The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Comm PKT 11-19-2003 City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION November 19, 2003 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROV AL OF MINUTES 4. AUDIENCE COMMENT 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 6. COMMISSION BUSINESS . PUBLIC HEARING - Continued Oversized Vehic1es Code Amendment 7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 8. AUDIENCE COMMENT 9. ADJOURN Commissioners John Caulfield, Chair Dini Duclos William Drake Grant Newport Tony Moore (Alternate #2) Lawson Bronson (Alternate #4) Hope Elder, Vice-Chair Dave Osaki Marta Justus Foldi Christine Nelson (Alternate #1) Merle Pfeifer (Alternate #3) City Staff Kathy McClung, CDS Director Margaret Clark, Senior Planner E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant 253-661-4105 www.citl'otrederalwm'.com K:IPlanning Commission\2003\Agenda 1I-19-03.doc/Last printed 11/13/2003 J: 18 PM City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting October 29, 2003 7:00 p.m. ,:""",', ,:,.<-~tf"~::':", i City Hall Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Marta Justus Foldi, Grant Newport, Dini Duclos, and Bill Drake. Commissioners absent (excused): John Caulfield. Alternate Commissioners present: Lawson Bronson, Merle Pfeifer, and Christine Nelson. Alternate Commissioners absent: Tony Moore (unexcused). Staff present: Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Code Compliance Officer Martin Nordby, Assistant City Attorney Karen Jorgensen, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Vice-Chair Elder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ApPROVAL OF MINUTES It was m/s/c to adopt the July 16, 2003, minutes as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADMINISTRATIVE REpORT None. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING - Oversized Vehicle Code Amendment Mr. Nordby delivered the staff report. Because of testimony received at the September 16,2003, City Council meeting, the Council made a motion to send the ordinance back to staff for research on the issues raised, and to send it back to the Planning Commission for additional review and possible revision. As part of this process, staff held a meeting with citizens who had given testimony at the Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTe) and City Council meetings. Their concerns are discussed in the Planning Commission , Staff Report. The Council had requested staff to prepare a matrix comparing how other jurisdictions regulate commercial vehicles, boats, and recreation vehicles on lots in residential zones. This matrix was included in the Planning Commission Staff Report and an updated matrix was available to those attending this hearing. Mr. Nordby reviewed this matrix and stated that the proposal generally falls in with the surveyed cities. In addition, staff provided two charts that simplified the regulations to the major similarities and differences between the cities. Commissioner Duclos expressed her concern that this issue is coming back to the Planning Commission. It is like a bouncing ball, and in order to ensure it doesn't come back again, she asked ifthe Council had specific feedback and or instructions. Other Commissioners agreed with her. Mr. Nordby replied that the Council doesn't have specific instructions; they wanted to give more opportunity for public testimony. K:\Planning Commission\2003\Meeting Summary 10-29-03,doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 October 29,2003 Public Testimony was opened. Marie Scicqua - She has worked with Mr. Nordby since July on this issue and feels it has been a long journey. She supports the amendment. She has an ongoing issue with a neighbor parking a commercial vehicle. She feels the City needs to look out for the needs of the homeowners and feels this amendment will do that. Jean Atwell- She lives in a neighborhood with very narrow streets and it can be dangerous to have commercial vehicles drive them. She commented that without this amendment, there is no way to deal with the person who wakes them with his loud vehicle. She also commented that having to come back to the Planning Commission has made this a long process. John Leskovar - He stated that he found it difficult to find information about this meeting. He commented that he is slowly developing his land and has purchased a backhoe for that purpose. He fears that he would have to sell his backhoe if this proposal goes through. He asked why should a backhoe be restricted if he has a plan for the use of it and city permits for the development? He has a good-sized property, so the backhoe is not readily visible to the neighbors. At the very least, he would like to see a grandfather clause to exempt him. Bob Rawlings - He spoke in opposition of the amendment, one reason is because the requested change was not brought forth by a citizen, but by City staff. He is concerned with the size limitation of recreational vehicles. He feels the size limit should not be increased. Mr. Nordby had commented that this amendment would decrease his workload. Mr. Rawlings understood that to mean that part of the reasoning for this code amendment was to decrease the Code Compliance workload. He asked how one person could be expected to do it all, but relaxing the codes is not the answer. Scott Chase - He spoke in opposition of the amendment, because of the increase in the size of recreational vehicles. He does support the proposal in regards to commercial vehicles. He feels that the common voice is that we do not want oversized vehicles in our neighborhoods. He stated that other cities have screening requirements, such as not intruding into public spaces and limits on the number of vehicles that can be parked overnight. In regards to the backhoe, Federal Way has some lots that are larger and more rural than others. Because of this, there is the potential for different regulations based on lot size. He commented that a problem with allowing large vehicles using Process III is that there is no requirement for adjacent property owner input. Larger vehicles should be screened and where larger vehicles are allowed on the property, they should be regulated; allowed in rear and sides, but not the front. In summary, he would like a limit to the number of vehicles allowed and no increase to the size of recreational vehicles. By taking into consideration the regulations of other cities and our needs and interest, we can arrive at the best of all worlds. Richard Fiegel- He is opposed to the increase in recreational vehicle size. He feels storage should be allowed on the side and rear yards. He would also like to see a limit on the number of vehicles allowed. He is concerned that allowing even temporary storage of recreational vehicles in driveways will push cars into the street, which could be a safety problem. Lawson Bronson, Alternate Planning Commissioner - He objected to the comment staff made earlier that all who testified where invited to the meeting spoke of in the staff report. He had testified, but was not invited to the meeting. He feels that if recreational vehicles are going to be restricted, the size of the lot should be taken into consideration. He stated that he doesn't think K:\Planning Commission\2003\Meeting Summary JO-29-03,doc/Last printed 11/1312003 I: 18 PM Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 October 29,2003 staff is aware of the changes in towing vehicles. If they were aware, they would know that the size of vehicles is increasing. A few years ago, if this code amendment had been considered, it probably would have restricted SUV s because of their size. The City needs to keep in mind what changes could occur within the next five to ten years, and draft the amendment with possible changes in mind. This proposal should not be looked upon as a means of restricting poorly maintained vehicles. Commissioner Duclos suggested the Commission consider this proposal as two different code amendments, one for commercial vehicles and the other for recreational vehicles. Other Commissioners agreed. She asked what the cost is for a Process III? Staff replied that it would be over $2000. Ms. Clark clarified that Process III does require that adjacent property owners be notified. Commissioner Duclos felt the cost is excessive to simply seek permission to keep a backhoe. Commission Elder commented that a Process III review is used for many different types of projects. Ms. Clark commented that the staff would like some direction on how to proceed with this code amendment. The Commission would like staffto research an easier, and less expensive, exemption process; consider different requirements for different lot sizes; explain why increase the size for recreational vehicles; consider splitting the amendment into two, one for commercial and the other for recreational vehicles; consider allowing larger commercial vehicles where there is a use for it, room for it, and no complaints from neighbors; consider an intervening step (before Process III) with performance standards to allow larger commercial vehicles; limit to one commercial vehicle, even if they are just pick- ups; justify why 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight when many of the researched cities use 12,000; and prepare a matrix showing zoning and lot sizes. It was m/s/c to continues the public hearing to November 19, 2003. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. K:\Planning Commission\2oo3\Meeting Summary JO-29-03,doc/Last printed 1111312003 1:18 PM ~ CITY OF ~ Federal Way STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Amendments to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chaptw 22, Article XIII Division 11, "Vehicles and Boats" (Oversized Vehicles) I. Planning Commission Meeting of November 19, 2003 BACKGROUND The proposed code amendments to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 22, Article XIIl, Division 11, "Vehicles and Boats" (Oversized Vehicles, Exhibit A) were presented to the City Council at their September 2 and 16,2003, public meetings for first and second readings, respectively. During these meetings, there was testimony both in favor and against the amendments from members of the public. At the end of the Council deliberations on September 16,2003, the Council made a motion for staff to research certain questions and take the amendments back to the Planning Commission for additional review and possible revision. Staff researched these questions and provided them to the Planning Commission at an October 29,2003, public hearing. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to November 19,2003, with a request for staff to research additional questions listed in Section II of this staff report. II. ADDITIONAL RESEARCH REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION A. The Planning Commission requested staff to research and respond to the following: 1. 2. They wanted to see commercial vehicles and recreational vehicles regulated separately. They requested staff to research a lot exemption to allow commercial vehicles on larger City lots. The location of the parking of the vehicle relative to the property line should also be considered. Related to the above potential lot exemption, they requested staff to prepare a matrix which shows the residential zoning districts and the corresponding lot sizes. They inquired whether a commercial vehicle being used for personal reasons could be treated differently from a commercial vehicle being used purely for commercial purposes. Both the existing code, as presently written, and the proposed code would allow parking of commercial vehicles on residentially zoned lots with a Process III review and approval based on meeting certain criteria. However, several Planning Commissioners were concerned that the Process III fee, which is over $1,000, was too much for this purpose. They wanted staff to consider a less expensive exemption process. They asked staff to further explain why the length ofRVs and boats to be allowed on a driveway was proposed to be increased from 22 to 28 feet. They were interested in limiting the number of commercial vehicles and RVs/boats on a lot. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. They requested additional research on where the cutoff weight should be for commercial vehicles versus a vehicle used for private transportation purposes. They requested staff to consider an intervening step based on performance standards to allow commercial vehicles before having to apply for a Process III approval. 9. B. Staff has responded to each of these items as follows: 1. Planning Commission Request Provide a separate code section for commercial vehicles and recreational vehicles/boats. Staff Response Staff can prepare a code amendment that separates the regulation of commercial vehicles from recreational vehicles and boats. The code language would be drafted after the Planning Commission made a recommendation on the standards to be adopted for each. Staff Recommendation Staff concurs with the Planning Commission direction and will prepare two separate code amendments for the Planning Commission's review. 2. Planning Commission Request Research a lot exemption to allow commercial vehicles on larger City lots. Consider the location of the parking of the vehicle relative to the property line. Staff Response , As shown in the newly proposed Section 22-1178, "Commercial Vehicles Exempted" (page 1 of 1 of Exhibit A), staff has proposed an exemption for, "Vehicles used for agricultural purposes on any lot in a Single Family Residential (RS 35.0) or Suburban Estates (SE) zone." This exemption could be expanded to include any lot greater than 15,000 square foot in size in a RS 15.0 (one unit per 15,000 square feet) zone, as well as in the SE (one unit per five acres) and RS 35.0 (one unit per 35,000 square feet) zones, and could apply the exemption to any commercial vehicle. Regulating location of parking on a lot may be complicated. FWCC Section 22-1135 allows parking in front and rear yards if on an approved driveway. Please refer to the matrix associated with Question No.3, which shows required yard setbacks in each zone. In lieu of regulating placement of commercial vehicles on a lot, from an enforcement position it may be better to require standards, such as limiting the number of vehicles per lot and screening. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that commercial vehicles be allowed on larger lots as discussed under the above "Staff Response." 3. Planning Commission Request Prepare a matrix that shows the residential zoning districts and the corresponding lot sizes. Oversized Vehicles Code Amendment November 19, 2003, Planning Commission Staff Report File #03-1 02457-00-UP Page 2 Staff Response The following matrix shows all of the City of Federal Way zoning districts and the corresponding minimum lot sizes and yard setbacks. Except for the multiple-family zoning districts, Federal Way's zoning is not density-based but requires a certain minimum lot size for all newly created lots. However, a lot of any size is considered to be a legal building lot and can be built on if was created prior to Federal Way's incorporation on February 28, 1990, with certain exceptions. This means that a lot can be less than the minimum size and stilI be considered legal if it existed prior to incorporation. Zoning Minimum Lot Size Required Yard Setbacks SE 5 acres Agricultural Uses Setbacks - Front (F) 30', Side (S), and Rear (R) 30' Single Family Residence Setbacks - F 30', S 10', and RIO' RS 35.0 35,000 square feet Single Family Residence Setbacks - F 20', S 10', and RIO' RS 15.0 15,000 square feet Single Family Residence Setbacks - F 20', S 5', and R 5' RS 9.6 9,600 square feet Single Family Residence Setbacks - F 20', S 5', and R 5' RS7.2 7,200 square feet Single Family Residence Setbacks - F 20', S 5', and R 5' RS 5.0 5,000 square feet Single Family Residence Setbacks - F 20', S 5', and R 5' RM 3600 (12 units per acre) Single Family Residence or Multiple Family Units Setbacks - F 20', S 5', and R 5' RM 2400 (18 units per acre) Single Family Residence or Multiple Family Units Setbacks - F 20', S 5' and R 5' RM 1800 (24 units per acre) Single Family Residence or Multiple Family Units Setbacks - F 20', S 5', and R 5' 4. Planning Commission Request Could a commercial vehicle being used for personal reasons be treated differently from a commercial vehicle being used purely for commercial purposes? Staff Response The definition of a commercial vehicle in the proposed language (Section 22-1176 of Exhibit A) includes the truck's primary use in addition to the GVWR to define it as a commercial vehicle. Weight rating alone does not define the vehicle as necessarily commercial. It is possible a truck not used for commercial purposes could be stored on a Oversized Vehicles Code Amendment November 19,2003, Planning Commission Staff Report File #03-102457 -OO-UP Page 3 residential lot and have a GVWR in excess of 10,000. This could be the case with the smaller commercial trucks (often rated to 20,000 GVWR) used to tow the larger travel trailers or 5th wheel trailers (see next page). ' TRUCK WITH 20,000 LBS GVWR 5. Planning Commission Request They requested staff to consider a less expensive exemption process to allow oversized commercial vehicles on residential lots. Staff Response Both the existing code, as presently written, and the proposed code would allow parking of commercial vehicles on residentially zoned lots with a Process III review and approval based on meeting certain criteria. However, several Planning Commissioners were concerned that the Process III fee, which is over $1,000, was too much for this purpose. The City code sets out six different processes, Process I through Process VI. Process I and II are administrative review and approval and does not require notification of adjacent property owners. Process III is also an administrative review process; however, property owners within 300 feet are notified by mail of the request. Process IV and V require public hearings before the Hearing Examiner, and Process VI requires a public hearing by the Planning Commission with a decision by the Council. In general the application fees increase with each higher process. Process III is the only administrative process that requires written notification. The fees for each process are adopted by ordinance; therefore, fees cannot be changes for a particular type of Process III without an amendment to the ordinance. Any lower process, though less Oversized Vehicles Code Amendment November 19, 2003, Planning Commission Staff Report File #03-102457-00-UP Page 4 expensive, would not require notification. Given these parameters, and assuming it is the Planning Commission's desire to allow an exemption for commercial vehicles, it may be better to pursue it through another mechanism. Staff Recommendation Given the existing fee schedule and the way that the processes work, staff is unable to propose a less expensive exemption process and still require notification of adjacent property owners. 6. Planning Commission Request They asked staff to further explain why the length ofRVs and boats to be allowed on a driveway was proposed to be increased from 22 to 28 feet. Staff Response Motorhomes are categorized into specific classes. Class "A" motorhomes are typically the largest of the recreational vehicles. These are typically constructed on a commercial truck or bus chassis and can be as long as 45 feet. CLASS "A" MOTORHOME, APPRoxIMATELY 40 FEET IN LENGTH """" ". Class "C" is the next largest motorhome. These can run up to 32 feet in length and are built on an extended heavy-duty van chassis. Oversized Vehicles Code Amendment November 19, 2003, Planning Commission Staff Report File #03-1 02457-00-UP Page 5 CLASS "C" MOTORHOME, ApPROXIMATELY 29-32 FEET IN LENGTH Q" ", -"" "",. "" i.'- 4. - . ..-".".,~" I" Class "B" motorhomes are also based on a van chassis and are commonly referred to as "mini-motorhomes" or van conversions. They run up to 24 feet in length. CLASS "B" MOTORHOME, ApPROXIMATELY 21 FEET IN LENGTH Oversized Vehicles Code Amendment November 19,2003, Planning Commission Staff Report File #03-1 02457-00-UP Page 6 Travel trailers can range from 10-12 foot long "pop-up" or tent-trailers, which can be towed by a standard passenger vehicle or light pick-up truck, to 39-foot trailers, which are typically towed by heavier duty personal trucks. Commercial rated trucks such as the GM/ Chevrolet Kodiak or Ford F4S0 or FSSO often tow the larger 5th wheels. TRAVEL TRAILER, ApPROXIMA TEL Y 22 FEET IN LENGTH TRAVEL TRAILER, ApPROXIMA TEL Y 24 FEET IN LENGTH '"" ""'" ,. '::~;';:~i:./:~',;!.>.::::, . .~{~.;;,;:t~;: ' Oversized VehicIes Code Amendment November 19,2003, Planning Commission Staff Report File #03-102457-00-UP Page 7 TRAVEL TRAILER, ApPROXIMATELY 26 FEET IN LENGTH TRAVEL TRAILER, ApPROXIMATELY 29 FEET IN LENGTH - Oversized VehicIes Code Amendment November 19, 2003, Planning Commission Staff Report File #03- I 02457-00-UP Page 8 Due to this wide variation in length of trailers and motorhomes, staff reviewed other cities' codes. As shown in Table II - Recreational Vehicles and Boats, of the eight other cities surveyed (not including Federal Way), four (Tacoma, Auburn, Tukwila, and Renton) did not regulate the parking of recreational vehicles on residential lots. Two other cities (Kent and Sumner) prohibited parking ofRVs in driveways unless they were screened. Bellevue allowed parking on driveways, if screened and if there was no reasonable access to the rear or side yard, and Redmond allowed parking on driveways if parked perpendicular to the abutting street right-of-way. Bellevue was the only city surveyed which set a maximum allowable length for recreational vehicles. Bellevue sets a maximum length of28 feet for RVs on driveways before some form of screening is required. Bellevue also set an absolute maximum length for storage of a recreational vehicle on a residential lot at 40 feet. A website review of some of the more common makers listed the length of their more popular trailers to be from 29 to 39 feet in length. The proposed code amendment shown in Exhibit A would prohibit all Class "A" motorhomes, most Class "C" motorhomes, and some of the Class "B" motorhomes from being parked on a residential driveway. Please note that regardless of the length of the vehicle, it must be completely contained on the driveway and cannot overhang the sidewalk, right-of-way, or other pedestrian pathways. Moreover, the maximum length of an RV to be parked in the driveway would be limited by the subject property's ability to accommodate the vehicle. In most residential zones, front yard setbacks are 20 feet. Staff Recommendation Based on further research, staff recommends a change in the proposed language of FWCC Section 22-1177 as follows: (c) Recreational/utility vehicles and boats less than 28 24 feet or less in length, such as travel trailers, folding tent trailers, motor homes, truck campers removed from a truck or pick-up, horse trailers, boat trailers with or without boats, and utility trailers based on the following conditions: (1) Vehicle does not intrude into public rights-of-way, sidewalks, pedestrian pathways, or obstruct sight visibility from adjacent driveways. (2) Vehicle is maintained in a clean, operable condition. (3) Vehicle parking or storage is accessory to an existing permitted residential use. (d) Recreational/utility vehicles and boats 28 feet in loogth or longer than 24 feet may be stored on any lot in a residential zone when not visible from the public right-of-way and not stored or parked in the driveway. (e) No more than one unit of a recreational vehicle (travel trailers, tent trailers, and camping trailers, all of which must be towed by a car: and truck campers, motorhomes, and camper vans, all of which have the motor within the body ofthe vehicle) or structure shall be stored outside an enclosed building or structure on residential property. Oversized Vehicles Code Amendment November 19, 2003, Planning Commission Staff Report File #03-1 02457-00-UP Page 9 Please note that staff proposes to add a definition of how to measure the length of R V s and boats. The lengths of the RVs in the pictures shown are the lengths of the RVs themselves, without the hitch. Staff s definition will include the hitch in the measurement. This should result in the length of the RV itself being approximately 22 feet in length, similar to existing code. In addition, height will not be considered. 7. Planning Commission Request They were interested in limiting the number of commercial vehicles and RVslboats on a lot. Staff Response and Recommendation Please refer to the staff recommendation under Planning Commission Request No.6 above, pertaining to the limiting of recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers on a residential lot. Staff recommends that where commercial vehicles are allowed, they are also limited to one vehicle per lot. 8. Planning Commission Request They requested additional research on where the cutoff weight should be for commercial vehicles versus a vehicle used for private transportation purposes. Staff Response Research of manufacturer's ratings indicated the factory gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the largest personal use pickup or light truck was in the range of 9000-9500 pounds. A recent updating of manufacture's data on weight ratings, length, and capacity for the largest personal use light trucks showed GVWR ratings that varied from 9100 pounds to 9900 pounds, when indicated. One maker listed combined weight ratings rather than GVWR. This would be for a fully loaded vehicle plus the weight of whatever was being towed. TRUCK WITH 9,600 LBS GVWR Oversized Vehicles Code Amendment November 19,2003, Planning Commission Staff Report File #03- I 02457-00-UP Page 10 The majority of codes from neighboring cities used 10,000 pounds as the cut-off for separating commercial from personal use light trucks. Tacoma was the only city surveyed with a cut-off greater than 10,000 pounds, permitting vehicles of up to 12,000 pounds GVWR. As discussed under Planning Commission Request #4, the definition of a commercial vehicle in the proposed language (Section 22-1176 of Exhibit A) also includes the truck's primary use in addition to the GVWR to define it as a commercial vehicle. Weight rating alone does not define the vehicle as necessarily commercial. It is possible a truck not used for commercial purposes could be stored on a residential lot and have a GVWR in excess of 10,000. This could be the case with the smaller commercial trucks (often rated to 20,000 GVWR) used to tow the larger travel trailers, or 5th wheel trailers. TRUCK WITH 20,000 LBS GVWR Staff has provided the following pictures in order to assist you in determining whether there should be a maximum GVWR for large vehicles used for private transportation purposes and where the cut of should be for commercial vehicles, such as tow trucks, allowed on any residential lots. Oversized VehicIes Code Amendment November 19,2003, Planning Commission Staff Report File #03-1 02457-00-UP Page 11 9,600 Ibs GVWR 16,000 Ibs GVWR 20,000 Ibs GVWR 9,600 lbs GVWR -- H "~,, , ," , 19,000 Ibs GVWR . 42,000 Ibs GVWR 42,000 105 GVWR Oversized VehicIes Code Amendment November 19, 2003, Planning Commission StatfReport File #03-1 02457-00-UP Page 12 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt an upper limit GVWR for vehicles used for private transportation purposes. 9. Planning Commission Request They requested staff to consider an intervening step based on performance standards to allow commercial vehicles before having to apply for a Process III approval. Staff Response and Recommendation Before we can adequately respond to this request, we would like the Planning Commission to act on the previous questions, since adoption of performance standards beyond screening and limiting the number of commercial vehicles on a residential lot may not be necessary. III. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF In researching the regulations of other cities, we found that several cities, including Renton, Sumner, and Burien, regulated the operation of vehicles at night. Renton prohibits a vehicle over 12,000 lbs GVWR and located within 500 feet of residential buildings from operating any motor, engine, compressor, or other device for more than 10 consecutive minutes or a total of ten minutes, within a two-hour period between the hours of 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. The City of Sumner prohibits a commercial vehicle on a public right-of-way and located within 500 feet of residential dwellings from operating any motor, engine, compressor, or other device for more than 10 minutes in a two-hour period. The City of Burien requires that between the hours of9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., no person shall park a commercial vehicle upon the public right-of-way within 500 feet of residential dwellings and permit any motor, engine, compressor, or other device to operate for more than 10 consecutive minutes or a total of 10 minutes, within any two-hour period. We recommend adding language to the code amendment for commercial vehicles to address noise associated with commercial vehicles at night. IV. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION After further discussion and taking public input: I. Request staff to craft two separate code amendments to address commercial vehicles and RVslboats based on the direction provided by the Planning Commission, bringing the amendments back to the Planning Commission at a future continuation of this evening's public hearing. Request staff to do additional research as directed by the Planning Commission. 2. EXHIBIT Exhibit A Code Amendment Presented to City Council I:\DOCUMENlìOversized Vehicles\111903 Staff Report to Planning Commission.DOC/I1/13/2003 3: 17 PM Oversized Vehicles Code Amendment November 19, 2003, Planning Commission Staff Report File #03-1 02457-00-UP Page I3 EXHIBIT A FWCC Chapter 22. Article XIII. Division 11. Vehicles and Boats 22-1176 Size and use Parkin!! and stora!!e in residential zones limited, Except as specified iR FWCC 22 1177, it is a violation of this chapter to park or stor-e aD)' vehicle or boat on aD)' lot in a residential ZORe if that '..ehiele or boat is both more thaR RiRe feet in height and more thaD 22 feet in lcRgth. (Ord. No. 90 43, § 2(115.145(1», 2 27 90) Except as exempted pursuant to FWCC 22-1178. parking or storage of commercial vehicles is prohibited on residentially zoned lots. Commercial vehicle means. unless exempted by FWCC 22- 1178. any truck over 10.000 lbs gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). as defined in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). the principal use of which is the transportation of commodities. vehicles. merchandise. produce. freight. or animals; or bulldozers. backhoes. cranes. and similar construction equipment. 22-1177 Vehicles and boats permitted. (a) Vehicles. 10.000 lbs GVWR or less. with or without a mounted camper unit. which are primarily used for private transportation purposes. (b) Vehicles used for commercial purposes but based on standard pick-up. light duty trucks. or passenger vehicles that do not exceed a maximum of 10.000 Ibs GVWR. (c) Recreational/utility vehicles and boats less than 28 feet in length. such as travel trailers. folding tent trailers. motor homes. truck campers removed from a truck or pick-up. horse trailers. boat trailers with or without boats. and utility trailers based on the following conditions: (1) Vehicle does not intrude into public rights-of-way. pedestrian pathways. or obstruct sight visibility from adjacent driveways. (2) Vehicle is maintained in a clean. operable condition. (3) Vehicle parking or storage is accessory to an existing permitted residential use. (d) Recreational/utility vehicles and boats 28 feet in length or longer may be stored on any lot in a residential zone when not visible from the public right-or-way and not stored or parked in the driveway. 22-1178 Commercial Vehicles exempted (a) Vehicles used for agricultural purposes on any lot in a Single-Family Residential (RS 35.0) or Suburban Estates (SE) zone. (b) Vehicles parked on any lot in a residential zone for not more than 48 hours for the exclusive purpose of loading or unloading the vehicle. (c) Vehicles parked on any lot in a residential zone for construction purposes pursuant to a valid development permit. 22 117722-1179 Exceptions. (a) .^. vehicle of any size may be parked on any lot in the city for not more than 48 hours for the exelusi'le purpose øfloading or ualoading the vehicle. ~ Except for commercial vehicles, +he the city may, using process Ill, approve a request to park or store a vehicle or boat of any size on a lot in a residential zone if: (I) The parking or storage of the vehicle or boat will not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood; (2) The property abutting the subject property will not be impacted by the parking or storage; (3) The placement of the vehicle or boat will not create a potential fire hazard; and (4) The parking or storage is clearly accessory to a residential use on the subject property and the vehicle or boat is operated by a resident ofthe subject property. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(115.145(2)),2-27-90; Ord. No. 00-375, § 25,10-3-00) 22 117822-1180 Additional requirements. The city may impose screening requirements, limit the hours of operation and impose other restrictions to eliminate adverse impacts of the parking or storage. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(115.145(2)), 2-27-90) 22 117922-1181 Limitation on use. It is a violation of this chapter to sleep in, or use for any other residential purpose, a vehicle or boat parked in a residential zone for more than 14 days in any 180-day period. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(115.145(3)),2-27-90) 22 118022-1182 - 22-1195 Reserved. I:\DOCUMEN1ìOversized Vehicles\Division I I -- New Code Language,doc/ll/13/2003 3:20 PM