07-23-18 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING July 23, 2018 thumb from a planning standpoint to look at across the street or behind properties?When you talk about adjacency, is there a preference? Mr. Wyatt replied, When I was writing the staff report, it isn't a rule of thumb but I looked at Michigan Street as itself. I took into account the Single-Family homes that are directly across the street. I saw that you could use the LI parcel for what they wanted.Because this is a major corridor coming into the City, it is appropriate for commercial development but the City of South Bend's Comprehensive Plan states that one(1) of the goals is to improve the character of the community's entry ways and corridors to ensure coordination of land uses among adjacent areas. The neighborhood plan referenced,even though it wasn't approved or adopted by APC or this Council, is because it is still there. Councilmember Jo M. Broden asked,And that was regardless of the commitments?Because those weren't even mentioned in your recommendation. Mr. Wyatt replied, The commitments didn't come until after the Area Plan Commission meeting. Councilmember Jo M. Broden followed up, But they were recommended in the staff report that you had received? Mr. Wyatt replied, Yes, by DCI. They gave an unfavorable recommendation but they gave those recommendations for you to consider if you all decide to approve this. Councilmember Oliver Davis interjected, I'm glad you mentioned that because I believe to reference a plan that has not been approved is concerning. There had to be some weight due to the fact that it was referenced. My concern is having this plan voted down based on a plan that has not been approved. I am very concerned to set precedent in this body to give any kind of credence to a plan that has not been approved as a part of the decision making process. We have already established that is not a part of the current law. We should not make our decisions based on preference but based on what is there. That is why I have great concern that we are referencing a document and it was shared with both Area Plan and this body and it has lead us to have a negative point of reference. I am concerned with that. Mr. Magliozzi replied, We mentioned two (2) plans, the Comprehensive Plan and then the Neighborhood Plan. Our decision was based on the Comprehensive Plan and the criteria for that. The other plan was a point of reference. There was a lot of time, effort and money by the City to develop neighborhood plans. It didn't move forward for a variety of different reasons but our decision, as a staff, was based on the Comprehensive Plan. Not the unapproved or non-vetted Council documents. Councilmember Oliver Davis interjected, But if that was the case, the adjacent places to this, this is in keeping with the adjacent issues. And so, how did you get to the reference of it not being in keeping when it is in keeping of it? That's where my clarity has been lost. If it's in keeping that we both have dark suits, how do we get to the point where one (1) of us doesn't have a dark suit from that standpoint? You don't have on a jacket I can see that but for us, how do you get there? Mr. Magliozzi replied, Zonings, in many cases, are subjective interpretations of what we have available to us and it is not perfect. There was a lot of discussion between DCI and our APC staff, and our unified consensus was that this did not meet the Comprehensive Plan and the general trend of the area. That is why we have this process. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Conrad Damian, 718 East Broadway Street, South Bend, IN, stated, I'm president of the neighborhood association, SOAR, and when we talked about this it was agreed that we opposed this rezoning. There are six (6) used car lots in the short ten (10) block area of Michigan Street. We believe that is more than enough used car lots. We also have three (3) muffler shops and two (2) auto repair shops in that very short distance and we don't believe it is a good use of the area. We are glad JJ's has the restaurant but we do not believe the rest of the property should be used in this way. There were twenty-three (23)people at that meeting and that was the general consensus. The plan for our neighborhood was developed in 2015. We have been waiting for it to be approved by the Council.I don't see why you would hold that against the good faith of the parties developing 6