CC 08-14-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 14,2000 6 Acting Mayor Larson stated, with regard to the definition of "family", that two categories are possible: all people in the home are related, or the home contains some unrelated individuals, Councilmember Grant expressed agreement with that interprctation, adding it seems restrictive. Ms. Chaput stated that the wording could be changed to clarify that all the residents need not be related. Councilmember Aplikowski asked whether there are currently other neighborhoods within the City with similar rental properties, Ms. Chaput confim1ed there are other homes rented to students, Councilmember Rem stated the issue arose because of a home in another neighborhood that was going to be sold for the purpose of converting it to a multiple family use, and residents came to the Council. She added that the Council had felt it was worth addrcssing the issue. Acting Mayor Larson stated that the property to which Councilmember Rem referred was located in an R-I zoning area, Mr. Godeke asked for clarification with rcgard to zoning districts, Ms. Chaput stated that Noble Road is located in an R-2 zone, which allows single and two-family uses. Katie Nelson, 388 Bucher Avenue, Shoreview, stated she currently lives in a home converted for students, and noted that most complaints are related to garbage and parking, She added that the allowed number of unrelated people should be raised. Councilmember Aplikowski proposed a motion pertaining to Item I. Mr. Lynch stated it would be necessary to detcrmine whether the amendments should be adopted individually or as a whole. Acting Mayor Larson stated he would not support the motion. He added that, in his opinion, four unrelated people is sufficient. Councilmember Grant asked whether, in the Mayor's absence, the voting on the motion would require a four/fifths majority. Mr. Lynch confirmed that a super majority would be required, He added that thc ordinance an1endments should be adopted as a whole and not section by section. Councilmember Rem agreed, stating the amendments were put forward as a single planning case, Ms, Chaput stated that the Council's recommendations would bc incorporated into a formal document for approval at the Council's next meeting, Ms. Chaput reviewed amendments to Section 11 (D), Definitions; Section VI (Al #5, Size; and Section VI (F) # I h, Parking Structures, with regard to Item 2, pertaining to accessory structures. The definition for "building, accessory" is not inclusive of all structures. Since there are restrictions on accessory buildings, it should be clearly defined, Also, there is no limit on the amount of accessory structures permitted. The accessory structure setbacks are in conflict in some sections (10' for accessory but some principle structures only require a 5' setback) so this language is proposed to be amended, Finally, the term "parking structure" is not defined in the code so it has been amended for "private garagc" which is defined.