10/04/2007 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

allow"a;ground sign on the east side of the property. Any ground sign would violate city codes, and tlieeast location is the safest for traffic ingress/egress. The sign package has been dismal at best 'but he would take the applicant's word that total square footage on a building is 61 square feet:, The lighting issues are listed on the plans in language that he is not familiar with. If Mr. Cunriingham is stating that the overall lighting is for parking areas and drive areas then a 2.3 foot variarice would not be objectionable. However there has been no justification as to why the cano.py could not meet code requirements and it should. The parking spaces are due to the size of the.,lot. The front setback is not objectionable as it is due to the existing building overhang. Overall;the lighting issues he does not object to due to the abutting properties being commercial and the light fixtures are preexisting with the lowest watt size bulb being used but the canopy should meet code. Mr. Smith suggested the lowest size bulbs were being used so the readings could,not be lowered any further without removing fixtures from the canopy. Mr. .0'Malley recommended the board address the variance from 1165.02 as a numbered variancE such as #15 as it is not tied to the special permit. The bottom line is that code allows reaso,'riable expansion of a non-conforming building as long as it meets current zoning codes. The ?applicants are allowed covering 25% of their lot but are covering 29%. Mr. Smith said that the size of the addition is to bring in existing pop machines. Mrs. :Sergi felt that the ground sign was not warranted as it would create a safety hazards for bilces?arid pedestrians even if it is on the east side of the site. Having two Clark signs on the canopy, which is close to the road and a wall sign on the building should be sufficient. The gas price ' can be placed on the canopy as other stations have. Having any ground sign on the lot will inc'rease the amount of safety hazards on the lot. Mrs. Diver felt that the size of the addition, the numb,er' of signs and adding a pump on the site was substantial and something needed to be decreaseii. There is too much going on for the size of the lot all ready and adding more is not the answer. She voiced that she was offended by any applicant saying if they do not get what they want then they witl just not do anything at all. It is not unreasonable to ask or expect applicants to come as close';to'?'.code as they possibly can. Ms. Williamson felt that considering the lot size the applicant did aigood job placing the addition. Mrs. Sergi agreed that the site needed improvements but if the liusiness is already thriving then what hardship or practical difficulty is there for tripling the building` size. The site already has safety issues due to traffic flow and tripling the size of the building and adding another gas pump is going to exacerbate those safety issues. Mrs. ; Se'rgi said she would rather grant the 18 foot variance for sign face area then a13 foot variances for the placement of the ground sign due to pedestrian and bike hazards caused by the sign:,;1VIr. Menser noted that there would be three wall signs one facing east, one west and one north `which is substantial for the size of the lot. Mrs. Sergi and other members did not have objectioris to the lighting as it abuts commercial sites and the applicants have stated that the lowest wattage bulbs made are being used. The lack of parking spaces is already an issue as cusYoiners leave their cars at the pumps and will continue to due so stacking cars onto abutting lots. :1VIr. O'Malley advised the board that the variance for the lot size should be granted as the lotcould not grow. Board members agreed with Mrs. Sergi the rear yard setback was not a prbblem as the rear of the site is a parking lot. The side yard setback is for a parking space which`'is'needed. The applicants did not explain why more than 25% of the lot needed to be covered': The board appreciated the updates and agreed that changes were needed but the sign'ifi_cance of the request was beyond reasonable. ; 6