Duluth City Council Special Meeting – Appeal of Interim Use Permit for Safe Bay at Vineyard Church – June 11, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Duluth City Council Special Meeting – Appeal of Interim Use Permit for Safe Bay at Vineyard Church – June 11, 2025
The Duluth City Council convened a special meeting on June 11, 2025, at 7:15 PM to hear an appeal filed by the Miller Law Office on behalf of appellants seeking to reverse the May 13, 2025 Planning Commission decision approving an interim use permit (IUP) for an interim outdoor living site (Safe Bay) at 1533 West Arrowhead Road. The council acted in a quasi-judicial capacity, hearing presentations from city staff, the appellants, the applicant (Vineyard Christian Fellowship and Chum as operator), and public testimony. After deliberation, the council voted 6-0 to affirm the Planning Commission's decision, upholding the IUP.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Darren Phillips (1527 Lindsay Road): Expressed that the appeal is not about opposing Safe Bay but about the Planning Commission bending the rules. Alleged conflicts of interest with three council members who have social media photos with Chum's Joel Kilgore. Urged council to enforce city code.
- Tom McNamara (282 East St. Louis River Road): Spoke about housing crisis and offered a connection to a developer willing to build housing without TIF money, asking for city cooperation. Not directly related to Safe Bay.
- Marybeth Hamilton (Lindsay Road, 193 feet from site): Objected to the IUP as approved because the Planning Commission knowingly violated zoning requirements, specifically the dense urban screen. Quoted commission member Chris Haddad saying he was "okay with bending the rules." Argued that the installed screening is not a fence or berm per code definitions.
- Curtis Sally (1614 Lindsay Road, abutting property): Opposed the permit as currently configured. Stated the berm tapers to zero feet and he can see directly into vehicles from his backyard. Stated that the dense urban screen is not compliant.
- Chance Wells (301 West First Street): Spoke in support of Safe Bay, emphasizing the humanity of people needing a safe place. Urged council to reject NIMBYism.
- Eleanor Dolan (806 North 23rd Avenue West, social worker): Supported Safe Bay, noting that unhoused people are more likely to be victims of crime. Asked council to consider the trauma caused by the shutdown.
- Jessica Thiel (1625 Lindsay Road): Read emails showing city staff waiving requirements (survey, fence permit) and referring to screening as not a fence. Highlighted that the screening already fell over in wind.
- Katie Haglin (Executive Director, Union Gospel Mission): Urged support for Safe Bay, stating it is a structured, well-managed site meeting all permit requirements. Noted no safety incidents.
- Corinne Friedman Ellis (1414 Mississippi Avenue, pastor at Peace United Church of Christ): Supported Safe Bay, sharing experience with a youth shelter that had zero complaints. Urged compassion.
- Mike Tusken (09 Woodland): Supported the permit, citing community need and his own observations of safety. Recalled past murders of homeless individuals.
- Sandra Hoffman (3907 Martin Road, Vineyard Church volunteer): Spoke in support, describing Safe Bay guests as regular people with dignity. Asked for a feasible path forward if permit denied.
- Amy Brooks (1001 East Third Street, Unitarian Universalist minister): Supported Safe Bay, shared personal experience with homelessness due to domestic violence. Urged permit renewal.
- David McComas Bussa (1712 Jefferson Street, Loaves and Fishes): Supported Safe Bay, stating that fear drives the opposition, not rule‑following. Urged council to approve.
- Travis Lenander (currently living in his van): Spoke in support, sharing his own homelessness and efforts to improve his life. Asked for a safe place to sleep.
- Melissa Hasselbrock (Office manager, Duluth Vineyard Church): Asked for reopening, detailing neighbor engagement and improvements (signage, dumpster, pet waste station). Stated no incidents occurred.
- Josh Blaylock (429 North Tenth Avenue East): Supported Safe Bay, sharing his own homelessness experience. Praised staff attentiveness.
- Vance Fluegrid (76th Street homeowner): Proposed a permanent privacy barrier with cameras to satisfy both sides. Shared personal homelessness story.
- Dana Griffey (2117 West 6th Street, Chum employee): Supported Safe Bay, noting that since the shutdown, people are sleeping unsafely on the street. Urged approval.
- Catherine Vichy (607 Kenwood Avenue, UMD student): Supported Safe Bay, warned against letting perfect be the enemy of good.
- Seth Currier (629 North Seventh Avenue East): Clarified that Safe Bay operated for nine days on last year's permit after the warming shelter closed, which ended May 13-14.
- Heather Jellum (25 Howard Gnesen Road, adjacent property owner): Opposed the permit as approved. Stated planning staff did not perform proper due diligence; snow fencing fell onto her property. Raised bear safety concerns.
- Liz Benson Johnson (602 Picard Avenue, retired librarian): Supported Safe Bay, arguing that rules can be bent in the interest of people. Praised the planning commission for flexibility.
- Ann McCauley (4998 Woodland Avenue, Safe Bay volunteer): Supported the program, calling it a safe place.
- Deanna Kirk (Divine Connections, 2122 Willeon Avenue): Supported Safe Bay, sharing experience with a neighborhood that welcomed a young moms' home. Encouraged neighbors to embrace the opportunity.
- James Hamilton (1528 Lindsay Road): Clarified that appellants support Safe Bay but want it done in compliance with code. Denied allegations of using terms like "those people" and asked council to follow its own rules.
Discussion Items
Staff Report and Appeal Hearing:
- Jen Moses, Planning and Community Development Manager, provided an overview: Safe Bay is a seasonal (May–October) safe parking program operated by Chum on the existing paved rear parking lot behind Vineyard Church. The application meets all Chapter 50 requirements. The Planning Commission approved it on May 13, 2025. An appeal was filed on May 21, 2025, leading to a cease‑and‑desist order. Staff prepared a memo addressing screening, automobiles, and toilets.
Appellants' Presentation (Brenda Miller, attorney):
- Argued that city employees and the Planning Commission ignored code requirements for a dense urban screen. Alieged that exemptions were granted illegally (e.g., not requiring screening where adjacent property is not actively used as a residence; using neighbor's trees). Stated that the fence was built without a permit, partially on neighbor's property. Snow fencing does not meet 75% opacity. Cited Commissioner Audette saying he was "willing to bend the rules." Raised due process concerns and personal safety issues due to public attacks.
Applicants' Presentation (Joel Kilgore, Chum; also Melissa Hasselbrock from Vineyard Church):
- Thanked staff and planning commission for following the law. Noted the stay displaced several dozen people. Argued that the dense urban screen is met by a combination of a 6‑foot rock berm (170 feet) and 6‑foot opaque screening (190 feet) on the north side, plus woods on the west. Snow fencing was a good‑faith gesture to mark property lines, not intended as screening. Denied allegations of false statements about tents, clarifying that tents attached to vehicles that can be removed are allowed per application. Stressed that the program is needed and well‑run.
Council Questions:
- Councilors asked about the total length of screening required, compliance with the comprehensive plan (Imagine Duluth 2035), opacity requirements, and the ability to maintain screening in severe weather. Staff confirmed that the dense urban screen can be vegetation, berm, or fence; that the site meets requirements; and that staff monitor conditions. Joel Kilgore confirmed that staff are on‑site during operating hours and can promptly fix any issues.
Deliberation and Vote:
- Council members spoke in favor of the permit. They noted that the decision must be based on the legal standards in Chapter 50 and the comprehensive plan. They found that the application meets those standards: consistent with Imagine Duluth 2035 principles (health equity, mixed uses), complies with the dense urban screen definition, and does not cause negative impacts (no calls for service, program is staffed and follows rules). Some expressed concern about the Planning Commission member's comment about bending rules but found no actual code violation. Council members acknowledged the trauma caused by the shutdown and encouraged continued neighbor communication. The vote was 6‑0 to approve Resolution 473, affirming the Planning Commission's decision.
Key Outcomes
- Vote: Resolution 473 passed 6‑0, affirming the Planning Commission's decision to approve the interim use permit for Safe Bay at 1533 West Arrowhead Road.
- Effect: The cease‑and‑desist order is lifted; Safe Bay may resume operations under the approved IUP.
- Next Steps: The council encouraged Chum, Vineyard Church, and neighbors to continue dialogue. Councilor Kennedy requested that Chum ensure fencing remains properly maintained, including possible extension along some property lines. The bear safety concern was noted, and councilor Derwachter suggested a plan to inform participants.
Meeting Transcript
All right, thank you. We will call the meeting to order. If we can do the role, please. Okay. Counselor Wall. Here. Councillor Durwachter. Counselor Foresman. Councilor Randor. Here. Counselor Kennedy. Counselor Mayo. Counselor Swenson. Vice President Nephew. Here. President Tomonic. And if you can stand for the pledge. Congratulations to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic, which stands one nation. Oh my God, I said it wrong. So thank you. We're going to start the meeting in remembrance of Renee Van Nett, prior city counselor with the tools of civility. The Duluth City Council promotes the use and adherence of the tools of civility in conducting the business of the council. The tools of civility provide increased opportunities for civil discourse, leading to positive resolutions for the issues that face our city. We know that when we have civility, we get civic engagement because we can't make each other civil, and we can only work on ourselves. We state that today I will pay attention, listen, be inclusive, not gossip, show respect, seek common ground, repair damage relationships, use constructive language, and take responsibility. This evening we'll hear appeal follow we'll hear an appeal filed by the Miller Law Office on behalf of its clients, which asks the City Council to reverse the May 13th, 2025 Planning Commission decision approving an interim use permit for the indoor out interim outdoor living site at 1533 West Arrowhead Road. State statute and our city code authorize the City Council to hear this appeal and make a final decision on the application for the interim use permit. An appeal hearing is different from our more familiar public hearing or comment process. So I would like to take a minute to orientate council members on the city council's role in the appeal hearing. The council role this evening is to function in a quasi-judicial capacity. In this role, we are acting more like a court and we are using a more formal process. We will begin the appeal hearing by asking the planning staff to provide a staff report and summary of the process to date. We'll then hear from a representative of the group who is appealing the planning commission's decision. Third, we will hear from a representative of the applicant, Vineyard Christian Fellowship, Vineyard Church, as the owner of the property, Chum as the agent and operator. Each of these parties will have five minutes to present their case. Following these three presentations, there will be a 15-minute, there will be 15 minutes for counselors to ask questions of any party. We also will allow for public comment on this matter. Following the public comment period, counselors will have an opportunity for discussion and will be asked to make a decision. The council's role is to consider the facts presented in the hearing with any evidence submitted as part of the record. We'll consider only the record before us, the evidence that is presented in this hearing, the attachments to the draft, and the party's previous written submissions to the council. After considering these facts presented at the hearing and in record, we will need to apply a certain legal standard to those facts. Because this is an appeal of a request for an interim outdoor living site. The legal standards we are here to apply is from the Dulu City Cole Code in the Unified Development Chapter or UDC. We will make our final decision on the appeal by passing a resolution. In deciding the appeal, we will set out the factual findings and legal conclusions that support our decision. Either by passing a resolution as currently drafted or by amending a draft to conform to our finding and conclusions, passing that amended version. All interested parties are welcome to speak again during the public comment portion of the meeting tonight. We'll be voting on this matter following the public public comment period. And then I'll give a quick apology for myself.
openpublica.com