11-13-73 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 13 1973 REGULAR MEETING (CONTINUED) ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmen Serge, Szymkowiak, Miller, Parent, Taylor, Kopczynski, Horvath, Newburn and Nemeth. ABSENT: None. Councilman Horvath made a motion that the Council resolve into the Committee of the Whole, sec by Councilman Miller. 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 Tuesday, November 13, 1973, at 7:06 p.m., with nine members present. Chairman Odell Newburn presided. ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING ORDINANCE NO. 4990 -68, CHAPTER 40 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, FORMERLY REFERRED TO AS ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 3702, AS AMENDED (2017 WEST DUBAIL STREET). This being the time heretofore set for public hearing on the above ordinance, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Mrs. Wilma K. Feltz, 2017 West Dubail Street, the petitioner in the matter, made the presentation for the ordinance. She explained that she intender to convert one small bedroom in the home into a beauty shop in order to support herself and her husband who was unable to work. She indicated that Mr. Feltz received social security only and the shop would supplement their income. She explained that the only change would be making an existinc_ window into a door and construction of a sidewalk. Council President Nemeth asked Mr. Douglas Carpenter, Planner for the Area Plan Commission, if the use could be allowed in a "C -1" District. Mr. Carpenter answered that it could. Council Presiden Nemeth asked why the Area Plan Commission had recommended denial of the request. Mr. Carpenter referred to a slide of the area and indicated that the use would be isolated within a residential area. He stated that this was not in keeping with Area Plan's policy. Council President Nemeth asked where Warren Street was located in relationship to the area in question, and Mr. Carpenter pointed out Warren Street on the slide indicating that it is a north -south street. Mrs. Feltz indicated that she had obtained 36 signatures of neighbors who had no objection to the rezoning. Council President Nemeth asked if Mr. Carpenter would suggest a "C -1" rezoning rather than a "C" rezoning if the Council approved Mrs. Feltz's request. Mr. Carpenter indicated that it would be better to rezone the property to "C -1" as it was a more restrictive classification in the residen- tial district. Council President Nemeth asked about the height and area district, and Mr. Carpenter indicated that "A" height and area district would be all right. Councilman Kopczynski made a motion that the request for zoning be amended to be a request to "C -1 District and "A" Height and Area District, seconded by Council President Nemeth. There was furthe discussion. Councilman Horvath was of the opinion that the Council should not allow the rezoning. He felt that, once this was allowed, establishments of the same kind would be scattered throughout the residential districts. He expressed sympathy for Mrs. Feltz; however, he felt the rezoning would be considered spot zoning. Councilman Szymkowiak asked what would happen to the property wh Mrs. Feltz discontinued her operation. He was concerned about another use being started in the home. He asked if Mrs. Feltz had applied for a variance because of the hardship case. Mr. Carpenter indicated that the Area Plan Commission did not permit variances any longer. He stated that the courts had stricken down the variances as illegal. He was of the opinion that, if the request was granted, it would constitute spot zoning. Councilman Parent stated that, when an ordinance is passed for rezoning on the basis of a site plan, the site plan is made a part of the ordinance. When the use is changed, the zoning is not in compliance with the law. He asked if th zoning would be allowed for another use if the house was sold for another use. Mr. Carpenter indicated that he could not answer that question. He had stated that the only structural change would be the doorway and he did not think a person could rezone strictly for a use. There was a call for the question, whereupon a show of hands was requested by Chairman Newburn. The motion carried. Councilman Kopczynski made a motion that the ordinance go to the Council as favorable, as amended, seconded by Council President Nemeth. The motion carried. ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING ORDINANCE NO. 4990 -68, CHAPTER 40 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, FORMERLY REFERRED TO AS ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 3702, AS AMENDED (3414 EAST JEFFERSON BOULEVARD). This being the time heretofore set for public hearing on the above ordinance, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Mr. H. Theodore Noell, First American Bank Building, the attorney representing the petitioners, made the presentation for the ordinance. He indicated that the petitioners were requesting a change in the height and area district from "A" t< "B ". He referred to a slide of the property, indicating that it was located at the corner of Jefferson Boulevard and 35th Street. It is directly across the street from a beauty shop, the United Fund offices, and a doctor's office in the area, as well as the Hickey Funeral Home, GMAC Headquarters and Cole & Associates. He indicated that his clients merely recognized the existing use and would provide a buffer for the use. He explained that there would be no change to the exterior of the building. He filed with the City Clerk a petition bearing the signatures of the persons who had not attended the Area Plan Commission hearing and who did not object to the change in height and area district for -the proposed use. He indicated that Mr. David Herring was present to answer any further questions the Council might have. Council President Nemeth indicated that spot zoning had been talked about, and he did not think th Council could deny a request because of that. He mentioned the violation involving the third stor of the Associates Building and asked about that particular case. He felt that each application should be judged on its own merits. He then asked what changes would be made to the building. Mr