CC MINUTES 01271987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-11- • added that the City would still be able to put con- ditions on such variances so as to require that all cars be parked on paved areas and limiting the time the variance would be in force. Soth - suggested the Council might even want to consider grant- ing conditional use permits for additional cars which would have to be applied for. Reasoner - suggested the City might even restrict the number of cars to the number of licensed drivers in a household. Marks - commented that by making these additions the Council might not be addressing what he perceived was the over- riding problem which had prompted the Ordinance changes in the first place, the fact that some houses have a number of unrelated people living in them who have noisy parties which are police problems; didn' t think the Ordinance would solve those problems if the amendments were modified to allow people to have guests parked in their driveways for the same amount of time as most of those parties last. Enrooth - replied that he had never thought the Ordinance changes • were intended to solve the problem of noisy parties because those are enforcement problems for the police; asked Councilmember Marks if he wanted to restrict graduation parties. Ranallo - agreed that it had not been noisy parties which had caused him to start the discussions about Ordinance changes way back in April, but rather, his first con- cern had been the number of businesses operated out of homes which had cropped up in the City lately; said his second concern was the number of unrelated people living in some St. Anthony homes, and, finally, he was concerned about the number of complaints he received about the appearance of lawns once cars parked on them all winter long are removed; perceived without the proposed Ordinance changes, the police are powerless to address the problems; called for the vote on the motion he had made. Motion carried unanimously.