12-15-2014 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 15, 2014 The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by McGraw. Ayes (4). Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. AMEND Montour opened the Public Hearing to consider Amendment the Zoning ZONING Code relative to the definition of Family. It was noted that the Planning CODE- Commission has recommended approval of the amendment as DEFINITION outlined in the City Planner's December 5, 2014 report. OF FAMILY The City Planner reported that the Zoning Code currently references State Statute licensing requirements for group homes and noted that the Statute has been amended to reflect that group homes must now be registered rather than licenses. The Planner indicated, therefore, that the first change proposed is to bring the Code in line with State Statute relative to the registration requirement. He also pointed out that group homes are allowed under State Law to have up to six residents, and given the trend to have live-in caretakers, the Planner proposed that these caretakers be excluded from this count. 'Therefore, the Planner proposed a new definition of a group home facility that would allow up to two caretaker staff beyond the residence population and would require the caretaker unit to be attached to the group home facility. The Planner noted that there may be other staff coming to and from a group home, however, up to two staff members would be allowed to reside on the property. Montour asked if the need for this amendment was unique to Little Canada. The Planner indicated that most communities have not done an update to bring their ordinances into conformance with State Law. The City Attorney agreed, and noted that the proposed amendment merely coordinates the City Code with State Law. McGraw noted that the Council does not have the right to limit the number of group homes in the City. The City Planner replied that that is correct. He noted that the Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis have more rights given they are cities of the first class, but smaller cities did not. Gerald Menke, 2395 Edgerton Street, reported that he recently purchased this property in order to construct a group home on the site and noted that his son would be a resident of this group home. Menke reported that in his experience live-in caretakers tended to be young married couples with children. Menke asked that the Code be expanded to allow couples with children to serve as live-in caretakers. The City Planner suggested that the proposed amendment could be expanded to accommodate up to two caretakers with their dependent children. The City Attorney agreed that this was an acceptable amendment. It was noted that the maximum 4