My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC MINUTES 02241987
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1987
>
CC MINUTES 02241987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 5:49:30 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 5:49:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
21
SP Folder Name
CC MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1987
SP Name
CC MINUTES 02241987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• <br /> -li- <br /> were issues in the Ordinance as it now stood which might <br /> need changing. <br /> Makowske -agreed that St. Anthony residents make good use of their <br /> backyards and wouldn' t be too happy to have the "eyesores <br /> pushed from the front to the backyards. " <br /> Soth -suggested the Council might want to amend the wording to <br /> indicate that "all vehicles parked on any City lot shall <br /> be parked on surfaced pavement or a defined gravel drive- <br /> way in the front yard." <br /> Enrooth -perceived that might solve the problem of "people just <br /> throwing gravel around their backyards" , but <br /> -questioned how much control the Council really wanted to <br /> exercise in this regard. <br /> Sundland -reported that he, like Councilmember Ranallo, had gotten <br /> a good number of calls expressing a desire that the City <br /> cut down on the number of vehicles parked on residential <br /> • property but perceived most of the callers had not appeared <br /> to be objecting to families like the Misiak' s, whose cars <br /> are used on a regular basis. <br /> Ranallo -agreed with Mr. Misiak that it had been unfortunate that <br /> the residents had learned about the public hearing on <br /> these changes too late to attend the Commission meeting; <br /> -indicated he perceived there was no real pressure to get <br /> the Ordinance passed right away since the City had lived <br /> with the existing Ordinance for over twenty-five years, and <br /> "another two weeks can't make that much difference" ; <br /> -suggested that it might be better to start the process all <br /> over by rewriting the Ordinance and notifying the residents <br /> that "this is the Ordinance the Council is considering pass- <br /> ing. " <br /> -said that would give everybody, including the people who <br /> favor more restrictions an opportunity of being heard. <br /> Enrooth -indicated he would just as soon see the next reading <br /> delayed until after the next water bill goes out or a <br /> special mailing can be sent to the residents. <br /> Sundland -saw no urgency to get the Ordinance passed; <br /> • -pointed out that he perceived the law making process was <br /> working just as intended by statute with the Council first <br /> putting together an Ordinance; taking it apart in response <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.