Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-28-16 Public Works and Property VacationOFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK KAREEMAH FOWLER, CITY CLERK PUBLIC WORKS & PROPERTY VACATION NOVEMBER 28, 2016 3:25 P.M. Committee Members Present: Other Council Present: Others Present: Agenda: Jo Broden, Randy Kelly, John Voorde Tim Scott, Karen White, Dr. David Varner, Oliver Davis Kareemah Fowler, Joseph Molnar, Michael Passavoir, Kathleen Cekanski - Farrand, Adriana Rodriguez Bill No. 60 -16 – Alley Vacation at Portage & Bulla Bill No. 68 -16 – Alley Vacation at St. Louis Street Committee Chair Jo Broden called the meeting to order with two (2) items on the agenda. Bill No. 60 -16 – Alley Vacation at Portage & Bulla Committee Chair Broden stated that Committeemembers Randy Kelly and Gavin Ferlic were both absent, and therefore there was no quorum. She further stated that the petitioner would be heard and a recommendation would therefrom be given. Bernard Feeney, 715 South Michigan Street, South Bend, IN, stated that he was present on behalf of the petitioner, Transformation Ministries. He explained that Transformation Ministries owns this particular piece of property as well as the entire parking lot on the other side of the alley to be vacated. He stated, At this particular point, we are working with a negative recommendation from the Board of Public Works and, at this point, I would also ask the Committee to pass this on to the Council with no recommendation for tonight's meeting, so that we can wait and see if any of the property owners of the east side of the alley —those property owners that the Board was considering when they made their recommendation —show up for the meeting. If none show up, it's obvious that none are worried about their rights to the alley and the rear of their building. If any are, we may table this for a short period of time to allow the owner an opportunity to address these concerns. This has come before the City Council once before, and that was approximately twenty (20) years ago, maybe longer. At that time, one remonstrator showed up. They were from the tavern to the south, Joe Serge. Based on the remonstrance at the meeting, the petition was rejected. So, the owners are back —new owners, of course; new petition for alley vacation —but it is merely to get rid of the alley so the owners can consolidate all of that property and make better use of it. 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 JOSEPH R. MOLNAR CHIEF DEPUTY/ CHIEROF STAFF DEPUTY/ DIRECTOR OF POLICY ORDINANCE VIOLATION CLERK Committeemember John Voorde asked, Does it look like the Fire Department had a problem? Committeemember Jo Broden ran through comments by different departments on whether or not vacating the alley would pose a conflict to their respective operations: the Police Department gave no recommendation; the Fire Department gave a recommendation; Solid Waste stated that their operation would not be hindered; the Department of Community Investment gave an unfavorable recommendation, stating that it "hinders property access for commercial retail spaces to the east." Roger Nawrot, Assistant City Engineer, Board of Public Works, with offices on the 13th Floor of the County -City Building, stated that Public Works' own comments were the same as Community Investment's. Committeemember Broden asked, To the east or to the south? Mr. Nawrot read Public Works' comment, which stated, "The vacation of this alley would create a dead -end alley at the south end, running east and west from Anderson." Mr. Feeney stated that he has not heard from any of the property owners. He stated, This particular petition has been sitting there probably double the normal time from remonstrance. There's just absolutely no concern that's been directed to my office. Committeemember Broden rhetorically asked, There are no issues with notice, with regard to the neighbors? Committeemember Broden turned discussion over to Councilmember Tim Scott for his comments, as he represents the 1St District, within which exists the alley being discussed. Councilmember Tim Scott stated, I know Kory Lantz, who owns the church. I understand that they are trying to develop that whole piece of property. I don't understand what this is from. I have asked Brian Pawlowski —I texted him, saying I want DCI to come and give us a reason why. They haven't really done that. What Engineering's done is a fact. But with that, what is the ramification of the action? There is no statement towards that, right? So, all it is, is, "Yes, it will dead - end." But, what is the ramification? Cause - and - effect: I don't see any of that; we don't see any of that from anybody else. I never understood why there's an alley. It basically is assumed into the parking lot of that property. So, I really want to hear from DCI —I agree with you — especially with no Committee, if we go on with recommendation. I think that's fair to allow any individuals who want to come and speak. I doubt that anybody's going to come and speak. Mr. Feeney responded, As do I. Councilmember Scott stated, I will get from Brian Pawlowski a reason why they stated this. Committeemember Broden asked, So that's for the end of the alleyway —it's dead - ending —but what about access to the businesses? 2 Mr. Feeney responded, Well, Ms. Broden, first of all, there are at this point two (2) viable businesses: the dry cleaners at the very south end and the taverns to the north of them. COUNCILMEMBER OLIVER DAVIS JOINED THE MEETING AT 3:34 p.m. Mr. Feeney continued, stating, Both are owned by the same party who purchased it from Joe Serge. These owners have access off of Portage into another large parking lot between the bar and the dry cleaners. The hours of operation between the two (2) are so dissimilar that the same parking lot has historically provided for both operations, along with parking along Portage Avenue that provides additional parking for tomorrow and overflowing nights — Monday night football, weekend Notre Dame football games, those types of things. COMMITTEEMEMBER RAND Y KELL Y JOINED THE MEETING AT 3:35 p.m. THE Q UOR UM WAS THUS SET AT THREE (3). Councilmember Tim Scott stated, Realistically, it is a universal kind of parking lot for all those businesses there. The alley, really, is insignificant to any of the action that goes on there. Mr. Feeney responded, And, point of order, Mr. Scott seems to be most familiar with that area. I'm extremely familiar. It's near my neighborhood- Committeemember Broden added, It's my neighborhood, too. Mr. Feeney continued, stating, But the fact is, at the west side of the parking lot —where this parking lot would interface with the alley —are concrete - filled bollards that prevent access from the parking lot into the alley. The people that have the primary reason to object to the closure of this alley have prevented access to the very alley that would benefit them, through that parking lot that they own. Committeemember Broden asked, Any loaning issues for those businesses? Because the property has been sold, as of not too long ago. Mr. Feeney responded, That is correct, and as you are I'm sure aware —and Mr. Scott, and Mr. Voorde, and Ms. White —the business atmosphere in that block has been on the downturn. It has been a while since any business has located there. There had been the restaurant on the corner and, through three (3) different owners, that has continued to fail. Committeemember Broden stated, That would be my concern —not to hamper any potential business development there, because you are cutting off either opportunities for deliveries or for loading in an alleyway versus a very busy Portage Avenue. Mr. Feeney responded, And Ms. Broden, any property owner that backs onto that alley that needs that alley for access —will be there tonight. If I were a property owner and I needed that alley for access, I would certainly be there. Committeemember Broden asked, And what's the issue about the two (2) times sitting somewhere? Was this on someone's desk? Mr. Feeney responded, No, our office submitted this to the Clerk first rather than to Engineering. So, consequently, it's sat here for a much longer period of time. Our office did not follow technical protocol in submission of this petition. Committeemember Voorde made a motion to send Bill No. 60 -16 to the Common Council with no recommendation and Randy Kelly seconded the motion, which carried by a voice vote of three (3) ayes. Bill No. 68 -16 — Alley Vacation at St. Louis Street Bob Masters, of Nemeth, Feeney, Masters & Campiti, 350 Columbia Street, South Bend, IN, served as presenter and petitioner of this bill. Mr. Masters stated, We represent the petitioner, Blair Adams, Ret LLC. The petitioner owns both properties that abut the alley to be vacated. On the south side, Lot 80, the common address is 1018 St. Louis Boulevard; and on the north side, the common address is 1020 North St. Louis Boulevard. 1020 is presently a vacant lot and 1018 is improved with a residence. The petitioner is asking to have the alley vacated for future development purposes. Minimally, I think the idea would be to expand the yard of 1018 into 1020, possibly then replotting this as one (1) large lot, and expanding the home on 1018 over both lots. Another idea is, instead of replotting as one lot, to expand the yard but then build the house on 1020 St. Louis. This is, I think you all know, a part of South Bend that's experiencing a lot of development, and I think everybody in this room should be rightfully proud of the work that you've done to spark that redevelopment. Some points about the alley that I think are worth noting.'Number one (1), it's not used for trash pickup. The garbage trucks, they drive through this north -south alley along the property, not the east -west alley that we're asking to have vacated. It is not used for vehicular traffic or access to the properties, because the two (2) properties are owned by the same petitioner and may in the future be plotted as one (1). It's not a well- maintained alley. Maybe at one (1) point the garbage pickup went through that alley, but now it's kind of just there, not being well - maintained. We ask for a favorable recommendation from this Committee to the Committee of the Whole. Council Attorney Cekanski- Farrand informed Committee Chair Broden that this was a substitute bill accepted by the Council at the previous meeting. Mr. Masters thanked Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand and stated, I think the issue had to do with the description. There was one (1) that came from the City and then the more correct one is the one that Lang Feeney provided to us. Mr. Councilmember Voorde, you're looking at the map on the back of the petition of everybody within one - hundred and fifty (150) feet. They've been furnished notices; there's been no. objections. This has been in the works since, I think, September. Committeemember Broden asked, Can I ask you to address a recommendation with regard to some easements or something from vehicular traffic? I assume that's garbage trucks, or whomever, coming from the east. F. Mr. Masters responded, We haven't heard anything more about that from the City Engineer, but if the City requires that, I'm sure the petitioner would be fine with it. There should be no trouble to get an easement, because he owns both properties, excuse me [unintelligible] both properties. Roger Nawrot, speaking on behalf of Public Works, stated, The engineer at the time, back on the 23`d of August, 2016, requested it. It would probably be a ten (10) foot strip along that east edge of the alley, so that if somebody happened to make the turn late, they would still be able to make it. Committeemember Broden asked, And that would be up to the petitioner, because it was either in the north or the south, right? Mr. Nawrot walked over to Committeemember Broden and showed her a map of the property, stating, It would be right there on the east end with somebody coming to the west. Mr. Masters asked if Mr. Nawrot would show him the same thing so that he could mark it for future reference on his own copy of the map, which Mr. Nawrot did. Committeemember Voorde asked Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand if he needed to change the typical verbiage of his motion for a favorable recommendation to Council, and she responded, As long as Mr. Masters would just verbally state that your client has the opportunity to address the easement, that would be subject to that. Mr. Masters stated, Yes, so, we will speak more about it this evening. I expect our client will be there, but yes, I don't see any problem with that, and if that's what the City requires, then that's what we are doing. Committeemember John Voorde made a motion to send Substitute Bill No. 68 -16 to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation and Committeemember Randy Kelly seconded the motion, which carried by a voice vote of three (3) ayes. With no further items on the agenda, Committee Chair Jo Broden adjourned the meeting at 3:44 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, . gbe-e� J roden, Committee Chair