My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-09-12 Council Agenda & Packet
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Common Council Agenda Packets
>
2012
>
01-09-12 Council Agenda & Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/5/2012 1:29:32 PM
Creation date
1/5/2012 1:24:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
109
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
5 <br /> Petitioners would state that they have owned the property prior to the <br /> change in the Ordinance requiring the perimeter landscaping, and the <br /> only reason the perimeter landscaping is now being required, is due to <br /> the adjustment of a lot line and not due to an expansion of the existing <br /> use. Their property presently is surrounded by vacant .land owned by the <br /> City and a trucking operation. The Petitioners do not believe approval <br /> of this Variance would have a detrimental affect on any surrounding <br /> property. <br /> The second Variance request is from the required Screening of <br /> outdoor storage areas consisting of Type "C": Full Screening along the <br /> North, East, South and west property lines in conjunction with providing <br /> a 6 ft. high chain link fencing to providing only the 6 ft. high chain <br /> link fencing which exists. his mentioned above the Petitioners have been <br /> storing materials outside since they have purchased the property. The <br /> requirement of moving over 1400 lineal feet of fencing, removing <br /> pavement and then adding landscaping along the perimeter of the site <br /> would be an extreme hardship in order to adjust a lot line and create a <br /> public park site. The Petitioners do not believe that approval of this <br /> Variance request would adversely affect any surrounding property. <br /> The third Variance request is to be allowed to have outdoor storage <br /> located between the 30 ft. Front-yard setback along Oliver Plow Court <br /> and the front lot line along said Street (to a minimum of 1 ft. ) . This <br /> situation has existed for the past several years as shown on the <br /> attached site plan. They would prefer not to be required to remove the <br /> existing pavement, fencing and stored materials to shift all <br /> improvements back over 30 feet. The Petitioners would state that since <br /> the storage has been at this present location for several years, there <br /> should be no negative impact to surrounding properties if the Variance <br /> request were approved. <br /> The fourth Variance request is to allow for outside storage in the <br /> 10 ft. Side-yard setback along the East and West property .lines and in <br /> the 10 ft. Rear-yard setback along the South property ,line (to a minimum <br /> of 1 ft. ) . The Petitioners would state that this variance request is the <br /> same as the previous request in that materials are stored within a foot <br /> of the side and rear property lines. To be in compliance would require <br /> the removal of several thousand square foot of pavement and as stated <br /> above removal and re-installation of over 1400 lineal feet of fencing. <br /> The Petitioners would hope, that with the Board Members knowing the <br /> adjacent properties are either vacant or contain a truck depot, they <br /> would agree, that it is not necessary to require a 10 ft, setback for <br /> the shown outside storage of materials. <br /> The fifth Variance request for Parcel "A" is from the required 10 <br /> ft. Side-yard setback along the East property line to 0 ft. for the <br /> existing building, air conditioners and structure connecting the shown <br /> primary building and the existing smoke stack structure located on <br /> Parcel "B". As stated above, the Petitioners desire to separate the <br /> Passive Park property form their property with the end result being that <br /> the Oliver Plow smoke stack will be on the Park parcel. The Petitioners <br /> do not believe the approval of this request to adjust the common lot <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.