Laserfiche WebLink
-10- <br /> -.Calls,�Indicating Resident Approval of Amendments 'Reported <br /> .Ranallo - ' -di,sputed the claim during the Commission hearing -that <br /> residents- had not been provided time for input to the <br /> process _by reiterating` that stories about the changes <br /> had been carried several times since last April; <br /> - said all- the Councilmembers• started getting calls , most , <br /> . of which were in favor of the changes, right after the <br /> Bulletin story in December; - <br /> contended that just because those residents weren'.t <br /> present that night only meant they had assumed the <br /> Council knew how they felt and would be acting- on - that <br /> knowledge; <br /> Childs - reported getting a call that same day from a resident <br /> who supported the changes but stated the caller would <br /> be unable to attend the meeting that night; <br /> Sundland - told Mr. Lofgren the calls he had gotten had supported <br /> both the family size and parking restrictions, tying <br /> `. both in with the ugly appearance of front lawns after <br /> cars are parked there over the winter when parking is <br /> banned on the streets; - <br /> - said he perceived St. Anthony was a "bedroom community" <br /> and if the residents think the Council is makin a mis- <br /> take trying to keep it that way, he certainly hoped <br /> they would let- them know during the period in which the <br /> new Ordinance amendments are given the required three- <br /> - readings before adoption. <br /> Council Action <br /> Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Makowske to direct the City Attorney to <br /> prepare' Ordinance amendments with all five sections included, as <br /> proposed by the Planning , Commission, for "fine tuning," by the Council <br /> during the three readings required by statute before adoption-. The <br /> "Council further requests the .Attorney to include a time table during <br /> which more cars than four could -be parked kand persons could visit. a <br /> household without violating: the statutes. <br /> Before a'.vote- on the motion was taken the- following discussion evolved: <br /> Makowske - asked. if the --City- -could- give variances which would <br /> address special circumstances like large families,. etc. <br /> Childs' - said he and -Mr. Soth"agreed that the Ordinance would <br /> probably recognize proof of a hardship as a compelling <br /> reason for allowng..more cars for large. families; . <br />