Laserfiche WebLink
DATE: July 9,2004 <br />IIKMNO: ^> ' <br />UEQIIESi FOR COlINC II, ACTION <br />CniiM/'ii iirPTING <br />JUL 1 2 2004 <br />CITY OF ORONO <br />Department Approval: <br />Name Kunald J. Ntoui^e <br />T'ult? C‘ily Ailininistiator <br />Adinini-Strator Reviewed: .Agenda Section: <br />Zonim; Ailminisiiator’s Rcptiit <br />//) <br />Item Description: l.arge Vehicle Storage On Residential IVoperly <br />The Council, at its June 28 meeting, diseusseil llic o|tlinn ofameiuling the l.aige Vehicle Storage <br />ordinance to reduce the minimum alloweil lot size iVom live .leies to two acres. T he Council <br />tabled this item to allow stall't»* investigate other options Attached is a menm piep.ued by Mike <br />Gali'ion. I'lanning Director, reviewing a number ol'possible options. <br />The difficult issue related to the large vehicle storage ordinance is that the ordinance could cause <br />a hard.ship for lho.se win) have been storing a huge vehicle rm their propelty. In some eases, in <br />the two-acre /one, it may be possible t»> pl.iee c»>tulilions on the existing vehicle storage use to <br />aderpiately mitigate the impacts on adiacent pro|>eilies In these ca.ses, it may be lea.sonable to <br />allow some of the existing uses to continue. I htwever, it is sl.iffs recommendation that the I'ity <br />should not allow any new instances of large vehicle storage on residential lots ol less than live <br />acies. <br />An ojition that lit.s within lire framewoik of the above paiagraph is tr» alKtw tinly existing, u.ses the <br />opportunity to apply liu a c»»iuhlional use permit to continue the use as a legally non-conlormitig <br />u.se, subject to meeting a set ol staiulanls. 1 he standaids wdu KI be focused on protecting <br />adjacent properties from the impacts of the vehicle storage. |).uticulaily noise and odors. They <br />would be similar to the standards in the cunent rrrdinance, but could be expanded. Some ol the <br />existing uses may not be .tbie to meet the standards, in which case they vsould not be .illowed to <br />continue. Hie standards w ould he set as part of the j’locess of amending the current ordinance. <br />baiforcement <br />1 he process ofamciuling the ordinance to enable a fUl’ .ipphcation, and the pr cess of <br />icviewing the (’liP application ihiough the I'lanning ('ommission and Council wouKI t.ike a <br />mitumum of three months. In the meantime, there is an existing use that is cuncnily illegal <br />uiulei the existing onlin.iiice, .iiid ag.imst which the City has l>een reipie.sled to t.ike enimeement <br />action. Stalf has initiated enforcement action regarding this use ll the Council decides to <br />puisne the ('I 'I* option, staff is rei|uesling khrection as tk) whether to C4>ntiiiue the enfkMcement <br />action. <br />CtlCNC II. ACI ION Rl (Jl<F.S IT.D <br />Motion regarding whether the large vehicle .storage ordinance .should remain as-is or <br />whethei an anirnkhiient to the oiklmaiice lekiteil to a CMP process fk»r existing uses should <br />be referred to the Plaiuiing Commission.