Laserfiche WebLink
Description of Request: <br />sx: X. rj I- I <br />Our request is to coepletely remove an existing baseball <br />storage/concession building (8' X 12") currently located <br />approximately 30 feet from the western property line and 240 feet <br />from the northern property line near our high school baseball <br />field. The place vacated by this building would then be a grassy <br />area. <br />We would then construct a new (12' X 24') storage/concession <br />building on an existing concrete slab (16' X 44') that is currently <br />uBod for bleachers and is 41 feet from the western property line. <br />The location for the new building would be centered on the existing <br />concrete slab, north and south, and on the western side of concrete <br />slab. This proposed location of the building would provide serving <br />and standing room along the first base line, eastern side, for the <br />viewing of the baseball games. The building would be 41 feet from <br />the western property line and 221 feet from the northern property <br />line. <br />The building would be constructed of wood stud walls, asphalt roof, <br />and steel siding. <br />Two alternatives were looked at to comply with the 50 foot set <br />back. One was to add additional concrete to the eastern side of <br />existing concrete and place the building on the eastern edge of the <br />new concrete. The existing eastern edge of the concrete slab is <br />four feet from an existing fence along the first base line. Even <br />with the new concrete added, the building would still be within the <br />50 foot set back. This alternative was rejected as it would not <br />allow any spectator viewing from that area along the first base <br />line as the building would be up against the fence and still <br />require a variance. <br />The second alternative was to construct a narrower building. This <br />would allow only a seven foot wide building even with the building <br />placed on the existing eastern edge of the concrete. This <br />alternative was rejected because the building would be non<~ <br />fun<tional for the purpose intended. <br />Unfortunately, it is not practical to provide the 50 foot set back <br />for this new building, and still keep it functional, therefore we <br />are asking for a variance to a 41 foot set back.