My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-23-56 Council Meeting Minutes
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Minutes
>
Common Council Meeting Minutes
>
1956
>
01-23-56 Council Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/12/2013 9:19:11 AM
Creation date
9/11/2013 1:49:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
City Council - Document Type
Council Mtg Minutes
City Counci - Date
1/23/1956
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23rd, 1956 <br />Councilman Glass made a motion that the communication be accepted and placed on file. Councilman Muszynski <br />seconded the motion. Motion carried. <br />Communication from Attorney Guy H. McMichael relative to withdrawal of previous lierman-Light petition without <br />prejudice. <br />Councilman Hahn made a motion that the communication be accepted and placed on file. Councilman Muszynski <br />seconded the motion. Motion carried. <br />DATTY'TAV <br />Petition of John C. Stith, et al, to rezone from "B" Use District and "B" Height and Area, lots 61 through <br />68 Kaley's 1st Subdivision and lots 89 through 95 in Kaley's Second Addition. <br />Councilman Erler moved that the petition be referred to the City Plan Commission. Councilman Glass seconded the <br />motion. fiction carried. <br />REPORT OF CITY PLAN COMMISSION: <br />Honorable Common Council <br />City of South Bend, <br />South Bend, Indiana <br />Gentlemen: <br />January 9, 1956 <br />In the matter of the attached petition of Herman R. Larson, et. al, to zone lots numbered 191 through 196, in- <br />clusive, of Berner Grove Addition from "B" Residential Use District and "B" Height and Area District to "C" <br />Commercial Use District and "D" Height and Area District, said lots facing Mishawaka-Avenue on the north side <br />of the street between 28th and 29th Streets, your Planning Commission found as follows: <br />That subject property was generally surrounded by commercial zoning districts and commercial land <br />use, and that the general trend in vicinity of subject property was clearly towards increasing <br />need for commercial frontage., <br />The ptition and ordinance is favorably recommended after legal advertising and public hearing before <br />the Commission on October 6, 1955. <br />This communication of recommendation has been held pending the submission of the necessary ordinance by the <br />petititioners. <br />Very trVly yours, <br />CITY PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Robert L. Huff <br />Director <br />RLH :aed <br />$Motion by Councilman Hahn that the report be accepted and placed on file. Seconded by Councilman Erler. <br />Motion carried. <br />ORDINANCE: <br />AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER <br />3702, COMMONLY KNOWN AS ZONING ORDINANCE <br />OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA. <br />(The North Side of Mishawaka Avenue, <br />between 28t1i and 29th streets, South, <br />Bend, Indiana) <br />The Ordinance was given first reading by title and second reading in full. Councilman Hahn made a motion <br />that the Ordinance be set for public hearing on February 14th, 1956. Seconded by Councilman Erler. Motion <br />carried. <br />REPORT OF CITY PLAN COMMISSION: <br />Honorable Common Council <br />City of South Bend <br />South Bend, Indiana <br />Gentlemen: <br />January 20, 1956 <br />The attached petition of Herman N. Light to zone 35 acres on East Jefferson Boulevard to "C -2" Planned Shopping <br />Center District was legally advertised ".under date of September 26, 1955, and given public hearing under date <br />of October 6, 1955, and continued to Novik4er 3, 1955. On January .19, 1956. the Commission in executive <br />session, having fully considered the petitition and remonstrances thereto, found as follows: <br />1. A Shopping center on subject property would be convenient, reasonable, accessible, and would <br />bear a substantial relationship to the general welfare. Public convenience and welfare would <br />be best served. It would not, therefore, be an unreasonable or arbitrary exercise of the <br />police -power of the municipality. <br />2. The granting of the petition would not single out one lot or a small piece of' property for a use <br />which is inconsistent with the use to which the rest of the area is restricted. The granting of <br />the . pdtition does not, therefore, constitute spot zoning. A line dividing one zoning district <br />from another must obviously be drawn somewhere. <br />3. Consolidated shopping centers with adequate off- street parking in efficient and convenient retail <br />store groupings are sound when considered in relation to the buying power of the area they are to <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.