Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />APRIL 11, 2013 <br />Planner noted that the R -1 District allows that a family occupying a <br />dwelling unit may also have up to two boarders and still qualify as a single <br />family. This issue that City staff has raised that the Code permits up to <br />three unrelated adults living as a single household to meet the definition of <br />family, meaning that a family may mean up to five unrelated adults, along <br />with children of any two of the adult residents. Staff has indicated that <br />this often leads to issues related to parking, maintenance, and nuisance for <br />a neighborhood. City staff is requesting that a text amendment limiting <br />the family definition and associated boarding allowances to a maximum of <br />three unrelated adults. <br />The Commission had significant discussion focusing on non - traditional <br />family living and who would define whether or not persons were related. <br />Murphy suggested an alternative might to be limit the number of <br />occupants based on number of bedrooms in a residential dwelling. <br />Schwalbach pointed out situations where college students rent a house. <br />Barraclough reported that based on his experience he knows the City of <br />Minneapolis allows up to 5 unrelated individuals in a dwelling units, and <br />that a typical suburban standard is 3 unrelated individuals. The City <br />Planner agreed that 3 was the most common standard. <br />Schwalbach asked if the City was experiencing traffic problems because <br />of the current family definition. The Planner stated that there have been <br />nuisance issues in the City with properties that have many unrelated adults <br />in a dwelling unit. Murphy suggested that the City's nuisance codes could <br />be utilized to resolve these situations. The Planner indicated that the <br />problem is with the amount of enforcement that is required to address <br />these situations. The Planner indicated that staff feels that a tighter <br />definition of family would provide a reasonable solution that is <br />enforceable and would provide additional protections to a neighborhood. <br />Schwalbach asked that the Planner provide information on how <br />neighboring cities define family. The Commission agreed. The Planner <br />indicated that he would bring in both information from neighboring cities <br />as well as a draft text amendment to the Commission's next meeting. <br />CUL -DE -SAC The City Planner reviewed his April 5, 2013 report related to the issue <br />LENGTH of cul -de -sac length. He noted that for many years the Subdivision <br />Ordinance limited cul -de -sac length to a maximum of 500 feet. However, <br />the Code noted that there were situations where temporary cul -de -sac <br />length could exceed the 500 foot maximum, but provided no guidance <br />standards in these situation. A few years ago, the City revised the Code to <br />specify that temporary cul -de -sacs longer than 500 feet may be allowed <br />when "additional natural resources will be preserved without negatively <br />impacting public safety. This provision shall not solely be used to <br />