11-16-99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SP-217, Motion by Livingston, seconded by Schiferl, OF SUBJECT TO TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL . 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. CONDITIONS Zoning Ordinance Amendments City of New Brighton Definition of “Family” Teague reviewed the planning report concerning the definition of “family.” Baker stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the issue. th Pat Owen, 1506 18 Street NW, asked, if the City cannot enforce the existing definition of “family,” is there a guarantee that the City could enforce the new definition? Owen stated she was aware of a household with too many people to fit the new definition. If it is not enforceable, why is it in the Ordinance? Concerning “four unrelated persons” Owen said she was aware of a household with five unrelated people. Teague responded that it is the City Attorney’s opinion that the current ordinance, which defines a family as two or more related persons, would be difficult to enforce. Unmarried couples often live together. The City Attorney is confident that an ordinance using language defined in the planning report would withstand a legal challenge. A resident asked if the City had a desire to enforce the Ordinance. Teague responded the City would respond on a complaint basis. Zisla stated Owen’s comment about the distinction between four and five unrelated persons is interesting. Zisla asked Teague how the City Attorney arrived at four as a workable number. Teague responded that four unrelated persons would encompass common living arrangements. The definition of “family” in the ordinance examples in the planning report would exclude four or more unrelated persons. Zisla stated the other cities’ definition of “family” could be incorrect also. How did the City Attorney arrive at the number “four?” Teague stated that the City Attorney would have to respond to that question. Livingston cited the example of two unmarried people who are living together. If one party had several children, it would be acceptable under the proposed definition of “family” since the children would be related to one unmarried person. Teague responded affirmatively. Schiferl said a situation could arise where two single mothers share a house and each set of children would only be related to one mother. The purpose of redefining “family” is to return the single family residential designation to its original intent and to preserve a sense of responsibility. Zisla stated five unrelated persons could live in a house and be very responsible people. Zisla stated that selecting the correct number is very important. O’Brien asked if the City Attorney is comfortable with “four” because of the precedents set by the other cities. Teague stated that was his impression. Zisla pointed out that Blaine’s ordinance specifies, “exclusive of usual servants.” Just because Blaine defines a family as “four unrelated people” that does not make it appropriate for New Brighton. Zisla asked if the Commission must act on the item tonight before Staff can consult with the City Attorney. Teague stated it may be a good idea to have the City Attorney present when the Planning Commission considers the item next month. PHTO Motion by Baker, seconded by Schiferl, TO CONTINUE THE UBLIC EARING ALLOW TIME TO CA. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. SECURE MORE INFORMATION FROM THE ITY TTORNEY I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1999\11-16-99.WPD 2