Laserfiche WebLink
<br />it might be necessary to mave the island closest to the building back somewhat if <br />more room is needed. The size af the canopy is standard and a smaller one would <br />not be practical. There will be no signage on the canopy, and Mr. Stephens <br />presented samples of the metal in a Surioco blue. He stated that the canopy would <br />be either 13 foot 6 inches or 14 foot 6 inches to the Lmder side. Mr. Sohn did <br />not believe that the plans were accurate, nor to scale, and there were no <br />climensions. Mr. Stephens stated that the architect was trying to show this at an <br />angle. Mr. Sohn would like to see revised drawings which are in perspective and <br />have accurate dimensions. After some discussion it was decided that the owner <br />should attempt to get a va.riance in order to place the canopy perpendicular to <br />the building. Mr. Sohn estimated that they would probably only need about a 1 <br />foot 6 inch variance and he would recommend that the variance be granted so that <br />the canopy can be in line with the building. If the Board of Zoning Appeals does <br />not grant a variance, the plans would have to be accepted since there are no <br />other options. Mr. Stephens will re-draw the elevations in time for submission to <br />the next Planning Comnission meeting, but he will not change the driveways until <br />there is some further direction from the Planning Commission and the Engineering <br />Department. Mr. Zergott requestEd that the existing dumpster be shown on the <br />plans with an enclosure. Mr. Stephens agreed to a board on board enclosure. Mro <br />Sohn stated that the encl:osure must be parallel with the building. If the <br />variance for the canopy is granted, Mr. Sohn would like to see the revised plans, <br />however it will not be necessary for the developers to return to another A.R.B. <br />meeting. Mr. Stephens presented a=rendering.of the gLOUnd sign and explained tha.t <br />there will be three price signs below the logo, but Sunoco could not give them a <br />drawing showing that. They do not lmow what kind of brick wi11 be used for the <br />piers. The members will approve the si:gn in concept, but would like to see a <br />sample of the brick and i:f the sign does not conform to code, it too will have to <br />go for a variance. B. Zergott moved to aecept Persinger's Sunoco station with the <br />reeommendations that they make the canopy perpendicular and parallel to the <br />existing building, and to accomplish this they will have to seek a variance <br />because of the encroachment into the 15 setback; that the dumpster must have a <br />wood board on board enclosure and that, too, must line up with the building; and <br />also to get recommendations on the aprons at which time Mr. Sohn and Mr. Zergott <br />will review the drawings for both landscaping and the canopy to approve, but the <br />materials, colors, and the concept of the sign are accepted as presented, <br />Seconded by Y. Sohn, and unanimously approved. <br />2) Sunset Memorial Park, 6265 ColUmbia Road. <br />Proposal to construct chapel at north and of property. <br />Heard by Planning Commission Ma,rch 9, 1993. <br />Mr. and Mrs. Barascki, owners, and Mrs. Steed, a neighbor, were present. Mr. <br />Baraseki presented plans and explained that the plans only show the location and <br />size of shrubs, not varieti.es since they are willing to use whatever the board <br />suggested. He clarified that there are tsao drives and the C.E.I. drive, shown in <br />the plan, one drive will be eliminated and the othex will be widened to 26 feet. <br />He pointed out the location and the buildings which will be removed. The chapel <br />will be set back about 137 feet from the road. In response to A1r. Zergott's <br />question, he stated that the building could not be moved ba.ck, nor could the <br />parking be relocated. He explained that they do have 5.5 miles of road within the <br />park and at present, they hold service in the abbey and ca.rs park on the roads. <br />The Building Commissioner was concerned because they needed 73 spaces and are <br />only showing 70 spaces. But the Planning Commission Chairman had suggested <br />landbanking some spaces, if they did not need them. A7r. Zergott questioned i€ <br />they could eliminate the front row of parking since the neighbors were concerned <br />about seeing a parlcing lot. Mr. Barascki explained that they are planning to <br />2