Proposed ordinance change carries questions

Note: Due to a lack of quorum, the March 18 meeting of the Osceola City Council has been moved to March 25.

The first reading of an amendment to an Osceola city ordinance that could affect the use of shipping containers in residential areas passed at council’s March 4 meeting.

At the council’s Feb. 18 meeting, Osceola City Administrator Ty Wheeler shared that changes at the state level required changes at the local level that would affect Chapter 167.02(J), which deals with accessory structures

The section reads,

“Design Characteristics. Accessory buildings shall be constructed of materials similar to the principal structure, and in character with the surrounding built environment as determined by the Zoning Administrator.”

Language changes by the state have made it so that design characteristics of accessory structures cannot be based on the building materials of the principal structure except in instances of historic districts, homeowners associations or private organizations. Therefore, restricting the use of shipping containers as accessory structures would no longer be enforceable in residential zones based on design characteristics alone. Shipping containers have been permitted in industrial and commercial zones as they are not generally a permanent fixture and will not be affected by the code change.

There were two ways in which the council could approach the changes - an ordinance that would prohibit the use of shipping containers being used as accessory structures in residential and commercial historic districts, or by stating they can be used subject to the same permitting requirements as any accessory structures. The latter would exclude Osceola’s commercial historic district as it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Public hearing

During the public hearing Osceola resident Ed Stoll spoke to the council about the different kinds of containers available, with sizes averaging between 20 and 40 feet in length and 8 feet wide. Councilman Dr. George Fotiadis questioned some containers that are 53 feet long, to which Stoll said those would mostly be seen on rail cars, and not typically for sale for general use. Wheeler added that something of that size would likely be outside the scope of an accessory structure, as it would be more of a building.

Stoney Oak Properties owner/broker Paula McClaflin questioned allowing shipping containers in residential areas at all.

“You’re saying in a residential neighborhood, somebody can order a 20-by-40 foot shipping container, put it in their backyard and put [items] in it. What’s that going to look like? A shipping container?” McClaflin asked.

Mayor Thomas Kedley said that by state code, the city is no longer allowed to require that an accessory structure has to match one’s home.

“A shed used to look like your home, that’s not going to happen,” Kedley said.

Stoll said that with a lot of crates, facades and wheels can be added to them to make them look nicer, and the newer ones look nicer than one may think. McClaflin questioned how the difference between old and new would be identified, and if by allowing shipping containers in residential areas if that would hinder the city’s progress in cleaning up the community.

With the placement of containers in a yard, Wheeler said that they could go anywhere a shed can, following zoning laws that include setbacks from property lines and houses and be placed in the rear. He added that the ordinance only applies to shipping containers that would be used as a permanent accessory structure, not those that are used for temporary purposes such as construction or storage, or in instances where they would be loaded and then moved out.

Councilman Tom Bahls asked for clarification that the ordinance is not for shipping containers that would be used as habitation. Such a use would not be covered in the code, as it defines an accessory structure as,

“An accessory structure is a detached subordinate structure or building located on the same lot as an incidental to the principal structure. Accessory structures are subordinate in area and purpose and are intended for the convenience or necessity of the occupants, business, or industry in the principal building. An accessory structure shall not cover more than 30 percent cumulative of the total rear yard area.”

Whereas a house would be for principal use, an accessory structure would not be.

“Unfortunately, a lot as we’ve drafted, is limited by state code. The government that says they’d like local control is basically taking that away,” said Fotiadis.

It is anticipated that more discussion will be had regarding the ordinance change. Kedley encouraged constituents to reach out to their council members with questions.

The ordinance amendments will have a second and third reading at upcoming council meetings before it is passed and formally adopted into Osceola’s Code of Ordinances.