Planning Commission_1965 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4-24-65 ;' Red Marley Apartment To Planning Commission: This again involves the Garley apartment building on the former Isindig property. You will recall that originally there was a plan for a 17-unit apartment, which required re-zonin Coannission and the Council denied that. After the denial, alp and was submitted for the 12-unit apartment building covered in the at- tached p~.ans and this was ap proved with a six-unit garage. In the meantime, there has always been the problem of ~indig~s application to subdivide this property. Unfortunately, a building permit did get issued_-but the Planning Commission and the Council both have refused to approve his application for a subdivision permit, Garley seems to be an innocent party in all this. He applied for a building permit and one was issued. Bows h.e wants a garage to provide 11-unit previously Proposed 6-unit buildi Parking instead of the ng. In order to get this aceomp~ished, he will have to invade the set-back requirement on the southeast corner of the lot by arranging two parking spaces immediately east of the posed extended garage. This will. invade the front Pr©- quirement contained in Section 8.4 (3~ of OrdinanceYNumbert64ack re- in addition, this garage will violate Section 4.5 (3} of Ordinance Number 64 which provides that accessory buildings sha11 not exceed 75p square feet. I hw~ve learned that many villages are encouraging garages in con- nection with multiple family dwellings and there seems to be a Qonsid- erable demand for them. Mr. Garley could probably handle this without an invasion of the set-back-requirement if he utilized the "recreation area" indicated on his plat; although in some respects it seems well td leave that area as it is. 'gym. Fi. Black