10-19-99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Schiferl referred to the planning report, “A 5-foot decrease in the required setback will not significantly affect the purpose of the front yard setback which is to provide a uniform open space from the street to the homes.” Clearly, it is public policy to have uniform setbacks. Schiferl questioned the provision of uniform open space being a public purpose. Teague stated he agreed with Schiferl’s point. When he checked planning journals on the Internet for a good statement of purpose for a front yard setback, other that the provision of a uniform setback and open space, he was unable to find one. Zisla asked if Teague and Schiferl were saying, for the record, that the New Brighton front yard setback requirement has no legitimate public purpose. Schiferl responded he has no clue what the public purpose is of the setback ordinance. Why is it desirable to have a uniform setback, but having all the houses in a neighborhood look alike is not desirable? Zisla said that the Commission could consider the hypothetical question of what if the City had no setback requirements. Teague stated setbacks prevent the situation of having a home “boxed in” by its neighbors. Zisla stated the setback is 30 feet. The question is in what circumstances would the City allow the setback to be 25 feet. O’Brien asked if other cities considered the potential for widening some streets before adopting a smaller setback. O’Brien stated some streets will be widened in New Brighton, reducing the front yards. Zisla asked how other cities handle the problem of new homes. At what age would a home be eligible for a “setback permit?” Teague responded new homes would be constructed with the 30-foot setback. If the builder wanted to put on a porch or an entryway, the plan would have to go through the Special Use Permit process. The ordinance would put the same requirements on new homes and existing structures. Zisla asked if Teague intended that setback exceptions be handled administratively or would the Planning Commission and the City Council consider these requests. Teague answered that some cities do handle the setbacks administratively, however, it is staff’s intention that these requests be handled through a special use permit reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Schopf said it made sense to handle these setback exceptions administratively. Zisla said that using the special use permit process would give the neighbors a chance to be heard. The decision would not be based on whether the neighbors are for or against a setback special use permit, however, the neighbors should have an opportunity to comment and, perhaps, bring out a point the Commission had not considered. Zisla stated he would prefer that the proposed change were part of the public review process. Schopf stated, after listening to Zisla’s reasoning, he would also prefer the public review process for the setback variances. Schopf asked if this Zoning Ordinance amendment would make it possible for decks to be constructed in the front yard. Teague stated that a deck would be treated the same as a principal structure & must meet the required setback. Zisla said changing the setback overall from 30 feet to 25 feet would not be appropriate. The City is built to the 30-foot setback. To keep the housing stock in good condition, adding to the front of homes may be desirable. Schiferl asked if there would be benefit to having the amendment less broad than a 25-foot setback, but within a certain percentage or distance. O’Brien preferred the review process for any setback ordinance amendment for public comment. Zisla stated he likes the idea of limiting the amendment to porches and entry ways. Otherwise, the City would become involved with involved review for home additions. Teague stated that, during the past two years, no one has come to the City wishing to add a large addition to the front of their home. Five or six residents have asked about an entry way addition that did not meet the setback requirements. Only the Tussing’s formally asked for a variance request. Zisla asked that the record show that the proposed amendment is being considered because of reasons other than to satisfy the request of one resident. Zisla stated that some communities do not send all requests to the Commission or Council. The procedure has some advantages and disadvantages. Larson stated he would like to see more decision-making at the Staff and the Planning Commission level. For instance, if an applicant meets the criteria for an action, the decision could be made at the Staff or Planning Commission level. Zisla stated the New Brighton ordinance has an appeal procedure. Schopf stated an appeal I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1999\10-19-99.WPD 2