HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Exception - Vacant lots #826 and #827, east of Kaley St, directly east and adjacent to Rosie's KazbarRESOLUTION
3992-09
Passed by the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana
October 12, 09
zo
Attest:
City Clerk
President of Common Council
Presented by me to the Mayor of the City of South Bend, Indiana
October 13, 20 09
City Clerk
Approved and signed by me October 14, 20 0 9 .
r
RESOLUTION NO. ~~~ ~"~~
A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,
APPROVING A PETITION OF THE AREA
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT:
Two vacant lots numbered 826 and 827, 40 feet East of Kaley Street, directly East and
adjacent to Rosie's Kazbar (2644 W. Western Av.) on the South Side of Western
Avenue, South Bend, Indiana.
WHEREAS, Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-918.6, requires the Common Council to give notice
pursuant to Indiana Code Section 5-14-1.5-5, or its intention to consider Petitions from the Board
of Zoning Appeals for approval or disapproval; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council must take action within sixty (60) days after the Board of
Zoning Appeals makes its recommendation to the Council; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council is required to make a determination in writing on such
requests pursuant to Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-918.4, and
WHEREAS, the Area Board of Zoning Appeals has made a recommendation, pursuant to
applicable state law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA as follows:
SECTION I. The Common Council has provided notice of the hearing on the Petition from the
Area Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to Indiana Code Section 5-14-1.5-5, requesting that a
Special Exception be granted for the property located at: Two vacant lots numbered 826 and
827, 40 feet East of Kaley Street, directly East and adjacent to Rosie's Kazbar (2644 W. Western
Av.) on the South Side of Western Avenue, South Bend, Indiana.
in order to permit a Special Use for off site parking in a mixed-use district.
SECTION II. Following a presentation by the Petitioner, and after proper public hearing, the
Common Council hereby approves the petition of the Area Board of Zoning Appeals, a copy of
which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
SECTION III. The Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, hereby finds that:
1. The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort, community
moral standards, convenience or general welfare;
2. The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or
property values therein;
3. The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located
and the land uses authorized therein;
4. The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the City of South Bend
Comprehensive plan;
SECTION IV. Approval is subject to the Petitioner complying with the reasonable conditions
established by the Area Board of Zoning Appeals which are on file in the office of the City Clerk.
SECTION V. The Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption by the
Common Council and approval by the Mayor.
Member of the Common Council
VRESENTED 1. ~`~1'~ 1
NOT APPROYFD
~-DOPTER ~ O - ~2,-D
Flied In Cierk's ®~flce
AUG 1 1 2009
JOHN VOORDE
CITY CLERK, S0. BcilD, IN.
TO THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND:
Your Committee of the Whole, to whom was referred:
BILL NO.
09-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA APPROVING A
PETITION OF THE AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT: TWO VACANT LOTS
NUMBERED 826 AND 827, 40 FEET EAST OF KALEY
STREET, DIRECTLY EAST AND ADJACENT TO ROSIE'S
KAZBAR (2644 W. WESTERN AVE.) ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF WESTERN AVENUE, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
Respectfully report that they have examined the matter and that in their opinion,
this bill is being recommended to the full Council with a favorable
recommendation.
Ann Puzzello
Chairperson, Committee of the Whole
Michael L. Lipsky
Attorney at Law
August 11, 2009
Area Board of Zoning Appeals
125 S. Lafayette Boulevard
Suite 100
South Bend, Indiana 46601
Re: Taste of Mexico Petition for:
Special Use for off site parking
Variance to reduce parking spaces
Variance to reduce minimum width of maneuvering aisle
Dear Members:
I represent Taste of Mexico. Please allow this letter and the accompanying documents to serve as my
client's petition for a special use for off site parking; variance to reduce parking spaces; and variance to
reduce minimum width of maneuvering aisle.
Taste of Mexico is located at 2637 West Western Avenue, South Bend, Indiana 46619 and owned by
Manuel and Laura Villegas. They can be reached at 48351 Fox Fire Drive, South Bend, Indiana
46628, telephone number 773-398-5529.
The location of the property in their petition is the Taste of Mexico, located at 2637 West Western
Avenue, S. Bend, Indiana. The petition for Special Use and Variance concerns two vacant lots directly
across the street from Taste of Mexico. That property is commonly described as: Two vacant lots
numbered 826 and 827, 40 feet East of Kaley Street, directly East and adjacent to Rosie's Kazbar
(2644 W. Western Av.) on the South Side of Western Avenue, South Bend, Indiana.
The Taste of Mexico and proposed parking lot aze located in a mixed-use district Township of Portage.
My client is asking that you allow them to use off site parking, reduce the number of parking spaces
and reduce the minimum width of maneuvering space in a parking lot. The reasons my clients are
asking for the special use and variances are because my clients business has recently expanded and
now require, per City of South Bend Code, additional parking spaces. A less than favorable
recommendation by you may force my client to close the doors of his successful family business
operated in South Bend.
257 W Indiana Av, Suite B, Valparaiso, IN 46383 (219) 464-3617, Fax: 548-0257
e-mail: collectionsystemsinc@verizon.net 1-888-548-3011
Michael L. Lipsky
Attorney at Law
Taste of Mexico operates three different uses at their location; a restaurant, bar, and dance hall. Based
on the use, square footage, maximum fire load and other factors, the City building code requires they
have 109 parking spaces. The City's inspection shows that the restaurant requires 14 pazking places;
the bar requires 30; and the dance ha1165 parking places.
tit the current time, my client has eighty (80) actual pazking places. Please see the letter from the City
of South Bend stating that my client currently has approximately 40 pazking places and a site plan
showing an additional forty (40) parking places, all attached hereto.
My client has steadily improved this location over the past three (3) yeazs and has expanded a bar and
dance hall. However, the restaurant remains the heart of this establishment and is by far the majority
of my client's livelihood. The restaurant is open seven days a weeks, from 11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
The bar and dance hall open are open at limited times and hours, Friday and Saturday, 9:00 p.m. to
3:00 a.m. Like a church or other multi-use establishment, not full capacity pazking is needed at all
times. During the regular weekday daylight hours, my client is only required to have fourteen (14)
pazking spaces, but has enough for forty (40) parking spaces. Only during a short limited time, Friday
and Saturday from 9:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m., does my client face the possibility of filling the place to
maximum capacity limits and mm~ing out of pazking places.
The restaurant azea is sepazated from the bar and dance azeas by lockable doors. When the restaurant
closes at 9:00 p.m. access to it from the baz area and dance azea is closed. Because the restaurant is
closed when the bar and dance club aze open, the bar and dance club will benefit from the restaurant's
open pazking places.
If you allow my client credit for the fourteen (14) restaurant parking places during maximum
occupancy, my client is only short fifteen (15)' pazking places during a limited, potentially maximum
limit load time period (Friday and Saturday from 9:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m.). During the week when the
baz and dance hall aze closed, the restaurant has a surplus of pazking places.
The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort, community moral
standazd, convenience or general welfare. Quite the opposite. My client has owned this establishment
for the past three (3) years and has made significant improvements to his business, the neighborhood
and the City of South Bend. Since that time they purchased $20,000.00 worth of vacant land located
within the heart of the City and converted it into a better use. The proposed parking lot is located
directly across the street from Taste of Mexico, within forty (40) feet of a traffic light controlled
intersection. The additional pazking lot will alleviate congested driving lanes on Western and
surrounding streets. Neighborhood street pazking and noise will be reduced by centralizing the parking
location on a busy main street. As the current pazking lot is regulazly monitored by a designated Taste
of Mexico employee, so will the additional parking lot across the street be monitored. My clients
make it mandatory that a designated employee monitor the vehicles in the parking lot. In his words,
"why would people come here for $15.00 - 20.00 worth of food if they have to pay $260.00 for a
broken window and caz stereo?"
~ 109-80=29-14= 15
257 W Indiana Av, Suite B, Valpazaiso, IN 46383 (219) 464-3617, Fax: 548-0257
e-mail: collectionsystemsinc@verizon.net 1-888-548-3011
Michael L. Lipsky
Attorney at Law
The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or property values
therein. Again, quite the contrary. The proposed parking lot is located directly to next to a long
standing neighborhood bar. The property located directly to the east has been a commercial property,
most recently an audio retail outlet. The audio retail outlet has been vacant for nearly three (3) years.
The addition of a paved, lighted pazking lot will improve the values of the adjoining properties
between these two commercial buildings will in no doubt improve the value and safety of the adjoining
properties.
Because the area of the proposed parking site is located directly within amixed-used district with
heavy commercial, personal and business traffic, additional pazking space will be favorably received
and consistent with the overall character of the district. The Taste of Mexico brings a unique and
authentic feel to the area which in turn will no doubt inspire others to invest and potentially improve
the overall economic development of the neighborhood. The area is currently filled with a mixture of
corporate entities sitting next door to "mom and pop" businesses. The Taste of Mexico is consistent
with the character of the district in which it is located.
Taste of Mexico's use of the vacant land is consistent with the City of South Bend's Comprehensive
Plan. You may remember the Taste of Mexico's former tenant, the Starlight Pizza. If you don't
remember the Starlight, it may because the Starlight sat vacant for the three (3) years prior to my client
purchasing the same exact property. The Starlight also had a baz and dance club. However, my client
tells me that the bar and dance club had been vacant for the past ten (10) years and used as a "garbage"
storage before he purchased the building. A review of local history may show that in that light of what
Starlight's use and pazking requirements were, my client could be considered "grandfathered"
My client's reconstruction of the dilapidated interior and exterior of the building is welcomed and
within the City's overall Comprehensive plan to encourage local investment and land use growth;
promotes transportation by allowing a pedestrian friendly egress; economic ethnic development;
community building by attracting other responsible local Spanish investors; offers continued
employment in the security, service and professional job mazkets; expands the City's cultural
environment with its Spanish roots; and promotes future urban development by its consistent course of
role model dedication.
I ask that you vote factorable and allow my client a Special Use for Off Site Pazking; Grant a Variance
reducing the number of require parking spaces from 109 to 80 and reduce the minimum width of
maneuvering aisle from 15' to 14'6".
In the alternative, I ask that you allow for another inspection as the interior space of the dance floor has
been undergoing a change. My client now has movable seating in the dance hall area that would
require, according to City code, a reduction in the amount of parking spaces required. Further, I do not
believe the large DJ booth azea had been considered when the original squaze footage was taken by the
City. Again, this would now necessitate a reduction of the number of parking spaces required. My
client plans to place permanent seating in this azea, which once again will cause a reduction in the
required number or parking places.
257 W Indiana Av, Suite B, Valparaiso, IN 46383 (219) 464-3617, Fax: 548-0257
e-mail: collectionsystemsinc@verizon.net 1-888-548-3011
Michael L. Lips
Attorney at Law
Lastly, Hernandez Bakery has offered to lease an additiona120 to 25 parking places to my client.
Therefore, should you not allow the special use and variance as requested above, my client asks that
you allow them another inspection which may now show a reduction in the amount of required parking
places.
Taste of Mexico thanks you for your time and consideration. Should you need anything further to
reach a positive approval please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
s
ichael L. psk
Attorney at aw
257 W Indiana Av, Suite B, Valparaiso, IN 46383 (219) 464-3617, Fax: 548-0257
e-mail: collectionsystemsinc@verizon.net 1-888-548-3011
JUL-17-2009 14:04 FROM:GRUPO OASYS
1400 C.4uN1Y-C;ITY BUU.~+INC
227 ~ JEFPPASON 131711LEVAP.D
Sotrrtt Bacip,lNaLtNA 40001-1830
1574289 1355
T0: 12195480257
PHONE 574/235-9241
Fnx 5741235-9892
'r'Da 5741235-5567
Crnr ol: Satn~-T BrrtD srEFxl_N J, tui?cx~, MAYOiz
~EFARTMENT OF Y.AW
CHA1ti r+C S. I.aocJE
CT'iYATI'ORNT:Y
Ms. Laura Villegas
Taste of Mexico
2637 W. Westem
South Bend, IN 466'19
Via Certifed Mail
June 24, 2009
RE: Denial of Restaurant License
Taste of Mexico-2637 W, Western
Dear Ms. Villegas:
AT.~wsAC~t M. D1:Ros13
CxTEn AssTS•rArrr' Cn'YArronNEY
This letter is to inform you thafi your request for a restaurant license has been
denied. The denial is based on the lack of available parking spaces required by the
zoning ordinances for your business. The Building Department recommended denial
because you are required to have 109 parking _S~ based an the size and uses of
your property. The number of spaces you currently have is approximately 40.
Should you chpose to contest this dental, you have a right to a hearing, To avail
yourself of that right, you must submit a written request to the City Attorney's office on
or before July 6, 2009, lJpon timely receipt of your request, a hearing will be
scheduled, If you fail to submit a written request for a hearing prior to the above
deadline, you will forfeit your right to a hearing.
Sincerely,
~-~-- ~~
Ann-Carol Nash
Assistant City Attorney
co. c. Belot
M. Adams
L. Coleman
J. Walters
P.4~7
THOMAS L. 80DNAR CM EttYL A. GEtHENE ANN-CABOT. NASW
JEI~I°RCYM.JApIKOUfltiK1 LAWRENCE ).I~1T:TE[YRR ]EPr•RlrYL,SANr•~lw Ja-TNi~,BROnEN
AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
125 S. Lafayette Blvd.
Suite 100
South Bend, Indiana 46601
(574) 235-9554
Fnx: (574) 235-5541
September 3, 2009
The Honorable Common Council
Of the City of South Bend
4th Floor, County-City Building
South Bend, Indiana 46601
RE: Petition for Special Exception
ABZA 9/2/09
Dear Council Members:
The above referenced petition of Taste of Mexico was legally advertised on August 22, 2009. The Area
Board of Zoning Appeals gave it a public hearing on September 2, 2009 at which time the following
action was taken:
Upon a motion by Mr. Phipps, being seconded by Mr. Hawley and unanimously carried,
the petition for Special Exception for off site parking in a "MU" Mixed Use District, on property
located on the south side of Western Ave. east and adjacent to 2644 Western Ave., is sent to the
Common Council with a Favorable Recommendation.
The deliberations of the Area Board of Zoning Appeals and points considered in arriving at the above
decision as shown in the Minutes of the Public Hearing, and will be forwarded to you at a later date, to be
made part of this report.
Sincerely,
Charles C. Bulot
Building Commissioner
CCB/cah
TASTE OF MEDICO
SPECIAL EXCEPTION PURSUANT 21-09.3(D)
AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
FINDINGS OF FACT
I . THE PROPOSED USE V/ILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, COMFORT,
COMMUNITY MORAL STANDARDS, CONVENIENCE OR GENERAL WELFARE BECAUSE:
Development and use as presented will comply with all building, fire safet}~, traffic, and parking regulations as to
not being injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community.
2. THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT INJURE OR ADVERSELY AFFECT THE USE OF THE ADJACENT
AREA OR PROPERTY VALUES THEREIN BECAUSE:
Tlie variance or use shall improve the appearance of the neighborhood and will not devalue the surrounding
properties.
3. THE PROPOSED USE WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH
IT IS LOCATED AND THE LAND USES AUTHORIZED THEREIN BECAUSE:
Conditions on the property predate the Zoning Ordinance, which creates a different condition for this property.
4. THE PROPOSED USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BECAUSE:
It is the feeling of the Board that the variance is blending into the overall Comprehensive Plan and is not
deviating from it's intent.
CONDITIONS OR REVISIONS:
DECISION
IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Board that this request for Special Exception shall be passed onto the Cit}~ of South
Bend Common Council with a: FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION.
ADOPTED this 2ND Day of August, 2009
YES NO
® MICHAEL URSANSKI
ABSENT RANDALL MATTHYS
® JACK YOUNG
ABSENT JACK HICKEY
® GERALD PHIPPS
® ROBERT HA~~LEY
® JOE VELLEMAN
.~
,E1rea Board of Zoning Appeals -September 2, 2009
TASTE OF MEXICO
The petition of Taste of Mexico seeking a Special Exception for off site parking in a "MU" District and
for the following variances: from the required 109 spaces to 80 spaces; from the required 15'
maneuvering aisle space to 14' 6"; from the required 20' front and rear yard setback to 0', on property located
on the south side of Western Ave. east and adjacent to 2644 W. Western Ave., Portage Township. Zoned
"MU" Mixed Use.
MR. MIKE LIPSKY: I reside at 2808 Edison Ave. in South Bend, Indiana with my offices at 257 W. Indiana
Ave. in Valparaiso, Indiana. I'm here on behalf of the Taste of Mexico which is located at 2637 W. Western
Ave. and the owner Manuel Villegas. I do apologize for the amended petition that is in front of you but it was
prompted by a recent City inspection that had actually given a recommendation for a reduced number of
required parking places. So I ask that we focus on the September 1St letter because it is much more favorable
for my client and much more in line with the City Code and ordinances. We're here today asking for four
things. A Special Use for off site parking, a variance to reduce the required parking spots from 94 to 80 and
the two variances eliminating the front and rear setbacks to zero. A little history, in July the City inspected my
clients premises and found that they had insufficient amount of parking and they sent a letter saying they were
going to revoke his business license. Since that time my client had gone out and bought some vacant lots
across the street and was hoping this would be sufficient. He retained me then to prepare the petition for the
Area Board. The recent inspection reduces the required number of parking from 109 to 94. My client
operates three businesses at this location. A Mexican cuisine, a bar and a dance hall. At the time of the
original inspection, when the inspector came out he inspected the dance hall which was a vast open area. It
was in the construction phase, floors were being put down and it was being painted. Based on the calculation
of square footage, the City determined that they needed a total of 109 parking spots. Recently my client has
put in permanent seating. A big screen TV that's reduced the square and a re-calculation was done by the City
Fire Department and the Building Department reducing that number. Of the three businesses the restaurant
requires 14 parking spaces. The restaurant is open Monday through Friday from 11:00 to 9:00. Majority of
the time there is ample parking. My client has a spot right next to the building which contains 40 parking
spaces so a majority of the week there's ample parking. But on Friday and Saturday from 11:00 to 3:00 the
bar and the dance hall is open thus requiring the additional parking requirement. If the Board were to allow
the reduction from 94 to 80 in essence my client would only be short the 14 extra spots. But we ask that the
credit be given for those 14 spots because it's not too unlikely, church, who is the parking is being based upon
the total amount of space and a rectory. When the people are in the church praying, the rectory is not being
used so they should be able to get the benefit of those 14 spots. Another reason for this amended petition is
that the original petition anticipated the need to reduce the minimum maneuvering space. Since then a review
of the County records has shown that my client actually owns 7 extra feet. In 2005 the City had vacated an
alley. Half of this 14' alley went to part of the property owner and the other 7' went to these two lots. When
my client purchased the property there was an open vacant lot. He purchased the property in 2007. At the
time there was no fence up. According to the quick claim deed he had and the inspection by my contractor, he
measured it from brick wall to the fence that is up which measured 80'. But the actual property records show
that he has an additional 7' which then he would not need the variance for the minimum maneuvering width.
He does have parking directly adjacent to the building, 40 places. The request for Special Use is directly
across the street at maximum we anticipated it could contain another 40 places. We believe this would reduce
30
Area Board of Zoning Appeals -September 2, 2009
the City's concern and the neighborhood concern's for congestion and not enough parking. The new petition
is also in line with showing that the parking lot will be improved with hedges and grass area. You can also see
that Area Plan has given a favorable recommendation for the Special Use. Lastly I would like to say that the
Taste of Mexico was previously a place called Starlite Pizza and I think if you have been here long enough
you could remember the place, but the Starlite Pizza was a pizza joint and right next to it was a bar and right in
the back was the dance hall. At the time the Starlite Pizza operated there was no question or concerns with the
limited amount of parking. My client is basically using it for the same purpose. He has improved the location
and he is trying to comply with everything that the City has asked. We ask that you approve the petition for
the Special Use, allow him the reduction of required parking from 94 to 80, knowing that at maximum
capacity on a Friday or Saturday from limited hours of 11:00 to 3:00, he should get the credit for the closed
restaurant. All of the different type of businesses in this location are separated by lockable doors so when the
restaurant closes there's actually a door that closes and it's locked. You cannot get to the bar from the
restaurant, therefore the extra 14 spaces. With that we ask that the council vote favorable and allow my client
to continue to operate his business.
MR. URBANSKI: This is the Area Board of Zoning Appeals, so it's not really the Council and we won't give
the final approval. Number two, Starlite Pizza was the first place I ever had pizza in town and they never did
have a dance hall back there. They opened it up or rented it out for people who had parties; birthday parties or
graduation parties or things like that and going back to the late 50's when it opened. Probably late 58 or 59,
knowing that there was never a dance hall in that place.
MR. PHIPPS: I guess I'm not real clear, I don't see a drawing that shows where the parking spaces are in
respect to the building but my understanding is at least some of the parking spaces are across Western from
the.. .
MR. LYONS: The site plan provided is actually the lot across the street.
MR. PHIPPS: How many parking spaces are located across the street from the restaurant?
MR. LIPSKY: That's what you have in front of you sir is the drawing for the location for the Special Use...
MR. URBANSKI: What we don't have is right next door.
MR. PHIPPS: Where is this one located in reference to the building?
MR. LIPSKY: It's directly across the street.
MR. PHIPPS: Across Western?
MR. LIPSKY: Directly across Western Ave. Directly across from ...
MR. PHIPPS: And how many parking spaces are here?
MR. LIPSKY: 40.
31
tarea Board of Zoning Appeals -September 2, 2009
MR. PHIPPS: And the other 40 are on the same side of the street ...?
MR. LIPSKY: Directly adjacent to and connected to the Taste of Mexico.
MR. PHIPPS: Half are on the same side and the other half are ...?
MR. LIPSKY: But you remember the Starlite Pizza, it's the same parking lot that's attached to it.
MR. LYONS SHOWED A SITE PLAN TO MR. PHIPPS AT THIS TIME
MR. PHIPPS: I guess my only concern on this is the fact that so many of the parking spaces are located
across Western. And my concern really is, there is some reason for it being a problem is that unfortunately all
too often when people leave bars, dance halls, they're intoxicated and they would have to walk across a busy
street with fast moving traffic and we've had more than one instance that I can remember where people
leaving an establishment like that have been killed walking across a busy street. That I think essentially,
where I normally wouldn't have a reluctance to approving off street parking located across the street from
some kind of establishment, I do have more against a place where people may leave somewhat incapacitated.
MR. LIPSKY: I understand and if I may respond. The actual parking lot across the street is within just,
maybe I would assume 40' from a traffic light controlled intersection so there would be a safe ingress and
egress from the restaurant to the parking lot. Once again we're only talking about the need for these additional
40 or so parking spots for a very limited time. Friday night, Saturday night from 11:00 to 3:00 in the morning.
The risk factor I think is minimized instead of having it opened Monday through Friday, Monday through
Saturday very late hours. My client also regularly employees at least three security at the location. One of
them checking the doors and a few security walking around. It's his obligation to ensure, which he's done a
pretty good job of making sure that nobody leaves the premises with alcohol or under the extreme influence of
alcohol.
MR. URBANSKI: It's an assumption then that it is not going to be opened on Friday nights, only on Saturday
nights? Will the dance hall be open?
MR. LIPSKY: Friday and Saturday.
MR. URBANSKI: Okay, well you kept referring to Saturday night. And I was assuming what I heard before
it was Friday and Saturday nights.
MR. LIPSKY: The bar and the dance hall are only open on Friday and Saturday from 11:00 until 3:00. I
believe that the City's main concern was the insufficient parking. My client is trying his best to alleviate that
problem. And he's making the situation better by improving the lot and the vacant lot is roughly the 87' from
the brick building to 7' to another brick building. The lot measures 87' by about 132'. It is our position it
would be the best and most proper use for that piece of landlocked property.
MR. HAWLEY: How would that be marked to indicate parking is for you establishment?
32
.Area Board of Zoning Appeals -September 2, 2009
MR. LIPSKY: If you make a favorable recommendation and the City then follows and grants my client his
continued business license, he'll have to pave the lot. He'll have to apply for the permits for the street cut for
getting in and off of Western and he'll have to actually paint the lines to show the designated parking spots.
MR. URBANSKI: I think what he means is there going to be a sign out there saying "parking for ...?"
MR. LIPSKY: My client has already stated that he will have a sign up there that specifically says "parking for
Taste of Mexico only, others will be towed." In the petition, also this is a family man, he doesn't want to have
any of the so called problems. There may have been some concerns with the bar across the street. My clients
position is that, why would he want to have certain undesirables attend his location, to bust out windows and
things of that sort? So he actually has people out there watching the parking lot. Making sure people are
getting back and forth and the vehicles are not damaged.
MR. URBANSKI: The other thing in Area Plans report which I'm sure you looked at, he understands about
paving the alley from Kaley Street to the eastern boundary of his property?
MR. LIPSKY: we've discussed that and we'd like to be able to speak with the City Engineer what the extent
of what the paving would be. To be quite honest with you folks my client took a risk and he was a decent
mechanic in Chicago. He wanted to do this business and ended up selling his successful diesel shop,
borrowed a bunch of money to buy the Taste of Mexico. He's improved it and his clientele has improved
since that day. When the City came to him and said to him you need more parking, he paid $20,000 for a lot
across the street. So he will do what he can to comply and he's willing to comply, he just needs the direction
and the time to do it.
MR. URBANSKI: Area Plan.
MS. NAYDER: Our comment was based upon some additional landscaping Western and I see on the revised
site plan that does show some shrubbery along Western and since no landscaping variances have been
requested I assume they would follow whatever the ordinance says. I also have comments from the City
planner Michael Divita who is in charge of the Western Ave. area and his comments are very briefly, he's in
favor of the Special Use and the reduction of the parking spaces but he recommends the denial of the front and
rear yard setbacks.
MR. URBANSKI: It's only 20' or 35' front yard?
MR. LYONS: It would be 20'.
MR. LIPSKY: The front would be 20' and the rear would be 15'.
MR. URBANSKI: And how many parking spots would that eliminate?
MR. LIPSKY: That would roughly be 35' from the total project.
MR. URBANSKI: I just thought you might have the number of parking places that it would reduce?
33
,Area Board of Zoning Appeals -September 2, 2009
MR. LIPSKY: I would assume it would eliminate at least 12.
iN FAVnR
MS. JOY CARPENTER: I'm a resident at 309 S. Kaley Street and that's the side of the Taste of Mexico. I
came here because I wasn't sure exactly what this petition was all about so in view of understanding that the
gentleman stated, I agree with that petition for the additional parking lot because before it was a big problem
on Kaley Street. People would park across the driveways and so forth and with him being able to put the
parking spots, that will probably rectify some of that problem on Kaley Street.
MR. HENRY DAVIS JR.: Offices on the 4`h floor of the County-City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Blvd. I'm
in favor of it. Actually I was speaking with his counsel and the restaurant owner about two or three weeks
ago. They actually gave me a tour of the building. I lived on Sheridan Street my entire life so I never knew
what the inside of Starlite Pizza looked like. I remember going in there once with my dad when I was a very
little boy. But the truth is I really, really think that we need to start helping and fostering the growth of
businesses in South Bend. We have had a mass exodus of businesses leaving our area, going to Granger,
going to Mishawaka, closing down, or even Eddy Street Commons. And so where we are able to help this
growth we need to and so I'm in favor of the mixed use, the business and the parking lot across the street.
Whatever we can do to retain the business, retain the tax dollars so that we can continue to grow our
neighborhoods.
MR. URBANSKI: We did receive one letter from a Barbara White, 302 S. Kaley Street. Cannot attend the
meeting, letting the Taste of Mexico having a parking lot across the street from their business might indeed
help the neighborhood in getting rid of the damage. We in the neighborhood have put up with trash, broken
bottles, loud voices at 3 a.m., urinating in our yards, cars driving over our yards, bottles being thrown over
fences into our yards, car alarms going off at 3 a.m. and of course people trampling my flowers and destroying
my border fences on numerous occasions not to mention their patrons blocking driveways and street.
REMONSTRANCE
MR. EMILIO GALVEZ: I live at 2630 Western Ave. South Bend. I am not against the parking lot but I'm
just concerned about the alley because I own the property next to the property for the parking lot and this is
where we go to the upstairs. There's an apartment upstairs and we did a petition in 2005 for the alley and I
have the certificate for the alley that belongs to the property, our property, the 14'.
MR. URBANSKI: Now is that the alley that runs east and west?
MR. GALVEZ: Yes.
MR. URBANSKI: And you say that was vacated?
MR. GALVEZ: Yes, it was vacated in 2005 and that was given to the next property not to the parking lot.
A COPY OF THE AERIAL WAS MADE AND GIVEN TO MR. GALVEZ
34
,Area Board of Zoning Appeals -September 2, 2009
MR. LYONS: It was the north-south alley that was vacated.
MR. URBANSKI: That's the one he's referring to that the petitioner has 7' of?
MR. LYONS: Yes.
MR. URBANSKI: Okay the alley that was vacated was the north-south alley that runs off of Western Ave.
back to the east-west alley.
MR. GALVEZ: Right, correct.
MR. URBANSKI: So it's not the alley next to your property. Is that correct?
MRS. VERONICA GALVEZ: 706 S. Gladstone. Okay the alley that Mr. Galvez is the one that was vacated
next to our property on 2630 W. Western and he wants at least 7 feet for the parking lot when we made a
petition for it because it belonged to our property and he wants to take 7' ...
MR. URBANSKI: Mark usually, Mark would you explain it to them?
MR. LYONS: When an alley is vacated, that 14' wide alley is divided by the two adjacent properties. The
property to the east got 7' and the property to the west got 7'. The petitioner bought those two lots which
included half the alley that was vacated. The property that was west of the alley was given 7' of that alley
when it was vacated.
MRS. GALVEZ: It wasn't given to him. When he bought the property, the parking lot that he has now, he
bought it off them. The alley was their's already because it belonged to the property on 2630 W. Western. So
like we said we made a petition for it, the City gave it to them because the reason why because it has an upper
apartment that they rent. They have kids and stuff and that is the reason why they put a fence on it because of
all the traffic that goes through there.
MR. LYONS: The deeds provided the petition for what the petitioner bought does include 7' of that vacated
alley. It is deeded on the parcel that he bought so when it was vacated they did give half of that alley to each
property adjacent to it and the petitioner did buy those 7' .
REBUTTAL:
MR. LIPSKY: Just a little more clarification about the alley that was vacated. My client does have the deed
to it and he's been paying taxes and the fence was put up after my client had bought the property.
MR. MANUEL VILLEGAS: I live 4251 Foxfire Drive in South Bend. When I bought those two lots I
bought it from a gentleman here and his brother. And I bought the two lots that I wanted for the parking lot I
felt that I need those lots so I can have them for my customers on the weekend. But originally I didn't know
that he, when I bought it I actually bought the two lots and when they put the fence, I said that belongs to me,
from the fence to here, from the fence to the other building but then the City when they found out vacated that
35
area Board of Zoning Appeals -September 2, 2009
alley, 7' belonged went to the other property and he probably didn't that too. I didn't know that too so that's
why this thing happened. So it's not his fault and it's not my fault it's just something that we didn't know.
Alright.
MR. URBANSKI: Alright.
A motion for approval of the variances subject to the approval of the Special Exception by the Common
Council was made by Mr. Phipps and seconded by Mr. Hawley. The motion carried unanimously.
A motion was made to send the Special Exception to the Common Council with a Favorable
Recommendation was made by Mr. Phipps and seconded by Mr. Hawley. The motion carried unanimously.
After hearing the evidence on the petition, the Area Board of Zoning Appeals find that you did satisfy
the Standards as set forth in I.C. 36-7-4-918.5; therefore, the petition for variances was granted subject
to the Special Exception`being approved by the Common Council and the petition for Special
Exception is sent to the Common Council with a Favorable Recommendation.
Based on the testimony presented, the Area Board of Zoning Appeals, after careful consideration, finds the
variances granted subject to the Special Exception is approved by the Common Council and the petition for
Special Exception is sent to the Common Council with a Favorable Recommendation and will issue written
Finding of Facts.
MR. LIPSKY: I would like to say a special thanks to the Building Department, Mr. Mark Lyons and Carolyn
for all the help. This was my first petition in front of you.
PETITION FOR VARIANCES GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE SPECIAL EXCEPITION BEING
APPROVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL
PETITION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SENT TO THE COMMON COUNCIL WITH A
FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION
.-