My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 03171987
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
1987
>
PL PACKET 03171987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 3:34:04 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 3:33:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
15
SP Folder Name
PL PACKETS 1987
SP Name
PL PACKET 03171987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
113
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 /> -told Mr. Misiak he also only had , a one car .garage and he <br /> wouldn' t expect him to have a, problem getting a variance. <br /> Mr. Misiak foresaw 'it might' be-hard-to -sell: lower priced homes. like his <br /> own to young families if they found out- the City won't allow them to have <br /> boats ,. campers, motorcycles, . etc. Councilmember Ranallo told him the <br /> complaints 'the Council are getting right- now are from people who bought <br /> in St: , Anthony' thinking it was a "nice community" and now perceive it' s <br /> beginning" 'to' ' look "dumpy: " . The Councilmember also recalled that some <br /> propospective buyers -had decided -not to :buy in St. Anthony because of the <br /> appearance of some of its yards. <br /> Mayor Sundland said Mr. Misiak and Councilmember Ranallo might both be <br /> right but he could see where the Ordinance might have to be tempered <br /> somewhat to -accommodate people like Mr. Misiak who say they need six cars <br /> temporarily to accommodate their growing family' s requirements. He said , <br /> as far as- parking boats on the front driveways went, he doubted the time <br /> Mr. Misiak was talking about would draw any neighbor , complaints. Rather, <br /> it would be the boats which are parked in the. same location for more than <br /> a year which would draw neighborhood objection. <br /> Enr-ooth =suggested the following scenario would follow after a com- <br /> plaint is lodged: <br /> a. the City Manager or Public Works Director would <br /> stop to talk to the homeowner against whom the <br /> complaint had been .made; . <br /> b. that homeowner would be told he was not in com <br /> pliance with the City Ordinance and must correct <br /> the problem within a certain length of time;. <br /> C. if the conversation indicated the homeowner had a . <br /> legitimate hardship which prevented compliance with - <br /> the Ordinance, the variance recourse would be sug- <br /> gested to him or her; and <br /> d. hopefully, by utilizing the process, the homeowner <br /> would solve his. problems at the same time the. City <br /> would retain control over situations .they have no <br /> control over now. <br /> Soth -advised it would be .very dif-f•idult :to. write :every situation <br /> into the Ordinance; <br /> -suggested the .City might .want., to retain :the option .of.- te1- <br /> " ling "the homeowner•:his use was not appropriate for a <br /> variance. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.