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
-15- <br /> the closing of schools the. .City had already built <br /> 1 with taxpayer ' s, money; <br /> 2 <br /> 3 -insisted large- families. pay enough taxes to allow <br /> 4 them to use their property for parking; : <br /> 5 <br /> 6 -believed the small newspaper article , he saw was ,not <br /> 7 ' specific enough about the time the hearing would be <br /> 8 held. <br /> 9. <br /> 10 Before the hearing was closed; the Chair thanked. all the residents . <br /> 11 who: had offered input to the Ordinance consideration. The :.times <br /> 12 the changes' had' been discussed in the.- papers were reiterated as <br /> 13 well as what it would have cost the City to *have sent out separate _ <br /> 14 notices outside the Newsletter which would have. carried the notice <br /> 15 if it had gone out before the hearing was. held. They were also <br /> 16 told the Ordinance would be given three readings before it was <br /> 17 adopted and citiz-en .input would be -welcomed at any of -the three <br /> 18 readings starting with the Council-' s January 27th meeting. <br /> 19 <br /> 20 The hearing was closed at 9 :15 P.M. for Commission response to each <br /> 21 section of the proposed Ordinance amendment as follows. <br /> 22 <br /> 23 Section I <br /> 24 <br /> 25 All concurred three was a good number for unrelated persons . <br /> 26 <br /> 27 Werenicz -perceived the City' s Ordinance in this respect <br /> 28 would- be less restrictive than the Supreme Court <br /> 29 ruling. - Allowing- .six unrelated persons in :a single <br /> 30 family residence would actually be converting them <br /> 31 to mini-apartments and the City wants to prevent <br /> 32 that. <br /> .33 <br /> 34 Section II <br /> 35 <br /> 36 Concern about the status of motorhomes pesisted. <br /> 37 <br /> 38 Questions were raised about - whether the state regulated air.craft . . <br /> 39 but it was agreed it could . be considered later if further <br /> 40 amendments were needed. <br /> 41 <br /> 42 Section III and IV <br /> 43 <br /> 44 Madden in reference to Brad. Bjorklund' s comments about <br /> 45 the amount of.:front yard.:which _could be paved, ..said <br /> -46 his .townhome front yard is. all paved and that' s the <br /> 47 way he wants it to stay. <br /> 48 <br /> A9 Hansen -didn' t -believe this .-was the area in. the Ordinance <br /> 50' where the question should be addressed,.. <br /> 51 <br /> • •52 'Ch*ilds said- a, problem could be addressed when it has become <br /> -53 unmanageable. <br /> 54 <br /> 55 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.