My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 08-11-1980
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1980
>
CC 08-11-1980
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:12:04 PM
Creation date
11/9/2006 4:10:05 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.
/
7
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 />Minutes of Regular Council Keating <br />P e.ge th ree <br /> <br />August II, 1980 <br /> <br />noted there ia an iasue of non-conformancy here which was not dealt <br />with by the Planning Commission; noted that Council should determine <br />whether the storage tank i8 merely a matter of operation or an enlarge- <br />ment of the non-conforming use. <br /> <br />Wingert said it does not represent an expansion of the use; ssme <br />number of buses, only a chsnge in fuel; expressed concern that the <br />tank is also a re--fueling tank which will be the source of noise, <br />smoke, odor during refueling; said he feels it is unfortunate to <br />locate the tank adjacent to residential area when it could be located <br />on the west side, away from reaidential. It was noted that deteils <br />on dyking are needed from the City Engineer. <br /> <br />. <br />. <br /> <br />After discuasion, Wingert moved, seconded by Crepeau, that Council <br />approve iaauance of a Special Use Permit for one SOO-gallon above- <br />ground diesel fnel tank contingent upon: <br />1. Location of tank in northwest portion of the <br />site, and <br />.2. Approval by the City Engineer and peA of Buitable design <br />for dyking, and <br />3. Review at the end of one year to determine if it conatitutes <br />a significant problem andlor is objected to by neighbors. <br /> <br />In further discuss10~, Crichton said he concurs with placement of <br />the tank to the northwest, but does not agree that this is not an <br />en~argement of a non-couforming use; interprets ordinsnce intent is to <br />discourage operation of non-conforming uses, not contribute to or <br />assist in the continued non-conforming use of the site; consequently, <br />Conncil should not allow this tank. <br /> <br />Hanson asked the applicant if Columbia Transit can rely on commercial <br />stations to refuel the buaes, if the application is denied. <br /> <br />Bouthilet aaid be did not fsal the converaion would be feasible if fueled <br />in this manner; fuel savinga are needed, ao tank on the premiaea ia the <br />beat aolution to our atudy. <br /> <br />Woodburn asked where the tank would be located on the northwest por- <br />tion of the property. <br /> <br />Bouthilet said there are aoma treea in this location, a low marsh area <br />and 80me underbruah; noted that tank would be painted green. <br /> <br />Kotion carried (Wingert, Crepeau, Woodburn voting in favor of the motion; <br />Crichton, Hanaon voting in opposition). <br /> <br />Caee No. 80-24, Variance for Garage - Thomas Carroll, 3131 North <br />Lexington <br />Council waa referred to ~ianner's report of 7/30/80 and recommendations <br />from Board of Appeala (8-6-80) and Planning Commission (8-6-80). <br /> <br />In review, Miller noted that the County will remove the existing small <br />house on the northwest corner of Lexington snd County Road D and re- <br />grade the lot as indicated on the County Engineer's plan; plan also <br />indicates that a retaining wall will be constructed along a portion of <br />the Lexington Avenue r.o.w. line. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Killer referred to the Applicant's proposal (Exhibit 1) which i8 to <br />construct a new garage with access to County Road D; noted that a <br />driveway to County Road D provides a safer approach hut is concerned <br />that garags, as proposed to be located, may constitute B visual encroach- <br />ment 8 feet from the r.o.v. line, reported that the County Engineer does <br />not apparently have thia concern. Killer noted that tbe garage vill <br />be obvious, at leaat, from the roadway. <br /> <br />Killer reported that it is nut certain whather the County will aell the <br />lot or grant an eaaement to e~e Carrolla for the drivevay; if lot is <br />Dot in their ownership, the "lternate proposal (Exhibit 2) ia not <br />poaaible; noted that the alt~rnate proposal increaaea the garage aetback <br />from Lexingtoo to about 20 faet, but does not provide the shelter from <br />aouDd of Lexington Avenue traffic that applicancs desire and expect to <br />achieve with their proposal. <br /> <br />-3- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.