CC MINUTES 01271987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

_10- Calls Indicating Resident Approval of Amendments Reported Ranallo - disputed the claim during the Commission hearing that residents had not been provided time for input to the process by reiterating that stories about the changes had been carried several times since last April; - said all the Councilmembers started getting calls, most of which were in favor of the changes, right after the Bulletin story in December; - contended that just because those residents weren' t present that night only meant they had assumed the Council knew how they felt and would be acting on that knowledge; Childs - reported getting a call that same day from a resident who supported the changes but stated the caller would be unable to attend the meeting that night; Sundland - told Mr. Lofgren the calls he had gotten had supported both the family size and parking restrictions, tying both in with the ugly appearance of front lawns after cars are parked there over the winter when parking is banned on the streets; said he perceived St. Anthony was a "bedroom community" and if the residents think the Council is makin a mis- take trying to keep it that way, he certainly hoped they would let them know during the period in which the new Ordinance amendments are given the required three readings before adoption. Council Action Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Makowske to direct the City Attorney to prepare Ordinance amendments with all five sections included, as proposed by the Planning Commission, for "fine tuning" by the Council during the three readings required by statute before adoption. The Council further requests the Attorney to include a time table during which more cars than four could be parked and persons could visit a household without violating the statutes. Before a vote on the motion was taken the following discussion evolved: Makowske - asked if the City could give variances which would address special circumstances like large families, etc. Childs - said he and Mr. Soth agreed that the Ordinance would probably recognize proof of a hardship as a compelling reason for allowing more cars for large families;