Planning Comm MINS 06-18-2003K:\Planning Commission\2003\Meeting Summary 06-18-03.doc
City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
June 18, 2003 City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Grant Newport, and Dini Duclos.
Commissioners absent (excused): Marta Justus Foldi and Bill Drake. Alternate Commissioners present:
Lawson Bronson and Tony Moore. Alternate Commissioners absent: Merle Pfeifer (excused) and Christine
Nelson (unexcused). Staff present: Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Code Compliance Officer Martin
Nordby, Assistant City Attorney Karen Jorgensen, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety.
Chair Caulfield called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Piety read the corrections/changes made to the minutes of March 19, 2003, and it was m/s/c to adopt
the March 19, 2003, minutes as corrected. It was m/s/c to adopt the May 21, 2003, minutes as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Ms. Clark asked if there would be a quorum for July 2? Two public hearings are currently scheduled for
that date. After discussion, it was decided that a quorum is unlikely and that the July 2, 2003, Public
Hearings should be canceled and rescheduled. Since Ms. Clark will be on vacation July 16, she will ask
Community Development Services Director if the public hearings should be held July 16 or August 6.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
WORKSHOP – Oversized Vehicle Code Amendment
Mr. Nordby delivered the staff report. This code amendment is proposed because the current code
language is not effective. This code amendment affects the storage of commercial trucks/vehicles on
residential lots. It does not deal with vehicles parked on the street right-of-way because the police regulate
that use. The proposed code amendment would prohibit commercial vehicles and heavy equipment from
being stored on residential property. In addition, it would retain those sections of the code that allow for
expected and normal vehicle storage and uses in residential areas.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 June 18, 2003
K:\Planning Commission\2003\Meeting Summary 06-18-03.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 2:54 PM
The current FWCC states that a vehicle or boat may not be parked or stored on a residential zone lot if it is
both more than nine feet in height and more than 22 feet in length. Because the vehicle must meet both
criteria, Mr. Nordby has some eight compliance cases that he cannot close because they involve vehicles
that are either more that nine feet in height, but less than 22 feet in length, or are less than nine feet in
height, but more than 22 feet in length. He showed slides of some of the vehicles that included dump
trucks, tractor-trailer trucks, and construction equipment.
During his research, Mr. Nordby found that most cities use a code that regulates based on the weight or use
of a vehicle. Federal Way regulates based on the height and length of a vehicle. In light of this, the code
amendment includes a definition for commercial vehicle (the Federal Way City Code [FWCC] does not
currently have a definition) that is based on the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).
Mr. Nordby commented that the current code allows storage of vehicles if they are approved through Use
Process III. The Director of Community Development Services makes the decision and a notice is given to
neighbors.
Commissioner Elder expressed her concern over regulating the use of private property. If the vehicle is
parked in a driveway and is not a danger to the neighbors, why should it be a concern? Who is it hurting?
Mr. Nordby commented that the large vehicles make a loud noise and can be difficult to maneuver in
smaller residential streets. In addition, Mr. Nordby has received complaints about tow-trucks that bring
work home, which violates the City’s home business regulations.
Chairman Caulfield asked for a brief overview of the code compliance program. Mr. Nordby replied that
the City has two Code Compliance Officers, Betty Cruz and himself. Betty handles sign enforcement and
some business licensing. Mr. Nordby handles the rest. Last year, he had some 404 cases, of which some
380 were investigated. Because there are only two code compliance officers, for the most part, the City
only investigates those problems for which they have received a complaint. For vehicles, citizens are
mainly concerned with commercial vehicles in residential areas. The homeowners association usually deals
with boats and recreational vehicle complaints, or the neighbors work it out among themselves.
Concern was expressed about on-call tow-truck operators. The Commission would like them to be able to
bring their truck home in the evening, but only if they do not have a vehicle in-tow. Mr. Nordby replied
that he could craft the code amendment to allow smaller tow-trucks.
Mr. Nordby commented that the table on page 3 of the staff report shows what the current code permits
and what would change under the proposed code. The Commission would like to hear from those who are
affected by this issue, such as recreational vehicle owners, neighbors, and those who have filed complaints.
They would also like more information about the number and type of complaints the City has received.
WORKSHOP – Robert’s Rules of Order
Ms. Piety delivered this presentation. She commented that the information given came from three sources:
Toastmasters International’s “Parliamentary Procedure in Action” program; Workshop on Parliamentary
Procedure from the Washington State Association of Parliamentarians; and Robert’s Rules of Order Newly
Revised, 10th Edition. Ms. Piety explained some basic principles of parliamentary procedures, basic
definitions, and the order of precedence for authority. For the Planning Commission, the order of
precedence for authority starts with the Federal Way City Code, then the “City Council Rules of
Procedure,” “Planning Commission Rules of Procedure,” Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 June 18, 2003
K:\Planning Commission\2003\Meeting Summary 06-18-03.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 2:54 PM
Edition, and custom. Ms. Piety then went over the types of motions (main motion, brings a question before
the assembly; subsidiary motion, modifies or dispenses the main motion; privileged motion, has no
connection to the main motion but demands immediate consideration; and incidental motion, which are
miscellaneous motions that usually apply to the method of transacting business) and explained each type in
detail with examples of each. She provided each voting member a Chart of Motions.
The Commission had a few questions that staff could not answer right away. One question was whether the
Commission had the authority to appoint subcommittees or whether that had to come from the City
Council. Two other questions had to do with whether, according to Robert’s Rules of Order Newly
Revised, 10th Edition, the agenda had to be approved and if a flag salute was required before starting the
meeting. Staff replied that they would research these questions and return with their findings.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
None.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.