Planning Comm MINS 02-18-2009
K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 02-18-09.doc
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 28, 2009 City Hall
Dinner 6:00 p.m. Hylebos Conference Room
Meeting 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Hope Elder, Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson, Tom Medhurst,
Sarady Long, and Tim O’Neil. Commissioners absent: none. Staff present: Community Development
Services Director Greg Fewins, Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Contract
Senior Planner Jim Harris, Contract Senior Planner Lori Michaelson, Law Deputy Director Aaron Walls,
Street Systems Project Engineer Brian Roberts, Planning Intern Becky Chapin, and Administrative
Assistant E. Tina Piety.
Commissioners and staff enjoyed the Planning Commission Appreciation Dinner from 6:00 to 7:00.
Chair Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of February 4, 2009, were approved as written.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Mr. Fewins gave the Commissioners a copy of the summary of the results of the City Council January
retreat. He stated the Council named 31 accomplishments and Community Development Services played a
role in a number of them.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
ELECTIONS – Chair & Vice-Chair
Commissioner Bronson nominated Hope Elder as Vice-Chair. The vote was held and she was elected
unanimously. Commissioner O’Neil nominated Merle Pfeifer as Chair. The vote was held and he was elected
unanimously.
Commissioner Carlson moved (and it was seconded) to change the agenda by moving the public hearing on
Construction Hours before the public hearing on RV’s in Residential Areas. The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING – Construction Hours Code Amendments
Mr. Fewins commented that the Planning Commission held a pubic hearing on construction hours on
October 15, 2008. At that time, there were only four Commissioners in attendance. Of those four, three
voted yes for the proposed amendments and one voted no. According to the code, a majority of the entire
Commission (or four of seven) must vote yes on the proposed amendments for them to move forward with
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 February 18, 2009
K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 02-18-09.doc
a recommendation to adopt. (A majority of Commissioners present at a meeting [or three of four] must
vote no for the proposed amendments to move forward with recommendation to not adopt.) Since a
majority of the entire Commission did not vote yes, the proposed amendments went to the Land Use/
Transportation Committee (LUTC) without a recommendation. The LUTC felt this issue needed a clear
recommendation (either yes or no) from the Planning Commission and therefore; the LUTC sent it back to
the Commission for a second public hearing.
Ms. Michaelson delivered the staff report. She commented that staff has received comments from the
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and addressed them as reflected in a revised
February 18, 2009, Exhibit A that was given to Commissioners. It is this revised Exhibit A that staff
recommends be adopted. She noted that the proposed amendments deal with construction activity, not
noise. Noise levels are regulated in the Nuisance chapter of the code, where the City adopts the state noise
regulations. The proposed amendments do not change the hours of construction currently permitted
outright. The proposed amendments establish a review process and decision criteria whereby the director
can grant an exception to any hours that are not permitted outright. The proposed amendments also
establish criteria that allow the director to revoke an exception and responsibilities for applicants. The
proposed amendments allow for emergency exemptions necessary to ensure the immediate safety, health,
or welfare of the community or individuals of the community. In addition, emergency exemptions are
allowed to restore property to a safe condition following a natural or manmade disaster or other emergency.
The staff reviewed other city codes and while they are not consistent, generally, administrative exceptions
to work hours are allowed.
Commissioner Carlson stated his support for the proposed code amendments. In the revised Exhibit A, on
the first page, number 22-1006(b)(1)(a), the word “permanent” in reference to adverse impacts has been
added. It is his understanding that the construction process is intended to be temporary, so what would be
permanent? Ms. Michaelson responded that WSDOT requested the word “permanent” be added in case
there are unintended permanent adverse impacts.
Commissioner O’Neil asked staff to explain the process for an exception. Ms. Michaelson replied that if it
is known that an exception will be wanted, it could be part of the land use process. Otherwise, the
applicant would write a letter to the director describing the request and addressing the decision criteria.
There is no fee. Mr. Fewins stated that depending upon the complexity of the request, an answer would be
provided in a day or two.
Commissioner Long asked why staff included notification to nearby property owners. Is it because of
noise? Ms. Michaelson replied that it is not because of noise. The applicant must meet the state
requirements for noise levels as adopted by the City. The notification is to inform nearby property owners
that construction activity will be occurring during times other than those permitted outright.
Commissioner Long noted that in the revised Exhibit A, page two, 22-1600(f), it states that the exception
may be revoked, “…based on verified complaints….” How many verified complaints would revocation
take? One? Two? Three? Ms. Michaelson responded that staff wanted to leave the number of complaints
open for flexibility. Since the word “complaints” is plural, it means more than one, but even one compliant
would be reviewed and could lead to revocation.
Commissioner Carlson noted that the notice for the exception is required to be mailed seven days in
advance of the approved work. How does this fit with an appeal? Mr. Fewins replied that it does not
coincide with appeal timelines. This section does not have a specific appeal process. According to the
code, if a procedure does not have a specific appeal process, it may be appealed using the general appeal
process found in Chapter 1.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 February 18, 2009
K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 02-18-09.doc
Commissioner Bronson is concerned these proposed code amendments will encourage contractors to
routinely seek an exception to the construction hours and will lead to more noise in residential areas during
the weekend. Ms. Michaelson commented that the City anticipates this exception will be mainly sought for
major road projects, such as WSDOT projects, and that most will not be in residential areas. In addition,
there is a process to revoke the exception.
The meeting was opened for public comment.
Laura Escude, WSDOT, Acoustics, Air Quality, and Energy Specialist – She had sent the City a
letter that was given to Commissioners. She works closely with the City requesting noise variances
for WSDOT projects. WSDOT supports the proposed amendments with a few proposed changes
as reflected in the revised Exhibit A. WSDOT has worked with the City on highway projects on
exceptions to the currently permitted outright construction hours where daytime closure of lanes is
impractical due to traffic congestion and safety issues. The proposed amendments would allow
WSDOT and the City to efficiently schedule lane closures and create reliable construction
schedules with the least impact to traffic and safety. Due to traffic, weekend closures can be the
most effective and fastest way to complete projects. WSDOT requested the word “permanent” be
added to 22-1006(b)(1)(a), because a project may leave a permanent adverse impact. For example,
if a pump that makes a permanent noise is placed in a retention pond.
Commissioner Carlson commented that the section deals with construction activity, not noise (which is
dealt with elsewhere in the code). Commissioners found 22-1006(b)(1)(a) to be confusing and felt it could
be interpreted in different ways. Mr. Fewins suggested the word “permanent” could be replaced with
“substantial.”
Brian Roberts, City of Federal Way Street Systems Project Engineer – He supports the proposed
amendments. They would allow flexibility for Public Works projects, especially in commercial
areas. Road closures are less problematic when they are done during a time of less traffic. When
done during high traffic times, road closures lead to congestion and danger to drivers and workers.
At night, with less traffic more lanes can be closed, which makes it easier to move large, heavy
equipment around and can lead to the work being completed sooner. Commissioner Long asked
what the cost estimate is for daytime versus nighttime construction. Mr. Roberts responded that it
depends upon a number of factors (including whether the contractor pays overtime or not).
Working at night can cut down the number of hours or even days work must be done and thereby
save money.
Commissioner Bronson commented that according to his calculations, allowing work during weekend and
holiday evenings would only save one day of work time. The City needs to protect neighborhoods from
adverse activity and noise and a savings of one day is not enough to justify more nighttime noise and
activity in neighborhoods.
Commissioner O’Neil commented that the proposed amendments give the City flexibility and can be
revoked if there is a verifiable disruption.
Commissioner Carlson moved (and it was seconded) to recommend adoption of the revised Exhibit A as
presented with the word “permanent” in section 22-1006(b)(1)(a) to be changed to “substantial.” Chair
Pfeifer commented he feels these proposed amendments will help the business community in that projects
will be done quicker. The vote was held with one no and six yes; the motion carried.
Hearing no objection, the public hearing was closed.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 February 18, 2009
K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 02-18-09.doc
PUBLIC HEARING – RV’s in Residential Areas Code Amendments
Mr. Harris delivered the staff presentation. These amendments were initiated by the City Manager at the
request of a citizen. The proposed amendments would allow RV’s to be used as temporary dwelling units
in residential zones when the primary dwelling unit (house) is unsafe to occupy due to disaster or accident
such as fire, wind, earthquake, or similar incident. Currently, the code allows an RV in a residential area to
be temporarily occupied for two 14-day periods in one year. Under the circumstances stated above, these
proposed amendments would allow an RV to be occupied for a 12-month period with a possible extension.
The occupancy must cease with 30 days of when a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is issued for the house.
Approval must be sought from the Department of Community Development Services, the RV may not be
placed in side or rear yard setbacks, no generators are allowed, a copy of the approval must be given to
adjoining neighbors, and the approval may be revoked if the requirements are not met. There was no public
comment on this issue.
Commissioner Medhurst asked if currently an RV may be occupied for only 14 days, why allow 30 days
after issuance of a CO. Why not 14 days? Mr. Harris replied that a CO means the house meets the life and
safety requirements of the building code, but the house may not be ready for actual occupancy. The owner
may need to place carpet, buy furniture, etc.
Commissioner Medhurst asked if the RV does not have any facilities (kitchen, shower, etc.) can the owner
use the house for these? Even for an RV with facilities, what about waste disposal? Mr. Harris replied that
staff is assuming the RV will have facilities. Staff checked with Lakehaven Utility District and was told an
RV should be able to hook up to the sewer system. Mr. Fewins commented that until the house receives its
CO, the residents may not use the facilities in the house. Mr. Medhurst suggested the verbiage in the
proposed code amendments be changed to make this clear.
Commissioner O’Neil asked staff to explain the process. Mr. Harris replied that a permit would not be
required. The resident would submit a written request to occupy an RV on a temporary basis and include the
reason. There is no fee. Staff will review the request to be sure it meets the requirements and the response
will be quick (a couple of days). Commissioner O’Neil asked why the RV is not allowed in the setbacks.
Mr. Harris replied it is consistent with the code requirement of no buildings allowed in the side and rear
setback, but in many cases, the RV would likely need to be placed within the front setback.
Commissioner O’Neil noted that the proposed definition for recreational vehicle includes truck camper and
camper trailer, which typically do not have facilities. Would allowing RVs without facilities as temporary
dwelling units (since they are in the definition) be a liability issue? Mr. Fewins replied that staff does not
feel it would be an issue.
Commissioner Bronson commented that before he heard the reason for the proposed code amendments, he
thought the City was planning ahead in case of a natural disaster, which he believes is good thing. He feels
if necessary, a resident can use off-site facilities. He suggests that generators be allowed if no permanent
power is available; this way the proposed amendments would be very useful in the case of a disaster.
Commissioner Elder commented that she has survived a couple of tornados and knows that in a disaster,
people want to be on their property to protect it. The Red Cross and other relief agencies would no doubt
bring in food and water. She encouraged staff not to make the proposed amendments too restrictive.
Commissioner Medhurst is concerned that this could lead to people living in unsanitary conditions. The
proposed amendments are not intended to address a major disaster. The proposed amendments are for one-
on-one events, like a fire. Commissioner Long commented that if people are living in unsanitary conditions,
the City will receive complaints from the neighbors.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 February 18, 2009
K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 02-18-09.doc
Commissioner Bronson moved (and it was seconded) to recommend adoption of the proposed code
amendments as written. The motion carried unanimously. Hearing no objection, the public hearing was
closed.
STUDY SESSION – 2009 Planning Commission and Long Range Work Program
Ms. Clark delivered the staff presentation. She provided an update on the 2008 Planning Commission Work
Program and discussed potential items for the 2009 Planning Commission Work Program. She asked the
Commissioners if they have any code amendments they would like staff to work on. In addition she
discussed the other duties of the Long Range Planners, which includes many reports, some which are
required by state law and others that are requested by other agencies. Mr. Fewins explained that the City has
1½ Long Range Planning staff. In the past, the department has been given funds by the City Council to hire
consultants to help with the Work Program. Given the economy and the state of the City’s budget, the
department does not have additional funds this year. This year, he expects that the 1½ Long Range Planning
staff will be focused on the seven-year update of the comprehensive plan and finishing the Shoreline Master
Program. We will be seeking help from the Current Planning staff on four to eight of the “easier” code
amendments. Hearing no objection, the study session was closed.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
The Commission will be meeting March 3rd for a study session on the City Center Access Study and March
18th for a public hearing of the Traffic Impact Fee.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.