CC PACKET 02101987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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 .ab.o.ut 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 probleml 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 Lof.gren, 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.; S.