My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-23-1984 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
05-23-1984 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/26/2013 10:03:37 AM
Creation date
6/26/2013 9:58:37 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
133
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
MINUTES <br />Planning Commission <br />May 10, 1984 <br />Kimmes (Cont.) addition of the four garage stalls. <br />Mr. Costa asked if the two lots would be combined as one. The Planner <br />replied that this is the purpose of the PUD. The Planner also pointed <br />out that he is suggesting that the parking in front of the building be <br />at a different angle. <br />The Planner pointed out that by combining the property, it will meet <br />minimum square footage requirements. The residential units on the <br />property will continue as non — conforming and cannot be changed without <br />City approval. <br />Mr. Herkenhoff asked if the garages would be used for the residents. <br />Mr. Kimmes replied that they would. Kimmes stated that he would like <br />to keep the area cleaned up and stated that along Little Canada Road <br />it is an undesirable area for parking cars. <br />Mrs. Kingsbury asked why the residents could not park in front of the <br />existing garage. Mr. Kimmes pointed out that the driveway is too <br />narrow for this. <br />Mr. Costa asked the height of the garage doors. Mr. Kimmes replied <br />that they would he standard 7 foot garage doors. Kimmes stated that <br />the proposed garage would he almost identical to the existing garage. <br />Mrs. Kingsbury recommended approval of the PUD requested by Mr. <br />Kimmes in order to build a garage for the storage of vehicles <br />contingent upon the Planner's recommendations being met as outlined <br />in the Planner's letter of May 2, 1984. <br />Motion seconded by Mr. Perlinger. <br />Motion carried 4 to 2. Messrs Ducharme and Herkenhoff voting against. <br />Mr. DeLonais requested comments from Ducharme and Herkenhoff as to <br />why they voted against the request. <br />Mr. Herkenhoff stated that he felt there were enough garages on the <br />property and did not want to see these garages being rented to people <br />other than the residents of the property. <br />Mr. Ducharme stated that these were his feelings also. <br />Mrs. Kingsbury pointed out that most families today have two vehicles. <br />Mr. Ducharme asked what would happen if Montreal Courts provided two <br />garages for each tenant. <br />Mr. Licht stated that the Ordinance covers the rental of garages. <br />Page —2— <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.