Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting October 19, 1999

7:30 p.m.

Call to Order

Paul Zisla called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

Roll Call

Present:	Jim O'Brien, Norm Schiferl, David Schmitz, Jeff Schopf, Paul Zisla

Absent:	Larry Baker, Mike Livingston (unable to enter City Hall - building was locked)

Also Present:	Cary Teague, City Planner

Steve Larson, City Council Liaison

Approval of Minutes

Motion by Schiferl, seconded by O'Brien, to approve the minutes of September 21, 1999, Planning Commission meeting. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Agenda Review

The agenda was adopted as written.

Public Hearings

Nonconforming Use Permit & Site Plan Review (continued)	Houwman Architects/Mir Ali

Teague reviewed his memo concerning a nonconforming use permit and site plan review for constructing a 43-unit apartment building at 219-221 Old Highway 8 NW. Teague stated that the applicant is again requesting that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing. This is the last time the applicant may request an extension because the required 120-day review limit expires November 30, 1999.

Zisla asked why the applicant is doing an analysis of underground parking. Teague responded that Staff suggested the applicant explore underground parking as opposed to detached garages. Because the building would be close to the wetland, underground parking would require less grading on the site.

Zisla stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the issue. No one responded.

Motion by O'Brien, seconded by Schmitz, to continue the public hearing. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

General Business

Zoning Ordinance Amendment	City of New Brighton

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning an informal discussion of the City's front yard setback requirement in residential zoning districts and number of parking stalls for apartments.

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 could be made to the Council. Zisla stated applicants should have the right of appeal. The Planning Commission is an advisory Commission. Zisla said he would recommend that requests come to the Planning Commission.

Schopf asked about the curb in relation to the right-of-way. Teague answered the property line from the curb is supposed to be 14 feet, if the street is placed directly in the middle of the right-of-way. That is not always the case. We could include that in the ordinance amendment as a condition. Zisla stated that Staff should check with the City Attorney because many standards may be tied to the property line. Schopf said that setbacks could be 30 feet from the property line no matter what the right-of-way is. Zisla stated the situation would be moot because the curb changes from block to block, and it would change overtime with street projects. It is an excellent point to raise, because when someone looks at a street ever looks at the property line, they look at the street line. That is so much a part of the ordinance that Commission cannot take it out in the amendment and keep it for other parts of the Zoning Ordinance.

Schiferl said he was concerned about the aesthetics issue. Aesthetics is a matter of personal perception. O'Brien stated aesthetics is a difficult area to regulate. Zisla asked if O'Brien objected to Item #4. O'Brien said he thought that the language in Item #4 was appropriate, except as it refers to color. Zisla stated that historically the Planning Commission has avoided formal rules for aesthetics. What the Commission wants to say is that an addition should be compatible with the house.

Zisla stated the Commission does not need to act on the Staff recommendation formally. Staff would like some sense of what the Commission will want. The Commission would like to pursue Item #2 and come back with some changes. Items #1 and #3 should be removed.

Off-Street Parking Requirements for Apartments

Teague reviewed the memo relating to off-street parking for apartments. Zisla asked O'Brien about underground parking as a planning issue. O'Brien answered that putting parking underground is more expensive because construction must be concrete or masonry construction, not wood-framed. If an applicant is building an upscale building, underground parking is desirable. Zisla said Commissioner Livingston requested this item. If Livingston so desires, the Commission can talk about it at the November meeting.

Report on Council Action

Larson said the Council approved the Tussing entryway. The Council approved the Foster subdivision, subject to review and approval of a grading plan by the City Engineer.

Announcements and Updates - None

Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m..

_______________________________________

Cary Teague, City Planner