My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 11-09-1987
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1987
>
CCP 11-09-1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:08:07 PM
Creation date
11/3/2006 2:42:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
81
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).
View images
View plain text
<br /> . ~inutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, November 4, 1987 <br /> Page S <br /> CASE #87-08 (Cont'd) Miller advised that the change would involve moving a <br /> portion of an'existingpuilding to the rear property <br /> line, which would require a continuation of an existing approved variance. <br /> . Larry Leitshuh, Scherer Lumber Company, was present and reviewed the plan <br /> initially approved by Planning Commission and Council. He explained the first <br /> phase of the plan had been completed and they were working on the second phase <br /> of the plan. Leitshuh reviewed the revision for moving an existing building to <br /> the southern rear property line which is adjacent to Hwy. 3SW. He advised the <br /> reasons for the change were to provide for future expansion, and to make the <br /> site more aesthetically pleasing, He noted that there would be minimum <br /> visibility from Hwy. 3SW. <br /> Miller explained the change would decrease building coverage on the site. <br /> Commission discussed the compatibility of building materials, height alignment <br /> and landscaping. Leitshush stated they would align the height of the buildings, <br /> however, the buildings would not be of the same material nor the same color, <br /> but should blend well together. He advised that the approved landscape plan <br /> would be adhered to. <br /> Zehm moved, seconded by Malone, that Commission <br /> recommend granting approval of the relocation of an existing building and the <br /> continuation of the variance on the west property line of the Scherer Lumber <br /> site, as shown in the revised plan submitted 11-4-87, subject to the completion <br /> of the approved landscape plan submitted with the original application. Motion <br /> carried unanimously. (S-O) <br /> DISC; PROPOSED Planner Miller advised that the City had received <br /> TRAINING CNTR. preliminary plans for an Army Reserve Training Center <br /> . facility, to be located on the Arsenal property on the <br /> northwest corner of Lexington Avenue and Highway 96. <br /> Miller explained that the plans consist of three buildings, identified as the <br /> training center, supply building and motor vehicle repair shop. He stated he <br /> had been advised the facility would be used primary two weekends per month, 8 <br /> hours per day. The facility would accommodate 300-3S0 persons; some daily site <br /> use is proposed, however, numbers of persons using site on a daily basis was <br /> not provided. <br /> The Planner explained he had calculated the following information: <br /> -Total site area is approximately 23.S acres <br /> -Building area is 138,000 sq. ft.; 13% coverage <br /> -Parking/Driveway area 396,000 sq. ft.; 53% coverage <br /> -Open Space approximately 47% <br /> Miller further advised that setbacks are shown on plan as 260 ft. and 280 ft. <br /> respectively from adajcent streets,the building height is basically shown as a <br /> small two story building, and access is proviaed only onto Lexington Avenue. <br /> Member Zehm questioned if the plan meets Zoning requirements. <br /> Miller advised that the issue of City jurisdiction on Federal property is <br /> currently being debated; Attorney Lynden maintains that the City has <br /> . jurisdiction until proven otherwise. In discussions with the Project Manager <br /> from Kansas City; Miller explained they have indicated willingness to comply <br /> with all building codes and receive public response to the project, however, it <br /> is their opinion they are not bound by City zoning requirements. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.