My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC PACKET 05261987
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1987
>
CC PACKET 05261987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 4:05:43 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 4:05:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
16
SP Folder Name
CC PACKETS 1981-1984 & 1987
SP Name
CC PACKET 05261987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
132
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
• -13- <br /> -he strongly -recommended the Council reinstate: Article #14 ; because <br /> he had no intention of voting for the ordinance without it. <br /> Councilmember Enrooth stated that: <br /> he 'didn' t think the Council had been as" concer.ned. about minitrailers <br /> = or small boats -being parked on residential property as they had been <br /> = about situations where a trailered .24 foot long "mini--cruiser" is <br /> parked where the neighbors have to look at it . from October through <br /> May; <br /> -he thought the Council really hadn' t known-where to draw the line to <br /> mediate the problem; <br /> -he perceived there was a need to establish some sort of maximum; <br /> -as he had indicated during the April 28th meeting, he - strongly that <br /> Article #14 with -a specific number should be included; and <br /> -he hadn' t changed his viewpoint on that since then. <br /> Councilmember Marks reported that during the time he was campaigning <br /> voters had appeared to have the greatest concerns about a• small number of <br /> unsightly yards where parts of vehicles or construction equipment was <br /> left on lawns all year long. The Councilmember -said: <br /> -he had- noticed for the first time one of his neighbors had a number <br /> of vehicles parked next to a woods and he perceived that homeowner <br /> should probably have been at the meeting that night. to protest what <br /> Article #14 would be doing to him; <br /> -he didn' t think the small boats people consider to be "symbols_ of <br /> affluence" were really the problems the ordinance was directed <br /> towards; <br /> rather than restricting the number of -vehicles to 4 to getat <br /> unsightly construction equipment parked. on residential property, <br /> thought the Council should be looking for ways to specifically address <br /> that type of violation. <br /> The Councilmember was told even the existing weight restrictions would <br /> not address some of the motorhomes neighbors have to put up with in the <br /> yard next door since the ordinance. exempts recreational vehicles. <br /> Councilmember Makowske said she perceived the : ordinance in its present <br /> form addressed -the :specific problems of - unsightliness, parking ruts in <br /> lawns, as well as -parts of vehicles . laying all over front yards the <br /> • Council was -looking- at. She -contended: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.