Laserfiche WebLink
. O,�. . <br /> � <br /> O O � <br /> ' �� ��� CIT�' of ORONI� <br /> � �� b� �.. � . <br /> , <br /> '� 4 �~' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> ��kESI'i�g'� NO. � � � � . <br /> D. A 60' flagpole would be approxiuiately 4 times the heiglzt of the east fagacle of tlle <br /> nlain building. The City Council concludes that a 60' flag pole height would be <br /> out of character with flagpole heigltts generally in the City and in the Long Lake <br /> area, will be higher than the e:cisting tree line, and is not necessary to draw <br /> attention to the site for the applicaut's suggested purposes of identifying the site. <br /> E. The requested langi.iage revisions that would allow nlore than 40 `demonstration' <br /> or `display' vehicles would require storage of those in excess of 40 to the south <br /> end of the east lot. The existing Ianguage identifies differenh types of vehicles that <br /> will be stored ii�. the main easterly parlciug lot as "new vehicles and finished <br /> vehicles ready for delivery to dealerships". It goes on to state that up to 40 <br /> � vehicles niay be parlced for"display" at the north end of the main parking lot (15 <br /> cars) aud at the north end of the building (25 cars). The "display" vehicle <br /> language was origiiially intended to make a distinction between tllose cars that are <br /> for deinonstration purposes as part of the fleet sales and leasing element of the <br /> operation afi this site, and ttiose stored or parked for other reasons. Specifically, <br /> per Finding G of Resolution No. 48�5, "...Ifi is ihe understanding of the Planning <br /> Commission thaC the outside display area is for the fleet custoiaier test drive and <br /> . viewing, but not to attract the general public to the site for individual purchase of <br /> vehicles." <br /> F. Couucil fnds that it is highly tmlikely that the public would visually perceive a <br /> difference beriveen cars slored for demonstration purpuses or cars stored or parked <br /> for other purposes on the site, and that the excess traffic in the area caused by the <br /> availabiIity of more demonstrator vehicles �vill likely be miniizzal or <br /> � imperceptible. <br /> G. Parking on the site as laid out in the proposed site plan has the capacity for 5�2 <br /> vehicles, which would include eu�ployee a1�.d custoiner vehicles as well as <br /> vehicles stored for ciisplay, new vehicles for fleet sales, vehicles �waiting <br /> preparation or repair, etc. The 250 vehicle li�ilitation on"l�arkit�g of ue�v velticles <br /> and finislied vehicles ready for delivery to dealersltips" iinposed by Resolution <br /> No. 4845 was not specifically e:tpanded to 320 vehicles in Resohttion No. 5388, <br /> alihough firncti�nally that ap�roval added about 100 stalls soulll of the existiiig <br /> lot. It would be appropciate to e,cpand tlle liinitation on parlcing o!'new vellieles <br /> . and finished vehicles ready :for delivery to dealerships, from 250 to 320 stalls at <br /> ihis time. <br /> . Pa�e 4 of 8 <br />