06-11-73 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

+++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + ++ REGULAR MEETING JUNE 11, 1973 Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Bend met in the Council Chambers of the County -City Building on Monday, June 11, 1973, at 7:10 p.m., Council President Peter J. Nemeth presiding. The meeting was called to order and the Pledge to the Flag was given. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmen Serge, Szymkowiak, Miller, Parent, Taylor, Kopczynski, Horvath, Newburn and Nemeth. ABSENT: None. Councilman Parent made a motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole, seconded by Councilman Taylor. The motion carried. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Bend met in the Committee of the Whole on Monday, June 11, 1973, at 7:11 p.m., with nine members present. Chairman Odell Newburn presided. ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4990 -68, AS AMENDED, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA (CHAPTER 40, MUNICIPAL CODE) - 3027 MCKINLEY AVENUE. This being the time heretofore set for public hearing on the above ordinance, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Mr. Jack C. Dunfee, Jr., Attorney for the petitioner, made the presentation for the ordinance. Mr. Dunfee indicated that Mr. Nifong was a realtor in South Bend and would be utilizing the property in question for his real estate office. He indicated that the request for rezoning was to be from "A" Residential to "B" Residential which would permit multi - family housing and a few professional -type offices. He explained that the area in question is presently single - family and on the north side of McKinley Avenue. He also indicates that the structure would remain as is, except that it would be repaired and remodeled in the amount of $20,000. He presented photographs and sketches of the property to the Council members. He briefly explained the zoning of the other parcels in that area. Mr. Dunfee further indicated that the matter had been considered by the Area Plan Commission at a public hearing in May and was approved by the commission. At that meeting, there were three remonstrators, only one of them being within 300 feet of the property in question. He explained that the objection of this person was based upon the traffic-situation. He indicated that traffic is a problem but he felt that less traffic would be generated by the real estate office than by a family residing on the premises with two cars and children. He felt there were six factors in favor of the rezoning. First, the property had been used as a rental residential property for many years and has deterio- rated greatly. He indicated that a meeting had been held in April before the matter had been con- sidered by the Area Plan Commission, and he mentioned that there had been no one present at that meeting who was opposed to the rezoning. Secondly, the property along McKinley has become less desirable for residential property because of the amount of traffic. Thirdly, in 1965, a similar rezoning was approved by the Council. Fourth, there would be no change in the property except for a great improvement to the present structure. He indicated that a one -foot sign would be erected; however, in all other instances, the building would look like a residence. Fifth, there would be no parking in front of the building because all the parking would be in the rear, and a solid screen cedar six -foot fence would be constructed. Sixth, Mr. Nifong would not be living in the house, hence the need for the rezoning. He pointed out that, if Mr. Nifong established his residence in the house and operated his business there, there would be no need for the rezoning. Mr. Dunfee felt there were two legal issues of great importance. He presented two briefs to the City Clerk which he had prepared pertaining to spot zoning and protective covenants and restric- tions. He indicated that there is no law regarding spot zoning and the protective covenants did not apply to this particular case. He felt that, even if they were valid, the private restriction! should not exist. Mr. Edwin Gonter, 534 Preston Drive, indicated that he was opposed to the rezoning. He indicated that the property had been used for rental purposes in the past and it was very run down, but he did not think the fact that the house was run down should be a reason for rezoning. He mentioned that the restrictions previously set up were to run for a period of 25 years or until 1976. He read quoted portions of the restrictions. He indicated that, a few years ago, a petition of a Mr. Light for commercial zoning had been turned down by the City Council. He cited the instance of tY.