Minutes - Planning Commission - 07/27/2023

Home

Brett Hinsley commented that he is a resident of Portland, Oregon and was confused by the comment that EIFS is not allowed in Oregon. He commented that about 50 percent of their work uses EIFS. He commented that there have been issues in the past with moisture but that was because of the application. He commented that they have been able to reestablish that market. He encouraged the Commission from restricting the material and should instead focus on architectural standards. Krista Johnson commented that she is a resident of Blaine but owns there properties in Ramsey. She commented that she opposes the change to the definition of family under the proposed zoning code. She commented that she would object to limiting the number of unrelated people living in a household to four. She commented that there are many properties in Ramsey where more than four unrelated people live in the home. She noted that change would impact all residential properties. She asked how this would be grandfathered in. She commented that she owns townhomes in the COR and within a three bedroom she has had two couples and one single individual living in those three bedrooms. She noted that they were young professionals living together to save money to purchase their own homes and occupied the home for two years before moving on to purchase their own homes. She stated that she also owns recovery homes in Ramsey that she has operated without incident in Ramsey for years, noting that more than four unrelated people live in those homes. She noted that a friend recently purchased a home for his daughter to live in while she attends college with five other students, noting that those individuals are unrelated. She stated that Minneapolis recently removed the unrelated clause from its zoning code because of the reality of the economy and changing dynamics. She commented that eight people that are related could live in a home, but the neighboring home that also has eight people that do not look related could then not be allowed. She stated that in today's environment of intentional living and diversity she would ask that this language be removed. She commented that State law dictates that she could continue to operate her homes in the manner they are currently run but acknowledged that the change could have negative impacts on many others in the community. Acting Chairperson Bauer referenced the example where six unrelated students currently reside in the home and used the scenario that one were to move out, asking if that person could be replaced or whether they would need to keep dwindling down until they reach four. Planning Manager Larson commented that currently they do not define what a single-family is even though they use the term single-family all over in the zoning code. He stated that a single- family home therefore is a home occupied by one family, which brings forward the question of what one family would be. He stated that they then tried to define that term. He noted that six students living together may not be considered a family and would begin to look more like a student housing which could have impacts on others in the neighborhood. He stated that in other communities where these student housing situations arose, with individual leases, people come and go and there is a lot of money to be made. He stated that those homes can have negative impacts on a neighborhood. He stated that if one of those students were to move out, he would think another could not move in until they reach four. He stated that in relation to a recovery home, licensing is needed through the State, and those allow up to six people. He stated that there are also sober homes that have popped up that do not require licensing but would fall under reasonable accommodation to have a limit of six individuals. He stated that the Commission could Planning Commission/ July 27, 2023 Page 11 of 18