Laserfiche WebLink
vehicles off the sight quicker. If pumps are crowed cars will go to other sites for gas. The <br />business at the site is allowed by code although the size of the lot no longer meets city codes. A <br />variance for 1 parking space is due to the west landscape bed and city width requirements for <br />parking spaces. The front rear and sideyard setback variances are needed for the owner to yield a <br />reasonable return on his business. The setback variances are not substantial due to the location <br />of the site being a commercial area. The front and rear setbacks are due to the existing buildings <br />placement on the lot. The sideyard variance was reduced as much as it could be and landscaping <br />was added to buffer the abutting parlcing lot. Lot coverage percentage could not be decreased <br />any further. Governmental services would not be affected and it is assumed that every owner is <br />aware of zoning laws when they purchase property within the city. There is no other method <br />then seeking variances to improve the lot/business. The spirit and intent of the zoning code <br />would be observed as the improvements will benefit not only the owner but the abutting owners <br />and city as well. The owner does not feel their request is substantial and respectfully request <br />approval. <br />Mrs. Diver questioned the layout of the rear landscaping and the size of the propane and ice <br />machine. Mr. Smith reviewed that the landscaping would start along the top of the slope and <br />continues downward to the property line. The enclosure is 13 feet wide, 9 feet deep and 8 feet <br />high. Ms. Rudolph questioned the distance between the southeast pump and the existing <br />building as the plans show two-way traffic however she observed that at the site there is not <br />enough room for two cars to pass when a car is at the pump. Mr. Smith said that the average car <br />driven is 6 feet wide and the distance from the building to the outer edge of the pump station <br />canopy is 11 feet 4 inches. <br />Mr. Conway said that the site is only 110 feet deep and once setback requirements are calculated <br />only a 10 foot deep building could be built which is unreasonable. The applicants have <br />decreased the size of their request and nothing could be constructed on the lot without variances <br />regardless if they demo or add on. Ms. Wenger said that although the applicant's plans improve <br />the overall appearance of the site the number of variances could have been decreased <br />significantly if the site was totally redeveloped as was suggested from the start. Mr. Dubelko <br />reviewed that when addressing lots which are substandard the city bears some responsibility for <br />the size of the lot. Owner's of lots such as this have a right to redevelop their lots overtime to <br />stay competitive in the marketplace. However the city also has a right to expect owners to <br />develop their sites in a reasonable manor including addressing safety issues and adverse impacts <br />their development may have on the city and neighboring sites. <br />Mrs. Sergi said she appreciated the number and size of variances which were reduced however if <br />the site was demolished and redeveloped additional variances and safety concerns could be <br />eliminated. Cars currently park in front of the building congesting the traffic flow now and an <br />additional pump will exaggerate the problem. Mrs. Diver agreed that traffic issues were a <br />current concern and would increase as the area is redeveloped. Mr. Menser did not believe there <br />would be traffic issues and voiced his appreciation for the applicant's efforts to work with the <br />city. Ms. Rudolph said traffic is her main concern although she doesn't know how it can be <br />avoided. Mrs. Bellido appreciated the improvements and noted traffic issues she observed and <br />felt that if the site was full patrons would go other places. Mrs. Diver commended the city and <br />applicant for their efforts to improve the site but cautioned that between the owner's <br />improvements and the nearby road widening traffic issues will arise in the near future. <br />Mrs. Diver questioned if the public peace, health, safety, morals, welfare or convenience would <br />be jeopardized or affected. Would the use, value, or enjoyment of neighboring property be <br />3