11-14-11 Common Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2011 adjacent residential includes a 6; high solid wood privacy fence and 14 evergreen trees. There is also a landscaping area to the south of Phase I. Phase 2, the remainder of the McKinley parcel, proposes uses allowed in the CB, SF1, SF2, MF1 and MF2 districts. The residential districts have been defined with a maximum number of units per acre/ Single family would be developed at between 5 and 10 units per acre and multifamily would have a maximum of 30 units per acre. Phase 3, the entire Hickory parcel, proposes uses allowed in the CB, MF1 and MF2 districts. There will be one sign on McKinley and one sign on Hickory according to the standards for integrated centers – freestanding identification signs. The percentage of open space if 15%. All other standards shall comply with the current South Bend Zoning Ordinance. Prior to the adoption of the latest zoning ordinance in 2004, the site was zoned B Multifamily and C Commercial. In 2008, the McKinley parcel was petitioned to be rezoned to MF2 for multi-family dwellings. The Area Plan Commission sent the petition to the Common Council with an unfavorable recommendation. The petition was tabled indefinitely before the Common Council. Both McKinley Avenue and Hickory Road have four lanes. Access will be from existing curb cuts along McKinley Avenue and Hickory Road. A new curb cut is proposed on McKinley Avenue, subject to approval by the City Engineer. In 2007, there was a “declaration of reciprocal easements” recorded as the result of the McKinley Hickory Minor Subdivision. These easements are for access, parking and utilities. Ms. Nayder advised that the most desirable uses for this property are ones that compliment the high density and commercial uses adjacent to this site. The commercial property values to the east should not be affected by the rezoning. The surrounding residential property values may be affected by the rezoning. It is responsible development and growth to accommodate appropriate and compatible responsible infill development on an underutilized property. Ms. Nayder stated that based on information available prior to the public hearing the staff recommend this petition be sent to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation subject to a final site plan showing the following: 1. The addition of 7 evergreens for a total of 21, along the north and west property lines of Phase 1, meeting the requirements of Table 21-07.01-B: Minimum Size at Time of Planting, 2. The landscaping area on the south line of Phase I needs to conform to the South end Zoning Ordinance based on the type of uses ultimately developed in Phase 2, 3. The height of the multifamily buildings be limited to 40’ or 3 stores, and 4. If Phase 2 develops as multifamily, landscaping along the west property line, must at a minimum, meet the Type A: Open requirements as defined in the South Bend Zoning Ordinance, with the possible addition of evergreens trees. This PUD allows the property to be developed with multiple options. If the property develops at a higher residential density, it would serve as a buffer between the commercial development to the east and the residential area to the west. Additional landscaping on the west, and reducing the height of the buildings, will further buffer the adjacent single family. If the property develops commercially, the resulting development would be the same as if it were developed under the present zoning Additional landscaping on the north and west of Phase I will further buffer the self storage units from the adjacent single family homes. The Staff would not normally support a PUD with such a wide range of uses on a relatively small parcel. However the Staff recognizes the difficulty of developing an infill property such as this one. The development must still be sensitive to the existing residential neighborhood to the west and across McKinley to the south, hence the additional recommendations relative to the screening, landscaping and height restrictions. Councilmember Oliver Davis asked if the Petitioner was in agreement to the commitments. Ms. Nayder advised that at the committee meeting this afternoon the petitioner stated that he was willing to meet those commitments. Councilmember Oliver Davis asked if those commitments were recommended by the staff. Ms. Nayder stated yes, by the staff. 5