Laserfiche WebLink
Oalcon Oil -3- <br />Commissioner Doyle questioned how the proposed canopy relates <br />to the business itself. He further questioned if the property would <br />be rendered useless if the canopy was not provided. He noted that <br />Falcon Oil has been operating a self-service service station at a <br />profit at this location for two years without the canopy. <br />Mr. Snow stated that it is difficult to pin down the exact <br />future effect on the station is the canopy is not approved. <br />Mr. Snow also stated that they do know that they have direct <br />competition from Super America and also that they have had less <br />business now on rainy days than before. He further noted that they <br />have had more rain than normal since the first of the year. <br />Mr.,Ahlberg noted that there have been four rainy days since <br />January lst and these days have shown a dramatic effect on their <br />business. Mr. Ahlberg also noted that prior to the existence of <br />Super America, rain and snow had little effect on their business. <br />Councilman Hardt noted that Super America had gone to great <br />expense to bring their property into consorruance including having <br />their canopy setback the required distance. He further questioned <br />whether one Court case does, in fact, create a precedent. <br />Mr. Snow stated that Falcon Oil must now deal. with their <br />existing building which as he said, creates an undue hardship. He <br />also stated that Falcon oil building was built prior to the <br />presence of self-service stations in this area. <br />Chairman Brown stated that he had some comments regarding the <br />letter from Mr. Snow and they were as; follows <br />1. He noted that this present situation appears to be different <br />from the situation stated in the Merrian Park case.. Chairman <br />Pa-awn iwted that in this particular case, the property is <br />developed and we are not saying that they cannot conduct <br />business. He also noted that the Merrian Park case dealt with a <br />floor area ratio variance similar to the Spotts variance <br />application which was previously considered by the planning <br />Commission and council. <br />Mr. Snow noted that the Merrian Park case dealt with .'a developer <br />who indicated he could not economically build at 30 units and needed <br />the 22 units. <br />Chairman Brown also noted that towards the end of Mr. Snow's <br />letter inciting the Merrian Park case that the Court wording was <br />that undue hardship (could) be considered an economic hardship