My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 11301987
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
1987
>
PL PACKET 11301987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 3:36:28 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 3:36:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
15
SP Folder Name
PL PACKETS 1987
SP Name
PL PACKET 11301987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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
•1 it had been perceived that .without fencing it would -be possible for <br /> 2 the•1Ipolice to drive around the -building, - as they still do, once or <br /> 3 twice a night. <br /> 4 Chair Franzese reported that when Commissioners Hansen and Wagner ` <br /> 5 had called to say they would not be present that evening, they had <br /> 6 both indicated they would not -be in favor of the request because <br /> 7 they perceived no real need for the second caretaker unit. <br /> 8 No other persons were present to provide input to the discussion <br /> 9 and the Chair closed the hearing at 7 : 53 P.M. for- Commission <br /> 10 consideration of a recommendation to the Council. <br /> 11 Werenicz indicated he would have a hard time justifying such a <br /> 12 drastic step as amending the Ordinance based on one re- <br /> 13 quest for an isolated situation where the applicants <br /> 14 perceive the need for security for a facility for which <br /> 15 there have never been any security problems. <br /> 16 London agreed the amendment was pretty much uncalled for because <br /> 17 the request appeared to represent an economic rather than <br /> 18 a real need by the applicants ; <br /> 19 said he could think of other ways of providing security <br /> 20 than to allow a- iive-in unit for that purpose. <br /> *1 Wingard agreed he perceived this was just an easy way for the <br /> 22 owners to rent out the unit once they had to conform to . <br /> 23 Larry Hamer ' s order to evict the renter who was in there; <br /> 24 but indicated he wasn' t really bothered about the unit <br /> 25 being rented which seemed O.K. to him. <br /> 26 Franzese said she had also recognized this was an economic issue <br /> 27 for the applicants ; <br /> 28 perceived there were telephone or recording systems which <br /> 29 could be used when the caretakers were not available ; <br /> 30 pointed out that the facility does have regular hours of <br /> 31 operation posted which made it hard for her to differ- <br /> 32 entiate between this business ' needs and those of other <br /> 33 businesses; <br /> 34 said she thought any one who was interested could get in <br /> 35 touch with the caretakers during the hours which have. <br /> 36 been posted or could leave a note for' the caretakers to <br /> 37 get in touch with them by telephone when they are there. <br /> 38 <br /> 39 Madden said he lived in the same block and had perceived the <br /> 40 triplex next door seemed to require more police - super- <br /> 41 vision than this building; <br /> • <br /> 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.