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.