10/04/2007 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

visibility ingress or egress. Ms. Manning suggested that no ground sign could be placed within code due to the size of the lot. Mr. Smith said due to the building's pie shape the 35 foot requireinent could not be met. The ground sign will be 5 feet from the sidewallc and advertise the current gas price. Mrs. Diver questioned the size of the ground sign. Mr. Smith said that the ground sign was 48 inches high and 8 feet wide sitting atop a 2 foot pedestal. However he would need:.'to. double check the dimensions of the submitted plans to make sure they were accurate. Mrs. -S.ergi reviewed the dominions shown on the plans she received. Ms. Manning advised that the ground sign being placed along the east side of the site will not impede vehicle visibility. The,1'8 square foot variance is for exceeding maximum sign face area per building. Mr. Smith reviewed that there would be one wall sign on the building and two wall signs on the canopy of the pump station so the total square footage of the site which includes the ground sign is 61.5 sqtiaie feet. Therefore if the ground sign is not included they would be below the 51 sq ft allowed,. Mrs. Sergi questioned what was next to the door on the building as a wall sign is shone on the plans. Mr. Smith said the drawing was generic and there would be no wall signs on the front of the main walls. Mrs. Sergi questioned if the speed lines shown were accounted for. Mr. Smith said there would be no speed lines used at the site so the building face total is below 51 square.'feet and the variance is not required. Mr. Cunningham said that due to the surrounding properti'es being parking lots he did not worry about the readings being zero at the property line. Ms. 1Vlanning said that the light levels were needed for client's safety. The surrounding property is coinmercial and even redeveloped it will remain a parlcing lot. She invited Mr. Cunningham to addr,ess'light variances. Mr. Cunningham questioned if the foot candle readings are to be talcen at initial lighting or maintained light levels. Mr. O'Malley reminded the applicants that the spirit and intent of the zoning code is to follow it unless it is practically difficult to do so. The testirrioriy being presented is the most unsubstantial, unreliable testimony which the board has been'aslced to critique and rule upon. The economic viability of the site comes into play and in this case business seems to be doing quite well. Ms. Manning advised that the light levels were talceri; .?at'a maintained level so they may be closer to code then shown. Mr. Cunningham advised that if readings were required at initial lighting the readings would be higher then shown. Mr. Conway advised that code requires the plans disclose the status of the readings which the applicants have not done. Mr. Cunningham said the photometric plan is a maintained foot candle reading: Mrs. Diver questioned why the lights were not full cutoff. Mr. Cunningham said a pliofo of the fixture would be submitted which shows that they are full cutoffs with 150 watt halide lights. Mr. Smith stated they would withdraw variance #7 as cut sheets will be submitted showirig full cutoffs. Ms. Manning said the applicant can not fit the additional 2 parlcing spaces required on the lot. Mr. Menser questioned how the 4 parking spaces shown would be used. Mr. Smith said the owner of the neighboring (east) property has an easement for their traffic to go across :the gas station property to the (west) strip center. However the gas station does not have any easements with either (east or west) neighboring property for access onto their sites. If the easerrierit for cross traffic was not in place they could insta112 additional parking spaces but the area`must remain open. Ms. Manning advised that the 26,000' and 18' variance for lot size and widtli.is needed as the lot size and shape can not change. Mr. Mongello said that the existing building canopy will be continued on the new addition therefore the 3 foot variance is needed. The 20 foot rear yard variance is needed for the new addition. To have customer parlcing on the site a 10 foot sideyard variance is needed as space 4 is right at the property line. The 4% variance for lof coverage is needed for the addition. Mr. Cunningham said that with all lights on within the property itself the average foot candle is 6.13 fc instead of 4 fc. Ms. Manning said that if the board was not lcind enough to grant all the variances, then unfortunately there can be no improvements to the lot. Mr. Conway voiced that the majority of the variances are due to the size of the lot as it is a very undefsized lot. Ground sign choices are; lceep the existing pole sign, have no ground sign or 5