Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, September 20,2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#04-3024 City of Orono, CUP for Vehicle Storage—Code Amendment, Continued) <br /> Leslie recommended that in addition to documenting how long the use has existed on a certain property, <br /> that the number of vehicles currently being used be documented. Leslie stated in his opinion the use <br /> could be expanded unless it is restricted. <br /> Rahn inquired whether a particular vehicle should be specified rather than a vehicle of a certain weight. <br /> Leslie stated in his view that would be difficult since the City is trying to accommodate people who live <br /> here and are in a business that requires a large vehicle. <br /> Fritzler noted that a 14,000-pound vehicle is not a dump truck and that a 14,000-pound vehicle is <br /> basically a one-ton dual pickup. <br /> Bremer suggested the number of vehicles be limited and that the number of vehicles that currently exist <br /> would be the maximum amount allowed on that property. <br /> Jurgens inquired whether the nonconforming use section in the code contains something relating to <br /> nonexpansion of the use. <br /> Gaffron stated there is a nonconforming use section that says expansion of a nonconforming use is not <br /> allowed,but noted that it is difficult to define what is considered an expansion. Gaffron stated in this <br /> case increasing the number of trucks could be written into the conditional use permit. <br /> Jurgens stated in his view language should be included that allows replacement with a similar <br /> vehicle. <br /> Bremer inquired whether there is a limit on the maximum weight of a vehicle that would be allowed. <br /> Gaffron stated this amendment applies to existing users only that can be over 14,000 pounds if they <br /> meet all the conditions. Gaffron stated with a vehicle over 14,000-pounds,the negative impacts on the <br /> neighborhood would have to be considered. <br /> Rahn noted these situations would be looked at individually. Rahn inquired whether that review would <br /> be done administratively. <br /> Gaffron stated since it is a conditional use permit process, each application would come before the <br /> Planning Commission and specific conditions could be recommended at that time. <br /> Leslie inquired what the best process would be to incorporate the recommendations made by the <br /> Planning 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 Attorney time to review the changes. <br /> Leslie inquired whether there was a way to speed up resolution of this amendment. <br /> PAGE 7 <br />