02-27-08 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 27, 2008 business to obtain these two classes of licenses. It was the consensus of the Council to retain two classes of licenses, Minor Auto Repair and Major Auto Repair. The Council then discussed at length whether or not to place a limit on the number of Major Auto Repair Licenses in the City. It was noted that current licenses would continue to exist, but if a limit is placed on the number and a Major Auto Repair business moved out of the City, the license would not be re-issued to another user. The Council also noted that the majority of code enforcement problems are generated from the outdoor storage of clips of cars and auto body parks. The City Administrator pointed out that the ordinance proposes the licensing of outdoor storage, therefore, the City will have another control point on outdoor storage. It was the consensus of the Council at this point to limit the number of Major Auto Repair Licenses in the City to eight. Blesener suggested that provision 914.040.E.5. be modified eliminating the language "except where expressly allowed by the CUP process, if available". Blesener noted that businesses such as Suburban Auto and Fairway Collision do not have outdoor storage of auto clips or parts. Allan agreed and suggested that storage of auto clips and parts should be inside the building. The Council's consensus was to given further thought to whether or not to eliminate this provision. The Planner revised Section 914.040 G. 1. through 16. in detail as it outlines specific outdoor storage requirements under a CUP in the I-1 District. The Planner noted that provision 3. prohibits the storage of materials directly on the ground that are less than 3 feet in width, length, and height whenever the Council determines that a reasonable alternative exists. Blesener suggested provision 6. define the width of a drive aisle. The City Planner felt that this was self-regulating as a vehicle is 9 to 10 feet in width. The Planner also noted that provision 8. would allow outdoor storage in the required setback area provided that it is property screened. Montour expressed concern with provision 9. and felt that screening requirements should be more stringent. He pointed out Tom's Auto on County Road C and the excellent job that has been done with screening this property. It was noted that there is a balance between how much screening to require and visibility for law enforcement. The Planner noted that provision 9. requires screening either by masonry wall or wood or vinyl fencing with landscaping. The City Planner noted that existing CUP's would not be subject to the new requirements, unless property owners requested a CUP amendment. 11