Minutes

New Brighton Planning Commission

Regular Meeting - December 21, 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, Paul Zisla

Absent:	David Schmitz, Jeff Schopf

Also Present:	Cary Teague, City Planner

Steve Larson, City Council Liaison

Corrine Thomson, Kennedy & Graven

Approval of Minutes

Motion by Schiferl, seconded by O'Brien, to approve the minutes of the November 16, 1999, Planning Commission meeting. 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

Agenda Review

The agenda was adopted as written.

Report on Council Action

Larson said the last Council meeting of the year was held tonight and was the last meeting over which Mayor Benke presided. It was an occasion to thank Mayor Benke for his fine work during the past many years.

Public Hearings

Zoning Ordinance Amendment (continued)	City of New Brighton

Teague reviewed the Planning Report concerning consideration of a Zoning Amendment for the definition of "Family."

Zisla referred to Section 2-270. Family: An individual or two (2) or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption living together as a family unit. or foster care arrangement living together as a single housekeeping unit, or a group of not more than four (4) persons not so related, maintaining a common household, and using common cooking and kitchen facilities.

Zisla asked Ms. Thomson how was the number four was picked. Thomson responded that the City Council and the Planning Commission would have discretion in recommending the appropriate number for the New Brighton community. The number is not a magic number. No compelling reason exists to arrive at the number four. The legislative body needs to make the judgment. The judgment could take into account several things. The reasons could include the average size of the housing stock and the average number of bedrooms in homes, the average lot size, the ability of off-street parking. No number can be the perfect number. It may be more likely that, if five unrelated persons living in a house, that each of the five people would have their own vehicle. In the traditional family, consisting of two parents and three children, it would be less likely that each of them would have a vehicle. Given the housing stock average is three bedrooms, and if the size of the lots and the availability of off-street parking is not sufficient overall in the community to accommodate five different vehicles per house, the judgement could be made that five unrelated individuals are too many. The Planning Commission and the City Council would have to make that judgment.

Zisla stated making findings on each category mentioned would be laborious. Thomson replied that the Planning Commission is not required to make findings on all the averages. The record would reflect that the Commission has considered those points, but the Planning Commission does not have to make findings on all the points. Zisla asked Teague if there is a provision in the Ordinance regarding the definition of "dwelling" that would be a standard for each unit. For instance, the City of Minneapolis' ordinance limits the number of people who can occupy a residence of a particular size. Is New Brighton's code comparable to Minneapolis? Teague responded negatively. The closest thing in the Code would be the floor-area-ratio that limits the size of a home that can be built on a lot. Zisla said that could be in the Uniform Building Code or the Fire Code. Might there be a legal limit on how many people could occupy a three-bedroom home? Teague said he would check with the Building Official on the Building Code. Zisla stated that may reinforce Attorney Thomson's point that there may be limitations on a two-bedroom home.

Schiferl stated this discussion may be looking backward to asking why is the Commission doing this at all. Obviously, some definition may be necessary. What is the real purpose of some kind of limitation? The Building Code, the Fire Code, the traffic, noise, property upkeep has been mentioned in the debate. None of this has anything to do with the word "family." The City is trying to arrive at a reasonable number, which can never be a perfect number for all situations. Thomsen mentioned the subject of vehicle numbers. The definition could mention the maximum number of adults, separating children under driving age.

Zisla stated the City would still have to deal with the notion of maintaining a common household. The City is still using the term "family" and is trying to make that more flexible than it is now. However, the City is not abandoning the notion of "family." O'Brien said to substitute the word "household" for the word "family" was talked about at the last meeting. Did the City Attorney consider such a change? Thomsen responded a different term could be used. Part of the reason for using the word "family" is historical. The New Brighton Ordinance refers to single-family dwellings. The term "single-family dwelling" causes the ordinance to define the term "family." The term may have been developed when people thought of "family" in traditional and conventional terms. Over the years, the concept has changed. The definition of "family" only defines family for purposes of this zoning ordinance and for its application. It is not intended to be an all-encompassing definition of what the City of New Brighton thinks a family is. It is simply for purposes of applying New Brighton's zoning code and knowing whether a use conforms to that single-family district.

Thomsen said the issue of why the City doing it at all was mentioned earlier. Typically, the genesis of the problem has been that some communities have single-family residential districts where problems have developed. The stereotypical problem deals with college students who try to have six kids living in a house attending school. They cause disruption, more noise, more traffic, and they do not fit into what the community viewed for that district. The purpose of zoning is to try to establish districts for different types of uses so that overall the uses work better together. The reason for limiting the number of unrelated persons living in a home is that, when a number of unrelated people live together, their use of the land is different and causes impacts on neighboring properties that do not fit. It is a land use issue in the single-family residential district. These people belong in multi-family districts. The issue is not a means of saying the living arrangement is endorsed by the City versus one that is not endorsed. It is simply a matter of defining different types of uses.

Schiferl asked about the issue of common cooking facilities. What would the impact of mother-in-law apartments? Would that be allowed under the current ordinance? Teague answered a home can have two separate cooking and kitchen facilities. The determining factor on whether the home is a duplex would be if a wall physically separates all the separate facilities of the home. If the facilities are connected to the house, the home would still be a single-family home. If each unit is independent from the other, the home would be a duplex. You must be able to go from one area to the other without going outside to be considered a single-family home in the single-family zoning district.

Zisla stated that Thomsen explained the argument well. It could be that the commissioners are struggling with situations we lived in during student days. Zisla said he saw too many exceptions and the suggested definition may be too arbitrary. Stepping back, Zisla said he did not know if there is a problem in New Brighton. Sometimes five or six students living together may operate as more of a "family" than a traditional "family." The decision between four, five, or six is arbitrary.

Thomsen said setting the number is clearly a City policy decision for the City Council. The City Council could say that they would allow any number of people sharing common facilities in a residential district. If the City wants to fix a number, which is common practice, it is not uncommon to have a number between three and five. Such a number would be supportable and defensible. If the Council, as a policy matter, chose a greater number or no number at all, that would be defensible. The issue is, would the City have any problems due to the number?

Baker stated the language, "an individual or two or more persons" was confusing. There are two groups defined. The first group, those related by blood, marriage, etc., living together as a single-family household unit is one group. This group can have two kitchens if they wish. The next group is two or more unrelated people maintaining a common household and maintaining common cooking facilities. Is that correct? Teague responded affirmatively.

Zisla asked if it would be appropriate to use the parallel language for the single-housekeeping unit, which says they maintain a common household. Schiferl asked about the term "common housekeeping unit." Does it mean that there is no separating wall between units? O'Brien said that, two spaces that can be lived in, as long as they are interconnected, is a single-family home. Thomsen said she would interpret the phrase "living together as a single housekeeping unit" and the phrase "maintaining a common household using common cooking and kitchen facilities" as being essentially equivalent. Making those terms parallel would be appropriate.

Schiferl said he wished to go back to the question of what is the City trying to accomplish. Clearly we need a definition with some numbers in it. Is the key issue traffic, property upkeep, noise, Fire Code, or is it the more philosophical issue that people who are related in some way live better than completely unrelated people? Would the amendment achieve those goals?

Zisla asked that the record show the answers to those questions would be yes, that is the purpose of the proposed zoning amendment, including the specifics as best as the Commission can estimate by judgement and experience and to the extent Attorney Thomsen articulated the rationale, the amendment is consistent with our general thinking. There will be exceptions that someone can demonstrate to any provision, but that is the case with any provision the City has. Generally, cities operate on the idea that there is a character that goes with single-family homes in addition to house size. The Commission ought to preserve that. The record should show that is the Commission's judgement based on experience in the community.

Baker said he concurred. To have more than four unrelated people in a household is getting into the multi-family area. There are separate zoning and separate regulations for the multi-family zoning, such as parking, which is not outlined in the single-family zoning. The City has to put some controls in the ordinance to maintain the single-family as envisioned by the ordinance. Zisla stated he could be comfortable with the number five. Schiferl stated he was thinking of a friend who joined a religious community of eight people who operated as a family. Schiferl stated he agreed that every situation could not be foreseen. There are situations where something more than four would be appropriate. Four may be too limiting; the Commission should recommend five. Baker stated that the majority of duplexes in New Brighton probably have less than six people.

Thomsen suggested another way to set the number is to look at the average "family" size, whereas, previously, many families consisted of seven or eight children. However, that would be very uncommon today. In terms of setting standards for the single-family area, if the City sets a number that would be typical for most of the residents living in the area makes it more likely that community expectations will be met. If all of the houses had eight related people living in them, having another house with eight unrelated people might not have any more impact than any of the others. However, where most of the household units of four or five, then it makes more sense to set the number at four or five.

Baker stated that this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak to this issue.

Art Owen, 537 Benz Road, said a letter he sent to the City Attorney about enforcing the existing ordinance probably triggered this item. Owen said, when he bought his home in 1980, he thought a single-family home would be protected by the ordinance. Since then, the home next door does not conform. Is New Brighton going to challenge this situation? Owen asked if he will have to move outside New Brighton?

Livingston asked about Owen's experiences. Owen said he had lawsuits filed against his property and there was an attempt to annex five feet of Owen's property to the neighbor's property. That went to court and there will possibly more lawsuits like this against his property. Owen said if he cannot get any support from the City, he will decide to move. Livingston said he would like to hear some negative impacts on Owen's neighborhood. Owens responded his neighbor does not seem to have any regard for his property. The neighbor decided to develop his backyard so the gravel truck poured the gravel out in the street. Mrs. Owen complained about the gravel in the street and the City looked at it. The neighborhood has a stove and refrigerator on the front porch for a long time until we complained about it. After a time, that was cleaned up. It started with two or three people living there and now it is up to five. There was a rumor that this neighbor was going to start a shelter for battered colored women. Owen said he would rather live where the standards are protected by the City. We could end up having a dormitory next door to us. At five or five fifteen each morning, there is a delivery. I hate to speculate on it. There is extra traffic and they are inconsiderate of the neighbors. I finally put a fence between my home and the neighbors. There are wash tubs out in the yard in the back. I assume more people will be moving in there in the near future. That is why I wondered how much teeth these ordinances have in them and if the City is interested in going to bat for me. What is a single family home and what is a multi-family home?

Andrea Holsten, 141 20th Avenue SW, said she had sent a letter last month. Holsten asked about Thomsen the part about "two (2) or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption living together as a family unit." At the last meeting Mr. Schiferl asked about the issue of two single mothers each with three children living in the same household. Would that be within the ordinance? Thomsen responded that, if there are more than four persons who are not related to each other, that would not be allowed in the single-family district. Thomsen said that the examples cited by Holsten would be not be allowed because there would be more than four people unrelated to each other. The mother and her three children would be unrelated to one of the people in the other family would make five unrelated people. The possibilities would have to be mapped out on paper. Holsten asked how that would be different from the accessory use of up to two people as roomers or boarders. Thomsen stated, in her opinion, it would highly unlikely that the two single mothers would pool their money and buy the house together. Schiferl stated he did not agree. Thomsen stated she felt it would be more likely that one woman would have the house because of a divorce or afforded it on her own, but wanted someone to live there. That would not be part of this ordinance amendment because the second mother and children would be roomers or boarders.

Holsten asked Teague about roomers and boarders. The ordinance would still allow roomers and boarders. Teague responded affirmatively. Thomsen pointed out it only allowed two roomers or boarders. The City Attorney's interpretation of that was that roomers or boarders are typically considered to those who are paying room or board. Holsten stated that, assuming the people are paying rent, are they part of the four unrelated people or are they part of two roomers or boarders. Under the family definition, they could stay. Under roomers or boarders, that would be too many people.

Baker stated in the example, there would be eight people in the house, which would be in violation. Holsten said, if one mother had two children and there were seven people living in the house, would that be complying? Baker said that would not comply with the ordinance. Holsten said the City Attorney could come in then and say there are too many people in the house.

Zisla stated we could go on and on with this. There could be two sisters and their children and that would comply. We could get into a morass. Zisla said he would like the record to reflect that his decision would have nothing to do with the comment about the race of the battered women in the shelter. Zisla stated he certainly would not want that issue to come up in litigation that this Planning Commission or City Council did anything but on the record say it was an inappropriate comment and absolutely irrelevant. O'Brien concurred with Zisla's remarks.

Holsten said her issue was how do these two sides of things interact. How do the primary use and the accessory use interact? It is not clear. Baker stated, as he interprets the ordinance, there are two ways to qualify in the ordinance. The household is related by blood, marriage, adoption, or foster care living arrangements or four or more unrelated people living in the same household. The two cannot be combined; it is either one or the other. Holsten responded that Ms. Thomsen said they could be combined. Baker stated he believes it is either one or the other. Holsten said she would suggest that point be made more clear. The question of roomers and boarders living in a house should be more clear also. Holsten thanked the Commission for its time.

Thomsen stated she wanted to make sure she understands. The intent would then be that, any number of persons, all of whom are related by blood or marriage would be permissible. But, in any situation where not all of the persons are related by blood or marriage, the maximum number allowed would be four. Baker stated that would be the case in a family unit. Baker stated there could be more than four when there are boarders, which could be two more. Thomsen answered affirmatively. Baker asked if the commissioners agreed with this interpretation. Schiferl stated his original thought had been for the wording to be and/or as relates to four persons; however, that wording may not be the tenor of the group. Baker responded that the wording should not be combined. Baker stated there should be a semi-colon inserted to separate the items.

Schiferl drew the Commission's attention to the Ms. Holsten's letter on roomers and boarders. Is the stipulation of compensation in the present ordinance? Thomsen responded the current ordinance does not include the language, "whether for compensation or not for compensation." The ordinance simply says that a permitted accessory use is the keeping of not more than a total of two boarders and/or roomers. Schiferl stated that Holsten's language would begin to address some issues of unrelated people, but would get around the issue of narrowly defining a boarder as someone who lives there for compensation. A family and a couple of other unrelated folks would be part of the household.

Baker stated he had no problem with the language presented by Thomsen. The addition of a semi-colon after household use would make it clearer. Thomsen proposed new language that would answer the Commission's concerns. The addition of a semi-colon after the word "individual" and striking the word or and the next clause would be: "Two or more persons, all of whom are," and inserting a semi-colon after "housekeeping unit." The new language defining family would be:

A.	An individual.

B.	Two (2) or more persons all of whom are related by blood, marriage, adoption, or foster care arrangement living together as a single housekeeping unit.

C.	A group of not more than four (4) persons not so related, maintaining a single housekeeping unit.

Baker stated the new language would answer his concerns. Zisla asked what impact would that language have on four people and one of the kids' friends stays with them. Baker said that would be a family of four and one non-family person. That person would qualify as a boarder. Thomsen stated that changing the language in the accessory use provision on roomers or boarders to: "C. ...whether for compensation or not for compensation." Zisla asked if that would be permitted. Thomsen answered affirmatively.

O'Brien asked Holsten if there was a reason she increased the number in that paragraph from two to three. Holsten responded she did that to avoid adding the four people to the main definition of family. Baker stated that adding the language saying a family is four or more unrelated people made it possible for two more people. Thomsen said that would be only two more people. Baker said then there would be six unrelated people living in a household. Thomsen answered affirmatively. Thomsen said that each person could not have two more people. Baker said that there could be six rather than the four the Commission recommends. Thomsen said that the language could be changed to "one."

O'Brien asked if there is a reason for not having the accessory use apply when there are four unrelated individuals. The Commission discussed the language in the accessory use section. Baker asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak at the public hearing. No one responded.

Motion by Baker, seconded by O'Brien, to close the Public Hearing. 5 Ayes - O Nays. Motion Carried.

Motion by Baker, to accept staff recommendation on the definition of family with the following changes: A semi-colon be inserted after the word "individual." The words, "all of whom" after the word "person." A semi-colon after the word "housekeeping unit." And change the four persons to three persons not so related. In addition, amend Section 4. 020 "Permitted Accessory Uses - R1 District" to add the words "whether for compensation or not for compensation."

The Commission discussed the number of unrelated people allowed under the proposed motion. Baker asked for a second to his motion. Not hearing any, Baker declared the motion dead. Schiferl asked Baker to restate his motion.

Motion by Baker, seconded by Zisla, to accept staff recommendation on the definition of family with the following changes: A semi-colon be inserted after the word "individual." The words, "Two or more persons, all of whom related by blood, marriage, adoption, or foster care arrangements living together as a single housekeeping unit; or a group of not more than four persons not so related maintain a common household and using common cooking and kitchen facilities" and then to amend Section 4. 020 "Permitted Accessory Uses - R1 District" to "keeping of not more than a total of two boarders or roomers by a family related by blood, marriage, or adoption, for compensation or not for compensation."

5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

General Business - None

Announcements and Updates - None

Adjourn

Motion by Baker, seconded by Zisla, to adjourn the meeting. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried.

_______________________________________

Cary Teague, City Planner