06-13-77 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

m REGULAR MEETING JUNE 13, 1977 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING (CONTINUED) comply. Council Member Dombrowski asked Area Plan to show the Council where the residential area was located. Mr. Tim Eckerle, of Area Plan, and Richard Morgan showed the Council where the are< was located. Council Member Kopczynski asked how this particular piece of property was picked and why downtown was not chosen.- Mr. Joseph Roper, attorney for Basney Ford, indicated that Mr. Basney was not being pressured by Ford Motor Company to leave their present location, but the area does not generate the traffic and there were other problems. He said they attempted to re- locate downtown and looked at four different sites including the park across from Union Station. Mr. Basney indicated that the biggest problem in the downtown area was that they could not obtaii a site with a minimum of seven acres, as required by Ford Motor Company, without the vacation of streets, alleys, etc. He said Ford in their market survey said we must relocate either downtown or the southern part of the City. Council President Parent asked if Mr. Basney had any objection to the type of buffer requested by Mr. Ruhlman. Mr. Basney indicated that a two hundred foot buffer would take a substantial amount of needed land, and forty foot they were proposing would take over one acre. Mr. Morgan explained that Mr. Locker did not sell the residential portion due to the fact that the entire property had to be purchased and only one or two residents were interested in purchasing the property. Council Member Szymkowiak indicated he thought that the park area across from Union Station would be the best place for Basney Ford to relocate. Mr. Basney indicated the property was not over five acres and was owned by a multitude of owners and would be difficult to purchase.. Council Member Serge asked who would follow up to be sure this buffer zone was provided. Mr. Eckerle indicated that the lanscaping plan was included in the ordinance and it would be up to the City to see that this is complied with. Council Member Adam; asked Mr. Eckerle to explore the problem of K Mart's buffer to see if they were in violation, an( send a report to the Council. Council Member Kopczynski indicated he thought it was best to in- corporate the buffer zone into "A" residential zoning. Mr: Eckerle indicated that as of 1972 the City enacted an ordinance where any site plan violation actually violates the ordinance to rezone. He said when Area Plan accepts the final site plan it actually becomes law. Council Member Kopczynski made a motion to recess, seconded by Council Member Taylor. The motion Carrie( and the meeting was recessed at 8:00 p.m., and reconvened at 8:10 p.m. Council President Parent indicated he was pleased that this business was going to be in the City. He said the fence will be built on the inside edge of the property so the people will have use of the forty foot buffer He made a motion that this bill be recommended to the Council favorable, seconded by Council Member Kopczynski. The bill passed by a roll call vote of seven ayes and one nay (Council Membe_ Taylor) . BILL NO. 60 -77 A BILL AMENDING CHAPTER 6, GENERALLY KNOWN AS THE BUILDING ORDINANCE, REGULATING THE ERECTION, CONSTRUCTION, ENLARGE - MENT, OCCUPANCY, EQUIPMENT, USE, HEIGHT, AREA, AND MAINTENANCE OF BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES; REGULATING AND CONTROLLING THE DE- SIGN, CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, QUALITY OF MATERIALS, LOCATION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF HEATING, VENTILATING, COOLING, RE- FRIGERATION SYSTEMS, INCINERATORS AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS HEAT - PRODUCING APPLIANCES; REGULATING AND CONTROLLING THE ERECTION, REPLACEMENT, MAINTENANCE OR USE OF ANY PLUMBING SYSTEM; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND COLLECTION OF FEES THEREOF, DE- CLARING AND ESTABLISHING FIRE DISTRICTS; PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF, AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES AND PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THEREWITH. This being the time heretofore set for public hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponen were given an opportunity to be heard. Mr. Gaylen Allsop, Deputy City Attorney, made the pre- sentation for the bill. He said the bill was drafted because of the conflict on which code should be enforced in South Bend. He said this bill would bring the South Bend Building Code into conformity with the rules and regulations adopted by the Indiana State Administrative Building Council. He said under statute, these rules and regulations preempt all conflicting local ordinances, and as a result it has been difficult to determine whether part or any of the BOCA Basic Building Code, which is still a part of the Municipal Code of South Bend, should be enforced. He said recently the Council adopted a new unsafe building ordinance, and the Ad- ministration feels that it is necessary to adopt this bill in order to provide proper local enforcement of building, plumbing, mechanical and electrical standards. Council Member Adams commended the Legal Department on a fine job and made a motion to recommend this bill to the Council favorable, seconded by Council Member Szymkowiak. The motion carried. BILL NO. 61 -77 A BILL AMENDING CHAPTER 8 GENERALLY KNOWN AS THE ELECTRICAL CODE, REGULATING THE INSTALLATION OF ELECTRICAL CONDUCTORS, FITTINGS, DEVICES, APPLIANCES AND FIXTURES WITHIN OR ON PRI- VATE AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND PREMISES; PROVIDING FOR LICENSES, PERMITS, UNDERGROUND CONDUITS AND PENALTIES. This being the time heretofore set for public hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponen- were given an opportunity to be heard. Mr. Gaylen Allsop, Deputy City Attorney, made the pre- sentation for the bill. He said the bill would update the present NationalE-lectrical Code under Chapter 8 of the Municipal Code. He said the Administration feels that adoption of the attache( bill would provide for better enforcement of electrical standards. Council Member Szymkowiak made a motion to recommend this bill to the Council favorable, seconded by Council Member Taylo: The motion carried. BILL NO. 62 -77 A BILL AMENDING CHAPTER 9, GENERALLY KNOWN AS THE FIRE PRE- VENTION ORDINANCE, REGULATING AND SETTING STANDARDS FOR SAFE- GUARDING OF LIFE AND PROPERTY FROM THE HAZARDS OF FIRE AND EXPLOSION ARISING FROM THE STORAGE, HANDLING AND USE OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES, MATERIALS AND DEVICES, AND FROM CONDI- TIONS HAZARDOUS TO LIFE OR PROPERTY IN THE USE OR OCCUPANCY OF BUILDINGS OR PREMISES; SETTING STANDARDS IN DETERMINING THE ACCEPTABILITY OF INSTALLATIONS OR PROCEDURES, EQUIPMENT OR MATERIALS IN THE USE OR OCCUPANCY OF BUILDINGS OR PREMISES; PROVIDING FOR A FIRE BOARD OF APPEALS; PROVIDING FOR BONFIRE, TRASH OR RUBBISH FIRES; AND PROVIDING PENALTIES.