CCP 12-18-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . e ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - NOVEMBER 27,2000 ir<.i, L..Y 7 Councilmember Aplikowski asked about driveways, which are currently not Class 5. Ms. Chaput stated existing driveways would remain the same unless there are major changes or the location is changed. She noted it would put regulations on new driveways and could stop single family homes from becoming dormitories. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she knows the intent, but the language is "shall be improved". She asked why they no longer offered options. Ms. Chaput stated there were a long list of things that could be classified as paved and they did not want to limit it to just a few types. Councilmcmber Aplikowski stated this Council has said a Class 5 driveway could stay that way forever. She added she also objects to dropping the language "regularly" parked. She noted she does not agree with limiting the number of cars to three. She added her concern to make these changes for three dorm houses, Ms, Chaput stated "regularly" is pretty hard to enforce. She noted code enforcement is done on a complaint basis and they do not go out on the day the complaint is received. She added that after the visit they send a letter giving the person 10 days to remedy the situation. She stated ifthe response is that it is a short-term situation due to a family event, then the City tries to work with the family. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she would listen to the presentation, but did not agree with the number three. Councilmembcr Grant asked about a clarification on the definition of family. He stated ifthere is a family with a husband, wife, two kids and a renter boarder, by this definition it would not conform to this definition, Mr. Filla stated if there is concern about adopting this kind of regulation, they have been reviewed by federal courts and have been found to be constitutional. He noted he would say a family of people who are related may be of any size. Councilmember Grant asked about his example. Mr. Filla stated Councilmember Grant has identified a weakness in the language since it would not be one or the other. Councilmember Grant asked if a family took in a college student would they then fall into a group of not more than four. Mr. Filla stated he would read the statute that way. He noted as long as the extra group does not exceed four. He added a family could take up to four other people. He stated the other control would be parking. He noted if a statute could be interpreted more than one way, it would interpreted liberally in favor of the property owner. He added if the Council is not happy with the result, they need new language. Councilmember Larson stated he feels it is restrictive. He noted it is a difficult one to write. Councilmember Aplikowski stated it is her understanding that an adopted or blended family could be of any number and that they can take in up to three boarders. She noted it is the group that has no connection to one another that could only have four people. Mr. Filla stated the critical point is the perception that a group of people acts differently than a traditional family and that creates parking problems. He noted the City does have the authority to adopt such an ordinance.