04-21-98 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zisla asked Hermann to explain the proposed change of size of the canopy. Would the ten foot canopy work and allow the owner to upgrade the station? Hermann replied that the ten foot canopy would work. Zisla said the Commission has considered the question of canopies before when it considered another application. A concern of the Commission was how we would deal with canopies as far as improving a site while maintaining the setbacks. Zisla said the site the Commission is considering this evening is filled and he would not be inclined to approve the setback variance. Hermann said he had talked with several other petroleum vendors and they all required a canopy to sell their product. Schopf said there are many gas stations where the canopy has been cut short. These canopies look out of place. There should be a way to have a full canopy on the site. The Commission must deal with these canopies considering each application’s unique features. Zisla said there was no way this application can be approved if we pay attention to criteria. The ten foot canopy was an effort to achieve some sort of compromise. Livingston asked if anyone from the public wished to speak at this hearing. Paul Reiling, a resident living behind the Mobil Station, asked if Hermann was going to put up two canopies. Hermann responded affirmatively. Reiling said, humorously, one of them should be placed further west in Reiling’s yard. Reiling stated he was in favor of Hermann’s improvements and that the business was a good neighbor. PH. Motion by Livingston, seconded by Schiferl, 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion TO CLOSE THE UBLIC EARING Carried. Schiferl asked for clarification on the curbs and asked for Teague’s opinion on the options proposed this evening. Schiferl asked what could the applicant live with? Teague pointed out the features of the proposal on the site plan. Schiferl asked the applicant about the parking for a phone. Hermann pointed out the present features of the site on the site plan and showed where he was thinking of putting the public phone. Schiferl said he did not recall that phone being in the application. Zisla asked why put a parking space there; the phone could be put somewhere near the building. O’Brien said the phone could be put along the new section of curb on the west side so cars can pull up and park along the curb and use the phone. Schiferl said his concern was that in putting a curb there, dressing it up with a few flowers, getting some definition of the property, and reducing the nonconformities, a parking space here does not seem to be consistent with that concept. Livingston agreed. Livingston asked about having the public phone on the building. Hermann pointed out that a phone would interfere with the flow of customers at the bays and island. Livingston said he did not mean the phone should be used from a vehicle. Easy Stop has a wall phone for public use. Hermann responded that where the phone is located is where customers are going to park. Zisla agreed that the Commission should not be negotiating where the phone is going to be located right now. It is not an appropriate place for a parking space. Many of us are inclined to approve a special use permit. However, the Commission is looking for something that will work for the applicant that we can approve. Schopf asked if the two property owners to the north and Mr. Hermann would prefer not to be curbed as far as snow removal is concerned. Zisla said Hermann and his neighbor may have an agreement for snow storage, but the point is that the standard for development is to have that buffer. Zisla said Hermann said in his comments that it would be an inconvenience, but would improve the appearance of his site. However, curbing is the standard. The agreement on snow removal cannot change the site plan. Zisla stated the curbing makes sense in that location with the additional greenspace. 5 I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1998\04-21-98.WPD