Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-27-17 Council MinutesREPORT OF SUB - COMMITTEE ON MINUTES TO THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND: THE SUB - COMMITTEE HAS INSPECTED THE MINUTES OF THE February 27, 2017 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL AND FOUND THEM TO BE CORRECT. THEREFORE, WE RECOMMEND THE SAME BE APPROVED: TIM SCOTT A VARNER APPROVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL ON: March 27, 2017 ATTEST: Z5��-4 -�r- //wz:��� EMAH FOWLElt, CITY CLERK REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27 2017 Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Ben Council Chambers of the County -City Building on Monday, February d' Indiana met .0 the The meeting was called to order by Council President Tim Scott and the 2017 at 7:O�p In Reverend Dr. Christina Rea, Church of the Savior CRC and Pledge t he Invocation was given by g o the Flag was given. ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: Regina Williams- Preston Randy Kelly Jo M. Broden Dr. David Varner Oliver J. Davis John Voorde Gavin Ferlic Karen L. White ABSENT- Tim Scott OTHERS PRESENT: Kareemah Fowler Jennifer Coffman Alkeyna Aldridge Graham Sparks Aladean DeRose Adriana Rodriguez 2 °d District 3rd District 4`h District 5th District 6`h District, Vice President At -Large At- Large, Chairperson Committee of the Whole At -Large I" District, President City Clerk Chief Deputy Clerk Deputy Clerk Executive Assistant Clerk Interim Council Attorney Legal Research Assistant REPORT FROM THE SUB- COMMITTEE ON MINUTES Due to the absence of Council President Tim Scott, there was no quorum in on Minutes. The minutes of the February 13 `h 2017 meeting of the Council the Sub -Co be accepted until the Common Council meeting on March 13`h 2 mmittn therefore, would not 017. SPECIAL BUSINESS There was no special business this evening. REPORTS OF CITY OFFICES Representing the City Administration: James Mueller, Chief of Staff RESOLVE INTO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE At 7 Q m Councilmember Karen White made a motion to resolve into Whole. Councilmember Dr. David V the Committee of the eight (8) ayes. Councilmember Gavin Varner Chairperson, presiding. which carried by a voice vote of 1 REGULAR MEETING Councilmember Gavin Ferlic explained the procedures to be accordance with Article 1, Section 2 -11 of the South Bend h PUBLIC HEARINGS 02 -17 FEBRUARY 27 2017 for tonight's meeting in Code. PUBLIC HEARR G ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TH ZON1N C p�ONAFOR AND SEEKING A SP CIAL EX PROPERTY LOCATED AT S 1�ETRE TRACT LOCATED ALONG EDDY WEST SIDE OF O EON IAND HOWARD, BETWEEN NA COUNCILMA C DISTRICT No. 4 IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA Councilmember Oliver Davis, Chair of the Zoning and Annexation Committee, reported that they met this afternoon and send this bill forward with a favorable recommendation* Angela Smith, Area Plan Commission, with offices on the d that the petitioner nis seeking to served as the presenter of this bill. Ms. Smith stated ublic, constituting Building, resented to the Council and p rezone the ten (10) acres highlighted on the map p the area south of Napoleon Boulevard, north of Howard Street, betty t Thee Georgiana currently three between Eddy Street and Frances Street on the west. east and the alley 1VIF1, SF1, and MU, M "xed -Use. The petitioner is seeking to (3) zoning districts on the property: Street Phase Two (2) e the entire development to MU, Mixed -Use, lement the development to the north. The at rezone development, a Mixed -Use development th rimg structure within the petition area. Ms. Smith public' another from St. site is mostly vacant, aside from one O north from ted a view of the property from Howard Streetto th andca other looking presented south from Georgian distinct Vincent Street, an looking acre site with five (5) rant. It contains retail establishment, depicted n reds Georgiana Street. She stated that the development is a ten 10 1 blocks. Block A is in the northwest quadrant- depicted for the Council and public P for the Council and public. The remaining property, and orange, is Mixed Us e with either a flex or residential space on the service floor rk ng structure Lland Block B con ins the same mix of flex space and built family residential above the remainder of the floor. There is a self -sere y townhomes to be some courtyards in the rear along the alley. etitio er is proposing Multi- Family Residential along Eddy Street. The p addresses the ability for on Georgiana Street. The special exception in question this evening as Detached Single-Family, which is a special h the exception of U, them to do those townllomes 4 stories, with 1 with Mixed -Use District. Blocks A and B are proposed he go by oance, they would have to comply those fronting on Georgiana Street. Having r dinance MU, Mixed -Use. Block C and are the forty (40) foot height limit of the zoning or in the courtyard to the rear of with surface parki g. Block E continues that same primarily Multi - Family Residential with a subsurface p king the existing Block C, while Block D has garages Center as a rebuild from development but adds the Robinson Community Learning would be a continuation of Eddy Street aro favorable (1). Ms. location. The entire development Smith stated, This comes to you from the Area Plan Commission wit property to MU, Mixed -Use, will allow for ehdevelopm development that recommendation. Rezoning P p which Mixed provide a Mixed Us the second phase of Eddy Street Commons, neighborhood. complements and supports the existing development hborhood. g d surrounding c _.f Suite 1100, Indianapolis, IN, served Doug Kirby, Kite Realty Group, 30 South Meridian on behalf of the petitioner of they bill. Mr. Kirby exi d be used for the development, stating well as being flexible enough to be residential. He Georgiana Street would be committed to being two with Notre Dame University and the surrounding c' 2 [ded on the function of the flex units of Ltiques or galleries or for small service, as d that the Single - Family units on stories. The petitioner's party worked n„n;ties to come up with the project in its REGULAR MEETIN FEBRUARY 27, 2017 current form. Mr. Kirby stated that the petitioner's aim was to compliment the neighborhood as well as what has been established by Phase One (1) of the Eddy Street Commons project. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Those from the public wishing to speak in favor of this bill: Tim Sexton, Associate Vice President for Public Affairs at the University of Notre Dame, 405 Main Building, Notre Dame, IN, stated that the University elected to have Kite work on Phase Two (2) of the Eddy Street Commons project, as they had worked on Phase One (1). Mr. Sexton explained that Kite Realty was in dialogue with community residents through the Harter Heights listserv, the Northeast Neighborhood Council, the Northeast Neighborhood Revitalization Organization, and the Triangle Homeowners Association. He expressed appreciation toward Kite Realty for having thorough communication with the community and stated that the University fully endorsed the current plan for Eddy Street Commons Phase Two (2). Paul Meyer, NNRO and South Bend Clinic, 211 North Eddy Street, South Bend, IN, stated that this project aims to raise the quality of life and the quality of the residential aspects of the community while bringing economic benefit to the entire community. Mr. Meyer stated, It combines the opportunity to live, work, and play in one (1) neighborhood. Mr. Meyer also lauded Kite Realty's engagement with the community and expressed approval for the project on behalf of the Northeast Neighborhood Revitalization Organization. Jessica McCray, 1104 Duey Avenue, South Bend, IN, expressed the endorsement of the project by the Triangle Homeowners Association. Ms. McCray stated that the community felt itself heard in the dialogues with Kite Realty, further commending the group's community engagement. Richard Pierce, University of Notre Dame and Robinson Community Learning Center, 1210 East Wayne Street, South Bend, IN, stated that the Robinson Community Learning Center Board unanimously endorses the project. Mary Williams, 601 East Howard Street, South Bend, IN, stated that the Robinson Community Learning Center has been a great pillar to the neighborhood and community, expressing gratitude for all the opportunities that the Center offers children of the area. She concluded by stating, Without the Center, I don't know what my family would have done. Those from the public wishing to speak in opposition to this bill: S.J. Szabo, with offices on Mishawaka Avenue, South Bend, IN, stated that the urban development in the Eddy Street Commons is ill- placed and saps energy from downtown South Bend. Mr. Szabo stated, The neighbors may have come to terms with it, but the City never will. It will suffer always because of it. Jessica Payne, 1119 North Francis Street, South Bend, IN, stated that the Eddy Street Commons project has so far been for Notre Dame students and their enjoyment rather than to the benefit of the area's community. Ms. Payne cited early parking concerns, arguing that many people hesitate to pay for a parking spot in the garage. She also cited early concerns with the establishment of a bar in the area. She stated, This is far from a great live /work type of community. I had that, actually, before Eddy Street came about. Ms. Payne stated that what used to be a quiet and peaceful neighborhood has become one where she hears nothing but the yelling of Eddy Street patrons at night who park in the neighborhood instead of the garage. She stated that if there are no measures to mitigate the parking problem included in the language of the bill, that the Council would be writing off a large portion of a neighborhood "that has been there long before Notre Dame ever thought to spread its wings beyond its boundaries." Doug Kirby returned to the podium and stated that the southern blocks (C, D, E) will primarily be focused on rentals for graduate students of the University of Notre Dame. Mr. Kirby further stated that the parking problem in the area most likely predates the Eddy Street Commons and is an issue that should most likely be resolved on the City level. 3 REGULAR MEETING Councilmember Karen White stated that during that afternoon's Committee meeting, the Administration had proposed possible concerns. Councilmember White requested that these propositic FEBRUARY 27, 2017 ,ping and Annexation �s to address parking be made a part of the record. Brian Pawlowski, the Department of Community Investment, with offices on the 14th Floor of the County -City Building, stated that there is a traffic study under way that will not only take into account parking but traffic flow in the area. Mr. Pawlowski explained that since Phase Two (2) would not be as retail- focused but rather more residential-foc used, retail activity of Eddy Street Commons Phase One (1) would not be mirrored in the Ph se Two (2) portion of the site. The planned underground and surface garages would primarily accommodate residents rather than patrons. He stated, But, should permanent parking still be an option, we explored this with the area around Four Winds Fields. It's a simple procedure. You go to the Board of Public Works— there's a traffic cite that's done there to count cars who need it for residential and other parking. Provided the numbers are met, the Board would approve a special permitted use in that zone that would be laid out. 1 I Councilmember Oliver Davis asked when the Department of Cc able to report back regarding the results of the traffic study. Cot when it would be decided if this should go before Public Works Mr. Pawlowski responded that the results from the traffic study (1) month. He stated, If there is concern that the residential wot on -site and there may be overflow necessary, we can then prod route. i Councilmember Davis asked, So, we would have all of our in advance, before this is developed —is that correct? Mr. Pawlowski responded, We are doing this all now in conjun, engineering and the preliminary work that is being done for the one (1) issue. So, there is a lot of work yet to do. Councilmember Davis asked how the Council and nei progress toward having residential parking permits. Mr. Pawlowski responded that all findings from the traffic stuc the Department of Community Investment can provide the Col share that information. He stated, Should there be a need for sc notices for the Board of Works Meeting —where anyone can c would be posted, but that is another thing that we can send to t make your constituents aware of that meeting time and date, a] involved in any way. Councilmember Jo M. Broden asked if the DCI would follow - one (1) after the project has been completed, and also asked at much community engagement is involved in it. nunity Investment would be ilmember Davis also asked approve permit parking. )uld be available within one not be able to be taken care of down the public permitting , all of our information well with the rest of the of the site, not just this would be made aware of the will be posted online, and that -il with the means to access and e type of permit parking, the ie and speak on that matter — Council in the form of a link to the process, if they wanted to be their current traffic study with t the focus of the study and how Mr. Pawlowski responded that the determination of whether or of there is a need for additional street or other parking can be made by the community in a Town Hall setting. Regarding the parking study, the DCI is trying to take into account things like how retail use affects the traffic. Mr. Pawlowski explained, Just using ballpark numbers of existing traffic and then adding a bit on top of that to come to a conclusion about what we think some traffic flow would be in there, and determining whether or not that space should be utilized. Councilmember Broden asked how "unneighborly behavior" could be addressed by the City. Mr. Pawlowski responded, We have been fortunate to have a very good relationship with the Police Chief as well as the officers that work that beat at various portions of the day. They come to the neighborhood organization meetings, they are frequently seen out of their vehicles interacting with folks in the neighborhood. So, we hope to continue that. Mr. Pawlowski stated that should there be any issues that pop up in areas of specific concern, the DCI would get in contact with the Police Chief to get targeted reinforcement in those areas, if that action made the M REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2017 most sense for the situation. He stated that the City has not yet seen the need for that, except in the case of particular Saturdays of the year. Councilmember Randy Kelly asked, If the study shows that there is plenty of capacity, is there still some way we can look at something like permanent parking that can mitigate that issue? Mr. Pawlowski responded that aside from capacity was the issue of proximity. He stated, If it's basically that the use is kind of crowding out folks who have residential uses in that particular space, there is a case to be made with the Board of Public Works that we should implement permanent parking. Sometimes, time limits are used so that we can be open at some times and more restricted at others. This was specifically thought of in that example. Councilmember Broden asked if there were ways to incentivize garage parking. Mr. Pawlowski responded, In between the committee meeting and now, someone made a suggestion to just increase signage for the public further out, not just within the actual space in front of the retail that we have. So, I think first and foremost we should do that. He stated that certain times and hours could be more susceptible to increased incentives. Councilmember John Voorde made a motion to send Bill No. 02 -17 to the full Council favorably, subject to and conditioned upon the written commitment that the portion of the real estate abutting Georgiana Street be developed for two (2) story residential and open space use. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. 03 -17 PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SEEKING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3566 DOUGLAS ROAD, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT NO. 4 IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA Councilmember Randy Kelly made a motion to continue Bill No. 03.17 indefinitely. Councilmember John Voorde seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. 08 -17 PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE INITIATED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21, ARTICLE 3, SECTION 21 -03 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW SUB- PART 21- 03.06(b)(4)(C) TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT PERMITTED IN CBD DISTRICTS LOCATED BETWEEN THE ST. JOSEPH RIVER AND THE EAST RACE WATERWAY Councilmember Karen White made a motion to accept Substitute Bill No. 08 -17. Councilmember John Voorde seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. Councilmember Oliver Davis, Chair of the Zoning and Annexation Committee, reported that they met this afternoon and send this bill forward with no recommendation. Angela Smith, Area Plan Commission, with offices on the 11 th Floor of the County -City Building, served as the presenter of this bill. Ms. Smith stated, The text amendment before you this evening is to address the height within the Central Business District, specifically in the area commonly referred to as "the Island." The Island is defined as the area that is east of the St. Joseph River but west of the East Race Waterway. The proposed text amendment would not affect the heights in the area west of the St. Joseph River, or the heights of the Central Business District properties located on the east side of the East Race Waterway. The proposed text amendment would increase the height within the Island to one - hundred and fifty (15 0) feet, with E REGULAR MEETING no reference to stories. This comes to you from recommendation. FEBRUARY 27, 2017 Area Plan Coilninission with a favorable Councilmember Oliver Davis, 6th District, 1801 Nash Street, Sou h Bend, IN, served as the petitioner of this bill. Councilmember Davis stated that back in 2008, South Bend was considered a dying city; that back in 2009, no one would have an icipated the kinds of development that have happened in the City since. He stated that developers have been looking to build past the current sixty (60) foot limit in that area. He stated that he did not feel that the role of the Council was merely to enforce limitations on develop ent, but to see how they could encourage it in the City. It is his hope that increasing the height limit to one - hundred and fifty (15 0) feet will do that. He explained that shadow problems regar ling the Commerce Center PUD, for instance, were mostly an issue when its height was set t over one - hundred and seventy (170) feet, and that apartment residents in the area responded beti er to the height when it was brought down to nine (9) stories. He stated that he was thankful 16 be able to bring this amendment before the Council and public. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic stated, This ordinance is in response to community demand as well as neighborhood demand, especially from neighbors in the Howird Park neighborhood and neighbors who live in close proximity. This fits within the vast majority of the Comprehensive Plan which calls for mixed -use, increased density, amenities sucl,i as restaurants and grocery stores and pharmacies. Unfortunately, to this point, mixed -use development has not been able to occur on the Island with the current sixty (60) foot restriction and the only proposed mixed -use developments have exceeded that sixty (60) foot requirement. In order to achieve the vision for the Comprehensive Plan and to achieve mixed -use development, to achieve density, to achieve amenities such as retail and restaurants and grocery stores and pharmacies —we think that this amendment provides the best opportunity for the vision for the omprehensive Plan to be achieved. Tim Corcoran, Director of Planning for the Department of Co unity Investment, with offices on the 141 Floor of the County -City Building, South Bend, IN, ated that the City supports this text amendment. Mr. Corcoran stated that the City worked closely with Councilmembers to come up with the text amendment and the new height limit. He stated, Fundamentally, the City sees the Island as an extension to the City's core. It should be noted that there are a few buildings on the west side of the river that exceed the one - hundred and fifty (15 0) foot height limit, including the building that we are in. So, when we talk about how the City form can happen the taller buildings being on the west side of the river and gradiating down to the east —this is exactly what this plan will continue to allow us to do. It also allows for developers to be flexible in how they develop their buildings so that they do not have to build all the way up to the one - hundred and fifty (150) feet. They can choose to gradiate and differentiate height between different parts of one (1) building or different buildings together to create a more interesting skyline. Together, those things are part of the reason why we, th the Council, thought this was a good idea for this text amendment. Councilmember Davis explained, using the modification of an old lasagna recipe as analogy, that the City did not have to be stuck with the exact plan set in 2008. He stated, It was a good plan, in 2008, but now, as we see developers coming up with some new ideas, I don't want to get stuck with the same ingredients of 2008. He encouraged the Council to embrace this update to the plan. Councilmember Karen White asked Interim Council Attorney Aladean DeRose if the Area Plan Commission had requested the text amendment, in response to which Interim Council Attorney DeRose clarified that the Area Plan Commission reviewed the original amendment that the Council had supported and submitted, and did so in accordance with the way the zoning ordinance is laid out. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be hear c.. Those from the public wishing to speak in favor of this bill: Jesse Davis, P.O. Box 10205, South Bend, IN, stated that he for the City and the people of South Bend, expressing that he ON this amendment as a win -win es the Council supports it. REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2017 Mary Bundy, President of the Howard Park Neighborhood Association, 318 South Francis Street, South Bend, IN, stated that there has been a lot of dialogue for a long time about this issue and that, given this fact, she was glad that the issue had not been talked to death. Ms. Bundy stated, I think that if we can continue to pass ordinances and laws and regulations that allow and encourage growth— rather than squash it and talk it to death —I think the City is on the right path, and I'm very happy to be a citizen of South Bend. I hope you will all stand together and pass this. Samuel Brown, 222 East Navarre Street, South Bend, IN, stated that he did not feel that the desire to distinguish between the east and west of the river was a good reason to stop progress. Mr. Brown stated that a bad project should be denied, but that a good project should not be turned down so easily due to something like a height issue. He stated, I hope tonight that we put it to sleep, once and for all, and let this project go through. Ryan Snodgrass, 416 25th Street, South Bend, IN, stated that it was a great idea to get a grocery store in the downtown area and that a lot of cities around the country would kill to have that kind of development going on in their downtown. He put forth the idea that this could be the catalyst for greater development in the City. Charlene Rountree, 401 Woodknoll Drive, Granger, IN, stated that she moved to the area from Central Indiana in 2009, and that back then she was told by a lot of people that South Bend was a city in decline and that young professionals should not move there. Ms. Rountree stated that if South Bend is to grow as a metropolitan area, it would be inevitable that buildings grow taller. She stated, I would be more worried about what you attract to the area by continuing to grow. Myron Larimer, 402 East South Street, South Bend, IN, stated that anything that can be done to encourage growth and development while taking into consideration the needs of local residents is a win -win. He views the allowance for more development in downtown South Bend that will meet various needs as a "slam dunk." Those from the public wishing to speak in opposition to the bill: S.J. Szabo, with offices on Mishawaka Avenue, South Bend, IN, stated that the East Race neighborhood, in its current configuration, serves a vital function in the overall plan of the City in that it provides a transition zone between the downtown across the river and the residential area on the east side. Mr. Szabo argued that a large building like the Commerce Center PUD is not the only project through which that neighborhood could get a grocery store. He stated that tall developments should remain on the other side of the river. He urged the Council to "think beyond today, beyond the demands of the greedy Mr. Matthews, and consider the fabric of the City to be what you are in consideration of, today." Steve Francis, 2025 Edison Road, South Bend, IN, stated that he is unequivocally in support of development in South Bend, as he was when he participated in the drawing up of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Francis stated that this process looks nothing like an open participatory process. He stated, When this went from a project -based zoning variance of some kind to changing the zoning ordinance, you reset the process. Mr. Francis took issue with the fact that only one (1) discussion changed the Area Plan Commission's vote from one (1) without a recommendation to the eight (8) necessary votes to give a favorable recommendation. He warned that the Council would have less ground with which to say no to developers on account of height, going forward. He urged the Council to consider deeply the potential consequences of making this change to the ordinance. Michael Lykoudis, 17583 Ironstone Drive, South Bend, IN, stated that he has been part of the process of envisioning South Bend for the past twenty -five (25) years and that he has seen it through its many changes. Mr. Lykoudis stated, Cities are not food. They are cities. We live in them, and we don't treat them like we treat food. Mr. Lykoudis pointed out that there has been no marketing or architectural feasibility studies done for the Commerce Center PUD that this amendment opens the door for. He stated that these studies need to be done before the project goes ahead, and that the developer has in the past demonstrated a sensitivity to the character of the City, but with smaller projects, on a scale that resonates with South Bend's vision. He concluded, I would like to urge you, the Council and the City, to work with the developer to set 7 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27,201 high aspirations for this project, which, along with'the whole development of the Island, has the potential to really transform and be a great success story. But bac it up with compelling architectural and realistic economic vision that will continue the uccessful trajectory of the development of the past few years. Marge McKinsey, 719 West Washington Street, South Bend, IN, stated that the development blights on the west side of the river should not be replicated on the east side and that if the Commerce Center PUD project fails, "We will have an even worse blight on the area." Ms. McKinsey advocates design that makes for an attractive environment instead of building for building's sake. She stated that extra height could be afforded on the East Bank but not on the Island, as the buildings of importance there would be overshadowed by newer, taller development. She concluded by urging the Council to listen to Mr. Lykoudis' counsel. Rolanda Hughes, 1029 Riverside Drive, South Bend, IN, stated that she feels the public has been put in a difficult position, as the text amendment does not simplylI,laddress one (1) project but "lets loose something completely other." Ms. Hughes contended that die amendment would transform the low -rise character of the Island into a wall of high -rise builds gs. Focusing on the Commerce Center PUD, she called into question the parking needs of the project, given that the petitioner has stated that the project is proposed at its great height to justify the need for a parking garage. Comparing the proposed number of parking spaces of the project to existing parking lots, like that of the current Commerce Center and Martin's stores comparable to the one (1) in the proposed PUD, Ms. Hughes concluded that the project could cut up to one - hundred and eighty (180) parking spaces. At that point, the proposed height of the Commerce Center project would be unnecessary. She concluded by stating that if the text amendment passes, she would like to see the $5,000,000 the City granted to the project be returned to �he City's funds. Karen Schefineyer, 300 South St. Louis Boulevard, South Bend, IN, stated that the plan for one- hundred and fifty (150) feet is very high. Ms. Schefineyer stated that whatever is done to the Howard Park area will affect the East Bank and vice versa. She tated that the height of any building in the area east of the river should not exceed the height of church steeples. She stated, That was the goal. It was never to have a hundred and fifty (15 0) feet, especially along the river. You're going to screw up the views. She urged the Council tot e their time in making this decision and to consider it a decision with impact beyond one -h ndred (100) years. Glenn Bennett asked how many acres the Island occupies, in res onse to which Councilmember Gavin Ferlic explained that the Council does not answer questions in this portion of the Public Hearing. Mr. Bennett asked what measures would be in place to fight against erosion caused by the St. Joseph River. He stated that unless the Island occupies m ore than five (5) or ten (10) acres, should the ground on the Island get wet from heavy rain, it will turn to "mush." He stated, When it turns to mush, what have you got? You've got a disaster waiting to happen. Michalen Maternowski, 308 Parkovash Avenue, South Bend, IN, stated that Mr. Francis and Mr. Lykoudis expressed the main concerns that she had with the ordinance change, and she echoed their recommendation to the Council to consider the matter more carefully and slowly. Leah McLaughlin, 1120 Georgiana Street, South Bend, IN, stated that Paris, France —one of the most beautiful cities in the world- --does not have massive build 'ngs along its riverfront. Ms. McLaughlin stated, If you put a lot of money or investment in t e riverfront, a hundred and fifty (15 0) foot building makes no sense. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic stated that, regarding the East Ba as a transitional part of the City, it would make sense for buildings over one - hundred and fifty (15 0) feet to reside on the West Bank, buildings one - hundred and fifty (150) feet and under to reside on the Island, then buildings sixty (60) feet and under in the rest of the Central Business District, followed by lower heights in the residential area. Councilmember Ferlic also stated that the emails and phone calls —from residents in the area in question —were overwhel ngly in favor of the Commerce Center project. Councilmember Oliver Davis stated that an outside consultant was brought in when developing the Comprehensive Plan, adding, "And we belie�ed him." Councilmember Davis stated that when local businessmen like Rob Bartels believe in a local development project, it is for a good 8 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2017 reason, and their insight is valuable. He stated, We have to look at what our plans are and respect tradition, but at the same time we have to make sure that we move forward. Councilmember Regina Williams- Preston stated, I think that it's important to remember —and people have said it tonight that this is not about the Commerce Center development; it's not about one (1) project. This is about a larger issue: about changing the height for the entire area. I think that makes it harder for me to vote for... Now, by saying, "Okay, we're just going to let everybody do it," that to me is even harder to say yes to. Councilmember Williams- Preston pointed out that the Council could not be too slow in making their decision because the Regional Cities grant of $5,000,000 is only available for a limited time. She stated that this is an issue where a deeper look at process is necessary. She stated, We could have done it —I don't know that we have time now to do that anymore —but we could have done it months ago, and we have just not gone that route. Councilmember Williams- Preston concluded by stating, I would like us to think about the possibility of maybe an amendment to this text amendment, and then maybe I could support it. Councilmember Randy Kelly stated, Unlike Ms. Williams- Preston, I like this in that it levels the playing field in that area so that everybody is working under the same set of criteria. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Lykoudis and his work, and he certainly brought up some valid points, but at the same time -2008 was the East Bank Plan. One of the first lines in the East Bank Plan is that, "because there has been no development in this area for the past decade, we feel the need to do this plan." So, now we're talking about twenty (20) years where very little has been done. While this is big and different for that area, a nine (9) story building doesn't strike me, personally, as a monolith. To that end, I will be supporting this. Councilmember Jo M. Broden stated that she is glad that the discussion has finally concerned itself with the height limit for the area as a whole rather than for a single project. Councilmember Broden stated that the discussion is difficult to have because the issue has been undiscussed for months, not talked about effectively for years, nor has it been worked on for years. She stated that those involved in the making of the Comprehensive Plan looked at every conceivable angle while developing the plan. The plan was based on input, but not just opinions, nor simply academics. She stated, It's just got to work. Councilmember Broden stated that the plan should guide how the City spends money on infrastructure or how the City "tees -up" projects. She stated that the notion that nothing has developed in the East Bank Village is false. She stated that the area is in the middle of redevelopment, despite economic pressures left over from the Recession. Councilmember Broden pointed out that Councilmembers should know the acreage of the Island; that they should know that in 2014 there were problems with digging too deeply into the earth of the Island —which is surrounded by two (2) bodies of water; that they should know that if a developer digs more deeply into the ground to erect a taller building, "you are going to increase your cost of construction exponentially. And if the developer can't do it, the ticket is going to hit us as citizens of South Bend." Councilmember Broden then listed investments in the area: the Seitz Park expansion; the streetscape projects; the construction of townhomes and apartments; facade improvements on Jefferson Street; Smart Streets; the park bond; the Pokagon investment. She stated, All of these things, whether they are happening or whether they are soon to come online, they exist because of a vision and they exist because of a plan. She referenced a bill entitled `Adopting a Text Amendment to the South Bend Central Development Area Plan' from 2013, on file with the Office of the City Clerk. She asked, You know what is talked about in this, signed by our Mayor and members of the Redevelopment Commission? "Protect this unique asset." "Don't build buildings up to the water's edge." We have water's edge on both sides, here. These are goals for my District and for this neighborhood and for the people that I am charged to represent. So, we cannot simply dismiss the 2008 plan and say that it's dead, because as recently as 2013, we reaffirmed the same visions that are in this plan. Councilmember Broden stated that there should be a desire to change the plan after many developers come to the Council asking for the same thing that the plan does not allow for, over and over. She stated, There is a case, there is a fact trail, there is a history of people asking you the same thing. There is not a fact trail here, there is not a history. There are four (4) projects that haven't even asked to go beyond the sixty (60) foot height limit. Where is the data? Where is the information that supports this change? Absent that, why would we ignore plan? Why would we ignore subsequent decisions by previous G� REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2017 Administrations, by previous Development Co fissions, by pr vious planners for the City of South Bend —why would we ignore that? Councilmember Broden then referenced another document, `Design Guidelines 2013', on file with the Office of the City Clerk. She stated that in June 2014, a project came before the Area Board of Zoning Appeals, then the Area Plan Commission, and eventually the Council, and the Council found a way to make that project work. A policy was drawn up, allowing for height variances in the East Bank Central Business District for up to eight (8) stories, or ninety -six (96) feet. In order to gain the City's support, though, such a project must provide for a public amenity and pedestrian scale fagade treatments for the first two (2) storie as written commitments. Councilmember Broden stated, So, we have an active policy on he books, publicly announced, and that people have made investment decisions upon for this am a. Councilmember Broden stated, I urge all of us not to turn our backs on the planners and, ankly, not to let this evening's event —where we are talking about something bigger than a prof ct —be short circuited or truncated. Our community deserves more, my district deserves more, and the people all over South Bend deserve more. I Councilmember Broden referenced the report of Torti Gallas, the consultant hired in late November of 2016, which she stated she would submit by the e d of the evening. She stated, He said it can be done. You can get mixed -use development here th t is sustainable at ninety -six (96) feet. Councilmember Broden stated that very little has been entered into the public record to substantiate the need for the additional height that would be all ed by the proposed amendment. She stated that a decision in favor of this amendment should be a decision made with a real economic benefit to the City in mind. She stated, We don't want to put all of our eggs in this basket going up. I think, reasonably, we should spread that development around and those opportunities around for people to invest in. I think what we do in this area will necessarily affect the West Bank and some of the momentum going on there, in terms of residential. Councilmember Broden stated that issues regarding sustainabili , feasibility, and getting the mix of the apartments right should not be resolved with somebo i ly's gut feeling that they are hitting the right notes. She stated, We should have more inform tion. Councilmember Broden concluded, I just hope that we are not going to alter these plans on a very short timeframe. The public has only been looking at this f r eleven (11) days. Councilmember Broden stated that previous text amendments took several months to process. She stated that there can be more time to consider this text amendment without endangering any other goals. She stated that she wanted to make sure, if this amendment goes forward, that design standards and references back to the redevelopment plans be in( luded in the amendment. She recommended that the amendment be tabled. Councilmember Dr. David Varner stated that plans are a produc L of the moment, and that dynamics can bring change within weeks, months, years that do not render them inadequate or totally out -of -use —but these changes sometimes need to be vie ed as opportunities instead of an obstructive process. Councilmember Dr. Varner stated, I think if represents an opportunity and viability that the City has not seen in my lifetime. I remember when Studebaker closed; I remember the Downtown Mall; I remember the problems we had out at Blackthorn with regards to the golf course. We have been fighting an uphill battle for the last thirty (30) or forty (40) years. I believe, with the opportunity to do something like this, that we have reached a threshold that South Bend heretofore has not seen in the last fifty (50) years —and that's an opportunity for a significant downtown project. Councilmember Dr. Varner stated that he is not worried about the height because the East Bank sits forty (40) or so feet belov the West Bank, so a building that looks to be one - hundred and fifty (15 0) feet on the east side looks to be one- hundred and ten (I 10) feet in height from the west. He stated that he did not feel' that a building one - hundred and fifty (150) feet tall would be so out -of -place in the East Bank. He also stated that a hundred and fifty (15 0) foot height limit does not preclude a developer from'',building something at the heights more typical of the area, but "it gives people the opportunity to !,dream." Councilmember Dr. Varner stated, I think progress is as important as process. I think I said before that the biggest problem South Bend has is deciding where to put the next huncilred and fifty (150) foot building. We will have made a lot of progress compared to where we we e a few years ago. 10 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27. 2017 Councilmember Gavin Ferlic thanked everyone present for their patience and their comments. Councilmember Ferlic stated that he is completely in support of the plan, pointing out that the plan lays out more than the height of a project. He stated, It calls for mixed use, it calls for restaurants, it calls for retail, it calls for grocery, it calls for pharmacy, it calls for increased density. That's what the plan is all about. So, for me, this is an easy decision to support the plan, support the vision of the East Bank neighborhood, and look forward to having some great amenities and some great development in that area. Councilmember John Voorde stated, The more you find out, the more you think about the importance of what we are doing and the importance of getting it right. Councilmember Voorde stated that there has been a longstanding desire for a pharmacy and grocery store on the east side of the river. He contended that saying no to one - hundred and fifty (15 0) feet on the Island is not going to cripple that vision. He asked, Do we believe that the east side of the river should be unique and mixed -use? Regional Cities did. They are willing to commit $4,900,000 to a guy who says he wants to do mixed -use development. Councilmember Voorde went on to explain that the City was willing to put $5,000,000 toward the Commerce Center project and a tax abatement for ten (10) years instead. This, he explained, meant that if the project takes two (2) years to be built, the City would be waiting at least twelve (12) years to see any tax money back. He stated, I know that's not really on the table right now, but it ought to be, because the most important job we have as City Councilmen is to be responsible, fiscal stewards of the financial resources available to us. To put this package together and give it to a developer just because we want to keep momentum going and just because he is going to bring a supermarket and pharmacy here and a six - hundred (600) space garage —it's not the best way to go. Councilmember Voorde stated that experts in city planning have weighed in and discouraged taking this route; that Mr. Lykoudis stated that this violates so many tenets of city planning; that there are violations to the process itself of changing the vision. He stated, I think it is an irresponsible fiscal package to begin with. If you would just compare it to what I read in the paper on Sunday that's happening in Mishawaka— they're doing a tax incremental finance contribution, but they are doing it in the form of the tax incremental finance bond, and the money from that bond will replenish the tax incremental finance fund which we ought to cherish for all kinds of things we never even dreamed we could use tax incremental financing for before. Councilmember Voorde emphasized that TIF is not a bottomless pit of money, especially if $5,000,000 are given away without a return for over a twelve (12) years. He stated that he would like to make a motion to continue the bill until the next Council meeting, to have yet unheard developers and other experts speak on the matter of this text amendment to the Council and public. Councilmember Oliver Davis stated, We should not be stuck in the past. We can move forward. Councilmember Davis stated that he sees no reason to have another meeting to discuss this bill. He also pointed out that though it might have taken Councilmember Broden four (4) months to draft the past text amendment, public discussion had not been held for four (4) months. He stated that this issue has been discussed from September of 2016 until this evening, adding, To say that we have only discussed this for eleven (11) days is to use alternative facts. It is time for us to move forward. We asked people to come to make compromises. We had meetings to make compromises. We did that. Councilmember Davis continued by stating, To want to be a developer in South Bend right now, we are really sending the message that it's going to be some tough stuff. Go to Mishawaka, go to the County —they will work with you. Come to South Bend —we give you the tenth degree. You may not want to come here. That's not good for South Bend. That may have been good when you all did it in the past, but that is not the way we need to move forward in today's world. Councilmember Karen White stated, No one will debate the support for economic development —but there's always a "but." No one will debate the need to have a grocery store or pharmacy —but there's a "but." When we talk about the vision, there's a "but." When we talk about plans, there's a "but." Councilmember White stated that the Council needs to regard this issue holistically. She asked her fellow Councilmembers that wish for another meeting, What would change? Would the outcome be different? I don't think anyone is saying throw the vision away, throw the plans away. What we are saying is that, as we begin to move forward, we have to be flexible and we have to be mindful in terms of our decisions. 11 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27,201 Councilmember John Voorde made a motion tF continue Bill No. 08 -17 until March 13th, 2017. Councilmember Regina Williams- Preston seconded the motion which was defeated by a roll call vote of three (3) ayes and five (5) nays (Councilmembers Rand Kelly, Dr. David Varner, Gavin Ferlic, Oliver Davis, and Karen White). Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to accept Substitute Bill No. 08 -17 and send it to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Councilmember Dr. David Varner seconded the motion which carried by a roll call vote of five (5) ayes and Regina Williams- Preston, Jo M. Broden, and John Voorde). REGULAR MEETING RECONVENED Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of Council Chambers on the fourth floor of the County -City E President Oliver Davis presided with eight (8) members pri BILLS — THIRD READING 02 -17 (3) nays (Councilmembers Bend reconvened in the g at 9:50 p.m. Council Vice PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SEEKING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT A 10 ACRE TRACT LOCATED ALONG EDDY STREET AND THE WEST SIDE OF GEORGIANA STREET BETWEEN NAPOLEON AND HOWARD, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT NO. 4 IN THE CITY OF SOUTH 'BEND ' INDIANA Councilmember Karen White made a motion to pass Bill No. 02 -17 subject to and conditioned upon the written commitments that a portion of the real estate abutting Georgiana Street should be developed for residential two (2) story and urban spaces. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic seconded the motion which carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) ayes. 08 -17 PUBLIC HEARD INITIATED BY 7 THE CITY OF S( AMENDING CH, SECTION 21 -03 1 MUNICIPAL CO. PART 21- 03.06(b MAXIMUM BUI: IN CBD DISTRI( J ON AN ORDINANCE 3E COMMON COUNCIL OF JTH BEND, INDIANA, PTER 21, ARTICLE 3, F THE SOUTH BEND iE BY ADDING A NEW SUB - 4)(C) TO INCREASE THE DING HEIGHT PERMITTED CS LOCATED BETWEEN THE ST. JOSEPH RIVgR AND THE EAST RACE WATERWAY Councilmember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to pass Bill No. ft 17. Councilmember Dr. David Varner seconded the motion which carried by a roll call vote of five (5) ayes and three (3) nays (Councilmembers Regina Williams- Preston, Jo M. Broden, Joh# Voorde). RESOLUTIONS 17 -07 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROVING SPECIAL RATE AGREEMENT WITH I/N TEK, L AND I/N KOTE LP PURSUANT TO ITY CODE SECTION 17 -29 12 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2017 Councilmember Dr. David Varner, Chair of the Utilities Committee, reported that they met this afternoon and send this bill forward with a favorable recommendation. Richard Nussbaum, 225 South Sunnyside Avenue, South Bend, IN, served as the presenter of this bill on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Nussbaum stated that with him were two (2) individuals with statistics to present to the Council to demonstrate how successful UN Tek and UN Kote has been over the past thirty (3 0) years. John Kegley, President of the United Steelworkers Union, 10446 North 650 East, New Carlisle, IN, stated that he has watched the UN Tek and IIN Kote project from ground zero (0) to where it is today. Mr. Kegley stated that UN Tek and UN Kote has weathered the storms of the steel industry over the years, adding that it was the only plant that he is aware of that did not experience massive layoffs and shutdowns in 2009's industry lull. He stated that the steel industry has, since 2009, been trying to dig itself out of a hole. Mr. Kegley explained that they were successful in getting a lot of the competition and outside influences to reel back some of their imports for five (5) years, putting I N Tek and I N Kote in a position where they can dig themselves out of the hole and put them back on an even playing field. He explained that the good jobs and good benefits offered by UN Tek and IN Kote needed to be preserved, and to do so they needed the Council's help. Mr. Nussbaum stated, In addition to the employees benefiting from UN Tek and IN Kote, there are a number of South Bend businesses —two- hundred (200), in fact —that are vendors out there. One of the largest is here to say a few words this evening. Tony Maloney, Vice President of Koontz - Wagner Construction Services, 3801 Voorde Drive, South Bend, IN, recounted a brief history of Koontz - Wagner. Mr. Maloney stated, We pride ourselves on the long -term relationships that we have forged over the years, and one (1) of these relationships is one (1) with IN Tek and I/N Kote. We were one (1) of the major subcontractors for both facilities when they were built during the 1988 to 1990 time period. Since those early days of construction, Koontz - Wagner has performed ongoing maintenance and capital improvements to the UN Tek and UN Kote facilities, which have amounted to more than $25,000,000 in electrical business. We currently perform about $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 worth of preventive maintenance and capital improvement services annually, which employs as few as six (6) but as many as twenty -five (25) people, depending on the maintenance period when the work is being performed. The agreement reached between the Board of Public Works and IN Tek and UN Kote will help the company control their utility cost and keep them competitive in the markets that they serve. As with every linked economy, the success of one company helps the success of multiple companies. We are one of those downstream companies whose success is dependent on the health of the top of the pyramid. Therefore, I urge the Council to approve the agreement, as presented to you, between the South Bend Board of Public Works and I N Tek and UN Kote. Mr. Nussbaum stated, And now to get to the guts of the reason why we believe that this agreement is within the ordinance and that it should be approved. Patrick McMahon, 1805 Bater Avenue, South Bend, IN, stated that he was once a part of Project Future, started in 1982. Mr. McMahon stated, During the first number of years, we had an easy job of bringing businesses into the community, primarily because an awful lot of our activity was centered around the industrial parks. There were businesses that were looking to expand at that particular point in time in the Midwest. Local businesses who were looking at expanding needed to move away from confined spots and were looking at whether they should stay here or not. Mr. McMahon explained that when Inland Steel was looking for a place in the area to establish a plant, Project Future pitched to them the land where UN Tek and I N Kote now resides. They had UN Tek built, but before they could finish that they proposed building UN Kote as well. Mr. McMahon stated, But we had one big problem: as well as it was all planned, the sewer line that the City ran out there had a limited capacity. We knew it could handle UN Tek, and it could handle some other development in the park, but to double the size of I N Tek was a whole other deal. So, we were stymied. As Mr. McMahon explained it, the Area Plan Commission, after having a study done of the neighborhood, recommended building a trunk line that would run from the treatment plant on 13 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2017 Riverside Drive to the site. He stated, Not only could you serve t at site, but you could also serve that entire Blackthorn area, and the rest of the industrial park are ' that was on the west side of town, that was in a capacity problem. Because the area was growing faster than what was previously expected, the sewers going down Cleveland Road were not going to handle the full development in Blackthorn. If you took a look out Western Avenue and then everything to La Porte County and to the north side of St. Joseph County, the sew r was designed in order to handle all of that flow. Who paid for it? It all came out of a secod TIF issue that went forward because of I/N Kote. Inland Steel addressed the cost of this entire infrastructure improvement that brought probably the first trunk sewer out in South Bend's history in maybe forty (40) or fifty (50) years —all to an area that otherwise would not be served for future development. Mr. McMahon explained that no taxpayer money had to pay for the extension of the trunk line sewer. He stated that none of the effluent that comes from I/N Tek and I/N Kote is storm- related, and therefore does not contribute to the storm water problem in South Bend. Additionally, their waste is very diluted in that it does not carry the biological loading that most of the waste from the City does. It has a very low operating burden on the water plant relative to what the flow would be if this were serving a large number of residents. He stated, I can certainly understand why the City from time to time would like to adopt policies where there is a surcharge for projects that choose to go out in the County rather than be in the City, but I don't think there is a place for this when the site or the operation could not be in the City even if we all wanted it to. Mr. Nussbaum stated, I spoke to you this afternoon about the technical reasons for why this agreement makes sense and also meets the requirements of the ordinance. I did not want to repeat myself on that, this evening. I thought it would be important for you to understand how important it was for us to work together in order to have this resolution approved. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the lbove bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. There were none from the public wishing to speak in favor of or n opposition to the this bill. Councilmember Dr. David Varner addressed Mr. Nussbaum, stating, You mentioned that storm water is not an issue with regard to the plant sending storm wateto the city —it's simply effluent from the plant. But, going forward, if this is potentially such a fi, ancial burden at this point in time, I would ask for you to look really deeply into the future, because we have some extraordinary rate increases coming as a result of the consent de�ree, and I don't want anybody to be terribly surprised about this. I think up front that everybody should understand that. Mr. Nussbaum responded, We certainly understand that that is a problem and I think the company is more than willing to try to assist the City in any way they can. I think right now it's important to note that a large part of the rate they pay goes tow ds solving that problem for the City. Even though we are not costing you, we are happy to do th it. As you deal with the various agencies— whether it's the EPA or IDIM or whatever —I/N Tek and I/N Kote will be willing to help in whatever way they can. �1 I 'ISM' I' Councilmember Dr. Varner asked, You're specifically referencing the pilot payment? Mr. Nussbaum responded, No, I'm representing the fact that if you go and look at the components of how the rate is figured out, a large proportion ven more than the pilot —is for capital projects that are dealing with the storm water /sewer issue. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to adopt Bill No. 17-07. Councilmember Jo M. Broden seconded the motion which carried by�a roll call vote o eight (8) ayes. 17 -08 A RESOLUTION F THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, COMMONLY KNOWN AS NORTHEAST CORNER OF AD MS ROAD AND U.S. 31, SOUTH BEND, DI 46628 AN ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA FOR PURPOSES OF 14 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2017 A (6) SIX YEAR REAL PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR GLC PORTAGE PRAIRIE III, LLC Councilmember Gavin Ferlic, Chair of the Community Investment Committee, reported that they met this afternoon and send this bill forward with a favorable recommendation. Aaron Kobb, Department of Community Investment, with offices on the 14th Floor of the County -City Building, South Bend, IN, served as the presenter of this bill. Mr. Kobb stated, As our report indicates, the DCI staff worked with a petitioner to come up with an abatement structure that best meets the needs of the City and the developer. The petitioner is investing approximately $13,500,000 toward the construction of a new 315,000 square foot facility in the AmeriPlex District. After the six (6) year abatement is complete, the annual tax generation from this project will be roughly just over $300,000 a year. To address a question that the Council had asked of us: the City's investment in this project would equate to about thirteen percent (13 %) of the overall project cost. Jeff Smoke, Great Lakes Capital, 112 West Jefferson Street, South Bend, IN, served as the petitioner of this bill. Mr. Smoke stated that he had emailed the Council regarding whether or not there was an Affirmative Action plan in place. He explained the makeup of the workforce is about forty -four percent (44 %) minorities in the local workforce of full -time employees, and that there would be about one - hundred and thirty -nine (13 9) additional people hired. Councilmember Oliver Davis asked, What do you have with you, sir? Mr. Smoke responded, These are the Affirmative Action and hiring policies of the tenant, CTDI. Councilmember Davis asked to look over those documents, which Clerk Kareemah Fowler retrieved from Mr. Smoke to hand to the Council. Councilmember Regina Williams- Preston asked if by "minorities" Mr. Smoke was referring to racial minorities or gender minorities, in response to which Mr. Smoke clarified that he was referring to racial minorities. Councilmember Karen White stated, That is a good percentage —that forty-four percent (44 %) also appreciate you getting that information to us as quickly as you have been able to do. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. There were none from the public wishing to speak in favor of or opposition to this bill. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to adopt Bill No. 17 -08. Councilmember Regina Williams- Preston seconded the motion which carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) ayes. 17 -09 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 321 SOUTH MAIN STREET, SOUTH BEND, IN 46601 AN ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA FOR PURPOSES OF A (5) FIVE YEAR REAL PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR HIBBERD DEVELOPMENT, LLC Councilmember Gavin Ferlic, Chair of the Community Investment Committee, reported that they met this afternoon and send this bill forward with a favorable recommendation. Aaron Kobb, Department of Community Investment, with offices on the 14th Floor of the County -City Building, South Bend, IN, served as the presenter of this bill. Mr. Kobb stated, The petitioner is looking to invest just over $5,000,000 toward the rehabilitation of an abandoned building downtown, adjacent to Four Winds Field. It will consist of a mix of office, retail, and 15 PV REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2017 residential uses along with a street -level public space. Before you is a request for a five (5) year abatement, after which the annual tax generation would be roughly $94,000 annually. The City investment for this project would be roughly nine percent (9 %). I Mark Neal, Gilbert Development, 1329 East Washington Street, outh Bend, IN, served as the petitioner of this bill. Mr. Neal stated that the building was built n 1926 as an industrial manufacturing building. He recounted a brief history of the building, explaining that eventually the original business consolidated and no longer needed the building, so the petitioner purchased it in 2016 with the intent of revitalizing and repurposing the building. He stated that it is about 33,000 square feet. Mr. Neal presented to the Council and public various images of the property. Referring to the Gates automobile lot adjacent to the property in question, Mr. Neal stated, They have a lease that runs to end of this year, 2017. They have an option for one (1) more two (2) year renewal that can take them to June of 2019. We have worke i with the Redevelopment Commission to acquire that land in the hopes that we can work something out, so that we can in fact complete this first phase —with some landscaping that we think you will find attractive —as well as a later Phase Two (2) over the next four (4) or five (5) years. Mr. Neal presented to the Council and public renderings of the building. He stated, We believe this will be a crossroads. We think it is an important part of fixing some of these broken, issing teeth in our downtown. So, we come before you with a building that we think is going t be a pride of downtown. We are seeking both retail and office tenants. For retail, we are look g at restaurants and also looking at some service businesses —we're thinking hair salon, barber shop, maybe some other kind of retail. The spaces are not that large, but we think that it will be important to the community, as we look to serve our community as we continue to grow and expand our downtown. This abatement is critical to the finances of the proje t. Councilmember John Voorde asked if Mr. Neal knew the name Df the bank adjacent to the building in question. Mr. Neal responded, I don't, but I know it was built in 1923. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the :,Lbove bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. There were none from the public wishing to speak in favor of or opposition to this bill. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to adopt Bill No. 17 -09. Councilmember Jo M. Broden seconded the motion which carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) ayes. BILLS FIRST READING 11 -17 FIRST READING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION A D MAP WITHIN ORDINANCE N 10165 -12 AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDEDTO E PAND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE EXIST G RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT IPROJECT AREA UNDER IND. CODE 7.1- 3 -20 -1 Councilmember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to send Bill No. 1 I -17 to the Community Investment Committee for the meeting on March 13th, 2017. Cc ancilmember John Voorde seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) yes. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 16 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27.2017 Councilmember Dr. David Varner made a motion to take a ten (10) minute recess. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Bend reconvened in the Council Chambers on the fourth floor of the County -City building at 10:47 p.m. Council Vice President Oliver Davis presided with eight (8) members present. Councilmember Karen White made a motion to suspend the rules of the Common Council Meeting to allow those citizens wishing to have Privilege of the Floor to do so before the allotted time. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. (The words shared by citizens who had the Privilege of the Floor may be found under the section header, "Privilege of the Floor.') APPEAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR 1240 W. THOMAS STREET -BOYD VS. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Interim Council Attorney Aladean DeRose explained the rules for the proceedings. The petitioner will have a maximum of twenty (20) minutes to present his or her case, which should also address the specific issue under review, the petitioner's statement of his or her position, relevant witnesses, if any, and requested action which the petitioner is seeking. The Historic Preservation Commission will then go next with the maximum of twenty (20) minutes including its statement of position, its relevant witness statements, if any, and its requested action, which the Historic Preservation Commission seeks. The petitioner then will have five (5) minutes, maximum, for rebuttal. After that, the Council may ask questions of all the parties up to a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes for that public portion of the hearing. The action of the HPC shall be reviewed by members of the Council, as a quasi-judicial body, to determine whether the HPC's action in denying a Certificate of Appropriateness was arbitrary and capricious and abusive discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with applicable law; whether it is contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; whether it is an excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, limitation, or statutory rights, or without observational procedures required by applicable law and ordinance, or if it is unsupported by substantial evidence. Each member of Council shall have the opportunity to comment before a motion on this position of this appeal is accepted by the Chair. The certification of documents received from the Historic Preservation Commission consisting of. minutes from the public meeting, dated September 19th 2016; the Letter of Denial of Mr. Boyd's application, dated September 27th 2016; Mr. Boyd's application for Certificate of Appropriateness; the staff report concerning the Certificate of Appropriateness; and a correspondence from the Building Commissioner. All those materials are in evidence and for the review of the Council. Also, as part of the process: the submission by the petitioner in support of review, as well as the attorney for the HPC's submission, and all attachments as evidence to that submission. Those pieces of evidence are before the Council. Eric Boyd stated, According to Ordinance 9495 -04 HPC Guidelines, a building application is deemed an application for a COA. The ordinance requires the Building Department to forward the application to the Historic Preservation Commission within five (5) business days, not three - hundred and sixty (360) days. I applied for a building permit through the Business Office of the Building Department. According to the ordinance it is their responsibility to get my application and get it to the Historic Preservation Commission. They did not do that for almost a year. I am not held liable for that, because, according to the ordinance, that is the responsibility of the Building Commissioner. I filed this application on October, 2015. The St. Joseph County Building Commissioner failed to forward my application until August, 2016. I have a sworn affidavit from the Building Commissioner that states he has made that mistake. Someone in his office did not do the proper procedures of the ordinance. He acknowledges the department in not forwarding the application for a pitched roof. If the City accidentally authorized and permitted a gabled roof rather than a flat roof, the HPC failed to prepare and issue an individual Historic Preservation Plan, as required by the same ordinance. The question is: why do I have to pay for 17 REGULAR MEETING it? The ordinance that I am referencing, 9495 -04, requires the l to issue an Historic Preservation Plan for a historic property an I don't have one, nor have I been given one in the six (6) years had that in my possession, or the Building Commissioner, we c kind of roof, they want this kind of gable, they want this kind c window, they want this kind of siding." FEBRUARY 27, 2017 storic Preservation Commission landmark in St. Joseph County. have owned the property. Had I aid say, "Okay, they want this pitch, they want this kind of Mr. Boyd stated, Now, they keep referencing a general proced of things that they want, as far as materials, however that is not what the ordinance calls for. AJ far as their denial, the reasons for denial: losing architectural integrity; changing from a flat ro f to a pitched roof would cause historical rating to drop. However, HPC approved the change from a flat roof to a pitched metal roof on November 10, 2011. According to HPC guidelines, HPC must evaluate the damage or detriment to public welfare if they approve construction that is permitted, even though it is not deemed appropriate, and evaluate the potential hardship that a denial would cause. The residents of Thomas Street are realistic in nature and were more concerned about losing the actual structure than losing architectural integrity. The building has been vacant and abandoned for almost seven (7) years with no roof. We've got prostitution, crack addicts in the basement with needles— that's what we're dealing with in my neighborhood. Removing the building— that's not what we want. We don't want anymore vacant lots where people are dumping trash, and things of that nature. As far as the architectural integrity, HPC has failed to evaluate equity capital investment of between $10,000415,000, and the financial hardship that removing the current pitched roof or replacing it with a flat one would incur. Now, the second reason for denying my application was structural soundness. St. Joseph Building Commissioner and City Engineer met with me on -site, September 19th, 2016, to perform a progress ch�ck. The Building Commissioner states, "The structural engineer is needed to evaluate and also needs to file a Homeland Security permit, whose jurisdiction supersedes the local Building Department." Based on the recommendation of the Building Commissioner, I employed a 1' ensed structural engineer who is licensed in Texas, Florida, Indiana, and Colorado. He has done o (2) inspections of my property and says that the roof is perfectly fine at ninety -five percent (95 %), because it is not complete. So, if the roof is structurally fine, according to a licensed structural engineer in the State of Indiana, I can't agree with the Historic Preservation Commission because, one (1), they are not structural engineers, and two (2), obviously they are not !,going to weigh on my side. Regarding the structural engineer, he has a Master's degree from Notre Dame, he evaluated the project, he evaluated the roof, and this before the seal by the St 'te of Indiana. Mr. Boyd stated, The other thing that they denied my applicatioi i based upon is a lack of other options of flat roof quotes. When I met with them, I gave them irie flat roof quote, which I have with me here. This flat roof quote is dated from 2012, from Sou h Bend Roofing, Siding and Roofing Company. It's for $23,600. This is just for the rubber embrane —not for the application, not for the decking, not for the installation, none of hat. This is from 2013, which means that I researched the flat roof before I went with the roof that the City permitted me to do. So that's why the flat roof was taken off the table. They want more quotes for flat roofs, and that's the only thing that they are saying that they will approve, however, once again, they approved the gabled roof in 2011. I have that document with me, as well. Now: lack of other options. The flat roof was never proposed or suggested by HPC. HPC previously approved a metal pitched roof on November 10th, 2011 and issued the owner a seal weight for the replacement roof. The HPC guidelines ordinance, which I have referenced before, requires HPC to develop a Historic Preservation Plan for landmarks and assist in the implementation of such plans. The owner has no knowledge, nor was given a specific Pi eservation Plan for 1240 West Thomas Street. Such failures and reversal of previously approved COA's has contributed to the hardships placed on the owner at 1240 West Thomas Street. Mr. Boyd stated, Now, the Historic Preservation Commission was given a flat roof quote, which I have shown you. It's only for the rubber —it's not for the decking or the installation of the actual joists. The Firehouse burned in 2007, so when you look up, basically, there's no roof. All of that has to be repaired. Now, again, the quote was for $23,000. HPC's solution for this problem of a gabled roof, which the City has permitted and allowed, is that we remove this roof and we put in a flat roof and that I, myself, incur the cost, or that Community Investment foots the bill. Regarding resources in the City, I have what's called a I'File of Denial." My File of 18 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2017 Denial is any opportunity or resource in the City that I have reached out to and basically have been turned down by. Regarding the Vacant to Value grant program, I spoke to Elizabeth in Community Investment. She says my property is not vacant or abandoned enough. Once again, we've got prostitution, drug addiction, and vandalism going on. I've got copies of Police reports where people have literally driven their car, backed into my garage door, picked it up, put it on their truck, and I found it at the scrapyard. I think this is vacant and abandoned, ladies and gentlemen. I've got letters to Scott Ford, who I have learned no longer works with Community Investment. Still waiting for a reply. I've got a letter to the ReStore of St. Joseph County asking for donations or possibly discounts —this is from 2014. No reply. I have the Southeast Berrien County Landfill Authority, dated February 20th, 2014, asking for discounts or some type of help with dumpsters to clear some of the debris. Still waiting on a reply from 2014. Mr. Boyd stated, What I am trying to tell you is: you want development in the City of South Bend; you want change to the City of South Bend; I especially want it in my neighborhood, and I'm trying to do that. My wife and I have moved over 30,000 pounds of debris out of that building by hand, and I've got the receipts to prove it. What I am asking for today is pretty simple: I'm asking for a Preservation Plan for my property so that you can tell me exactly what you want me to do so I can do it right the first time. The other thing I'm asking for is that you accept the roof the way it is. You gave a permit for the roof. The structural engineer says the roof is fine. If the City made a mistake and you want the roof changed, I'm asking you to foot the bill. Community Investment —I've met with them twice within the past couple of months, based on the suggestion of the Historic Preservation Commission —they are finally reaching back to me, after I sent them the emails from 2015 asking for a response. If they want to foot the bill, I'm perfectly fine and happy with you guys changing the roof as long as you are paying for it. I can't get on that roof again. I just can't, I'm sorry. I've done it once, I can't do it again. So, those are the two (2) things I'm requesting. A Preservation Plan for my property, which I've been denied. According to the South Bend ordinance, I'm required to have one (1). The Historic Preservation Commission was supposed to prepare one —it's been seven (7) years. There isn't one (1). The other thing is, simply put: if the roof is going to change, I would prefer that Community Investment pays for that and that, if that is not going to happen, I would prefer that we keep the roof the way it is. It is structurally sound, it is correct, it is built to standards. I'm a licensed building contractor —I've done this before. Based on the information that you have in front of you, it gives a little transparency regarding what's happening across the street. Thank you for your time. Brett Hummer, Deputy County Attorney of St. Joseph County, representing the Historic Preservation Commission, approached the podium. Councilmember Dr. David Varner disclosed that he has had a relationship with Mr. Hummer and his family for numerous years. Mr. Hummer stated, My name is Brett Hummer. I am an attorney in town, and I am also privileged to serve as a Deputy County Attorney for St. Joseph County, and, in that capacity, I get to help the Historic Preservation Commission, both —since it is a creature of a City ordinance and a County ordinance. Thank you for your time, tonight. I suppose I will kind of work backwards, in regards to a couple of the things that Mr. Boyd pointed out, and then I will get back to why I think this is really a fairly straightforward decision. First of all, Mr. Boyd has referenced that the City had approved this gabled roof idea. That is incorrect. What should be made known tonight, as well, is that regardless of what you, as a Council, do in terms of saying whether HPC's decision was proper or not, this property is entangled with other issues at the Building Department. This is not going to end the issue, regardless of what you say HPC does. There is a letter in the materials that you have from Building Commissioner Bulot, August 10th, 2016, and this does speak to this roof. This certainly does not support the idea that the City has previously approved this idea of a gabled roof on this historic landmark. This was to the Historic Preservation Commission from Mr. Bulot, August 10th, 2016: "Dear Elicia, on October 15th, 2015, this Office issued a Building permit for commercial roofing at the above referenced address." But this is the important part: "What was to be a structural repair and reroofing job has now morphed into a partial roof on the main building and a new second story addition on the rear of the building. None of this has been properly permitted." That is very important to understand. In addition to that, the prior approval Mr. Boyd speaks of was not in regards to approving a newfangled gabled roof on this historic landmark. Mr. Boyd was granted, back in 2011, an RME. 19 i REGULAR MEETING j FEBRUARY 27,201 HPC uses that term for "Routine Maintenance Exclusion." That r ans as an in -kind replacement—it's in use when a repair is actually needed, such a the fire that Mr. Boyd made reference to. The roof had collapsed, so he did not have to go thr ugh the Certificate of Appropriateness application process —he could just go to staff, like he did in 2011, and say, "I don't have a roof. I need to replace this and repair it, in- kind." And that was approved in 2011. Nothing in that RME —and that's in "Exhibit B"—nowhere in that does it reference a gabled roof, this asymmetrical gabled pitched roof that Mr. Boyd has now put on his building without prior approval. It states nowhere in there that that gabled roof is approved. It simply says, "Replace metal roofing." That is important to keep in mind, as well. In regards to what Mr. Boyd referenced, as far as what the Building Department did: back in 2015 when he applied for a Building permit, it is true that that was never received and never orwarded on to HPC. The legal effect of that is that HPC did not and could not have considered I iat an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. If the Building Department receil es an application for a building permit, it is required by its ordinance to forward that on to HPC. I agree with Mr. Boyd: that's not his fault that that did not happen and that didn't come from the Building Department. That is also not HPC's fault for not receiving something that should have been forwarded to it, as well. What happened there was, back in August, 2015 when he applie for the permit from the Building Department that was never forwarded on to HPC, it was never taken in then at that time as a Certificate of Appropriateness application. If it had been, w would be in here probably last February instead of where we are today. In light of that, HPC did not take any action with that. When it did receive the application, most recently in August, 20 6, when that permit was finally forwarded and they learned of that, they properly and promptly ocketed that on their September, 2016 agenda, as they do and they did for every other application for a COA. 1. Mr. Hummer stated, So, fortunately, it's very late in the eveningl'and you do not have to sit here, as Ms. DeRose indicated, as members of a jury. You don't have to reweigh evidence, so to speak. The standard of review here is very high, and I think it's high for a reason. The HPC is granted authority through the ordinances that this Council has put into effect to consider and either grant or deny an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for its properties in historic districts or properties which are historic landmarks. This property in particular is a historic landmark, also created by this Council back in 1999, through Ordinance No. 9037 -99 on September 27th, 1999. This Council granted historic landmark status to this property, and that should mean something. If we are to allow major construction projects to be designated historic landmarks in our town without prior approval through HPC, which is required by the ordinance, why are we calling these things historic landmarks? I appreciate the situation that Mr. Boyd is in, but this process was in effect —and certainly he knew about HPC back in 2011, because he went to them at that time. Yet, he went ahead and started this construction project of this gabled asymmetrical roof without prior approval with HPC. That's what caused a major issue at the September meeting when this was finally before the HPC prope0y. Mr. Hummer stated, What you have before you here, the standa d of review that Ms. DeRose indicated: was HPC arbitrary and capricious? Did they throw thr ordinance out the window? Did they throw the process or procedure out the window and just de ide on a whim what they were going to do here? No. They were not arbitrary and capricious. E 'd they violate any of Mr. Boyd's constitutional rights or statutory rights? No. Did they ac without observance to the procedure and what's in the HPC ordinance? No, and I will exp ain how they did observe that in just a minute. It is a high standard, and the Council should respect that, respectfully, and give deference to the ordinance as written. Mr. Boyd really did not n cessarily touch on too many of those issues in his position here, just now, as far as why he mee s within some of those standards of review before you, but the HPC reviewed his application her al last fall, as it would any other application. His application was, as he mentioned, for approval to construct an asymmetrical, gabled roof on top of this Firehouse, this landmark. In "Exhibit A" to what you have, it shows the picture of the Firehouse as it was in 1999 when this Council granted it historic landmark status. You will note it has a flat roof, a flatline roof, and it does not look anywhere close to what Mr. Boyd has since put on this roof without approval from the HPC. Unfortunately, he started on the project before getting that approval, and, as of the time of the September 19th, 2016 meeting at HPC, as I referenced in Mr. Bulot's letter from August, he had not obtained the necessary permits to do what he had already done on that property, as weld. Despite that, HPC did consider 20 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2017 Mr. Boyd's application and it considered the ordinance factors as it is allowed to do, but the ordinance specifically says that the HPC can consider the following when it's reviewing a COA, the Certificate of Appropriateness, application: it can consider the appropriateness of the proposed alteration or construction — that's one (1); it can consider the detriment to the public welfare if the alteration is permitted; and the other one (1) is that it can consider the hardship a potential denial will cause to the applicant if it's denied. And then it can also consider —and this is something Mr. Boyd alluded to —he is suggesting that the HPC has dropped the ball in terms of preparing some sort of Preservation Plan with respect to his property. The HPC is not required to go out proactively and develop Preservation Plans for every single individual historic landmark or property within its jurisdiction. What that means is, it is by ordinance allowed and permitted to —and should— create at least minimum maintenance expectations for districts or for historic landmarks. It has done that, and they refer to those as "Group B standards." And, by the way, Mr. Klusczinski, President of HPC, and Ms. Feasel, Executive Director are here, and they certainly know a lot more about this than I do. If any questions need to be answered, they can also come up here afterwards. Mr. Hummer stated, There is a Preservation Plan in effect for what this property is: it's a historic landmark. These standards also are included with the materials before — that's in my Position Statement as "Exhibit J." Most importantly, and you can probably hone in on this quote and probably realize what was done here by HPC was appropriate —it says in the Group B standards, which are applicable to historic landmarks like this property: "Additions to landmarks should not detract from the original form and unity of the landmark." Really, all we need to look at is the picture of what this building looked like at the time landmark status was granted to it in 1999, and what Mr. Boyd has now done to this roof. It has completely and unfortunately destroyed and decimated what was a very historical and classic looking firehouse station with a flat roof, as it was built when it was built. It has violated the Group B standards. HPC, at the meeting in September —it was a unanimous nine (9) to zero (0) vote in favor of denying Mr. Boyd's application. It did a roll call vote in denying that. A brief reading of those comments, if I may, shows exactly how the Commission respected and appreciated what's in its ordinance, as far as the factors that it can consider; it also shows that they were mindful of the Group B standards applicable to historic landmarks; it also shows that they were inclined to listen to Mr. Boyd's financial issues with it —you will hear overtones of that in these roll call letters. The nine (9) commissioners present there —I'll just read these for you briefly —this is "Exhibit H" in your packet, it's on page six (6). Commissioner Gordon moved to deny the application. All of these are votes in favor of denying the application. Commissioner Hertel's statement, though, with her vote was: "The best course of action in maintaining the historic integrity of the building." So, obviously, she's concerned with the architectural integrity and the appropriateness of this and the public detriment in allowing this because, frankly, the public detriment here is eviscerating landmark status to a previously designated historic landmark. Commissioner Parker also voted the same way. She said, "Due to the architectural character of the building, and the lack of other options /quotations." So, she's also considering the financial hardship that this might create to Mr. Boyd, although he kind of already did this to himself, respectfully, with going about this without getting the application first. It does show that the commissioners were interested in the quotation and the financial aspects of this project. Mr. Hummer stated, Commissioner Anderson, when he voted, cited the "lack of conforming to architectural integrity of historic building." Again, that's the [unintelligible] the appropriateness of the proposed construction, which is in the ordinance itself. Commissioner Gordon, his comment was: "Not in keeping with the integrity of landmark status." Again, hearkening to that idea that this is a historic landmark and this construction is really deleting that stature as historic landmark. Commissioner Klusczinski, he stated, "The work is not in keeping with landmark standards and guidelines." Like those Group B standards I mentioned. "The work was performed without prior approval by the HPC and the Building Department. Evidence suggests that the new changes are not structurally sound and in compliance with the current building code." And if I can go on a slight rabbit trail on that one, Mr. Boyd also referenced that he had some out -of -state approvals showing that this is structurally sound —those were not before the HPC at the time of the meeting in September. I want the Council to be aware of that. Jumping back into what Commissioner Klusczinski said, though— again, this goes to the fact that the Commission did 21 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2017 consider the financial aspect of this, the potential financial detrinient to Mr. Boyd. It says, "There is only one quotation obtained by the applicant for in -kind work. So, the commissioner was curious as to what financial impact this might have on Mr. Boyd. He obtained one (1), like he said, for twenty- three -and -some thousand dollars ($23,000). The Fornmission asked him there, "Well, isn't there another roofing company that could maybe loo' at this? It's a very expensive project." So, they were looking at that with him at the time of the meeting. Mr. Klusczinski also said, "There is insufficient documentation to consider alternative proposals at this time." That's getting at the potential financial hardship in that there was one (1) quotation presented, so HPC could not really collaborate with Mr. Boyd at that time, even if they wanted to, to work through some potential resolution. Commissioner Voll also hearkened to the potential hardship about this, and he said it's "a tough decision because of all the work the owner has put into it. The building, if it were restored in that neighborhood, would be a classic piece. That is a difficult option here, but there is hope that there may be ways to achieve that." Commissioner Buccellato: "Project does not meet standards and guidelines, in particular additions to Landmarks should not detract from the original form." So that's going directly at those �roup B standards that I mentioned earlier. He also said, "This roof, as proposed, will detract from the original form. Would like to see the building saved, and recommended that if a sloped roof is necessary financially, the owner would come back with a proposal that do not detract from the form of the structure." Mr. Hummer stated, So, again, the proper process here would be for Mr. Boyd to come back with a new application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. One (1), that would be in keeping in -kind with the landmark status, and we would go about it again. But, Mr. Buccellato was keeping in mind the ordinance factors and the Group B standards when he cast his vote, as well. And then Commissioner Gelfman —the last one —she cited "architectural integrity, lack of other quotes on a flat roof, ..." Again, that kind of gets into their consideration 6f the potential financial hardship. "...changing from a flat roof to gabled roof, losing the structural integrity of the building as -is historically, and materials being used." I think, taping it straight from the horse's mouth, if you will— listening to the commissioners —their mindset at the time that they cast this vote was to deny Mr. Boyd's application. I think it's clear that, at least from the Council's perspective, there was no arbitrary capriciousness here. There was no throwing out the statutes. This was not decided on a whim. They went through the procesE like they always do, and they consider what they can consider: the ordinance's parameters and, also, the Group B standards applicable to historic landmarks. So, with that being said, I will rid. there. As I said, I have Mr. Klusczinski and Ms. Feasel here if any questions would like to lie asked. We would ask that the Council sustain and affirm the HPC's decision to deny Mr. Boy 's application. I Mr. Boyd rebutted, I will respond to some of Mr. Hummer's comments. First off, regarding the roof not being properly permitted, I will show you right here, the. City of South Bend, on October 13th, 2015 —this right here is a blueprint that shows the roof at t ie elevation of ten (10) feet. This was given to the Building Commissioner on that date and he was told of the elevation and what the roof would consist of, as far as materials. This is the back side of that document, which was also given to the Building Commissioner. This is a layout of the building showing which side of the building was going to be roofed. Regarding his memo stating that the roof was not properly permitted, this is the permit which he actually issued me, and these are the receipts which you are free to check, and I do have a copy of bank statements if yo would like to see those. And this is the cost of those permits, and that is his signature. So, thi is what is deemed a proper permit for that roof. Regarding the meeting on —I think it was S eptember. The hearing was called based on the Building Commissioner's, I guess, convers ion with the Historic Preservation Commission. He suggested that I talk with them and try to resolve the issue, in light of the mistake that he made. What Mr. Hummer will tell you aboout is the document, as far as the denial is concerned —what he won't tell you is what was discus d after I left the room. After I left the room, Commissioner Gelfman asked the attorney —Mr. Mummer, sitting right here — "Well, how do we fine people or give violations to people who don't do what we tell them to do ?" He said, "Well, you don't have the authority to do that. Th Common Council hasn't given that to you." His response was, "Well, how do we get that ?" " ell, you have to go to the Common Council and ask for that." So, Mr. Hummer suggested. that they lean on the other parts of the City, such as Code Enforcement or the Building Commissioner, who can give violations. 22 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2017 After this meeting and after they had this discussion after I left the room, what was given to me, weeks later, were violations from the Building Department. Starting tomorrow, February 28tH, 2017, I'm fined up to $1,000 a day for a roof that the City told me I could put up. He didn't tell you about that, did he? Well, that's what's going on. Now, regarding Mr. Hummer's comments as far as permits, the roof is the issue that we are focusing on, and the roof, as I've shown you, was properly permitted. Now, their suggestion of replacing and coming back to them with a COA for a flat roof —well, once again, if the roof you told me I could do was incorrect, why do I have to foot the bill? If the flat roof was the first roof that you wanted, that's what you should have asked for. Regarding the policies and procedures —which he states they don't have to do a Preservation Plan for each landmark —page seven (7), if you turn it from the bottom onto page eight (8), it says, "they are required to develop Historic Preservation Plans for historic landmarks and districts together with other public and private agencies to assist in the administration and implementation of such plans." That's each landmark. I haven't gotten one (1). It's been seven (7) years. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic asked Interim Council Attorney Aladean DeRose if the Council could see the documents referenced by Mr. Boyd, in response to which Ms. DeRose explained that those were items that the Council would be privy to post - hearing. She added, The record of the Council is limited to what was presented to the Commission. Councilmember Oliver Davis explained that each Councilmember had two (2) minutes to ask questions to Mr. Boyd or those representing the Historic Preservation Commission. Councilmember Karen White stated, The basics of this hearing was based on the five (5) points that had been shared with us, and so I want to make sure, as we begin to look at all the exhibits and the hearing, that our main charge is to focus on whether or not these particular actions by the HPC were not adhered to. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic asked Mr. Hummer, Would you please explain —I think this was a part of the record —why the plan he is requesting was not provided, or why this kind of general plan is just kind of out there and should be observed? Just touch base a little bit more about the plan. Mr. Hummer responded, Mr. Boyd, actually, he just read it, and I don't really dispute what he just read. "historic landmarks " — plural. That does not mean go out and individually develop a preservation plan for every single landmark. The HPC should develop maintenance standards for historic landmarks —and that's the Preservation Plan. How do we preserve these things? Well, they implement and adopt minimum maintenance standards so that all owners of historic landmarks in the City understand, in advance and upfront, what those maintenance standards are. The Group B standards are the Preservation Plans. Councilmember Ferlic asked, With respect to the observation of procedures required by applicable law— regardless of whether or not the HPC was given notice, did the HPC essentially follow procedures outlined by law, if he is supposed to receive something within five (5) days and he didn't receive it within three- hundred and sixty -five (365) days? Were procedures followed? Mr. Hummer responded, Yes, absolutely, procedures were followed. When HPC did receive the building permit from August, 2015 but not until August, 2016, then properly, by ordinance, it immediately put it on its docket for the next meeting in September, 2016. Councilmember Ferlic asked, Did they observe the procedures required by applicable law throughout the entire process? With or without fault of their own, it doesn't seem that they — Mr. Hummer interjected, Yes, I would say they did. Councilmember John Voorde deferred questioning. Councilmember Oliver Davis asked Mr. Hummer, Has the HPC ever made a plan for any particular owner? Mr. Hummer responded, Like a tailored individual plan? 23 REGULAR MEETING Councilmember Davis asked, Have they ever done it to any Mr. Hummer responded, That's probably a question better Timothy Klusczsinski, President of the Historic Preservation C FEBRUARY 27, 2017 by Mr. Klusczinski. stated, The standards that we refer to as "Group B standards," or the "District standards ", or any of the other nine (9) historic districts within the City of South Bend are derived from the National Park Service. They are not proactive development standards, because we don't develop the properties, we don't own the properties. We do assist owners of historic properties with development ideas and opportunities and contacts and networking, and that kind of thing. Councilmember Davis asked, So, have you developed something for an individual owner? That's my question. Mr. Klusczinski responded, The standards that we circulate - Councilmember Davis interjected, Not the standards —have you made a plan for somebody? Mr. Klusczinski responded, The standards are the plan, because it's a plan on keeping the Councilmember Davis interjected, No, no, no. The plan that Mr� you ever done that for anybody? Mr. Klusczinski responded, I don't think that's within our- Councilmember Davis interjected, A custom plan —have you Boyd is talking about? Boyd is talking about —have made a custom plan that Mr. Mr. Klusczinski responded, Elicia informs me "that Leeper Park s the only different set of custom standards, because of the interest in the environmental t pography. Councilmember Davis responded, So, the answer is yes. Interim Council Attorney DeRose stated, The answer is no for buildings, and yes for real estate. Councilmember Davis asked, Please, say that again? Ms. DeRose stated, The answer is no for buildings, and yes for I dscaping. Councilmember Davis asked, Part of your process does include talking Greg through the building. Is that a part of your process? 11 Mr. Klusczinski responded, Sometimes. The ordinance restricts he HPC to aesthetics relevant to the exterior of the building. Councilmember Davis asked, Let me say, in this kind of a situal ion, is part of your process going through the Building Department? Mr. Klusczinski responded, The Building Department and the Jepartment of Code Enforcement, by law, by the ordinance that you passed, are both our enforcement agencies. Councilmember Davis interjected, I understand that. Mr. Klusczinski continued, They are partnership agencies. We don't have to enter the building to be able to do the work. Councilmember Davis asked, I agree with all that, but is that a part of the process? Mr. Klusczinski responded, We start with an inspection of the property. Councilmember Davis asked, And then go to the Building Depa I rtment? And, it comes to you all? Mr. Klusczinski responded, No, no, no. Councilmember Davis asked, The one (1) year that he did not get his information —is that not part of the process? Mr. Hummer responded, Mr. Davis, if I may. An owner of a hi oric landmark, basically, in order to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from HPC, can eally take either one (1) of two 24 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2017 (2) channels. One (1), they go to the HPC themselves —and, frankly, that's how most of them come in —and they fill out paperwork and say, "I want to apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness," and then HBC obviously knows right then and there that that's what they want to do, and they put them on the agenda for the next meeting. The other route is —if that is what the ordinance allows —if they go to the Building Department first, it's supposed to toggle with the Building Department, "Okay this is a historic district..." Councilmember Davis interjected, Excuse me. So, that is a part of your process then, because you have two (2) routes. Thank you. Councilmember Dr. David Varner stated, The Historic Preservation Commission approved a repair and maintenance to take care of the damage —the hole in the roof. Elicia Feasel, Executive Director of the Historic Preservation Commission, responded, Yes, in 2011. In -kind. Councilmember Dr. Varner continued, But that particular approval was strictly for repair, not for any particular — Ms. Feasel interjected, Staff has no authorization to approve any aesthetic changes or- Councilmember Dr. Varner interjected, Okay. At a later date, the Building Department did issue a permit, which was applied for by Mr. Boyd. Ms. Feasel responded, He was actually caught by a building inspector constructing the roof that's there now and subsequently sent to the Building Department. The Building Department was in a bit of a hurry to get a confirmation - Councilmember Dr. Varner interjected, But at some point they did issue a permit, and they would not have issued a permit if they had not believed that it was structurally acceptable. Do they take structural consideration...? Mr. Klusczinski responded, That's a point of contention in the Building Department. Councilmember Dr. Varner stated, It is understood, at least at this point, that, somehow or another, the Building Department forgot to make the connection between the HPC and [crosstalk] ... and that leaves us where we are, as of today, and that there's been some construction with the appropriate permit, and now it's the Certificate of Appropriateness? Mr. Hummer responded, Correct, that's the Certificate of Appropriateness process. Mr. Klusczinski responded, There were additional construction efforts, from an addition on the back, that the Building Department still has never approved, that has happened since the HPC's denial back in 2016. Councilmember Dr. Varner asked, When Mr. Boyd came back to you, it was recognized at that point that construction had taken place without a Certificate of Appropriateness —which is separate from the building permit that he had? Mr. Klusczinski nodded in affirmation. Councilmember Dr. Varner asked, And this brings us to where we are today? Mr. Klusczinski responded, Sure. Councilmember Jo M. Broden asked, So, is there a time factor that kicks in when the applicant came to the Building Department? Is there an automatic amount of time? Mr. Klusczinski responded, The Building Department has five (5) days to be able to provide the information to the HPC. Mr. Hummer responded, And that's what didn't happen here. Councilmember Broden stated, So, that ball was dropped. Mr. Hummer responded, But not by HPC. 25 REGULAR MEETING Councilmember Broden asked, I want to make sure, in terms of who looked at the structure of the roof —that was not at the earf, the earlier hearing? Mr. Klusczinski responded, No. FEBRUARY 27, 2017 record: the licensed engineer hearing? It wasn't evidence at Councilmember Broden asked, What about the sworn statement y the Building Commissioner that he made a mistake? Was that entered into the record or takeo into consideration? Mr. Klusczinski responded, Not at that time. Mr. Hummer responded, Not at that time, Councilwoman. We actually reached out to him. We were trying to figure out what happened here with this. So, we obtained that from him to show that we did not have an application for a Certificate of Appropri teness. Councilmember Broden asked, And when you purchase —I ass e, Mr. Boyd was the original purchaser of this property at the time of purchasing —you know that it's a historic property? Mr. Boyd responded, You're asking me? Councilmember Broden responded, Yes. Mr. Boyd responded, When I purchased it and reached out to the HPC, the historic preservation specialist came to the property —I invited him to come through the property and possibly do some type of assessment. I don't have any paperwork on that. I did know it was historic, and I did reach out to them and I spoke with the Director Cathy Hostetler, and I told her that I wanted to roof the building, that it was exposed to the elements and som thing needed to happen. I explained to her that it needed a roof and she said, "Well, what kind of a roof are you considering ?" and I said, "Metal." If you look on that permit, it says, "Metal." This building never had a metal roof. Metal was considered because I figured it would be the cheapest thing to put on it, so as far as an RME or a COA, ABC, EBD, I don't un erstand what they're talking about. I just know that she gave me a piece of paper that said th I could start putting the roof on the building. So, that was my understanding. Councilmember Broden asked, So, you were or weren't aware of the Group B standards? Mr. Boyd responded, I wasn't. I wasn't given that until last year, I think before the hearing or something. They said that there's some kind of guidelines that I'm supposed to follow. Councilmember Broden asked, And whose responsibility is that ypically to be aware or to become aware of those standards? Mr. Boyd responded, I don't know. When I purchased the prope y, I reached out to them about fixing the property. No paperwork was given to me. So... Councilmember Broden asked, Yet, you knew you'd purchased a historic house? Mr. Boyd responded, Yes. That's right. When I applied for a pe it from the Building Department, I was given a permit and told I could roof the build ng with a gabled roof, and I gave them the blueprints, so I thought everything was correct. Councilmember Broden asked, So, the RME was specific to a re oof? Mr. Boyd responded, A partial reroot or repair, I guess, is what 1 hey're saying. Councilmember Broden asked, Pivoting off of that, an additiona I story was added? Mr. Boyd responded, The back portion— there's a one (1) story garage. There was a flat roof that was there at one time. We gutted that and also took out the garage door to repair that—it was dilapidated. Upon trying to recreate a flat roof, it wasn't successful, so we decided we would structurally put in just a one (1) story add -on. Nothing too fancy for the neighborhood to the back of the property. In the past, HPC has approved thatadd-ons to the rear, because it's not at the face of the building. According to HPC- Councilmember Broden interjected, They had approved that in cases? In other buildings? 26 case? Or just in general REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2017 Mr. Boyd responded, Other properties. Residential. Regarding the staff report that was given to the hearing, they're in favor of that addition. That's why I haven't really talked about the addition. I did say that the permits need to be applied for, but there's not really much objection to it. Ms. Feasel stated, Actually, the Commission approved the addition to the second story, but they did not approve the siding and the windows to be applied /salvaged that Mr. Boyd obtained as a donation. And, after the siding and windows were denied, he installed them anyway. Mr. Boyd stated, That is correct. I was subjected to a demo hearing in the middle of January, so if there's no progress, they tear your building down. So, something had to happen. Between Code, Historic Preservation, Homeland Security — you've got to make everybody happy, so... And those things can be changed. Interim Council Attorney DeRose addressed the Council, stating, Just a point of order, but you must consider the materials that were presented at the time of hearing. Councilmember Regina Williams- Preston asked, Point of order: when you're saying "the materials presented," that includes the stuff we got beforehand? Ms. DeRose responded, The information is part of the record. Councilmember Williams- Preston asked, Not just tonight, but all of this? Ms. DeRose responded, That information is part of the record. But anything that is post - appeal is not relevant to tonight's deliberation. Councilmember Randy Kelly stated, And to that end, I want to make sure we're talking about the right thing here. So, regardless of —and I feel for your plight, Mr. Boyd — regardless of how egregious of a mistake the Building Department may have made, we are trying to determine here whether or not the HPC acted capriciously with regard to, simply, their decision on whether or not this gabled roof was appropriate for the building. Is that correct? Mr. Hummer responded, Yeah, that's correct. Councilmember Williams- Preston stated, The process has two (2) ways. Like, if I buy a historic building, I have two (2) ways that I can go about that. One (1) is to go directly to the HPC. If there needs to be repairs or something I can go to the Building Department. Either one (1) of those processes is valid. Right? Okay. Some of the information that I saw in the appeal I have questions about. This goes to the issue of process. My concern is that it sounds like, based on what I read, there's a question in here —that the process is somewhat confusing. So, back in 2011 there was an attempt to begin the process of repair. Have there been any changes in any staffing or anything since this whole thing first started? I'm wondering what's the difference —it seems like positions have changed a little bit. Mr. Klusczinski responded, I think the record is consistent. I think —if I get the core of your question —the changes are the differences between the Routine Maintenance Exclusion, RME, or a Certificate of Appropriateness, which has to undergo a public hearing and go through the board for a decision. HPC is a quasi-judicial body, just like you are right now. So, at the beginning, Mr. Boyd presented to our administrator at the time, Catherine Hostetler, that he needed to clad the roof to protect it from the elements. And, given the choice of some materials, Catherine made a decision with some latitude, choosing a different material to be able to provide the flat roof instead of what had been on there previously —if it was UPDL, or I don't know. The effect was to protect the landmark as a whole. So, the HPC staff was acting as kind of an emergency mediator trying to make sure that they can allow some materials to which Mr. Boyd said he had access to be able to clad the roof, but not change the design or the style, or do anything. Councilmember Williams- Preston stated, So, one (1) of the things I read in here was about weighing the difference between saving a structure —or public detriment —and whether this was the right or the wrong. Mr. Klusczinski responded, Right. Councilmember Williams- Preston asked, Architecture, right? 27 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2017 Mr. Klusczinski responded, The HPC, by ordinance, has to consider three (3) elements, and that is: the appropriateness, which is architectural style; material used —not plastic for wood, in cases, or masonry; and, also, design elements. Or, if there are proposed changes like illuminations to a building, then we have to choose something that's sympathetic Councilmember Williams- Preston interjected, I don't have a lot of time, so I apologize. I understand that. So, at that time, the building was falling apart. What I'm hearing is that there were all kinds of activity happening in the building that was a pu blic detriment. So, when he purchased the property, it was really about making sure that he created a safer space. Mr. Klusczinski interjected, To protect it from the elements. Councilmember Williams- Preston continued, To prevent deterio ation, but also to protect the community from illicit activity, and so on and so forth. That firsi kind of initiation was really about the fact that it's more important to make sure that this is s fe, versus it being okay to change whatever needs to be changed. I Mr. Klusczinski responded, There were no changes proposed. It was just an alteration of material. Councilmember Oliver Davis announced that the time for questioning had officially passed, and that now the Council was free to make final comments before voting on whether to approve or deny the Historic Preservation Commission's recommendation. Councilmember Davis stated that Councilmember Regina Williams- Preston would be first to comient, and Councilmember Karen White would be last. Councilmember Williams- Preston stated, I am inclined to rule in favor of Mr'. Boyd, because — based on the information that I read—he wasn't sure about an af ipeals process, and he asked about that and was not given clarity or information, and was actually told they don't disclose it. This was one (1) of the questions I wanted to ask. Based on the information I have in here, I felt like that was an action that was arbitrary, capricious, and a piece of discretion. Aside from that, I would also rule in favor of Mr. Boyd because it seems that the B ailding Department was where the ball was dropped in this process —but it is a part of the proce 3s for getting all the information to the resident. I think that we have to make sure that we are not holding our citizens responsible for something that is a responsibility of the City, and the Histori Preservation Commission is an entity of the City; the Building Department is an entity of the Ci y. Whatever their procedures are, we have to make sure that they are being followed. I feel liko he was denied a due process, which would be a violation of probably something —I'm not a lawyer. But it was certainly outside of what I understand, especially after this hearing, of thel procedures to be. So, I think that there were some arbitrary and capricious actions, but also actions taken that were outside of procedure. I also feel that, if we look at this process from beginning to end, his actions were certainly made in order to reduce public detriment. So, I think that that is something we need to consider, as well. Councilmember Randy Kelly stated, I agree with Ms. Williams- reston, certainly, in some regards. And as I mentioned earlier, I actually had a friend who I ent and got a building permit for a garage extension. Found out later, once it had virtually gon up, that that height wasn't permitted in that neighborhood. So, you maybe need to look at s me of these issues with the Building Department. And, again, I feel for, Mr. Boyd, what yo 're going through. I do think that that is a completely separate issue, however, from whether r not the HPC, with regard to determining whether or not this gabled roof was appropriate for the building, was arbitrary and capricious. I think they went through the proper channels to determine that. So, it's my contention that they did not do anything that would fall under that category. Councilmember Jo M. Broden stated, The denial of the Certific4e of Appropriateness, I would say, is on point here. It seems to me that Mr. Boyd exceeded the authorization that he sought for the routine maintenance. The information with the sworn statement was not part of the earlier record, so we can't go that direction. So, based on what was available at the time of the hearing, I would support the denial of the COA as the changes were beyor the Group B standards and did detract from the original form and architecture and integrity of t .s property as a historic landmark. REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2017 Councilmember Dr. David Varner stated, It seems to me that, clearly, the ball was dropped with regards to communication between the Building Department and the HPC with regards to the five (5) day issue. That, however, doesn't change the fact that the HPC, I believe, acted appropriately by issuing a maintenance -only agreement. It's not their fault that they weren't given a notice appropriately, and when time elapsed and it did come back —the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness —it's virtually impossible to give a Certificate of Appropriateness when it's inappropriate what was done. Not that it was illegal —and that's a whole other issue; not that it wasn't a nice design for a person who wants it that way. But the request was for a Certificate of Appropriateness. If the flat roof is where it began and it morphed, I don't know how the HPC could issue a Certificate of Appropriateness. There may be some other mechanism to arrive there. I don't know what it is, but I find that their actions would have been —given the record that we have — appropriate and in the appropriate manner, and they were doing what was appropriate, given their statutory responsibilities, as far as preservation. I feel like Mr. Boyd finds himself in a very difficult situation. Requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness is not the way to fix it. That does not make it right. Councilmember Oliver Davis stated, I had a question regarding the process. They shared it over there — there's two (2) different ways. At first, they were denying that it was their process, but it is their process. If you have two (2) routes with which you get into your home and one (1) was messed up, then that's your fault, and you have a responsibility to take care of that. I think that process —when you start off wrong, it's a big problem. I was teaching a class over at IUSB. I got into the class and, to and behold, when I got there, not one (1) student had a book. Their syllabus was there. Not one (1). 1 check with the department. They had done everything. Somehow, somewhere in the bookstore, somebody dropped the ball and didn't order the books. It was a summer course, so we were going fast. By the time the books got in, half my class was going to be over. Now, what if they have already paid for their course, they've already done everything else? What are we going to do? So, I had to sit there and adjust every single thing in order to make sure that academics and the core courses were done. It was a crazy summer, that summer. But I had to adjust to make sure. Could I have fought the department? The department did theirs. I did mine. I was prepared. The students were prepared. Somebody down at the bookstore messed that up. I had to take ownership of that situation, because they did it. They were an employee of IUSB; I was an employee of IUSB. So, I had to adjust my issues so that everything could be done. I could sit there and fuss with the students all day long and the only thing they are going to do is mess up my evaluations. So, therefore, I adjusted my time because the process started off day one (1) wrong, and there was no way it was going to end right, unless I made some modifications that were unusual. I taught for a long time in my life. Never had that situation happen. But, in that situation, I had to make tremendous adjustments. And I learned from there, every single time, to make sure weeks in advance. I learned a lot from that. So, yeah, it was my situation. I had to take ownership of it. And I think that the combination should have been made when it comes down to these situations here; with our procedures. The procedures went wrong and the wrong things started off from that standpoint. So, I cannot support that. When it comes to the Building Commissioner, if that's not right and there was something there, that's a serious situation. There needs to be more clarity when it comes down to that document, for six (6) years. That has to be done from that standpoint. In the words of my mother, I'm going to call this "sloppy." This shouldn't have gotten here tonight. I will say, Mr. Boyd, some of the movementI reckon that you were under a lot of pressure— probably should not have gone as far as you did. I will say that. Part of that got to the point where, "If these folk are not telling me right, who cares about it ?" I feel that coming across. So, you moved ahead with all that, which didn't make everything right. It probably made more people say that they would vote against you. But the bottom line is that the process started off wrong. I do believe that the ends do not justify the means. If the means are wrong, then the end, nine (9) out of ten (10) times is wrong, too. You can't justify that. Therefore, I will be in favor of Mr. Boyd. Councilmember John Voorde stated, The regulations here are beyond my ability to say what's right and wrong. I think there just ought to be a standard of reasonableness applied to this, and I come down on the opposite side of Mr. Davis and Ms. Preston, because I think that a reasonable person, when they buy be it a historic landmark or a home or building in a historic district, has got to know that there are probably all sorts of regulations and limitations to what can be done. 29 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27,201 So, when you have a hole in the roof, and you need to undertake'' ome emergency repair to preserve the rest of the building, and you are permitted to depart from a standard of one (1) material to another — that's a rather small accommodation —as opposed to with that metal roof permit, saying, "I'm going to put on an addition, and now I'm going to put on a peaked roof..." When you buy a historic home or building like this, it's light fixtures, it's window frames, it's trim pieces, it's things that sometimes might seem} ridiculous, but that's what goes along with this historic landmark or historic home. A reasonable person knows that. I would say to Mr. Boyd that it's unfortunate, but a reasonable person, before you put a whole bunch of money into changing the look and style and structure of this home or building —what made it a historic landmark in the first place —would have made sure that what he is doing is the right thing to do. I have not been to many historic preservation hearings in my life, but the couple that I've had, I felt sorry for a guy because he had to change some porch trim at considerable expense. But those are the rules of the game and you've got to play by the rules. You can't just take carte blanche and go and do whatever you want just because you think you had the permit or the opportunity to do so. So, I'm going to come down on the opposite side of this. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic stated, I'm inclined to rule in favoof Mr. Boyd. I don't think the procedures required by law were observed, whether or not that 4as the fault of HPC. Councilmember Karen White stated, I'm reading from page seven (7) of the information that we received. This states that, first, the HPC did not receive a copy of the building permit application. That was filed by Mr. Boyd in October, 2015. Clearly, it states tev at the guidelines, the timeframe was not adhered to and the Building Department admitted that made a mistake and failed to forward the application. Regardless, whether or not Mr. Boyd N understanding that that building permit had been approved, the it was not. There were a lot of procedural issues that I believe r even before it had been presented at this particular stage of the any of us would want to say to anyone, any of our citizens, "W $23,000." I think there could have been a better way, but, regar what we have before us, and I will be supporting Mr. Boyd. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to deny the recoi Preservation Commission, based on the fact that procedures re Councilmember Karen White seconded the motion which tied and four (4) nays (Councilmembers Randy Kelly, Jo M. Brod( Voorde). As neither the members of the Council nor Interim Council A operating under the ord clearly acknowledges that y should have been addressed eal process. I don't think that you just have to eat the ss, what we have before us is endation of the Historic [red by law were not observed. roll call vote of four (4) ayes Dr. David Varner, and John DeRose were familiar with the interpretation of a tied vote in this particular quasi-judicial format, Ms. DeRose proposed to notify the Council, the HPC, and Mr. Boyd of the final interpretation of the vote once due research had been completed. i I NEW BUSINESS There was no new business this evening. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Jesse Davis, P.O. Box 10205, South Bend, IN, stated that he h, Department, has submitted multiple FOIA's, has dealt with tlu and a State Police detective to try and get information regardin to the City mysteriously in 2015. Mr. Davis stated that the last Legal Department, on January 14th, 2016, stated that the State been in contact with the Legal (3) different City Attorneys, the equipment that was returned ice he had with the on the matter had closed and that it had been turned over to another entity. He was told that once the investigation had closed, he would receive the information that he requested. He stated that he wanted to know why, after two (2) years, he still has not received the information. Mr. Davis stated, If I need to file a complaint with the State, I will do so, but I think the Cou cil should be able to solve these problems. 30 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2017 Samuel Brown, 222 East Navarre Street, South Bend, IN, explained that the trash situation on his street is sub - ideal. Mr. Brown explained the trashmen cannot pick up trash totes unless they are two (2) feet off the curb, due to the parking situation on his street. This introduces another problem in that after the totes have been emptied, the wind can knock them over, making them a street hazard. He urged the Council to have someone look at the situation and solve it. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, President Tim Scott adjourned the meeting at 12:16 a.m. 31