7.9. SR 12-19-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council / CU 05-24 December 19, 2005 Page 3 1. Will not endanger, i1!Jure or detrimentallY qffect the use and e1!J"qyment if other property in the immediate vicinity or the public health, sqfety, morals, comfort, convenience or general we!fare if the neighborhood or the city. 2. Will be consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. Will not impede the normal and orderlY development and improvement if sUTTOunding vacant property. 4. Will be se17Jed adequatelY ly and will not adverselY qffect essential public facilities and services including streets, police and fire protection, drainage, refuse disposa4 water and sewer .rystems, parks and schools; and will not, in particular, create trciffic congestion or inteiference with trciffic on acjjacent and neighboring public thoroughfares. 5. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions if operation that will be detrimental to a'!Y persons or property because if excessive trciffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, dust or vibrations. 6. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage ifa natural, scenic or historic feature if mqjor importance. 7. Will fullY complY with all other requirements if this Code, including a'!Y applicable requirements and standardsfor the issuance if a license or permit to establish and operate the proposed use in the city. If denial of such a permit should occur, it shall accompany recommendations or determinations by findings or a report stating how the proposed use does not comply with the standards set forth in Section 30-654. Planning Commission Actions The focus of discussion was on whether or not this use (Car Sales) was appropriate at this location, which is zoned C3. The majority of the Commission felt it was an inappropriate use at this location and would adversely affect the commercial use. A couple of Commission members disagreed stating that it is an allowed use as a Conditional Use and that the seven criteria from aforementioned Section 30-654 are complied with. The Commission question if the owner of the property approved this use. It was stated that the applicant would have to sign a lease with the property owner and also that it was not the Planning Commissions role to question landlord/tenant relations. Issues related to snow removal were also raised. They were concerned that this applicant has a Conditional Use Permit at another location in the City and did not want to see them popping up all over town. It was question if signage at each of the stalls was proposed. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the request with a 5-2 vote, stating that criteria's #1, #3 and #7 of Section 30-654 are not complied with. S,\PLANNING\Case Files\2005\CU 05-24 William Matthews\CU 05-24_CC.doc