01/12/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mrs. Sergi questioned how a vehicle in an emergency would leave the site or an emergency vehicle access the site during an emergency with the entrance radius being so narrow. She is concerned that vehicles would turf the grass to exit the site to the east onto private property. Mr. Kondzer reviewed that although Planning Commission and ARB requested a brick wall along the rear property line to increase buffering for neighbors it would require a lot of the existing natural vegetation be removed to be installed. They believe that the existing natural vegetation would be a better buffer than a fence or wall. He indicated that the 186.28 foot variance pertaining to the distance from the church was addressed as the church submitted a letter stating they had no objections to the proposed development. The distance listed is measured from their building wall to the churches property line. The 15 foot variance for being to close to the right-of-way is due to the Planning Commission requesting the building be moved forward to provide a larger buffer for abutting neighbors. He suggested that the 10 foot variance for drive in front yard setback was also created when the building was moved forward at the request of the city. The remaining site variance is the radius of the driveway and they believe the radius is needed to ensure traffic does not stack up on the site. To address variances for the sites signage; city codes only allow one wall sign on a building but categorizes the menu board as a wall sign although it is really instructions for the laser wash. They believe that they only have one wall sign as a wall sign is defined in city codes as anything visible from the right of way or any abutting lot. As the menu board would not be visible from the right of way nor any abutting lot they do not believe it should be categorized as a sign. Therefore if the menu board is not a sign the square footage of the front wall sign would be within what is allowed by code and a variance is not needed. A variance for 2 ground signs includes the height clearance sign and the front ground sign. The distance between the 2 said ground signs by code should be 200 feet but the height sign was moved to its location at the request of the city so vehicles could be alerted to the height restrictions before entering the site. If it was placed over the entrance to the bays as it was first shown the distance variance would not be required nor would there be 2 ground signs. The applicants believed that they did everything possible to minimize the number of variances they need. An attendant would visit the site daily to check on the lot and malce sure the equipment is working properly. Applicants submitted a letter from a neighboring homeowner of another laser wash they own stating that she had no objections and that the applicants were always friendly. Mr. Kondzer summarized that they would like to be allowed to improve the site by removing the existing building and constructing the two bay laser wash. He advised that no matter who owned the lot the existing building would have to be replaced and no building could be placed on the site without requiring variances. They believe that the use is a low impact business and brings the lot closer to today's codes then the existing building is now. Audience concerns: Mr. King the attorney for apartment owners stated that his clients are against the variances being granted. He did not believe that the applicants attorney met the 7 factors required to grant the variances. He further suggested that the applicants failed to present any evidence to support their suggestion that no building could be placed on the site without requiring variances. He asked the owner if he in fact had purchased the land yet. Mr. Nelson stated that he had not purchased the land yet. Mr. King believed that the dilapidating sate of the building could be corrected if the city contacted the owner and enforced city codes pertaining to property maintenance. The applicants at the November 22, 2005 Planning Commission meeting stated that all their signs would meet city codes but yet they are requesting 5 different variances pertaining to signage. The motion of the Planning Commission was to deny the radius variance. Mr. King did not believe that an emergency exit plan of depending on other vehicles to allow a vehicle to be turned around so they can drive the wrong way to get off the site was very safe. He believed that the number of variances requested was significant and the proposed building was too large for the lot. The applicants failed to show that this was the only use for the site. He further suggested that the applicants failed to show any practical difficulty therefore all variances should be denied. The applicant does not own the property yet so he has full knowledge of the requirements and restrictions of 7of11