Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Mini Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Forks council adopts zoning change to allow shipping-container mini-storage after 3–2 vote
Summary
City of Forks Council on May 26 adopted Ordinance No. 688, amending the zoning definition of "mini-storage facility" (FMC 17.10.315) so that arrays of shipping containers may qualify where the use is permitted. The measure passed 3–2, with Council members Patel and Pearson opposed.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Mini Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The City of Forks Council voted on May 26 to adopt Ordinance No. 688, changing the zoning code definition of "mini-storage facility" (FMC 17.10.315) so that an array of shipping containers may be used as a mini-storage facility where the zoning permits. The motion passed 3–2; Council members Patel and Pearson voted against the ordinance.
The change was introduced by Mayor Fletcher and presented to Council with a staff/Planning Commission recommendation to approve. Applicant Patrick Anderson described the proposal, explaining that a contained array of shipping containers would be operated as a mini-storage facility under the revised definition. The Planning Commission had recommended the amendment.
During public comment, Lissy Andros, executive director of the Forks Chamber of Commerce, opposed the proposal, saying it "could make Forks unattractive if empty lots become filled with shipping containers" and urging Council to consider the city's appearance. Council member Soha responded that he did not think the city's appearance would be negatively affected because relatively few properties are zoned for mini-storage, emphasizing the limited scope of the change.
Council took a final vote to adopt Ordinance No. 688. The council record shows the motion carried 3–2; the minutes identify Patel and Pearson as voting no but do not record a roll-call list of yes votes in the transcript. The ordinance amends the local zoning definition; any future development proposals under that definition will still be subject to site-specific review and applicable permitting requirements.
The ordinance was presented as an immediate action item and adopted by majority vote. The council did not vote to place additional limits or design standards in the same motion; future permits or conditional-use reviews could address siting and visual impacts.
