Planning Comm MINS 06-20-2001
City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
June 20, 2001 City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING SUMMARY
Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Hope Elder, Sophia McNeil, Dini Duclos, and Dave Osaki, Bill
Drake and Nesbia Lopes. Staff present: Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Contract Senior Planner David
Graves, Assistant City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick, and Administrative Assistant Sandy Lyle.
Chairman Caulfield called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The June 6, 2001, meeting summary was approved as presented.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
The Mega-Church code amendment went to the council’s Land Use/Transportation Committee on
Monday, June 4, 2001. The topic was continued to the June 18, 2001, meeting. On June 18, the Committee
voted not to support the Mega-Churches code amendment. The Committee stated its reasons for lack of
support were the far-reaching impact on the BP zone and the potential negative impact on other churches
now and in the future.
The Land Use Transportation Committee approved the Nonconformances due to government acquisition
code amendment.
Ms. Clark announced that SEPA starts next week (June 25, 2001) on eight site-specific requests, one of
which is the property Christian Faith Center hopes to develop.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
POSITION PAPER - Residential Nonconformances
When the City of Federal Way was incorporated, the City adopted zoning that was different from the
former King County zoning. Several examples of single family homes located in business zones can be
seen throughout the City, primarily in the Pacific Highway corridor, on Military Road, SW 312th, SW
356th, 20th Avenue SW, and SW 21st/ & 320th Street SW.. Mr. Roger Hyppa, 1814 South 340th Street, owns
a home in a neighborhood that was once zoned for residential purposes but now, following incorporation,
is in a commercial zone (BP). Private homes in zones such as Mr. Hyppa’s may be altered up to 50% of the
total value. The code states, however, that no outbuildings may be constructed. The only improvements
must be attached to the primary residence. Mr Hyppa wants to make a detached improvement and is kept
from doing so by the existing codes. He said that all he wants is for people to be able to stay in their
Planning Commission Summary Page 2 June 20, 2001
K:\Planning Commission\2001\Meeting Summary 06-20-01.doc
homes, add to, and/or fix them until the properties are purchased for redevelopment. He would have to sell
his home with a potential buyer knowing he could not make improvements. He said that nonconformances
have no business being attached to private homes. He told the Commission that 3 years and 20 days ago he
had first addressed the Land Use/Transportation Committee about this problem. At the time (confirmed by
the reading of previous LUTC minutes) Chair Phil Watkins wanted Council to figure out a way to exclude
those affected homes from nonconforming codes and placed the item on the Planning Commission Work
Program. It has taken this long to get to this priority.
The Commission discussed the dilemma of Mr. Hyppa and the 47 other similarly affected homeowners in
the City. Hope Elder stated that those 47 homeowners should have been notified of the zone change
regardless of the fact that, at the time, it was a legislative action and notification was not required as
opposed to a land use action, where notification is required. She feels that those homeowners should be
grandfathered into the existing code.
Dini Duclos commented that it is hugely unjust to have rezoned the property of 47 homeowners without
them having knowledge of what was happening. She supports Business Park and economic development
but she also supports the rights of homeowners. She recalled that based upon the Market Study last year
the City was found to have enough BP land to last for the next 40 years.
Chair Caulfield stated there has been significant development in the BP zones in the last year and said that
he wants to see that base preserved. He also supports flexibility.
The Commission asked for a presentation on the Market Analysis. They are looking for additional
information and would like to see these properties grandfathered so they have the same rights as any other
homeowner. The asked staff to research how many duplexes and fourplexes as well as other multifamily
complexes are located in BP zones once zoned residential.
Staff responded that due to time constraints, only single family homes would be considered. Multifamily
would be considered in the future.
PUBLIC HEARING – Miscellaneous Code Amendments Phase II
The Public Hearing on Miscellaneous Code Amendments Phase II was convened at 8:00pm by Chair
Caulfield.
Margaret Clark presented the staff report. As part of the 2001 Planning Commission work program, staff
has proposed code amendments related to clarifications to provisions related to code interpretations and
Process I appeals (Exhibit A); clarifications to provisions related to land use application notices (Exhibit
B); siting Emergency Preparedness Containers on primary and secondary school sites (Exhibit C);
clarifications to provisions related to senior housing (Exhibit D); and siting of Personal Wireless Service
Facilities (PWSF) (Exhibit E).
Sophia McNeil expressed surprised the City allows Federal Way School District to use shipping containers
for storage because they are so unsightly. Bill Drake spoke about wanting simplicity. Dini Duclos asked for
some standard for interpretation. Most schools have these types of facilities for the storage of emergency
supplies. There are too many expensive restrictions on a use that benefits so many in the community.
After discussion, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the code amendments as proposed
for Exhibits A, B and D. However, the Planning Commission recommended changes to Exhibits C and E.
Planning Commission Summary Page 3 June 20, 2001
K:\Planning Commission\2001\Meeting Summary 06-20-01.doc
Those changes in Exhibit C include language that says landscaping may be required by the Director of
Community Development Services to screen the installation if the proposed location will be visible from a
public right-of-way and/or neighboring properties.
The proposal before the Planning Commission relating to wireless facilities was intended to clarify the
existing code provision that governs the siting of antennas on existing power poles or other similar
structures within public rights-of-way. A recent code amendment was intended to prohibit utility
companies from changing out poles with taller poles for the sole purpose of providing greater height, and
therefore, greater coverage for a PWSF provider. As written, it prohibited the utility company from even
replacing an existing pole with one of the same height and not having to wait one year before a PWSF
could be located on it.
In addition, antennas were restricted in height to 15 feet above the top of the structure upon which they
were placed. Recommended for deletion from the existing code by the Commission was the following
statement: Existing structures in appropriate public rights-of-way shall not be eligible for submittal of a
use-process application for placement of a PWSF for one year from the date of the completion of
construction or alteration. Other language was added to further clarify Section 22-967(2)(a)(2)(iii): The
maximum size of antennas to be located on existing structures in a public right-of-way shall be two feet in
diameter for parabolic antennas, eight feet in height for panel antennas, and 15 feet in height for whip
antennas.
Section 22-967(2)(b) was amended by adding …the minimum necessary height to meet safety clearances
required by the operator of the existing structure….and ….plus the height of the proposed antennas as
specified in Section 22-967(2)(a)(2)(iii). The maximum allowable height of the new structure with the
PWSF antennas shall be determined by the director of Community Development Services, depending upon
the antenna type, design, location on the structure, and the proposed method of attachment. An existing
structure can be increased in height only once per 12-month period. Any structure, whether a new or
replacement structure, located in a public right-of-way must be similar in terms of size (except height),
shape, color, material, and location to the existing and surrounding structures, as determined by the
Director of Community Development Services.
Deleted was, This distance may be increased by the minimum necessary additional height to meet the
safety clearances required by the operator of the existing structure.
In Section 22-970, Other information as deemed necessary by the Community Development Director was
deleted and replaced with, The City may require the applicant, at the applicant’s expense, to provide any
additional information, mapping, studies, materials, inspections, or reviews that are reasonably necessary
to implement this article and to require that such information, studies, mapping, materials, inspections,
and reviews be reviewed by a qualified professional under contract to the City, also at the applicant’s
expense.
Greg McCormack of Qwest Wireless Services, 450 110th Avenue NE, Bellevue, commented that future
technology would require smaller facilities with lower power but an increased number of sites.
The Commission m/s/c approval of the miscellaneous code changes as amended, above, in a unanimous
vote. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:25
Planning Commission Summary Page 4 June 20, 2001
K:\Planning Commission\2001\Meeting Summary 06-20-01.doc
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
For the record, Bill Drake reported a change in work schedule. He is committed to doing his best to attend
future Planning Commission meetings regularly.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.