PL PACKET 03171987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-6- the' -interim; the Council would have gotten more .public input related to the changes . Two Residents Give Their Views Only two of the persons who had attended the January 20th Commission hearing reappeared to discuss the proposed changes. One wanted the Ordinance strengthened and the other only had strong feelings about one amendment. Proponent: James Reasoner, 3536 Edward Street N.E. said he thought the proposed ordinance would be "better than we have now, " ; was concerned, however, that restricting the vehicles which could be parked in the front yards would, in fact, just move the "junkers" to the back yards which many residents consider to be extensions of their living rooms; - perceived most of his neighbors expected to see boats temporarily stored in back yards but not 157 ' Chevy' s or construction companies being run from those locations; - suggested that for the Council to address these problems would further enhance the City Ordinance; - said he had personally had no experience with the pro- blems posed by too many unrelated persons living in one single family home, but - indicated he would like to see the different segments in the proposal dealt with separately so the ordinance it- self wouldn' t fail altogether if one portion should be rejected; agreed to put his suggestions into writing so the Council could address each one of them specifically when the amendments are given their first reading. Opponent: - Jeff Lofgren, 3109 Stinson Boulevard N.E. indicated he had no personal problem with the parking section but recognized how it could affect a family like the Kelly' s with so many cars in the family; suggested that particular section might be rewritten to make allowances for large family parking because in : =- most cases, family members would eventually grow up and move away;