Planning Comm MINS 11-19-2003K:\Planning Commission\2003\Meeting Summary 11-19-03.doc
City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
November 19, 2003 City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Marta Justus Foldi, Grant Newport, and Bill Drake.
Commissioners absent (excused): John Caulfield and Dini Duclos. Alternate Commissioners present:
Lawson Bronson and Christine Nelson. Alternate Commissioners absent: Tony Moore (excused) and
Merle Pfeifer (excused). 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 October 29, 2003, minutes as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Ms. Clark informed the Commission that the staff is beginning to prepare the 2004 Planning Commission
Work Program. She asked if the Commissioners had any code amendments they would like added. If they
do, please email or call Margaret or Kathy McClung. The work program will go to the City Council, who
will prioritize the items.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING – Oversized Vehicle Code Amendment
Mr. Nordby delivered the staff report. He stated there were two corrections to the report. On page 9 it
references Table 2. This should be deleted. Staff decided not to present the information in a table format.
Also on page 9, the second sentence in the second paragraph should be deleted. The information is
incorrect. Mr. Nordby went over the questions raised at the last public hearing and the staff’s responses as
presented in the staff report. It was noted that on page 9, number (e) does not mention boats. Staff replied
that boats would be added. It should be considered that some people have both a boat and an RV.
Bob Rawlings – He is concerned with the RV aspect of the proposed code amendment. Even
increasing the length to 24 feet is unnecessary and unwanted. He feels the proposal leaves
questions about how the vehicles are parked and screening. He hopes that when vehicles are
measured, it will be done “length overall.” An earlier staff report commented that this proposed
amendment would help lower Mr. Nordby’s workload. He feels this is an inappropriate reason to
seek and change and commented that volunteers could help with the workload.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 November 19, 2003
K:\Planning Commission\2003\Meeting Summary 11-19-03.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 2:57 PM
Scott Chase – He is glad to hear discussion of breaking the proposal into two separate proposals.
He feels it is important to regard the vehicle in relation to the property line, regardless if it is
commercial or an RV. He believes RVs shouldn’t be stored in driveways. He also believes
vehicles should not be stored in required yard setbacks. He strongly feels the size of RVs should
not be increased; property sizes are not getting larger. He commented that there is nothing in the
current code that size does not include the hitch and since RVs are already measured with the
hitch, there is no reason to increase the size to include the hitch. It would look better to have RVs
parked perpendicular to the street. He pointed out to the Commission that the vehicle on page 12
that is under 10,000 GVWR is quite tall. In summary, the Commission should consider the number
of large vehicles allowed, placement perpendicular to the street, whether the hitch is included, size
and weight of the vehicle, screening, lot size, and no parking in setbacks.
Richard Keltner – If the City were to do all that has been suggested by the previous speakers, why
would anyone move to Federal Way with a boat and travel trailer? If a person’s driveway is 24 feet
and the vehicle does not overhang the sidewalk or right-of-way, why not allow it?
Lawson Bronson, Alternate Planning Commissioner – He is a member of the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) and said he could research if they have a standard for measuring
vehicles and would send Mr. Nordby the information. He feels the staff report and what has been
said tonight does not address the backhoe issue raised at the last Planning Commission meeting. It
is allowed as long as he has a building permit, but since he is doing the work himself, it could take
longer then the 12 months allowed by a building permit and it would be very expensive for him to
get a new permit every 12 months. He also commented that many who have larger property would
not want to have a fence or hedge to screen a large vehicle they park on their property.
Commissioner Elder commented that we must be careful not to create excessive legislation. While she
agrees commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods should be regulated, as long as an RV fits in a
driveway or garage and is not a safety concern, it should not be regulated. Commissioner Drake
commented that the Commission should keep in mind that what is appropriate in one neighborhood is not
necessarily appropriate for the whole City. Commissioner Grant discussed the backhoe issue and suggested
that an exemption be made to allow such vehicles on larger lots as long as they are not visible.
It was moved to adopt the staff recommendation only for commercial vehicles; the motion died for the lack
of a second. It was m/s/failed to raise the GVWR to 12,000. The Commission agreed that recreational
vehicles should not be regulated. It was moved, but died for the lack of a second, to send the proposed
amendments to the City Council with no recommendation. It was moved/seconded to send forward the
commercial vehicle portion of the proposed amendments to the City Council with a recommendation to
adopt. It was m/s/c to amend the motion to place a limit of only one commercial vehicle allowed. The vote
for the motion as amended was three yes, two no. According to the Planning Commission’s Rules of
Procedure, a motion must have a majority of the entire Commission (which is four) to be carried. The
motion failed.
After further discussion, the Commission decided that 12,000 GVWR was acceptable. They discussed the
staff’s proposal to allow one commercial vehicle on lots over 15,000 square feet as long as it is screened,
which would include the Suburban Estates (SE), Single-Family Residential (RS) 35.0, and RS 15.0 zones.
The Commission agreed that screening should not be required.
It was m/s/failed to continue the public hearing to December 10, 2003, at the 320th Street library.
The Commission agreed that recreational vehicles should be separated from the commercial vehicles and
be discussed at a later date (maybe January). They agreed there should only be one commercial vehicle per
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 November 19, 2003
K:\Planning Commission\2003\Meeting Summary 11-19-03.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 2:57 PM
lot and SE and RS 35 should be exempt. Screening should not be required and parking in the driveway is
acceptable. Measuring height can be an issue and it was recommended that the height limit be removed. It
was m/s/c to adopt regulations for commercial vehicles with a limit of 12,000 GVWR, one vehicle per lot,
can be parked in the driveway, and SE and RS 35 zones be exempt. The Commission feels that if more
people were aware that regulations for recreational vehicles are being considered, more citizens would
attend the meeting. The Commission would like the staff to do more advertising for the meeting when
recreational vehicle regulations are discussed. Commission Elder offered to send the newspaper a letter on
this issue when the meeting date is decided.
It was m/s/c to continue the public hearing to December 10, 2003, at the 320th Street Library to finalize the
commercial vehicle code amendment, which will be written in line with the previous motion.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
None.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.