Loading...
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.