Laserfiche WebLink
t <br />2. Clar-k Gas Station; 28915 Lorain ltoad: (WRD # 3) <br />Representatives: Mr. Mongello, architect, Mr. Smith, Ms. Anderson with Clark Station, and <br />Mr. Manning, applicant's attorney <br />Proposal consists of a new addition and site improvements. Ms. Wenger commended the <br />applicant for trying to improve their site and incorporating recommended changes however it <br />does not change the zoning issues related to the site. The site's current condition is non- <br />conforming in lot area and width, building front, side and rear setbacks. The addition is more <br />than twice the size of the existing building, an additional pump is being added and the 4 parking <br />spaces do not meet the 6 spaces required. The expansion will increase the activity on the site <br />which is already congested as well as increase the non-conformances of the lot, structure, <br />parlcing and setbaclcs. The expansion requires variances for lot area and width, parking, front side <br />and rear setbacks, signage and lighting. The ingress, egress and internal traffic circulation is not <br />shown and the placement of the new pump does not provide adequate internal circulation or <br />logical stacking. The western drive is separated by the neighboring apron by 10 feet and she <br />questioned how the traffic can be contained within the property without stacking vehicles on the <br />neighbo`r's property. The parking spaces block access to the dumpster and other storage areas. <br />She recommended the commission have the applicant return once variances are addressed. <br />Mr. Conway reviewed that the variances were updated since the last meeting but clarification is <br />needed regarding the number of wall signs. Variances are required for the ground sign being 2 <br />feet off the side yard and the sign being located within the sight line triangle. Delivery for the <br />site only requires a platform area which he would prefer. The photometric plan submitted shows <br />average foot candles of 18.5 fc for the site and the maximum is 15 fc. The air pump will require <br />a variance for Uusiness conducted within the front setback. Mr. Manning agreed to show a <br />loading platform in lieu of a loading dock and to move the air pump eliminating a variance. <br />Mr. Collins reviewed that the traffic channeling requested was not shown and due to the nature <br />of the site the city does need to see the traffic flow, control, circulation and ingress and egress as <br />the site is already congested. <br />Mr. O'Malley reported on the non-conformances of the lot and the desire for expansion which <br />the code allows as long as the growth meets current codes. However this building will require <br />variaiices for the building as well as lot size and setbacks. Although the applicant is willing to <br />worlc with the city he has not submitted any possible methods which could be adjusted to <br />minimize the variances being requested. He suggested the commission could require a traffic <br />study of the site. The reference to the architect's letter listing what will be done is fine but code <br />requires everything accurately reflected on a set of detailed plans. Without the cross easement <br />being.submitted the request should be denied. <br />Mr. Manning felt they achieved what was requested to receive approval. The commission was <br />aslced to keep in mind that the site is pre-existing. There have been no complaints by patrons <br />regarding traffic circulation and flow. They can show painted ingress and egress which is <br />practical but directional arrows are not feasible. <br />2