08-22-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2016 Councilmember John Voorde stated that the Central Business District and the areas east of the river are so unique and attuned to what developers want to do that there almost should be no restrictions at all. In that situation you are not trying to preserve the integrity of a family centered neighborhood. He stated it seems based on the Committee discussion we are leaning to expand this further down the road. He stated he is in favor of continuing it for now. Councilmember Scott stated he has within his district issues where houses are stuffed full of people, usually migrant workers, with no running water or heat. That is usually a predatory landlord who takes advantage of people. It is good to get this limited down to the Central Business District. He stated it was his opinion they should pass this tonight and then possibly expand upon it down the road. He stated one of the issues about using this in the CBD is we do have a neighborhood there east of Memorial Hospital. Ms. Smith stated that is one reason there is a good argument that it should remain special exception and not permitted use. You can only be grandfathered in to something if you were legal to start with. If it is in a Single - Family District it is currently not an option and they would have to rezone to be Multi Family. Councilmember Scott stated he definitely thinks this will clean up the neighborhoods but is concerned about the burden of the process. He is willing to try it and come back and tweak the ordinance. In the CBD there needs to be a streamlined process, whatever that may be. Ms. Smith stated the special exception is outlined by state law. Unfortunately, St. Joseph County is one (1) of two (2) counties in the state where it has the burden of coming to the Council. In most counties it is just a thirty (30) day process. There are some tweaks to how it can be altered but a lot of it is set by state statute. Councilmember White stated it is not a very good position to be in when you hear individuals saying they have found loopholes. We need to listen to our citizens and what works best for them. If we are going to treat certain districts differently we need to have straight forward guidelines in place. She asked Councilmember Broden what are her concerns and where we are at. Councilmember Broden responded that consistency is important and that's why across all districts there is an ease to the process if you know what it is. Across a lot of the districts it is the same process and in the CBD we are allowing the group residences that everyone wants to see. We want to see these creative opportunities come to be. Chairperson Ferlic stated very few people are actually using the employee loophole. If it was legal, even if we pass this they will be legal non - conforming. All we are doing here is closing the loophole going forward into the future. This also may help rent costs in the City because a landlord cannot now charge ten (10) Notre Dame students five - hundred dollars ($500) a month each to live in what is supposed to be a single family home. There are certainly areas, like the CBD, where group residences should be permitted. Chairperson.Ferlic stated it would be his preferred option to raise the number of non - related people in a family in the CBD to three (3) or four (4) people where we are trying to increase density. These text amendments however do not affect anyone except those taking advantage of the loophole and if that loophole is deemed legal by the Building Commissioner then they will not be affected either. Councilmember Scott asked if we amend this ordinance will it have to go back to the Area Plan Commission. Council Attorney Cekanski- Farrand responded yes, if it is amended it goes back. Councilmember Oliver Davis asked if the Building Commissioner has determined if this loophole is legal. Ms. Smith stated there has not been an official challenge as of yet so the Building Commissioner has not ruled on this specific loophole. If it is deemed legal now, it would be legal for these few individuals who are currently using the loophole to continue to do so. No one else though going forward could do so. 9