Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board delays decision on allowing shipping-container storage units in residential yards after public opposition
Summary
After staff proposed ordinance 26-16 to allow a single containerized cargo unit as an accessory structure under limits and screening requirements, public commenters and board members raised concerns about visual impacts, screening failure and potential conversion; the board continued the public hearing to September 15 for more work on setbacks and SU P/Special Use Permit procedures.
Staff presented a draft amendment (Ordinance 26-16) to permit one containerized cargo unit as an accessory storage building in residential yards subject to standards: building permit and foundation requirements, no stacking, screening if visible and a restriction that containers not be used as living units. The planning commission recommended denial.
Several residents urged rejection or stronger controls. One speaker said screening by shrubs is unreliable and recommended siding and roof requirements to make containers appear like conventional accessory buildings. “Containers can be up to 45 ft long. This is not a small tiny structure,” Pam Fucho told the board, arguing the measure could open a route to nonresidential or substandard uses. Another commenter warned that landscaping screening often fails during drought and suggested siding or roof requirements would provide a longer-term solution.
Board members debated whether administrative standards are sufficient or whether proposals should require a special-use permit (SUP) that would let staff and the public evaluate location, lot size and design case-by-case. Concerns included setback rules for very large containers, monitoring and condemnation if structures deteriorate, and the potential for containers to be converted into unauthorized living spaces. The board voted to continue the public hearing to the Sept. 15 meeting and directed staff to return with tightened language, clearer setback rules and an evaluation of SUP requirements.
