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
• <br /> were issues in the . Ordinance as .it : now stood which might <br /> need changing.: <br /> Makowske agreed that 'St. Anthony residents make good use of their, <br /> backyards and wouldn' t be too -happy to have the "eyesores <br /> pushed from the front to the backyards. " <br /> Soth. suggested the Council might want to amend the wording to <br /> indicate that "all vehicles parked on any City lot shall <br /> be parked on surfaced pavement or a defined gravel drive- <br /> way in the front -yard. " <br /> Enrooth - -perceived that might- solve the , problem of "people just <br /> throwing gravel around their backyards" , but <br /> -questioned how much control the Council really wanted to <br /> exercise in this regard. <br /> Sundland -reported that he, like Councilmember Ranallo, had gotten <br /> a good number of calls expressing a desire that the City <br /> cut down on the number of vehicles parked on residential <br /> property but perceived most of the callers had not appeared <br /> to be .objecting to families like the Misiak' s, whose cars <br /> are used on a regular- basis . <br /> Ranallo -agreed with Mr. Misiak that it had been unfortunate . that <br /> the residents had learned about the public hearing on <br /> these changes too late to attend the Commission meeting;, <br /> -indicated he perceived there was no real pressure to get <br /> the Ordinance passed- right away since -the City had lived <br /> with• the existing ordinance for over twenty-five years, and <br /> I."another two weeks can' t. make that much difference" ; <br /> suggested that it might be better to start the process all <br /> over by - rewriting the Ordinance and notifying the residents . <br /> that : "this is the Ordinance the Council is considering , pass- <br /> ing. " <br /> -said that .would give everybody, including. the people who <br /> ' favor more,,I restrictions: any opportunity of being heard. <br /> Enrooth indicated• he wbuld`_ just as soon see the next reading <br /> delayed until- after the next water.. bill goes out or a <br /> special mailing can--be sent to the residents. L <br /> Sundland •- -saw: no urgency to get the ordinance passed;.:, <br /> pointed -out that he perceived the law making process was <br /> working just as intended by statute with the- Council first <br /> . . putting together an Ordinance; taking .it apart in response <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.