11-16-99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Schiferl suggested Teague ask the City Attorney about two unrelated people and their children operating as a household. Zisla said he would be interested in the Commission’s opinions on the November 13 letter. Baker stated that any definition of “family” could be unconstitutional. The City is trying to be too restrictive. Schiferl stated there is a philosophical question in the use of the word “family” instead of the word “household.” There is some logic to use “household.” The City is clearly trying to solve a particular problem that the City has recently identified. The Commission must look at the bigger issue. Schiferl said the term probably should be “household.” Baker said he agreed with the term “household.” A group of unrelated people living together is not a family. Schiferl said that the language used to define “family” for seventy years no longer applies. Schopf asked whether “related” means children or cousins many times removed. Baker asked Teague to pose Schiferl’s question to the City Attorney. Lighting of off-street parking lots Teague reviewed the proposed changes in the ordinance concerning lighting of off-street parking lots. Teague stated that Hollywood Video will comply with the new language. Baker asked why the proposed language says, “public property.” Teague responded the language should be taken out, and would be corrected before the City Council meeting. PH. Motion by Baker, seconded by O’Brien, TO CLOSE THE UBLIC EARING Baker asked for a vote on the motion. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. Zisla asked in what sense is the current ordinance too restrictive. Baker said that the police department found that one-foot candle is not enough light in some instances. Baker stated the ordinance should not specify a maximum, if the lighting does not affect the neighbors. The intent of the amendment is to define how much light that can be on the property line with residential property. Controlling the lighting answers that concern. Zisla stated the record should show that the standard is based on the safety issue and consultation with experts. Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE -. AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO OFFSTREET LIGHTING OF PARKING LOTS WITH THE NOTED CHANGE Schopf stated that, in the past, the City required parking lots to be lit all night. Removing the requirement would not necessarily make the site unsafe. Baker said he saw no reason to light a parking lot when customers are not there. Lighting outside business hours should be at the discretion of the property owner. Schiferl said insurance carriers must use the lighting of parking lots outside business hours as a risk factor. Baker stated he thought businesses would keep the lights on all night, but the lighting could be at a lower level. Without a minimum foot candle specification, how can it be determined if a parking lot meets City standards? Baker called for a vote on the motion. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1999\11-16-99.WPD 3