12-21-99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

where something more than four would be appropriate. Four may be too limiting; the Commission should recommend five. Baker stated that the majority of duplexes in New Brighton probably have less than six people. Thomsen suggested another way to set the number is to look at the average “family” size, whereas, previously, many families consisted of seven or eight children. However, that would be very uncommon today. In terms of setting standards for the single-family area, if the City sets a number that would be typical for most of the residents living in the area makes it more likely that community expectations will be met. If all of the houses had eight related people living in them, having another house with eight unrelated people might not have any more impact than any of the others. However, where most of the household units of four or five, then it makes more sense to set the number at four or five. Baker stated that this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak to this issue. Art Owen, 537 Benz Road, said a letter he sent to the City Attorney about enforcing the existing ordinance probably triggered this item. Owen said, when he bought his home in 1980, he thought a single-family home would be protected by the ordinance. Since then, the home next door does not conform. Is New Brighton going to challenge this situation? Owen asked if he will have to move outside New Brighton? Livingston asked about Owen’s experiences. Owen said he had lawsuits filed against his property and there was an attempt to annex five feet of Owen’s property to the neighbor’s property. That went to court and there will possibly more lawsuits like this against his property. Owen said if he cannot get any support from the City, he will decide to move. Livingston said he would like to hear some negative impacts on Owen’s neighborhood. Owens responded his neighbor does not seem to have any regard for his property. The neighbor decided to develop his backyard so the gravel truck poured the gravel out in the street. Mrs. Owen complained about the gravel in the street and the City looked at it. The neighborhood has a stove and refrigerator on the front porch for a long time until we complained about it. After a time, that was cleaned up. It started with two or three people living there and now it is up to five. There was a rumor that this neighbor was going to start a shelter for battered colored women. Owen said he would rather live where the standards are protected by the City. We could end up having a dormitory next door to us. At five or five fifteen each morning, there is a delivery. I hate to speculate on it. There is extra traffic and they are inconsiderate of the neighbors. I finally put a fence between my home and the neighbors. There are wash tubs out in the yard in the back. I assume more people will be moving in there in the near future. That is why I wondered how much teeth these ordinances have in them and if the City is interested in going to bat for me. What is a single family home and what is a multi-family home? th Andrea Holsten, 141 20 Avenue SW, said she had sent a letter last month. Holsten asked about Thomsen the part about “two (2) or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption living together as a family unit.” At the last meeting Mr. Schiferl asked about the issue of two single mothers each with three children living in the same household. Would that be within the ordinance? Thomsen responded that, if there are more than four persons who are not related to each other, that would not be allowed in the single-family district. Thomsen said that the examples cited by Holsten would be not be allowed because there would be more than four people unrelated to each other. The mother and her three children would be unrelated to one of the people in the other family would make five unrelated people. The possibilities would have to be mapped out on paper. Holsten asked how that would be different from the accessory use of up to two people as roomers or boarders. Thomsen stated, in her opinion, it would highly unlikely that the two single mothers would pool their money and buy the house together. Schiferl stated he did not agree. Thomsen stated she felt it would be more likely that one woman would have the house because of a divorce or afforded it on her own, but wanted someone to live there. That would not be part of this ordinance amendment because the second mother and children would be roomers or boarders. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1999\12-21-99.WPD 4