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 />Larry Lee <br />Rezoning <br />(Cont.) <br />The Planner commented that the issue of the burm has been before <br />the Council, and he did not know where it stands at the moment. <br />Mr. Carrier, a resident of the area, stated that Mr. Lee wants to <br />move the burm closer to the residents, and he was opposed to this. <br />The Planner pointed out that the Council is now imposing performance <br />bond or security requirements and this creates incentive for developers <br />to complete their projects. <br />Mrs. Kellerman stated that she felt their area looked as had as <br />Ryan Industrial Park. <br />The Planner pointed out that this item will be on the agendafor the <br />May 23 Council meeting. Mr. Kellerman commented that they will be <br />out of town. The Planner suggested that they send a letter to the <br />Council voicing their concerns. <br />Mr. DeLonais recommended denial of the Larry Lee rezoning request <br />for Site I from R -1 to I -1 pursuant to several denials in the past <br />and the opposition of the residents on Lalore Road. <br />Motion seconded by Mr. Ducharme. <br />Motion carried 6 - 0. <br />Mr. DeLonais recommended tabling action on the Larry Lee rezoning request <br />for Site II from R -1 to 1-1 as Mr. Lee was not present at the meeting <br />to present the proposal. <br />Motion seconded by Mr. Herkenhoff. <br />Motion carried 6 - 0. <br />1 In 10 Mr. Costa pointed out that the Planner recommended that lot size for <br />a duplex should he increased. Mr. Costa asked if the lot size were <br />increased would this also not limit duplexes to 1 in 10 in an R -1 <br />area. <br />The Planner replied that the 1 in 10 limitation would still be <br />present. <br />Mr. Costa stated that he saw no problem with the current 1 in 10 <br />provision and felt it should remain. <br />Mrs. Kingsbury pointed out that the problem is that people are finding <br />out about this provision and were not aware that duplexes are allowed <br />in R -1 neighborhoods. <br />Page -7- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.