CC PACKET 08231988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 London's Reaction •2 *reiterated his impressions of what had happened at the July 19th 3 hearing; 4 *reported a couple of the Commissioners had been "dead set" against 5 the proposal ; 6 *indicated he had been "rather negative against it" because he 7 generally favored letting people build double garages rather than to 8 park outside; 9 *told the applicant's wife he was the 11th child in a family of 12 so 10 he knew just what they had to contend with; it *indicated, however, that when it came to Mrs. Hogan, she had not 12 struck him as a "busybody" but rather- had been brief and to the point 13 when she told the Commissioners "there's a plumbing business there and 14 a lot of boys with a lot of vehicles parked all over" ; 15 *said his vote against the variance represented his concern that the 16 City not allow something which might exacerbate -the problem which is 17 already there; 18 *told Enrooth he wasn't sure how he might have voted if Mr. Tomas 19 had presented the signed petition he had just distributed during the 20 hearing or the neighbors who had spoken that evening had testified the �1 evening of the hearing and balanced out the report from Mrs. Hogan, but 22 *noted her absence that evening, probably because she thought the 23 issue was dead, still left some questions to be answered. 24 Childs commented that he perceived Mr. Tomas had been operating his 25 plumbing business out of his home for the past 22 years and that the 26 main concern of the Commissioners during the hearing had been that there 27 be no expansion of what was already there. 28 Sundland drew a comparison between the company he works for letting the 29 repairmen keep their trucks at home .at night and Mr. Tomas' situation. 30 Marks agreed that running a business, out of vans was not the same as 31 conducting business from the home. The Councilmember recalled the 32 difficulties the Planning Commission had encountered with trying to 33 write ordinances which limited home occupations which caused no problems 34 for neighbors related to traffic congestion or parking. He also drew 35 a parallel between what the Commission was trying to do in this case and 36 what the Council had not been able to do when they were writing an 37 ordinance which addressed complaints about "messy yards, general 38 unsightliness, and construction equipment parked in front and side 39 yards. " Councilmember Marks said he had opposed the City imposing 40 arbitrary limitations on the number of vehicles which could be parked 41 on residential driveways because he knew from his own experience that 11