When is a shipping container not a shipping container? YVPC discusses storage disguise options at Tuesday’s meeting.
If you want a shipping container on your property, do you care if it looks like a shipping container?
The current Yucca Valley Town Code states in Chapter 9.07 that in residential and hillside reserve districts, if a property owner wants to put a shipping container on a residential lot that is less than 2.5 acres, it must be attached to a permanent foundation and must be “architecturally treated” to not appear as a shipping container.
This town code is already in place, but what Yucca Valley town staff were asking of the commission at last night’s meeting is to help define the terms “architecturally treated” and provide direction on what is acceptable to disguise a shipping container used for storage.
Town staff presented an example of a shipping container proposed for a home on Apache Trail, which would be painted the same color as the fence and roof on the property. But is that enough for the container to fall into town requirements?
Senior Town Planner Jared Jerome told the commission that because of the variance of architecture styles around town, there isn’t a standard way that residents have previously addressed the requirement. Town staff gave examples of things like adding roofing, siding, wood paneling or landscaping that could be used to disguise the container.
The discussion around shipping containers wasn’t centered on this one property, however. Chair Alejandro Vasconcelos stressed to the Commission that this is only an example of the type of situation that the Town Code addresses, and they would need to come up with guidance that applies to all potential shipping containers within the code’s criteria.
Vice Chair Matthew Thomas came out with a suggestion that whatever treatment is used, it should at least match surrounding buildings, saying “I guess the best way maybe to look at this thing might be to see if there’s a way that we can say that if you’ve got a siding on the house or stucco on the house or whatever, maybe you just match the house.”
After clarifying that this use case would be for shipping containers used for storage, Commission Gerard Noonan expressed doubts that the example shown had enough treatment to fall into the town code.
Commission Clint Stoker agreed and said that homes made out of shipping containers pass the “eye test” of not appearing like a shipping container from the street, but a shipping container used for storage needs to appear as something else.
“I think that’s what the intent of the code is, is that it needs to feel and look like it’s something different rather than just a container sitting on a slab. And I don’t think paint, for me, paint is not the consideration to make it feel architecturally different than a container. This just looks like a container that’s painted gray” the Commissioner stated during comments.
Chair Vasconcelos suggested features like faux windows and landscaping as other options.
There wasn’t any mention of the potential additional costs that this would require the property owner to incur for wanting to add a shipping container to their property. Despite not having a clear direction forward on what architectural elements will be required to disguise a shipping container, it appears that just painting it won’t be enough to meet town code requirements.
A consensus wasn’t agreed on last night but Commisioner Thomas’ suggestion of the container at least matching the house seemed to get some purchase with the commission.
Ultimately the decision was pushed until a future Planning Commission meeting, and Town Staff was asked to prepare other exmplaes of container treatments that Yucca Valley or other jurisdictions have approved.
