10-25-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

n:) MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Rahn and Planning Commissioners Mike Gaffron, Planning Director October 1, 2004 #04-30246 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment: Section 78-lS77(c) - Consider CUP for Vehicle Storage (>14,000 lbs GVVV) on Residential Property Attachments A - Revised Draft (10*1-04) Revisions to 78-1577 B - Memo and Exhibits of September 17,2004 At your September 20 meeting. Planning Commission reviewed and then tabled the draft ordinance amendment for allowing large vehicle storage as a conditional use. Your comments included: -the CUP should be tailored to the specific cuiTent ow ncr and vehicle, and should not be a right that goes with the propeily when its sold; and the owner should be able to replace the vehicle in kind, but not add vehicles. I have drafted language that adds these provision, and it’s being forwarded io the City Attorney for comment. Hopefully I will have his thoughts on it for the work session. ‘Pemtit” Option for Consideration . Despite tlie City Attorney ’s conclusion that a CUP is tne appropriate tool for dealing with the existing i«ers, staffis still reluctant to define large vcliiclc parking by pre-existing users as a ‘conditional use’, because tlie CUP is usually reserved for activities that are generally acceptable in a district and applicable to any property. Further, because a CUP generally goes with the property, not the applicant, offering it only to current users for their current vehicles would seem to be a misuse of the CUP. So, what haven’t we tried yet? 1 low about simply a one-time ‘large vehicle parkingpennit’ that can be revoked if at some future time the required conditions are not met. We would use the same set of conditions as we would have established for the CUP, including the limitation to only pre-existing users, but sunply require a permit rather than a CUP. The review process would be administrati\ e, not invoU ing PC or Council, nor requiring a public hearing, although an option would be to require tliat these be reviewed by Council before issuance. A possible downside is the lackofnotification to neiglilxirs if there is no hearing process. If an applicant was denied by staff because one or more conditions could not be met, this could trigger a public hearing. Submitted for vour consideration...