04/29/1969 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ e n -( r.:.1 ,J _....... u . 4j2? /69 _ ~I to make the necessary identifications. It circumvents the normal chain of authority, both at the institution and in the city. It may subject cities to unpredictable liability for police actions. If any law at all is needed, it should, provide ~or penalties for violation of orders made by the institution, excluding designated persons, not order the local author- ities to enforce exclusions stated in the bill itself. T he changes needed thus go beyond the mere amendment of H.B. 1880. We urge the legislature. to reconsider the problem on a clean slate, after soliciting information and views from the state and local, agencies directly concerned. :. Mr.. Mohr said he had polled as many members as possible and the Mayor, because the time factor was pressing. He pointed. out that the position was that this bill should have gone through a longer history of legislative development. This bill did not go through the legislative process normal for such a bill. A vote was taken on the motion as stated. Mr. McDonald voted no. Motion carried. e 2. Appeal, Hugh B. Wood -.Mr. Wood is appealing the decision of the Board of Appeals on requests for waiver of parking area. The Superintendent of Building Inspection explained the past history of this case and waivers already granted by the Boa~d of Appeals. The Council discussed the ,reason for the request and the importance of parking in the Univ- ersity district, where these apartments are located. Mr. Gribskov suggested that a conditional use permit could be granted to allow this waiver of parking requirements. It was pointed out that .parking is of great importance. I Mrs. Hayward moved seconded by Mr. Mohr to uphold the Board of Appeals in their 'ruling with regard to relief from parking requirements requested by Hugh Wood. There was further discussion about the possibility of Mr. Wood providing parking in another location.. Mr. Mortier explained that this was not permitted in this district. In answer to a question from Mrs. Beal, Mr. Mo~tier said Mr. Wood could request the Board of Appeals to review the decision with. regard to another solution. A vote was taken on the motion as stated, and the.motion ca~ried. M~s'~ Hayward, Mayor Anderson and Mr. Mohr voted in favor. Mr. Gribskov voted no. Mrs. Beal did not vote. Mrs. Hayward moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to approve Item 2 of the Committee report. Mr. Fechtel thanked the'Council for the consideration given Mr. Wood. . . . Mr.. McDonald said he had looked at the property and asked wgy Mr. Wood couldn't r'emove lands cap- , ing and put another parking space there. Mr. Mortier explained the present zoning ordinance requirements regarding front yard and setback requirements, and that, under the ordinance~ this would be impossible. Mr. McDonald felt a hardship had been created for Mr. Wood" and that the Council should attempt to give him relief. I Mrs. Hayward explained that there had been ma~y.disc~ssions.of this matter .by the ,City Council, and that the law has to be upheld; that he has been through appeal procedures, and they are still available to him. A vote was taken on the motion as stated. Mr. McDonald and Mr. Gribskov were opposed. Mrs. Beal, Mrs., Hayward and Mr. Mohr voted in favor. Motion carried. 3. .. . -- ... . . Grass Burning Experiment, Airport Land - The City Council revised, its original decision regarding use of city-owned property to allow experimental burning, and subseque~t to that d,ecision, Mr. Marvin Ringsdorf, les.see; asked to discuss the Council's action as it affected him. e Mr. Ringsdorf said he had communicated with Dr. Chilcote regarding proposed experiments, and that experiments could not be carried out with the Council's restriction against open burning. Adjacent fields have either younger or older growth a~d could not, be used as a ,control. It is Dr. Chilco~e's opinion research would have little value with- out the comparison of field burning in the us~al manner. Mrs. Hayward asked the staff to get in touch. with Dr. Chilcote, and sugges.ted the Council defer any decision until he can be present for discussion. This approach was approved. Mrs. Hayward moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to receive and place on file Item 3 of the committee report. I The Manager said Mr. Ray had been working on asked what the po.sition of the Council was. to cooperate with researchers, but had ruled this. Mrs. Beal said Mr. Alexander had call~d and Mrs. Beal had explained that the Council was willing against any open burning on city property. A vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried. e .4. Review of aid Awarded April 14, 1969 - Mr. Allen explained that property owners present, to object to the bid for Boradview Street were inadvertently in the Engineer's office w)1.en the matt'er camj3 up for action at the Council mee.ting. Their objection was bas.ed on the high price, and they have written asking that award of the contract be refused. The contract has not been signed, and the staff recommends that the contract be refused I I! 4/29/69 - 9 I: I, i: !' .....1