetation and could make maintenance access
problematic. Allowing PWSF’s in residential zones would be a significant policy change for the city. On
the priority list, #6 allows location in non-priority zones in order to ensure that service would be provided
to all areas of the city. Lowering the process to a Process I would also be a significant policy change for the
city. Process III requires public notification, which is not required in Process I.
Mr. McHarg commented that there is a response in the staff report to the issue of Automated Meter
Readers. The pole-top units will be exempt, but the data collection units will have to go through a Process
III (staff expects that three to four data collection units will cover the city).
It was m/s/c (no nays) to send the recommendation forward to the City Council with the addition of a
sentence clearly defining the word “appropriate.” The Public Hearing was closed at 8:57 p.m.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Commissioner Caulfield requested a presentation from Parks on the capital facilities. It was suggested that
a formal presentation be given about every other meeting from the different city departments on issues of
interest to the commission. Ms. Clark gave a presentation of current planning projects.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADJOURN
It was m/s/c to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
K:\COMMON.AD\PLANCOM\1999\081899S.WPD