Planning Comm MINS 07-27-2005
K:\Planning Commission\2005\Meeting Summary 07-27-05.doc
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 27, 2005 City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Dini Duclos, Merle Pfeifer, and Lawson Bronson.
Commissioners absent: John Caulfield (excused) and Bill Drake (unexcused). Alternate Commissioners present:
Tony Moore. Alternate Commissioners absent: Christine Nelson (excused) and Pam Duncan-Pierce (unexcused).
Staff present: Development Services Director Kathy McClung, Assistant City Attorney Amy Jo Pearsall, Senior
Planner Margaret Clark, Code Compliance Officer Betty Cruz, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety.
Vice-Chair Elder called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was m/s/c to adopt the June 15, 2005, minutes as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Ms. McClung went over what the staff plans to bring forth to the Planning Commission through the end of the year.
On August 1, 2005, the Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) will hear a report on the proposed code
changes for the Interim Zoning Ordinance, which relates to the City Center. On August 2, 2005, the City Council will
hold a public hearing on the Interim Zoning Ordinance. There will be no meeting on August 3rd. On August 17,
2005, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed Neighborhood Business (BN) code
amendment. If necessary, the BN will be continued to September 7th, and a Workshop for Cottage Housing is
scheduled for September 7th. A Workshop on the proposed City Center code amendments will be held September
21st, and the Planning Commission public hearing will be held in October. On November 2, 2005, the Cottage
Housing public hearing will be held. Currently, the staff does not have any issues scheduled for December. Please
note that the above dates could change. Commissioner Elder informed the Commission that she will not be in
attendance September 21st, and Commissioner Duclos informed the Commission she will not be available for the first
meeting in October.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING – Freeway Profile Signs Code Amendment – Continued
Ms. Clark delivered the staff report. A handout of revised Exhibits A and B, a matrix on the maximum area per
sign face, and a page of examples of Freeway Profile Signs were given to the Commission. The revisions are the
result of information recently obtained from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Staff
has revised their recommendation to include changeable copy signs, with the requirement that the sign has a
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 27, 2005
K:\Planning Commission\2005\Meeting Summary 07-27-05.doc
minimum size of two feet. The Commission had asked if there was a way to allow business to advertise along I-5,
such as the “Food – Next Exit” signs. Ms. Clark stated that these signs are part of the Motorist Information Sign
(MIS) Program and are intended to let motorists know about the availability of services, not to advertise. The
Commission had asked if there was a relationship between the current sign code and business closures. The City
does not have data on this request and the results from the Chamber of Commerce’s survey on the City’s business
climate is not yet available. The staff will forward this report to the Commissioners once it is available.
The Commission had requested that the staff consider allowing a maximum of 300 square feet per sign face, as
opposed to the proposed 250 square feet per sign face. The staff provided the Commission with a chart on the
maximum area per sign face and page of examples to help clarify this issue. When developing regulations on signs
facing highways and freeways, the City must take into account the state’s Highway Advertising Control Act. The
City’s regulations may be more restrictive than this Act, but cannot be less restrictive. As shown on the chart,
depending on the type of use, type of sign, and distance from the advertised activity, according to the state’s
requirements, some signs may have a maximum area of only 150 square feet per sign face. For those rows on the
chart that show 250 square feet per sign face, the state’s requirements have no maximum and the City is proposing
a maximum of 250 square feet per sign face. (Please note that row five should state 250 square feet instead of no
maximum.)
The Commission had asked if there were any state requirements for separation of signs and size of fonts. Ms. Clark
commented that there are no separation requirements, except for billboards, and no standards for size of lettering;
however, the lettering must be legible and visible.
Staff removed the maximum sign height of 60 feet for properties below the freeway elevation. In addition, a
definition of “advertised activity” was added.
The Commission discussed electronic changeable copy signs. It was m/s/c (unanimous) to allow static electronic
changeable copy signs with a minimum two-foot font (as required throughout the amendments). It was m/s/f (two yes,
three no) to maintain the original staff recommendation of 250 square feet per sign face. It was m/s/c (three yes, two
no) to recommend adoption of the staff recommendation with the revision of 300 square feet per sign face. The
motion carried, but because it was not a majority of the full Commission (which is four yes votes) it would have to be
forwarded to the Land Use/ Transportation Committee as a no recommendation. In light of this, it was m/s/c
(unanimous) to recommend adoption of the staff recommendation, with the exception of the size of the sign. For
clarification, this recommendation includes the previous motion for static electronic changeable copy signs with a
minimum two-foot font.
The public hearing was closed at 8:10 p.m.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
None
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:11 p.m.