10-25-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MEM0R.4JSDUM I'-' ( To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Ralm and Planning Commissioners 0^ Mike Gaffron, Planning Director f r /'k o'!*' September 17,2004 #04-3024B Proposed Zoning Code Amendment: Section 78-1577(c) - Consider CUP for Vehicle Storage (>14,000 lbs CVWO on Residential Property Attachments A - Draft Ordinance Amendment for CUP B - Memo and Exhibits of August 26,2004 At your August 31 work session, Planning Commission reviewed the pro’s and con’s of allowing large velticle storage as a conditional use, to be limited to just those properties that have had large velricle storage in the past. Plamiing Commission agreed with staff that there may be anumber of pitfalls to the CUP, but also asked that we have the City Attorney confirm whether it is legal and advisable to limit the CUP to just those existing users, and/or what otlicr options we have for grandfathering existing users. Tire City Attorney has indicated he believes the CUP can be established for just the existing users, who would have to apply for the CUP and prove they have stored large vehicles for some prior period of time. He believes this is an excellent method to allow the use to contiirue under controlled conditions, without allowing new such uses to occur. One of staffs concerns was that establishing a CUP for only existing users would send a wrong message that the use is generally allowed in a zoning district. The Attorney tlriirks that it can be written in a maimer that makes it clear that the use is not generally acceptable, and the CUP places pcrfomrance standards on the existing users to make their continued use acceptable until it goes away of its own volition. The issue of a CUP for large vehicle storage has been published for a public hearing for September 20, and we are advised that at least one member of the public maybe in attendance to comment. Exhibit A is a draft ordinance amendment that revises the language of the cunent ordinance and adds a CUP entry to the Conditional use section of the 2-acre and 5-acre zoning districts. A preamble is added describing the reasons why this use is a CUP for existing situations on lots less than 5 acres and only for pre-existing users Staff Recommendatioa Hold the public hearing and consider whether the CUP option is viable and whether the current ordinance conditions are appropriate or stringent enough for properties under 5 acres with pre-existing users. Consider more restrictive standards in terms of screening, setbacks, etc for smaller lot situations. Finally, consider whether we should approach this from the standpoint of an Interim Use (we would hav e to add an Interim Use ordinance to the zoning code) rather than a more permanent Conditional Use... J