Planning and Zoning Commission OKs temporary shipping containers at Park City Church with fence and three-year limit

The Village Planning and Zoning Commission on Aug. 25 voted to forward a positive recommendation to the Planning and Economic Development meeting for a variance allowing Park City Church to place two shipping containers behind its building, provided the containers are screened by an obscuring fence and removed after three years.

Commission planning staff told commissioners the property is zoned light industrial and the village—adopted industrial design standards require masonry, brick or precast concrete exteriors for structures; staff said the shipping containers do not meet those standards and recommended denial. Carrie, planning staff, said the standards were adopted "to elevate the quality and appearance of our industrial areas," and that the request met only two of the six required findings for a variance.

The applicant, Corey Williams, said the containers are intended as a temporary, cost‑effective stopgap while the church finishes refinancing and pursues planned property improvements. "Our mortgage will be done October, and we'll be seeking to, refinance and hopefully do some property improvements," Williams said. He said the church had received a grant for security work and hoped to avoid building a permanent structure immediately.

Commissioners discussed visibility from North Second Street (the lot is a corner parcel) and precedent from other containers already located along the corridor. Several commissioners proposed conditions to limit the visual impact: an obscuring enclosure around the containers, a required minimum fence height, and a time limit for removal. The commission settled on a site‑obscuring fence sufficient to block visibility of the containers from the public right of way and a three‑year removal deadline measured from the commission approval date.

Commissioners also discussed alternatives suggested during the hearing, including using the existing shed footprint or constructing a permanent addition; the applicant said the existing shed is dilapidated and that a permanent garage would be harder to remove later. The applicant confirmed the plan calls for placing two containers side‑by‑side, set against the back wall of the building and behind the existing chain‑link fence with slats that already obscures some views.

Roll call for the amended motion showed unanimous support among commissioners present; the commission will forward the recommendation to the Sept. 2 Planning and Economic Development meeting, where the final decision will be made.

The action preserves the village's design standards while allowing a temporary accommodation the applicant said is needed to move planned improvements forward.