CCWS 09-18-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS eITY eOUNeIL WORKSESSION - SEPTEMBER 18, 2000 4 . Councilmembers then discussed, and tried to come to consensus, on the number ofumelated persons within a home. Councilmember Grant indicated that he could be persuaded that four (4) was a more appropriate number. Planning Commissioner Galatowitsch inquired why there couldn't be three (3) family types; the first being a related family (all persons are related by blood or marriage, adoption, etc.); a second family type could be a combination of persons related to each other and umclated persons, such as Exchange Students; and a third family type being all umelated persons. Councilmembers indicated that they wanted to try to hold down the number, rather than increase the number to deal with this particular situation. Commissioner Sand pointed out that the definition in the City of St. Peter's Zoning Ordinance, talking about family and relationships, was a good one. However, they agreed that the definition for the City of St. Peter did not include relationships by virtue of adoption or foster family situations, and those should remain a part of the definition for the City of Arden I-Ells. Councilmembers then continued discussion regarding the number of parked vehicles in driveways. Discussion ensued on how the number vehicles should be related to the number of related or umelated persons in the household. . Councilmember Aplikowski would like to see the language revert back to its original intention; whereby, a property could have a number of vehicles parked in the driveway, as long as it wasn't on a regular basis. Planner Chaput indicated that City Attorney Filla felt that language was too vague and unenforceable. Discussion then centered on the fact that, from a practical standpoint, by the time the process had happened and been completed, the original complaint would probably no longer be valid. Chaput went through a scenario, where if she received a complaint call, she would investigate and if she found that there were grounds for enforcement, she would send a letter to the homeowner requesting that they remedy the situation and give the property owner a specified number of days to remedy the situation. After that time, she would do a follow-up site visit and, if at that time, the situation had not been remedied, the next step would be taken which would be potential tag of the violation and then on to prosecution. In almost all instances, this has not taken place. Council agreed that Planner Chaput should bring back a recommendation similar to what she had originally proposed, with the number ofumelated persons being set at four (4) and the number of vehicles set at three (3) .