HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012 [01] Jan 09 January 9, 2012
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, January 9, 2012 at 7:OOPM in the St. Joseph City Hall.
Members Present: Chair S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Commissioners Mike Deutz, John Meyer, John Dubel,
Rick Schultz, Gina Dullinger, Ross Rieke. City Administrator Judy Weyrens
Others Present: Tom Klein, Corin Brown, Molly Weyrens, S. Eunice Anthony, Kevin LaNave, Craig Gould,
Katie Gould.
Approval of the Agenda: Meyer made a motion to approve the agenda; seconded by Deutz and
passed unanimously.
Minutes: Rieke made a motion to approve the minutes with the corrections of November 7, 2011;
seconded by Meyer and passed unanimously.
Public Hearing - Special Use Permit — Residential Living Quarters, 35 — 2 Ave SE: Kalinowski opened
the public hearing at which times Weyrens stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider a special use
permit to allow a residential living facility and hospitality center for outreach at 35 — 2 Avenue SE. The
Property is currently owned by Patrick Conway who lives out of state so the property has been vacant for
about 2 % years. During this time the neighbors have been taking care of the yard as the property owner
has not made arrangements. The proposed use for the property will have residents living in the facility,
managing the property while they outreach in the community. The property will still be owned by Patrick
Conway, but leased to Catholic Worker. Catholic Worker will always have a resident living at the property
that will be in charge of the property, so a local contact is available if concerns arise. They will assume
management of the property.
Corin Brown, 535 Northland Ave, Boulder Ridge Apts #313, approached the Council in support of the
Catholic Worker Community. The Catholic Worker Community (CWC) has been meeting for a number of
months, looking for house that they could rent or purchase. The house would be used as a place to
provide hospitality to people in need of assistance, to offer weekly opportunities of shared prayer, and a
regular place to have discussions of community, society and the world particularly issues that the
economic vitality, safety and health of our neighborhoods and cities. Brown stated that in anticipation of
the public hearing, members of the CWC held an informational meeting to hear the concerns of the
neighborhood at which time both benefits and concerns were expressed.
Benefits — By moving into the house at 35 — 2 Ave NE, it will be a positive addition by caring for a house
that has not been for the past two years, as they would contribute to the upkeep of the home and the
neighborhood, participate in and add to the life of the neighborhood.
The CWC core team committee positive points are: they would be helping people in need in the
community, they would build on existing partnerships already in the community, and they would model
key values important to the gospel message as well as the St. Joseph community.
Concerns — Neighbors questioned at the meeting who would live in the house. In the 6 bedroom house 2
— 3 rooms would be for the live in volunteers, the other 3 — 4 bedrooms would be guests in need. The
guests would be people that want to live in a community but are experiencing some type of need. It
would only be women and children with exception to the volunteers. No drug or alcohol use will be
permitted and the guests will not have used drugs or alcohol for the last 12 months and would have no
prior convictions of violent or sexual crimes. This home will not be a drop in center or emergency shelter.
Guests would remain for 3 to 6 months. The Catholic Worker house is a state non - profit, but they are
considered as a rental property and the property would still be taxed as normal. By occupying a house
that has been vacant for 2 years and being a part of the committee the house could potentially increase
property values.
As no one further wished to testify, Kalinowski closed the hearing at 7:10 pm.
January 9, 2012
Page 2 of 4
Meyer stated the City does not allow individuals who are financially strapped and losing their home to put
renters in and they own the home, but now are considering allowing a non -owner occupied rental unit in a
R1 neighborhood? The Rental Ordinance is contradictory to what this group is trying to do in the regards
that it will not be an owner occupied rental.
Rieke stated he believes the matter before the Commission is the determination on the maximum density
that would be permitted. The live in caretakers will take up three (3) of the six (6) rooms of the house,
leaving additional space for other tenants. When questioned as to how many bathrooms are located in
the home, Brown stated two. He further stated that the CWC homes to have a maximum density of eight
(
Deutz questioned if this house has to go through the rental inspection process. Weyrens stated it would
so the occupancy will be dependent on the square footages as stated in the rental housing Ordinance.
Molly Weyrens, CWC Volunteer, stated that the amount of guests would fluctuate based on the fact that
the caretakers are there for 1 1 /2 years and then different caretakers may move in that could be two adults
and not need as many rooms. Meyer stated the Planning Commission could approve a maximum of eight
(8) people for occupancy pending the rental inspection.
City Administrator Weyrens questioned if the Commission wants to include a provision that the owner is
required to complete background checks on all tenants that will be residing at the property. Rieke stated
that he doesn't see the current home owner doing background checks. He questioned if the CWC will be
completing background checks and does not feel the City needs to be involved. Molly Weyrens stated
that they will be working with churches and agencies to form relationships to get referrals for the guests.
Rieke made a motion to recommend the City Council issue a Special Use Permit to CWC to allow a
residential living quarters, based on the presented Findings of Fact, with a maximum density of
eight (8) or the maximum allowed by the rental ordinance, whichever is less. The motion was
seconded by Schultz.
Discussion: Rieke stated he did not put in the motion whether this falls into the same process as
the rental review. Weyrens stated a special use permit is different than an interim use permit because a
special use permit is more permanent in nature, but a requirement could be added for the Catholic
Worker team to come back in a year to give an update on the project.
Rieke amended the motion to recommend approval with the added requirement that the Special
Use Permit will be reviewed in one Year for an update on the project and if there are any impacts
to the neighborhood that need to be addressed. The amendment was seconded by Schultz.
Discussion: Deutz question if it will still fall under the rental ordinance and if it will be reviewed
each year. City Administrator Weyrens stated it would be annually inspected and renewed on August 14
of each calendar year.
Ayes: Kalinowski, Deutz, Dullinger, Schultz, Rieke, Dubel
Nays: None Abstentions: Meyer Motion Carried 6:0:1
Andrew Laudenbach, Appeal on Rental matter: Weyrens reported that the City Office received
concerned calls about a potential rental unit at 201 Hill Street. As a matter of follow -up, the Police
Department investigated and determined that they sufficient evidence to indicate the property was
operating as a rental unit. The property owner, Andrew Laudenbach was sent a compliance order on
December 6, 2011. Laudenbach came to the office the next day and indicated that he just had some
friends and a relative living there but they did not pay rent. He was informed that the Ordinance does not
define rent as a fixed monetary fee and can be many different forms. On December 12, the City Office
received a letter along with $15.00 that he was contesting the compliance order and wanted to appeal the
order.
The appeal process is to verify the interpretation of the Ordinance and that an erroneous interpretation
did not occur. A follow up letter was sent to Laudenbach requesting clarification to which he simply
responded he wanted to appeal, no additional information was forwarded. Laudenbach was informed that
January 9, 2012
Page 3 of 4
he could have tenants if he went through the Interim Use Permit process as he does reside at the
property. He chose not to follow the process.
Andrew Laudenbach, 201 Hill Street W, approached St Joseph, Laudenbach stated when he bought the
house his cousin asked to live there so she would be close to school. He told her she could and was
charging her $50 per month. Laudenbach stated when he found out renting was against the ordinance,
he told her not to pay him anymore. He stated he was asked by a couple of friends if they could live there
a few weeks while finding a different place to live and that one of them had a brain aneurysm and was in
the hospital for a month. After she got out of the hospital, he told them "enough was enough" and they
needed to find a different place to live in which they promptly did. Laudenbach stated that now it is only
he, his fiance and his cousin living there.
Kalinowski questioned Laudenbach as to the nature of his appeal. Laudenbach stated he is appealing
the violation. Deutz question if Laudenbach has any desire to apply for an owner occupied rental license.
Laudenbach answered that he heard it was $500 to apply and he isn't charging his cousin rent, only
asking her to pay her share of the electricity and water and that he is not doing it for any profit. Deutz
questioned if the house was a duplex type of house. Laudenbach stated it is, but he bought the house
because of its uniqueness not for the purpose of owning income property.
Weyrens stated the problem is that the Ordinance states rent is not defined as a monetary fee, it can be
barter or any kind of service. Adjoining neighbors had called and complained which is how the City
became aware of the situation. She stated the appeal process is not if Laudenbach can have someone
living there, it is how the Ordinance is being interpreted. Laudenbach stated that his cousin is not paying
anything or doing any service, he doesn't mean to go against any ordinance, so he doesn't understand
the problem.
Meyer questioned if there is an exception for a blood relative. Weyrens stated immediate family is
considered siblings and this is a cousin. Deutz questioned if there was something that happened which
made the neighbors concerned to have the complaints. Laudenbach stated the couple that was staying
there would park their truck in the grass instead of in the driveway. He also stated he told the person that
he needed to park the truck in the driveway because he (Laudenbach) would get into trouble and that it
made the yard look Tess desirable.
Dubel stated that the Ordinance states "common ancestor, or descendant, or by relationship as husband
and wife." Dubel questions if a cousin would fall under common ancestor. Dubel stated he believes a
cousin would fall under this definition. Schultz stated single family dwelling is defined as dwelling
occupied by only one family so designed providing cooking kitchen and sanitary facilities for one family.
Schultz stated a cousin would fall under those guidelines.
Rieke questioned if Laudenbach has been cited for this violation. Weyrens stated he has not. Weyrens
stated Laudenbach had been informed of his violation and the City is trying to understand what was going
on and be responsible to the neighbors who have called. Dubel stated if the couple has moved out, he
believes Laudenbach is now in compliance as required.
Rieke made a motion to table the right of appeal indefinitely; seconded by Meyer.
Discussion: Rieke questioned if Laudenbach was sent a compliance order. Weyrens stated he
was and Laudenbach stated he received it. Kalinowski questioned if action is wanted to be taken on the
motion or if it should be withdrawn.
Rieke withdrew the motion; Meyer withdrew the second.
Dubel made a motion to acknowledge the appeal letter and at the time of the letter the property
was in violation; however at the time of hearing the appeal, the property appears to be in
compliance requiring no action. Seconded by Meyer.
January 9, 2012
Page 4 of 4
Ayes: Kalinowski, Deutz, Meyer, Dullinger, Schultz, Dubel
Nays: Rieke Motion Carried 6:1:0
Council Liaison Report: Schultz stated there are a lot of projects coming up in the city. The Councils will
be very busy this spring with work meetings and decisions.
Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:00 PM.
Judy a ens
• • istrator