Laserfiche WebLink
May 22, 1996 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 <br />attractive, he can remove the sign clutter, enlarge the planter (height and length), and keep the <br />overnight exterior parking within the prescribed restrictions. Mr. Goldman recommends denial of the <br />application because the current use does not comply with the overall neighborhood development plan <br />and no evidence has been presented that shows that it is not injurious to the value of surrounding <br />property. In his judgement a major expansion of the use, will be even less compliant with the <br />neighborhood development plan and will do increased damage to surrounding values. <br />Chairperson Solodar opened the public hearing and asked for testimony from the public. No <br />members of the public indicated a desire to speak, so the public hearing portion of the meeting was <br />closed. <br />Mr. Solodar stated that a letter had been received from M. D. Rothschild, II. Mr. Solodar read the <br />letter dated May 2, 1996 into evidence, a copy of which is submitted into the file and incorporated <br />here be reference. A copy of the letter was given to the applicant. <br />Mr. Feygelman asked which city ordinance requires that he only have six cars parked at the facility <br />overnight. Mr. Solodar replied that Conditional Use Permit #302 requires that as a condition of the <br />use. <br />Mr. Smith stated that the letter from Mr. Rothschild reflected his opinions on the matter. <br />Ms. Peniston stated that she went to the site today and counted approximately fifty cars at that <br />location. It is hard for her to support the amendment when conditions on the existing permit have <br />not been complied with or accomplished. <br />Mr. Solodar stated that he counted 33 cars there. <br />Mr. Foxworth stated that he has been on the Plan Commission since the first conditional use permit <br />was approved with the condition that only six cars be parked at the site overnight. Since then he has <br />noticed how bad the site looks and that it is incompatible with the surrounding retail uses due to the <br />applicant's noncompliance with the condition. He sees no reason to grant an expansion to this facility <br />if the applicant will not comply with the requirements of the previously granted permit. <br />Mr. Durham stated that the environmental problems at the property erroneously referred to in Mr. <br />Rothschild's letter have been remedied by Mr. Feygelman who after purchasing the property diligently <br />complied with the EPA's clean-up requirements. This is one more example of how Mr. Feygelman <br />has improved the property. Mr. Durham stated that Mr. Goldman's comment on the proposed zoning <br />code making this use non-conforming is irrelevant. This use was previously approved and continues <br />to be approved as a permitted conditional use. Holding this application to a standard that does not <br />yet exist and not allowing the expansion because of a possible change in a future ordinance is <br />groundless. <br />m-5-22.plc <br /> <br />