12-21-99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

vehicle. In the traditional family, consisting of two parents and three children, it would be less likely that each of them would have a vehicle. Given the housing stock average is three bedrooms, and if the size of the lots and the availability of off-street parking is not sufficient overall in the community to accommodate five different vehicles per house, the judgement could be made that five unrelated individuals are too many. The Planning Commission and the City Council would have to make that judgment. Zisla stated making findings on each category mentioned would be laborious. Thomson replied that the Planning Commission is not required to make findings on all the averages. The record would reflect that the Commission has considered those points, but the Planning Commission does not have to make findings on all the points. Zisla asked Teague if there is a provision in the Ordinance regarding the definition of “dwelling” that would be a standard for each unit. For instance, the City of Minneapolis’ ordinance limits the number of people who can occupy a residence of a particular size. Is New Brighton’s code comparable to Minneapolis? Teague responded negatively. The closest thing in the Code would be the floor-area-ratio that limits the size of a home that can be built on a lot. Zisla said that could be in the Uniform Building Code or the Fire Code. Might there be a legal limit on how many people could occupy a three-bedroom home? Teague said he would check with the Building Official on the Building Code. Zisla stated that may reinforce Attorney Thomson’s point that there may be limitations on a two-bedroom home. Schiferl stated this discussion may be looking backward to asking why is the Commission doing this at all. Obviously, some definition may be necessary. What is the real purpose of some kind of limitation? The Building Code, the Fire Code, the traffic, noise, property upkeep has been mentioned in the debate. None of this has anything to do with the word “family.” The City is trying to arrive at a reasonable number, which can never be a perfect number for all situations. Thomsen mentioned the subject of vehicle numbers. The definition could mention the maximum number of adults, separating children under driving age. Zisla stated the City would still have to deal with the notion of maintaining a common household. The City is still using the term “family” and is trying to make that more flexible than it is now. However, the City is not abandoning the notion of “family.” O’Brien said to substitute the word “household” for the word “family” was talked about at the last meeting. Did the City Attorney consider such a change? Thomsen responded a different term could be used. Part of the reason for using the word “family” is historical. The New Brighton Ordinance refers to single-family dwellings. The term “single-family dwelling” causes the ordinance to define the term “family.” The term may have been developed when people thought of “family” in traditional and conventional terms. Over the years, the concept has changed. The definition of “family” only defines family for purposes of this zoning ordinance and for its application. It is not intended to be an all-encompassing definition of what the City of New Brighton thinks a family is. It is simply for purposes of applying New Brighton’s zoning code and knowing whether a use conforms to that single-family district. Thomsen said the issue of why the City doing it at all was mentioned earlier. Typically, the genesis of the problem has been that some communities have single-family residential districts where problems have developed. The stereotypical problem deals with college students who try to have six kids living in a house attending school. They cause disruption, more noise, more traffic, and they do not fit into what the community viewed for that district. The purpose of zoning is to try to establish districts for different types of uses so that overall the uses work better together. The reason for limiting the number of unrelated persons living in a home is that, when a number of unrelated people live together, their use of the land is different and causes impacts on neighboring properties that do not fit. It is a land use issue in the single-family residential district. These people belong in multi-family districts. The issue is not a means of saying the living arrangement is endorsed by the City versus one that is not endorsed. It is simply a matter of defining different types of uses. Schiferl asked about the issue of common cooking facilities. What would the impact of mother-in-law apartments? Would that be allowed under the current ordinance? Teague answered a home can have two separate cooking and kitchen facilities. The determining factor on whether the home is a duplex would be if a I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1999\12-21-99.WPD 2