Agenda - Council - 01/14/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

MANONEY, DOUI:3HERTY AND MAHONE¥ November 26, ~991 Page 2 Go through the time consuming and expensive process of obtaining a conditional use permit for "open and outdoor storage" as required in the R-I ordinance. It is our position that the proposed rezoning is discriminatory to the Ambles and like users in that it seeks to restrict their use of the property while allowing substantially similar uses to continue without restriction. The stated intent of the R-I zoning ordinance is to permit restricted industrial uses outside the service area of the City's sewer system. Certainly, it makes sense to distinguish between uses under the R-I ordinance based on each use's need for disposal of waste water. Based on this rationale, we believe that the City can legally restrict types of manufacturing and fitness centers which use a great deal of water. The distinction makes absolutely no sense, however, with regard to outdoor storage which does not use a lot of water and does not require municipal sewers. I understand that the City has perceived a need for the control of some outdoor storage facilities which some have regarded as eye sores. This is a reasonable and proper objective for the City, but the City must act lawfully in its method of achieving that goal. The rezoning as proposed does not do this in that it see~s only to restrict outdoor storage but prescribes no requirements for public parking and truck terminals and other uses which use little, if any, water and are likely to be equally, if not more, dusty, noisy or unsightly as outdoor storage. Further, outdoor storage would have much less impact on the rural industrial environment than the other permitted R-I uses. Outdoor storage contributes little or nothing in terms of traffic, noise, glare and other undesirable side effects of the use. The problems with some properties being an eye sore (though beauty is in the eye of the beholder) should De addressed for ail properties, not just for supply yards by makinq them a conditional use. In short, we believe that the proposed Rural Industrial zoning ordinance designed to exclude outdoor storage as a permitted or accessory use while not regulating similar uses is a violation of the Ambles' and similarly situated owners' constitutional right to equal protection under the laws. To summarize, the Ambles wish to continue to be able to use their property as outdoor storage for their business. They have invested substantial sums of money in preparing the property for such use. They, as would all reasonable persons, agree that certain restrictions on the use of any property should De observed in furtherance of the public welfare provided that such regulations I I I I I ! I i I I ! I I I I I I'