My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1984-01-24
NewBrighton
>
Council
>
Minutes - City Council
>
Minutes 1984
>
1984-01-24
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2005 4:58:53 AM
Creation date
8/11/2005 1:14:37 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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 />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Minutes <br />January 24, 1984 <br /> <br />City Manager suggested the staff and Citizens Study Committee <br />meet to determine the general ideas of what we want. When those <br />ideas have been formulated, then we should get together with <br />Lindberg Pierce to verify our findings with regard to specifics <br />(ie, computer and word processing space). <br /> <br />Motion by Benke, seconded by Schmidt to authorize staff to pre- <br />pare a contract with Lindberg Pierce to cover space and archi- <br />tecture. <br /> <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried <br /> <br />City Planner had nothing to add to the! previous report. <br /> <br />notion by Benke, seconded by Harcus to waive the reading and' <br />hold the second reading, adopt, and order publication of an <br />ORDINANCE AMENDIMG SECTION 7-030, SECTION 7-080, SECTION 8-320, <br />SECTION 8-330, SECTION 8-620, SECTION 26-7 AND SECTION 26-24 OF <br />THE NEW BRIGHTON CITY CODE pertaining to public notification <br />requirements. <br /> <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried <br /> <br />City Planner mentioned that the Planning Commission had <br />reviewed the comments and concerns of the Council and the <br />City Attorney raised at the first reading of the amendment <br />on January 10, 1984. <br /> <br />Harcus mentioned that the Planning Commission was strong in <br />their recommendations. <br /> <br />Schmidt indicated that he was in favor of recol1ll1ending'that <br />only those persons residing on the premises be allowed to be <br />employed in the home occupation. <br /> <br />Janecek indicated she still wasn't comfortable but, not <br />knowing how to reword it, would support it. Benke concurred. <br /> <br />Because "reasonable" with regard to traffic isn't specified, <br />Blomquist suggested that we specify the number of trips per <br />day stating that this would also take care of the number of <br />employees problem. <br /> <br />City Planner stated that such a policy would be enforceable <br />only on traffic. Benke asked if we could define "reasonable.", <br />Director of City Development stated it would be difficult to <br />enforce either way. Traffic may be a guide, but couldn't be <br />the only tool for enforcement. <br /> <br />Page Eight <br /> <br />Code Amendment <br />Public Notification <br />Requirements <br />Report #84-8 Suppl. <br />Second Reading <br />Ordinance No. 519 <br /> <br />Code Amendment <br />Home Occupation <br />Report #84-9 Suppl. <br />Second Reading <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.