CCP 08-28-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e . e ARDENHIL~CTTY COUNCIL - AUGUST 14, 2ilQQ ., B. Planning Cases 1. Case #00-11, City of Arden Hills, Ordinance Amendment Ms. Chaput explained that in response to resident complaints, staff has identificd some portions of thc Zoning Ordinance that rcquirc rcvision in order to properly address complaints. The revisions are a result of researching other cities' ordinanccs as well as staff and Plarming Commission discussions. Ms. Chaput stated that the recommendations of the Planning Commission came before the City Council on July 31, 2000. At that time, the City Council tabled discussion of the amendments. Sincc that time, the City's planning consultant had been consulted on the dcfinition of "family" as it is used in othcr cities and some additional rccommendations were made. Ms. Chaput reviewed amendments to Section II (D), Definitions, with rcgard to Item 1, pertaining to single family homes that are being used as student housing. Ms. Chaput also statcd that Councilmembcrs have been prcscnted with a handout, outlining the definitions used for "family" by thc Univcrsal Building Code, thc City of Rose vi lie and the City of Shoreview, all of which are similar to what is being proposed. Thc City has had a number of complaints on single family homes that havc been converted into housing for numerous students attending the local colleges. The current codc does not have any languagc in it to deter this type of activity, essentially allowing multifamily dwcllings in singlc- family zoning districts. Following discussions with the City's planning consultant, it was also recommended that thc dcfinition of "household" be amended since it did not match the other definition amendments being proposed. Some additional language has also been added to the definition of "family" in order to address state law regarding group homes, as recommended by the City's plarming consultant. Councilmember Aplikowski asked how the amendmcnt would affect the status of group homes. Ms. Chaput stated that there is a definition for a group facility in a residential setting, adding that this falls under State law and as such would be subject to State regulations. Shannon Johnson, 1902 Noble Road, stated she lives next to a home which is rented to students. She added there are currently eleven students living in the home which, in her opinion, is excessive. She expressed concern that the garbagc at the home might attract dogs and raccoons. Ms. Johnson stated that every student has a vehicle, and thcre arc nine to twelve cars parked in the drivcway cvery morning. She added that when the students have friends over, there are cars parked up and down the street. She expresscd frustration over the number of vehicles in the driveway. She noted that the students are friendly and quiet. Ms. Johnson stated that parking is the main issue, adding that if the City limits thc number of people living in a home, that would solvc the problem. Ferdinand Peters, 1708 Portland Avenue, St. Paul, stated hc is an attorney representing Jerry and Julie Warner, the owners of the home on Noble Road which is currently rented to students. He addcd that his clients feel the ordinance amendments have been generated because of thc