Planning Comm MINS 06-18-2008
K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 06-18-08.doc
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 18, 2008 City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Hope Elder, Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson, Tom Medhurst, and Sarady
Long. Commissioners absent: Bill Drake (unexcused). Alternate Commissioners present: Tim O’Neil. Alternate
Commissioners absent: Kevin King (excused). Staff present: Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Planner Janet
Shull, Senior Planner Lori Michaelson, Development Services Manager Will Appleton, City Staff Attorney Monica
Buck, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety.
Chairman Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Commissioner Carlson moved and it was seconded to move the public hearing on the Federal Way Village Rezone
Ordinance to the beginning of the meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING – Federal Way Village Rezone Ordinance Amendment
Commissioner Long recused himself because he is working on this project as city staff. Ms. Shull delivered the
staff presentation. The applicant is requesting to modify condition number 3 of the conditions of rezone for Federal
Way Village in order to allow for phased construction of required interior roadway network. Chair Pfeifer opened
the meeting to public testimony.
Jon Potter, Federal Way Village LLC – He told the Commission that the request is motivated by
infrastructure costs. In the residential section, a large portion of the roadway does not have housing on both
sides, which leads to a greater cost to construct the roadway. They would also like to avoid mass grading
and grade the site in phases closer to the point when they expect to be able to build in each.
Commissioner Carlson asked why the choice was made to end the road at lot 34 instead of lot 31. Mr. Appleton
responded that the city has a maximum dead-end length and ending at lot 34 meets that maximum. Commissioner
Bronson asked how the fire department feels about the cul-de-sac. Ms. Shull replied the fire department was
involved in the review process. They are satisfied as long as there is room for their vehicles to turn around.
Chair Pfeifer asked if allowing the work to be done in phases would delay the project. Mr. Potter replied they do
not anticipate it will delay the project; rather it should allow them to move quicker. Chair Pfeifer asked if they have
carefully considered all aspects of the project so that further amendments will not arise. Mr. Potter answered that it
is not possible to foresee all contingencies (they did not expect the downturn of the residential market, which led to
this amendment request), but have done their best and do not anticipate further amendment requests. He did
mention they had submitted for a comprehensive plan amendment to change the boundary between the Community
Business and Multi-Family zones.
Commissioner Elder expressed concern about mass grading (a concern shared by other Commissioners). She does
not want to see a large area cleared of all trees sitting for an unknown number of years waiting for houses to be
built. Mr. Potter responded that the city staff has expressed this concern a number of times. They want to keep the
city and citizens happy and do not plan to mass grade. They expect grading to be phased with the development and
will work out the details with the builder.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 June 18, 2008
K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 06-18-08.doc
Commissioner Elder moved (and it was seconded) to amend the proposal as recommended by staff.
Commissioner Bronson expressed his concern that there is no time-line. Specifically, he is concerned that the area
may be graded and sits for years with nothing happening, and then someone comes in with more changes.
Commissioner Carlson commented that plats have a five year deadline and asked if the applicant has requested to
extend that deadline. Ms. Shull replied that staff has discussed this issue with the applicant and the applicant feels
there will be progress on the project and they will not need to extend the deadline.
Commissioner Elder commented that she feels obligated to allow the applicant to make amendments because the
city allowed a church to make amendments to their master plan to allow development in phases.
The vote was held and the motion passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Ms. Clark informed the Commission that the next meeting probably will not be until August. Staff will inform the
Commission of actual dates when they are known.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
STUDY SESSION – Code Amendment to Allow Cargo Containers in Commercial and/or Residential Zones
Ms. Michaelson delivered the staff presentation. There has been an increase in the number of inquiries and
applications for cargo containers. Cargo containers are not specifically addressed in current codes, with some
exceptions, such as temporary construction trailer and schools are allowed to use them to store emergency supplies.
They are sometimes placed inappropriately and can impede traffic circulation, parking, sight distance, etc. In
addition, they are not typically designed for aesthetics and can rust and become unsightly over time. The proposed
code amendment will address concerns about placement, bulk and scale, design, screening, and ensure
compatibility with adjacent properties, particularly residential areas.
Cargo containers come in a variety of shapes and sizes and may include custom modifications, like windows,
doors, vents, etc. Most containers are eight feet wide by eight feet tall, but can go as large as 24 to 40 feet in length.
They were developed to hold and transport cargo via ships, trains, or trucks and have typically been found in
industrial/heavy commercial areas. They are increasingly found in non-industrial areas where they are used for a
broad range of temporary or permanent uses. Temporary uses include moving and storage operations, active
construction sites, emergency management sites, etc. Permanent uses include accessory storage of equipment,
supplies, inventory, and other property. In addition, they can be customized for used as non-residential habitable
space for offices, work areas, booths, or stands.
One type of container that is becoming increasingly popular in residential areas are Portable On Demand Storage or
PODS. PODS are delivered to the property by the container company, retrieved when loaded, and delivered to the
company’s storage warehouse or other destination as specified.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 June 18, 2008
K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 06-18-08.doc
There are a number of containers in Federal Way; temporary and permanent. Some, but not all, have received city
approval. Many would be nonconforming under the current code.
Staff’s preliminary recommendations include prohibiting storage of containers on a permanent basis in residential
zones, except as accessory to school and possibly other institutional and quasi-institutional uses, like government
facilities, churches, hospitals, and community facilities. Staff recommends continuing to allow containers in non-
residential zones if accessory to an approved use, subject to administrative approval criteria. Such criteria would
include, but not necessarily be limited to: the same design and screening requirements that apply to the principal
use; outdoor storage areas; design guidelines; etc. Staff recommends that containers that are located in, or visible
from, residential zones be fully enclosed within an approved stick-built structure, and/or solidly screened, and be
limited by size and/or number. In addition, staff recommends considering other zone-specific restrictions such as,
containers may not be habitable, may not be refrigerated, may not be stacked, etc. Finally, staff recommends
continuing to allow and clarify provisions for temporary uses and address PODS and similar units.
Commissioner O’Neil asked if PODS go through a permit process. Ms. Michaelson replied that currently there is
no permit process for PODS and no regulations. Staff suggests that regulations be developed, such as how long
they may placed in an area and where they may be placed (if placed on a driveway, want to ensure they are not
blocking and have good sight distance). They could be allowed outright, with the understanding they must meet
code, or the city could impose a simple permit process that would require a small fee. Regulations for such uses
should not be overly restrictive, but the minimum necessary to ensure public health and safety.
Commissioner Elder is opposed to regulating PODS. She commented that the city already has too many regulations
telling people what they can and cannot do on their own property. She asked if there have been many complaints.
Ms. Michaelson replied that to her knowledge, the city has not received any complaints about PODS and few for
other containers, but as more of these units appear, concerns can be expected.
Commissioner Carlson commented that he thinks the staff is heading in the right direction. Provisions for temporary
containers should be simple and more exacting for permanent containers. The city should distinguish between the
uses for containers. He agrees with the staff recommendations for containers near or in residential areas.
Commissioner Long also thinks the staff is heading in the right direction. However, he does not see a difference
between PODS and U-Hauls and therefore, sees no reason to have a permit process for PODS.
Commissioner Bronson is concerned about requiring a stick-built structure (and therefore flammable) around fire-
proof containers. He is concerned the stick-built structure could catch fire and damage the container. He would
prefer paint to a flammable curtain. He sees no problem with requiring containers to be screened. He does have
some concern that screening the container could hide it from those looking for a container with emergency
supplies. He would be willing to have regulations for PODS, but does not feel there should be a permit process.
Commissioner Carlson asked what percentage of permanent containers is used for emergency supplies. Ms.
Michaelson replied that she does not have the number, but the current code specifically allows schools to have
containers for storing emergency supplies.
Commissioner Medhurst commented that as staff develops the regulations, they should be aware that some retailers
use containers to store seasonal goods and supplies. He also asked if there is compliance issues staff should
consider, such as if a store uses parking for a container, will it mean they do not meet the parking requirements?
Commissioner Long asked if the city has a restriction for how many temporary containers a site may have. Ms.
Michaelson replied that issue is not addressed in the current code.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 June 18, 2008
K:\Planning Commission\2008\Meeting Summary 06-18-08.doc
In her PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Michaelson had pictures of containers currently found in Federal Way.
Commissioner Long noted that one of the pictures showed a container with merchandise alongside and on top of
the container. He suggested that no external storage be allowed, all material must be inside the container.
Commissioner O’Neil asked how much of a problem are cargo containers? Ms. Michaelson replied that the city is
receiving questions about whether a container can be brought on-site and since the code does not directly address
them, it requires an interpretation to address such questions. Ms. Clark added that people are locating them without
asking the city first. Since cargo containers are becoming more common, and code interpretations more frequent,
the city feels we should amend the code to address the issue.
Commissioner Bronson requested that churches and community agencies be added to the regulations that allow
cargo containers that hold emergency supplies, since some of them do store emergency supplies.
Commissioner Medhurst asked staff to consider, if a site is allowed outside storage, would having a cargo container
change that.
Chair Pfeifer commented that the Commission has a consensus that the city should take a “soft” approach when
dealing with PODS. In addition, large permanent containers should not be allowed in residential areas, with the
exception for storing emergency supplies.
Currently, containers that are used at construction sites are to be removed when the construction is complete. This
does not always happen. Chair Pfeifer suggested the staff consider requiring a bond for construction containers that
can be used if the container is not removed. Ms. Michaelson noted that the current code allows the city to require a
bond in such cases.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Commissioner Elder asked at what point a building would be too high for our fire department to successfully fight.
Ms. Clark responded that she will ask the fire department and will let the Commission know.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.