Planning Comm MINS 04-04-2007
K:\Planning Commission\2007\Meeting Summary 04-04-07.doc
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 4, 2007 City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Dini Duclos, Bill Drake, Merle Pfeifer, Lawson Bronson, and
Wayne Carlson. Commissioners absent: none. Alternate Commissioners present: Kevin King. Alternate
Commissioners absent: Caleb Allen and Richard Agnew (both excused). Staff present: Community Development
Services Director Kathy McClung, Acting Senior Planner Isaac Conlen, Deputy City Attorney Aaron Walls,
Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety, and Teresa Vanderburg and Kent Hale of ESA Adolfson.
Chairwoman Elder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING – Proposed Amendments to City’s Master Shoreline Program
Mr. Conlen delivered an overview of the process to date. Ms. Vandenburg continued with an overview of the
proposal. A memo in response to the Commissions comments and questions from the March 28, 2007, was handed
out (attached). Ms. Vandenburg read the memo.
Commissioner Elder asked where Lakehaven Utility District goes to obtain permits. Specifically, they recently
extended their sewer lines and she had read that there was a lot of opposition to this extension because of the
disturbance it would cause and the heavy equipment. Mr. Conlen commented that he was familier with this
comment and his understanding of the comments was that the extension was beneficial to those choosing to live in
the shoreline area. The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) does allow for this type of activity, with provisions to
protect the environment.
Commissioner Duclos asked for clarification of the timeline for obtaining a permit to replace a damaged use (item
number 5 in the memo). The City’s proposal allows one year to obtain the permit and the work may be done as
long as the permit is viable (which could be two or more years, as long as steps are taken to ensure the permit does
not expire.)
Commissioner Duclos asked in regards to item number 9 in the memo (having to do with permit revisions), what
would be considered a “substantive change” that would trigger the need for a new permit? Ms. McClung replied the
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 4, 2007
K:\Planning Commission\2007\Meeting Summary 04-04-07.doc
type of changes that would require a new permit include a new structure, changing the driveway location, anything
that would change traffic patterns, or something the City has gone through a public notice project that staff feels the
public has a right to know about the change. Commissioner Duclos suggested these be used as examples.
Commissioner Bronson asked if a cost analysis has been done comparing soft-shore designs versus bulkheads
(referring to items numbers 6 of the memo). Mr. Conlen replied that the City has not done such an analysis.
Commissioner Bronson asked why staff recommends dropping the bulkhead height to one-foot for lakes (it is
already one height for marine shorelines, refers to item number 7 of the memo). He encourages a return to the four-
foot height because if gives the owner more protection from winter storms. Mr. Conlen commented that the state
guidelines require that they be the “minimum necessary” and one-foot in height meets this standard.
Commissioner Carlson had expressed his concern regarding vegetation retention at the last meeting, but this issue
is not addressed in the memo (specifically, how much the City’s regulations are apart from Ecology’s regulations).
Staff is still attempting to set up a meeting with Ecology to discuss the issue.
Public Testimony
Judy Turpin – She provided the Commission with a letter (attached). Ms. Turpin lives on Lakota Beach.
Her concern is the way Reach 1B is labeled. It infers the whole shoreline is on Dumas Bay, but the
western border is on Poverty Bay Park. There are differences between the two and this could have a
bearing on the appropriateness of the shoreline designation. She believes that for the area of Lakota that
fronts on Poverty Bay a designation of Shoreline Residential would be more appropriate than Urban
Conservancy. One reason for this is that the area is well developed.
Commissioner Duclos asked the staff if there was any reason staff would not support Ms. Turpin’s request. Mr.
Conlen replied that staff could consider the request. He noted there had been a lot of discussion at the Citizen
Advisory Committee (CAC) about this area and the appropriate designation. Ms. Vandenburg commented that one
of the reasons for the proposed designation has to do with the ecology of the area and the differences in coastal
processes.
Kris Holden – She also lives on Lakota Beach. She asked what the differences are between the Shoreline
Residential and Urban Conservancy designations.
Mr. Conlen replied the differences are relatively minor regarding the ability to develop the property. They both
have 50-foot standard setbacks, but development in the Urban Conservancy near a high bluff has a minimum 25-
foot setback behind the top of the bluff. There are also some other minor differences, such as stricter vegetation
conservation in the Urban Conservancy designation.
Jeanne Burbidge – She is a resident of Lakota Beach. She encourages going back to the existing code for
setbacks for single-family development; to include the statement that such development shall maintain a
minimum setback behind the stringline setback, or 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark. The
stringline method is a simple mechanism to ensure view corridors are maintained for existing development.
For example, if existing homes have a setback of 75 feet and a new home is built with a 50-foot setback, it
could impede views. She feels the design criteria for mooring buoys is unclear. She noted the description
of the existing shoreline does not include the Lakehaven Utility District outfall pipe.
Commissioner Bronson stated that it is his understanding the City currently does not have protected views and Ms.
Burbidge’s request would mean a “somewhat” protected view. Ms. Burbidge replied that the statement she
suggested be used is currently in effect.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 April 4, 2007
K:\Planning Commission\2007\Meeting Summary 04-04-07.doc
Commissioner Bronson asked for clarification of stringline. He thought it had to do with the beach. Mr. Conlen
explained that under the current code, the stringline setback can apply in a couple of different scenarios. One is an
undeveloped lot between two developed lots where the structures on the developed lots are waterward of the
standard setback. A line is drawn between the two structures and the undeveloped lot can develop to that stringline.
For the second scenario, the structures on the developed lots are significantly back from the standard setback (i.e.,
the setback is 50 feet and the structures are setback 75 feet). The stringline method would also be used and the new
structure must be built at the stringline (in the example, at 75 feet rather than 50 feet). Staff made a change to the
code and recommended taking away the provision that the new structure must go further back (in the example,
could build at 50 feet). The main reason for the change is that there is no limit to the length the structure must be
setback (if the other structures are 200 feet from the water, under current code, the new structure would have to be
200 feet from the water). Commissioner Bronson expressed his concern that under the current code, the stringline
setback could be back so far that no room is left on the property for a structure. Mr. Conlen commented that in
addition to leaving the code as it is, making the change suggested by staff, the Commission could consider having a
maximum setback.
Mr. Conlen clarified that the design criteria for mooring buoys cited by Ms. Burbidge is part of the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife comments.
Commissioner Duclos commented that Ms. Turpin makes a good point and why not designate the area Shoreline
Residential. Mr. Conlen replied that the reason for the Urban Conservancy designation is because of environmental
issues rather than land use. The area is ecologically related to the Bay (it feeds sediment to the Bay) and the Urban
Conservancy designation is designed to maintain the health of the Bay. Mr. Conlen conceded that one could argue
that because the development regulations between the two designations are not very different, designating the area
Shoreline Residential would not be detrimental.
Ray Dapp – He lives on 300th Place. He took issue with the language, “extreme high tide.” The City should
use “mean high higher water” (MHHW) instead. Extreme high tide is subjective. The tide would be
different if against a bulkhead or naturally sloped property.
Commissioner Drake asked if there is a reason not to use MHHW, or what would be the impact of using MHHW?
Mr. Conlen replied that staff would have to research this issue.
Rick Ornivick (?) – He owns a couple of lots on Lake Dolloff. He was told by King County that the lake is
within a 100-year floodplain. The 100-year floodplain doesn’t really apply because of the outlet at the
south end of Lake Dolloff. King County differentiates between floodplain and floodway and under King
County, he could build in a floodplain. Under this proposal, he would not be able to build on his
properties. He presented the Commission with a handout of pictures of a house on Lake Dolloff. The
bottom picture on the first page shows the wetland criteria by King County that makes it almost unusable
as a waterfront property.
Mr. Conlen commented that staff proposes changing the statement in the policies stating that development cannot
occur in a 100-year floodplain to state that development can occur. This would make it consistent with city code,
which does allow development in a 100-year floodplain, with conditions.
Commissioner Bronson commented that it is his understanding that the Commission will be forwarding a draft
document that additional comments from staff and outside agencies would be incorporated into at a later date. Mr.
Conlen replied that is correct.
Commissioner Duclos moved (and it was seconded) to adopt the staff’s recommend proposal amended as modified
by comments given tonight by staff and comments given by Ms. Turpin (to change from Urban Conservancy to
Shoreline Residential).
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 April 4, 2007
K:\Planning Commission\2007\Meeting Summary 04-04-07.doc
Commissioner Osaki stated that there is a goal to encourage utilities and a policy statement to discourage new free-
standing personal wireless service facilities in the shoreline environment, but on the use chart, all utilities are
allowed except solid waste transfer stations are permitted or conditional use; what is staff position on personal
wireless service facilities? Mr. Conlen replied that it is an inconsistency and staff’s recommendation is to not allow
personal wireless service facilities in the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction.
Commissioner Osaki commented that in the policies for Shoreline Residential it is stated that commercial
development should be water oriented, but there is no allowance for commercial or office development on the use
zone chart. Mr. Conlen replied that it is an inconsistency and the intent is that commercial would not be allowed in
Shoreline Residential. Commissioner Osaki stated that in his view Urban Conservancy is more sensitive than the
Shoreline Residential environment and if this is the case, why is commercial and office uses allowed as conditional
uses? Mr. Conlen replied that staff partially based their decision of which designation to use on the current
underlying zoning. In addition, they considered the purpose of the designation. The Urban Conservancy purpose
talks about allowing a variety of uses that are compatible with the shoreline.
Commissioner Osaki commented that Policy SMPP 78 states that restoration and enhancement should be prioritized
based on the ecological benefit before the cost and he asked for a clarification of the meaning. Mr. Conlen stated
that there was a lot of discussion with the citizen’s group about this language. The language is intended to convey
that the primary focus is to do what is ecologically effective. Staff may be able to clarify the policy.
Commissioner Osaki noted that the management policy for the Natural designation allows single-family residential
development as a conditional use, but his understanding is that all property in the Natural designation is publicly
owned. Mr. Conlen replied that it is all public land, the reason to allow single-family residential development as a
conditional use is in case some of the land should become private, it would allow the owner to get some use from
the property. He noted that the state strongly discourages the City from allowing single-family residential
development in the Natural designation.
Commissioner Osaki encouraged staff to clarify how personal wireless service facilities are addressed in the
shoreline environment and consistency on commercial development in the Shoreline Residential designation.
The vote was held and the motion passed; no nays. The public hearing was closed.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Ms. McClung explained the process from this point. The City’s Volunteer Dinner is May 18th and the
Commissioners are encouraged to attend. Commissioners Duclos, Osaki, and Bronson will not be in attendance at
the April 18th Commission meeting.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m.