04-24-2013 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL APRIL 24, 2013 The next issue relates to the current Code definition of family. The Planner reported that family is defined as up to three unrelated individuals. The Planner noted, however, that the R -1 District allows a family occupying a dwelling unit to have up to two boarders and still qualify as a single- family. The result is that there could be up to five unrelated adults in a single - family dwelling along with children of any two of the adult residents. The Planner indicated that this condition leads to situations of parking, maintenance, nuisance, and public safety issues for a neighborhood. The Planner suggested that if the Council would like staff to prepare a study and possible ordinance amendment, he would work with the City Attorney's office on this issue. The City Attorney reported that due to economic times groups have combined together to pool resources relative to housing. The Attorney stated that there has been a lot of study relative to how family is defined. The Attorney recommended that the Planner look at how other cities are addressing this issue, and noted that Little Canada always drafts its ordinance with the hest interests of its residents in mind. Montour asked about staff's concern relative to this definition. The City Planner reported that there are land use implications relative to the number of unrelated individuals occupying a dwelling unit. "These relate to issues such as inadequate driveway size, parking issues, traffic and code enforcement concerns, as well as public safety concerns. The Council agreed that study should be done relative to definition of family and a recommendation presented to the Council. The Planner stated that the third issue relates to cul -de -sac length noting that for many years the City limited the length of cul -de -sacs to 500 feet. The Planner reported that a few years ago the City revised the Code to specify that temporary cul -de -sacs may be longer than 500 feet under the condition that additional natural resources will be preserved without negatively impacting public safety. There has been concern expressed by staff that this clause may be overly limiting and that a broader exception should be considered. Blesener agreed that this issue should be studied, noting that the City only has little pockets of areas that are undeveloped. Council agreed. The City Planner reported that he will bring a report and proposed amendments to the next Planning Commission meeting for a recommendation to the Council. 13