Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parowan planning commission narrows options for storage‑container rules, schedules public hearing
Summary
Commissioners reviewed a detailed draft of storage‑container rules — addressing dwellings, use as building materials, lot‑size calculations, paint and setbacks — and voted to schedule a public hearing for Feb. 5 on proposed code changes.
Parowan planning staff walked commissioners through a near‑final draft of a proposed storage‑container ordinance at the Jan. 15 meeting and commissioners reached preliminary agreement on multiple points before scheduling a public hearing for Feb. 5.
Kelly, the city planner, summarized decisions staff understood to be settled: containers may not be used as independent dwellings under existing size limits; containers may be used as building materials when they comply with the International Residential Code (including Appendix Q where relevant) and are not visible from the exterior; a 25% rear‑yard rule will govern lot‑coverage calculations (the city will remove dated square‑foot thresholds); containers must be painted a neutral or house‑complementary color; stacking of containers will be allowed only when used as part of a structure (not as stand‑alone stacked storage); and accessory‑structure setbacks (2 feet from side/rear where the code already allows) should apply to containers.
Commissioners and staff debated other details including side‑yard placement on corner lots, whether a conditional‑use permit should be required for side‑yard placement on atypical lots, and how to treat commercial and highway‑service zones. Consensus emerged that industrial zones should have few quantity restrictions while commercial zones should allow a small number of containers as an administrative allowance (e.g., two) with anything beyond that subject to conditional‑use review; highway‑service areas should be limited and subject to conditional use. Residential lots would be limited (discussion favored one container in the rear yard on typical residential lots, with paint and maintenance requirements).
Other staff clarifications: building permits are required for accessory buildings over 200 square feet; containers used as building materials that remain non‑habitable would not automatically require a building permit unless electrical or plumbing is installed; temporary construction storage should be limited in duration (staff suggested tying temporary use to active building permits or setting an initial one‑year limit with possible administrative extensions); hazardous materials remain prohibited from containers.
Commissioners voted to set a public hearing on the proposed storage‑container code modification for Feb. 5 and asked staff to publish the redlined draft in advance; staff said it will distribute drafts to commissioners by the end of the week. Several commissioners emphasized enforcement and suggested penalties remain administrative (infraction) rather than criminal; staff said the police chief recommended changing a previous code item from a Class B misdemeanor to an infraction.
Why this matters: The city is updating detailed rules that affect residential yards, commercial properties, and potential new self‑storage businesses. The code choices will determine whether and how many shipping‑container units can be used for storage, whether they must be hidden or painted, and when public hearings or conditional‑use review are required.
