10-18-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

© MKMORANDIM To: From: Date: Sabjcct: Chair RaJin ami Planning C'nnimissioncrs Mike GalTron. Planning Director^^^^^,^^ October 1.2(KM M)4-3024B Proposed Zoaiac Code Ameadmeat: Section 78-1 577(c) - Consider CX P for Vehicle Slorace (>I4.ooo tin ) on Residential Properts Attach ments A - Revised Diafl (I0-1-(V4) Revisions lo 7S-I577 B - Memo and nxhihils ofSeptember 17. 20<»4 - the Cl 'P should be tai lored to Uie speci fie current ovv ner and vehicle, and should not be a nglit tliat goes with the projx*ny uhen its sold; and - the owner should be able to replace the vehicle in kind, but not add vehicles. I have drafied language that adds these prov ision. and it*s being forwarded to Uie City Attorney for comment. Hopefully I w ill have his thoughts on it for the work session. *‘Pcniiit'*Ontion for Consideraiion Dc^ite tlic City Attomev ’s cone lusion that a Cl P is the appropriate tool for dealing with the existing users. staiTis still reluctant to define large vdticle parking by pre-existing users asa 'conditional use’. bccaiLscthc CUP is usually reserved for activities that arc generally acceptable in a district and applicable to any property. Furtlier. because a CUP generally goes with the property, not the applicant. olTcnng it onl.v to current users for their current vehicles w ould seem lo be a misuse of the CUP. So, what liaven I we tried vet? How about simply a one-time * large vehicle parking pennit' that can be revoked if at some future time the required conditions are not met. We would use the same set of conditionsasw cwould have established fortheClT. including the limitation toonlypre-existing u-sers. but simply require a permit rather than a CIT. The review process would be adniinislraii v e. not inv ol ving PC or Council, nor requinng a public hearing, althougli an option w ould be to require that these be rev icwcd by Council before issuance. A possible downside is the lack of notification to neighbors if there is no hearing process. If an applicam w as denied by staffbecause one or moa* conditions could not be met, this could trigger a public hearing. L Submitted for >our consideration.. E /Ofr-oH At v\)ur September 20 meeting. Planning Commissum reviewed and then tabled tliedraft uidinance amendment for allow ing large v chicle sti>rage as a conditional use. Vour cunmients included;