Laserfiche WebLink
++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ +++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +i <br />REGULAR MEETING JULY 8, 1974 <br />Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Bend met in the Council Chambers of <br />the County -City Building on Monday, July 8, 1974, at 7:08 p.m., Council President Peter J. Nemeth <br />presiding. The meeting was called to order and the Pledge to the Flag was given. <br />ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmen Serge, Szymkowiak, <br />Miller, Parent, Taylor, <br />Kopczynski, Newburn and <br />Nemeth. <br />ABSENT: Councilman Horvath. <br />ouncilman Kopczynski made a motion that the Council resolve into the Committee of the Whole, seco <br />v Councilman Taylor. The motion carried. <br />COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING <br />Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Bend met in the Committee of the <br />Whole on Monday, July 8, 1974, at 7:09 p.m., with eight members present and one member absent. <br />Chairman Odell Newburn presided. <br />AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. <br />4990 -68, AS AMENDED, COMMONLY KNOWN AS <br />THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH <br />BEND, INDIANA (CHAPTER 40, MUNICIPAL CODE) <br />3027 McKinley Avenue. <br />This being the time heretofore set for public hearing on the above ordinance, proponents and <br />opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Mr. Jack C. Dunfee, Jr., 645 First Bank Building, <br />indicated that he was the attorney representing the petitioner, Larry Nifong. He referred to an <br />overlay of the property in question and explained that the petitioner was requesting a change in <br />the zoning from "A" Residential to "B" Residential, subject to a final site development plan and <br />no change in the existing structure. He stated that last year, the petition was favorably recommen <br />by the Area Plan Commission to the Council; however, the Council had turned down the petition. Mr. <br />Dunfee indicated that, since that time, McKinley has been widened and would be able to better handl <br />traffic. He stated that, in order to have the real estate office at that location, Mr. Nifong had <br />been living in the home but now had decided he wanted the home to be used strictly for his realtor <br />business. Mr. Dunfee stated that, since Mr. Nifong has been in residence in the area, the area <br />has been.improved greatly and not one resident had approached Mr. Nifong to complain about the usag <br />of the property. Last month, the Area Plan Commission again approved the rezoning and only one <br />remonstrator appeared at the hearing. Mr. Dunfee stated that the property is subject to a use <br />specified site plan and would only be used as a realtor's office. <br />Mr. Edwin Gonter, 534 Preston Drive, requested that the Council not approve the rezoning because <br />of the restrictions placed on the single family residence by the developer. He stated that it was <br />recommended by the Area Plan Commission that this type of zoning be ended on McKinley, and he felt <br />if the property was rezoned, it would constitute spot zoning. He indicated that the Common Council <br />had turned down the rezoning of property on the opposite side of the street. He stated that the <br />doctor's office that had been approved in the area did not follow the site plan and there was a <br />problem with parking and, snow removal. Councilipn Parent asked about the size of the parking area <br />on the property at the present time, and Mr. Dunfee stated that there were three to four parking <br />spaces. He stated that the site development plan indicated that a paving operation would be con - <br />ducted and the parking would be expanded. He submitted a copy of the site plan to the Council <br />members. Councilman Parent urged the Council to vote against the rezoning. He indicated that it <br />has been stated that McKinley Avenue was not a desirable place for residences because of the amount <br />of traffic, etc. He felt this was not a reason to justify the rezoning. He felt there was an <br />overall community need for residential living in the area. Councilman Szymkowiak wondered about <br />the number of people to be employed. Mr. Dunfee stated that there would be approximately three to <br />five employees. Councilman Szymkowiak wondered if there would be ample parking, and Mr. Dunfee <br />stated that there would not be more than six parking spaces which would be sufficient. He stated <br />that, for this reason, the number of employees to be hired would be limited and the realtor's <br />office would be a small operation. Councilman Szymkowiak felt there would not be enough parking <br />spaces and for this reason he would not vote in favor of the rezoning. Mr. Dunfee reminded the <br />councilmen that the Area Plan Commission had recommended the matter favorably and approved the <br />parking plan as being adequate. <br />Councilman Parent made a motion that the ordinance not be recommended favorably to the Council <br />seconded by Councilman Taylor. Council President Nemeth req csted a roll call vote on the motion. <br />led <br />