Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MONDAY, JUNE 21. 2004 <br />6:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(6. N04-3024A Cil>' of Orono, Chapter 78-1431 Zoaiae Code Ameodments, Public Heariag - <br />continued) <br />Chair Mabusth moved, Rahn seconded, to recommend approval of Application <<04-3024A; <br />Ordinance Revision Concerning Accessory Buildings and Structures on **Through Lots.** <br />VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. <br />6. W04-3024B City of Orono, Chapter 78-1577 (C ) (2A), inning Code Amendments, Public <br />Hearing (8:06-8:29 p.m.) <br />GalTron introduced the discussion of an amendment to the City Zoning Code related to the parking of <br />commercial vehicles on residential property. Chapter 78*1577 (C) (2A) was last amended November <br />24, 20(i3 via Ordinance *»4, Third Series. The City Council recently asked the Planning Commission <br />to consider whether it may be appropriate to revise the 5-acre minimum lot si/c requirement for <br />storage of large vehicles, under the “Extenor Storage in R Distnets" ordinance <br />Gaffron related the suggested options fioni the City Council to make the ordinance less onerous for <br />those properties with existing large vehicles stored on lots of less than five (5) acres <br />a. revising the code to allow such vehicles to be stored on lots of 2 0-4 99 acres in areas <br />only if stored in a building; or <br />b. granting a lot area vanance for outside storage for pre-existing situations on a case by <br />case basis; or <br />c. "grandfathering" existing situations but not allowing new ones <br />GalTron indicated staff was not in favor of the option to allow- ‘grandfathering’ of existing .situations. <br />Staff did not have a strong recommendation but encouraged the Planning Commission to discuss <br />whether the code should be amended, and if so. recommend any appropnatc conditions to be <br />incorporated into the ordinance. <br />Ch • Mabu ‘ th icA ited public comments. <br />Mrs. Jerry Timm. 2885 Co. Rd. 6. described their business practices of having their large dump truck <br />pari ed for 6-7 months and when used, travels to and from the property two times day The truck is <br />parked about 200’ aw ay from the Hagen property. She explained the dump truck is important to their <br />livelihood. <br />Chair Mabusth a.sked for information about the number of complaints received at the Cit> regarding <br />parking of commercial vehicles Gaffron advised there were about 10-15 existing situations where <br />building movers or landscape businesses, for example, park their large commercial vehicles on their <br />properties. However, w ith more residential development moving closer to these properties, it was <br />inevitable that complaints would arise. He explained the ordinance was not drafied with all situations <br />in mind. <br />Rahn asked for staff s opinion regarding the difference in a two-(2) acre requirement with, screening <br />rather than a five-(5) acre requirement. Gaffron replied that it is less Iikcl> a two-(2) acre propeny <br />would meet requirements, but it could happen Gaffron also raised the question about whether the <br />question of parking a commercial vehicle in a residential district is a use variance as it is a <br />performance standard consideration.______________________________________ <br />Page 11 of 22