Laserfiche WebLink
MIMTESOFTHE <br />URO.NO PLANNENC; COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday. ScpCenibcr 20.2MM <br />6:00 o'clock p.m. <br />IMM-3024 my oTOroao. CT’P for Vehklr Siorof* - C'odc Amendment, Conikined) <br />Leslie recummendcil that in addition to documenting hou long the ust* !uis existed on a certain property, <br />that the number of vehicles currently being used be d«K-umcnied. Leslie stated in his opinum the use <br />could be expanded unless it is restricted. <br />Rahn inquired \shciher a particular vehicle sh«>uld be specified rather than a vehicle of a certain vseighl. <br />Leslie stated in bis wc* that would be dilTicull sii.ee the ('ity is try ing to accommodate people who li\r <br />here and arc m a business that requires a large vehicle. <br />Fntzler noted that a 14.000-pound vehicle is not a dump truck and that a l4.000-p<iund vehicle is <br />basically a one-ton dual pickup. <br />Bremer suggested the number of \ ehicles be limited and that the number of vehicles that cunently exist <br />would be the maximum amount allowed on that property. <br />Jurgens inquired whether the nonconfonnmg use section in the code conluins something relating to <br />nonexpansion of the use. <br />Gaffron stated there is a nonconforming use section that says expansion of a nonconforming u.se is not <br />allowed, but noted that it is diificult to define what is considered an expansion. GalTron stated in this <br />case increasing the number of trucks could be wntien into the conditional use permit <br />Jurgens stated in his view language should be included that allows replacemenl wiih j similar <br />vehicle. <br />Brenwr inquired whether there is a liniii on the maxinuim weight of a vehicle that would K* allowed. <br />Gadfon stated this amendment applies to existing users only that can be over I4.0U0 pounds if they <br />meet all the conditions. Gaffron stated with a vehicle over l4.(M)n-pounds. the negative impacts on the <br />neighborhood would have to be considered. <br />Kahn noted these situations would be looked at individually. Kahn inquued whether that review would <br />be done administratively. <br />Galfron stated since it is a conditional use permit process, each application would come before the <br />Planning ('ommission and specific conditions could he recommended at that time. <br />Ixslie inquired what the best process would be to incorporate the recommendations nede by the <br />Plarming Commission tonight. <br />Gaffron suggested the Planning Commission table this application to allow him time to draft the new <br />language and to allow the City Atuimey time to review the changes. <br />Leslie inquired w hether there w as a way to speed up resolution of this amendment <br />PAGE?