SIDNEY — The Sidney Planning Commission approved two requests presented to the board on Monday.
The commission granted the request of Heinz Finkes, on behalf of EAP Holdings, LTD., for approval buffer and transition plan for the development of the east side of the cul-de-sac at the southern terminus of Lester Avenue in the general industrial district. EAP Holdings’s development includes of a six-foot buffering mound centered in a greenbelt.
Board member Merrill Asher asked Community Service Director Barbara Dulworth why the developer didn’t include a buffer in the original development plans. Dulworth responded that the developer could have done so, but choose not to because city code does not require a buffer until the lot is developed. Asher noted that it would have a better idea to do the entire process at once rather than one piece at a time. He also suggested that the commission should look at requiring developers to include the buffer in the original development plans in the future.
Board chairman Tom Ehler asked if there were other buffer options, than the six-foot mound suggested in the request. Dulworth told Elher other available options include a six-foot brick or concrete solid wall, or a 100-foot greenbelt with or without a mound.
The commission also OK’d the request of Britt Havenar on behalf of Barbara Ann Kesler and Pamela Jean Davis for the replat of one parcel of land to create one lot with 0.264 acres and a remainder parcel of 2.472 acres on the north side of Ferre Place, to the west of Foster Avenue, in the single family residence district.
The replat is part-one of a two-part action to transfer 0.264 acres of the property to an adjacent property. The replat does not include new utility easements; required easements will be included in part two. If for some reason the transfer does not occur, the 0.264 acres lot will not be buildable.
Part two will complete the transfer and combine the transferred 0.264 acres with the adjoining property. The remainder parcel of 2.472 acres does not meet subdivision requirements for maximum lot width-to-depth ratio, but due to its “unusual size or shape” with the rear 225 feet section having a steep grade dropping 52 feet to the rear property line, the requirement was waved by the commission.
