Laserfiche WebLink
dropped drastically over 80% of the property. Mr. Lasko said the fixtures do not need to be <br />removed, only have lower wattage. The applicant informed the Board that the area in the back <br />is dark already. The code calls for 5.0 foot candles on average across the whole property, but the <br />applicant are double that at 10.4. Mr. Koeth informed the applicant to review this plan with <br />their lighting expert again. The only one being suggested to eliminate is the one on Porter Road. <br />The Board is only asking him to shorten the poles and shield the lights on the back side. Mr. <br />Yager said the Board is recommending keeping the poles closest to the mound, shield them <br />appropriately so it showcases the cars and not the mound. <br />Mr. Lasko said we should recommend the approval of variance for item #1 because of the <br />mounding going in. The Board agrees with variance item #2 because they are trying to re-create <br />the historical area. Also, in agreement is the 40' setback on Porter for item #3 for the same <br />reason. The Board disagrees with #4. The Board disagrees with #5 but once mounding goes in, <br />this may resolve itsel£ The variance for loading and unloading is just a question of graphic <br />designation and the applicant must show the designation. Item #7 will get revised and the Board <br />will recommend that we stay within the code. Item #8 Mr. Lasko said assuming the other <br />modifications are made with mounding, this would be recommended to BZA. Item #10, Mr. <br />Yager said a corner lot warrants consideration for additional signage. Since the lot is zoned <br />commercial, they should be allowed to have another ground sign on Porter Road. However, <br />placeinent is the issue. The Board's recommendation is against a variance for Item #11 and 12. <br />Item #9 - Mr.Yager asked the applicant to show where the sign is on the elevation. Mr. Yager <br />recommends accepting the sign on the east and removing the south, keep the sign on the west <br />and east, keeping the two ground signs and eliminate the sign on the existing building now. <br />The Planning Commission recommends two signs informing the applicant to pick two ground <br />signs and two wall signs and they can pick the two they want. Mr. Lasko said he has no problem <br />with the sign on the building, just the one on Porter Road. Mr. Hreha said this is an unusual <br />intersection and there is a huge amount of traffic that travels down Butternut and there is a need <br />for additional signage. Mr. Lasko said to the applicant that the sign on the building offering a <br />western exposure is doing the least amount of good. Mr. Koeth said he would rather see a <br />ground sign on Porter Road to designate the entrance. <br />Mrs. Hoff-Smith does not like the metal awning. Ms. Wenger informed her that landscaping will <br />be in front of it. <br />J. Lasko moved to forward this proposal for consideration by the Board of Zoning Appeals <br />wi4h the following recommendations pertaining to the proposed variances as reflected upon <br />the revised variances sheet dated 1/25/05 we received showing reeised variances 91 through <br />12. I recommend that variances # 1, 2 and 3 as indicated on this revised list of 1/25/05 be <br />grantede Mr. Hreha seconded, which was unanimously approved. <br />J. Lasko moved to forward this matter onto Board of Zoning Appeals with the following <br />recommendation for denial of variances as indicated on the revised variances sheet dated <br />1/25/05 of items #4, 5, 6, 7, 11, ancl 12, S. Hoff-Smith seconded, which was unanimously <br />approved.