A Dilemma To Contain

A D I L E M M A TO C O N TA I N
SHIPPING CONTAINERS IN KITIMAT
D I S T R I C T O F K I T I M AT COMMUNITY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
S E P T EMB E R 2 0 11
Robin Chang, District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development
A Dilemma to Contain
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......i INTRODUCTION: ADAPTING TO CHANGING NEEDS....................................................................... 1 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 INTERMODAL STEEL BUILDING UNITS & CONTAINER HOMES ......................................... 2 HISTORY ................................................................................................................................... 2 CURRENT USE IN KITIMAT .......................................................................................................... 3 CONTAINER SOURCES ............................................................................................................... 5 COMPARATIVE STUDY ............................................................................................................ 6 OTHER COMMUNITIES ............................................................................................................... 6 CONTAINER USE ........................................................................................................................ 8 PERMIT ISSUANCE ...................................................................................................................... 9 WILLIAMS LAKE.......................................................................................................................... 9 KITIMAT: REGULATORY CONTEXT ...................................................................................... 11 KITIMAT: RECOMMENDATIONS? .......................................................................................... 11 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 12 APPENDIX
APPENDIX A: PHOTOS......................................................................................................................... 14 APPENDIX B: CONTAINER SOURCES ..................................................................................................... 16 APPENDIX C: CITY OF WILLIAMS LAKE.................................................................................................. 18 APPENDIX D: 2002 MEMO TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL & BYLAW ................................................................ 21
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Primary research was conducted by Ms Robin Chang BPl., principal author of this report. Editing was completed by John Chapman and Gwendolyn Sewell, CIP RPP. Kitimat Planning staff wish to specifically thank Brad McRae, Senior Bylaw Officer, Williams Lake and Kitimats Advisory Planning Commission for assistance and advice received during this project. For more information please contact: Community Planning & Development District of Kitimat. 270 City Centre, Kitimat BC Canada V8C 2H7 dok@kitimat.ca www.kitimat.ca
INTRODUCTION: ADAPTING TO CHANGING NEEDS
Accessory buildings are necessary for Kitimat residents who wish to protect personal items stored outdoors and exposed to the elements. The District of Kitimat has been exploring regulatory mechanisms to control the impact of temporary structures in residential areas since October 2002. The challenge of resolving conflicts between the visually negative impacts and the effectiveness of shipping containers for ancillary uses on residential lots is worthy of discussion for District of Kitimat Staff and relevant advisory bodies. Details requiring regulation include permanency, permit issuance, siting, and accompanying signage guidelines. The purpose of this report is two-fold: first, to introduce and explore the current status of shipping containers as accessory structures in Kitimat, and second, to discuss a comparative study of how other communities are responding to the use of shipping containers as accessory buildings. It is hoped that from this overview of shipping containers in Kitimat, recommendations can be drawn to inform bylaw drafting and amendment processes, subject to recommendation from the Advisory Planning Commission (APC), public comment, and approval by the Kitimat Council.
** For the sake of consistency, this report will use shipping container to refer to the topic of discussion. This is not intended to direct any terminology decisions for the drafting and approval of potential regulations.
District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development
1.0 1.1
INTERMODAL HOMES HISTORY
STEEL
BUILDING
UNITS
&
CONTAINER
Formally called Inter-modal Steel Building Units, shipping were invented and patented in 1956 by Malcolm McLean (ISBU Association. 2011). McLean developed a mobile metal container that helped standardize and
improve the efficiency of transferring cargo between trucks, ships, and warehouses. These containers are theft resistant,
stackable, and easy to load and unload for storage. These features allow containers to be used in creative and innovative ways, and have
Figure 1. Malcom McLean Photo Credit: http://www.moveoneinc.com/blog/logistics/enthehistory-shipping-container/. 11 August, 2011
necessitated and
the
development in
of
regulations
bylaws
several
municipalities in British Columbia. (ISBU Association. 2011). In the 1970s, the US
military and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) created globally standardized shipping container dimensions, which encouraged the use of containers in global trade and hence their accessibility for reuse (ISBU Association. 2011). According to the Inter-modal Steel Building Association (a voluntary international organization), shipping containers have become very popular for home, storage, and prefab purposes, and for business construction (ISBU Association. 2011). Standardized shipping containers are referred to as TEUs, or twenty foot equivalent units (The Shipping Container Housing Guide. 2011). While the height and the length of shipping containers vary, the width of 1 TEU is typically 8 feet (2.44 m). The height of a shipping container may vary from 4 3.5 (1.22 m) to 9 (2.74 m); and length may vary from 18 (5.49 m) to 40 (12.19 m). The technical term, TEU, is not used in regulating land use, but is a common unit of measurement in transportation and shipping contexts.
1.2
CURRENT USE IN KITIMAT
The versatility of the shipping container is as apparent in Kitimat as it is on docks around the world. While Kitimat residents may not yet be reusing shipping containers as homes or as market vendor stalls, the number of containers located on private lots is increasing. The visibility of shipping containers in Kitimat, and increasing numbers of inquiries from residents, demonstrate that there is interest in using shipping containers as accessory storage structures and mobile workshops. There are benefits to using shipping containers as accessory structures. According to the Shipping Container Housing Guide, adaptive reuse of shipping containers will divert them from the waste stream. Shipping containers are routinely disposed of after only a few ocean crossings (The Shipping Container Housing Guide. 2011). Readily available in port locations, shipping containers are affordable, built to withstand harsh weather, and provide easy alternatives to more expensive structures (The Shipping Container Housing Guide. 2011). A recent inventory of Kitimat properties currently using shipping containers is provided below: Residential: 859 Columbia 3 Dunn 4 Cranberry 24 Blueberry
Industrial: 2200 Forest Avenue 717 Commercial Western Industrial 611 Commercial Emporium Builders Supplies
710 Enterprise Versatile Sandblasting 724 Enterprise T.L. & T. Electronic 256 3rd Zanron 245 3rd 101 Industries 236 Enterprise Anchor Tire Sales 222 Enterprise Wayne Watson Construction 317 Enterprise Viking Construction
Please see Appendix A for photographs of selected properties.
1.3
CONTAINER SOURCES
Through phone interviews and online research, one company in Kitimat was found to be offering shipping containers. Other suppliers of shipping containers are located in Prince Rupert, Terrace, Smithers, Prince George, and the Lower Mainland. Most companies
located in the Lower Mainland are head offices with satellite yards in nearby communities. A sample directory of shipping container sources is provided in Appendix B of this report. The local Kitimat company, D & J Container Services, provides shipping containers to residents, however, but struggles to keep pace with local demand. Other satellite yards in Terrace, Smithers and Prince George maintain a supply of shipping containers for companies based in in the Lower Mainland, the Okanagan and the Interior of British Columbia. Kitimat residents must individually arrange, or pay for delivery and off-loading of the shipping containers from all locations. Some companies will provide delivery services from farther locations such as those in the Lower Mainland or Okanagan. The dispersion of where shipping containers can be sourced is illustrated below.
2.0 2.1
COMPARATIVE STUDY OTHER COMMUNITIES
In the comparative background research, we profiled ten municipalities from across Canada and the United States. The communities were chosen to represent a range of varied approaches to regulations on location, duration, signage, and permitting. This was done to explore how communities representative of a current Kitimat and a potential Kitimat have chosen to regulate shipping containers. Terrace was not included in the comparative assessment as they currently do not have regulations addressing shipping containers. The communities included in the comparative assessment are listed below: A table provided to facilitate discussion by the Advisory Planning Commission is available on special request. This table summarizes regulations used in the following set of sample communities. 1. Prince Rupert, BC 2. Williams Lake, BC 3. Penticton, BC 4. Kent Agassiz, BC 5. Dalmeny, Saskatchewan 6. Milton, Ontario 7. Springfield, Missouri 8. Tukwila, Washington 9. Portland, Oregon 10. Lawndale, California
Figure 3. Breakdown of Container Permitting Zones in Sample Communities
Above is a depiction of land use zones in the sample communities where shipping containers may be located temporarily or permanently. The zones represented are industrial, commercial, residential, and agricultural/park. Commercial and industrial uses are the most common, while residential uses are allowed in just over half of the communities sampled. Only one-third of Canadian communities examined regulate shipping containers in residential areas, while all the American communities sampled do so. This may be attributable to the fact that shipping containers were first popularized in the United States. Shipping containers are also widely used for disaster management and response. Recent natural disasters in the United States have highlighted the need for cost-effective and efficient housing, inspiring people to reuse and adapt shipping containers for emergency shelter. This is perhaps another explanation for the comparatively advanced regulations existing in the American communities selected for this study.
7
2.2
CONTAINER USE
Most of the sample communities regulate shipping containers for storage use. Nine out of ten communities permit shipping containers for storage (Prince Rupert is the exception). The second most common regulated use for containers is for moving purposes; six of ten local governments include moving as a permitted use of shipping containers. It is of interest to note that all local governments who permitted shipping containers in residential areas for moving purposes also permitted container structures for storage. Only one of the ten assessed communities allows shipping containers to be used for habitation.
Figure 4. Breakdown of Container Use in Sample Communities
2.3
PERMIT ISSUANCE
Figure 5. Breakdown of Permit Issuance in Sample Communities
Most of the assessed communities require permits for shipping container use. Six of ten communities require a building permit, a construction permit, or special
permission for keeping a metal container and specify residential zones as an area permitting shipping containers. Some
communities, such as Williams Lake, have waived permit fees. A shipping container permit provides a means to track the duration on individual lots, and use of the shipping container for bylaw enforcement. Another strategy is to require a permit for an existing condition such as construction activity. In both cases, it is evident that permit issuance is positive for the enforcement responsibilities of local government. Issuing permits is recommended.
2.4
WILLIAMS LAKE
Williams Lake, in the Caribou region of central interior British Columbia, was selected as a case study municipality in this report. The City of Williams Lake recently implemented shipping container regulations. Senior Bylaw Officer Brad McRae provided an up-to-date account of this process. As reported during a phone interview with Mr. McRae on July 5th, 2011, the process for implementing shipping container regulations in the City of Williams Lake began in January 2011 when new residents inquired about regulations for a 35 (10.67 m) shipping container that they wanted to store on their lot. The novelty of this inquiry, as well as an increasing number of complaints regarding the aesthetic impacts of existing shipping containers in residential areas, impelled city staff to investigate the situation.
Background information was collected and it was found that there was approximately one container for every five blocks in Williams Lake. It was also noted that shipping containers were more prevalent on lots in areas of town associated with lower socio-economic circumstances. Commercial establishments such as the A & W restaurant were also found to be using shipping containers. Two public meetings were organized to gather public input. The public consultation sessions occurred May 12 & 19, 2011 to discuss shipping container regulations for residential and industrial areas. Eight people attended the meetings, but nonetheless there was good discussion and feedback collected. Williams Lake City staff found shipping containers as permanent structures were not desired by area residents. Despite the potential merits of converting shipping containers into
habitable structures, staff discovered that the cost to bring a shipping container up to BC Building Code standards would amount to approximately, $175,000. Staff considered banning shipping containers for habitation, but in the end make no reference to habitation in the new bylaw. The bylaw adopted in 2011 allows shipping containers in residential zones with the provision of a permit for 30 days. There is no permit fee. The permit is renewable for one month or less, and this provides a means for city staff to monitor shipping containers. Williams Lake also permits shipping containers in commercial zones with similar requirements for permits and duration of use, with the additional condition that shipping containers are screened. Screening requirements also apply to shipping containers on site in Industrial zones. Appendix C includes a copy of the Williams Lake bylaw.
10
3.0
KITIMAT: REGULATORY CONTEXT
Starting in mid-1999, the District of Kitimat began to adjust bylaws addressing set-backs and maximum height of accessory buildings, with an emphasis on single- and two-family residential zones. Initial motivation for these amendments were attributed to difficulties enforcing requirements for accessory structures constructed in backyards that a drive by could not adequately assess, and a lack of specificity in regulations. Repeat experiences monitoring accessory buildings and structures demonstrate a need to further amend local regulations. Up-to-date bylaws, define standards that Kitimat residents desire for their neighbourhoods, and facilitate enforcement. A sensible approach to improving the Kitimat Municipal Code is to review of existing regulations, followed by consideration of new provisions for shipping containers. To date, improvements to Kitimat bylaws for accessory buildings and structures have omitted any reference to shipping containers. Please see Appendix D for staff reports to the Kitimat Advisory Planning Commission. A report prepared in 2002 regarding setbacks for accessory buildings is included.
4.0
KITIMAT: RECOMMENDATIONS?
As a result of research completed through this report and preliminary discussion with the Advisory Planning Commission, recommended amendments to current regulations have been drafted. These recommendations are intended to serve as a spring board for further discussion with District of Kitimat Staff, relevant advisory bodies, Council and community members. Please refer to Appendix E for the spreadsheet of proposed amendments.
[Note: Appendix E spreadsheet is available from the Department on request].
11
5.0
REFERENCES
ISBU Association. All About Shipping Containers. Accessed 11 August, 2011 at

<http://www.isbu-info.org/all_about_shipping_containers.html>
The Shipping Container Housing Guide. The 20 Foot Shipping Container. Accessed 11 & 16 August, 2011 at <http://www.shipping-container-housing.com/20-foot-shipping-container.html> Brad McRae, Senior Bylaw Officer, City of Williams Lake. Phone Interview on 5 July, 2011. City of Prince Rupert. Zoning Bylaw 3286, 2009. Accessed 11 August, 2011 at
<http://www.princerupert.ca/images/editor/File/Bylaws/2011/ZoningBylaw3286.pdf>
City of Williams Lake. Regulating Metal Shipping Containers. Accessed 11 August, 2011 at
<https://williamslake.civicweb.net/FileStorage/861AF03AD9134579B6514E405501955FWorkspaceAugust%2030%202011-C2b.pdf>
Town of Milton. Shipping Containers Amendment to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 1442003. Accessed 11 August, 2011 at <http://www.milton.ca/execserv/agendas2008/rpts2008/PD079-08%20TK%20Shipping%20Container%20Zoning%20By-law%20Amendment.pdf>
The Corporation of the City of Penticton. Bylaw No. 2007-29 Accessed 11 August, 2011 at
<http://www.penticton.ca/assets/City~Hall/Bylaws/Land~Use/Zoning%20Bylaw%202011-23Effective%20Sept%201%202011%20.pdf#search="shipping container">
The Corporation of the District of Kent. Bylaw No. 1447. Accessed 11 August, 2011 at
<http://www.district.kent.bc.ca/pdf/zoning-ocp/zoning-bylaw-amendments/1447-ZASHIPPING%20CONTAINERS%20DEFINITONS.pdf>
Town of Dalmeny. Bylaw No. 4/10. Accessed 11 August, 2011 at

<http://dalmeny.ca/Bylaws/Bylaw4-10-AmendZoningBylaw4-09-final.pdf>
City of Tukwila, Washington. Title 18 Zoning. Accessed 11 August, 2011 at

<http://www.mrsc.org/ords/t8o1989.pdf>
City of Portland, Oregon. Use of Cargo Containers as Buildings and Accessory Structures. Accessed 11 August, 2011 at <http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=68569> City of Lawndale, California. Ordinance No 1043-10. Accessed 11 August, 2011 at
<http://www.lawndalecity.org/html/DeptHtml/CCLERK/ORDINANCES/ORD104310.pdf>
Springfield, Missouri. Storage Trailers and Containers. Accessed 11 August, 2011 at

<http://www.springfieldmo.gov/pdfs/container_draft_12A240.pdf>
12
6.0
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A: PHOTOS
3 Dunn
4 Cranberry
14
Robin Chang, District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development 859 Columbia
24 Blueberry
15

APPENDIX B: CONTAINER SOURCES
Container sources for Kitimat residents include, but are not limited to, the following suppliers: Kitimat: D & J Container Services 38 Char Street, Kitimat 250-632-1246 Owner sources own containers out of Vancouver. Prices listed below: For Rental Only 1 TEU or 20 Duration Monthly Weekly Daily Rate $125-130 $50 $25
Terrace & Prince Rupert: BigSteelBox 3752 Highway 16 East Rental Price $155/month $395/month New Price $4800 $14200 Used Price $3400-3800 Dimensions Weight (lbs) 20x8x8.6 4800 20x8x8.6 8000
20 20 Office Critek 1800 665 9651
20 20 Office
Rental Price $110/month
New Price $4250
Used Price $2800-3200
Dimensions Weight (lbs) 20x8x8.6 4800 20x8x8.6 8000
Kelowna: Secure-Rite 10-2070 Harvey Avenue Rental Price 20 Unit 20 Double Door Unit $150/month $170/month New Price $4500 $5050 Used Price $3100+ Dimension s 20x8x8.5 20x8x8.5 Weight (lbs) 4820 5180
16
District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development Interior Container It Head Office: 150 Mile House /Williams Lake Other locations: Dawson Creek, Smithers Rental Price 20 Unit N/A currently New Price $4125 Used Price $3300+ Dimension s 20x8x8.5 Extras
Lock box provision and installation, delivery and offloading dependent on frequency and location
Lower Mainland Container West Head Office: Richmond Other locations near Kitimat: Houston, Prince George, 150 Mile House, Kamloops Insta Space Storage Head Office: Delta Rental Price $135/month New Price $4100 Used Price $2850+ Dimension s 20x8x8.5 Extras Lock box provision and installation, delivery and offloading
20 Unit
17

APPENDIX C: CITY OF WILLIAMS LAKE
18
19
20
APPENDIX D: 2002 MEMO TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL & BYLAW
E
File: To: 7.1.4.1
Date: 11 December 2002
Mayor and Council
From: Municipal Manager Re: Accessory Building Setbacks: Recommended Changes Shed setbacks have been the subject of Building and Planning staff discussion since mid-1999. This report provides background information, describes current regulations and some common misconceptions, and outlines recommended changes to Municipal Code provisions for land in one-family and two-family residential zones. Council is asked to confirm intended scope of proposed changes and to provide preliminary comment. BACKGROUND Setbacks for accessory buildings are premised on several assumptions and serve many purposes. Primary functions are listed below: Reduce threat of fire spread from one structure to another. Many items stored outdoors are those which are used outdoors, may track mud inside, produce objectionable odours or may pose some danger if stored indoors. It is likely a typical Kitimat shed would contain garden tools, lawn mower, ladder, bicycles, PFDs and other large pieces of home maintenance or sports equipment. Given the choice of storing fuel outside or inside most people would opt to keep fuel in an accessory building: a detached garage or a shed A shed on one property should not adversely impact an abutting property. Water and snow should not be deposited from a roof onto an abutting yard. Minimum yard should provide owner with enough space to maintain building without trespass An accessory building is a legitimate and economical way to provide on-site storage. Few dwellings have adequate storage space. The reality is that a typical Kitimat resident today has more stuff than a typical resident in the mid-1950s or 1960s, when most local homes were built. Lots of storage space is also generally believed to be an important selling feature Establish a development framework. Property value calculations reflect general standard of the neighbourhood, as determined largely by neighborhood residents themselves. Kitimat Municipal Code establishes minimum lot size and yard width, and maximum site coverage. Many developers impose additional controls by registering a restrictive covenant at time of subdivision
21
CURRENT REGULATIONS Building: Shed Permit or Building Permit? A permit is required to demolish, move, alter or construct any building or structure, including replacement of an existing shed, fence or other accessory structure. Exceptions listed in the Municipal Code include: clothes line posts, landscaping and playground equipment on residential land. Property owners are responsible for obtaining a permit before work begins. Structure size, not use or value, determines permit type. Shed Permit ($4) will be issued for buildings up to ten square metres. Construction drawings are not required Building Permit will be issued for buildings over ten square metres. Construction drawings must be submitted to ensure Building Code compliance. Permit cost is based on construction value
Planning: Siting and Setbacks Siting regulations for one- and two-family residential zones are summarized below. Setbacks for accessory buildings vary with zone, building size, and location on the lot. To ensure sight lines are maintained at intersections, different standards apply on corner lots. Eaves may project up to.6m over a required yard, but not over a property line. Sheds may not be built in a required front yard. For planning purposes, small sheds are less than five square metres and less than two metres high. Such sheds may be located wholly within a required side yard.
Small Shed (five square metres or less) Can be built in required rear or side yard of a interior lot with minimum 1.8m rear and zero side setback, and 1.8m separation from dwelling Corner lot setbacks 4.5m from property lines which adjoin a street, else 2m
Large Shed (more than five square metres) Permitted in required rear yard of an interior lot with minimum 1.8m rear and side setbacks and 2m separation from principal building Corner lot setbacks 4.5m from property lines which adjoin a street, 2m from all other property lines
22
RECOMMENDED CHANGES AND CONSIDERATION 1. Building Department
Recommended bylaw changes were motivated by desire to reduce bylaw enforcement workload. Inspectors rarely discovered problems without public assistance, as most sheds were not visible from the street. Resolution of complaints registered by neighbourswhose own sheds complied with regulationswas, however, consuming considerable time. Given that a small shed is allowed zero side setback, Building Department staff believe zero rear yard setbackwhere lot abuts a public park or walkwayis equally appropriate. Inspectors suggested such a concession is warranted because there is no increased fire hazard associated with abutting greenbelt land. Yard of 1.8m (side, rear or both) should be standard when abutting land is privately held and building exceeds five square metres. 2. Planning Department
Regulations express community standards and aesthetic vision in black and white. Persistent advancement of alternative regulations merits attention, as it may indicate community desires have evolved. Eliminating needless complexity is change for good reason. Zero setbacks for accessory buildings abutting parks and walkways may, however, make these public spaces less attractive. Some walkways are quite narrow, eliminating or reducing rear setbacks may create corridors which are perceived as less open and less friendly. 3. Advisory Planning Commission
The Advisory Planning Commission gave due consideration to a number of alternative proposals on 29 October. Before the Advisory Planning Commission debate, Commissioners were encouraged to study their own neighbourhood, and visit other residential areas. The questions which follow were used to structure observations. What do you see now? What would you like to see? What would you be prepared to accept? Should there be limitsheight, maximum dimension, total area, numberon what accessory buildings individual property owners may build? Should any or all limits be different in different neighbourhoods or zones? As reported by the Minutes, Members discussed current side and rear yard setbacks; and noted primary purpose of setbacks is to manage impact on neighbouring properties (drainage, aesthetics and fire spread). Members determined setbacks must be sufficient to maintain structure without trespass. The following motion was adopted. THAT the Commission recommend Council amend Kitimat Municipal Code to require 1m minimum side and rear setbacks for accessory structures in residential zones.
23
Conclusion Setback regulations address both fire safety and aesthetics. From strictly a safety standpoint, setbacks in residential zones must balance the need to protect a home (principal structure) from accessory buildings on the same property; as well as to protect adjacent principal structures and adjacent accessory structures. Pushing accessory buildings to the perimeter of a lot, and maximizing separation between accessory and principal buildings on the same and abutting lots is the primary fire-safety objective. This runs contrary to the aesthetic mandate of massing of buildings on each property and providing yards at the perimeter. The recommendation of the Advisory Planning Commission, minimum 1m yard in all cases, seems to be a reasonable compromise; and its simplicity may eliminate confusion and simplify enforcement. This new standard would bring Kitimat into the center of the pack as measured by comparing proposed 1m setback to those used in neighbouring communities. Prince Rupert requires minimum .3m rear yard abutting lane otherwise 1.2m (side and rear); Terrace requires 1.5m (side and rear yard); and Smithers requires .6m (side and rear yard).
Recommendation I recommend Council request a bylaw be drafted to establish 1m as standard setback for accessory structures in one- and two-family residential zones.
Respectfully advised,
Trafford Hall
Encl. Explanatory Plan, Accessory Buildings Permitted (sic) in Required Yards

pc: Advisory Planning Commission
/GJS
24
DISTRICT OF KITIMAT BYLAW NO. ________ A BYLAW TO AMEND THE KITIMAT MUNICIPAL CODE WITH RESPECT TO ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN SELECTED RESIDENTIAL AREAS WHEREAS the BC Local Government Act allows local government to divide portions of the municipality into zones and regulate the use of land within zones; AND WHEREAS Kitimat Council deems it is in the public interest to amend setback regulations for accessory buildings in selected single-family and two-family residential zones; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Kitimat, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This bylaw may be cited as "ACCESSORY BUILDING BYLAW NO. 1, 2003". 2. Part 9, Division 4, Subdivision 1, "General" of the Kitimat Municipal Code is amended as follows: a. Delete heading Accessory Buildings and Accessory Structures and text in clauses 9.4.1.4 to 9.4.1.14; Insert text attached as Schedule A, numbering clauses sequentially starting with 9.4.1.4; and renumber balance of Subdivision 9.4.1 as required;
b.
3. Part 9, Division 4, Subdivision 3 to Subdivision 13 is amended as follows: a. Under every occurrence of the heading Building Setbacks on a Corner Lots replace reference to 9.4.1.14 with 9.4.1.6 Under every occurrence of the heading Accessory Buildings in Required Yards replace See 9.4.1.4 to 9.4.1.11 with See 9.4.1.7 to 9.4.1.11;
b.
4. This bylaw shall come into force and be binding on all persons from the date of adoption. READ a first time this READ a second time this A PUBLIC HEARING was held this READ a third time and passed this FINALLY ADOPTED this day of day of day of day of day of , 2003 , 2003 , 2003 , 2003 , 2003
MAYOR CLERK
________________________________ ________________________________
25
Schedule A
PART 9 - PLANNING Division 4 - Residential Zoning Subdivision 1 - General 9.4.1. Buildings on Site 4. Not more than one principal building shall be permitted on a property occupied by a detached or semi-detached dwelling A principal building shall be set back from property lines to provide required yards in accordance with Part 9, Division 4, Subdivisions 3 to 14 Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 9, Division 4, Subdivisions 3 to 14, all buildings on a corner site shall be set back 4.5m or more from property lines that adjoin a street; and the principal building shall be set back 2.0m or more from all other property lines
5.
6.
Accessory Buildings and Accessory Structures 7. Accessory buildings may be erected in a required side or rear yard provided a yard of 1m or more, as measured from eave to property line, is maintained and height does not exceed 3m 8. A garage or carport contiguous to a corresponding structure of similar design on the adjoining lot may be erected in a side yard 9. Accessory structures may be no more than 12m high, or 3.0m high if located in a required yard 10. A patio 0.6m or less above natural grade may be erected in any yard 11. A private swimming pool, paddling pool, pond or other water feature deeper than 0.5m may be located in a required rear or side yard and must be enclosed on all sides by a fence of 1.8m or more. Fence design and location shall be approved by the Building Inspector and all gates provided with a locking device.
26

A Dilemma To Contain

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Dilemma To Contain

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A D I L E M M A TO C O N TA I N

SHIPPING CONTAINERS IN KITIMAT

D I S T R I C T O F K I T I M AT COMMUNITY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT

Robin Chang, District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development

Robin Chang, District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development

INTRODUCTION: ADAPTING TO CHANGING NEEDS

District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development

INTERMODAL HOMES HISTORY

municipalities in British Columbia. (ISBU Association. 2011). In the 1970s, the US

Robin Chang, District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development

CURRENT USE IN KITIMAT

Robin Chang, District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development

Please see Appendix A for photographs of selected properties.

Robin Chang, District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development

Robin Chang, District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development

COMPARATIVE STUDY OTHER COMMUNITIES

Robin Chang, District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development

Figure 3. Breakdown of Container Permitting Zones in Sample Communities

Robin Chang, District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development

Figure 4. Breakdown of Container Use in Sample Communities

District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development

Figure 5. Breakdown of Permit Issuance in Sample Communities

Robin Chang, District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development

Robin Chang, District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development

KITIMAT: REGULATORY CONTEXT

[Note: Appendix E spreadsheet is available from the Department on request].

Robin Chang, District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development

ISBU Association. All About Shipping Containers. Accessed 11 August, 2011 at

Town of Dalmeny. Bylaw No. 4/10. Accessed 11 August, 2011 at

City of Tukwila, Washington. Title 18 Zoning. Accessed 11 August, 2011 at

Springfield, Missouri. Storage Trailers and Containers. Accessed 11 August, 2011 at

Robin Chang, District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development

District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development

District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development

20 20 Office Critek 1800 665 9651

Rental Price $110/month

New Price $4250

Used Price $2800-3200

Dimensions Weight (lbs) 20x8x8.6 4800 20x8x8.6 8000

District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development

District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development

District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development

District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development

APPENDIX D: 2002 MEMO TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL & BYLAW

Date: 11 December 2002

Mayor and Council

District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development

District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development

RECOMMENDED CHANGES AND CONSIDERATION 1. Building Department

District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development

Encl. Explanatory Plan, Accessory Buildings Permitted (sic) in Required Yards

District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development

District of Kitimat Community Planning & Development

You might also like