Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-22-16 Zoning and AnnexationOFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK KAREEMAH FOWLER, CITY CLERK ZONING & ANNEXATION AUGUST 22, 2016 3:30 P.M. Committee Members Present: Oliver Davis, John Voorde, Gavin Ferlic, Jo M. Broden (Excused Late) Other Council Present: Regina Williams- Preston, Karen White, Tim Scott, Randy Kelly Others Present: Kareemah Fowler, Joseph Molnar, Kathleen Cekanski- Farrand, Adriana Rodriguez Agenda: Bill No. 36 -16 — Rezoning petition for 202 Bartlett St. Bill No. 37 -16 — Proposed text amendments for Multi - Family (MF1, MF2) and Mixed -Use Districts Bill No. 38 -16 — Proposed text amendments to Chapter 21 regarding definitions of dwelling unit, family and group residence Committee Chair Oliver Davis called the Zoning and Annexation Committee to order with three (3) bills on the agenda and three (3) Committeemembers present. Bill No. 36 -16 — Rezoning petition for 202 Bartlett St. Committeemember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to accept the Substitute Bill 36 -16. Committeemember John Voorde seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of three (3) ayes. Keith Chapman, Area Plan Commission with offices on the l lth Floor, served as the presenter for this bill. This property is located at 202 Bartlett St. and Mr. Chapman provided images of the property from various angles to the Committee. The images are on file with the City Clerk's Office. On site there is a house zoned Single - Family and Two - Family. To the north of the property is Leeper Park. To the east is a doctor's office. To the south is a single - family home and across St. Joseph St. to the west is a parking lot zoned CBD. This bill comes to the Council with a favorable recommendation from the Area Plan Commission subject to the written commitment 455 County-City Building • 227 W. Jefferson Boulevard • South Bend, Indiana 46601 Phone 574- 235 -9221 • Fax 574- 235 -9173 • TDD 574- 235 -5567 • www.SouthBendIN.gov JENNIFER M. COFFMAN ALKEYNA M. ALDRIDGE EMILY SEXTON CHIEF DEPUTY/ CHIEF OF STAFF DEPUTY/ DIRECTOR OF POLICY ORDINANCE VIOLATION CLERK that the multi - family dwelling is limited to three (3) units. Rezoning this site will allow for a mixture of housing types in the neighborhood and enable for the reuse of a vacant structure. Committeemember John Voorde asked if this house was part of a historic district. Mr. Chapman responded yes the River Bend Historic District. Justin Bogunit, 202 Bartlett St., served as the petitioner for this bill. His intentions are to renovate the property and restore it to what it was. The plan is to keep the same footprint which is two (2) units on the second -floor and one (1) unit on the first -floor. The structure is sitting right on the property line and he does not own any of the property from the building to the street. There are also plans to add landscaping on the property. The house was built originally in the 1920s as a rental property which is why there are two (2) main entrances. Committeemember Jo M. Broden and Councilmember Tim Scott entered the meeting at 3:37 p.m. This raised the quorum to four (4) Committeemembers present. Committee Chair Davis stated that during the Area Plan Commission meeting on this bill, there was a discussion regarding the various Code Violations this property has incurred. He asked the petitioner to address those concerns. Mr. Bogunit responded that since he has been in possession of the property there has been one (1) issue where the police believed the location had been broken into. Since then there has been no code violations or issues with the police. He stated he has gone to the Historic Preservation Society as well to make sure he was doing everything properly concerning the external part of the building. He stated all the Code Enforcement violations reported during the Area Plan meeting came prior to his taking possession of the building. Committeemember Gavin Ferlic asked the petitioner to clarify how many Code Enforcement violations he has received as the owner of the property. Mr. Bogunit responded none and just the one (1) police call back in early 2015. Councilmember Tim Scott apologized for being late, he and Committeemember Jo M. Broden were stuck on the elevator. Committeemember Gavin Ferlic asked if anyone from the public spoke at the Area Plan meeting. Mr. Chapman responded two (2) people spoke in opposition at the meeting. Committee Chair Oliver Davis stated they were both neighbors and their issues were parking and the Code violations. Those were the two (2) big complaints. Mr. Chapman agreed with Committee Chair Davis that those were the two (2) issues. Those from the public wishing to speak in favor of the bill: 2 Jose De Arevalo, 3809 Fellows Street, stated his support for the bill and returning it to its original purpose. No one from the public spoke in opposition. Committeemember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to send Bill 36 -16 as amended to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Committeemember John Voorde seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of four (4) ayes. Bill No. 37 -16 — Proposed text amendments for Multi- Family (MF1, MF2) and Mixed -Use Districts Committeemember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to accept Substitute Bill 37 -16. Committeemember John Voorde seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of four (4) ayes. Angela Smith, Area Plan Commission with offices on the 11th Floor of the County -City Building, served as the presenter for this bill. This is a text amendment which affects several areas of the zoning ordinance. The intent of the bill is to look at the Single - Family homes and protecting and preserving the Single - Family uses in the City. When the zoning map was adopted in 2005 there were several properties that were zoned Multi - Family or Mixed -Use even though they were existing Single - Family homes. Ms. Smith provided a chart relating to the data surrounding the issues which is on file in the City Clerk's office. Single- Family is currently a special exception in both Multi- Family Districts and is not even an option in Mixed -Use Districts. This ordinance would move Single - Family to permitted uses in MR and MF2 and would allow them as special exception uses in MU Districts. The banks have tightened up their lending practices, so they are no longer comfortable with houses getting financed under `legal non - conforming' statuses. They really want to see all houses be financed under permitted use. This would help any of those houses currently under `legal non- conforming' status and allow the opportunity for someone who had a duplex to convert it back to a Single - Family home. Currently as written a person could not do that. This comes to the Council with a favorable recommendation from the Area Plan Commission. Since the adoption of the zoning ordinance in 2004, the housing market has continued to change and evolve. The proposed change recognizes the revived interest in converting older homes back into Single - Family residential and will promote flexibility in the housing market across additional zoning districts. Committeemember Jo M. Broden served as the petitioner for this bill. She stated she had nothing further to add and recommended going straight to the public input portion. Those wishing to speak in favor of the bill: Joe Wiengel, resident of the 1s' District, stated he represents citizens of the Lincoln Park neighborhood. The Lincoln Park Neighborhood is a new neighborhood that was put together along with South Bend Heritage Foundation. Zoning is primarily the driving factor in the rapidly accelerating lack of affordable housing in urban areas. Zoning by many suburban and ex -urban 3 communities for very large residential lots in order to preserve home values excludes poor people. Obviously this shifts the market to build more expensive homes than ordinarily might be built. He stated that he spends thirty -five percent (35 %) of his income on housing. Other people in his neighborhood spend the same amount and more. Some see these restrictions as violating property rights. It can be argued that zoning boards and city councils disable property owners' creative use of their lands. Along with potential property right infringement, zoning laws have been criticized as a means to promote social and economic segregation through exclusion. These laws create maximum density requirements and as a result lower income groups deemed undesirable or unwelcome are effectively excluded from certain communities. Political decisions allocated housing of different prices to different neighborhoods and thereby turn the market into a mechanism for class segregation. Zoning encourages income segregation and there is a relationship between an area's allowance for building housing at higher density and racial integration between blacks and whites in the Unites States. The intent of this policy is flexible housing opportunities by changing zoning regulations. Jose De Arevala, 3809 Fellows Street, spoke in favor of the bill. South Bend Mutual Housing is a testament to what we can do when the community works together. By amending the zoning ordinance as proposed we can increase the available housing opportunities in existing neighborhoods. Changing the zoning allows people to use existing structures for purposes previously unavailable to them. This also increases affordability which is desperately needed in our community. Marguerite Taylor, 714 Corby Blvd. South Bend, spoke in favor of the bill. The North East Neighborhood Revitalization Organization has done a ton of new housing and redevelopment in the Northeast Neighborhood. We have fought long and hard to keep Single - Family homes in the Northeast Neighborhood. At one time you could not even rent a house because of the presence of Notre Dame students. The neighborhood was losing families and they are finally returning. Bill Stems, 1020 East Colfax, president of the Northeast Neighborhood Council spoke in favor of the bill. Mr. Stems stated the members are heavily in favor of this and provided an example of a property where the home owners wanted to build a Single- Family house and had to go through a rezoning procedure just to build the house. That process seems backwards and this helps that problem. Marco Mariani, Executive Director of the South Bend Heritage Foundation offices at 803 Lincolnway West, spoke in favor of this bill. The Heritage Foundation also serves as the staff for the Northeast Neighborhood Revitalization Organization. These changes meet with the goals for the Northeast Neighborhood as it relates to promoting Single - Family development. No one spoke in opposition to the bill. Committeemember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to send Bill 37 -16 to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Committeemember John Voorde seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of four (4) ayes. F Councilmember Randy Kelly entered the meeting at 4:08 p.m. Bill No. 38 -16 — Proposed text amendments to Chapter 21 regarding definitions of dwelling unit, family and group residence Committeemember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to accept substitute Bill 37 -16. Committeemember John Voorde seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of four (4) ayes. Angela Smith, Area Plan Commission with offices on the 11th Floor of the County -City Building, served as the presenter for this bill. This is very closely related to the last bill in protecting Single - Family but comes at it from a different angle. Right now the definition of family is no more than two (2) unrelated individuals exclusive of household servants. The term servants is an antiquated term as it is rare to have butlers or cooks living with the owner of a property anymore. There have been instances where that definition has been used to circumvent the definition of family to allow more than two (2) unrelated people in a house. This weakens the Single - Family District intent. This text amendment would tighten up that definition by removing the antiquated term `servant'. Also, the definition of "group resident" is tweaked as well. Currently the term "group resident" is basically a co- living situation or group- living situation but is also used for anything that doesn't meet the definition of family. When we looked at this, we found a serious gap where they are allowed. Currently the Central Business District does not have the opportunity for someone to get a group residence. The proposal is to insert it as a special exception to keep it as part of the public process but in general you would want a group residence where there are already services such as public transportation available and there is high density. This comes to the Council with a favorable recommendation from the Area Plan Commission. This text amendment recognizes the growing popularity of non - traditional housing and invites opportunities for group residents in the Central Business District. Councilmember Dr. David Varner asked if this makes a distinction between "group residences" and "group homes ". Ms. Smith responded there is a distinction in the ordinance between the two (2) and a clear definition. Group residents is a form of non - traditional housing that is not necessarily social service related. It is more along the lines of four (4) bedroom apartments or communal living spaces and rent out bedrooms. Councilmember Dr. David Varner asked if this allows for the conversion of any home to a group residence or just the Central Business District. Ms. Smith responded it only pertains to the Central Business District. Right now the places where it is allowed is where Multi - Family is already permitted. Councilmember Dr. David Varner asked if someone has a piece of property in the Central Business District and they want to use it as a group residence, what restrictions exist to limit how many people can be in that residence? Ms. Smith responded that there is nothing in the specific ordinance but because it is a special exception it would allow the Board of Zoning Appeals and City Council to determine the appropriate number of residents and any other restrictions. That would also tie the petitioner to a site plan as well. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic stated he received a call today from a resident who stated that if Bill 37 -16 is passed before Bill 38 -16 it could potentially leave some sort of gap in the ordinance. He asked the Council Attorney if there would be a way to switch those on the Council floor. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski- Farrand responded procedurally the City Clerk's Office assigns the bill numbers based on the order they are turned in. If the Council by a majority vote would want to change the order it would be by proper motion during the full Council meeting. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic stated if the Council wants to do it then he will give the option. If we are trying to encourage more density downtown in the future it may be a good idea to look at expanding in the Central Business District to allowing three (3) or four (4) people that are not related. Committee Chair Davis asked if that is something we should do for this bill. Councilmember Ferlic responded no, that would be something to consider in the future. If we are trying to encourage density that is something which may be helpful. Councilmember Tim Scott asked Ms. Smith to explain the process someone would have to go through if this would pass as is written right now. Ms. Smith responded that the property owner would apply through the Area Board of Zoning Appeals which is about three - hundred dollars ($300). The ABZA would make a recommendation then to the Council and the Council would have the final say on the special exception. Councilmember Scott asked how long that exception would stay in place. Ms. Smith responded it stays with the property until it is further changed even if the property changes ownership. Councilmember Dr. Varner stated the last thing the Council wants to deal with is a bunch of special exceptions because everyone would see theirs as being fair. If this is what the Council thinks they want then in the very near future we should act on some sort of guidelines to be fair across the board. Ms. Smith stated there is the precedence in certain cases for it being no more than one (1) person per bedroom. Those wishing to speak from the public: on David Matthews, 215 East Coflax South Bend, stated he is pretty sure this bill relates to what his company has done in the past. Four (4) years ago there was a group of seven (7) guys who wanted to live in the Central Business District and approached him to see if we could get a building or apartment for them to get into. The zoning, by not allowing a special use, prohibited group homes. Mr. Mathews stated he read the rules and found a loophole and discovered that if he placed all of them as domestic servants they could all move in. That group went on to become EnFocus which has done great work for South Bend. The text amendment change would take that option away. The ability to have the path for a special exemption is potentially appealing but if we look back at recent activities it would have prevented the EnFocus guys from moving in. That property was located in the CBD and had been vacant for years. They had to be in very quickly. This process as written would take spending the three- hundred dollars ($300) but then we have to notify everyone within three- hundred (300) feet, go through public notice and an ABZA meeting and then finally the City Council meeting and public notice. It seems odd to make a group residence a special use in the CBD. It will be easier to buy a building in the CBD and put in a night club or bar and they don't have to go through the City Council for permission but if somebody wants to change that same building into a house and have three (3) people living there they have to go through the City Council. He was talking to someone at Art Beat who asked him if he would be willing to house foreign exchange students at Adam's High School for six (6) weeks and that would be a great opportunity but with this rule he couldn't do that because the process would be longer than the time the student would be living with him. If we are trying to protect the property values in the CBD we should make it easy to do business. We have low- income housing, subsidized housing, and million dollar houses and everything in between that spectrum in the CBD. It is the most cosmopolitan and diverse area in the City. A special exception makes sense in a Single - Family or Mixed -Use neighborhood but not in the CBD it should just be allowed or raise the limit to three (3) or four (4). When we were doing the EnFocus housing there is no way we could have made that work with the forty -five (45) day process set up in this ordinance. Committee Chair Davis asked Mr. Mathews to clarify if he was for or against the bill. Mr. Matthews responded he is in support of the bill with the slight modification of changing as a special use in the CBD to an allowed use. If you make that amendment to the proposal than it is great. If that amendment is not approved then he is not in favor of the bill. Bill Stems, 1020 East Colfax, stated he is definitely for this bill. We have been dealing with this group home problem in the Northeast Neighborhood forever. There have been many new group homes that have sprung up because of the interpretation of the wording of what consists of two (2) people. Mr. Stems stated that our current building administrator considers that if you have four (4) apartments or (4) bedrooms but each bedroom has a hotplate and a kitchen or a compact refrigerator they can still share a kitchen among all four (4) bedrooms and be considered four (4) separate units even though they do in fact all live together. That is the critical thing in the writing of this ordinance that defines what really more than two (2) unrelated people is if they do share a common kitchen and recreational area. The Northeast Neighborhood Council is in favor of this and there will be others to speak in favor. Changing the language to what the state building code 7 says is a good and proper change in our City Code. Mr. Mathew's may disagree but it is not that painful to go through that process laid out in the ordinance. Marguerite Taylor, 714 Corby Blvd. South Bend, spoke in favor of the bill. All we want to do is close the loophole. Those wishing to speak in opposition: Committee Chair Davis asked if Mr. Mathew's would like to have his comments referred to as opposition. Mr. Matthews responded that yes that makes sense. No one else spoke in opposition to the bill. Committee Chair Davis asked the petitioner, Jo M. Broden, to respond to the issues brought up by Mr. Mathews. Committeemember Jo M. Broden stated the intent is to try to protect Single - Family development while opening a viable opportunity in the CBD is the intent. The types of living arrangements Mr. Mathew's is speaking about are currently not even an allowed use. She stated she believes in the process that neighbors should be engaged in these decisions that are right next door to them. While there is a burden for developers the initial thought was that it's better than what is currently in place. This allows the individuals most impacted by the development be a part of the discussion. This bill opens up possibilities for these creative living spaces and arrangements, and in the future we could come back to this and look at something more permissible. This provides consistency with the neighborhood plans that people have been working on and developing for years. Committee Chair Davis asked if she would like this bill to stand as is without any further amendments. Committeemember Broden responded yes as it stands but we will certainly have further discussions later on. We should certainly be willing to come back and tweak things when needed. This currently opens up an avenue for developers which is currently unavailable. She expressed her full support for group residences. Councilmember Randy Kelly stated the most salient point he has heard in regard to this is what Mr. Mathews said about the fact that someone could open a bar next door to him easier than having a house with three (3) residents. That is a pertinent point and when someone like Mr. Mathews who has clearly invested a lot in South Bend and has continued to do so recommends opening the CBD up to group living as a blanket possibility, it is worth considering making that small adjustment to this language before we move forward. Committeemember Broden stated she does believe there are higher standards for opening a bar in South Bend. Ms. Smith added a bar is a controlled use and there are additional requirements that go along with it. Councilmember Kelly asked if the neighbors have any say in it. Ms. Smith responded there are separation requirements and the number of bars that can be in proximity to one another. If you wanted to change that, you would have to go to the ABZA and get that approval. Committeemember Gavin Ferlic stated he believes this bill gets us closer to what we should do in South Bend. Right now group homes are not permitted anywhere under any zoning. We should continue to look at this and then maybe develop a standard that could be useful. Committeemember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to send Bill 38 -16 to the full Council favorably. Committeemember John Voorde seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of four (4) ayes. With no further business before the Committee, Committee Chair Oliver Davis adjourned the I