Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />APRIL 25, 2007 <br />10. The proposal is not consistent with the zoning ordinance <br />requirement that the applicant demonstrate no depreciation of neighboring <br />property values. <br />11. The proposal threatens the general welfare of the community <br />through its use of public resources in inspection, enforcement, and <br />prosecution of the history of violations attendant to the proposed <br />Conditional Use. <br />12. The proposal threatens the public health and safety based on the <br />property's historic pattern of zoning and building violations which create <br />dangers to employees, visitors, and public emergency services personnel <br />that may visit the site. <br />13. The proposal is not consistent with the zoning ordinance <br />requirement the proposed use avoid overburdening the City's service <br />capacity, due to past history with the same use on the subject property. <br />14. The Conditional Use Permits may not be issued or utilized since <br />the City is limited in the issuance of motor vehicle sales lot licenses for <br />this particular use to a maximum of 4 licenses, and has no additional <br />available licenses. <br />15. The proposal is not consistent with the zoning ordinance <br />requirement that the proposed use is architecturally compatible with <br />surrounding buildings, based on City plans to require significant <br />improvements to site planning and architectural standards for the area. <br />16. The proposal fails to comply with the zoning requirement that all <br />motor vehicle sales lots and parking locations be paved, as required by <br />§911.040, H.2. <br />17. The proposal fails to comply with the zoning requirement that <br />curbing surround all motor vehicle sales lots and parking lot areas, as <br />required by §911.040, H.S. <br />18. The proposal fails to comply with the zoning requirement that <br />screening shall be required, as required by §911.040, H.6. <br />19. As to the requested Text Amendment, the applicant has failed to <br />demonstrate that circumstances in the B-2, B-3, B-4 and I-1 Districts have <br />changed significantly enough to necessitate the passage of the Text <br />Amendment increasing the number of motor vehicles sales lot licenses <br />from four to five. Therefore, the request for the Text Amendment is <br />denied. <br />21 <br />