Loading...
Planning Comm MINS 10-29-2003K:\Planning Commission\2003\Meeting Summary 10-29-03.doc City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting October 29, 2003 City Hall 7:00 p.m. 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 (LUTC) 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 if the 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. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 October 29, 2003 K:\Planning Commission\2003\Meeting Summary 10-29-03.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 2:56 PM 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 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 October 29, 2003 K:\Planning Commission\2003\Meeting Summary 10-29-03.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 2:56 PM 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 SUVs 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 staff to 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.