Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting - November 16, 1999

7:30 p.m.

Call to Order

Larry Baker, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

Roll Call

Present:	Larry Baker, Mike Livingston, Jim O'Brien, Norm Schiferl,

David Schmitz, Jeff Schopf, Paul Zisla

Absent:

Also Present:	Cary Teague, City Planner

Steve Larson, City Council Liaison

Approval of Minutes

Livingston stated he was present at the October meeting—he could not get into City Hall because it was locked. Teague apologized for not opening the door earlier. Livingston thought that the meeting had been cancelled. Motion by Zisla, seconded by O'Brien, to approve the amended minutes of the October 19, 1999, Planning Commission meeting. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Report on Council Actions

Mayor-Elect Steve Larson reported on the election results. Kim Moore-Sykes assumed Ann Hoffman's seat on the Council, which is a two-year seat, on November 3. Hoffman will take a four-year Council seat on January 1, 2000. Arly Gunderman was reelected to a four-year term. Larson expects the transition to be a smooth one.

Agenda Review

The agenda was adopted as written.

Public Hearings

Special Use Permit	Nextel Communications

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning a request for a Special Use Permit for mounting an antenna on an existing NSP Tower and to construct a wireless communications equipment enclosure at 2172 Old Highway 8 NW.

Schiferl asked if the applicant has agreed to installing the three pine trees referred to in the planning report. Teague answered affirmatively.

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

Motion by Baker, seconded by O'Brien to close the Public Hearing. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Motion by Livingston, seconded by Schiferl, to recommend approval of SP-217, subject to conditions. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Zoning Ordinance Amendments	City of New Brighton

Definition of "Family"

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning the definition of "family." Baker stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the issue.

Pat Owen, 1506 18th Street NW, asked, if the City cannot enforce the existing definition of "family," is there a guarantee that the City could enforce the new definition? Owen stated she was aware of a household with too many people to fit the new definition. If it is not enforceable, why is it in the Ordinance? Concerning "four unrelated persons" Owen said she was aware of a household with five unrelated people.

Teague responded that it is the City Attorney's opinion that the current ordinance, which defines a family as two or more related persons, would be difficult to enforce. Unmarried couples often live together. The City Attorney is confident that an ordinance using language defined in the planning report would withstand a legal challenge.

A resident asked if the City had a desire to enforce the Ordinance. Teague responded the City would respond on a complaint basis.

Zisla stated Owen's comment about the distinction between four and five unrelated persons is interesting. Zisla asked Teague how the City Attorney arrived at four as a workable number. Teague responded that four unrelated persons would encompass common living arrangements. The definition of "family" in the ordinance examples in the planning report would exclude four or more unrelated persons. Zisla stated the other cities' definition of "family" could be incorrect also. How did the City Attorney arrive at the number "four?" Teague stated that the City Attorney would have to respond to that question.

Livingston cited the example of two unmarried people who are living together. If one party had several children, it would be acceptable under the proposed definition of "family" since the children would be related to one unmarried person. Teague responded affirmatively.

Schiferl said a situation could arise where two single mothers share a house and each set of children would only be related to one mother. The purpose of redefining "family" is to return the single family residential designation to its original intent and to preserve a sense of responsibility. Zisla stated five unrelated persons could live in a house and be very responsible people. Zisla stated that selecting the correct number is very important.

O'Brien asked if the City Attorney is comfortable with "four" because of the precedents set by the other cities. Teague stated that was his impression. Zisla pointed out that Blaine's ordinance specifies, "exclusive of usual servants." Just because Blaine defines a family as "four unrelated people" that does not make it appropriate for New Brighton.

Zisla asked if the Commission must act on the item tonight before Staff can consult with the City Attorney. Teague stated it may be a good idea to have the City Attorney present when the Planning Commission considers the item next month.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Schiferl, to continue the Public Hearing TO allow time to secure more information from the City Attorney. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

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.

Motion by Baker, seconded by O'Brien, to close the Public Hearing.

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 off-street 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.

General Business

Zoning Ordinance Amendment	Informal discussion - front yard setbacks

Teague reviewed the planning report concerning a change in the City's front yard setback requirements. Baker asked about a garage with rooms above it. Is the whole garage figured in as part of the front? Teague stated Baker's question is a good one and should be considered in an ordinance amendment. In all likelihood, the twelve-foot maximum requirement would take effect in the situation of living space above a garage.

Schiferl asked about Paragraph 2C, "The base of the addition is not open and its appearance is consistent with the base of the building." Does that mean an owner cannot build a Victorian porch? Teague responded "the base of the addition is not open" means it cannot be built on stilts, like a deck. The addition must match the existing building. Schiferl stated 12 feet seemed too narrow. Zisla stated the purpose of the amendment would not be to allow porches, but to prevent homes from becoming functionally and economically obsolete. The thought was to allow additions to the living area of a home, not additions such as porches and decks. Baker agreed that encouraging the addition of porches and decks is not appropriate. This amendment is to allow additions to the function of the home.

Zisla stated he had a question on Paragraph 2A, "The proposed addition uses the same exterior structure materials and colors as the principle structure and accessories." The language could be overly restrictive. O'Brien stated the key word is "compatible." Zisla stated that the draft is very consistent and is well done.

Teague stated the Planning Commission had talked about a Board of Appeals. The Zoning Code does not make any provision for a Board of Appeals. The City is setup with the Planning Commission format, with the City Council making the ultimate decision. The Code would have to be changed to create a Board of Appeals. Baker stated he would not support a change in procedure.

O'Brien asked if the issue of a 24-foot wide house and the garage is not considered, the maximum width of the addition would have to be reduced. Baker answered affirmatively if there is no living space above the garage. Baker said the garage would be part of the calculation if there are rooms above it.

Baker said the Commission seems to be comfortable with the amendment as presented by the City Planner.

Announcements and Updates - None

Adjourn

Motion by Baker, seconded by O'Brien, to adjourn the meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

_______________________________________

Cary Teague, City Planner