10/04/2007 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4. A variance for light illuminating other property (note: 2), (code does not permit, applicant shows light trespassing) section (1161.12 (C)). 5. A 3.29 foot candle variance for pump island canopy illumination, (code permits 15 fc, applicant shows 18.29 fc) section (1161.12 table). 6. A 2.13 foot candle variance for parlcing lot illumination (code permits 4 fc, applicant shows 6.13?' fc), section (1161.12 table). 7. A variance for light fixtures not being a full cutoff (note: 1), (code requires full cutoff, applicant shows none), section (1161.12 (D)). 8. A variance for 2 parking spaces, (code requires 6, applicant shows 4), section (1161.04 (b)). Note: Handicap is not striped for vans; also handicap space and one space block dumpster and propane tank sales. 9. A 26,000 and 18 ft variance for lot size and width (code requires 40,000 and 150 ft., applicant shows 14,000 and 132 ft, section (1165.04 (A & Q. 10. A 3 foot variance for front yard setback (due to roof projection), (code requires 75 ft, applicant shows 72 ft), section (table 1139.07). 11. A 20 foot variance for rear yard setback, (code requires 25 ft applicant shows 5 ft), section (1139.07). 12. A 10 foot side yard variance to parlcing, (code requires 10 ft applicant shows 0 ft) section (1139.07). 13. 'A variance for exceeding lot coverage (code permits 25% applicant shows 29%), section (1139.05). 14. A variance for average foot candles, applicant does not indicate average site lighting, 4 is maximum. Applicant shows 18.5 average fc for canopy lighting, maximum is 15 fc. Foot cariclles are not zero (0) at the property line, section (1161.12 (C)). Whicli is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections; (1163.27), (1163.26 (b)), (1163.27(a)), (1161.04 (b)), (1,I65.04 (A & C)), (table 1139.07), (1139.05) and (1161.12 (C)). Note`. `1). No cut sheets of fixtures submitted. 2). Photometric plan not carried out to zero foot candles. 3). Height of pole light not shown or indicated. Representatives: Mr. Mongello, architect, Mr. Smith, and Ms. Manning, applicant's attorney, Mr. Cunningham, Electrical Engineer were each sworn in to review the request Ms. Manning said the current state of the gas station is an eyesore which needs to be cleaned up and tlie owner must improve the site to keep from losing business. With the Crocker Stearns expailsion talcing place the owners need to draw traffic from the intersection. The current market for, gas stations require some type of convenient type or fast food type serve. The addition and pump are being added to increase the number of patrons onto the site. The owners have worked very liai?d to improve the site and follow city codes every way they possibly could, but due to the size of.tlie lot variances are required for the improvements. They have been meeting and worlcing witli tlie city since January to accommodate all the city departmental requests pertaining to the project throughout the approval process. Mrs: Diver questioned the size of the lot and voiced her concern over the amount of variances requested. Mr. O'Malley advised that it was within the boards authority to require the applicant to present their request in such a manner that the board does not have to labor over each item to figure out what is talcing place or truly needed. Ms. Manning reviewed that a 13 foot variance for a ground sign to close to the side lot line and within tlie 35 foot triangle was needed. Mr. Smith advised that the location of the proposed grourid. sign came from the building commissioner as the first location blocked visibility along the west side. The east side does not have a driveway within 70 feet so it will not impede vehicle . ,. 4