PL MINUTES 09161980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-4- Mr. Bowerman said he approved..of . the., amendment itself . but objected to the exclusion - of children over 18 years of age living in the caretakers. residence,. since he knows . of many children older than that age .who . live with their parents while attending college, etc. and he felt the phraseology discriminated against them. Mr,. Jones and Mrs . Makowske were..opposed: to. the..-allowance of- children. under 18 in the caretakers residence because they do not believe children should be- permitted to' live- in a. Light Industrial district. Mrs. Makowske was concerned with the-.City permitting children to live in an area where trucks are driving in and out putting children, especially toddlers, in jeopardy. Mr. Blan.ske was still in attendance. and said he too objected to excluding older children .from the caretakers quarters,. - Although it is his intention to have .only . retired or disabled persons to provide the security he feels is necessary. for the mini.-warehouse facility, Mr. Blanske said he might, if .no one is found by next summer, use the quarters for himself and- he has .a 13 and a 23. year old and wouldn'.t want the eldest excluded from living there. There. was no one else present to .speak for or against the amendment and the public hearing was closed at 8 :37 P.M. Motion by Mr._- Bowerman and seconded. by Mr. Enrooth. to..report to the Council that -the Planning -Commi-ssion had...held the.. required public • hearing on the amendment . of Section 1, Subdivision 3..of 'Section 10 of the. zoning Ordinance to add.-Subsection 7 which-permits a dwell- ing unit .for use .as. a-.residence for a , caretaker for. a. mini-warehouse facility and- for which there was no opposition to the amendment per se but a change in the wording is recommended by the Planning Com- mission whereby the words "dependent children." are substituted for the words "children under the age of 18 years" in the amendment. Before the vote was taken, Mrs: Makowske said .she.; would not be able to vote for the..change or for .the amendment .because she would "feel remiss with an ordinance which might jeopardize the .safety of children" . Mr. Jones agreed saying he was concerned because the amendment applied not only to the Blanske property but to. any other similar facility which might be developed in the .City at. a. later date. He did not believe children should be raised in a commercial area and disagreed with Mr. Enrooth' s statement "If you -decide to exclude children, you're discriminating" by telling him such exclusions are the practice allover the metropolitan area. He said he. knew children could be excluded from duplexes where the owner is a resident and cited other: instances where exclusions are .permitted. He agreed with Mr. Enrooth, however., that the legal clarification of the point should besought by staff. Mr. Sopcinski believed .excluding children might also exclude a semi- disabled parent with children from seeking this type of part time • employment and .suggested.. the fact that the Blanske unit will have only one bedroom might limit. the number of residents who could live there.