Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structures Cargo Containers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables proposed cargo-container rules, asks for clearer language and inventory of violations
Summary
Planning & Zoning discussed proposed amendments to accessory structure rules to limit cargo containers and require screening; commissioners raised concerns about interstate visibility, use as advertising, and inconsistent past enforcement, and voted to table the ordinance for further research and revision.
The Planning & Zoning Commission tabled proposed text amendments to §400.180 that would change how cargo containers are regulated in the city.
The ordinance language under consideration would repeal one subsection and amend another to prohibit stacking cargo containers, limit containers to no more than two per lot, and require screening from Osage Street by landscaping or decorative painting subject to staff approval. A staff representative said the City of Pacific is the applicant for the change but had no prepared staff report for the hearing.
Commissioners debated whether the ordinance should also reference visibility from Interstate 44 or highways generally after members raised a visible container at the “landing hub” as an example. "If you guys wanna change that, you could propose to say not being able to be seen from, you know, highway 40 or any highway," one commissioner said. Other commissioners warned that the side of a container could function as a billboard for a business and questioned whether that use is consistent with the ordinance’s purpose. Several members also stressed the need for even enforcement: one commissioner said the city had not treated everyone equally and cautioned against writing rules that are applied selectively.
Commissioners asked whether existing containers at the landing hub were there under earlier CUPs and whether violations have been resolved; staff said those issues still need checking. Multiple members asked for more time to compare surrounding jurisdictions' standards and to produce a list of properties in violation before deciding. A motion to table the ordinance for more research and an amended draft passed; the commission did not adopt the ordinance at the meeting.
The commission directed staff and commissioners to clarify the proposed language, confirm which properties have CUPs or exemptions, and return with a consolidated proposal that addresses interstate visibility, signage/advertising concerns and enforcement parity.
