pm_660504 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

~2~ Subject File 320~66 Rezoning request from R=l to I~l by George Hart and Roberts Construction Company of the property on Terminal Road East of Fulham Streetc Mr. Daubney, representing the petitioners. submitted some sketches of the two buildings they proposed to build if the zoning is granted. The buildings resemble the two already under construction west of the subJect property. It was the consensus of opinion that the proposed development is making the highest use of this land, however9 there were some residents abutting the subject property to the south who were quite concerned of the type of screening proposed along the south line of the property. After due consideration Remsburg moved~ Nelson seconded~ we recommend that the request be grantedJ subject to the following conditions~ 10 That the proposed buildings be faced with brick on three sides ~ the same as those already under construction i) east of Fulham Streeto 2. That satisfactory screening and proper location of the proposed fence to be erected by Roberts Construction and approved by the Villageo The residents on Highway 36 suggested that the fence should be placed high enough on the exist~ ing hill to obstruct the view to the proposed industrial buildings. It is suggested~ when the matter is considered by the council D that some of the residents be called in for a discussion on the matter. Roll CaU: unanimous. Subject File 319=66 = Approval of Preliminary Plat Capitol View Addition~ requested by Ban=ConD Inc. On motion by NelsonD seconded by Carpenter~ it is recommended that the plat be approved@ subject howeverD to the applicant furnishing a lot grade plan for the examination and approval of the Department of Public Works. Roll Call: unanimous. Subject File 3l7~66 Variances of Setbacks" floor area ratio and parking spacesD requested by D. tlo Overmyer Warehouse Company for buildings to be cons t ructed on Walnut. Street. Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Miller appeared to discuss the reasons for requesting these variances. It was the opinion that the petitioner was not very sure of the dimension of the land on which these buJddings were to be constructed. It was, therefore ~ moved by NelsonD seconded by Carpenter ~ to lay the matter over to the next regular meeting to give the petitioner an opportunity to check the following requirements: I. Exact dimensions of the land In question. 20 Submit a more definite parking plan for 30 spaces. 3. Submit a landscaping plan fot' the 5ubje:ct property and also the other property already developed which has not been landscaped up to now. Roll CallD unanimous.