08-28-2002 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCTL AUGUST 28, 2002 the outdoor display area. Seibel indicated that he is requesting the Text Amendment and a Conditional Use Permit for a retail vehicle sales license, but asked that the restrictions be such that they would not cause the State to deny the license. Seibel suggested a restriction that would limit the time during the day that vehicles could be displayed might be an option. Seibel pointed out that this location if merely an office use and he has two locations outside Little Canada for equipment display. It is the State's requirement that the address for the retail sales license be the location where paperwork relative to titles and sales tax is retained. However, the State also requires that there be a minimum of five indoor or outdoor display spots that the address of the license location. Seibel indicated that in applying for the CUP he did not realize that the City would have to note on the license application form that no outdoor display of vehicles would occur. Fahey stated that he was uncomfortable with approving a CUP for an auto sales license to display vehicles when the reality is that the display of vehicles will not be allowed. Fahey felt this did not appear to be a good faith way to run a business or to comply with State Law. Fahey stated that he was not interested in trying to work around the Law. Seibel indicated that he wanted to his equipment sales business from his Little Canada office. He noted that other car dealerships have office locations for the processing title work and sales tax payments while their retail sales activity occurs at another location. It is a State requirement, however, that the address for the retail sales license have a minimum of five display spots. Fahey again noted that the State will not issue the license with the restrictions that there be no outdoor display of equipment. Seibel stated that he was aware that the State would deny the license if that restriction is noted on the license form. Seibel asked if there was a way to protect the City, yet satisfy the State's requirement for the display spots. Seibel again suggested a time restriction for when display of equipment could occur. Anderson pointed out that State Law requires something that Seibel does not think his business should comply with. Anderson felt that Seibel's should address this issue with the State rather than look to the City to create a unique CUP that tries to get around State Law, Scalze also pointed out that a CUP runs with the land, therefore, whatever is approved for Seibel could be transferred to another party. Seibel again suggested that the CUP be restricted so accomplish what the City wants, but not in such a way as to cause the State to deny the license.