Laserfiche WebLink
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />n/ircTiMrj <br />ocr 2 5 2004 <br />CITY OF OHUnO <br />Date: October 21,2004 <br />Item No.: <br />Department Approval; <br />Name: Michael P. Gaffron <br />Title: Planning Director <br />Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: <br />Zoning <br />Item Description: ^04-3024B Proposed Zoiung Code Amendment: Section 78-1577(C)2a <br />- Large Vehicle Storage - Ordinance <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - Draft ordinance amendment <br />A • PC Memo and Exhibits of October 15,2004 <br />Application Summary: This ordinance amendment would allow for continued large-vehicle storage <br />by those property owners on 2-acre to 5-acre lots who have previously stored such vehicles, subject <br />to a one-time permit, and subject to generally the same conditions as established for lots of 5 acres or <br />larger. ______________ <br />Planning Commission Recommenaation: Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter <br />on October 18. No members of the public wished to comment. Planning Commission voted 7-0 to <br />recommend adoption of the amendment with minor revisiens which have been incorporated into the <br />attached draft dated 10-21-04 (Exhibit A). <br />Staff Recommendation: Staff concurs with the Planning Conunissioi i recommendation, fmding that <br />♦he Pennit Option does not establish the permanency of use for a property that would accompany a <br />fonnal Conditional Use Permit, v hile accomplishing the CounciEs intended goal ofproviding some relief <br />for pre-existing users.______________________________________ <br />Please revit-A’ the memo and exhibits of October 15. At tlic request of Council, Planning Commission and <br />staffhavc further explored the options for allowing pre-existing users to continue to store large vehicles on <br />properties that are between 2 acre*’ and 5 acres in area. <br />Staff and Plamting Commission have concluded that while a Conditional Use Permit might be an <br />appropriate method to control such use, the two negative aspects of CUP’s arc that they should be used <br />only for uses that arc generally acceptable in r district under certain conditions, and that they go with the <br />land, not the property owner. These two aspects seem to be in conflict with the City’s end goal of not <br />having large vclticle storage on small to medium sized lots continue forever. However, establishing a one ­ <br />time, non-transferable ‘storage permit’ that only pre-existing users would be eligible for, solves this <br />problem. <br />i'm •I