Johnathan McClellan, son of property owner/appellant
Lesley Anizor, property owner/appellant
Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer: This has to do with an intermodal cargo
container on the property. You can see photos on the screen that show the situation.
The container has been there for a while. It is used for storage. The owner put it in
there because she did not have money to build a garage at the time, but wanted to
have that kind of a structure to put things in. The property maintenance code is
explicit, since 2005, that intermodal cargo containers are not allowed on private
residential properties. I believe the code was also clear prior to the amendment adding
intermodal cargo specifically, that containers of this type would not have been allowed.
There was clarity provided by naming it specifically, though. If the Council were to allow
this to exist, there's two other codes that are in play that you would need to consider.
First is the building code. A cargo container is not a building. This cargo container
does not necessarily have any way to open it if you're stuck on the inside. Does it have
proper ventilation? Does it have a way to stay solid on the ground and not move?
These are all things that a building code would require that we can't be assured of on
this. Could it be converted to a building? Possibly, but that's something that a building
permit would need to do. The building official would need to review that and come up
with a list of requirements around it. Second is the zoning code. That's going to speak
to the type and location of a structure. Right now the location is immediately beside
the house. I don't know if requirements around distance between structures or distance
between the parcel line and the cargo container are being met, but it is something that
zoning would need to look at and make a determination on. My recommendation is to
deny the appeal and grant an extension to December 2, 2024 to get both building and
zoning approval for the intermodal container for it to remain, or that it be removed by
February 3, 2025. Earlier today I spoke with Jonathan McClellan, who is representing
the owner, who's also here today. We talked about a further extension and what would
be required to allow the cargo container to continue to be there in a safe condition. I
said I don't have the answers on that, and would want to seek input from people who
do. I am amenable to having those conversations, so I encouraged McClellan to stay
and provide testimony about the situation to you. Based on those conversations I had
with him prior to this, I now ask you to lay the matter over for 3 or 4 weeks to find a
solution.
Public hearing closed and laid over to October 9, 2024
5 -
0
Yea:
Councilmember Jalali, Councilmember Yang, Councilmember Kim,
Councilmember Jost and Councilmember Johnson
Nay:
2 - Councilmember Noecker and Councilmember Bowie
Absent:
LEGISLATIVE HEARING CONSENT AGENDA
Items listed under the Consent Agenda will receive a combined public hearing and be
enacted by one motion with no separate discussion. Items may be removed from the
Consent Agenda for a separate public hearing and discussion if desired.
Approval of the Consent Agenda
Councilmember Johnson moved approval.
Legislative Hearing Consent Agenda adopted as amended
5 -
Yea:
Councilmember Jalali, Councilmember Yang, Councilmember Kim,
Councilmember Jost and Councilmember Johnson