Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009 [10] Oct 05October 5, 2009 Page 1 of 4 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, October 5, 2009 at 7:00 PM. Members Present: Chair Sr. Kathleen Kalinowski, Ross Rieke, Mike McDonald, Mike Deutz, Brian Orcutt, John Meyer, Dale Wick, City Administrator Judy Weyrens Others Present: Joyce Stock, Roseanne Eiynck, Nettie & Bob Pfannenstein, Nei Pfannenstein, Linda Sniezek, Jane Fuchs, Luke Birr Approval of the Agenda: Deutz made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. The motion was seconded by Meyer and passed unanimously. Approval of the Minutes: Wick made a motion to approve the minutes of August 31, 2009. The motion was seconded by Deutz. Discussion: McDonald questioned the restoration of the old Kennedy site and who is responsible for bringing it back to its former condition. This was discussed at the previous meeting and he asked for any formal feedback regarding their progress. Weyrens stated that an email was received stating that the portable classrooms will be removed. They are currently on the market for sale and, once sold, they will be removed and the building will be brought back to its original condition. Ayes: Deutz, Rieke, McDonald, Orcutt, Meyer, Wick Nays: None Abstain: Kalinowski Motion Carried 6:0:1 Public Hearing, Interim Use Permit — Luke Birr, 212 Ash Street E: Kalinowski opened the public hearing and stated that the purpose of the hearing is to consider an Interim Use Permit to allow an owner occupied rental at 212 Ash Street W. The property is legally described as Lot 4, Block 1, Loso's 4th Addition. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.27 subd. 5 allows for an Interim Use Permit as follows: Residential rental provided the unit is owner occupied and provided the room(s) rented does not contain separate kitchen facilities and is not intended for use as an independent residence. For purposes of establishing if the property is owner occupied, the owner must be a natural person, and all owners must occupy the property as their principal residence. The owners may not exceed two in number. For purposes of determining ownership, the owner /owners must provide a copy of a recorded deed or contract for deed. A purchase agreement will not be accepted as evidence of ownership. The request for Interim Use has been submitted by Luke Birr, 212 Ash Street E. Birr approached the Commissioners and stated that he would like to get approval for an owner occupied rental. He stated that he is an electrician and thus does not work all the time. He would like to be able to have a few friends live with him to help out with the bills. Joyce Stock, 220 Ash Street E, approached the Commissioners and began by asking a few questions. What kind of precedent is being set? Is an Interim Use Permit granted to anyone who requests one? Could she and her husband apply for an IUP if they chose to do so? Could more in the area be granted similar permits? If the City says yes to one, do they need to say yes to all of them? Stock stated that although she lives two houses away, she has never met Luke. In her opinion, there needs to be a halt to the number of rentals in residential areas. There are rental homes that have only 3 or 4 bedrooms, but continue to have 8 vehicles parked there day after day. When there are more living in the home than the number allowed, that is when the problems begin. She stated that she has nothing against young people, but there needs to be proper designation as to where this is allowed. October 5, 2009 Page 2 of 4 Al Maleska, 215 Ash Street E, stated that he lives across the street from the property in question. He added that things have calmed down over the past couple of weeks. It was apparent that they were in violation of the ordinance for a long time as there were several cars parked there. He has been told that they had several parties at the residence. According to Maleska, that is okay as long as they are controlled. He concluded by stating that it is one thing to have an ordinance and another to have it enforced. Nettie Pfannenstein, 208 Ash Street E, also approached the Commissioners and stated that she, along with her husband, live near the Birr residence. Pfannenstein has appeared before the Commissioners several times regarding Interim Use Permits in her neighborhood and she advised them that her opinion has not changed. She stated that she is not happy that the home next to theirs is requesting an IUP. Although she has filed no complaints, she reported that there have been several problems. Some of those problems include driving over their lawn, urination on their property and damage to their siding. Pfannenstein stated that she believes Birr is a nice guy. When an incident would occur, she would simply go and talk to him and he would say he would take care of it. In her opinion, the property has never been properly taken care of. There are old boards stacked up along the back of the house and the lawn has not been cared for during the summer. In the past, one of the neighbors has cut the lawn. Now that Birr has purchased the property, Pfannenstein questioned whether or not he will make the necessary changes. Since the notice went out to the neighboring property owners, they have noticed a change. Pfannenstein stated that she and her husband hope that with ownership of the property, he will begin to take more pride and responsibility for what happens at the home whether he is there or not. She continued by stating that they understand that it is hard for young people to get a start in life. As a result, they do not want to stand in his way of having two renters to assist him with the mortgage and other household expenses. Although they hate to see another rental next door to them, she stated they support the young folks. In conclusion, Pfannenstein stated that she is asking the Planning Commission to grant the Interim Use Permit as requested and make sure that Birr fully understands that this is renewable every year. The public hearing was closed at 7:20 PM. McDonald questioned Weyrens as to how long this property was in violation. Weyrens stated that she is guessing approximately that they have been in violation for approximately two years, the time from when the original property owner passed away. McDonald clarified that the owner was fully aware of the fact that they were in violation of the Ordinance. He questioned when Birr purchased the home. Weyrens advised the Commissioners that the Contract for Deed was dated 09- 18 -09. McDonald questioned whether the Contract for Deed included a condition that Mr. Birr would need to be able to rent this property. Weyrens stated that the City is not concerned about any conditions within the contract; rather we only verify that the deed has been recorded. McDonald then questioned if the violation stays with the home or the homeowner. It was stated that Birr would not be in violation as he did not own the home during the period of non - compliance. Meyer stated that one advantage to the use of Interim Use Permits is that they are only valid for one year and they become eligible for renewal. During the year, all violations are kept on file. If there are any violations within the 12 month period, the Commissioners would need to look at this a little more seriously. He stated that he knows Birr's father and believes that he, similar to his father, will take pride in ownership of the home. Meyer stated that he is not opposed to approval of the Interim Use Permit. McDonald stated that, as a board, they set policies. One question that was asked was whether or not any homeowner could apply for an Interim Use Permit to allow them to have renters. Homeowners were informed that they would be eligible for such a permit, unless there was a valid reason why it is could not be approved. According to McDonald, it is not the renters themselves that are causing the issues, rather it is their actions. McDonald advised residents that if they want issues in their neighborhoods to get better, they need to call the City. If there are no complaints, the City has no record of any issues on a given October 5, 2009 Page 3 of 4 property. Based on an email that was received, McDonald stated that the intent of the R1 district was to be R1 and one question raised was whether or not it is possible to have less than a certain percentage of rental properties in a given area. McDonald concluded by stating that enforcement is the issue. Deutz made a motion to authorize the Planning Commission Chair and Administrator to execute the Resolution of Findings recommending that the Council issue an Interim Use Permit to Luke Birr to operate an owner occupied rental unit at 212 Ash Street E. The motion was seconded by Wick and passed unanimously. Ordinance Amendments: Weyrens presented the Planning Commission with draft Ordinance Amendments for review. Currently the City does not have an Ordinance for outdoor dining and thus a draft ordinance was included for review. She also provided them with an amendment relating to Interim Use Permits for farmers' market type uses. She added that there is also a discrepancy relating to the parking ordinance. Weyrens advised the Commissioners that if they have any additional Ordinances that they would like to review, they should let her know. Deutz questioned the possible amendment relating to Farmers Markets and whether there are other things that can be allowed. Weyrens stated that the proposed amendment is just a starting point for discussion purposes. She added that it allows for other uses that are deemed similar in nature and gives some flexibility. Meyer questioned who would be responsible for enforcing the Interim Use Permits if they are in violation. Weyrens responded that if it appears that there is a violation, the police department is asked to investigate and then the property owner is prosecuted, if necessary. Kalinowski stated that due to the privacy act, the City cannot order the rental inspector to inspect the property for possible violation without reasonable cause. McDonald added that rental is a problem in the City and it appears that we are allowing rentals to happen. In response, Weyrens stated that, in the past, some of the Interim Use Permits have not been renewed. According to Meyer, the use of Interim Use Permits allows for enforcement of the rental properties. He added that the Planning Commission needs to determine the parameters for the violations. Orcutt questioned if neighboring property owners are notified when the Interim Use is up for renewal. According to Weyrens, a notice was included in the City newsletter so that everyone was notified. Weyrens provided the Commissioners with a draft of an ordinance relating to Outdoor Dining and Sidewalk Caf6s. The Commissioners questioned the following: "14. The Planning Commission or City Council may require the notification of property owners if the outdoor smoking /dining area is located closer than 350 feet from residential properties. " Meyer stated that it should say "will require..." rather than "may require..." as it is more direct. He also suggested that the 350 feet from residential properties be lessened to 200 feet. McDonald questioned the difference between outdoor dining and sidewalk caf6s. According to Wick, the patio area near the Millstream Shops & Lofts would be considered outdoor dining; whereas, the tables in front of the Local Blend would be considered a sidewalk cafe. "10. The outdoor smoking/dining area shall be a well - defined space surrounded by decorative bollards, planters or fencing." Kalinowski asked for a definition of a fence and what kind of fencing would apply to this. She also questioned whether they could put a size limit on the fencing. Deutz questioned Weyrens as to whether this Ordinance is needed due to issues with liquor. Weyrens replied that there are provisions for fencing when serving liquor. Rieke stated that he is unfamiliar with outdoor eating areas. He questioned whether smoking is allowed to which Wick stated that they can. Weyrens stated that sidewalk cafds are generally located in residential areas and "patrons cannot be served outside ". October 5, 2009 Page 4 of 4 Meyer questioned where the proposed ordinance came from. Weyrens replied that the draft was prepared by the City's EDA consultant and the draft is a compilation of various Cities Ordinances. McDonald stated that he would like to see outdoor dining areas accessible through a side door rather than entering the establishment through the fenced in area. Orcutt stated that the draft ordinance does state that "Patrons must gain entrance to the outdoor area from within the main facility, however at least one exit must be provided for fire safety ". Deutz stated that the outdoor dining ordinance is a good way to tie the Liquor License to the need for fencing around the dining area. With respect to the proposed amendments to the Interim Use Permits in Business Districts, there was a section which states that "copies of all applicable permits from the State and County shall be provided to the City ". Kalinowski questioned the permits and Weyrens stated that this came from the League and she would check with the City Attorney to see if this is required. Meyer suggested that the size of temporary structures shall not exceed 120 square feet rather than 100 square feet. McDonald then questioned why such an ordinance is needed. Weyrens replied that Farmers' Markets tend to be more transient. McDonald suggested that an ordinance be drafted for Flea Markets rather than Farmers' Markets since the issues relate to Flea Markets. Weyrens stated that this is in response to Anne's Market. Weyrens then suggested that a clause be added stating "uses not identified as a permitted use or special use, but similar in nature, can only be issued through an Interim Use Permit ". That type of clause would have solved the issues relating to Anne's Market. Deutz stated that he is more in favor of changing the ordinance to include the one sentence relating to the use of an Interim Use Permit. Meyer made a motion for Weyrens to make the necessary changes as discussed and to adjourn at 8:00 PM. The motion was seconded by Orcutt. Discussion: Rieke clarified that this will be an ongoing discussion. Wick questioned whether the parking ordinance needed to be dealt with or if it could wait. Weyrens stated that it can wait until next time. The motion passed unanimously. 4® J y W rens A inistrator