12-21-99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

wall physically separates all the separate facilities of the home. If the facilities are connected to the house, the home would still be a single-family home. If each unit is independent from the other, the home would be a duplex. You must be able to go from one area to the other without going outside to be considered a single- family home in the single-family zoning district. Zisla stated that Thomsen explained the argument well. It could be that the commissioners are struggling with situations we lived in during student days. Zisla said he saw too many exceptions and the suggested definition may be too arbitrary. Stepping back, Zisla said he did not know if there is a problem in New Brighton. Sometimes five or six students living together may operate as more of a “family” than a traditional “family.” The decision between four, five, or six is arbitrary. Thomsen said setting the number is clearly a City policy decision for the City Council. The City Council could say that they would allow any number of people sharing common facilities in a residential district. If the City wants to fix a number, which is common practice, it is not uncommon to have a number between three and five. Such a number would be supportable and defensible. If the Council, as a policy matter, chose a greater number or no number at all, that would be defensible. The issue is, would the City have any problems due to the number? Baker stated the language, “an individual or two or more persons” was confusing. There are two groups defined. The first group, those related by blood, marriage, etc., living together as a single-family household unit is one group. This group can have two kitchens if they wish. The next group is two or more unrelated people maintaining a common household and maintaining common cooking facilities. Is that correct? Teague responded affirmatively. Zisla asked if it would be appropriate to use the parallel language for the single-housekeeping unit, which says they maintain a common household. Schiferl asked about the term “common housekeeping unit.” Does it mean that there is no separating wall between units? O’Brien said that, two spaces that can be lived in, as long as they are interconnected, is a single-family home. Thomsen said she would interpret the phrase “living together as a single housekeeping unit” and the phrase “maintaining a common household using common cooking and kitchen facilities” as being essentially equivalent. Making those terms parallel would be appropriate. Schiferl said he wished to go back to the question of what is the City trying to accomplish. Clearly we need a definition with some numbers in it. Is the key issue traffic, property upkeep, noise, Fire Code, or is it the more philosophical issue that people who are related in some way live better than completely unrelated people? Would the amendment achieve those goals? Zisla asked that the record show the answers to those questions would be yes, that is the purpose of the proposed zoning amendment, including the specifics as best as the Commission can estimate by judgement and experience and to the extent Attorney Thomsen articulated the rationale, the amendment is consistent with our general thinking. There will be exceptions that someone can demonstrate to any provision, but that is the case with any provision the City has. Generally, cities operate on the idea that there is a character that goes with single-family homes in addition to house size. The Commission ought to preserve that. The record should show that is the Commission’s judgement based on experience in the community. Baker said he concurred. To have more than four unrelated people in a household is getting into the multi- family area. There are separate zoning and separate regulations for the multi-family zoning, such as parking, which is not outlined in the single-family zoning. The City has to put some controls in the ordinance to maintain the single-family as envisioned by the ordinance. Zisla stated he could be comfortable with the number five. Schiferl stated he was thinking of a friend who joined a religious community of eight people who operated as a family. Schiferl stated he agreed that every situation could not be foreseen. There are situations I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1999\12-21-99.WPD 3