HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-08-2018 Agenda Packet
1
SOUTH BEND COMMON COUNCIL
MEETING AGENDA
Monday, January 8, 2018
7:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION- PASTOR JASON MILLER- SOUTH BEND CITY CHURCH
2. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
4. REPORT FROM THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON MINUTES
5. SPECIAL BUSINESS
BILL NO.
18-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA COMMEMORATING AND CELEBRATING THE LIFE
AND PUBLIC SERVICE OF BEVERLY D. CRONE
6. REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICES
7. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE TIME: ______
BILL NO.
69-17 PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE THE FOLLOWING
DESCRIBED PROPERTIES: STREET VACATION- EDDY STREET FROM
CORBY STREET SOUTH 180 FEET +/-, CORBY STREET FROM EDDY
STREET WEST 90 FEET +/-, CORBY STREET FROM EDDY STREET EAST
230 FEET +/-, THE FIRST EAST/WEST ALLEY BETWEEN HOWARD
STREET ON THE WEST AND THE FIRST NORTH/SOUTH ALLEY EAST
OF SOUTH BEND AVENUE, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
85-17 PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE INITIATED BY THE AREA PLAN
COMMISSION OF ST JOSEPH COUNTY, AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF
THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ARTICLE 9 ADMINISTRATION
TO UPDATE PROCEDURES FOR ZONE MAP AMENDMENT, VARIANCES,
SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES, AND WRITTEN COMMITMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
2
APPLICATIONS; ARTICLE 11 DEFINITIONS TO FURTHER DEFINE THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
AREA PLAN COMMISSION; AND ARTICLE 12 FLOODPLAIN
REGULATIONS TO DESIGNATE THE BUILDING COMMISSIONER AS
THE FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR.
86-17 PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE INITIATED BY THE AREA PLAN
COMMISSION OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF
THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ARTICLE 10 ENFORCEMENT BY
ADDING THE AREA PLAN COMMISSION TO THE DESIGNATED
ENFORCEMENT STAFF.
87-17 PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE INITIATED BY THE COMMON
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ARTICLE 13
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION IN CONNECTION WITH THE
TRANSITION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF TO THE CITY OF
SOUTH BEND UNDER AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY.
8. BILLS ON THIRD READING TIME:______
BILL NO.
67-17 THIRD READING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, ANNEXING TO AND BRINGING
WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AND
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN
GERMAN TOWNSHIP, CONTIGUOUS THEREWITH; COUNCILMANIC
DISTRICT NO. 1, FOR 24605 CLEVELAND ROAD, SOUTH BEND,
INDIANA
69-17 THIRD READING ON AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE THE FOLLOWING
DESCRIBED PROPERTIES: STREET VACATION- EDDY STREET FROM
CORBY STREET SOUTH 180 FEET +/-, CORBY STREET FROM EDDY
STREET WEST 90 FEET +/-, CORBY STREET FROM EDDY STREET EAST
230 FEET +/-, THE FIRST EAST/WEST ALLEY BETWEEN HOWARD
STREET ON THE WEST AND THE FIRST NORTH/SOUTH ALLEY EAST
OF SOUTH BEND AVENUE, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
85-17 THIRD READING ON AN ORDINANCE INITIATED BY THE AREA PLAN
COMMISSION OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF
THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ARTICLE 9 ADMINISTRATION
TO UPDATE PROCEDURES FOR ZONE MAP AMENDMENT, VARIANCES,
SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES, AND WRITTEN COMMITMENTS
3
ASSOCIATED WITH AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
APPLICATIONS; ARTICLE 11 DEFINITIONS TO FURTHER DEFINE THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
AREA PLAN COMMISSION; AND ARTICLE 12 FLOODPLAIN
REGULATIONS TO DESIGNATE THE BUILDING COMMISSIONER AS
THE FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR.
86-17 THIRD READING ON AN ORDINANCE INITIATED BY THE AREA PLAN
COMMISSION OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF
THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ARTICLE 10 ENFORCEMENT BY
ADDING THE AREA PLAN COMMISSION TO THE DESIGNATED
ENFORCEMENT STAFF.
87-17 THIRD READING ON AN ORDINANCE INITIATED BY THE COMMON
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ARTICLE 13
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION IN CONNECTION WITH THE
TRANSITION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF TO THE CITY OF
SOUTH BEND UNDER AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY.
9. RESOLUTIONS
BILL NO.
17-75 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND APPROVING A PETITION OF THE AREA BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 806 HOWARD STREET,
PORTAGE TOWNSHIP, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46617.
10. BILLS ON FIRST READING
BILL NO.
01-18 FIRST READING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA AMENDING CHAPTER 2
(ADMINISTRATION) AND CHAPTER 6 (BUILDING) OF THE SOUTH
BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, BY REMOVING ZONING ADMINISTRATION
AND AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FROM THE
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND REMOVING
ASSOCIATED FEES.
02-18 FIRST READING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE
OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING
FUNDS TO PAY FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL PROJECTS AND INCIDENTAL
4
EXPENSES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE
ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS, AND ALL MATTERS RELATED THERETO
03-18 FIRST READING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROPRIATING THE
PROCEEDS OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND GENERAL OBLIGATION
BONDS, SERIES 2018.
04-18 FIRST READING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND SEEKING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2104, 2108, AND 2112 E MISHAWAKA AVENUE, AND 914
AND 918 S 21st STREET, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT NO. 3 IN THE CITY
OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
05-18 FIRST READING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3527 LINCOLN WAY WEST,
COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT NO. 1 IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND,
INDIANA
11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
12. NEW BUSINESS
13. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
14. ADJOURNMENT TIME: _________
Notice for Hearing and Sight Impaired Persons
Auxiliary Aid Or Other Services Are Available Upon Request At No Charge.
Please Give Reasonable Advance Request When Possible.
In the interest of providing greater public access and to promote greater transparency, the South Bend Common Council agenda has been translated into Spanish. All agendas are available online from the
Council’s website, and also in paper f ormat in the Office of the City Clerk, 4th
Floor County-City Building. Reasonable efforts have been taken to provide an accurate translation of the text of the agenda, however,
t he official text is the English version. Any discrepancies which may be created in the translation, are not binding. Such translations do not create any right or benefit, substant ive or procedural, enforceable at law
or equity by a party against the Common Council or the City of South Bend, Indiana.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
KAREEMAH FOWLER, CITY CLERK
455 County-City Building • 227 W. Jefferson Boulevard • South Bend, Indiana 46601
Phone 574-235-9221 • Fax 574-235-9173 • TDD 574-235-5567 • www.SouthBendIN.gov
BIANCA L. TIRADO
DEPUTY CLERK
DIRECTOR OF POLICY
JENNIFER M. COFFMAN
CHIEF DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS
JOSEPH R. MOLNAR
ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS
BUREAU CLERK
MEMORANDUM
TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
FROM: KAREEMAH FOWLER, CITY CLERK
DATE: JANUARY 4, 2018
SUBJECT: COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE
The following Common Council Committee Meetings have been scheduled for MONDAY,
JANUARY 8, 2018:
Council Informal Meeting Room
4th Floor County-City Building
227 W. Jefferson Blvd.
South Bend, IN 46601
4:00 P.M. PUBLIC WORKS & PROPERTY VACATION JOHN VOORDE, CHAIRPERSON
1. Bill No. 69-17-Street & Alley Vacation for property located on Corby St. & Eddy St.
(5 Corners, LLC)
4:15 P.M. COMMUNITY INVESTMENT GAVIN FERLIC, CHAIRPERSON
1. Bill No. 87-17- Historic Preservation Transition
4:30 P.M. ZONING & ANNEXATION OLIVER J. DAVIS, CHAIRPERSON
1. Bill No. 85-17- Transfer of Zoning Administration and Updating Procedures
2. Bill No. 86-17- Zoning Enforcement
3. Bill No. 17-75- Special Exception 806 Howard St.
4. Zoning Ordinance Update Briefing- Mike Divita
Council President Tim Scott has called an Informal Meeting of the Council which will commence
immediately after the adjournment of the Zoning & Annexation Committee.
INFORMAL MEETING OF THE COMMON COUNCIL TIM SCOTT, PRESIDENT
1. Discussion of Council Agenda
2. Update and Announcements
3. Adjournment
cc: Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Committee Meeting List
News Media
NOTICE FOR HEARING AND SIGHT IMPAIRED PERSONS
Auxiliary Aid or Other Services may be Available upon Request at No Charge.
Please give Reasonable Advance Request when Possible
2018 COMMON COUNCIL STANDING COMMITTEES (Rev. 01-3-18)
COMMUNITY INVESTMENT COMMITTEE
Oversees the various activities of the Department of Community Investment. This Committee reviews all
real and personal tax abatement requests and works closely with the Business Development Team.
Gavin Ferlic, Chairperson Oliver J. Davis, Member
Regina Williams-Preston, Vice-Chairperson Randy Kelly, Member
COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE
Oversees the various activities of the Engagement and Economic Empowerment, Neighborhood
Development, and Community Resources Teams within the City’s Department of CI and is charged with
facilitating partnerships and ongoing communications with other public and private entities operating within
the City.
Regina Williams-Preston, Chairperson Gavin Ferlic, Member
Randy Kelly, Vice-Chairperson Karen L. White, Member
COUNCIL RULES COMMITTEE
Oversees the regulations governing the overall operation of the Common Council, as well as all matters of
public trust. Its duties are set forth in detail in Section 2-10.1 of the South Bend Municipal Code.
Dr. David Varner, Chairperson Gavin Ferlic, Member
Tim Scott, Member Karen L. White, Member
HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
Oversees the various activities performed by the Fire and Police Departments, EMS, Department of Code
Enforcement, ordinance violations, and related health and public safety matters.
Jo M. Broden, Chairperson Oliver J. Davis, Member
John Voorde, Vice-Chairperson Karen L. White, Member
INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE- Innovation
Oversees the various activities of the City’s Department of Innovation, which includes the Divisions of
Information Technology and 311 so that the City of South Bend remains competitive and on the cutting edge
of developments in this area. Reviewing and proposing upgrades to computer systems and web sites,
developing availability and access to GIS data and related technologies are just some of its many activities.
Tim Scott, Chairperson Dr. David Varner, Member
Gavin Ferlic, Vice-Chairperson Randy Kelly, Member
PARC COMMITTEE- Venues Parks and Arts (Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts & Entertainment)
Oversees the various activities of the Century Center, College Football Hall of Fame, Four Winds Stadium,
Morris Performing Arts Center, Studebaker National Museum, South Bend Regional Museum of Art,
Potawatomi Zoo, My SB Trails, DTSB relations, and the many recreational and leisure activities offered by
the Department of Venues Parks and Arts.
Randy Kelly, Chairperson Oliver J. Davis, Member
Dr. David Varner, Vice-Chairperson John Voorde, Member
2018 COMMON COUNCIL STANDING COMMITTEES (Rev. 01-3-18)
PERSONNEL AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
Oversees the activities performed by the Department of Administration and Finance, and reviews all proposed
salaries, budgets, appropriations and other fiscal matters, as well as personnel policies, health benefits and
related matters.
Karen L. White, Chairperson Regina Williams-Preston, Member
Gavin Ferlic, Vice-Chairperson John Voorde, Member
PUBLIC WORKS AND PROPERTY VACATION COMMITTEE
Oversees the various activities performed by the Building Department, the Department of Public Works and
related public works and property vacation issues.
John Voorde, Chairperson Jo M. Broden, Member
Randy Kelly, Vice-Chairperson Gavin Ferlic, Member
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS COMMITTEE
Oversees the various activities and issues related to neighborhood development and enhancement.
Karen L. White, Chairperson Regina Williams-Preston, Member
Jo M. Broden, Vice-Chairperson John Voorde, Member
UTILITIES COMMITTEE
Oversees the activities of all enterprise entities including but not limited to the Bureau of Waterworks, Bureau
of Sewers and all related matters.
Dr. David Varner, Chairperson Randy Kelly, Member
Oliver J. Davis, Vice-Chairperson Regina Williams-Preston, Member
ZONING AND ANNEXATION COMMITTEE
Oversees the activities related to the Board of Zoning Appeals, recommendations from the Area Plan
Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission, as well as all related matters addressing annexation
and zoning.
Oliver J. Davis, Chairperson Gavin Ferlic, Member
John Voorde, Vice-Chairperson Jo M. Broden, Member
________________
SUB-COMMITTEE ON MINUTES
Reviews the minutes prepared by the Office of the City Clerk of the regular, special and informal meetings
of the Common Council and makes a recommendation on their approval/modification to the Council
Tim Scott
Dr. David Varner
2018 COMMON COUNCIL STANDING COMMITTEES (Rev.01-3-18)
TIM SCOTT, 1ST District Council Member
President
Information and Technology, Chairperson Council Rules Committee, Member
Sub-Committee on Minutes, Member
REGINA WILLIAMS-PRESTON 2nd District Council Member
Community Relations Committee, Chairperson Residential Neighborhood Committee, Member
Community Investment Committee, Vice-Chairperson Personnel & Finance Committee, Member
Utilities Committee, Member
RANDY KELLY, 3rd District Council Member
PARC Committee, Chairperson Community Investment Committee, Member
Community Relations Committee, Vice Chairperson Information & Technology Committee, Member
Public Works & Property Vacation, Vice Chair Utilities Committee, Member
JO M. BRODEN, 4TH District Council Member
Health and Public Safety Committee, Chairperson Public Works & Property Vacation, Member
Residential Neighborhood Committee, Vice-Chairperson Zoning & Annexation Committee, Member
DR. DAVID VARNER, 5TH District Council Member
Utilities Committee, Chairperson Information & Technology Committee, Member
Council Rules Committee, Chairperson Sub-Committee on Minutes, Member
PARC Committee, Vice-Chairperson
OLIVER J. DAVIS, 6TH District Council Member
Vice President
Zoning & Annexation Committee, Chairperson Community Investment Committee, Member
Utilities Committee, Vice-Chairperson Health & Public Safety Committee, Member
PARC Committee, Member
GAVIN FERLIC, AT LARGE Council Member
Chairperson, Committee of the Whole
Community Investment Committee, Chairperson Community Relations Committee, Member
Information & Technology Committee, Vice-Chairperson Public Works & Property Vacation, Member
Personnel & Finance Committee, Vice-Chairperson Zoning & Annexation Committee, Member
Council Rules Committee, Member
KAREN L. WHITE, AT LARGE Council Member
Residential Neighborhood Committee, Chairperson Community Relations Committee, Member
Personnel & Finance Committee, Chairperson Council Rules Committee, Member
Health & Public Safety Committee, Member
JOHN VOORDE, AT LARGE Council Member
Public Works & Property Vacation, Chairperson Residential Neighborhood Committee, Member
Health and Public Safety, Vice-Chairperson PARC Committee, Member
Zoning & Annexation Committee, Vice-Chairperson Personnel & Finance Committee, Member
BILL NO. 18-01
RESOLUTION NO. ___________________
A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA COMMEMORATING AND
CELEBRATING THE LIFE AND PUBLIC SERVICE OF BEVERLY D. CRONE
Whereas, after twenty years in bookkeeping and accounting, Beverly D. Crone first sought elective office
as a member of the South Bend Common Council in 1979; and
Whereas, Beverly was successful in her bid and was elected a Councilmember-at-Large and reelected in
1983; and
Whereas, Beverly chose to leave the Common Council after two terms to fill a vacancy in the St. Joseph
County Auditor’s office; and
Whereas, Beverly became the first woman to serve as the St. Joseph County Auditor, a position for which
she was elected for two terms and held for ten years; and
Whereas, Beverly chose to leave the St. Joseph County Auditor’s office to run for a position as a St. Joseph
County Commissioner; and
Whereas, Beverly was again successful in her bid and, along with Cindy Bodle, became the first woman to
serve as a St. Joseph County Commissioner; and
Whereas, Beverly served two terms as a County Commissioner, including a term as the first woman
President; and
Whereas, Beverly’s dedication to public service is demonstrated by the thirteen elections in which she ran,
all successfully; and
Whereas, Beverly received many awards during her lifetime including the Sagamore of the Wabash award
from the Governor of Indiana; the Women’s Fest Lifetime Achievement Award; the Ideal Baldoni
Distinguished Achievement Award; together with the keys to the Cities of South Bend and Mishawaka as well
as St. Joseph County; and
Whereas, the many physical manifestations of Beverly’s public service include the Beverly D. Crone Park;
the Thomas N. Frederick Juvenile Justice Center; the Mishawaka AM General Plant; the I/N Tek facility; the
restored 1855 St. Joseph County Courthouse; and
Whereas, Beverly’s legacy will continue not only through her good works in the local community, but also
through the lives of her children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and all others who love and admire her.
Now, Therefore, be it resolved, by the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, as follows:
Section I. The South Bend Common Council proudly commemorates and celebrates the life and
achievements of one of the community’s great citizens, Beverly D. Crone.
Section II. The Common Council offers Beverly’s family and friends its most sincere condolences on
Beverly’s recent passing on December 31, 2017 after a lifetime of public service.
Section III. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption by the Common
Council and approval by the Mayor.
__________________________________ __________________________________
Tim Scott, 1st District Council Member Oliver J. Davis, 6th District Council Member
__________________________________ _____________________________________
Regina Williams Preston., 2nd District John Voorde, At Large Council Member
__________________________________ _____________________________________
Randy Kelly, 3rd District Council Member Gavin Ferlic, At Large Council Member
__________________________________ _____________________________________
Jo Broden, 4th District Council Member Karen L. White, At Large Council Member
__________________________________ _____________________________________
Dr. David Varner, 5th District Robert J. Palmer, Council Attorney
Attest: Approved this __ day of ______________, 2018.
________________________ ______________________________________
Kareemah N. Fowler, City Clerk Pete Buttigieg, Mayor of South Bend, Indiana
OcpUTFI
P ACE
xx
1865
CITY OF SOUTH BEND
COMMUNITY INVESTMENT
October 10,2017
Tim Scott,President
South Bend Common Council
4th Floor,County-City Building
RE: Baney Annexation Area
Dear President Scott:
Bill Number 67-17 is a voluntary annexati6n proposing to annex contiguous territory to the City
of South Bend. Indiana Code requires that voluntary annexation ordinances be advertised 20
days before public hearing and adopted no earlier than 14 days after the public hearing. Fiscal
plans, required of all annexations,must be adopted after the public hearing of the annexation
ordinance.
I request that the following schedule be followed:
Public Hearing(Second Reading): December 11,2017
Hearing on
Fiscal Plan(by Resolution):December 11,2017
Adoption(Third Reading):January 8,2018
The gap in time from now until the Second Reading provides opportunity for the Board of Public
Works and the Board ofPublic Safety to hear the fiscal plan and for the Area Plan Commission to
hear the zoning proposal.
Ifyou have any questions,please feel free to contact meat 235-5843. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lj
rU' k
Michael P.Divita,AICP
Planner
cc:
Bob Palmer,Common Council
Larry Magliozzi,Area Plan Commission
Oliver Davis,Chair,Zoning&Annexation Committee
Kareemah Fowler,City Clerk
EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATIONI INCLUSIONEMPOWERMENT
14005 County-City Building 1 227 W.Jefferson Bvld.I South Bend,Indiana 46601 p574.235.9371 www.southbe ndin.gov
LAWRENCE P. MAGLIOZZI
C EXECUT I V E DIRE CTOR
Angela M. Smith
DeP,,Iy Director
AREA PLAN COMMISSION OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, IN
2 27 W. JLFF LR u\ BL VD., ROO M 11 40 C oUNTI-CI TI BUILDING UTH BL 1)14 6601 (
574) 23 5-9371
October 3, 2017
South Bend Common Council Filed inClerk's
Office
J
4'h Floor, County-CityBuilding I
South Bend, IN 46601 OCT 042017 j
KA E--`t -,H Fl,-jWLcR
RE: Rezoning for 24605 Cleveland Road, South Bend. W i CITY CLERK,S011Tt1 EE; 1, )!
APC#2845-17
Dear Council Members:
Enclosed is an Ordinance for the proposed Zone Map Amendment at the above referenced location.
Please include the attached Ordinance on the Council agenda for first reading at your October 9th,
2017 Council meeting,and set it for public hearing at your November 27th,2017.Council meeting.
The petition is tentatively scheduled for public hearing at the November 21st, 2017 Area Plan
Commission meeting. The recommendation of the Area Plan Commission will be forwarded to
your office by noon on the day following the public hearing.
If you have any questions,please feel free to contact our office.
Sincerely,
P-
David M Stanton, Jr.
Planner
CC: Bob Palmer
SERV ING ST. J O SEP H COUNTY, SOUTH BEND, LAKE V I L LE, NEW CARLISLE, N ORTH LIBERTY, OSCEOL A & ROSELA ND
W W W-S TJ O S E P H C O U N T Y I N D I A
N A.C O M I A R E A P L A N
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND,
INDIANA, ANNEXING TO AND BRINGING WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA, AND AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED IN GERMAN TOWNSHIP, CONTIGUOUS THEREWITH; COUNCILMANIC
DISTRICT NO. 1, FOR 24605 CLEVELAND ROAD, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT
PETITIONER SEEKING TO ANNEX AND REZONE PROPERTY FROM A:
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT IN UNICORPORATED ST. JOSEPH COUNTY TO LI
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND FOR
MANUFACTURING AND ASSEMBLY USES.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council of the City of
South Bend, Indiana as follows:
SECTION 1. That the following described real estate situated in St. Joseph County,
Indiana, being contiguous by more than one-eighth (1/8) of its aggregate external
boundaries with the present boundaries of the City of South Bend, Indiana, shall be and
hereby is annexed to and brought within the City of South Bend:
THE WEST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWESTQUARTER OF SECTION NINETEEN (19), TOWNSHIP THIRTY-EIGHT
38) NORTH, RANGE TWO (2) EAST, CONTAINING TEN (10)ACRES, MORE OR LESS,
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTH 40.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES,
OF THE WEST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 38 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST,
GERMANTOWNSHIP, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA, MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER(SW
1/4) OF SECTION 19; THENCE NORTH 89051'49" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 1/a) A DISTANCE OF 331.51 FEET THENCE NORTH
00024'05" WEST, 40.00 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CLEVELAND
ROAD, AND TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE
NORTH 89°51'49" WEST, BEING 40 FEET NORTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE
SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 19, A DISTANCE
OF 328.86 FEET, TO THEEAST LINE OF THERECORDED PLAT OF "WELLS
ELECTRONICS MINOR" AS KNOWN ANDRECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE
RECORDER OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY IN INSTRUMENT NUMBER 9540132; THENCE
NORTH 00 025'16" WEST,ALONG SAID EAST LINE AND ALSO ALONG THE EAST LINE
OF LOT 1 IN THE RECORDED PLAT OF "FAWN DEVELOPMENT MINOR
SUBDIVISION"AS KNOWN AND RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF
ST. JOSEPH COUNTY IN INSTRUMENT NUMBER 9749756, A DISTANCE OF 1276.63
FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 2 IN THE RECORDED PLAT OF "OLIVE ROAD
COMMERCE PARK AMERIPLEX MINOR SUBDIVISION"AS KNOWN AND RECORDED
IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY IN INSTRUMENT
NUMBER 0157246; THENCE NORTH 89°51'00" EAST,ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE AND
ALSO ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT AAA IN THE RECORDED PLAT OF "OLIVE
ROAD COMMERCE PARK-SECOND REPLAT", AS KNOWN AND RECORDED IN THE
OFFICE OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY IN INSTRUMENT NUMBER 0035547, A DISTANCE
OF 329.28 FEET, TO THE WEST LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND OWNED BY"31 NIMTZ
LAND, LLC" AND RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF ST. JOSEPH
COUNTY IN INSTRUMENT NUMBER 1704026, AND AS SHOWN ON INSTRUMENT
NUMBER 1611106-A RECORDED SURVEY; THENCE SOUTH 00°24'05" EAST,ALONG
SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1278.27 FEET TO THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT
OF BEGINNING.
ABOVE DESCRIPTION CONTAINING 9.65 ACRES OF LAND MORE OR LESS, AND IS
SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY OF
RECORD
SECTION II.
That the boundaries of the City of South Bend, Indiana, shall be and are
hereby declared to be extended so as to include the real estate of the above described
parcel as part of the City of South Bend, Indiana.
SECTION III. Ordinance No. 9495-04, as amended which ordinance is commonly
known as the Zoning Ordinance of the City of South Bend, Indiana, be and the same
hereby is amended in order that the zoning classification of the above described real
estate, with the exception of all adjacent right-of-ways, in the City of South Bend, St.
Joseph County, Indiana be and the same is hereby established as LI LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, provided, however, that the required established, and stated
procedures for review of such zoning classification by the Area Plan Commission have
been fully satisfied.
SECTION IV. This ordinance is and shall be subject to commitments as provided by
Chapter 21-09.02(d) Commitments, if applicable.
SECTION V. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days from and after its
passage
by the Common Council, approval
by the Mayor, and legal publication.
Member of the Common Council
Attest:
City Clerk
Presentedby me to the Mayor of
the
City of South Bend, Indiana on the
day of 2 at o'clock M.
City Clerk
Approved and signed
by me
on the
day of 2 at
o'clock
M.
Mayor, City of South Bend, Indiana
Filed in Clerk's Office
READING OCT 04 2017
PUBLIC HEARING
3 rd READING
NOT APPROVED
KA 3EEM,`,l1 FOWLER
CITY CLERK.SOUTH SEND,IN
REFERRED
PASSED
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONE MAP AMENDMENT
City ofSouth Bend,Indiana
1(we)the undersigned make application to the City of South Bend Common Council to amend the zoning
ordinance as herein requested.
1) The property sought to be rezoned is located at:
24605 Cleveland Road
South Bend,Indiana 46628
2) The property TaxKey Number(s)
is/are:
004-1011-018901
3) LegalDescription(s)
Please note,
if the public right-of-way adjacent
to the parcel
is not alreadyig), Cj,ty limit,the
legaldescription MUST include the right-of-way: THE WESTHALF OF THE EAST HA O HE.
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THESOUTTIIVEST QUARTER OF SECTION NINE,19), TOWNSHIP
THIRTY-EIGHT(38)NORTH,RANGE TWO(2)EAST, CONTAINING TEN(10)ACRES,MORE OR LESS,
EXCEPT THE SOUTH 40.00 FEETMEASURE AT RIGHTANGLES, OF THE WESTHALF OF THE EASTHALF
OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWESTQUARTER OFSECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 38 NORTH,
RANGE 2 EAST, IN ST.JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA. MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THESOUTHWEST QUARTER(SW114) OFSECTION 19;
THENCE NORTH 89051149"YVESTALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER(SW%)A
DISTANCE OF38622 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°24'05" WEST. 40.00 FEET TO THE NORTHRIGHT OF
TVAY LINE OF CLEVELAND ROAD,AND TO THEPOINT OFBEGINNING OF THISDESCRIPTION.- THENCE
NORTH 89051'49"WEST, BEING 40 FEETNORTH OFAND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHLINE OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 19, A DISTANCE OF328.86FEET, TO THE EASTLINE OF THE
RECORDED PLAT OF "WELLS ELECTRONICS MINOR-AS KNOWN AND RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF
TIIE RECORDER OF ST.JOSEPH COUNTY ININSTRUMENT NUMBER 9540132; THENCE NORTH
00°25'16" WEST,ALONG SAID EASTLINE AND ALSO ALONG THE EASTLINE OF LOT I IN THE
RECORDED PLAT OF "FAWN DEVELOPMENT MINOR SUBDIVISION"AS KNOWNAND RECORDED IN
THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY IN INSTRUMENTNUMBER 9749756 A
DISTANCE OF 1276.63 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 21N THE RECORDED PLAT OF "OLIVE ROAD
COMMERCE PARKAMERIPLEX MINOR SUBDIVISION"AS KNOWNAND RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF
THE RECORDER OF ST.JOSEPH COUNTY IN INSTR UMENTNUMBER 0157246; THENCE NORTH
89051'00"EAST,ALONG SAID SOUTHLINE AND ALSO ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT AAA IN THE
RECORDED PLAT OF - OLIVE ROAD COMMERCE PARK-SECOND REPLAT, AS KNOWN AND RECORDED
IN THE OFFICE OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY ININSTRUMENT NUMBER 0035547, A DISTANCE OF 329.28
FEET, TO THE WESTLINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND OWNED BY-31 NIMTZ LAND LLC"AND RECORDED
IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF ST.JOSEPH COUNTY ININSTRUMENT NUMBER 1704026,AND
AS SHOWN ONINSTRUMENT NUMBER 1611106-A RECORDED SUR VEY; THENCE SOUTH 00°24'05"
EAST, ALONG SAID WEST LINE,.A DISTANCE OF 1278.27 FEET TO THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT OF
BEGINNING.
ABOVE DESCRIPTION CONTAINING 9.65 ACRES OF LAND MORE OR LESS,AND IS SUBJECT TO ALL
EASEMENTS,RESTRICTIONS AND PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY OF RECORD
for annexation
4) Total Site Area(excluding right-of-way): 9.65 Acres
rFiled in Clerk's l..tliiCC
5) Name and address ofproperty owner(s)of the petition site:
The Estate ofNorma J. Baney OCT 42 7Attn:Anthony Bely, Personal Representativefor the Estate
3621 Cooper Court
South Bend,Indiana 46614 KARE-El l alrl FOWLER
574-276-2912 CITYCLERK,SOl!THI E-ND;!NI
Name and address ofadditional property owners,ifapplicable:
6) Name and address of contingent purchaser(s),if applicable.
31 Ninit_Land,LLC
227 S.Main Street, Suite 300 q
South Bend,Indiana 46601 CU u 9u574-217-4498 17
ppltair@holladgvproperties.con
Z$'
5-17Name and address ofadditional property owners,if applicable:
7) It is desired and requested that this property be rezoned:
From: A: AgriculturalDistrict(County)Additional Districts, if applicable Not Applicable
To: LI Light Industrial District
8) This rezoning is requested to allow
the
following use(s): Manu/acturing,
Assembly, Distribution& Warehousing
and other uses generally allowable within the Light Industrial ordinance
IF VARIANCE(S)ARE BEING REQUESTED(ifnot,please skip to next section):
1)Not Applicable
2) A statement on how each ofthe following standards for the granting of variances is met:
a) The approval will not be injurious to the public health,safety,morals and general welfare of the
community:
b) The use and value ofthe area adjacent to the property-included in the variance will not be affected in a
substantially adverse manner;and:
c) The strict application of the terms ofthis Ordinance would result in practical difficulties in the use of the
property:
IF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE IS BEING REQUESTED,(ifnot,please skip to next section):
1) A detailed description and purpose of the Special Exception Use(s)being requested: Not Applicable
2) A statement on how each ofthe following standards for the granting of a Special Exception Use is met:
a) The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health,safety,comfort,community moral standards,
convenience or general welfare:
b) The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use ofthe adjacent area or property values
therein:
c) The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located and the land
uses authorized therein;and:
d) Theproposed use is compatible with the recommendations ofthe City of South Bend Comprehensive
Plan.
In the case ofa Special Exception Use,the petitioner shall be held to the representations made on the Preliminary
Site Plan included with this petition.
CONTACT PERSON:
Paul Phair
117S.Main Street, Suite 300 0 2017
South Bend,Indiana 46601
574-217-4498
pphaii @hollaclayproperties.eorne
BY SIGNING THIS PETITION,THE PETITIONERS/PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE ABOVE-
DESCRIBED REAL ESTATE AUTHORIZE THAT THE CONTACT PERSON LISTED ABOVE MAY
REPRESENT THIS PETITION BEFORE THE AREA PLAN COMMISSION AND COMMON COUNCIL
AND TO ANSWER ANY AND ALL QUESTIONS THEREON.
Signature(s)of all property owner(s):
7 Z- /,a tia L L IL
1-`--
n1-
L- ---------
ES IC t1Q U•t /
VorM .. nC'
A ttia•t 13e(•a SOtMai
T1en_rPS2.f`o.'
ems
i
I
T
Department of
d
0 1
Community Investment
Memorandum
Monday,October 9,2017
TO: Mike Bronstetter, Environmental Services (Solid Waste)
Aladean DeRose, Legal
Ed Herman,Water Works
Kara Boyles, Engineering
Larry Magliozzi,Area Plan Commission
Jennifer Hockenhull,Administration & Finance
Federico Rodriguez, Fire
Captain Christopher Voros, Police
Randy Wilkerson and Tracy Skibins, Code Enforcement
FROM: Michael Divita, Planner
SUBJECT: Request for Service Reports
Baney Annexation Area
100%Voluntary Annexation of Contiguous Property)
A petition for voluntary annexation of the Baney Annexation Area has been received by the City and
will receive First Reading by the Common Council today, October 9, 2017.
The proposed Annexation Area consists of one parcel (24605 Cleveland Road)of about 9.65 acres
and is located on Cleveland Road west of the St.Joseph Valley Parkway. The area currently contains
a vacant single-family house on a wooded lot and is zoned agricultural in the County. With the
annexation,the petitioner seeks rezoning to "LI" Light Industrial District to permit manufacturing,
assembly, or warehousing uses.
Please complete the Service Report addressing how your Department will or can provide City
services to the proposed Annexation Area, and return it to me by October 23, 2017. This deadline
must be met so that the Legal Department can prepare the necessary resolutions in time to be
considered by the Board of Public Works and the Board of Public Safety. A fact sheet, map,and an
annexation schedule are attached to assist you in your review.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 235-5843 or mdivita @southbendin.gov.
cc:
Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Laura O'Sullivan, Chief of Staff, Office of the Mayor
Members,South Bend Common Council
Bob Palmer,Attorney for the Common Council
James Mueller, Executive Director, Community Investment
Tim Corcoran, Director of Planning, Community Investment
Kareemah Fowler, City Clerk
Alkeyna Aldridge, Deputy City Clerk
I
John McNamara, County Surveyor
227 W.JEFFERSON BLVD.SOUTH BE ND, IN 466011 P: 574-235-93711 FAX: 574-235-90211 SOUTHBENDIN.GOV
SERVICE REPORT CHECK LIST
Department of Law: 1) legal concerns, if any (if none, no report is required)
Public Works: 1)
location, size, and capacity of sewer line(s)
2)
listing of properties connected to sewer line(s)
3) any public improvements required or suggested, such as street
signs, street lighting, pavement upgrade, storm drainage
4)
cost, timing, and source of funds for providing those
improvements (within 1 year for non-capital items and 3 years
for capital items)
5)
a listing of properties covered by waivers
Water Works: 1)
location, size, and capacity of water line
2)
listing of properties connected to water line(s)
3)
cost, timing, and source of funds for providing those
improvements (within 1 year for non-capital items and 3 years
for capital items)
Police Department: 1) Police Beat to be assigned
2)
cost, timing, and source of funds of providing any improvements
3) whether comparable response time can be maintained
Fire Department:1)
primary and secondary fire stations to be assigned
2)
cost, timing, and source of funds of providing any improvements
3) whether comparable response time can be maintained
Code Enforcement: 1) Code Enforcement Area to be assigned
2) whether comparable response time can be maintained
Area Plan: 1) current zoning of property
2) anticipated/required zoning
3) compatibility of land uses relative to city zoning
4)
copies of recorded subdivision plats, if any
Admin/Finance: 1) (
no report necessary for this annexation)
Environmental 1) capacity to provide solid waste service
Services: 2) cost to owner of service
3) when service can begin
County Surveyor:1) verify accuracy of legal description
INITIAL REVIEW FACT SHEET100% VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION
Baney Annexation AreaGerman Township Prepared October 2017
A. Annexation Criteria (Minimum)Analysis Criteria Met?
1. Contiguity: Atleast 1/8 (12.5%) 100% Yes
and
2. 100% of owners signed petition
100% Yes
and
3. a. essential
City services are/can be provided
Yes
b. City is able to provide services
Yes
c.
territory is contiguous
Yes
B. General
Location: Cleveland Road, between St. Joseph Valley Parkway and Olive
Road
Address(es):
24605 Cleveland Road
Tax Key Number(s):
04-1011-018901
Subdivision(s) of
Record: None
Acres: 9.65
CurrentNet Assessment: $25,300
CurrentPopulation: 0
Proposed Population: 0
Current Land Use: Single-Family Residential, Wooded
Proposed Land Use: Light Industrial
CurrentZoning: A" Agricultural District, St. Joseph County
Proposed Zoning: LI" Light Industrial District, City of South Bend
CouncilDistrict: 1St Council District
Scheduled Effective Date: February 11, 2018
Comments: The proposed Annexation Area does not include any rights-of-
way; the adjacent portion of Cleveland Road is already within
the city limits.
Map
Baney Annexation Area
T
O
1-80
1-80 L
Q
I-80
On
O
r
I
T
J G r
ti om
Wolf
1 L
CL
U)
0
Vorde o
Td
il
L
a d
N
j \
0
N
CLd 0v
N
N 00
O0
71S L
rGeveland
T
R
NORTH L
CLmNO
rN
0 250 500 1,000
Q City of South Bend =
Baney Annexation Area
Fe et
Prepared by
City o f South Bend Department of
Community Investment September 21.2017
Legal Description
The West Half of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section
Nineteen (19), Township Thirty-Eight (38) North, Range Two (2) East, containing ten (10)
acres, more or less, excepting therefrom the south 40.00 feet measured at right angles, of
the West Half of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section
19, Township 38 North, Range 2 East, German Township, St.Joseph County, Indiana, more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast Corner of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/a) of Section 19;
thence North 89°51'49" West along said South Line of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/a) a
distance of 331.51 feet; thence North 00'24'05" West, 40.00 feet to the North Right of
Way Line of Cleveland Road, and to the point of beginning of this description; thence
North 89°51'49" West, being 40 feet North of and parallel with the South Line of the
Southwest Quarter of said Section 19, a distance of 328.86 feet, to the East Line of the
recorded plat of"Wells Electronics Minor" as known and recorded in the Office of the
Recorder of St.Joseph County in Instrument Number 9540132; thence North
00°25'16" West, along said East Line and also along the East Line of Lot 1 in the recorded
plat of"Fawn Development Minor Subdivision" as known and recorded in the Office of the
Recorder of St. Joseph County in Instrument Number 9749756, a distance of 1276.63 feet
to the South Line of Lot 2 in the recorded plat of"Olive Road Commerce Park Ameriplex
Minor Subdivision" as known and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of St.Joseph County
in Instrument Number 0157246; thence North 89°51'00" East, along said South Line and
also along the South Line of Lot AAA in the recorded plat of"Olive Road Commerce Park-
Second Replat", as known and recorded in the Office of St.Joseph County in Instrument
Number 0035547, a distance of 329.28 feet, to the West Line of a parcel of land owned by
31 Nimtz Land, LLC" and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of St.Joseph County in
Instrument Number 1704026, and as shown on Instrument Number 1611106 -A Recorded
Survey;thence South 00°24'05" East, along said West Line, a distance of 1278.27 feet to
the aforementioned point of beginning.
Above description containing 9.65 acres of land more or less, and is subject to all
easements, restricitons, and public rights of way ofrecord.
Proposed Schedule for Baney Annexation Area
File Date 10/2/17
Council 1stReading 10/9/17
Fiscal
Plan Service Request
Sent 10/9/17
Fiscal Plan Service Request Due 10/23/17
Fiscal Plan Done 11/6/17
Board of Public Works Agenda Session 11/9/17
Board of Public Works Hearing 11/14/17
Board of PublicSafety 11/15/17
Council Advertisement 11/17/17
Area Plan Commission PublicHearing 11/21/17
Fiscal Plan Resolution to Clerk 12/6/17
Council 2ndReading 12/11/17
Council 3rdReading 1/8/18
Ordinance Advertised 1/12/18
Appeal Period Start 1/12/18
Appeal Period
End 2/11/18
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONE MAP AMENDMENT
City ofSouth Bend, Indiana
I(we)the undersigned make application to the City of South Bend Common Council to amend the zoning
ordinance as herein requested.
Office
1) The property sought to be rezoned is located at:
24605 Cleveland Road OCT 02 2017South Bend, Indiana 46628
2) The property Tax Key Number(s) is/are:
004-1011-018901 CITY CLERK,SOUTH BEAD, IN
3) Legal Description(s)Please note,ifthe public right-of-way adjacent to the parcel is not already within City limit,
the
legal description MUSTinclude the right-of-way: THE WEST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTIONNINETEEN(19), TOWNSHIP
THIRTY-EIGHT(38)NORTH, RANGE TWO(2)EAST, CONTAINING TEN(10)ACRES, MORE OR LESS,
EXCEPT THE SOUTH 40.00 FEET MEASUREATRIGHT ANGLES, OF THE WEST HALF OF THEEASTHALF
OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 38 NORTH,
RANGE 2 EAST, IN ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA. MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ASFOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER(SW 114) OF SECTION 19;
THENCE NORTH 89°51'49" WEST ALONG SAIDSOUTHLINE OF THE SOUTHWESTQUARTER (SW'/)A
DISTANCE OF386.22 FEEI,- THENCENORTH 00 024'05" WEST, 40.00 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT OF
WAY LINE OF CLEVELAND ROAD, AND TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THISDESCRIPTION THENCE
NORTH 89°51'49" WEST, BEING 40 FEETNORTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHLINE OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 19, A DISTANCE OF 328.86 FEET, TO THE EAST LINE OF THE
RECORDED PLAT OF "WELLS ELECTRONICS MINOR"AS KNOWNAND RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF
THE RECORDER OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTYININSTRUMENTNUMBER 9540132; THENCE NORTH
00°25'16" WEST, ALONG SAID EASTLINE AND ALSO ALONG THE EAST LINE OF LOT I IN THE
RECORDED PLAT OF "FAWN DEVELOPMENT MINOR SUBDIVISION"AS KNOWNAND RECORDED IN
THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY ININSTRUMENTNUMBER 9749756 A
DISTANCE OF 1276.63 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 2 IN THE RECORDED PLAT OF "OLIVE ROAD
COMMERCE PARKAMERIPLEX MINOR SUBDIVISION"AS KNOWN AND RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF
THE RECORDER OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY IN INSTRUMENT NUMBER 0157246; THENCE NORTH
89051'00"EAST,ALONG SAID SOUTHLINE AND ALSO ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF LOTAAA IN THE
RECORDED PLAT OF " OLIVE ROAD COMMERCE PARK-SECOND REPEAT, AS KNOWNAND RECORDED
IN THE OFFICE OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY ININSTR UMENTNUMBER 0035547, A DISTANCE OF 329.28
FEET, TO THE WEST LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND OWNED BY "31 NIMTZ LAND LLC"AND RECORDED
IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY ININSTRUMENT NUMBER 1704026,AND
AS SHOWN ONINSTRUMENT NUMBER 1611106-A RECORDED SURVEY; THENCE SOUTH 00°24'05"
EAST, ALONG SAID WESTLINE, A DISTANCE OF 1278.27 FEET TO THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT OF
BEGINNING.
ABOVE DESCRIPTION CONTAINING 9.65 ACRES OF LAND MORE OR LESS, AND IS SUBJECT TO ALL
EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONSAND PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY OF RECORD
for annexation
4) Total Site Area(excluding right-of-way): 9.65 Acres
5) Name and address of property owner(s)ofthe petition site:
The Estate ofNorma J. Baney
Attn:Anthony Bely, Personal Representativefor the Estate
3621 Cooper Court
South Bend, Indiana 46614
574-276-2912
Name and address of additional property owners,if applicable:
6) Name and address of contingent purchaser(s),if applicable:
31 Nimtz Land, LLC
227 S. Main Street, Suite 300
South Bend,Indiana 46601
574-217-4498
pphair@holladayproperties.com
Name and address of additional property owners,if applicable:
7) It is desired and requested that this property be rezoned:
From: A: Agricultural District(County) Additional Districts, if applicable Not Applicable
To: LI Light Industrial District
8 This rezoning is requested to allow the following use(s Manufacturing, Assembly, Distribution & Warehousing
and other uses generally allowable within the Light Industrial ordinance
IF VARIANCE(S)ARE BEING REQUESTED(ifnot,please skip to next section):
1)Not Applicable
2) A statement on how each of the following standards for the granting ofvariances is met:
a) The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare ofthe
community:
b) The use and value ofthe area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a
substantially adverse manner; and:
c) The strict application of the terms ofthis Ordinance would result in practical difficulties in the use of the
property:
IF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE IS BEING REQUESTED, (ifnot,please skip to next section):
1) A detailed description and purpose ofthe Special Exception Use(s)being requested: Not Applicable
2) A statement on how each of the following standards for the granting of a Special Exception Use is met:
a) The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health,safety,comfort, community moral standards,
convenience or general welfare:
b) The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use ofthe adjacent area or property values
therein:
c) The proposed use will be consistent with the character ofthe district in which it is located and the land
uses authorized therein; and:
d) The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations ofthe City of South Bend Comprehensive
Plan.
In the case ofa Special Exception Use,the petitioner shall be held to the representations made on the Preliminary
Site Plan included with this petition.
CONTACT PERSON:
Paul Phair
227 S.Main Street, Suite 300
South Bend,Indiana 46601
574-217-4498
pphair@holladayproperties.com
BY SIGNING THIS PETITION,THE PETITIONERS/PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE ABOVE-
DESCRIBED REAL ESTATE AUTHORIZE THAT THE CONTACT PERSON LISTED ABOVE MAY
REPRESENT THIS PETITION BEFORE THE AREA PLAN COMMISSION AND COMMON COUNCIL
AND TO ANSWER ANY AND ALL QUESTIONS THEREON.
Signature(s)of all property owner(s):
311 da
1'S aC 6k oi%
yCi `S 13An/
A-nftiany Qel, Peso na/ ,>rp,n fu:y
Uanch, f/arn r Associates, Inc.
Land Surveyors Professional Engineers
Landscape Architects Land Planners
Office: (574)234-4003 / (800)594-4003 Fax: (574)234-4009
1643 Commerce Drive .
South Bend, IN 46628
File in Clerk's Office
Board of Public Works October 2, 2017
City of South Bend QCj 22017IP Floor County-City Building
South Bend, Indiana 46601 KAREEMA i5RLER
CITY CLERK,SOLI TH SEND,IN
RE: Street Vacation — Eddy Street from Corby Street south 180 feet +/, Corby
Street from Eddy Street west 90 feet+/-, Corby Street from Eddy Street east 230
feet +/-, the First East/West Alley between Howard Street on the west and the
First North/South Alley east of South Bend Avenue, South Bend, Indiana
Dear Board Members:
On behalf of our clients, we are requesting the approval of the Vacation for all the Public
Streets and Alleys known as Street Vacation —
Eddy Street from Corby Street south 180 feet
Corby Street from Eddy Street west 90
feet +/-, Corby Street from Eddy Street east 230 feet+/-,
the First East/West Alley between Howard Street on the west and the First North/South Alley
east of South Bend Avenue, South Bend, Indiana.
The reason for this request is to allow for the future development of property adjacent to the
the proposed vacated streets and alleys.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to give me a call at 234-
4003.
Sincerely,
ichael J. D
President
Danch, Hamer&Associates
File No. 170160
Cc: South Bend Common Council
PETITION TO VACATE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY
STREETS/ALLEYS)
To the Common
Council Date: 9-12-17
of the City of South Bend, Indiana
We, the undersigned property owner(s), petition you to vacate:
1). Street Vacation—Eddy Street from Corby Street running south 180 feet more or less.
2). Street Vacation—
Corby Street from Eddy Street running west 90 feet more or less.
3). Street Vacation—
Corby Street from Eddy Street running east 230 feet more or less.
4). Alley Vacation—The First East/West Alley between Howard Street on the west and
running east 140 feet more or less to the First North/South Alley east of South Bend
Avenue.
Tax Key Numbers owned by the Petitioners:
18-5030-1085.05 18-5030-1085 18-5087-3082.01 18-5030-1085.01 18-5094-3311
18-5094-3318 18-5094-331918-5094-3326 18-5094-3327 18-5094-3328
18-5094-3325 18-5094-3324 18-5094-3323 18-5094-3322 18-5087-3085
18-5087-3086 18-5087-3087 18-5087-3088 18-5087-3088 18-5087-3089
18-5087-3090 18-5087-3090 18-5087-3091 18-5087-3092 18-50873093
NAME (signed&printed) &ADDRESS
or- Five Corners L C
814 Marietta Street
South Bend, Indiana 46601
Office of the
City Clerk CONTACT PERSON NAME:
Kareemah Fowler, City Clerk Michael J. Danch
Room 455-County-City Building Danch, Harper& Associates, Inc.
South Bend, IN 46601 1643 Commerce Drive
574-235-9221 South Bend, Indiana 46628
e-mail: mdanch@danchhamer.com
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTIES:
Street Vacation—
Eddy Street from Corby Street south 180 feet +/,
Corby Street from Eddy Street west 90
feet +/-, Corby Street from
Eddy Street east 230 feet +/-,
the First East/West Alley between
Howard Street on the west and the First North/South Alley east of
South Bend Avenue, South Bend, Indiana
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT
Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 36-7-3-12, the Common Council is charged with the
authority to hear all petitions to vacate public ways or public places within the City.
The following Ordinance vacates the above described public property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, as follows:
SECTION 1.
The Common Council of the City of South Bend having held a Public
Hearing on the petition to vacate the following properties:
1). Street Vacation—
Eddy Street from Corby Street running south 180 feet more or less.
2). Street Vacation—
Corby Street from Eddy Street running west 90 feet more or less.
3). Street Vacation—
Corby Street from Eddy Street running east 230 feet more or less.
4). Alley Vacation—
The First East/West Alley between Howard Street on the west and
running east 140 feet more or less to the First North/South Alley east of South Bend
Avenue.
hereby determines that it is desirable to vacate said properties.
SECTION 11. The City of South Bend hereby reserves the rights and easements of all
utilities and the Municipal City of South Bend, Indiana, to construct and maintain any facilities,
including, but not
limited to, the
following: electric, telephone, gas, water, sewer, surface water
control structures and ditches, within the vacated right-of-way, unless such rights are released by
the individual utilities.
2
SECTION III.
The following property Tax Key Numbers may be injuriously or
beneficially affected by such vacating:
18-5030-1085.05 18-5030-1085 18-5030-1085.02 18-5030-1085.03 18-5030-1086
18-5030-108601 18-5030-108606 18-5030-108602 18-5030-108603 18-5030-108607
18-5030-1085.01 18-5030-108604 18-5030-108605 18-5106-3747 18-5106-3745
18-5106-3738 18-5098-3483 18-5094-3311 18-5087-3096 18-5087-3095
18-5087-3094 18-5087-3093 18-5087-3092 18-5087-3091 18-5087-3090
18-5087-3089 18-5087-3088 18-5087-3087 18-5087-3086 18-5087-3085
18-5094-3326 18-5094-3319 18-5094-3327 18-5092-3257 18-5092-3258
18-5092-3261 18-5092-3262
18-5092-3263 18-5092-3260 18-5092-3259
18-5094-3329 18-5094-3328 18-5094-3325 18-5094-3324 18-5094-3323
18-5094-3322 18-5087-3082.01 18-5087-3097
SECTION IV. The purpose of the vacation of the real properties is to vacate that portion
ofall the Public Alleys and Streets in the described area to allow for the development of some of
the adjacent property.
SECTION V. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage
by the Common Council and approval by the Mayor.
Member of the Common Council
Attest:
City Clerk
Presented by me to the Mayor ofthe City of South Bend, Indiana on the
day of 2017, at o'clock M.
City Clerk
Approved and signed
by me on
the
day of 2017, at
o'clock M.
Mayor, City of South Bend, Indiana
Filed in Clerk's Office
1 st Rt.
OCT 02 2017
PUBLIC F;t ;.KARELEMIAH FOWLER
3 rd
READING CITY CLERK,SOUTH BEND, Inl
NOT APPROVP
REFERRED
PASSED
Filed in Clerk's Office
t+iu U J u-0
It -50
018-
35
018-5094-3326
018-5Q98-3483018 5094 `319
018`5094'3318
Y
018-5094 tri 3=5t're 3}
018` 09 018-5092-3266,,
018`5G 9 -
33 018-5092-3263
018-509
X018-509.4',-3323 018-5092-367
018-509`4`332.2
E
Corby
05Llk- 308201 SOU, B.NC
018-5087-3090 Q18-5Q -3096 018-5092-3235 01
018-5087-3086j
x018- 085
T_ ---
a
618-5087-3007018- '
7-310Q 018-5087-3105 018-5087-3108 018-5092-3247 01
0181508 309$
a a yet
v
4- l N
City of South Bend
Dept. of Public Works
Alley Vacation 150' Radius Map 1 of 3
227 W Jefferson Blvd. #1316
South Bend, IN 46601
Danch, Harner & Associates, Inc.
Phone: (574) 235-9251 The alley to be vacated is the EW area S of Corby,
0 150' Buffer 78' to N bounds of lots 1-6 and 321, running E 244'
Address List attachedfrom E RoW of N. Eddy St. on S edge, and running
Date Prepared: 9/8/2017
E 185' from E RoW of N. Eddy on N edge.
Filed in Clerk's Office
OCT 02 2017
I' VLV J,J,J JL
N Ol.
47701
F
018-5098-347$
018-5099-3518
X018-95':3331 018-50 3538
018-5099-3517
0 81 : r
018 S098-3482
018-5098 3485 i
P
t
Q 018-5092 335 018 504
018-50°4-3327
5094-3326
l
3 018-5494-331.9
018-509'4-33
SOUT BE JD
018=5044'3313 ., i 018- 3324
018 5094 3328
018-5092-3259
yam. 018 093 3263018-5094-3329
1
f 018-5094-3323
Q
qj ,
018-5094-3324
YN; r
018 509 32
9
1
018-5094-3325
1
4; Y r.
o by Boulevard
201
018-5087-3088 018-5087-3090 018-5087-3094 018 5087-309b ui8'S092-3 3
0
5-3086
City of South Bend
Dept. of Public
WorksAlley Vacation 150' Radius Map 2 of 3
227 WJefferson Blvd. #1316
South Bend, IN 46601
Danch, Harner 8 Associates, Inc.
Phone: (574)
235-9251 The alley to be vacated is 12' in width, and is the
0 150' Buffer EW area N of Corby, from E RoW of intersection of
Address List attachedSR23/Corby/Howard Sts, running E 169' to W RoW
Date Prepared: 9/8/2017
of NS alley.
Y
ulv-Jv7a-J II
0 18-5D98-3485
t Filed in Clerk's Office
OCT 02 2011
q n KNREEPdAHFOWLER
ITY CLERK,SOUTH BEND.IN
01$-5098-3483` 018-5
01809
094-3 313 0187
51 -3'r 47
018-5094-3311x.
018-509.4;-3323'X509'4`-3322
y
r
5`
6`
77--'
7te r
4 018-5 7-308201
018=5030 ; 08505 f'
r
018-5087-3090
8-5 30-108502- y
T18-50 7-3086
01830=1085 1 018-,508 -3085
OUT B-END
UO8
8-50 0-10$601
0 5' 030'108605
018-5087 3097 8-5087-3100
1 018f 50 -308
1
r
Campeau tree N
City of South Bend
k,_ Dept. of Public WorksAlley Vacation 150' Radius Map 3 of 3
227 WJefferson Blvd. #1316
South Bend, IN 46601
Danch, Horner 8 Associates, Inc.
Phone: (574) 235-9251 The area to be vacated is a parcel running N from NE
0 150' Buffer
corner of Lot 5 180', circling E bounds of cul de sac to
Address List attached
SW corner of Lot 1 running 71 ' E to SE corner of Lot 1,
Date Prepared: 9/8/2017
then S approx. 202' excluding irregular parcel .073 ac.
r.c
r
i
AXI
Uanch, i-/arn r Sz associates, Inc.
Land Surveyors Professional Engineers
j Landscape Architects r
Land Planners
Office: (574)
234-4003 / (800)594-4003 Fax: (574)234-4009
j 1643 Commerce Drive • South Bend, IN 46628
I
I
iHonorable Members of the
City of November 8, 2017
South Bend Common Council
4"'Floor County-City Building
South Bend, Indiana 46601
I
RE: Council Bill No. 69-17: Street Vacation —
Eddy Street from Corby Street
south 180 feet +/, Corby Street from Eddy Street west 90 feet +/-, Corby Street
fromEddy Street east 230 feet +/-, the First East/West Alley between Howard
Street on the west and the First North/South Alley east of South Bend Avenue,
South Bend, Indiana
i
Dear Council Members:
On behalf of our clients, we are requesting a tabling of Council Bill No. 69-17 until the
January 81h , 2018 meeting ofthe Common Council. The Vacation Petition is described as: Street
Vacation—Eddy Street from Corby Street south 180 feet+/,
Corby Street fi-om Eddy Street west
I 90 feet +/-, Corby Street from Eddy Street east 230 feet +/-,
the First East/West Alley between
Howard Street on the west and the First North/South Alley east of South Bend Avenue, South
Bend,Indiana.
The reason for this request is to allow for time for the City Board of Public Works and other
agencies to review the Vacation request and provide Council with a report for said Vacation.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to give me a call at 234-
4003.
Sincerely,
Rlehd 67 AYe4
Michael J. Danch
President
Danch, Harper&Associates
File No. 170160
Cc: Board of Public Works City of South Bend
Area Plan Commission
1i18 5 9843 85
A e
X 76 140.!
13 018'S83
a 313
0 8 47
l 0 51 ' -3311.
n110
1 5( ,4, 3323
101 -5
018- 'l-3 0g2 1,
K.5,Ci30-
50 2
4 (
01850 7-30$
1085018'50871 3 85
U08
t
110 -503
1- -
3100$-50u01M( 57 3 018,
3
b L
Ca Pe re e-
o,llrf
City of South Bend
4n Sept.of Public Works
Alley Vacation 150' Radius Map 3 of 3
227 W Jefferson Blvd.#1316 anch, Warner & Associates, Inc.
South Bend,IN 46601
Phone: (
574) 235-9251 The area to be vacated is a parcel running N from NE
corner of Lot 5 180',
circling E bounds of cul de sac to
150' Buffer SW corner of Lot 1 running 71 ' E to SE corner of Lot 1,Address List attached
Date Prepared: 9/8/2017
then
S approx. 202' excluding irregular parcel .073 ac.
U 10
JO-IF _
r
c4.
ski,, `'Y
r•,
yr
a
01$-509:
a
1 - 3Q5092-
Vi018'5094 3320
r
1$-5098-3483' y ' Q18"50;4 .3319
t0.8.-5a,r 4`3318-
U18-SC1 2-32yt018 5094' 3 ,
a
10018-5092-3263 01
a k 1.509„4.33'
3311
r '.' '
018-5092-3
R18-509 =
3'323,x=
a1$ 5094°3322
z
S.UT B=NCI
f
a18-50 -308201'
085051T- 'T K- ..
90 018-5?8 30°(018-50.92=3235 01
rt
01s-5087-3086
3 $
F - —
RUN
5x87-3; 0 018-508 - r= 018-5092-32 01
31050 5 8i31 8
018-_,10157873 a eD
Ulu]
E
rJ9
ya1I1
i:
L
City of South Bend
Dept. of Public Works
Alley Vacation 150' Radius Map 1 of 3
r 227 W Jefferson Blvd. #1316 Danch, Harner & Associates, Inc.
South Bend, IN 46601 The alley to be vacated is the EW area S of Corby,Phone: (574) 235-9251 78' to N bounds of lots 1-6 and 321, running E 244'
150' Buffer from E RoW of N. Eddy St. on S edge, and running
Address List attached E 185' from E RoW of N. Eddy on N edge.
Date Prepared: 91812017
I
l
018-509.9-3518/ e `
018;5095-3338
47701 018-5098-3478
018-5095 3331 . _ yJ
5098-3481Y• Q,
t" ',r,=" . b z
X19'
r
r
f',, 018.5094;3327
4 .r
018;`5094 3326'.
3 018=5094 3319
018-5094
33s
SOUT BE jID
018=509 !3313
t
018-5094°-3328
018-5092-3259
018 5094-3329 O18 092 3263
3323
i
qj r
18 509 22
YQ
a ,
016-5094 3325,#
V.
44 ' r'3 n' Corby Bouievard:
2015 j 018 5087 3088 18-5087-3090 018 5087 3094" 018,5087,396011 U
2018°rr 5087
City of South Bend
o lqgg, Dept. of Public Works
Alley Vacation 150' Radius Map 2 of 3
227 W Jefferson Blvd. #1316
South Bend,IN 46601
anch, HaCi'leY $ Associates, Inc.
Phone:
Bend, N 46601 The alley to be vacated is 12' in width, and is the
150' Buffer
EW area N of Corby, from E RoW of intersection of
SR23/Corby/Howard Sts, running E 169' to W RoW
Address List attached of NS alley.
Date Prepared: 9/8/2017
5OUT1i 8
1316 COUNTY-CITY BUILDING v;` ,,, , G PHONE 574/235-9251
r ce:227 W.JEFFERSON BOULEVARD FAX 574/235-9171
SOUTH BEND.INDIANA 46601-1830
a x
w
1865
CITY OF SOUTH BEND PETE BUTTIGIEG,MAYOR
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS
November 28,2017
Mike Danch
Danch,Harner&Associates
1643 Commerce Drive
South Bend,IN 46628
RE: Preliminary Review of Alley/Street Vacations
a)
Corby Blvd.East ofEddy St.,West ofArthur St.
b) Corby Blvd.West ofEddy St.,South ofSouth Bend Ave.
c)
Eddy St.South of Corby Blvd.,West of SR 23,North of Campeau St.
d) First North/South Alley East of South Bend Ave.,North of Corby Blvd.
Dear Mr.Danch:
The Board ofPublic Works,at its November 28,2017,meeting,reviewed comments by the Engineering Division,Area
Plan Commission, Community Investment, Fire Department, Police Department, and the Solid Waste Division
regarding the above vacation requests.The following comments and recommendations were submitted:
Per IC 36-7-3-13,the vacations would not hinder the growth or orderly development ofthe units or neighborhoods in
which they are located or to which they are contiguous. The vacations would not make access to the lands of the
aggrieved persons by means ofpublic way difficult or inconvenient.The vacations would not hinder the public's access
to a church,school or other public building or place.The vacations would not hinder the use of a public right of way
by the neighborhood in which they are located or to which they are contiguous.
Therefore,the Board of Public Works submitted a favorable recommendation for the vacations ofthese alley and streets,
subject to utility easements.
Please contact Donna Hanson at(574)235-9254 prior to picking up your radius map. You will need a radius map
showing properties within 150' ofthe proposed vacation for your petition to the Common Council. Once you pick up
the radius map,proceed to the City Clerk's office for your alley vacation packet.
Sincerely,
ginM.MClerk
c:
Federico Rodriguez,Fire Department
Donna Hanson,Engineering
Alkeyna Aldridge,City Clerk's Office
GARY A.GI1.0"I* SLIZANNA M.FRITZBERG ELIZABETH A.MARADIK JAMES A.MUELLER THERESE J.DORAU
souTH 8F
u I
IX d
ACE
i
1 66
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE SENT: 11114/2017
TO:ete Kaminski, Street Department
ike Bronstetter, Solid Waste
Matt Longfellow, Engineering Department
Chris Dressel, Community Investment
ederico Rodriguez, Fire Department
IS'L_affy Magliozzi, Area Plan Commission (Imaglioz(@co.st-
ioseph.in.us or 235-9813 fax)
Gene Eyster, Police Department
Phil Griffin, NIPSCO ( m riffin(5).nisource.com) (
FYI Only)
FROM:
Linda M. Martin, Clerk. `--
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION —
STREET/ALLEY
VACATION
APPLICANT:
Five Corners, LLC
Corby E of Eddy, W. of Arthur St
CorbyWof Eddy, S. of South Bend Ave
LOCATION: Eddy S. of Corby , w of SR 23, N. of Campeau
Alley E of South Bend Ave, N. of Corby
DATE DUE: November 20, 2017
FAX OR E-MAIL TO: 235-9171 / Imartin(c-southbendin.gov
PLEASE MAKE YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING
IC 36-7-3-13 CRITERIA:
1. The vacation would/would not hinder the growth or orderly development of the
unit or neighborhood in which it is located or to which it is contiguous.
2. The vacation would/would not make access to the lands of the aggrieved person
by means of public way difficult or inconvenient.
3.
The vacation would/would not hinder the public's access to a church, school or
other public building or place.
4. The vacation would/would not hinder the use of a public right-of-way by the
neighborhood in which it is located or to which it is contiguous.
COMMENTS:
CITY OF
5OPTH 13 CND 4'_ 227 W.JE1'1'EII50N BOkILEVARD NION15 574/235-92.51
SUIT,1316
COUNTY,CITY BUILDING FAX 574/235.9171DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORI(S'
j SOUTH BEND,
INDIANA 46601 TDD
574/235.5567
Street/Alley VaCeition Fdrm
THIS FORM MUST BE REVIEWED BY THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO GRANTING A RADIUS MAP*
I I
Submission Date: t Iq I I']
Applicant
Name:
V e I nef'
fT
LL-r—Phone
e4t4'-4- ci rieJ
Email-
C6 V'%L_
t.
Property Address:
Applicant property Information: Residential [
3 Commercial
F71 Industrial
C> -L3C4.6)-'P\4.a
P.Ir
Describe the G. 0"general alley location with
boundaries(e x. Ck%-
lo vvA, 6
S. 0,
5,
ChurchPI,between E,Colfax
Ave&E.LaSalleAve): 0
y- C-0.13 .1
Vj-
V 9-,Va ccirN W-CtvX -P" ib.
6t
Rite, rl•C-
OT r=gi
Is yourproperty adjacent tothe alley of
Interest?Yes
U No
Do you own all
adjacent properties to the alley o f
Interest? Yes No
Ifno,use the attached table to provide the following Information for all affected property Owners:
Name,Address,Consent for the proposed alley vacation
Reason for street/alley vacation and proposed use. ..
Does the existing alley pr ovid e gar a g e access to otherproperty owners?
Yes No
Does the alley r eceive
daily traff le excluding yo ur own use?
Yes No
Would t*
he vacation
hinder publ ic access to any of the following:a church,st hool,or any El Yes '
I&' No
other public building or place?
OFFICE USE ONLY:
Board Recommendation for the proposedalley vacal4lon: wYes El
Board of Public Works Authorized'sign aturas:
VersloA 1.0 16/14/20161
E
anch, "arner tV Asscciatcs, Inc.
Land Surveyors 0
Professional Engineers t
Landscape Architects w
Land Planners
Office: (574)234-4003 / (800)594-
4003 w
Fax: (574)234-4009
1643 Commerce Drive e
South Bend, IN
46628 t
i
i
u Ms. Donna Hanson August 9, 2017 i
City Engineering Department
13tn County-City Building
227 W. Jefferson Blvd.
I South Bend,
IN 46601
F
E RE:
Request for Alley and Street 'Vacation diagram for
4 Five Corners LLC;
E
I
Donna:
E
Attached ar e 2 p ages cr eated from the MACOG GIS mapping site
l
showing the proposed alleys and portions of streets that our client
Five Corners LLC wou ld like to
have vac ated
by theCity Council . jon pa ge 1 is a n existing alley south of
South Bend Ave. and
running between Howard Street on the west and Duey Street on the east.
The drawing shows the cross-hatched area for the proposed vacation.
On page 2 is an alley that
is south of South Bend. Ave. and north
E
of the re-aligned
Corby Street.
It runs from Corby Street on the west
to the 1" nor th-s outh alley on
the east. It is also cross-hatched.
There is a portion of Corby Street to be vacated which runs from
South Bend Ave. on the west to a termination point in line with the
west property line of shown parcel 018-5087-3094 located on the south
side of Corby Street.
On the west side of South Bend Avenue there is a portion of Corby
Street and
Eddy Street requesting to be vacated.
The area to be
vacated is also cross-hatched.
E
i
t As part of the City alley and street v ac ati on p ro ce ss w e a re
asking to have you p re p ar e a v ac ati on
diagram to be us ed
by City
Council for the vacation process.
If you have any que stion sconcerning this mat ter, please feel free
to give me a call at 234-4003.
E
Sincerely,
Aleael
t Michael J. Danch
President
Danch, Harner & Associates, Inc.
I
E
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTIES:
Street Vacation—
Eddy Street from Corby Street south 180 feet
Corby Street fromEddy Street west 90 feet+/-,
Corby Street from
Eddy Street east 230 feet +/-, the First East/West Alley between
Howard Street on the west and the First Noith/South Alley east of
South Bend Avenue, South Bend, Indiana
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT
Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 36-7-3-12, the Common Council is charged with the
authority to hear all petitionsto vacate public ways or public places withinthe City.
The following Ordinance vacates the above described public property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH BEND,INDIANA,as follows:
SECTION I. The Common Council of the City of South Bend having held a Public
Hearing on the petition to vacate the following properties:
1). Street Vacation---
Eddy Street from Corby Street running south 180 feet more or less.
2). Street Vacation—
Corby Street from Eddy Street running west 90 feet more or less.
3). Street Vacation—
Corby Street from Eddy Street running east 230 feet more or less.
4). Alley Vacation—
The First East/West Alley between Howard Street on the west and
running east 140 feet more or less to the First Nortb/South Alley east ofSouth Bend
Avenue.
hereby determines that it is desirable to vacate said properties.
SECTION II.
The City of South Bend hereby reserves the rights and easements of all
utilities and the Municipal City ofSouth Bend, Indiana, to construct and maintain any facilities,
including, but not limited to, the following: electric, telephone, gas, water, sewer, surface water
control structures and ditches., within the vacated right-of-way,unless such rights are released by
the individual utilities.
PETITION TO VACATE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY
STREETS/ALLEYS)
To the
Common Council
T
Date: 9-12-17
ofthe City of South Bend,Indiana
We,the undersigned property owner(s),petition you to vacate:
1). Street Vacation—
Eddy Street from Corby Street running south 180 feet more or less.
2). Street Vacation=
Corby Street from Eddy Street running west 90 feet more or less.
3). Street Vacation—
Corby Street from Eddy Street running east 230 feet more or less.
4). Alley Vacation—
The First East/West Alley between Howard Street on the west and
running east 140 feet more or less to the First Nortb/South Alley east of South Bend
Avenue.
Tax Key Numbers owned by the Petitioners:
18-5030-1085.05 18-5030-1085 18-5087-3082.01 18-5030-1085.01 18-5094-3311
18-5094-3318 18-5094-3319 18-5094-3326 18-5094-3327 18-5094-3328
18-5094-3325 18-5094-3324 18-5094-3323 18-5094-3322 18-5087-3085
18-5087-3086 18-5087-3087 18-5087-3088 18-5087-3088 18-5087-3089
18-5087-3090 18-5087-3090 18-5087-3091 18-5087-3092 18-50873093
NAME(signed&printed)&ADDRESS
or-Five Corners LNC
814 Marietta Street
South Bend,Indiana 46601
Office of the
City Clerk CONTACT PERSON NAME:
Kareemah Fowler, City Clerk Michael J. Danch
Room 455-County-City Building Danch,Harner&Associates, Inc.
South Bend,IN 46601 1643 Commerce Drive
574-235-9221 South Bend, Indiana 46628
e-mail: mdanch@danchharner.com
i
i
E 2
t
SECTION III.
The following property Tax Key Numbers may be injuriously or
beneficially affected by such vacating:
18-5030-1085.05 18-5030-1085 18-5030-1085.02 18-5030-1085.03 18-5030-1086
18-5030-108601 18-5030-1086.06 18-5030-1086.02 18-5030-1086.03 18-5030-1086.07
f
18-5030-1085.0118-5030-1086.04 18-5030-108605 18-5106-3747 18-5106-3745
18-5106-3738 18-5098-3483 18-5094-3311 18-5087-3096 18-5087-3095
18-5087-3094 18-5087-3093 18-5087-3092 18-5087-3091 18-5087-3090
18-5087-3089 18-5087-3088 18-5087-3087 18-5087-3086 18-5087-3085
18-5094-3326 18-5094-3319 18-5094-3327 18-5092-3257 18-5092-3258
18-5092-326118-5092-3262 18-5092-3263 18-5092-3260 18-5092-3259
18-5094-3329 18-5094-3328 18-5094-3325 18-5094-3324 18-5094-3323
18-5094-3322
18-5087-3082,01 18-5087-3097
SECTION IV. The purpose of the vacation of the real properties is to vacate that portion
of all the Public Alleys and Streets in the described area to allow for the development of some of
the adjacent property.
SECTION V. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage
by the Common Council and approval by the Mayor.
Member of the Common Council
Attest:
City Clerk
Presented by me to the Mayor of the City of South Bend, Indiana on the
day of 2017,at o'clock M.
City Clerk
Approved and signed
by me on the
day of 2017,at
o'clock M.
Mayor, City of South Bend, Indiana
i
I
Raschelle Beckwith
k
1 From: Pete Kaminski
Sent:
Tuesday, November 14,2017 3:42 PM
To: Raschelle Beckwith
Cc: Derick Roberts
Subject:
RE:Street/Alley Vacation-Five Corners, LLC.
Hi Raschelle,the South Bend Street department has no objections to these vacate requests,thank you.
I
I
Original Message-----
From: Raschelle Beckwith
Sent:Tuesday, November 14,2017 12:40 PM
To: Pete Kaminski<pkaminsk@southbendin.g ov>; Michael Bronstetter<mbronste @southbendin.gov>; Matt Longfellow
mlongfel @southbendin.gov>; Chris Dressel<cdressel @southbendin.gov>; Federico Rodriguez
frodrigu @southbendin.gov>;
Imaglioz @co.st-joseph.in.us; Eugene Eyster<eeyster @southbendin.gov>;
pmgriffin @nisource.com
Subject:Street/Alley Vacation-Five Corners, LLC.
Original Message----
From:SouthBend i
Sent:Tuesday, November 14,2017 12:40 PM
To: Raschelle Beckwith
Subject: Message from "RNP002673DD3E73"
This E-mail was sent from "RNP002673DD3E73"(MP C6004).
Scan Date: 11.14.201712:39:59(-0500)
Queries to:southbend @southbendin.gov
t
Raschelle Beckwith
From: Federico Rodriguez
Sent:
Wednesday, November 15,2017 9:06 AM
To: Raschelle Beckwith
Subject:
RE:Street/Alley Vacation-Five Corners, LLC.
Favorable SBFD
tFederico(Chico) Rodriguez
Fire Marshal
Office: (574) 235-7564
Mobile: (574)876-6734
1222 S. Michigan Street
City of South Bend, In 46601
frodrigu @southbendin.gov
We deliver services that empower everyone to thrive.
Excellence I Accountability I Innovation I,Inclusion I Empowerment
i
Original Message----
From: Raschelle Beckwith
Sent:Tuesday, November 14,2017 12:40 PM
To: Pete Kaminski<pkaminsk @southbendin.gov>; Michael Bronstetter<mbronste @southbendin.gov>; Matt Longfellow
mlongfel @southbendin.gov>;Chris Dressel<cdressel @southbendin.gov>;Federico Rodriguez
frodrigu @southbendin.gov>;
Imaglioz@co.st-joseph.in.us; Eugene Eyster<eeyster@southbendin.gov>;
pmgriffin @nisource.com
Subject:Street/Alley Vacation-Five Corners, LLC.
Original Message-----
From:SouthBend
Sent:Tuesday, November 14, 2017 12:40 PM
To: Raschelle Beckwith
Subject: Message from"RNP002673DD3E73"
This E-mail was sent from "RNP002673DD3E73" (MP C6004).
Scan Date: 11.14.2017 12:39:59(-0500)
Queries to:southbend @southbendin.gov
1
i
I
puTli g
i Q4 t i lir:q/0
a
j 196 5
I I i
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS
i DATE SENT: 1'11'14120'17
TO: Pete Kaminski, Street Department
Mike Bronstetter, Solid Waste
Matt Longfellow, Engineering Department
Chris Dressel, Community Investment
Federico Rodriguez, Fire Department
Larry Magliozzi, Area Plan Commission (
ImagIioz .,co.st-
ioseph.in.us or 235-9813 fax)
Gene Eyster, Police Department
Phil Griffin, NIPSCO ( m Tiffin(cnisaurce.cam} (
FYI Only)
FROM:Linda M. Martin, Clerk.
REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION — STREET/ALLEY
SUBJECT:
VACATION i
APPLICANT: Five Corners, LLC
Corby E of Eddy, W. of Arthur St
Corby E of Eddy, S. ofSouth Bend Ave I
LOCATION:
Eddy S. of Corby , w of SR 23, N. of Campeau
Alley E of South Bend Ave, N. of Corby
i
i
DATE DUE: November 20, 2017
FAX OR E-MAIL TO: 2359171 ! Imartin(a7southbendin.gov
i
PLEASE MAKE YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING
IC 36-7-3-13 CRITERIA:
1.
The vacation would/would not hinder the growth or orderly development of the
unit or neighborhood in which it is located or to which it is contiguous.
2. The vacation wouldlwould not make access to the lands of the aggrieved person
by means of public way difficult or inconvenient.
3. The vacation would/would not hinder the public's access to a church, school or
other public building or place.
4. The vacation would/would not hinder the use of a public right-of-way by the
neighborhood in which it is located or to which it is contiguous.
COMMENTS: This vacation would not hinder Solid
Waste operations.
LAWRENCE P. MAGLIOZZ1
y
EX EC UTIVE D I R ECT OR
Angela M. Smith
Url.ulr F)lrrclor
AREA PLAN COMMISSION C)F ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, IN
1 17 \Y. IEFFERSON BLVD., ROOM 114 0 CO UNTY-CITY B UILDING, souT H 81:\U. INDIA\
A 46601 (514) 2)S-SIS71
November 17,2017
I
City of South Bend
I Board of Public Works
131 Floor,County-City Building
South Bend,Indiana 46601
RE: Street&Alley Vacation
Applicant:Five Corners,LLC
Location: Portion Corby Between SR#23 and Arthur;Portion of Corby Between SR#23 and South Bend Avenue;
I"EW Alley N of Corby Between the I"NS Alley E of SR#23 and Corby.
Dear Board Members:
r
The staff has reviewed this petition relative to IC 36-7-3-13.It is the staff's opinion that:
1) The vacation would not hinder the growth or orderly development of the unit or neighborhood in which it is
located or to which it is contiguous.
These three segments of ROW are a result of the re-alignment of SR#23. The vacations would help the
assimilation of small parcels into developable parcels. These three segments do not hinder the growth and
development of the remaining areas of the neighborhood.
2) The vacation would not make access to the lands of the aggrieved person by means of public way difficult or
inconvenient.
The petitioner owns all properties adjacent to the right-of-ways being vacated,and has access to other portions
ofstreets and alleys that remain dedicated.All other surrounding property owners continue to have access to
streets and alleys that they currently have access to.The three parcels owned by Spaulding,Bakos and Ross will
continue to have access to the curb cut on Corby since the vacation of that portion of Corby stops at the west
property line of the Spaulding property.
3) The vacation would not hinder the public's access to a church,school,or other public building or place.
No church,school or other public building or place is accessed by either the alley.
4)
The vacation would not hinder the use of a public way by the neighborhood in which it is located or to which it
is contiguous.
The vacation will not hinder access to other adjacent public ways.
The vacation request,as submitted,meets the criteria for approval.I would suggest that the Board consider shortening
the right-of-way vacation by die width of at least one lot as shown on the Attached Exhibit"A".This will allow City
services to continue to be provided without having to encroach on private property.
Sincer ry
Larry Magliozzi
SERVING ST. JO SEPH CO UNTY, SOU TH BEND, LAKEVILLE, NEW CA RLIS L E,
NORTH LIBERTY. OS C EOL A & R OSELAND
W W W.SJC IN D 1 ANA.CO K 1 30 s/
ARE A-P LA N
I K
PR
a i 4 r {{¢ .k'
v w e'
d {t
7* ' rl s Y :' -fix• +l ¢.1: ' i t
rk{,i( 4-a1!.''
t iTS. 74-
d'"'^^ 1 s r
rs°"
a v{ •;
i' fC
k r
t x
J
i
t Pr,z ••
f t
i.4i `x<.1: i`Y_.1°
t•>¢{
C4 1 `
X•, .,*F
z x -
J y.a4•
r'+66 s`l t. :1
4`•' :c.
1:! ,
j:j r o'r ,•v
I'e{
r't- •'"
g
t', ' k
3 ! s ! ` a r° .
ijy 1
lr'Y° r-*,...•
ptl s r•e
j,
i rjt
t: r F '
94 _>IS t l
1 Jr'S`3#
p. `
e ,
J .-r J-.[i - /'+J
j t' /! c '` ' ;
r vy trkp4i J t
y,*
1_ Y f" }
7
A.'j
k rrY
k{txi`i !
t
1! "e p. i. fi n `.Ka Y lY:f(
t v'
1 .fir.e Ik r•
L 3b l'
t_a •
dam 'wim Ic 1 :3'tE - J l k s1
t k+ t F_ •
Y 1...-
44 r>:,""` vs' yam-
f r a x., a s s t r
Y-t
j ., Ix 2 r. ..: z r + .
atz - n
r-
p.. .a.. ,. '.
i ,}rr yr` ',`'' h r.v i :•. ,k ',r_,'*
3'-s}'
ga y. !Va ..
A`r ' •x}f'
y"7.%d`
7ys -4." p.s{
f, a`
K.' ta' t 7 "..s v' t. ; E*
xk
nn t
t•'r xp _..?h-i.""" .t''_y
b r" (r t J r c i••. :
4{`•a«r'4-i ' ' t'
r r-
i3
i St s t
x a . r''b{
y
r(
r s•. ( f ,S
3.—,---
I rr S 1
y
vi .'
r.- ` '
a ryye
f i -za —t-•
s' { M i;-
MU•'
bti, {k'3:'/
i ,
e..
I r t
ii': ' .{"f•,
n t
x a{
hA;s 7
s •
e'g
S tt•t tv - r r -'.;.
Fa_ecf'v..,-,
3 a s t 1
j;e
6`k''
I( r , „•yG'*"c, ,y
T xVkA i+
i
h ,*il'z`'' -,sv” s '
A
POM
t >F'. , -4.kd"
i.:_ y.i : .r 1 s '
y..''i
r4'
k,t'
y.%
yIs
4/Y
s y`+
y
kj.."..•.{ i '
ys.//'
f Y
i>
fa+:c
S.,
t'
d
j4t
r
t•1
d5j
0 S f`
1
i&
r =
t
t
f ": 1
1:''
yK' ):
r(/,
i"t
i
f'
Y•
i
r.
x7;!°•
s
4
i.
M 1
rr,
iJ Yr<
f Y 1
k ,
l'3
1
i ! !
J^
f
7 S
v:C"
t
YRt z
x^tE'
t3k a'.%y
r
J
Id
f.'" d"5 t '. i
k+,{ '
r r l F <•
Offi Xy
3 y 31'c' •4 t il r r
t
x.; 7:. „
4y,G,R' y rC°A
t`}'p p
t =
4 t
l9•t x t r o cr" r v3J.3.-r r
r s `-#:
t v.? 7 •
x.
t`'..t {k ,%
J =
rl
r'. ,,.k
L °.9t t t a y..r,:
Ir .:
t1,S` i ,
l; •
t1 i iix Sh y .1 t. t + ' f# Y {
Ate{
T
i' k :Y 4"
r
t F `E
p
i A t 5
j
3r
f `•3.er"+-7r,S t 'sus
4g - Y5r I Y #,.•i
f
3..J r;' r, ,-i.fist sis
k r r •' r'
1
t
s
I T
rI
Ji,
dGf
a3t }«
tt' s .
s4
t=
e.
t,
i
t' y
t } T. ay,
i{ `$•`
r' >-
a.
s•• ` \
r '.
f ,
x,)
t §.iii
i
i
4[ita.
k
s z
j
t
y
i l
Y G
t-}-
a
dM
i i.. 7 .. '_ .`•'_l E{ iC $ - .,.?,v.
L i
u a,r'
S,hrJi r .>,t,
s;"'.'J;`?..
t7.'rg , rte' =
s;
its°i-.•?:.f
r `,9i'l
u„
d :." R.{t a.
si i•k .ly;{5.t 1 a..
t '
1.
kC a=' ff
t t a't'.:,1•r ya i
t k ,3 y t S. 'y x
i
r 1
i 5•. i
a`
IX k
x 4
yr`
c `
tk ,,((y
s
k;i -,w ;',!>
is T;t'_. t_• r "3 .-.. . ! v
y a".:
j'L..
c `
t° }
r';
3 r F`5z •1 <
Ik i
5
a•C`d' a
r
s"
i ::g'"i`t'ai.:•
f Yx t y
9v,.;4#;°' ''r t`. . '`WO-11
g g!!
S rte-. .11 ,i
iK i >
s.., :••'
x ..,µ'
3 ti k 'y '
t `t` i
a ,a
4'
i,:'is r<;
1.
t,//:z
Sr/:.y.?.
Ly..fC,'?''" •
S> flSCti k ,
r 'F:s,
f k4(r..)3-
r t s'' Y;a°
Y-A B
b'4• \. A 9 u.Y 5"d50-r L' J'
f.=y
y"7•. ".+
v
1 P f i
i
dam.k I p¢
d•.' -e a t k f r t- 13
r--
r ,:
t i
r xr[[• ..
r'
x
Taff r-'` 4 3 i L.. Lx s;
x :`. r 7 ti •Ch a 'if '{t ti7,';, 14 L'
Yi i.
a .''''":r r t'f°'t'K#-'.; l
ra Y`^.t c ,, •. •
1 -tt' r .M• i
s^ ,#•,eT. t».. 's' 'a,. a it• .-. ,ie
3 ' $
t
s``
F Y.•.
wk s= '' ''`r ``.,^. r" e1}`'Y S a(,..
Y s'<-g'
i?^ ..s , t {
i !
tst( ,k c,•,
A vSt i ( •:.
LY AS`
t'
l Yr Y k
F••:,^'` .NA 't
5'i!_
p ,.,. _ S r.
1 1 ,t r ra ) • y 1. t. a
1 r
r A °.«.
c a 3 .,
g y -y+9,.n'e :, fi ,^
7, Ir+.. K, -:`k T'
t'y"'• 1 ( r ;s s fr a" , C
vMy is o
r '
y ,r
fS -" t r ,
fit
s;t}a•'k
s<.> Ji.tr '
F.s 3 z
s t3
WLyt
t%t x .•
Ea• z:. z x<
i i fA - t1 y
lw
Y.*<,
S` _
s y -L Q•, .J,
yc ° "Y,w '
1
ltd
r+ i'.•'S 'Srt'.. g{
L
4 Hr.a•. ! '4°y-'
gs`'•-'r a,
n
M , v..s r t 4 r
y !• y4.kr , a "
b y
ris'r`•l,i+'. ` a..
L ;a r r Q 4 a, t r.r".
S' 'F-.,x:;.n
t : t '+1 F - B i:'.''T,'•r
fnz ',
c i a..
yT-7,. Pr §`-u
ikY u7 n a ,k,£A!"".
P ' - "S I.
r
J
x,F'riy '^,.```, F '- •t °'k- " 1
3
rt J}= r rk ! k y'
eg,{ a
S s'
3,, r
v.
3 ,iy+" t ., .p`.f, af ,•r v[ i`' rdf l:.
Ile -J r'f•a
to o 9ik3 ye r i
yr i r r
r d g y5
Raschelle Beckwith
From: Matt Longfellow
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 10:47 AM
To: Raschelle Beckwith
Cc: Toy Villa; Donna C. Hanson; Kara Boyles;Chris Dressel
Subject: RE:Street/Alley Vacation-l=ive Corners, LLC.
Attachments: engineering response.pdf
I
Engineering has no objections to these alley vacations. See attachment w/pictures.
Matt
I
Original Message-----
From: Raschelle Beckwith
Sent:Tuesday, November 14,2017 12:40 PM
To: Pete Kaminski<pkaminsk @southbendin.gov>; Michael Bronstetter<mbronste @southbendin.gov>; Matt Longfellow
mlongfel @southbendin.gov>; Chris Dressel<cdressel @southbendin.gov>; Federico Rodriguez
f rod rigu @southbendin.gov>;
Imaglioz @co.st-joseph,in.us; Eugene Eyster<eeyster @south bendin.gov>;
pmgriffin @nisource.com
Subject:Street/Alley Vacation-Five Corners, LLC.
Original Message-----
From:SouthBend
Sent:Tuesday, November 14, 2017 12:40 PM
To: Raschelle Beckwith
Subject: Message from "RNP002673DD3E73"
This E-mail wassent from "RNP002673DD3E73" (MP C6004).
Scan Date: 11.14.2017 12:39:59(-0500)
Queries to: southbend @southbendin.gov
t
xkttt, titlx 1 s a .1't Y t 11irL lj'. y4
l
1 5
I t '
1!t
1t1it i t t
tsl1s s {g i
i >- t.}1{
y t
I t
l\
S t'
k ttt L Lt
t t;
i i
Y
i
4,}trf' 1>. ' 1
t7t
t S} •
t a
i #
X
I 1!
1•
1F. 1 rl ff51t .r
tld t
tE
y1C`,:;
t
tS 11
s
kY
D\t
S`.5't
t•
Y
t,\
ilt
tlliJ t'
y 1 t
v.) `.I i ls
S jty. .•.}_ dbp.,
npv
k +l 1 t -
St t dl r s t ,s\
t15 15y\ '
ttl'\.
1 1 t
11
j '- i!((
hl l'•1 t\
I l f;• 'kk1' R `1 i !
I i f{
1
Y .
S`y.
t1 I5 It 1`, 1.
ti\i
1t1 ft;t 1
ii
F
t
1} .\. t 1 r3 I t l
t\
i
J ._,
t
T.
l•7tVa
5p,,
6
t
t" , , k kt\ +1R1 !/ - S S A C+}. .
1
t i :.1 Ik. {
0.
q •
a
t\t\r
11 \
1\
t1 yY 'R\t ' ,
1
5
It•
t !f{ ! t R t St \ {I t
I \ I ''l.l .". e
5 K t I 11
kt t 57
V.F.ttL\}
i s
k' tt
t
l it'1
w•tS',t i\
S-
k
k S:
t 1 t`` +,
li i }t ,
t
1 s
I 1- _
f i :
z. `'
c-
t `S 1 t
t S l p 1 t
t .t
t
i
L
tl:` f.
t.
t
r t t
I •.
I
I b. -1
ZEN
i1\ , tit y\t .•. ..i i - .•_ t '1,.
7 -
e \`
i [ 1 } t' I
y t
t t, ,
tt,( g 3 - /J i.' :n. -t•, Y } 5 !p 1 11._
t ,' 1 t, 15 Y It { f?'•:-
h w
1 1\.` 1 '
X' -- r
t y
t411•
ir<`I x st_7 (\'
i t t
5 .7 F F r- {a 1 ,
1
1" I .. t e r' }r
l Y
X y iit 1..-} 5
i q A. -• t t t
3 3{ .
I ... 1 s
tv-Sit, i Y t t ;ly
t
n
i!{It
t"
Eci rl'ii7'
kt '
t\
y
1 t lt t-
1 k t
1.t 7 ^'X t
t tit J ti1•li
lc i Iltl,,
sy
tsv
t y
jl }I t i e
tc t.
SS tt1 ti S' '. tt t x z l .=
tiltttr.
11,1
fff(( X
t s
5ti 1 i
r!>.?
la :•tl
tiS
1t }
t Fy,
i i l
Y
tir±x s SQ\ zt i
i7t ;
ti
4
s 1.s l s }
Y l .i' !'
I nl i 2 i t.• x r•""s-
t l r a,
l.:i{:':2` L ttf r jl i ,S.s:. .,1 t' F w
r:•z,•...'
t
1 1 ,
Y
til 1 X 'e1r'
s s7
S 5 1 I) i
r'
f•
t?` e,I sis v a t
5 t ki tc• X j t,
1 ,1 i1,r
H,r
t'
3
t
s
l.•y T•S•`(
yt
t r
t\
r-S i-tr
f>.i .:\
r'•,!
t - S,'SS , it
5ktf11r t, .'t•,
e r 4 x '
t. .--"
X9 11* vi/
hz;
y! s
ti.
S t 1 t.1
s
1z'
i }
s
f c !S ..+'i('
1 i me
r`/'-``
i5lt
1 i1ytS:\. k,\ \ 1„ ..:•.
11711• '.
t
l 5 ,1 Y t ltljF E
i, 01
1t•'t•''. "i`w••+,.
y r'';.
l,
f,i.$;
Il. :t ti.:: .5. '1>.1. f -1, X 11 w-r` .y'
j h
i'(+: 1•,
y Y tI t S7 71 , , Y r 1 ' 1 1 f'-!
1)!1
r t •-y. ,
L .z -
aiti:S.'
kiS'.tit { f-1 yt
r
i. r j !- tl t 11
y j. . r : -
i` •k 4 t
t• 't,+c c t T i t
t1 .
ti.
1 , t.l
i, i t
IS _ ys r `,..y,;.:
a
t \5? .ytt !t,_ -
5 1, f,
r ,
1
t
if l7;€r•. .
r !i; t +It(
I I
SI E v r-
lc r y.
r'
x "'"!
ac
t .:
x
lS ff s 7 Y t
i,;+.
t i t it(
1
r,, t
4 i f
Jf••{,
C” I'J
I,'i p is' ^'
5
5 y;
1 -:
t .
i ' 1 r "/
It >'1
f, ij,'1`l '
f7 J+
f
lrl
S
Iti,Sl ! I..)
r . •-- ' z ':
a
SO t t 1 i(
tAS 1 , SY'{J
11!
I !1; 1 1 1 1 1 1,1
11 t-T'r'°y csk 9
rs tr '
C
t 7X , + it15t + 1m
i)
1 1'
f
u4, J'. !
J? a-.d'
S3,-•
fit,
t.,; ?
s
Ii':S.-i'{
S f.f f:
nl i,i ti>t. ,
r {
J•
1
1 ,,;•'
s y''.
y ,
C..
s'
1,ES -.
t ,
i t\ +1,f:
t ! 4
i I s
f _
f
i llt' j I
f
n
rj}.
t t r l`
1
z 1 1
I a {
31t
f", 'f
t .t•
1 s 1
z f+
S'`v
i;7:;} —`• rt
i('
J// , I S_
S ; '=
y
l
t !I Sr t,
I I !
L,._ K'
r'if'`r
I S
L
1! i i .
t > -
d l`
1t,
o
t s a`n—
r'Sr'J!mI w wt,
r.
t}{
i, i'•'';(f; t i i
Ej lX( t 5 1a ta:ct 1 = t
1
1-'-+.,--,.^-.•r+r.-.
t.•; t.. d 7 !•.Lfl .I.S r,2,t,z .}
Stti Fl lb c i r __, s -J
I
tl..
i„
5 1
ti 1 ._' !
it?
t 141 .
f :
I i s tb•l"gY.;t rt ;..S S tt 1..,13
Jit t
1 i`111
7 t,
t\,{!1 ?/
It l,
ti2FrM
i Y ,•
1• 1 I .SfX / I
ti!} 1! t
11 1,}) 1 6•.a
i tt
tt
ilitl -., ' it -S lt:
i t 5t
i r l' ,
f •li:: .r
yIL}
t
f,'i.'..r'>•
t:;;
t i 4^J' .i,
1y3r
1 '
ti '}-' l. .lil"rt I .;
l '- "C;e-
j j Sl ['.5"vy \'
t
r' .•
i. ! t '• :..
1 '
f
l l li. l I.rl`L L'i41 1 ''
i. '" •.'
x
r
1 %! - `'
Vii•':.• .. 1 -YJt tL
i t k 11,
44 ,
7•t l3 1 f ,t ,
E ilt•1'
i:r'! r s tl;y:.r .
r:
t..•. 1 k `
il }.1i.,,5 a i:.
S.F,X t:..
I(,-:xll ::
t s;
5
a
i2 .Sr•
ajl ,.}•:,.
ri i l'.'•!r'1.. II ,t r•
7. 4':,fsT'ti.r1{5,;a rd.. .,
a4rF !.:. !.
EKra•r=
K,v:4',..• r r jT{',
II 1 1 ; !.!. ,
r•;!;''•={!1
St;•!i Yy:''R:j i' t t,,. I ,
I +",. :.' :i r s' C A`s c .?
4 4
a;
F"
i
h t' .t' ' ` :.;•.,•
J'i.'r}
tr n.'tr ) !
r
I t 7, , 't! fir^ ,tea::. ! t r
v ri r/
r n) I t/
f:
it".
r S V,`40•! 4 r'`
r , t' i I:c=:`
f
A'f
1t',
i
d:t
t:
s;. ,+•
q,:.)>'
al+,: [:r,.: t.}{!
ra,,;,
tf
F.,
i!
r.',
f-,'!-:'I.
x
r
Z
I 1
I
r'
r
j'' ,;11: '
t`.
t+;
rs1"';
i ; I t =
r l
Ir
a
Stt 1'•i'f'
t'
rj'.a n.:;r;::. •,1'
7yYArir;.yit, r ')-.tr.,
r
r ,t
fS. ii rfi t ,i ? r
K'. ^
1,
dj r t
yr Jt r y..!t r
4try - r r -
1 t.. : s.i,•.I'
I ,i i..'i+,_ .a^'F: d 4*; ,'., '
I t
r f ft
ii:o-
a•"• °.;:?:•1.
f•'.,!•!r.;;t ' 1 r It. .( t7 y!1,
a [ t i
7:+:1')'
r
y :r
d, 1 r l
r 1
I
fr', ',-S r `!y,
i! I,, t;,f rr ir c ,:e"- `-`
W.W.N.i
rS `" '!i(•?, ''t4ij'i',"irt
e,,/ll t!t,
I' I,`.w_.s:• 3.
at •
r4.: y T r '...,
r'
1 ,y +r 't r r• I. r.•.
i: :..3'°s,.. :
fis`=''yam
h tQr y J•
t '
i f i
Irf 7/r
rr r r i ,
4 r -• f
i
a
M4
tr 1`.
sf r r 7 "i n t
I i , f , f'r} {
t
f 1
r \ r r, '°
H•xx+ ,_ 'c
I
t r --r- ) • yr > t.} 1
i1 I h ;\!
ri 1
W P
r } lf•}!!+!•{:sj}il
i,- tl !
2. ,
i _
r r
a r iir r e , }
1i .; 1 •1' 11r•:'.t+r l, r '`
1 , '.11'
t i(
t t+ [
r
7 r•'),[ , t 1 '
f
rf+r.:f: + r!'•,.s,,
rn. {[ .r.. :
t;
r'!•:,::n,r cyI
t ''
i 1} •l•(
llk, t ,::a r s n«.s n'=r+' 3--- -'fr
j f
L'
iN1 r,;., ';sr - ';ii s;??,r.,.^. :'t';'t , .
t:
i. `'' '.}:.i:;'/.i•
l:'!''".-'- '.i ^ali+'
j
1.r•:•,lb...r-{3 I ;.
i '4,• lr. i++. !`! t!f L
4or-y"`v-.
r;:•.,cA y h ; ''.
si. , ify,j'{: rt , t 1ry, t rt,
frl y. v °•'
t - 1. ,
tI':. ?.:_..
1;
N.l:.il I ',o•.;
t
c.' •C.'`
S` .
a.
f'?•y.:
t i.."{; L., .! fit. fl,i!..sjI:ii Srfi'+:st r;;
f +1_ N" P S
a*^ -
r.: .:hf`%'•(''4 `i,(
ji:, ..(:,1;•f,;y .{.iFE._,:.,,; at... i f :I: .f. :
JN,(^ 4wf-,'t P 4:s{,
J:r''•''y'i',t:`¢1 ,i,
r Ay,
14y 1 S .f !,••r iF 1
f
t
I 7 r y'r_!,
r:•.,.yy;4 .
t /.
r. Cf 'ipi't/
1r ,.[';s.s Jt it • .s:l;t.:. i,l j, i:i;.'!lil j sp '•-F'yr ..
rt,•t'}I[i;-,l d e•' '1: , ..
59I 1.1.y t. :
St•i j'' .
y• :i
Nj , i T i.F..e•J:'r!•).•!
Few.,f!i1.Jr s..
i•Jftn{yr::.!
i r-i
r .?
r 1 {
rt i1'dr+ rr{. i It • ' .N,7.x
1 1,rr}', r•
p1'
t •.t t{2r:' 'r. ^
l:
rn••
f ,f a ''" :5
t ) 4dd{Y.lt.. F•
Ji'-i!i
i j Ii;S: f 'l i''.
r.r.e;:}. i.i.'•.r.
l E S? r
ir;.- .
ft'r:}''t::_ .r
r s•,•
a i•%
f:<".dT%
9p.t `„nl;`f<?t:j S.
aa}.•.:h i g 1 a 3un
i I
Yi?:!;':1 f.,,y 7,.. :f':, •/ '4.. .
J,r
4• fit•y r, / :,.
L. -r:!'.. -` iriG T Z,'!--:fY i
r:.
rr ,.Y'1.:• y a m
a •:S _a: r r t
j i sI.
rti r: I•ry.. - Y.. _::ia• r nt
t :'
I •:
II•'i't i1}`t,'\..' .f r•S.• - i. c.1. _)
a :d:f f:
i f,5' `\ s::• '(sa- e(:."-fir,+;: iL..: ti°,.' ;i yt;%:•',.', ! i Z' -
j-' ',i!. f.•.:J i i l,r.
I:'!!3'-•" _,y,
F1r7.=,!.),{1•(t.:,.,,...:.v
y,rl'.L4. y f:'<, •.r^,.: +(!f'..Y? nr. :f:: I Jr..1j?.t1
i•r./)'.,: :'i'
i:./;:•t-r i ,s!
y ,;,f.,
J,?•
r. 'j:.: k`lr ?
I d..-::t:Jr,
7• r t,r+
i- r r._ .'s^. +-W,.., w;.f `,..4':- 1
i.'a.c.I. -
12 !.!: ;t'r-' :'i- 'r, ••,,t.i.. i!"r
i' 1 • _ =.1 `.
4-t.'i'f <:f..!. 'J.•!.w
1 7
Sh ,:S'i l'i'}I f)/:I r e.::i. r:r!,:.: •6!! %1;.:.'14j: 74.!•,
i:i„'1%..r n. V a.
A1" -j:•.
s.r!! 4 r.`
r 3 r .':j _1l
I:,. •'a J
1. •',;
1,,•. '1 t,
t 31'¢ 3{
Tsi' s..j
j`7.!'"•'f,
ii•r r.1:
t.lr•.!
3•K:,j;•+ '5
f. .I,
y,r.R•.ii
if .
x%iJq•4/!..•'`'!l:{•'/ri. •e r [r r ..,.r r,fa i? /:i!'•'.3ify, t"•.,;,' Y 1 1)
i 1` t
Y7
si ll-
r,:`,1 •Y:1i rani r.r:n
y ,i',1 , s •i•:p.'r
r s J { •: }.}4\.,•
rs•s i.if'1j"fr' r,Y,u.ler,s, t+xr• =^ 1 qtr •!'
rlr?sSy 'r 1 7 r r7%;:J,
Jiy?•1r 4-
3u•,fi +'i.
RU ' ,r.)
s i.,>•„ f'
air'h.t'.t'ftS"t},,
t`l r,i"7`e`c.k;•'i:'i%'• tt;:i ,'" r r':;>'. > - a
a - y,}• 1. ,_.
f r!'
y,'i i ft+
fi+i. t
t,:
S:+,f r. r'j w f}
r i,.¢o(?•},
4.%' •i i°i;);ri. : '
S 4slf ! st`Lirif.4`ti'.i5 :j' ;
j iur,
r[.Sr•.1-- 1
r {r r',
f" frr i Ilat"°t%f"'S'•i'7:`;-
lirr •f •' •/. r i 1d
fi!1 6,
i u"r!,#,s•y j ,
sJ :.l
3 ,, '':
c
y?! y;?f+ 7r:uTrf 10, f .:v:cn
r + ! '•F,i. h s, ,e)
Lf ,-i FV }."
r t:
z`;: .aS s:.•
S;•, Jr:'!..:.
5:• Cl'•'
r
i•••"'!_.%?.t -t:r.
j .
a• i t ^.
tY.!i[.
s a,
y'ir•S',•fs,:: s°%F6,,P:''t"(
tY
GF••i;:t'•;,i:j}r=,3.3;(:i.:-,;e 11.
1tt ••=•r,
Fy..:! ;r.r.li. t .. ,
1.}2:F{1ha
t r
r`r- ':?'••
irlFr y'Xl i_lir
M
ry v/lf'fv •f
Y.''q., 'n^t ` It s' + "-
rr l r I'.
ti`•.i:a1Jt1Y _/.= i):!.'•'1.
r'i+"• •M%.':1•
Fr:r,tif.i 1 ,YJ,H•
r:
f'.
r'! •r>,.P T,r
J1 b1!
r; s •:
c. t{ .
4i i:tf l [/,•!
Zsi r'°
iY:.
yi ±tr•;•s s! r'! ,?%Cy't i h}!4stt`ti7 4'ar'
i'a:: *Ai G,.r:?! . i
sS
N.<. NOW. •1. r,;
G.ylr?' S,!!-/}.! r
r ,. a '< i, %[:, r =L:or{ •; -s:°t--:' •. 1•:i.} J.'' ••t l.;' i
fr -%,
I Iso r,
jy, •,
r
drf 5 s• !{•.!•': a'F.;:•-'
S'-:4 r,. h. ,: I1/ 1.t n.
I f 1Jt. irk •'"•.:• rf r!,' LYw sr t s n ''; i ,'' .
li:y.'"' t
5.1 wt)3`t• .Y , 'Jrli;•i7T:', r r r a 1i.
1"" v>. rt r ,. zt.:.•ti
1
fi {,ljs;r r t'r,.
fartS 4i x5.
1si•Y'i Y}'',::;. ri.
l .y. ,,1t i.:?
f.
Fftir, •rrl fp
Iti!Ir. rr48•.•s.$(iL/,t f Y•i r:r,r t.,• ! i1;•}[sz;+. ..:lr. Ifg cr
tii:'y.'1 r.'
J,
y.t'•j. e'l?a:l !!yty rll:' Yty} ' C•!i"n +;"t;'t.`4 y:1 li; •:, i• 4+ a-
1 f{}Srj'ft;•r
Y:{t•15.j. .r'' :'{
i::.lf i I f/a'__..y •ys:gli. 'r !i w L"a:=,.
4T,r{i y;:
d %
r, ii s'
a• l7tt•:.
j! '{-:J "• < rr;° .r i
v l;r, ri
y ''o rs 7 .. :'r`+;.3`.r.!r:
f, ?n J
rtJr'.r•;.. 1. l..
i 1:
1r J,
i rv rf•9 ''ry"`=r./tJ... 15 / w i:.:' !!,
Yi'•
r
y 1 I r I: '. l;;r i.; '
r:;s.1 r f f+; ;:t t f i:'' ';i a,,:ry •t.. ,j•
jK:•: r
r 1Y r;m,.::l
r.:,
t 5'' '`i.^:.,_
l,^•:.•'1 i c e:.:=-• •
f?!j fitftij V.{t'ir. t f{ „r rS :,aP( . .+•:o-.•,lr,,
S/+^ !e. . '3f.: C 1:
4
E xZ
q : t/, 1 r.4{iisi;:+ `' . • '•i:: +..;4i-"'.
K .y,
i a.r• ;
S r , , ,
t•'
r}!
fitir
f
r'
y.
J,
Iii','
i}:
r
l'!•:'!'°
f!!'
n
i
r:
1i
a
j!{;
L'{.
1:'
Y`:.)','!
M'
i''::'-.!
r
i,;
i
f1't
r('
f
i
h"
t•`};
trr{'
j
i'
S'
ic'",
ii'd
7:•
if
i,.
T%,;¢+
lI
y'
i'+
f
1°"?•!3.•'
L•;'
i}
r
J;/
s
ir,!(
I`'
T.!:.!`.};."<!}}
5:-},,/:',1}!s,
y,;
Ns.`.?•
ie=.r
i»"'
tit.<,
rl.
l!
r
y:
rfyrr/.{•,
rf
ti;
i'!
f:},..
r"
v1;,'',
4r,/??
r,
ryi,?•,
N
f•
a
ty;
lFi1.j
y'
y,
f
i1.?!
rf';'
S
S1ft.
7Lt
y
u:+
k,:{
s";
ir•.
4(f.h
i./
0.
jt,
r.
r,
r,!
r.
f
9.
J•
i,.!,-
t:.%
iiLih
v:::.
r,
lr
v
r
i.•-..'
jr.
1S.
t.t
S.=
i.;
r•
i'•.=!'r;:
r'
i
i..
i:•w:,:T,
sY,
Crr,,
T'+,'
f't'.!
fI.s7ti
t1::.-i':•
i;°,
r^_+
fr_;£
y..'sY,!.':/.
r:••
a1..:.+:.:`:ryxisi F}t rsr }
f i lr;'
t:_•
c;.
1.,.':..•_::
s_
iJ'
Y:.+':.'
i:.
v•:
1
f:,
1k•
3,,••.
s.{:..
Y
a
5l
9
fi.
h-;'
7,•
J•
t'-."
A
vi M0-.`;*.-.",: r2?4 1'1eif li! 1
zlj r%VT."'Mr {ti [y
ls1 q=
i.>
J
z
e•
t-`-
o•
ti''
4:-
v tt Z'r.
3 t'
t,}, i;.s-•t,: •r,'•""•..i.•,'., ir 1 r'f:'e,
Y r r • •''
1_ w 1,,.$' f.'9:F: `'l.f':•° '.t'1 i Y 11/r' •'x t•at!r t. 1.{ N. 1 n i q••
Y. .J_.J,'•3 7 r 'y f i .t. •r
f. ,
sr',kn7„7' .
G.}. ! j,Jf r l
i3 i y PS: ,'. r l.. <t.-'-• :!iY•.,1, u Fyt::.•o-:*•-
t 1 ^'
r 7.Itj% !`r!I5 _'11.•! y.fifJj2 .(Y> ,hr,f. Y•^;.;" s'.ti;!n t}7,:., ,l'=4
y;, %
F i d!.' .1•P rffd :. -.%;.'.• !3•...
X•, /•.r.r:•,^•
1 _,
3.J.
Afr;;• i fj; •$','/!t'+z 4: ,a. St yt .4 +,..,'1 v,=•' `•`, '
rS%'a,:.'• 'r. a,
rt}i ..
j:1, .41 , !'!;?'t12 sCj sL'i;j.r:Jrl:;{s':x.' rLl: s i. i.,••:e•s
r:.:{
sJ:t`,n[:.
y'.•
r:
i{rr: I-t.h4?'
ir G %:r.1:{l)f'J r``A• r'.'1 ,"t i;1;.r
i..;.•. .'i:- C .
An`;js.; + - - . c(j`-",7 Jy.
r r i,) Si ,.n f.4ir.
r rr
r rd J•
i -. l••. Y'VW
r 5••i;rl l'J ^.fJ 1t i 'l
f,•!!<'! ,'i
L,. q r-.-j•.i
j i,, ;s Y'
i ;hfdid 'yStii'1ri
f frt' '!{ f f '
r'•-
1•.r
iy; '. .';.• to Yf[r• '`"
r
A '
r
iy,.yf• •%i.. e.>k•1 .'••• ,
Ft'.. r'• P.
1
YF{:{?fy:'';: •t t i,
Gf 4t ' VIP11 :;rr Yh•. , . r7c,'
l':.•r1
ja:;r
w%
r;,1:.
r=
1'j'•
f:Y.I:f P'' ;l a •
i'di s'
aG /`
lYr'
c12.1 1-
r';•;'''''+,r lf;f:,: s;: •,
j:'. r
e, :'
rf::f 1 1 .
j•'{I d'o¢, YYI. : i .':.-, r.i ; •.r F a i;
r ::R -T,r•
rr.•
IS;`f Js 'I' i• f:
1!';,1 'f.-!'' "•y.`.
s:.•''
a'<:3.:. {}.
i l ,..
v{
S;il,
r[(/."t rr..
y}:t f,
ff N.r'tYJ t ,.
j fr`• ! t. :.L..*t 1 1, '4:%!.`(.:i
i+
r i 1:1r..•,
t.+...+,:. S i•',r./ti i.
l.;,sTy!,,,}fiet:•..y4';. t. t iti.r er•
f'f 'h ."(,Sr¢'N i, r/ f 1•r'::r? !,r l^' i a t.
f"
w:+'i%,•• .,
l ,};- ir•: i' ,
tAIT I •:J"+'5+ y..r. ;r! .si:•{ _ .'~r r'. r i j
y t .+;C=r! r,vr,t1•f+, ,,'?y,,r,:,r
j 1:7
y. rf i.•. s;=
f, .:.:a::.:l%,.'•:.
x1:,•,,:,I• S:y f lrW+
f h
p•
5, !Fr t•`:r,:. ._ -,,,
y r °•: c:.j S 1, :!"'•.tl
15 r ••. r.' rM•-.
i ,//'IG J k fl ft•
r..tr,;j of....,
M;'y71 f)-y i1f:/ 71f i:r:.°
ys t r" .yP.b'r•', "';,,..:• /i
r.,/r•:°::r f
ij iiflilq•: g1 / p::ja •x:l•..
if"7 ..I .:..
J;'iK9i
I l r;Ny,, r rr.s:1, 4)•J._ y &i'Y` • . s} :• •'t)7 i .••' ;,r...
jrf.hy..,ry4.
rt;?•!.r' .11.+i'+r!S i j.(/. f r:.;1;1.'i i[+ tl r i l t!!1!ylru- !'1 1 r
i Y ( 1i'sl l.; /.= '. r .1 ,, .
r..' i
f r7 d7 ff r S v,'!i,!'i }•
I;s.4
f rL'v,
K;
t t.$
Ar,y;if,;,t;!r,:f^
1'ff,4j r11 '"`
i•y'1 J i•';,.,zs;:11}
i
i '.;7.,. r ,
r t. - t".,.•' w,,
Yf/>;y{..{S r/
r Y '''1 rY(?r!,r ti'S 1.1/?rJ[r 'l.•! ,r
ik I '
if :r , -
r s 1S.
t i.!t// I r
1j. yrt r "I••I frr°1•g S rJ 4 1 r+*}r
i '/ ) r'
t'y?i ii' {,
f,/,l rjif+r
i'{
FlSh y'!
l I,
fi y:
j :...•,`,,u;,• :li'y 1ti.
1Y flrf! t i t , ).•.
y }}
aff4,,;' ri.'ifgr"9ili), •,'•.'
l1Lrfl}tr,
4,. 1
i(••r' +','?° :;:
rl i•
ryrll'
7 r'r.{,.
f,r
P . t r
r,;
i=,.
r. ,r. i!.e+ >t.
LAWRENCE P. MAGLIOZZI
EXE CUT I VE DIRECTOR
Angela M. Smith
D,p u . Di...I
qT-x
LAN COMMISSION OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, IN
22 7 W. J EFFERSO N BLVD., ROOM 1140 COUNTY-CITY BU ILDING, SOUTH B END, INDIANA 46601 (
5 74) 2 35-9571
December 6, 2017
Honorable Common Council
4th Floor, County-City Building
South Bend, IN 46601
RE: Text Amendment RE: Transfer of Zoning Administration and Updating Rezoning Procedures
APC#2850-17
Dear Council Members:
Enclosed in an Ordinance for the proposed Zone Map Amendment at the above referenced location.
Please include the attached Ordinance on the Council agenda for first reading at your December 11,
2017 Council meeting,and set it for public hearing at your January 8, 2018 Council meeting. The
petition is tentatively scheduled for public hearing at the December 19, 2017 Area Plan Commission
meeting. The recommendation ofthe Area Plan Commission will be forwarded to your office by noon
on the day following the public hearing.
If you have any questions,please feel free to contact our office.
Sincerely,
Angela M. Smith
Deputy Director
Filed in Clerk's Office
CC: Bob Palm
FDEC 0 b 2017
KAREEMAH FOWLER
CITY CLERK,SOUTH BEND,IN
SERVING ST. J O SEPH COUN TY, SOUTH BEND, LAK EVILLE, NEW CARLISLE, NORTH LIBERTY, OSCEO L A & ROSE L AND
W W W.S TJ O S E P H C O U N T Y I N D I ANA.CO M/A R E A P L A N
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE INITIATED BY THE AREA PLAN COMMISSION OF ST JOSEPH
COUNTY, AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE,
ARTICLE 9 ADMINISTRATION TO UPDATE PROCEDURES FOR ZONE MAP
AMENDMENT, VARIANCES, SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES, AND WRITTEN
COMMITMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
APPLICATIOINS; ARTICLE 11 DEFINITIONS TO FURTHER DEFINE THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR AS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE AREA PLAN
COMMISSION; AND ARTICLE 12 FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS TO DESIGNATE
THE BUILDING COMMISSIONER AS THE FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR.
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT
Historically the Building Commissioner has also served as the Zoning Administrator for the
City of South Bend, with the Building Department providing the appropriate staff functions
associated with these responsibilities. Throughout the state, these responsibilities are usually
assigned to the planning staff.The Building Department and Area Plan Commission staffs have
worked closely to establish a process and timeline by which these responsibilities will transfer
to the Area Plan Commission on January 1, 2018. As such, various changes to the South Bend
Zoning Ordinance need to be amended to accurately reflect responsibilities and procedures.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council ofthe City of
South Bend, Indiana as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 21, Zoning, ofthe South Bend Municipal Code,Article 9
Administration, Section 21-09.05 (e) Zoning Ordinance Amendment Procedures, subsection
2) Zone Map Amendments, is hereby amended as follows:
A) A proposal for zone map change(s) (
a/k/a rezoning petition) shall be
eempleted in its-entir-ety. itshall be filed in the office of the City Gler-k,
Room 455 County City Building, Sou4h Bend, indiefla 4 6604-Area
Plan Commission, along with all the required documents as outlined in
the application adopted by the Area Plan Commission a-pFepesed
of reza;.,a mee on
8 1/2" v
11 ,.mod eever-let4ef. Sai l
1;.,.,ne e shall . ply, ,;+
b, al lt f,-.,, ..1,,ding b,,,+e o ,
net limited te-ha-vi teiffleatt of and tefA." Said
proposed r-ezefiing or-dinanee must set fefth in the title the eenunefA
L.,..,,,,, addresso f
the s„b jeet p pefty as well as the r`.,,,ne l.Y.anie
Distriet within which the subject pr-epeFty is leeated. The petitioner
shall inelude with said
filing, a wr-
iaen 1;s+.,,
1 ieh sets f,-tl, all of+l,e
names, add—r-tesseas wand tax key number-s of all prepei4y ev,%er-
er t i es
1. eated,
4thi... th e s ehundred feet(300') of the petitioned
pr-epeAy. INA-t ..e sb,.,
ll be given
by the Area A1,,,,. C- ,,.,., is-sion to ., „f
SotAh Bend's-Neighbor-hood Based Ofganizations whose beundaf-7ies
inelude- a are eontiguous to the subjeetproperty. The n°+;+;°r°,
shall file business size (
No. #10) envelopes with p..a paid postage
addressed to all
property ovffier-s ,,; hi tlffe°hundred foe+ (300') of th-e
petitionedproperty; and a loeation map (if availa le) whieh is dra-v%to
w a le o f
the petitioned eAyµ.-..
7 ,i,
hie inelu`l°., street names fAe lYom`t.l.-.. .. .. . ..t,='
in 4 1/2" x 11" f:.n a+
For- al l r-ezo alp the Petitioner- shall
file seventeen (1 7) proposed site plans of w-
hie six (
6) , 411 be used by
Area Plan; and the r-emaining eleven(11) being used by the Gouneil
and Clerk's Office ti6nal pupeses only.zReques szv=
Single Family Districts shall be eXempt ffem filing preliminary site
plan i-.—The Staffshall prepare an Ordinance for Zone Map Amendment
and forward it, along with the petition,to the Clerk. All fees required
by the Office ofthe City Clerk shall be paid at time offiling.
G) Upon the Office of the City Clerk receiving a written certification on a
proposed zoning ordinance from the Area Plan Commission pursuant to
Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-605,the Office of the City Clerk shall list
by Bill Number and commonly known address under- "U f:, ishea
Business" a
do n.
or on the Common Council's next meeting agenda.
The n,,,-,-„-ne C.,,,nel s h all
the ,•°fer-saida°,•+;
fieatio to the !`.,,,,,a;l
Zoning and A.-mexation Genffnittee for-review and r-eeenunendatien to
the full Gouneil, and set the publie hearing date for-the same7
SECTION I1. Chapter 21,Zoning, of the South Bend Municipal Code, Article 9
Administration, Section 21-09.05 (f) Variance and Special Exception Procedures, is hereby
amended as follows:
1) Petitions—
Petitions for a variance ofdevelopment standards or for a special
exception use shall be filed in the office of the Buik4ing Gommissiene Zoning
Administrator of the City of South Bend, Indiana. The proposal shall be on the
form(s)provided, available in the Office of theBuilding r'emmi'siene Zoning
Administrator.
SECTION 111. Chapter 21,Zoning, of the South Bend Municipal Code, Article 9
Administration, Section 21-09.05 (g) Modification or Termination of Commitments,
subsection(1) Form ofFiling, is hereby amended as follows:
B) In the case of a modification or termination of commitments permitted
or required by the Board ofZoning Appeals, such petitions shall be on
forms provided by the Building Depai4mea Zonin_Z Administrator of
the City of South Bend.
SECTION IV. Chapter 21, Zoning, ofthe South Bend Municipal Code, Article 11
Definitions, Section 21-11.02 Definitions, is hereby amended as follows:
Zoning Administrator: The individual designated by the Genffnen Couneil in this
Ofdi anee as having the responsibility for the interpretation and administration of
this Ordinance. The Executive Director of the Area Plan Commission is hereby
designated as the Zoning Administrator.
SECTION V. Chapter 21,Zoning, of the South Bend Municipal Code, Article 12 Floodplain
Regulations, Section 21-12.04 Administration is hereby amended as follows:
1) Designation of Administrator. The Common Council ofthe City of South Bend,
Indiana hereby appoints the Zening Administrate Building Commissioner to
administer and implement the provisions of this Article and is herein referred to as
the Floodplain Administrator.
SECTION VI. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage by
the Common Council and approval by the Mayor.
Member of the Common Council
Attest:
City Clerk
Presented by me to the Mayor of the
City of South Bend, Indiana on the
day
of 2 at o'clock M.
City Clerk
Approved and signed
by me on the
day of 2 at
o'clock M.
Mayor, City of South Bend, Indiana
LAWRENCE P. MAGLIOZZI
EXECUTI VE U I REV I O R
Angela M. Smith
Dcpury Dirrclar
AREA PLAN COMMISSION OF ST. )C)SEPH COUNTY, IN
227 W. JF.FFF.RSON BLVD., ROO M 1140 COII NTY-Ci-rY B UI LDING, SOUTH BEND, INDIA NA 46601 (574)2IS-957t
Wednesday, December 20,2017
The Honorable Council of the City of South Bend
4th Floor,County-City Building
South Bend, IN 46601
RE: An Ordinance initiated by the Area Plan Commission of St Joseph County,amending Chapter 21 of the South
Bend Municipal Code,Article 9 Administration to update procedures for zone map amendment, variances,
special exception uses,and written commitments associated with Area Board of Zoning Appeals applications;
Article 11 Definitions to further define the Zoning Administrator as the Executive Director of the Area Plan
Commission;and Article 12 Floodplain Regulations to designate the Building Commissioner as the floodplain
administrator. -
APC#2850-17.
Dear Council Members:
I hereby Certify that the above referenced ordinance of Initiated by the Area Plan Commission was legally
advertised on December 7, 2017 and that the Area Plan Commission at its public hearing on December 19,2017
took the following action:
Upon a motion by John McNamara, being seconded by Jordan Richardson and unanimously carried,a
proposed ordinance initiated by the Area Plan Commission is sent to the Common Council with a
FAVORABLE recommendation. Updating the ordinance to allow the Area Plan Commission to
enforce the Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the duties and responsibilities of the Zoning
Administrator.
The deliberations of the Area Plan Commission and points considered in arriving at the above decision are shown
in the minutes of the public hearing, and will be forwarded to you at a later date to be made a part of this report.
Sincerely,
Lawrence P. Magliozzi
Attachment
SE R VING S T. JO SEPH CO UNTY, SOUTH BEND, LAKEVILLE, NEW CARLISLE, N ORTH LIBERTY, OSCE OLA & ROSE L AND
W W W.SI C I N D I A N A.C 0M 13 0 6 1 r r ,rP I
Staff Report 12/5/2017
APC # 2850-17
Owner:
Initiated by the Area Plan Commission
Location: TEXT AMENDMENT
Jurisdiction: City of South Bend
Public Hearing Date: 12/19/2017
Requested Action:
A proposed text amendment initiated by the Area Plan Commission to modify various
sections of Chapter 21 to allow for the transfer of Zoning Administration from the Building
Department to the Area Plan Commission and updating the procedures associated with
Zone Map Amendments, Variances, Special Exception Uses, and Written Commitments.
Staff Comments:
The following changes to Chapter 21 are proposed:
Update Section 21-09.05 (e)Zoning Ordinance Amendment Procedures to reflect current
procedures and processes;
Update Section 21-09.05 (f)to reflect transfer of responsibilities for ABZA from
Building Commissioner to Zoning Administrator
Update Section 21-09.05 (g)to reflect transfer of responsibilities for ABZA from
Building Commissioner to Zoning Administrator
Update Section 21-11.02 Definitions to define the Zoning Administrator as being
designated to the Executive Director of the Area Plan Commission.
Update Section 21-12.04 to designate the Building Commissioner as the Floodplain
Administrator
Recommendation:
Based on information available prior to the public hearing,the staff recommends this text
amendment be sent to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation.
Analysis:
Updating the ordinance to allow the Area Plan Commission to enforce the Zoning Ordinance
is consistent with the duties and responsibilities of the Zoning Administrator.
APC# 2850-17 Page 1 of 1
LAWRENCE P. MAGLIOZZI
EXE CUT I V E DIRE CTOR
Angela M. Smith
D p.t Direst.,
q'ARPEAPLLAN COMMISSION OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, IN
227 W. JEFFE RSON BL VD., ROOM 11 40 COUNTY-C IT 1" BU ILDING, SOUT H BEND, IN DIANA +66 01 (S7+) 233-95 71
December 6, 2017
Honorable Common Council
41h Floor, County-City Building
South Bend, IN 46601
RE: Text Amendment RE: Zoning Enforcement
APC# 2851-17
Dear Council Members:
Enclosed in an Ordinance for the proposed Zone Map Amendment at the above referenced location.
Please include the attached Ordinance on the Council agenda for first reading at your December 11,
2017 Council meeting, and set it for public hearing at your January 8, 2018 Council meeting. The
petition is tentatively scheduled for public hearing at the December 19,2017 Area Plan Commission
meeting. The recommendation ofthe Area Plan Commission will be forwarded to your office by noon
on the day following the public hearing.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office.
Sincerely,
Angela M. Smith
Deputy Director
Filed in Clerk's Office
CC: Bob Palm
DEC 0 2017
KAREEMAH FOWLER
CITY CLERK,SOUTH BEND, IN
SERV I NG ST. JOS EPH C OUNTY, SO U TH BE ND, LAKEVILLE, N EW C ARLISLE, N ORTH LIBERTY, OSCEOLA & ROSELA ND
W W W.S T J O S E P H C O U N T Y I N D I A N A.C O M/A R E A P L A N
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE INITIATED BY THE AREA PLAN COMMISSION OF ST. JOSEPH
COUNTY AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICPAL CODE,
ARTICLE 10 ENFORCEMENT BY ADDING THE AREA PLAN COMMISSION TO THE
DESIGNATED ENFORCEMENT STAFF.
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT
Historically the Building Commissioner has also served as the Zoning Administrator for the City
of South Bend. The Building Department has provided the appropriate staff functions associated
with the responsibilities, including but not limited to Zoning Enforcement. Throughout the state,
these responsibilities are usually assigned to the Plan Commission staff. The Building Department
and Area Plan Commission staffs have worked closely to establish a process and timeline by which
these responsibilities will transfer to the Area Plan Commission on January 1, 2018. Some
enforcement activities may still need to be enforced by the Building Department.As such,various
changes to the South Bend Zoning Ordinance need to be amended to appropriately reflect
responsibilities and procedures.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council of the City of South
Bend, Indiana as follows:
SECTION I. Chapter 21, Zoning, of the South Bend Municipal Code,Article 10 Enforcement,
Section 21-10(a) Authority, is hereby amended as follows:
The Building Department of the City of South Bend,the Department of Code
Enforcement of the City of South Bend, the Area Plan Commission ofSt. Joseph County,
and the Staffof Beth each departments are hereby designated to enforce the terms and
provisions of this Ordinance in accordance with Indiana law.
SECTION II. Chapter 21, Zoning, of the South Bend Municipal Code, Article 10 Enforcement,
Section 21-10(f)Violations, is hereby amended as follows:
Subject to the provisions of Section 21-01.03 —Nonconforming Lots, Uses, Buildings,
Structures or Signs, each of the following shall constitute a zoning violation which may
be enforced by the Building Department, the Area Plan Commission or the Department
of Code Enforcement in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 21-10 (g)
below:
SECTION III. Chapter 21,Zoning, of the South Bend Municipal Code, Article 10 Enforcement,
Section 21-10(f) Violations, is hereby amended as follows:
The primary enforcement responsibility for Items (2)and (8)above shall be the vested
with the Building Department, provided however,the Department of Code Enforcement
or the Area Plan Commission may also initiate enforcement of these matters.
The primary enforcementresponsibility for Items (3), (4) and (6) shall be vested with the
Department of Code Enforcement, provided however,the Building DepaFtffient or-.4rea
Plan Commission may also initiate enforcement of these matters.
The f t
responsibility f;ar-items it) icy (7) (9) an (1 0)shall be vested in hAth
the
Buildiflg D «t. t the 710pa f t, tCede 1 F t
a l tL
Z_c pz crc r nc i r c n cPurcmcircvrcvc cziirvi-ccirr°circucrcr-oozcr yr
depaFtment may initiate enfer-eement ef these matter-s.
The Zoning Administrator and his or her designee shall be responsible for enforcing
against all other zoning violations set forth above; provided, however,that the
Department of Code Enforcement and Building Department shall also be authorized to
initiate enforcement, at their discretion.
SECTION IV. Chapter 21, Zoning, of the South Bend Municipal Code,Article 10 Enforcement,
Section 21-10(h) Fines, subsection(4), is hereby amended by adding a new subsection(B) as
follows:
B)
If enforcement action was initiated by the Area Plan Commission, all fines thus
received shall be deposited with the applicable fund for fines of the Area Plan
Commission.
Section V. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage by the
Common Council and approval by the Mayor.
Member of the Common Council
Attest:
City Clerk
Presentedby me to the Mayor of the City of South Bend. Indiana on the
day
of 2 at o'clock M.
City Clerk
Approved and signed
by me on theday of 2 at
o'clock M.
Mayor. City of South Bend. Indiana
LAWRENCE P. MAGl. IOZZI
G SE('UT1VC D IR P C I'bl(
Angela M. Smith
D,putp Director
AREA PLAN COMMISSION OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, IN
227 W. IF:FFF.RSON BLV D., ROOM 1140 COUNTY-CITY B UI LDING, SO U TH R END, IN DI ANA 46601 (574)235-9571
Wednesday,December 20,2017
The Honorable Council of the City of South Bend
4th Floor,County-City Building
South Bend, IN 46601
RE: An Ordinance initiated by the Area Plan Commission of St.Joseph County amending Chapter 21 of the South
Bend Municipal Code,Article 10 Enforcement by adding the Area Plan Commission to the designated
enforcement staff. -APC#2851-17.
Dear Council Members:
I hereby Certify that the above referenced ordinance of the Area Plan Commission was legally advertised on
December 10,2017 and that the Area Plan Commission at its public hearing on December 19,2017 took the
following action:
Upon a motion by John McNamara, being seconded by Robert Hawley and unanimously carried,a
proposed ordinance initiated by the Area Plan Commission is sent to the Common Council with a
FAVORABLE recommendation. Updating the ordinance to allow the Area Plan Commission to
enforce the Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the duties and responsibilities of the Zoning
Administrator.
The deliberations of the Area Plan Commission and points considered in arriving at the above decision are shown
in the minutes of the public hearing,and will be forwarded to you at a later date to be made a part of this report.
Sincerely,
Lawrence
P. Magliozzi
7
Attachment
SERVING S T. JOSE PH COUNTY, S OUT H REN D, LAKEVILL E, NEW CARLIS LE, NORTH LIBERTY. OSCE OLA & ROSELAN D
W W W.SI C 1 N DI AN A.0 0 M 1 1 0 6 1 1 1 e.-P 1-
Staff Report 12/5/2017
APC# 2851-17
Owner: Initiated by the Area Plan Commission
Location: TEXT AMENDMENT
Jurisdiction: City of South Bend
PublicHearing Date: 12/19/2017
Requested Action:
A proposed text amendment initiated by the Area Plan Commission to add the Area Plan
Commission as an enforcement agent within the City of South Bend.
Staff Comments:
The proposed changes to Chapter 21,Article 10 Enforcement are proposed:
Update subsections (a) and(f)to include the Area Plan Commission as an authorized
enforcement agency;
Update subsection (f)to transfer primary enforcement responsibility of several types of
violations to the Area Plan Commission as the Zoning Administrators and remove the
Building Department from some responsibilities
Retains enforcement provisions of the Department of Code Enforcement
Allows the Area Plan Commission to collect fines associated with zoning violations
Recommendation:
Based on information available prior to the public hearing,the staff recommends this text
amendment be sent to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation.
Analysis:
Updating the ordinance to allow the Area Plan Commission to enforce the Zoning
Ordinance is consistent with the duties and responsibilities of the Zoning Administrator.
APC 9 2851-17 Page 1 of 1
d Filed in Clerk's Office
U
d
PE CE >DE:CO b 2017
X X
1865 KAREEMAH FOWLER
CITY CLERK,SOUTH REPAID,IN
CITY OF SOUTH BEND
COMMUNITY INVESTMENT
December 6,2017
Mr. Tim Scott,President
South Bend Common Council
41 Floor County-City Building
South Bend, IN 46601
RE: Historic Preservation
Dear President Scott:
This ordinance is the second oftwo necessary Council actions to provide for a smooth transition
of Historic Preservation Commission(UPC)staff from the County to the City,as planned for in
the 2018 budget and the adopted interlocal agreement with the County. This second ordinance
will make conforming amendments to the zoning provisions related to historic preservation that
match the interlocal agreement and will follow the normal process through the Area Plan
Commission.
As you know,the HPC will continue to operate in service of the residents and property owners of
the City and the County through this staffing transition. The mission of the HPC remains to
identify architecturally or historically significant buildings, structures,sites,and objects;to
promote the protection and preservation of the same in a manner that enhances both human and
economic welfare;and to accommodate development and redevelopment in both the City and
County.
Thank you for your consideration. I,along with representatives from the planning team,will
attend the Committee and Council meetings to address any questions that you may have.
Sincerely,
James Mueller
Executive Director
Department of Community Investment
EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT
1400S County-City Building 1 227 W.Jefferson Bvld.I SouthBend,Indiana
466011 p 574.235.93711 ww w.sou th ben din.gov
Filed in Clerk's Office
ORDINANCE NO.
DEC 0 6 2017
LER
AN ORDINANCE INITIATED BY THE COMMON COUNCI @ HE:jEBEND,IN
SOUTH BEND,INDIANA,AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF =E-SOUTWBENID
MUNICIPAL CODE,ARTICLE 13 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION IN
CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSITION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF
TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND UNDER AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY.
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT
Pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement dated December 12, 2017, by and between the City
of South Bend (the "
City") and
St. JosephCounty (the "
County"), as approved by the executive
and legislative bodies ofthe City and the County in accordance with law,the City and the County
have agreed to transfer management responsibility for historic preservation matters related to the
Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County (the "Commission"),
including the transfer of the employment of certain staff members from the County to the City.
Such transfer will be effective on
January 1, 2018.
Consistent with the City's acceptance of such
responsibilities and staff members, various changes to Chapter 21 Article 13, of the South Bend
Zoning Ordinance are necessary and appropriate. It is desirable, advantageous, and in the public
interest ofthe City and its residents to amend the Zoning Ordinance as set forth herein.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council of the City of South
Bend, Indiana as follows:
SECTION I. Chapter 21,
Zoning, of the South Bend Municipal Code, Article 13 Historic
Preservation Commission, Section 21-13.01(a) is hereby amended to read as follows:
There
is hereby established Hemet gt—v The Historic Preservation Commission
originally established in 1973 is perpetuated with the membeFsh p and powers and duties
as set forth inthe Interlocal Agreement between St. Joseph County and the City
of South Bend dated December 12 2017 as the same may be amended from time to time
in accordance with the law, a copy of which is available for public inspection in the office
of the South Bend City Clerk, and on the City's website.
SECTION I1. Chapter 21,
Zoning, of the South Bend Municipal Code, Article 13 Historic
Preservation Commission, Section 21-13.01(b) is hereby amended to read as follows:
Resef (
b) .Membership:
1) Nott lat than thiFt i30 days after-the effeeti e date of n,-dinanee No. 5565 73 a-A
nonpartisan Historic Preservation Commission of nine (9) members shall continue to be
appointed, all of whom shall be interested and knowledgeable in historic preservation in
the local area. The membership shall be appointed as follows:
1
A) The Mayor and the Common Council ofthe City of South Bend and the
St. Joseph County Council and Board of Commissioners of St. Joseph County shall
each appoint two (2) at-large-members, designating not more than one (1) member
from any major political party and giving consideration to persons residing in areas
having historic significance; and
B) The eight(8)members appointed above shall in turn appoint the ninth member,
who shall be an architectural historian.
2) The Each members of the Historic Preservation Commission shall serve without
compensation for a terms ofthree(3) years;which terms shall continue to be staggered in
accordance with the original provisions for appointment in effect in 1973 which was then
as follows: provided, that the initial appointments
11 rt
a s
a
teiins, as follows:
A) The Mayor and the Common Council ofthe City of South Bend and the Council
and the Board of Commissioners of St. Joseph County shall each make one
appointment for aterm of one(1)year and one appointment for a term oftwo(2)years;
and
B) The ninth member shall be appointed for a term of three (3)years.
3)
If a vacancy occurs by resignation or otherwise, the unexpired term shall be filled
within thirty(30)days of such vacancy by the appropriate appointing body.
4) Whenever a Commissioner fails to attend four(4) consecutive,regularly scheduled
meetings,the Historic Preservation Commission may determine the position to be vacant
and certify to the appropriate appointing body that the position is vacant. Within a
reasonable time after receiving such certification,-an4-the appropriate appointing body
shall, +h• +h•ft (20
days after- 'rf netieefr - the Cenirnission, appoint another
and different Commissioner for the remainder ofthe unexpired term.
5) Each member ofthe Historic Preservation Commission will serve at the pleasure of
his or her appointingbody and may be removed at any time for any reason or no reason.
SECTION III.
Chapter 21, Zoning, of the South Bend Municipal Code, Article 13 Historic
Preservation Commission, Section 21-13.02 ishereby renamed "Section 21-13.02 — Procedures
and responsibilities" and amended as follows:
The Historic Preservation Commission shall have the following powers and dtAie'
responsibilities within the corporate boundaries of the City of South Bend:
a) Reserved. Adopt bj4aws for-eafrying out
the powers and"ies set feAh in this section.
b) Reserved.
c) Reserved. The Genianission shall hold at least m af-(
4r)-¢mrcrr
oca
v u h a hearings to
provide the publie with an oppeftanity of beeoming aware of Cenunission business and
make their views knowa-.
d)
Survey, identify, plan for and advise the Common Council and the Area Plan
Commission concerning the establishment of Historic Preservation Districts. Survey,
2
identify, plan for and advise the Common Council concerning the designation of historic
landmarks.
1) The Historic Preservation Commission shall recommend the designation of historic
landmarks and the establishment of Historic Preservation Districts on the basis of
historical and cultural significance, educational value and suitability for preservation.
2) Historic landmarks shall be designated and Historic Preservation Districts shall be
established by the Common Council through the passage ofan ordinance. Said ordinance
shall be initiated in the usual manner: By the Common Council; by a petition of the
owners offifty(50)percent or more ofthe subject area;or by the Area Plan Commission.
3)
If any proposed ordinance is introduced to the Common Council for the purpose of
creating a new Historic Preservation District , or repealing, altering, or modifying an
established Historic Preservation District , then prior to referral to the Area Plan
Commission, the proposed ordinance shall be referred by the Common Council to the
Historic Preservation Commission which shall hold a public hearing within ninety (90)
days of the referral,
unless such public hearing was conducted by the Historic
Preservation Commission prior to introduction of the proposed ordinance which shall
satisfy this requirement of a public hearing. The public hearing before the Historic
Preservation Commission shall be for the purpose of hearing comments on the proposed
ordinance and for the purpose of delivering either a favorable or unfavorable
recommendation to the Common Council. Notice of such hearing shall be given to all
owners ofproperty in the affected Historic Preservation District. Failure of the Historic
Preservation Commission to deliver arecommendation within ninety(90)days following
referral by the Common Council shall be considered a favorable recommendation.
4)
If any proposed ordinance is introduced to the Common Council for the purpose of
creating a new historic landmark , or repealing, altering, or modifying an established
historic landmark , then prior to the Common Council's public hearing, the proposed
ordinance shall be referred by the Common Council to the Historic Preservation
Commission which shall hold a public hearing within ninety (90) days of the referral,
unless such public hearing was conducted by the Historic Preservation Commission prior
to introduction of the proposed ordinance which shall satisfy this requirement ofa public
hearing. The public hearing before the HistoricPreservation Commission shall be forthe
purpose ofhearing comments on the proposed ordinance and for the purpose ofdelivering
either a favorable or unfavorable recommendation to the Common Council. Notice of
such hearing shall be given to all owners ofthe affected historic landmark. Failure ofthe
Historic Preservation Commission to deliver a recommendation within ninety (90) days
following referral
by the Common Council shall be considered a favorable
recomm endation.
5) (A)
Upon the earlier ofthe reading of a proposal for a historic landmark before
the Historic Preservation Commission or upon the filing of an ordinance before the
Common Council for the purpose of creating a new historic landmark , the
Commission may declare such proposed new historic landmarkto be under interim
protection.
B)
Not more than two (2) working days after declaring a building, structure, or
site to be under interim protection under this section, the Historic Preservation
3
Commission shall provide the owner of the building, structure or site with a written
notice of declaration by personal
delivery or certified mail. The Historic
Preservation Commission shall also notify the Common Council and the St. Joseph
County/South Bend Building Department. In the event the owner cannot be located
after due diligence,the Historic Preservation Commission or the City Department of
Code Enforcement which shall affix a notice of interim protection to the building,
structure, or site. Written notice under this subsection b. must:
i.
Cite the authority ofthe Historic Preservation Commission to put the building,
structure, or site under interim protection under this section;
ii.
Explain the effect of putting the building, structure, or site under interim
protection; and
iii. Indicate that the interim protection is for a maximum period ofsix(6)months.
C)
A building or structure put under interim protection under subsection a.
remains under interim protection for a period of six(6)months,or until an ordinance
designating the landmark is approved or rejected bythe Common Council,whichever
occurs first.
D)
While a building, structure, or site is under interim protection under this
section;
i.
The building, structure, or site may not be demolished or moved;and
ii. The exterior appearance of the building, structure, or site may not be
conspicuously changed by:
a) Addition;
b) Reconstruction; or
c) Alteration.
E)
The Commission may approve a Certificate of Appropriateness at any time
during the period of interim protection, provided the proposed change meets the
criteria for considering effect of actions on historic buildings in subsection 21-
13.02(e) of this section and any proposed preservation guidelines prepared by the
Historic Preservation Commission for the affected building, structure, or site.
e) Within "HP" Historic Preservation Districts, or as to historic landmarks, the Historic
Preservation Commission shall have the following powers and duties responsibilities:
1) The Historic Preservation Commission shall issue a certificate of appropriateness
before any one of the following actions is taken: the construction, reconstruction,
alteration,demolition or moving of any exterior feature ofany building, structure,or use.
Certificates of appropriateness shall be issued in accordance with the stipulations of this
article, and the submission of a certificate of appropriateness shall be accompanied by
fees as prescribed by the Historic Preservation Commission. A listing of such fees shall
be kept on file in the Office ofthe Historic Preservation Commission and the City Clerk's
Office. Such listing shall be kept current and shall be available for public inspection
during regular business hours of said offices.
4
2)
Nothing in this article shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance and
repair of any building, structure or use which will not involve a change in any exterior
features or to prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration, demolition, or moving
of any building, structure or use which the Building Commissioner or other official
having such power may certify as required by the public safety because of an unsafe or
dangerous condition.
Where the Historic Preservation Commission deems it necessary, the Commission may
petition the Common Council for a temporary delay in the issuance of the required
permit(s)-for proposed construction, reconstruction, alteration, demolition or moving of
a designated historic landmark for the purpose of preparing a preservation plan for said
landmark. Such petition shall be for a specified period of time. The Common Council
shall grant the Commission's petition when it finds:
A) That such action will not cause the owner of the subject property to suffer
hardship; and
B)
That such delay will not be injurious to the public health, safety or welfare;
and
C)
That in keeping with the intent of this article, such action is necessary and
appropriate.
In no case may the delay granted by the Common Council exceed one (1) year, but the
Commission may petition the Common Council for a continuation of any such delay
granted by the Common Council in accordance with the same procedures setforth above
for the initial petition.
3) An application for a building permit, demolition permit, sign permit or moving
permit shall also be deemed to be an application for a certificate of appropriateness.
Within five(5)working days ofreceipt ofsuch application relative to abuilding,structure
or use in said district, the Building Commissioner shall forward the application to the
Historic Preservation Commission for review and action pursuant to section 21-
13.02(e)(5),below.
4) Where no other permit is required,an application for a certificate of appropriateness
shall be filed with the Historic Preservation Commission on the form prescribed by the
Commission. Said applicant shall include the following information:
A) Name,address and telephone number of the applicant
B)
Location ofthe subject building, structure or use;
C) Structural drawings and specifications,floor plans, elevations, cross-sectional
plans,renderings, diagrams or other such plans;
D) Samples of materials to be used,including colors;
E) Where the proposed change includes a sign, a scale drawing showing the
location ofthe sign on the structure or property,the type oflettering, and the method
of illumination; and
F) Other such information as the Historic Preservation Commission may require
under the provisions of this article.
5
5) The Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the application within forty-
five (45) days following its receipt ofthe application for a certificate ofappropriateness,
and shall either:
A) Issue a certificate of appropriateness stating that the proposed construction,
reconstruction, alteration, demolition,
or moving is in conformance with the
provisions ofthis article and authorize the Building Commissioner to issue a building
permit, demolition permit, sign permit or moving permit if required; or
B)
Deny the application, stating in writing the reason(s) for such denial. Upon
such denial,the applicant may appeal said denial to the Common Council which shall
make a final determination of the application. Failure of the Historic Preservation
Commission to take such action within sixty(60)days after receipt ofthe application
by the Commission shall constitute approval of the application.
In making such determination,the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider
the following:
i. Appropriateness of the proposed construction, reconstruction, alteration,
demolition or moving to the preservation ofthe historic landmark, specifically,
and/or the Historic Preservation District, generally;
ii. The detriment to the public welfare if the proposed construction,
reconstruction, alteration, demolition or moving is permitted even though it is
not deemed appropriate; and
iii.
The potential hardship that the denial ofa certificate ofappropriateness would
cause the applicant.
6) Reserved.
7) The Historic Preservation Commission may petition the Building Commissioner or
his or her designee and the Department of Code Enforcement to cause the maintenance
and/or repair of any historic landmark or property in Historic Preservation District(s).
All appropriate legal remedies at the state and local levels shall be utilized by such
officials when seeking compliance with standards established for preserving and
protecting historic landmarks and HistoricPreservation Districts as further addressed in
subparagraph(f)herein,which are in accordance with the intent ofthis article.
8) Within each ofthe Historic Preservation Districts established in accordance with the
provisions of this article, the Historic Preservation Commission shall establish
Neighborhood Development Committees to advise the Historic Preservation
Commission in matters relative to the district which the Committee represents.
f) Establish reasonable and just standards for the preservation of historic landmark s and
Historic Preservation Districts, including architectural treatment, site development
requirements, and provisions concerning construction, reconstruction, alteration, demolition
or removal of any building or structure, or parts thereof. Provided,however,that:
1) The Historic Preservation Commission may adopt only those standards necessary to
prevent such construction,reconstruction,alteration,demolition,or removal which is not
in keeping with the purpose and intent ofthis article; and
6
2) Such standards shall be applicable only to the exterior features of historic landmarks
and of buildings or structures within Historic Preservation Districts.
g) Develop historic preservation plans for historic landmarks and districts and, together
with other public or private agencies or officials, assist in the administration and
implementation of such plans.
h) Promote public interest in historic preservation by initiating and carrying on a public
relations and community education program.
i) Advise and assist owners ofhistoric landmarks in the preservation ofthose landmarks.
0) Accept in the name of the City of South Bend, through gift, grant, legacy, bequest or
endowment, monies and preservation easements in real property for the purpose of the
preservation of historic landmarks and Historic Preservation Districts. Expenditures of such
money, regardless of the source, must be deposited in a special Historic Preservation
Commission account, and receive prior approval from the Common Council before
expenditures may be made.
k) The provisions ofthis article shall be enforced as provided by Article 10 ofthis chapter.
1) The Historic Preservation Commission,as the local government certified by the Indiana
State Historic Preservation Officer and the Secretary ofthe Interior ofthe United States,shall
process National Register of Historic Places InventoryNomination Forms in accordance
with regulations established by the Historic Preservation Commission consistent with the
Indiana Certified Local Government Regulations.
m) The Historic Preservation Commission shall receive and accept preservation
easements, determined by the Commission to be appropriate and acceptable,as follows:
1) The preservation easements shall be created and conveyed in accordance with the
provisions of IC 32-23-5-1 et seq. ("Act");
2) The Commission shall receive, accept, administer, monitor and enforce the
preservation easements in accordance with the provisions of the Act and rules and
regulations adopted by the Commission;
3)
The Commission may charge any person granting a preservation easement to the
Commission a filing and administration fee reasonably related to the Commission's costs
of processing, recording and periodically reviewing and monitoring the preservation
easement;
4)
The Commission may enforce the terms and provisions of the documents creating
anypreservationeasement and may collect from the person or persons against whom such
enforcement is sought the Commission's costs of enforcement, including without
limitation court costs and attorneys' fees, and the document creating any preservation
easement accepted by the Commission shall provide for the payment ofsuch enforcement
costs;
5)
The Commission may accept a preservation easement only if all persons with an
interest in the subject real property at the time that the easement is granted join in the
grant and conveyance ofthe easement to the Commission; and
7
6) As used in this subsection (m), "preservation easement" means a nonpossessory
interest of the Historic Preservation Commission in real property imposing limitations or
affirmative obligations for the purpose of preserving the historical, architectural,
archeological, or cultural aspects of such real property.
SECTION IV. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage by the
Common Council and approval by the Mayor.
Member of the Common Council
Attest:
City Clerk
Presentedby me to the Mayor of
the
City of South Bend, Indiana on
the
day of
9 2 at o'clock M.
City Clerk
Approved and signed
by me on
the
day of 2 at
o'clock M.
Mayor, City of South Bend, Indiana
8
r'
AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
125 S. Lafayette Blvd., Suite 100, South Bend, Indiana 46601
574-235-9554 - (Fax) 574-235-5541 -
building(a)southbendin.gov
www.southbendin.gov
SPECIAL EXCEPTION & VARIANCE PETITION
ABZA DATE: Wednesday,December 6,2017
PETITIONER
Alliance Architects 574)288-2052
mmurphy@alliarch.com
Name Phone Email
929Lincolnway East, Suite 200 South Bend IN 46601
Address
City STZip
PROPERTY OWNER(IF DIFFERENT THAN PETITIONER)
Pandora Partners,LLC 574)339-0275 chris.shepherdl @me.com
Name Phone Email
1251 N. Eddy Street, Suite 200 South Bend IN 46617
Address
City ST Zip
PRESENTER(IF DIFFERENT THAN PETITIONER)
Name Phone Email
Address
City ST Zip
PROPERTY INFORMATION
O Office Portage
Zoning Township
806 Howard Street South Bend IN 46617
Address
City ST
Zip
Legal Description
PARCEL I: A lot or parcel of land,74 feet in length,East and West,taken off of and
from the entire width of the West end of the Lot Numbered One Hundred and
Twenty-Five(125)as shown ontherecorded Plat ofEdward Sorin's Second Addition
to the Town of Lowell, now within and a part of the City of South Bend, in
St. Joseph County, Indiana.
PARCEL 11: Part of Lot Numbered One Hundred Twenty-Five (125) as shown on
the recorded Plat of Sorin's Second Addition to Lowell, now a part of the City of
South Bend,described as beginning 74 feet East of the Northwest comer of said lot;
thence running South 66 feet; thence East 45 feet to an alley; thence North 12 feet;
thence West 25.5 feet; thence North 54 feet; thence West 19.5 feet to the place of
beginning.
PARCEL III: Part of Lot Numbered One Hundred Twenty-Five (125)as shown on
the recorded Plat of Sorin's Second Addition to Lowell, now a part of the City of
South Bend, described as commencing on the North line of said Lot 125, 93.6 feet
East of the Northwest comer of said lot; thence South 54 feet; thence East 26 feet;
thence North 54 feet; thence West 26 feet to the place of beginning. Together with
the West Half of the vacated alley lying East of and adjacent to Parcels 11 and III.
PARCEL IV: Grant of Easement recorded
April 21, 2017 as Instrument
No. 1709777 in the Office of the Recorder of Saint Joseph County, Indiana.
SPECIALEXCEPTION & VARIANCE(S)
Seeking Special Exception Use to allow a "
Dwelling Unit - Upper Level" within the O Office
District and Variances to include:
1) Variance to reduce the required front yard and building setback from 25'to
10'at north and from 25'to 20'at west;
2) Variance to reduce the required side residential buffer yard and building
setback from 8'to 5'at south and from 8'to 0'at east;
3) Variance to reduce the required off-street parking from 35 spaces to 4 spaces;
4) Variance to delete off-street parking area screening at east side yard;
5) Variance to reduce the required minimum number ofADA parking spaces
from 2 spaces to 1 space; and
6) Variance to reduce the minimum width ofparkinglot maneuvering aisle from
24'to 0'.
REASON FOR REQUEST(S)
These approvals are necessary in order for the existing building to be renovated as planned by
Superior Property Holdings, LLC.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL STANDARDS
1. The approval will not be injurious to the public health,safety,morals and general welfare of
the community because the proposed residential use is compatible with surrounding land
uses.
2. The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use ofthe adjacent area or property
values therein because the owner will make a significant financial investment and improve
the exterior appearance of
the property.
3. The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located
and the land uses authorized therein. It should also be noted that the proposed uses (office
and residential) are generally considered to be less intensive than the current use (retail).
4.
The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the City of South Bend
Comprehensive Plan because it involves the adaptive reuse of an existing structure and
includes an upper floor dwelling unit above office space.
VARIANCE APPROVAL STANDARDS
1.
The approval will not be injurious to the public health,safety,morals and general welfare of
the community because on-street parking will be available to supplement the existing on-site
parking. The on-street parking will also serve as "traffic calming"along Howard Street.
2.
The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be
affected in a substantially adverse manner because the on-site parking is existing and will
remain in place. Also,the building setback variances are necessary in order for the existing
building walls to be compliant with the current ordinance.
The north building setback
variance will also permit the construction of a new deck/porch which will project
approximately 6'beyond the existing wall.
3.
The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties
in the use of the property because a similar parking variance was granted when the existing
building was constructed in 1992. The South Bend Building Department has confirmed that
the parking requirementsfor the existing retail use and proposed officeuse are identical: 3.5
spaces per 1,000 GSF. The parking requirement for the Dwelling Unit-Upper Floor is two
spaces.
1l t--
7
LICANT SIGNATURE Date
Martin J. Murphy, RA
Alliance Architects
Name
AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
125 S. Lafayette Blvd., Suite 100, South Bend, Indiana 46601
574-235-9554 • (Fax) 574-235-5541 -
building(a southbendin.gov
www.southbendin.gov
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given to all interested persons that the Area Board of Zoning Appeals will hold a
public hearing in the Council Chambers on the 4'h Floor of the County-City Building, 227 W.
Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, on the
6'h day of December, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter can be heard. This hearing is for the purpose of considering a petition that
was filed by:
Alliance Architects, on behalf of Pandora Partners, LLC, 929 Lincolnway East,
Suite 200, South Bend, IN 46601
Seeking:
1) Special ExceptionUse allowing "Dwelling Unit - Upper Level" within O
Office District.
2) Variance to reduce the required front yard and building setback from 25'to
10'at north and from 25'to 20'at west.
3) Variance to reduce the required side residential buffer yard and building
setback from 8'to 5'at south and from 8'to 0'at east.
4) Variance to reduce the required off-street parking from 35 spaces to 4 spaces.
5) Variance to delete off-street parking area screening at east side yard.
6) Variance to reduce the required minimum number of ADA parking spaces
from 2 spaces to 1 space.
7) Variance to reduce the minimumwidth ofparking lotmaneuvering aisle from
24'to 0'.
On real estate commonly described as:
806 Howard Street, South Bend, Indiana 46617
and is legally described as follows:
PARCEL I: A lot or parcel of land,74 feet in length,East and West,taken off of and
from the entire width of the West end of the Lot Numbered One Hundred and
Twenty-Five(125)as shown on the recorded Plat ofEdward Sorin's Second Addition
to the Town of Lowell, now within and a part of the City of South Bend, in
St.Joseph County, Indiana.
PARCEL 11: Part of Lot Numbered One Hundred Twenty-Five (125) as shown on
the recorded Plat of Sorin's Second Addition to Lowell, now a part of the City of
South Bend,described as beginning 74 feet East of the Northwest corner of said.lot;
thence running South 66 feet; thence East 45 feet to an alley; thence North 12 feet;
thence West 25.5 feet; thence North 54 feet; thence West 19.5 feet to the place of
beginning.
PARCEL III: Part of Lot Numbered One Hundred Twenty-Five(125) as shown on
the recorded Plat of Sorin's Second Addition to Lowell, now a part of the City of
South Bend, described as commencing on the North line of said Lot 125, 93.6 feet
East of the Northwest corner of said lot; thence South 54 feet; thence East 26 feet;
thence North 54 feet; thence West 26 feet to the place of beginning. Together with
the West Half of the vacated alley lying East of and adjacent to Parcels U and III.
PARCEL IV: Grant of Easement recorded April 21, 2017 as Instrument
No. 1709777 in the Office of the Recorder of Saint Joseph County,,Indiana.
Dated this
qd- day of /I'
AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Carolyn A. He
Secretary to the Board
TO THE PETITIONER:
It is your responsibility to complete this form correctly and deliver it to the
Secretary of the Board of Zoning Appeals with the other papers at the time of original filing. Once it is
signed by the Secretary, then it is your responsibility to make arrangements to have publication of notice
made in a local newspaper having general circulation in St.Joseph County. Such notice must be published
one(1) time,being at least ten(10)days prior to the date on which the public hearing is to be held. Proof
of publication must be presented to the Board at the time of public hearing.
O
t7
9,C
AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
125 S. Lafayette Blvd., Suite 100, South Bend,Indiana 46601
574-235-9554 • (Fax) 574-235-5541 -
building(@southbendin.gov
www.southbendin.gov
NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
You are hereby notified that a public hearing will be held by the Area Board of Zoning Appeals on
Wednesday,the 6`b day of December, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers on the 4`b Floor
of the County-City Building,227 W. Jefferson Blvd.,South Bend,Indiana
A petition is on file by: Alliance Architects, on behalf of Pandora Partners, L.LC, 929 Lincolnway
East, Suite 200, South Bend, IN 46601.
Seeking:
1) Special Exception Use allowing "
Dwelling Unit - Upper Level" within O
Office District.
2) Variance to reduce the required front yard and building setback from 25'to
10'at north and from 25'to 20'at west.
3) Variance to reduce the required side residential buffer yard and building
setback from 8'to 5'at south and from 8'to 0'at east.
4) Variance to reduce the required off-street parking from 35 spaces to 4 spaces.
5) Variance to delete off-street parking area screening at east side yard.
6) Variance to reduce the required minimum number of ADA parking spaces
from 2 spaces to 1 space.
7) Variance to reduce theminimumwidth ofparking lot maneuvering aisle from
24'to 0'.
On property commonly described as: 806 Howard Street, South Bend, Indiana 46617.
Said public hearing will be held as authorized by the applicable Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 138,
Acts of 1957 of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana.
As a property owner within the immediate appeal area, this notice is sent to you as a courtesy.
Sometimes,for reasons beyond our control,property owners within the immediate area ofthe subject
property will not receive a copy of this notice. If you know of someone who should have received
notice but didn't,please inform them of this hearing. Any persons desiring to oppose or support this
petition will be heard at the time of the hearing.
AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Carolyn A. H
Secretary to the Board
1
i
RESOLUTION NO.
i
A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH BEND,INDIANA,
l
APPROVING A PETITION OF THE
AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
806
Howard Street,PortageTownship,South Bend,Indiana 46617 1
WHEREAS, Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-918.
6, requires the
Common Council to give notice
j
pursuant to
Indiana Code Section 5-14-15-5,of itsintention to consider Petitions
from the
Boardf
of Zoning Appeals for approval or disapproval; and
WHEREAS,the
Common Council must take action withinsixty(60)days after the Board of
Zoning I
Appeals makes its recommendation
to the Council; and i
WHEREAS,the Common Councilis required to make a determination in writing on such requests
I
pursuant to Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-918.4; and
WHEREAS,the Area Board ofZoning Appeals has made a recommendation,pursuant to applicable
state law. i
NOW,THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY IOF SOUTH BEND,INDIANA as follows:
SECTION 1. The Common Council has provided notice of the hearing on the Petition from the
Area Board of
Zoning Appeals pursuant
to Indiana Code Section 5-14-1.5-5, requesting that a
f
Special Exception be granted for the property located at:
806 Howard Street,Portage Township,South Bend, Indiana 46617
in order to permit
Special Exception Use: "Dwelling Unit-Upper Level"
SECTION II.
Following a presentation by the Petitioner, and after proper public hearing, the
Common Council
hereby approves
the petition of the
Area Board of
Zoning Appeals, a copy of t
which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
I
SECTION III. The Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana,hereby finds that;
1.
The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort,
community moral standards,convenience or general welfare;
2.
The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area
or property values therein;
3. The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which
it is located and the land uses authorized therein; and
I
s
i
4. The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the City of
South Bend Comprehensive Plan.i
SECTION IV. Approval is subject to the Petitioner complying with the reasonable conditions
established by the Area Board of Zoning Appeals which are on file in the Office of the City Clerk,I
SECTION V. The Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption by the
Common Council and approval by the Mayor.
I
i
i
Member of the Common Council
r
i
I
i
sr
i
i
i
i
I
i
f
ril ed in Clerk's Office
I
1 st READING
PUBUC HEARING
NOV 0 9 20173 rd READING
NOT APPROVE^; fREFERRED AREEMAH FOWLER
DASCrn CITYCLER&SOUTH BEND,IN j
PANDORA PARTNERS LLC
1251 N.EDDY ST,SURE 200
SOUTH SEND,IN 46617
574)339.0275
CHRIS.SHEPHERD1Qa ME.COM
October31, 2017
To Whom it May Concern,
Pandora Partners, LLC hereby authorizes Alliance Architects to serve as its
representative during the submission and public hearings related to the
petition for a special exception use and variances for the property commonly
described as 806 Howard Street, South Bend, Indiana 46617,
Sincerely,
Christopher Shepherd
Member
Type: Filing_Fees
Payor:ALLIANCE ARCHITECTS
License Number:
Address:806 HOWARD
SP EXCEPTION & VARIANCES
11/9/2017 9:10:49 AM
Filing_Fees $570.00
Check013148 570.00
chenry 10124
AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
125 S. Lafayette Blvd.
Suite 100
South Bend, Indiana 46601
574)235-9554
FAX: (
574)235-5541
December 7,2017
The Honorable Common Council South Bend
Of the City of South Bend
4th Floor, County-City Building
South Bend, Indiana 46601
RE: Petition for Special Exception
Pandora Partners, LLC
12/06/17
Dear Council Members:
The above referenced petition ofPandora Partners,LLC was legally advertised on November 16, 2017. The Area
Board ofZoning Appeals gave it a public hearing on December 6, 2017, atwhich time the following action
was taken:
Upon a motion by Mr. Urbanski, being seconded by Ms. Schuth and by a favorable vote of 4-1,the
petition for Special Exception to allow a"
Dwelling Unit"—Upper Level in an"0"Office District, located
at 806 Howard St., Portage Township,zoned"0"Office is sent to the Common Council with a Favorable
Recommendation.
The deliberations of the Area Board of Zoning Appeals and points considered in arriving at the above decision
as shown in the Minutes ofthe Public Hearing, and will be forwarded to you at a later date,to be made part of
this report.
Sincerely,,
Charles C. Bulot, C.B.O. Building
Commissioner
CCB/cah
PETITION
SPECIAL EXCEPTION PURSUANT 21-09.3(D)
AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Pandora Partners, Inc
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY,COMFORT,
COMMUNITY MORAL STANDARDS,CONVENIENCE OR GENERAL WELFARE BECAUSE:
The accessory residential use should have no impact on the public health, safety, or general welfare of the
community.
2. THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT INJURE OR ADVERSELY AFFECT THE USE OF THE ADJACENT AREA
OR PROPERTY VALUES THEREIN BECAUSE:
Because the site has been used as an office for many years,the proposed addition ofthe residential use
should not impact surrounding property values.
3. THE PROPOSED USE WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS
LOCATED AND THE LAND USES AUTHORIZED THEREIN BECAUSE:
This Special Exception Use for the upper level dwelling unit is consistent with the O Office District and the
surrounding neighborhood in which it will be located.
4. THE PROPOSED USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BECAUSE:
City Plan, South Bend Comprehensive Plan(November 2006)identifies this area as Medium Density Residential.
CONDITIONS OR REVISIONS:
Click here to enter text.
DECISION
IT IS THEREFORE the decision ofthe Board that this request for Special Exception shall be passed onto the City of
South Bend Common Council with a FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION
ADOPTED this 6th Day of December,2017
MOTION SECOND RECUSED ABSENT YES NO
N MICHAEL URBANSKI
RANDALL MATTHYS
N O KATHYSCHUTH
N JOHN LESZCZYNSKI
N JACK YOUNG
N ROBERT HAWLEY
11 N D BRENDAN CRUMLISH
JOOHIN to u o!s s!wad eopu8 peal!ea U
ue llu m ssaj d xa941 lno4 i m pazuo4lne lou si l e u ale w
s!yl to uo!l n q u ls!p jouoilonpadaa au!ualuaO peon
Qg!gel uegojaw io doeinooe jol pal u ej jem lou s!dew siyl u o U M 04S uo!lewJoluj pempea pauopuegy
pe mpea
wnleo ueouawy pealieb
41JO N£96L walsAS aleu!pJooO aueld al e)
S lse3 eueipul uopaseq si p u b aleu!plooO
luudlood 6wpimg 'J
1 laa lS 1113 =
j.. Loo loo 00 0 0
laejlSOfS =
s ail"
r
s!aoied Hl3
slaaed OfS
1aa100-9L=40 u!L
all!19nSiXj
o lgnd 'A8 paleiauag deyl
suo!suaw!Q I831ed OfS
ajIsgaM SIC) leuoiftM uuggoiw
pua68-1
EfI
P j LSL6104S 8l0'I
t ,
rs
qq
a
k
V
vIS plcrnoH
moo-" `. Y I k,,-f a
L
a
r A t
6• L J w.-' Zl i
1:" LI
SZ,=ILO
d
Alice H Isaacson
909 N. St. Peter St.
Sasman Enterprises LLC Megan M Kolaczyk
925 N. Notre Dame Ave. 918 N. St. Louis Blvd.
South Bend, IN 46617
Parcel#018-5107-3766
South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN 46617
Parcel#018-5107-3771 Parcel#018-5107-3755
Robert D and Katherine C Kossler
Hansen Syrus White Jill R. Bodensteiner
1020 N. St. Peter St.
Bend,
922 N. 5t. Louis 920 N. St. Peter St.
South B IN 46617
Parcel#
end,
018-5104-3651
6
South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN 46617
Parcel#018-5107-3798 Parcel#
018-5107-3778
Pandora Partners LLC Scott R.Appleby Sara and Thomas Mustillo
51720 Bluffside Court 912 N. St. Peter St. 926 N. St. Peter St.
Granger, IN 46530 South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN 46617
Parcel#
018-5107-
3768;#018-5107-3770 Parcel#018-5107-3783 Parcel#018-5107-3774
The University of Notre Dame
Julie A. Peterson Robert J. and Deborah S. Bernhard
725 Grace Hall
902 N. St. Peter St. 1019 N. Notre Dame Ave.
Notre Dame, IN 46556
South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN 46617
Parcel#018-
5107-3772;#
018-5104-3632
Parcel#018-5107-3786 Parcel#018-5104-3653
018-5104-3631
Perret D Hunter
Brian R. and Alison KLevey
Ebrahim I Moosa
1301 Camelia Blvd., Ste 400
918 N. St. Peter St.
MoosaFamily 2016(Trust)
Lafayette, LA 70508
South Bend, IN 46617
1008 N. St Peter St.
Parcel#
018-5104366101;#018-5104-3661
Parcel#018-5107-3778
South Bend, IN 46617
018-5104-3662 Parcel#018-5104-3658;#018-5104-3657
ND 2019 LLC John T. McGreevey and Jean C.
c/o Kendall Gray
Rita A. Schmid Mamanus
64 Florence Ave
919 N. Notre Dame Ave. 1010 N. Notre Dame Ave.
New Providence, NJ 07974
South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN 46617
Parcel#018-5107-376601
Parcel#018-5107-3780 Parcel#
018-5105-3673
James and Gia HaighRudy N. Reyes Ani Apbrahamian(Trust)
925 N. Notre Dame Ave.1014 N. St. Peter St. 936 N. Notre Dame Ave.
South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN 46617
Parcel#018-5107-
3776;#018-5107-3775 Parcel#018-5104-3654 Parcel#018-5106-3713
South BendHousing Authority Stephen
C Smith Thomas J. and Shannon E. Guinan
501 S. Scott St. 4404Technology Dr. 807 Grace Hall
South Bend, IN 46613 South Bend, IN 46617 Notre Dame, IN 46556
Parcel#
018-5107-3756 Parcel#018-5104-
3630 Parcel#018-5107-3782
Mathew M and Elizabeth Sanford Thomas E and Elizabeth R Burman
William C. III and Courtney D. Mattison
1013 N. St. Peter St. 920 N. Notre Dame Ave.
313 Visitation Hall
South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN 46617
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Parcel#018-5104-3629 Parcel#018-5106-3721
Parcel#018-5106-3717;#018-5106-3718
John B. Swarbrick and
Kimberly A Barbara Virginia Sniegowski as
Highsmith Avance
Hudgens-Swarbrick Trustee of Barbara Virginia
924 St. Louis Blvd.
1016 N Notre Dame Ave. 917 N. St. Peter St.
7
South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN46617
South Bend, IN
Parcel#
018-5105-3672 Parcel#018-5107-3763;#018-5107-3762
Parcel#018-5107--3793797
d "
Willie and Brenda J. Martin-Groves Mark Kurtis
713 Howard St. 702 E Howard St.
South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN
Parcel#
018-51043616 Parcel#018-5107-3789
Thomas Stroka
1017 N. St Peter St.
South Bend, IN 46617
Parcel#018-51043628
Marc D. and Jeanette M. Burdell
901 N. Notre Dame Ave.
South Bend, IN 46617
Parcel#018-5107-3788
Irish Homestead LLC
150 Carondelet Piz.#2601
Saint Louis, MO 63105
Parcel#018-5106-3750
Steven T.and Jennifer H. Fortener
1006 Notre Dame Ave.
South Bend, IN 46617
Parcel#018-510-367302
Daniel B. and Kelly O. Kelly
18471 Spring Mist Ct.
South Bend, IN 46637
Parcel#018-5401-3659;#018-5401-3660
Christine M. Boetticher(Trust)
1017 Notre Dame Ave.
South Bend, IN 46601
Parcel#018-5104-3655
Cyril J. Oregon and Geraldine Meehan
907 N. Notre Dame Ave.
South Bend, IN 46617
Parcel#018-5107-3784
Jan Martin Klass Cremers and Lisbeth
Marieke Misdorp
914 N. Notre Dame Ave.
South Bend, IN 46617
Parcel#018-5106-3725
City of South Bend
227 West Jefferson Blvd.
South Bend, Indiana 46601
Parcel#
018-5107-3800;#018-5107-3794
3.° ''a r
E' ..i
yam'},'
t3e ' t• 1. 1
fi#•y{, .,
X.. •'e ,
eiw. •
1 it*4., I i r
s ..,
4:' °cwt `It'
7
e.
I
l!E
Y
i t a a 3'
rG a, `" •a`
i•i[ •
E L i; UDR
as .•
1 r+s s {-°•
s' 'r
v:.'
3 e ,'
jrt','
IMF
qw
YA
y
1
y n T'
i...
r y
t
a
i1 f
i
r r
G>•i• r" '' .
a7
y y
y' s ,.P},:•! !( sntt ^ + }• '
i I s r yT,+ a ..sf`,.
a 4
ra ; V 6•+
f.1 I'
1 1 d•1,a 1:
ta' l V"y 1^ N,
l i f~, 1
Y V31:a f•`\
S_+ CcF.- •.. .
y 1 - ,,
r+. /e sw r•L l•
a.^,
Q n
j
pycr.
rv."'d vj.s+"!W'
q.?,9 ,py." FC d f' +k n'?
i
ji' ` •.
f ib
T
r
F '
i F
3
Aii .}rr yy++
rjt" ,s r' t-1 a.°
3'
9•
7 fu4
a*.
v
e
F'.
t '
J o
t
r
k
F t~
9
l"
I N
PARIS
y, r*
r .•
a
s
la
e
a
fTC'
t
yy
q.
W.
j w
NatY • "7lPt
t:' {r t,
r , ' a YyS+k'atFs 1. ^ ,.,
h• ,.y
tii.k
a' ^
t
h ?d
R' fyt;t, -} ,
f
1
T Ir
9 1 ht a
ESN' `-A,a
t
T>a w,• 1, 1'- ' 3 e A+.
r..
17/3d,'
yet^, !t!
Y+
r• r f
eY FiT ,. #:1,. 7\K h•T,13JGa rY G..dx.
y
t
A7 _, ' 'i•
t+%
ti S ,t. "` v.ia'
e
F`
Y t
CJCN ..
1t
MMWA
ow,•
n v-n
o
rri+..a,
c...`', '`'
v ..an.. '
f I't\
tv
K\s h :
of
fi-
t'.r'''"
r. r; yam'••
i t a
o
y
i
11 1 •
mo o?,!. "' ' ' ± i•' ' .; '?!^
F` k
b,
1 r
l
a ..7F i t t e
K *;
9 C+k ."''.
t:
L.`, Y
s try'
r•1 Y . m ow ;,
j.`• t'. . V" 'w;`5
a 1h 3. ti L' "k
7 c
l
Y 7T
y q
A•' to 1
i'
r ,
1
R
l WWI`
r
y eI 1
q.
5
sue•"
S •
e
o= ,
o
VK
F?"
4''t''''4fr:ter'
4f
jY'•.: ,yl j
1
k
li G
y
d. Y i+ r
h rf,,_. a
it. _ i I
I i r
6 j<!i2 `{`; ••
y
iH J J+,
is
S
y`
L JR• } ;- !
ai
i s
it
R '°"".s m.•-`•
F,u ":7 , -;_ r+ ..,
a ate.•'. ';
f r
i
I k 'a t aA M'
AW
l •
R :.
d.,
st
t 'e
t
x a
c
MI
9.
4
ty fiat r4
LALGt
41 1",
w 1
v
r
r
y •
t
E fA l Alm
NEW
W
L
l t
14 , 1:
y y
j
A
co L
y
m U y U
WE
U
c
C
WU Ts
4W
O Z I o
c n a
c r m000R
vO
CIs r r t a
LI S
U
O ,t
I 3 N N n l r-
Z 1 F
N C7
n 4LC,3
li c ca C carA 0 0 0
c n U o °
ca ca ca
0 O +rv
3 O
a ca
o
Uaca ° c°i '°
O 1
O O ink
O•V V
V O;
cOCV°EN,•'mRCC«d -ez
e o,^`i- O c•C 3 T o""V u'
c4
m p Z
r,
u .
U'
E v o uGv:.U E ry,•a - , u°w
s
n,F =.W`
vo,•n,i Er e+.
nia E° E v
u°•;co,-.g> .e mu.. O
L_ EE oc
Z'N-".-0 A'-^ -i .-
Zrvv O c
R:O N V VQiy o N_-r:Z¢
auu
G Oc''oc a:u`
Lac>u•OCti=`:_"•3uL7rv:1__i-
F?•fl
Z.
O -F•°•o..
V
C GJ..
r L
n y 7--G-
noL•1- L ..04=r.•Z
uc_.•--u,.uo u `c 3_'_-J-.,
uy°A U a°uEu
LC°3=-•-cCc nc v3---_ en GR-p•••,RrRy0.ouu00u-u0^00.OU000cu OdOR 0. n.:L¢Urn
c-c a c3=Uuc•-`o3 cEs
a`,c c- Hoe c _ - u
o
z`o°c°-
o'
r
c a _=0
3 n;
000 °-° 'E` ER
T'oco RC"inc
C'
ut0 4
R" v: 0 3 ry
W cc.•c L'C,_°rte'u Oy vo?t•e-p0 c-.~'.- ovC E' '_ o'`J
u7LjC'C -. •OULC.v'a .•
q9 Oy•C=^
C--
c-C w•
u u -E.--r". -; Nkp = .v
l `.
c 3c p.0.7Uy:
V O C
L^ O .V.
U. L °
Lu,+
E:?u¢-u=
o• v o
C C v N d N d
O
N
R_O
cO,t C`u
c•°^C
ONEOTR
uF
y r.V_c U
65 r'LLuLo uo.3
4.T¢'—°
E•-,°na c. t°
vuo ,uw O eusO J
L•u
U Vu`r.
G r:°l n CO:L
Or•-
13.-C, _._>...ip e•Oi..p=6-0-.T.p V r _L. ,. C...
a OC
V.
0 V C'.,:r y
U...-r'•?
N V V` RJ SOS u s e'a'z...r=.''•-O°
L E=s _m a c -c e R c 1 ¢R a> o
w a 3 u
Om`_.,
C.
c z e n"
r ecJ.E,t v.`.• R`_C
o•C
u W Et=`
cZ.E O'E 8,51 C
oO
Zc
H c:J=
1
y?
y°- u e or. R°,ao`°R '
c.-.=E c
Ez u ovc=
u v L V aau`
Ov u o- r,
p` °c y
y t•-
o Cc¢ coo+`
a¢o-,a_ mo-u<a_i
i
a
E .
t l
i GPI
i
f
1
f i
i.Sn,
w.
Go'0 I I:: _
t a
b;,
f
B rF r
I Y..
i
u fr
i ,
c
I
r -
i r- a , _-
1 --it .. ,.
I
V NMONI'ON 39HinO S 1
1332LLS Q dVAAOH 909
o"ob psi r
d
NOliVAON3N 301JJO S2BNiWd
S32130 a oe U
z
O w
wmONI (
wiw c7
Z
ON H m UO
U O Z
W
V y W y W W
x g O
U
M-
w W
m O7aK >-z
7
OWW N'
JK OWV r_a J
x O Wa 60 9> O <!- joza NFa QW
y
O = W Niu2Q a W p
K?
Vo WH
N 2 a Waya U
W L L K
LL O N W
Y
W
x f
0¢ aW W a 2 O pp O.n
O Na
VQ j
U yW
k Zt2 0 a m v17 FwYZ CiW
Q
QY
4J to m UQ N O O Z ZZ Zy
W Z p y7w QLL1 W
w m y W Y z m Q iii t 7¢
W' .
5
QUn
p U YZ C 7 ><Z O
d
F_W pt _N mxc O
Q
lw-
p tai=
w HZO p am
v>
N lil m LL Q
3~a,LLtl10 m
W2a O O¢ a mpWLL _
wmZ ww-O wZ H
pp o z a m-7 z°z n•
7p¢
5 2Saz o
m w ¢ Oy m p m m ¢¢
W C) mNQO
WZ7J Z
C/
O' '- mW ~N O<p2 4>O x O a[2 7a z 6
W
0 W O
H 0 1-0 7 <0<Q K9O z y z,<. Ya Wx<
W n
ZOW W Ua (7
20 o w"
m ¢mH O f/l
060 QE Om OpOx O
J N. ZMt11 . ?F- YF<} Z7r
K JOi a
Z(7WWZFYZppgO
m V ¢<
m OLLWU >OW¢ a'z
m __ 0 a~O -wd N 7>b m.. w
6< W¢ O,
amt Em wQ?x > >
3wz a'w
a-wC¢p Ky
M 5z F z o7 a m rc
a ir- i p yc au maoa ro
L 1J x x( z aaK
0 O Z
w LL o
0 z 6 N C` 2 2
In 0 O
1 r
o f v i n m
r 6
Y
F ¢
m
LL J
W
W
MRS'Z -133US i3_d 1Sw 0 0
U W o
Z 0 w 7 N
3 2 HEm 7OOm
Ir¢
LLZ
LLJ
w
09
m y;...
w x maw xO p ,. NzzOZ99 m wmamwVy o__
O
a
d
n2
O
z n-
U z
NIWO 0, m
W
O Cp
i
C C71ji
Q=W
m JW z _
Y
W
WP Q so
0:W co Q mLL U7 J
FQ
N
W UOFO2 nl I
U WZZ X 7) w
m
YF. 1
m
K
z o w w¢U0 t Li 4,
w
I '-
mO noFC n
wit
z O
r J
50 1 t z
o n C4
Q W CC
O
wC70,W lWiZ m
OwF-0 0
cr
m LL
wUO F
U 7 w
R L
z OEW<
O<w
Q W 7 0 0
m< 1
O w i r•
Q W Z fj
I X co
ila° I;:Q
S
o
I..
O
W
I I I
N
F W F
W
WA f p WQ W
J
Q' w I...W O W (.j Q p
U
W W QWt n W
WFpF-Z° W 0-Uc i 0
W~OaO
J,/
w 0 0 ofwow
zazp
ww.
QZ0 W0 0 0m
UGH O>N C) c A rC U 6 ZJ Z ZQ
ZOK WZU
Z
07Zn
ZOaZw (q>Ua QWS2 W?' Q wj mYQ
mxZ0ZO W
0Q ¢O¢Ua ¢Ow 0¢m O
0 <<x ¢O w¢
9 I-ac n(
5 >rmZn.az
I-aM w >H Ka<co
V WUNI'QN39 H1f 10S
13 3H IS UdVMOH 9 09
op
r 9
NOliVAON321301JAO S213NlZldd S32130
Nlm
N
w
nM
w z
s
z U210,a _W.1
Q o kw
0 >-a=
cw)
IS
0 Z H N'aD ZQWLL W
HJ V QW WZyWpa• W
0 2 6 W
Q X W QQ l L L i.
W W dZ p Op t?
LL
O
O Na UU ¢N
WO zN 06 R'v l 0 FWZyc) p
n5 r
O 7s,
W
V m 5 Wy W3?j Ow
7
r-
0--
a
wo Qwo)
ILA
J Wd't 7 m 0
YF 2
d
aw I l l
QQSd.LLWLL
Q Ump
Um Y?U`
Z Ka0 v°Iw w
f U<
U
W. °
IL L i-
w 4ozo aK F ¢u¢.w
w-LLh a
wZ< O 0Z iimm-
2 z°? x ¢ a
U
Z
Uw0F02
O
zw x 0 0
rii m
z
p
Wm K Z
Oz» z
O>
y f-W
Qzp m,
p = 8 I<r U'0 Q&OWE 0
Z Z Wx QF KW
Q Z LL S2 ft U'
Z ma"°
6m, m s2 go CO W C~
U2 Q
J
O LL W O 6 6O6 ZU'OWzr
W
yV.
g$
l1wyz K R2 Z m QOzOZ -jd
K00
K W^Ed
11
M1 (
a-)
Z =U Z O u l Ol i.in¢ E I=- 5 nV jpIL y C 6W¢dOiL
m O x 6 Z2 V L L
o
i r60 Z¢ N C L ` m l¢i
wa O O°
F ¢¢co }N f-W
W CO N
NV 8,9 Z99Z8-133 211S
9Y '1 S 1 Z
w0 0 0 1-
zOxONWj07 F
C)CO
OV
WNKG WXO° w OQ
OZ'99 uSma
oz
WRX
z aO it
BE O 3 b i O J
wti—a o
WI
Z)2 W
m o) Z Z 6 5.' '•" w
L LI
F-
Xw w¢°o
N A_U)
Y 1 X
1 u~i
r00-
z 0 0'W Q
Q 1 W M
n
1
D W UJ- ¢
IW
jO 0m0 C 3 2 (DU W F
ZClfoLL'F a
w
O
owW¢wr x
d
Q W m
1
z
co
r
W O O 1
C 1 2w[l lJ
m diQmK
w
U W 0
W
w
U Wz ZY
z O W w¢
UQ
rt
K Oco 7
0 LUa<uwi< Nayb L x
a
Q
J a
I'- N
W
O 9
W
F.
J f- W U) O coLL d
W O N w
yM¢OLLW
O0
V! W
Lu
07:E- (7_C!=Ii( < w w LLL¢L I¢W I- ¢
QO
wrpl-z° wHLLOv x < MONO W W LLal- VJ In
w OH O x LLptea wF¢zo wUul0wy
W
V WF-
W UD I- zf$
urw-
Uw C7— Oz) moW
Z 0 Z)z N Z D_Z W N'Q ¢W?
W}
Q W
7 D]
Y¢ r
W m`.L W`
0KW 0 m wog. ROW E m m
ME
OZ¢
z0 ¢
Ow¢a O¢U0 ¢
Ow0¢N O
ALL >F-
w F-a l n fA >1-2'z z
Carolyn Henry
From: Elizabeth Burman 4eburrnan.rnail @,n ail.co n>
Sent:
Sunday, December 03,2017 4:11 PM
To:
Carolyn Henry
Subject:
Opposition to Rezoning 806 Howard Street
Dear Carolyn,
Please convey this letter to the South Bend Area Board of Zoning Appeals.
Our names are Thomas and Elizabeth Burman, and we joint own and live in a home that is within 300 feet of
the property at 806 Howard Street,which is currently appealing for several zoning variances that you will be
considering at this month's hearing.
We OPPOSE these variances.
The reasons for our opposition, in terms of the ABZA's four legal standards:
1) "The proposed use will not be iniurious to the public health,safetv, comfort, community moral
standards, convenience or general welfare."
A.
The planned expansion and use of the property at 806 Howard Street is completely out of character with its
immediate neighbors, and violates the standards that have been carefully agreed upon by the Northeast
Neighborhood Community and already accepted as an overlay by the ABZA.
B.
Our traffic and parking patterns are already being affected, and our street parking for our own and our
guests' cars by the Eddy Street Commons development, the addition of bike lanes,and the expansion of Keller
park,all adjacent to 806 Howard Street. There is insufficient margin for the additional street parking being
requested in this appeal.
C.
The safety ofneighborhood children coming and going to Keller park would also be endangered by the
requested increase in street parking that the children would now have to traverse.
D.
There is already a very carefully planned mixed-use area under development on Eddy Street. By contrast,
there has been NO neighborhood discussion or approval for a single,massively over-built, mixed-use building
at 806 Howard Street,which is in the middle ofa single home residential area.
2) "The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or propert- values
therein."
A.
Our property value will definitely be affected ifthe property at 806 Howard Street is made even taller than
it already is(which is at least no taller than the two-story houses around it.) With the requested changes, it
would loom above everything else around it and be in view directly across the street from the main living area
of our house.
B. The value of our home is very much based on its location in a
lapZned, mixed-use community. That
community does not allow for haphazard one-offs like the one the owners of 806 would like to develop. Our
own recent(2016)purchase ofthis home was based on our agreement with the vision laid out and already
i
codified by ND,NENC, and South Bend for this neighborhood, and this vision does NOT include the expanded
building size and mixed use proposed for 806 Howard Street.
C.
Our own street parking will also be adversely affected by the proposed addition of street parking for 35+
more cars in the vicinity of 806 Howard street.
D.
The value and safe use of our neighborhood's Keller Park, by our own as well as our neighbors' children,
also will be adversely affected by the additional traffic and street parking.
3. "The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located and the
land uses authorized therein."
A.
The planned expansion and use ofthe property at 806 Howard Street is completely out of character with its
immediate neighbors,and violates the standards that have been carefully agreed upon by the Northeast
Neighborhood Community and already accepted as an overlay by the ABZA.
B.
The addition ofnon-primary rental space,particularly space that will be open to undergraduate college
students, would both adversely affect the value of ofadjacent properties,but also directly contravenes the
purposes and plans laid out by the NENC zoning overlay.
C.
Finally: There is already a very carefully planned mixed-use area under development on Eddy Street.
Meanwhile,there has been NO neighborhood discussion or approval for a single, massively over-built, mixed-
use building in the middle of a single home residential area of the neighborhood. Further, The Eddy Street
Commons development also adheres to our neighborhood zoning overlays in a way that the proposed plans for
806 Howard do not.
4 "The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the City of South Bend Comprehensive
Plan."
A.
The City of South Bend and the ABZA have already accepted and codified the northeast neighborhood
NENC) plan as a legal subset of the city's overall plan. The City gives preference to the NENC overlay
requirement, for example, that our fences be no taller than 5 feet, even though the City itself allows for 6 foot
tall fences. Therefore,the City of South Bend has already demonstrated its acknowledgement that the NENC
standards are a legal subset of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and these NENC standards also apply to the
property at 806 Howard Street. These standards do not allow for the proposed changes to this property, nor does
the City's Comprehensive Plan provide any basis for overturning NENC's standards by default.
B.
Finally, we have already had a disturbing precedent in both the original building at 806 Howard Street
which was developed despite great opposition in the early 1990's, as well as the more recent development at
1121 North Notre Dame Avenue property, in which the by-now-extant NENC plan was disregarded, and the
NENC not given a full chance to review. It is my understanding that even the city has acknowledged that this
should not have happened.
It seems that in in the case of 806 Howard Street,the NENC once again has not been given a chance to meet,
review or comment on the proposed variances before the ABZA meets to rule on them on December 6.
Every time the neighborhood zoning is ignored and the NENC left out of the vetting process,both the
community's and City's plans are further eroded. What a shame, after so many people have spent so much time
and money on the vision and plans for our neighborhood,plans in which—Again-mixed use areas of high
value to the community and the city have already been included on North Eddy Street.
2
Thank you for your consideration,
Elizabeth and Thomas Burman
920 North Notre Dame Avenue
South Bend,Indiana 46617
3
Carolyn Henry
From: Tom Guinan <thomas.guinan @comcast.net>
Sent:
Monday, December 04, 2017 5:13 AM
To:
Carolyn Henry
Subject: Opposition to expansion of 806 Howard St and addition of third story residential
City of South Bend
Area Board of Zoning Appeals
Attn: Carolyn Henry
Dear Ms. Henry:
I am writing to express my opposition to the planned expansion and change of use of the property located at 806
Howard Street,South Bend, Indiana 46617. My wife and I live at 915 N. Notre Dame Ave.Our house is 3 lots south and 1
lot east of the property in question.We have lived at our current address for nearly 11 years.We believe the property at
806 Howard St. has been an incongruent presence in the nei ghb orhood—both in terms of its architecture and its
purpose"—since even before we built our home as part of the NE Neighborhood redevelopment program. It appears
since the sale of the building several months ago, it has sat vacant.
While any improvement to the exterior design of 806 Howard would be welcome,the proposed increase in height from
28.5 ft.to 46ft.and the change of use as a combined residential/office building will make an already out of place
structure even more so, regardless of the nature of any exterior improvements.As a property owner within the "appeal
area" I would like to register my formal opposition to the planned expansion and change of use for the property at 806
Howard St.for the following reasons:
1. The proposed and expansion use will adversely affect the adjacent area or property values therein and the
proposed use will be inconsistent with the character of the district in which it is located and the land uses
otherwise aut horized therein. A mixed office/
residential building at such a height is completely out of
scale in this residential neighborhood. It will negatively impact the property values of the homes
immediately adjacent to it and will have a negative impact on the value of the homes in the appeal area.
This negative impact will arise not only from the mere presence of the structure but also from the increased
congestion and parking requirements resulting from the expanded business activity in the building.
2. The proposed use will injurious to the public health, safety, comfort, community moral standards,
convenience or general welfare. It should be noted that the intersection of Howard St. and Notre Dame
Ave. is an extremely busy 4-way-stop intersection.This is particularly the case on weekdays between 7-
8AM and 5-6PM.The requested variance to reduce the required off-street parking from 35 spaces to 4
spaces seems to be the exact opposite of what will be required to ensure that those living and working in
the
facility would not o therwise
be parking on Howard St. right at the Notre Dame
Ave. intersection—thus
limiting visibility andadding to the congestion—
and also along the already limited parking spaces in front of
residences on Notre Dame Ave. and St. Peter St.
Again, any improvement to the exterior of 806 Howard St.that would be keep the facility within its current scale
would be welcome—as would suitable retail or office activity for which the building was originally zoned. While the
appeal to potential residents of an additional floor w/essentially unobstructed views of the Golden Dome is
obvious, those who have invested in this neighborhood, many of whom have lived here for over a decade, would
be significantly and negatively impacted for the reasons noted above.While my opposition to the current
expansion and change of use plans is firm, I would welcome the opportunity to join with my neighbors and the
property owners to see if other plans might be more acceptable to all parties.
1
Thank you.
Tom Guinan
915 N. Notre Dame Ave.
i
i
i
z
Carolyn Henry
From: Thomas Mustillo <tustillo@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, December 05, 2017 9:54 AM
To:
Carolyn Henry
Cc: Isaacson,Alice, MD'
Subject:
FW: Expansion of former Pandora Building;addition of third story residential (ABZA
hearing this Wed)
From: Isaacson,Alice, MD [mailto:aisaacson @southbendclinic.com]
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 9:10 PM
To:Thomas Mustillo<tmustillo @gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Expansion of former Pandora Building;addition of third story residential (ABZA hearing this Wed)
Good evening.
Thank you for this information. While I will not have the opportunity to attend the hearing, please relay my opinion to
the members of the board.
I love living in this neighborhood and am so proud to be part of the growth and diversity this area represents.While the
Pandora building was always an eye sore,the proposed plans for a mixed use building is disappointing. I do not
understand the rationale of creating a building that is not only physically out of character, but one that is not consistent
with the ideals that we share as homeowners.The proposed changes will not only create unwanted traffic but create a
potential safety issue. My own daughter,who is 11 years old,enjoys walking/biking to Eddy Street Commons to have
lunch or playing in the park when her friends visit. I believe the traffic will be a deterrent in allowing her the freedom
that she has always enjoyed.
When I look outside my window, I do not wish to see a mixed use building that is clearly out of place. If the developers
wish to create office space,there are other areas in South Bend that would be more suitable to their needs. I feel they
are completely infringing upon our rights to enjoy our neighborhood and the APPROPRIATE growth that is
ongoing. HOMES, not businesses, are being built-witness the activity on St. Peter Street-which add to the value of our
own homes. The proposed building will greatly diminish or property value.
Please forward my opposition to the Board.
Thank you in advance.
Alice Isaacson
909 N.Saint Peter St.
1
Carolyn Henry
From: Thomas Mustillo <tmustillo@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 5:28 PM
To: Carolyn Henry
Cc: Sarah Mustillo'
Subject: opposition to 806 Howard expansion and change of use
Dear Ms. Henry,
We are writing to express our strong opposition to several of the petitions for variance at 806 Howard Street filed by
Alliance Architects,on behalf of Pandora Partners, LLC. We own and occupy(with our three children)the adjoining lot,
immediately south of the Pandora property, at 926 North Saint Peter Street. Indeed, the structure will stand only about
6 feet from our property line, and only about 12 feet from our own two-story, 2,300 square foot house. Please pass our
concerns on to the members of the board for their consideration.
The proposed 9000+square foot building will loom more than twice the height of our house. Its repurposed function will
create two floors of more than 6000 total square feet of office space, one floor of more than 3000 square feet of
residence (larger than our finished living space), and another 3000 square feet of basement.A building this immense will
diminish the value of our home, and injure the safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare of our family, as well as
the neighborhood at large.An expansion and change-in-use of the existing building will create two adverse impacts for
US.
First, it will diminish the value of our homes. We have created a neighborhood of mostly owner-occupied single family
homes.On the 900 block of North Saint PeterStreet,wher e%
of the available land is devoted to a neighborhood park
Kelley Park), 8 of the 9 residential lots are 2-story owner occupied permanent residents. On the contiguous residential
lots contained between ND Ave and Saint Peter,all ten are 2-story owner occupied permanent residents. Under the
Pandora Partners proposal, a Special Exception Use allowing an 3rd story dwelling unit will undermine the value of our
home because we become exposed to the liabilities of 3000+square feet of potential rental units,with insufficient
parking. Our own home has a covenant preventing non-owner occupancy,as do many of the homes around us that were
part of the revitalization plan.Thus, this variance is exceptional; as an adjoining lot, it will negatively impact the value of
our home and the tax value. We would not have purchased this house at the price we paid if we had known that
Pandoras would be expanding and incorporating potential rental space.
Also,we have been reassured by the petitioners that variance request numbers 3, 5, and 7 are required only to maintain
the existing arrangement for parking and exit/entry on the east side of the building. Nevertheless,we would like to note
that a grant of easement has been recorded with the county on 4/21/2017 which allows all adjoining parties of the
former public alley to retain mutual access to that part of the now private alley.These variances, which request
reductions in the setbacks to 0' at east, should they allow for any construction within the easement or change of use,
would eliminate the only access we have to our garage. If they could be construed to permit such a use,they would
violate the easement agreement and could devastate the value of our house; they must be rejected.
Second,the redevelopment of this property as the owner's business offices, plus rental offices,will bring many
additional cars to the North West sector of our block and to the alley,which we share via a private easement. During the
years we have lived here,Steve Raymond and his assistant, Patty,turned on the lights and the "open"sign every day
from noon to five until the summer of 2015.There were never more than 2 or 3 cars at a time. Until Mr. Raymond sold
the property,the UPS truck pulled up to the door almost every day.That was the extent of the traffic. Under the
Pandoras Partners proposal, the request to reduce the off-street parking by 31 spaces (from 35 to 4)is extreme. By the
architect's own estimate(conveyed at a meeting in their offices on 10/19), the 2 floors of office space alone will draw 24
cars. During the ND home football game against Navy,on 11/18,the block of Howard street between ND Ave and Saint
Peter Street was filled to capacity with 24 cars. Of course, on a regular day,cars will distribute themselves around the
area less densely, leave little or no room for us and our guests,for the two or three homes-to-be on the north side of
Howard, and for the patrons of Kelley Park, which the city and neighborhood residents have invested in at considerable
cost and effort. Moreover,traffic on Howard Street is already quite aggressive and the addition of so many cars will limit
1
visibility and raise the risk to pedestrians,especially to the dozens of grade school children (including two of our own
children)who routinely cross the streets at and around the intersections of Howard with Saint Peter St.and ND Ave.
We would like to see an investment to improve 806 Howard Street that is compatible with the vision laid out by ND,
NENC,and the city; but,we insist that the proposal be to scale,and without the adverse impacts on our home and our
neighborhood. In particular, nearly all the adverse effects arise from the ambition to expand the square footage of the
existing building by 50%.
Should the petitioners be willing to entertain a proposal with a more neutral impact,we would
reconsider our opposition.
We will be in attendance at the appeal meeting on 12/6,and look forward to sharing our concerns.Thank you foryour
consideration.
Sincerely,
Thomas and Sarah Mustillo
926 North Saint Peter St.
2
Carolyn Henry
From: Ayoka Paek
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 2:21 PM
To: Carolyn Henry
Subject: FW: 806 Howard
Email below for you.
Ayoka Paek, MCIP,AICP
Zoning and Business Services Administrator
574) 235-9554
apaek(a@southbendin.gov
The information provided in this email is in response to the specific information requested and does not necessarily
represent all ofthe restrictions and allowances applicable to any properties identified in this email.
From: Donald Sniegowski [mailto:Donald.C.Sniegowski.1 @nd.edu]
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 2:02 PM
To:Ayoka Paek<apaek @southbendin.gov>
Subject:806 Howard
Caroline Henry
Secretary to the Board
Area Board of Zoning Appeals
South Bend, Indiana
Dear Ms. Henry:
Please forward the following letter to the Area Board of Zoning Appeals. Thank you.
Donald Sniegowski
To the Area Board of Zoning Appeals:
1
We,the undersigned,have owned and occupied the house at 917 North Saint Peter Street,South Bend, Indiana for
eleven years. Prior to our move to St. Peter St.,we lived at 1004 Saint Vincent Street,three blocks away. We have lived
in the neighborhood for forty-seven years.
Our present house is situated a half-block from 806 Howard Street,the owners of which are appealing for several zoning
variances. WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THESE VARIANCES. You will already have received letters from Rita Schmid and Adam
Rebolloso, Elizabeth and Thomas Burman,James and Gia Haigh,and Sarah and Tom Mustillo,all of whom oppose the
granting of these variances. Rather than repeat their arguments,we wish to underline or add to certain of them.
STYLE. It is difficult for us to believe that the ABZA staff could approve plans for a structure which is so out of keeping
with
the neighborhood. To the east of
the proposed
building—on Notre Dame Avenue—are various versions of
American four-square architecture. (
This is the style which predominates in the SF-1 district bounded by the north side
of
Corby,the south side of Napoleon,the west side of Frances,and the east side of
St. Peter. )
On the southeast corner
of the Howard/Notre Dame Ave. intersection is a beautiful example of prairie-style architecture. To the south of the
proposed building,are variations of bungalow,one of which is in a very attractive version of American Arts and
Crafts. To the immediate south of the proposed property is a beautiful version of Georgian architecture,to be found
both in England and the United States. It was designed by a faculty member of the Notre Dame School of
Architecture. With the occasional exception,the houses in the above-mentioned SF-1 area conform to a broad
architectural norm. (It must be said that even the enormousgroup home in the 1100
block of Notre Dame Ave.,,which
we oppo sed, has tried to conform to this norm.)
So,why would the ABZA staff approve a design which,at best,can be
called a pseudo-collegiate gothic. That is a style which,in the United States, is reserved almost exclusively for churches
and campuses. It is the default style of the whole Notre Dame campus.
It does not belong in our residential area!
SCALE. We almost feel that it is an affront for the ABZD staff to approve a building in a style as non-residential as
collegiate gothic. But the real affront is to propose such a building AND make it eighteen feet taller than the present
structure. Those of us who have lived in the neighborhood for a long time had to accept,because of a weird set of
circumstances,the present structure,enormously out-of—scale as it was. Most of us,we're sure, have waited for the day
when it would be demolished. Now we may have to look forward to a structure that is increased in height by two
fifths! It will dwarf the beautiful Georgian house immediately to the south of it. The present structure already is taller
than that house. And if the variance to reduce the side residential buffer yard is granted,the house to the south will be
even more dwarfed. This,of course,will reduce the value of the house. Indeed,the whole immediate neighborhood
will suffer some financial loss.
If, indeed,the company wants to
buy the property and remodel
the
building for commercial
use—a use which it is
already zoned for—then why not keep it at the present height as a goodwill gesture to the neighbors and fix it up so that
it is not so ugly. What a gift that would be for all of us!
PARKING AND SAFETY. Even keeping the building at its present height and "beautifying" it does not take care of the
problems of parking and safety. Thirty-one more parking spaces would be on-street. We have not had time to measure
just how many parking places would be on Howard and how many places would be on St. Peter, but both streets would
be impacted heavily. This assumes that thirty-one spaces will be used,and that has to be assumed;otherwise,the
zoning ordinance would call for fewer.
2
We wonder why the city says that on-street parking on Howard would help to calm traffic. There is a stop sign at
Howard/Notre Dame Ave.and there is a stop sign at Howard/St. Louis two blocks to the west. We have not experienced
speeding in that two-block area. The odd jerk who revs his motorcycle in that two-block area will not be "calmed" by
cars parked on the street. In fact,on-street parking on Howard makes it more difficult to exit from St. Peter onto
Howard. If we are trying to exit onto Howard from St. Peter,we have to,first, stop where we are supposed to so that
pedestrians can walk across and then creep forward to see beyond the cars that are often parked in front of the Notre
Dame Law building on the northwest corner. The difficulty and danger would be doubled if there were significant on-
street parking on Howard between St. Peter and Note Dame Ave. It should be noted that,with the reconfiguration of
the "Five Corners"—hallelujah—Howard is now part of the Howard-Corby connector,which has become a main east-
west thoroughfare in the northern portion of the city. Traffic can be heavy; having to creep forward in one's car
becomes more and more problematic.
Being in a car and trying to navigate this kind of situation is one thing; being on foot is another.The renovation of Kelly
Park,thanks to the generous and able direction of a small group of neighbors, is about to be completed. Even with the
renovation not completed, more kids were showing up this summer. Some come from the southeast along St Peter,
some come
from Notre Dame Ave. We're sure that this foot traffic will increase as
the park takes its final shape. And
the safety of all of the pedestrians,especially the kids, should be a number-one priority.
One wonders,too,about the impact of on-street parking on bicyclists, primarily Notre Dame students and faculty and
neighborhood kids, riding along Howard. There are no bike lanes on Howard; on-street parking, especially on both sides
of the street will significantly squeeze them,especially on a main thoroughfare.
There are many other issues to comment on, but other members of the neighborhood have covered them very well. We
would want to take one parting shot—what becomes of the three-story property,with a residence on top,when the
potential owners sell and go elsewhere? Will new owners rent out the residential space and to whom?
Will they redo
the commercial portion of the
building into residences and rent it out?
Might it be to students,who have been the bane
of our neighborhood for a long time?
Thank you for your consideration and for the important work you do for the community.
Sincerely,
Donald and Barbara Sniegowski
3
Carolyn Henry
From: Liesbeth Cremers <liesbethcremers @hotmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, December 04, 2017 1:27 PM
To:
Carolyn Henry
Subject: zkf Opposition to 806 Howard Street
December 4, 2017
Dear Carolyn,
We are Martijn and Liesbeth Cremers we own and live at 914 N North Notre Dame Avenue. Our home is
located within 300 feet ofthe property commonly described as 806 Howard Street, and we would like to
express our opposition to the proposed expansion and change of use identified in a recently-filed zoning
petition. We ask that you please share our concerns with the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Upon receiving the"Notice to Adjacent Property Owners"we were shocked to see the number ofvariances
requested by Alliance Architects, wondering ifthe company plans to adhere to any of the requirements that are
currently in place. We are hopeful that their petitions will not be granted, since zoning laws exist for a reason.
And while we realize that the property is zoned for office use(which is unfortunate),this neighborhood is now
primarily residential. However, ifan office is to occupy 806 Howard Street, we would like to see these office
builders being held to even higher standards than home builders, since an office will create a lot more traffic,
with employees and clients using up a lot of residential parking spaces.
A few concerns:
1. ,."The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort, community moral standards,
convenience or general welfare."
Concern: The reduction in required parking spaces from 35 to 4 would mean that 31 cars may need to park in
the area streets.Not only will this reduce parking available for Kelly Park, it will reduce visibility of children
potentially crossing the street to use the Park or otherwise. This is definitely a public safety concern. It is also a
convenience concern, for it will be more difficult for those visiting homes in the neighborhood to find parking.
In addition,the community wants this to be a family friendly neighborhood, and an office does not fit that
standard.
2. ,.The owner's petition says the added residential use is "compatible with surrounding land uses".
i
Concern: Mixed-use(
i.e. office &
residential) is not compatible with the neighborhood (there are none in the
neighborhood that we are aware of,until the Eddy commercial corridor). More importantly, non-primary
residence apartment units are not compatible with the neighborhood and have been actively opposed by NENC,
ND, and neighbors for years. It is not clear how the residential unit located above the office floors would be
used. As a place to stay for game weekends only? Why should there be height requirements for homes built in
the area,while Alliance Architects would be allowed to build way higher, creating a penthouse like dwelling
with a view of the Golden Dome?
3. s."The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or property values
therein."
Concern: Consider how a 10-15 feet taller structure at 806 Howard Street will make neighboring houses look in
comparison. Consider also the effect on the skyline of the neighborhood, as the building will become visible not
just to immediate neighbors, but to the entire surrounding area. It may be difficult to estimate how exactly this
office/home building would negatively affect area property values,but surely common sense tell us that
building one taller(office)structure in a residential area does not look good,and will not improve the value of
the neighboring properties.
4. a."The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located and the land uses
authorized therein."
Concern: Obviously, there are no other retailers or mixed-use or office/residential buildings in the immediate
neighborhood of 806 Howard, so how the proposed use will be consistent with the current character of the
district is baffling.
In short, if an office/residential building must be constructed at 806 Howard Street,the architects and builders
should be required to strictly adhere to the current zoning laws, and not be permitted any variances, nor be
allowed to add residential use to the structure.
We thank you in advance for sharing our concerns with the Board.
Sincerely,
Liesbeth&Martijn Cremers
2
Carolyn Henry
From:
Jim Farrington <jfarring @nd.edu>
Sent:
Monday, December 04, 2017 8:15 PM
To:
Carolyn Henry
Subject: Re: 806 Howard Street Variance Petition
Revised to add my address.
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 17:13 Jim Farrington<jfarring@..nd.edu>wrote:
I am writing to object to the petition of Pandora Partners seeking various variances in respect of its property at
806 Howard Street.
I urge you to use the experience gained from last decade in the many wise and forward looking decisions that
the ABZA made to continue to enhance our neighborhood and not make a horrible situation worse.
The existing two story"office"property is a horrible eye sore in this terrific neighborhood. I realize this
property is already zoned for office use. However,that decision was made when this was a very different
neighborhood. I know what it was like decades ago when I frequented the local bars during my student days at
Notre Dame. The combined efforts of South Bend,NENC and ND have worked hard in the last 10 years or
more to transform this neighborhood of bars,barely habitable student housing, and abandoned properties into a
terrific neighborhood with homes valued at$1 million or more that provide an increasing tax base to South
Bend.
Granting these variances would:
1) Allow the
building's height to increase by 61% (from 28.5' to about 46'), which NVould be more
than 30%above the height to which all current properties are subject;
2) Increase traffic along a busy throughfare where east-west traffic is not controlled by stop signs;
3) Continue and exacerbate a use without adequate off-street traffic; and
4) Continue and exacerbate a use that is already not consistent with the residential use of the
neighborhood.
These consequences would be injurious to the public safety,comfort, convenience and general welfare,
adversely affect the use and values ofadjacent properties and not be consistent with the character ofthe district
in which this property is located.
Thank you.
Jim Farrington
1032 St. Peter St.
South Bend, IN 46617
Jim Farrington I Adjunct Professor
University of Notre Dame I The Law School
Colleges of Business,Science&Engineering ESTEEM Graduate Program
i
1190 Eck Hall of Law I Notre Dame, Indiana 46556
Cell: +1203-550-1683
jfarringQnd.edu
UNIVERSITY OF
NOTRE DAME
Jim Farrington I Adjunct Professor
University of Notre Dame Law School
ESTEEM Graduate Program of the Colleges of Business, Science and Engineering
1190 Eck Hall of Law I Notre Dame, Indiana 46556
Cell: 203-550-1683
jfarring2nd.edu
2
Carolyn Henry
From: gia haigh <giaandjamey@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, December 04, 2017 7:51 PM
To:
Carolyn Henry
Subject: Opposition to 806 Howard/Pandora expansion and change of use
Ms. Henry,
We write in opposition to the requests for variance made by the owners of the former Pandora building, located at 808
Howard.We would very much appreciate if you forwarded this letter to the Area Board of Zoning Appeals.
We own two properties adjacent to the former Pandora building:a single-family, owner-occupied residence at 925 N.
Notre Dame Ave,and (through the Sasman LLC)a parcel of property directly to the east of the building, on the corner of
ND Ave and Howard. We purchased our home at 925 N. Notre Dame 8 years ago and we purchased the corner lot about
a year ago, in order to fix up the lots and adjacent sidewalks and curbs and to ensure that it would someday be occupied
by a nice single-family, owner-occupied home in the character of the neighborhood.
We are happy that the investment fund has purchased the building and will fix it up commensurate it with its nice offices
in Boston, Chicago, and Eddy St. However,as the owner of two adjacent properties,we wanted to register our strong
objections to the proposed variances,with objections broken down by the special exception approval standards:
1. "
The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health,safety, comfort, community moral standards,
convenience or general welfare."
a.
The owner's petition says that on-street parking is sufficient for the 31-car variance,and that on-street
parking will "calm" traffic along Howard.With 7 children of our own,and numerous other children living
on ND Ave, who all use Kelly Park(located across St. Peter from the Pandora building), we disagree.We
believe that more parked cars will reduce parking available for Kelly Park and will reduce visibility of
children crossing the street to use the Park and to visit friends' houses in the neighborhood.The comfort
and convenience of the neighbors will be harmed by additional cars parking in front of houses, making
visitors have to park away from our houses.The parking situation is particularly significant as half the
parking along ND Ave was recently lost due to bike lanes.The addition of the top level residential unit
for an out-of-town Notre Dame donor will mean far more parking on game and event weekends,when
neighborhood parking is already particularly scarce.
b.
The owner's petition says the added residential use is compatible with surrounding land uses. It is not.
Some residential use is compatible with the neighborhood, and some is not. For example,student
housing and apartments in the neighborhood have been actively opposed by NENC, ND, and neighbors
for years.Apartment/condo residences for Notre Dame donors like this owner have been limited to the
Eddy St corridor and the area east of the Notre Dame campus.There is"Office" of"Office/Residential"
use near this building.
2. "
The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or property values therein."
a.
The owner's petition says that property values will not be adversely affected because the owner will
improve the exterior appearance of the property.We disagree that fixing up the appearance of a
property justifies zoning variances, as that would justify zoning variances throughout our neighborhood
to the point where the exceptions trump the rules.The point is that the requested new"use"
residential) is inextricably tied to increasing the height of the property by about 18 feet,which will
adversely affect property values.Our view, and the view of neighbors (from everything we've heard), is
that as bad as the building looks currently,status quo is much preferable to the proposed use.
1
b.
This structure is already too-large and out-of-place in the residential neighborhood and the scale dwarfs
neighboring houses.When people find out where I live they inevitable remark on the Pandora building,
and how out-of-place it is,and ask how it was allowed to be built in that neighborhood. It is an obvious
failure in zoning,though I understand the building was permitted over strong neighborhood objection in
the early 1990s in part based on the idea that a local bookstore would benefit a community of
professors and students and in part to resolve litigation against the city relating to another property. But
let's please not double-down on bad zoning variances to change a smaller bookstore into a much larger
mixed use building even more out-of-character with the neighborhood.
c.
A building 45-50 feet tall will affect the skyline of the neighborhood, as the building will become visible
over houses to neighbors who don't currently see the building.A collegiate gothic, mixed-use structure
visible throughout the neighborhood will adversely affect property values.
d.
As proof that tall structures adjacent to homes adversely affect the values of the homes, consider that
the South Bend Code for residential houses specifies a maximum height of 35',and even then limits the
height to 2.5 stories,so that the height of the building is at the center of the property. With appropriate
setbacks required by zoning,the adverse effect on neighbors is minimized. Here,we have zero setback
from a neighbor, and a 45-50 structure. It will block the view of the sky from my kitchen and will block
the sky and sun from the backyard and rear of the future house on our property on the corner of
Howard and ND Ave.
e.
We've spoken to numerous people, including various friends and people with backgrounds in
architecture, as a check to determine whether our concerns are unfounded.The feedback from these
people—to a person—has confirmed and strengthened our view of how detrimental the proposed
changes to the building and its use would be to the value of our house and our lot that will be occupied
by a house some day.We would not have paid what we paid for that lot if this propsed building were
built, because anyone would insist on a discount to purchase a house with a large mixed-use building
looming behind it.
3. "The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located and the land uses
authorized therein."
a.
The owner's petition says that the proposed use (office and residential) is generally considered to be
less intensive than the current use(retail).This may be true generally, but not in our neighborhood. If
the current office building was proposed to be converted to apartments,the neighborhood objection be
extremely strong.We prefer office use to apartment/residential use.Student residences in the past,and
Notre Dame donor vacation/rental use now, have been strongly resisted in the neighborhood by NENC,
Notre Dame, and neighbors.
b. As noted above,the
building(zoned "Office")
is already completely out-of-character for the
neighborhood(no other parcels zoned "Office" much
less"Office and Residential" or"Mixed Use"), and
increasing its mass and changing its character to mixed use makes it even more inconsistent with the
neighborhood.To say this building is consistent with the neighborhood would be cited as precedent for
more buildings like this in our neighborhood.That would be exactly the wrong direction for our
neighborhood.
4. "
The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the City of South Bend Comprehensive Plan."
a. The owner's petition says that proposed use is compatible with the Plan because it involves adaptive
reuse of an existing structure and includes residential above office space.The building property is
currently zoned office, so its use as office is consistent with that and is certainly fine.There is insufficient
off-street parking(per zoning rules)to add another story of office space. I'm not sure the adaptive use
2
referenced.The addition of residential is not adapting office to residential, it is adding an entire new
story.
b. Not being an expert on the Plan, I briefly reviewed it and I saw nothing to suggest that a large mixed-use
building within our neighborhood is consistent with the Plan;those structures, and Notre Dame donor
apartments,are focused on commercial corridors like Eddy/23 and east of ND's campus.
Thanks very much for your consideration,and we look forward to discussing these issues further at the hearing on
Wednesday.
Jamey and Gia Haigh
925 N. Notre Dame Ave and 920 N. Notre Dame Ave.
3
q
Area Board of Zoning Appeals
C/O Ms Carolyn Henry
Dear Ms. Henry,
Our names are Geraldine Meehan and Cyril O'Regan and we live in, and own, the
property at 907 N. Notre Dame Avenue,which is located within 300 feet of 806
Howard Avenue. We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed
enlargement and change of use for the Howard Avenue property and our specific
opposition to the applications for zoning variances which will be reviewed at the
South Bend Area Board of Zoning Appeals on December 6, 2017. Please convey our
objections to the Board by providing them with this letter.
The reasons for our opposition are as follows and fall within the 4 legal standards of
the ABZA:
1.
A. The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort,
community, moral standards, convenience or general welfare.
The reduction in required parking from 3S to 4 is so excessive that it can only be
referred to as an extreme variance from the standard. Without the 31 off-street
parking spots, streetparking will be the only possibility. Reduced visibility will be a
safety concern as will the inevitable concerns about the potential behavior of any
number of strangers in a neighborhood where parents currently enjoy their young
childrenplaying outside in a space close to 806 Howard Avenue. Parked cars will
also reduce the number of parking spots available for guests of ND Avenue
residents.
Residents in a neighborhood should not have to scramble for parking
spots for their visitors.
B. The owner's petition says that the added residential use is "compatible
with surrounding land uses"
This is clearly not the case. There is no mixed use buildings (residential and
office) adjacent to 806 Howard Avenue.
2.
The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent
area or property values therein
The suggested changes to 806 Howard Avenue will impact the number of people
interested in buying houses adjacent to it and by implication will decrease the
competitiveness of the home prices.
3. The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in
which it is located and the land uses authorized therein.
As there are no such mixed use buildings in the neighborhood,it is not consistent
with the use in the area.
4. The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the City of
South Bend Comprehensive Plan
The proposed plan for 806 Howard is not consistent with plans for the area in
Howard Street and Notre Dame Avenue.
Thank you for taking our concerns to the Board
Yours faithfully
Geraldine Meehan &Cyril O'Regan
907 North Notre Dame Avenue
South Bend, IN 46617
Carolyn Henry
From: Robert Kossler <robkossler@alumni.nd.edu>
Sent:
Monday, December 04, 2017 10:13 PM
To: Carolyn Henry
Subject: Petition for variances 806 Howard St
Dear Carolyn,
Our names are Rob and Catherine Kossler and we would like to convey to you our opposition to the requested
variances for the property at 806 Howard Street(we recently received the"Notice to Adjacent Property
Owners"related to this petition). We reside at 1020 N. Saint Peter Street which is within 300 feet of the
property. We ask that you please convey this email and our opposition to the petition to the attention of the
Area Board of Zoning Appeals.
Our primary objection relates to the increased size ofthe building. In particular,the proposed height increase is
not in character with this residential neighborhood and we believe it will negatively impact property values of
the surrounding residences. Specifically,we disagree that the petition meets the following standards
The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or property values
therein
The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located and the land uses authorized
therein
Our secondary objection relates to the reliance on on-street parking. We believe that added traffic and parked
cars in the immediate vicinity will impact visibility at this corner and be a potential hazard to the neighborhood
children—
especially those taking advantage ofthe park located directly across the street. Thus,we disagree
that the petition meets the following standard
The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort, community moral standards,
convenience or general welfare
Thank you for sharing our concerns with the board.
Sincerely,
Rob and Catherine Kossler
1020 N Saint Peter St, South Bend IN 46617
1
Carolyn Henry
From: Robert Bretz <rbretz @nd.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 4:21 PM
To: Carolyn Henry
Subject:
Opposition to Expansion of former Pandora Bookstore Building
Dear Ms. Henry,
I am Bob Bretz. I live at 1029 N. Notre Dame Ave and recently became aware of the proposal to expand the size and
proposed uses of the former Pandora building. I am strongly opposed and ask that you convert my strongest possible
opposition to the zoning board and all others who will be involved in making the decision about the proposal.
The building is already inconsistent with the nature and purpose of the neighborhood. The proposed expansion would
serve to make it even more out of line with the neighborhood. This is a neighborhood that is specifically residential,
single family, and owner occupied. Any use beyond that does irreparable damage to both the neighborhood culture,
and to the property values of the other residents. I won't leave not have purchased a home here without the zoning
protections being in place. Mixed use buildings certainly have a place in but that place is not in a residential single
family, owner occupied neighborhood. Of particular concern to me, in addition to the proposed use, are the size of the
proposed building and the amount of on street parking that the neighborhood would have to absorb. The size and the
parking problems would cause significant problems for the current residents and would negatively affect our property
values.
Again, I am strongly opposed and ask that you make this known to all those involved in the decision making process.
Thank you,
Bob Bretz
1029 N. Notre Dame Ave
1
Carolyn Henry
From: BrianLevey <blevey @nd.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 1:41 PM
To: Carolyn Henry
Cc: Alison Levey
Subject:Letter in opposition to proposed variances for 806 Howard Street
Attachments: Levey letter re 806 Howard v6.pdf
Dear Ms. Henry:
We are writing to oppose the requested variances for 806 Howard Street. We request that you share
the enclosed letter with the South Bend Area Board of Zoning Appeals (ABZA).
Thank you,
Brian &Alison Levey
918 North Saint Peter Street
South Bend, IN 46617
i
Carolyn Henry
From:
Jesse Barrett <jmjbarrett@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 2:50 PM
To: Carolyn Henry
Subject:
Proposed Expansion of Pandora's
Dear ABZA,
My name is Jesse Barrett. My family lives at 302 Peashway St., South Bend, IN 46617. We live in Harter
Heights,just down the street from Pandora's. I understand that there is a proposal to expand the building and
make it a multi-use office/residential building.
I strongly oppose this plan. Pandora's is already inconsistent with the residential neighborhood and is already
an eyesore. To make it larger would only increase the inconsistency. That area ofHoward Street is not
commercial, it is residential, and virtually everything around it is residential. It would be ridiculous to take an
unattractive building that is out of character with the neighborhood and expand it. I strongly oppose this
proposed action.
Please convey this message to the Area Board ofZoning Appeals.
Sincerely,
Jesse Barrett
i
Carolyn Henry
From:
Timothy Matovina <
Timothy.Matovina.l @nd.edu>
Sent:
Monday, December 04, 2017 1:09 PM
To:
Carolyn Henry
Subject:Pandora Partners ABZA requests
Dear Ms. Henry,
We write with regard to the requests that the Area Board ofZoning Appeals is considering from Pandora
Partners and their property at 806 Howard Street in South Bend. We ask that you convey our views on this
matter to members of the Board.
We live at 1115 N Notre Dame Avenue. Our opposition to the Pandora Partners petitions are as follows:
1. The requested 31-car variance is not conducive to community use of Kelly Park,nor to general public safety.
When cars park on both sides of narrower streets like St. Peter St., it is difficult to see children who are crossing
the street between the vehicles. Having that many extra cars in the street- especially ifthey are for residents
who would live in the
building and leave their vehicles outside overnight-
will make the parking situation on
the streets around this property more congested and more hazardous than any other streets in the immediate
vicinity.
2. The scope of the proposed project is not consistent with the residential development in the neighborhood.
This property is not located on a commercial street, nor a street with office space. It is located on a residential
street. The city planning has already designated the Eddy Street corridor for those times ofdevelopments.
Residents agreed to this approach of having offices and business establishments in that corridor, and leaving
other parts of the neighborhood residential. The requested use is inconsistent with that agreement and with the
character of land use in the neighborhood surrounding 806 Howard Street.
3. The proposed alteration to the property would almost certainly have a negative impact on property values,
especially those ofhomeowners immediately adjacent to the property. Adding an additional story to a building
already oversized for the neighborhood would make adjacent properties less attractive and valuable to nearly
any buyer we can imagine, and certainly to potential buyers with children.
Thank you for considering our views on this matter and passing them along to the Area Board of Zoning
Appeals. Ifyou or any of the Board members have further questions about our views,please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Yours sincerely,
Timothy and Elida Matovina
1115 N Notre Dame Ave
South Bend, IN 46617
574)283-0737
i
1f_1
University of Notre Dame
Institute for Educational Initiatives
December 5, 2017
Dear Area Board ol'Zoning Appeals Members,
I am writing you this letter to express opposition to the variance being sought by Alliance
Architects,at the December 6 meeting of your Board,for the property located at 806
Howard St. in South Bend. I am a homeowner at 928 N.Notre Dame Ave, located within
300 feet ofthe property for which the seven variances are sought,as described in the
November 2017 letter to neighborhood residents from Ms. Carolyn Henry.
I understand that on certain matters(such as front porch setbacks)variances are
commonly sought and granted with little need for deliberation. However,what is sought
in this case is a radical departure from the neighborhood's zoning regulations. The plan
has significant negative impact on the neighborhood as to both general welfare (safety,
aesthetics, convenience) and property value. The plan is a laudable one for a different
location, but not at in character with the neighborhood. I will address these concerns in
more detail,but note them up front to claim the degree of variance in this case places a
heavy burden of proof on the part of the petitioner, rather than on those opposing it,to
convincingly argue to the contrary. In this case the variances sought are so out of line
with zoning regulations as to call into question the very existence of such regulations
should a variance be warranted here.
Others have no doubt expressed the specific problems with the proposed variances in
more detail, so I will here note only three. First,the parking variance sought would entail
this property's absorption of a significantly disproportionate amount of street parking.
The fair sharing of street parking is presumably why zoning regulations demand that
office spaces have adequate off street parking. Abandoning that zoning regulation in
such a radical manner would not only be an issue of fairness and inconvenience to local
homeowners (and their guests),
but also pose a threat to the safety of the literally dozens
ofchildren in the immediately surrounding houses who play on the park and field that
surround 806 Howard St.
Second, the height variance would significantly impact the aesthetics of the neighborhood
and therefore property value. Again it is worth reflecting on why such a zoning
regulation exists in this neighborhood in the first place. The reason for it surely relates to
fairness to all neighborhood property owners,aesthetics, and property value. A variance
on the height would impact all of these.
Third and finally,the proposal is not at all in line with the character ofthe neighborhood.
The plan entails a significantly more attractive building in its exterior, as well as an
exciting commitment to mixed use space that the City rightly supports in areas zoned for
Visitation Hall,Notre Dame,Indiana 46556
P: 574-631-4449 F: 574-631-2833 E: iei@nd.edund.edu W:http://ici.nd.cdu
it, such as Eddy St. But this neighborhood is not a mixed use neighborhood. Why have a
zoning regulation at all for residence, office or mixed use if one can simply obtain a
variance to avoid the regulation? This development in the Northeast Neighborhood has
proceeded very deliberately in property use, including a requirement of residence. The
proposal not only defies the character ofthe neighborhood in adding mixed use space at
that location (rather than, say,Eddy St.),
but also defies efforts to foster permanent
residence rather than periodic use for events such as Notre Dame football games. Space
is already zoned for this latter purpose at Eddy St.
There are other considerations that surely other residents have addressed. For instance,
while a variance from 8' to 5' on a property line could be a judgment that respects the
original intent of the zoning regulation, it is hard to see how the elimination of the east
setback to 0' could be said to honor that zoning regulation. Similarly,the elimination (by
half)of ADA-required disabled parking for no compelling reason other than the
requirement's inconvenience calls into question the very existence of the requirement.
Variances are a standard part of zoning regulations and rightly so since good judgment
sometimes indicates the legitimacy of a variance without sacrificing the integrity of the
area zoning regulations. I can see such a case being made for variances Two and part of
Three as described in Ms. Henry's letter(front yard setbacks to 10' at north and 20' at
west,and the south residential setback from 8' to 5'). But in all other variances sought I
see no way to establish how the proposed variances are anything other than such radical
departures from zoning regulations as to call into question very integrity of neighborhood
zoning.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
William C. Mattison III
Associate Professor, Department of Theology
Senior Advisor: Theological Formation,Alliance for Catholic Education
University of Notre Dame
December 5,2017
Dear Ms Henry,
We, Ebrahim Moosa and Nisa Moosa,are residents of 1008 N.Saint Peter Street,South Bend IN.We live within 300
feet of the property for which seven variances are sought as the per your November letter to residents.
We write to express our opposition to the variances being sought by Alliance Architects at the 6 December meeting of
the Area Board Zoning Appeals.
While run of the mill variances are sought on a regular basis,the current variances will not only alter the character of
our neighborhood,affect property values but will overall negatively impact a residential area that has only recently
been significantly rehabilitated by the homeowners and a University of Notre Dame plan to upgrade the area.
There are technical matters related to the variances that other neighbors have expressed in detail and submitted to
your board and with we concur fully.
We request that you forward our objection to the Board on or before the 6 December meeting.
With best wishes,
Ebrahim&Nisa Moosa
Carolyn Henry
From: Julie Peterson <juliepeterson99 @yahoo.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, December 05, 2017 12:06 PM
To: Carolyn Henry
Subject: 806 Howard Street
12/5/17
Dear Carolyn,
We are Charles and Julie Peterson,vehemently oppose the variances requested at 806 Howard St. We are residing at
902 N.Saint Peter Street, living within 300 feet of the aforementioned property.We recently purchased our home
because of its location in a quiet residential area of single family homes.There is a newly redone Keller Park within easy
walking distance for our son to play basketball. Our understanding is that the variances requested, in the center of our
neighborhood,will drastically disrupt the character of this previously planned housing district.
The proposed on street parking will increase the traffic pattern,therefore, increasing the risk of accidents to
pedestrians. It will also increase the congestion of on street parking in front of our homes.
The building is already out of character for this neighborhood and with the additions of a proposed third story, office
space and a larger foot print, it will make it even more obstructive.Those changes would definitely decrease the value of
our properties.
Other than the zoning board meeting,there has been no other study or evaluation done by the neighborhood council, or
any other advance warning about these proposed changes.There have been major objections to this building's location
ever since its inception in 1991.These factors all violate our agreement with the vision that had previously been outlined
by Notre Dame,the NENC and the City of South Bend. With the purchase of our house,we agreed to the more stringent
codes for building in our neighborhood than even the city of South Bend requires. We needed to be approved by the
Notre Dame Council as second owners to this neighborhood,as a single family dwelling.All proposed changes to this
building are not consistent with the vision of our neighborhood.
For these reasons, and as well as other pertinent facts and concerns that our other neighbors have voiced,we
respectfully request that you vote no to these outlandish requests.
Sincerely,
Charles&Julie Peterson
902 N. Saint Peter Street
South Bend, IN 46617
1
Carolyn Henry
From: Rudy Reyes Jr. <rreyes@nd.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 3:21 PM
To: Carolyn Henry
Subject:
RE: Petition from Alliance Architects on behalf of Pandora Partners
5.xiii.17
Dear Ms. Henry,
Please accept this email as a formal expression of opposition to the petition currently on file with the Area Board of
Zoning Appeals by by Alliance Architects on behalf of Pandora Partners LLC, for variances on the property commonly
described as 806 Howard Street,South Bend, Indiana 46617.
1 am the property owner of 1014 North Saint Peter Street,South Bend, Indiana 46617, located within 300 feet of the
above named property.
I understand that opposition is wide in this case, but I feel it important to voice my concerns.
As I understand it,the Area Board of Zoning Appeals exists to ensure that use of various properties is consistent with
established norms and thoughtfully done.This is an important element of urban planning.
The current structure at the property in question
stands out as different.While recent improvements—paint and
groundscleanup—have aided the appearance,the structure clearly pre-dates the enormous effort and investment that
has been put into the neighborhood.
The planned increase to the height of the building will adversely affect the rest of the property owners in the vicinity.
To be sure,such a move would severely impact the property values of those have made significant investment in
revitalizing what was admittedly a depressed area.
Additionally,the mixed use of the property, along with the addition of residential use and deletion of parking on-
property will add to an already congested and dangerous parking situation for the adjacent streets.
The requested variances are not in keeping with zoning of the area, nor is the intent behind them.The expansion of
Eddy Street Commons, as wellas the current —only a few
blocks away—presents plenty of opportunity for mixed-use.
This should not occur in an overwhelmingly residential district.
If the property owner would like to change from Office District to Residential District,this move would be welcomed by
me and I imagine many neighbors.At that time,the Residential District zoning requirements, including those of the
overlay should then apply.Any other move, up to and including the granting of these variances,would seem to
contribute to and augment what appears to be an errant building of a previous era.
I request that the Board consider why these zoning regulations exist:
to preserve public health,safety, comfort, community moral standards, convenience or general welfare;
to prevent injury or adverse effect to the adjacent property and values therein;
to ensure uses consistent with the character of the district in which the property is located and the land uses therein;
to ensure uses compatible with the recommendations of the City's comprehensive plan.
i
I have abided by the terms of the residential and overlay district in the construction of my home and investment in my
property because I felt the zoning regulations were sound. I request that the same observance be required by the owner
of the above property.
Thank you for your consideration.
Rudy Reyes Jr.
Rudy Reyes Jr.
Director of University Relations,Pacific Northwest
and Concurrent Faculty,First Year of Studies
UNIVERS ITY OF
NOTRE DAME
Eddy Street Commons at Notre Dame
1251 N.Eddy Street,Suite 300 1 South Bend,Indiana 46617-1403 U.S.A.
Office:574.631.0694 I Associate:574.631.99451 Facsimile:574.631.8325
eMall:rrevesPnd.edu I Twitter.therealNDRudy I Web:http;//giving,nd.edu
What Would You Fight For?:htto://riightingfor,nd.edu
Omnia dlsce videbis postea nlhil else superJluum.
Hugonis de S Victore
2
Carolyn Henry
From: Jennifer D'Ambrosia <jdambros @nd.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 3:51 PM
To: Carolyn Henry
Subject: Area Board of Zoning Appeals:Old Pandora's
Dear Board Members,
I am writing to share my concerns and opposition to the proposed variances that the old "Pandora's" building at 806
Howard Street have requested. My name is Jennifer D'Ambrosia and I've been a resident of Notre Dame Ave for 15
years. I have seen the emence expansion of this area -with Eddy Street,the Triangle, the monstrosity of a building that
is Opus Day—Windmoor House (which was passed without any notice to the neighbors due to some high paid lawyers)
and now the continued construction of Eddy Street-Phase Two.
People are moving out of the neighborhood because it is becoming difficult to park in front of your own house because
of all the cars coming to Eddy Street. Whether to shop or work or go to a Bar/Restaurant;along with the residence in the
Foundry that find it easier and closer to park in front of your house than the parking garage, and also most likely they
don't have a spot in the garage.This problem is sure to only get worse now with the addition of phase two of Eddy
Street. So with that being said, I find it very disconcerting that you would even consider allowing a variance for reduced
off-street parking.As it is today,the area has a heightened level of auto brakes-ins, so by allowing more cars to be along
the streets just invites more of that type of activity.And it certainly posses a safety and comfort hazard to the
homeowners around the said property.
I could continue with how unsettling it is to think about adding to the size of a building that is already so out of place in
the neighborhood, and probably never should have been allowed to be built in that location in the first place. However, I
will just say that as a resident who grew up in Harter Heights, moved away for some 20 years and then returned to the
area, I was pleased to see the vast improvements that were made along Notre Dame Ave. and the adjoining streets.
Nevertheless, allowing this building to be added to and then decrease the amount of parking it needs to provide, will
take us back a decade to when the Ave.was not a desirable place to live–a neighborhood.The neighborhood has come
such a long way from the time of rundown, rental houses and bad activity leading to the campus.You are reversing all
the positive improvement that have developed in the neighborhood if you allow these changes to be made to this
structure.
Thank you for your time,
Jennifer D'Ambrosia
1104 N. Notre Dame Ave.
574-234-2348
1
Carolyn Henry
From: Brian Mulhern <brian.p.mulhern @gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 7:08 PM
To: Carolyn Henry-
e I
Subject: 806 Howard Street, South Bend
Dear Carolyn,
My name is Brian Mulhern and I am the owner of 726 Corby Blvd (South Bend—bear the intersection of Corby and St
Peter). I am writing because I oppose the petition for 806 Howard Street and wanted to pass this on to the Area Board
of Zoning Appeals.
I believe that this proposal would be damaging to neighbors' property values and would be out-of-character with this
residential neighborhood. Please pass my opposition on the Area Board of Zoning Appeals.
Thank you
Brian Mulhern
cell phone 917-445-3036
1
The Forteners
1006 N.Notre Dame Ave,South Bend,IN 466171 574-387-5987 1 fortenerj @hotmail.com
December 5,2017
Carolyn Henry
Secretary to the Board
Area Board of Zoning Appeals
125 S.Lafayette Boulevard,Suite 100
South Bend, IN 46617
Via email
Dear Carolyn,
We, Steven&Jennifer Fortener,own and live in the home at 1006 N.Notre Dame
Avenue which is located within 300 feet ofthe property commonly described as 806
Howard Street. We want to express our opposition to the zoning variances sought by
Alliance Architects on behalf of Pandora Partners for 806 Howard Street. We
respectfully ask that you convey our opposition to the Area Board of Zoning
Appeals("ABZA"). While there are many reasons we object to these variances, we
will frame our concerns within the legal standards the ABZA must hold true to grant the
requested variances as outlined below.
We,along with many homeowners in the immediate,area have children who frequent
Kelley Park which is adjacent.to 806 Howard Street. The requested parking variances
present a risk to the safety and comfort of the many neighborhood children and groups
from the Robinson Community Learning Center who enjoy the enhanced park amenities.
Allowing for the requested parking variances would significantly increase the number of
cars parked on the street reducing visibility for and of pedestrians. As a home that has a
consistent view of the traffic on Howard Street we do not see how a parking variance will
calm"traffic in any way. Additionally,allowing this building to potentially
monopolize street parking that residents and their guests also need to make use of is
certainly an inconvenience. The variance to reduce the number ofADA spaces should be
frowned upon as clearly injurious to public health,safety and comfort.
Second,to allow a"Dwelling Unit-Upper Level" is outside of the moral character ofthe
neighborhood. Our immediate neighborhood and community has been developed as an
area composed of full-time primary residents.
We are not aware of any mix-use office
and dwelling properties within the area,aside from those on Eddy Street,which were
developed for that express intent. Additionally,the development of new non-primary
resident apartment units are not compatible with the neighborhood and have been actively
opposed by the North East Neighborhood Council,the University ofNotre Dame and
neighborhood residents.
Third,the building is already an out ol'place structure that sticks out like a sore thumb in
the neighborhood. To add a third story,making it an even taller,out of place structure
will certainly injure and adversely affect the use of and property values in adjacent areas.
The structure already takes up much ofthe lot due to variances granted when it was
initially constructed. To make it taller,thereby reducing the amount ofnatural light
available to the surrounding homes and land is detrimental to their value.
Additionally,
an additional level on the building would reduce the amount of privacy afforded to
nearby homes,making them less desirable thereby impacting the value.
As it currently stands,the building is already completely out of character for our
residential neighborhood as the only structurezoned as"Office".
To make it a larger,
more obtrusive mixed-use building makes it even more inconsistent with the district and
neighborhood. To allow such a tall, out of place mixed-use structure in the neighborhood
would set a dangerous precedent going forward.
The proposed variances in no way help this building or its land use complement the
surrounding parcels ofland,nor would the help the building integrate well with its
surroundings,both of which are requirements of section E ofthe City's Comprehensive
Plan.
The variances only make it a more obtrusive structure, in height and on land,all
a round.
We have enjoyed seeing the neighborhood grow and expand into a community we are
proud to be a part of,however we cannot see how these proposed changes to 806 Howard
Street would be beneficial to our community or its development.
Thank you for your consideration and for passing our comments along to the Board.
Sincerely,
Steven an Jennif ortener
1006 N.Notre Dame venue
Carolyn Henry
From:
Jill Bodensteiner <jbodenst@nd.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 8:57 PM
To: Carolyn Henry
Cc:
James Haigh;Tom Mustillo;Jill.R.Bodensteiner.2
Subject: Zoning Appeal --806 Howard Street
Dear Ms. Henry,
My name is Jill Bodensteiner,and t live at 920 North St.Peter Street.Because my home is located within 300 feet ofthe property
located at 806 Howard Street,I received the Notice to Adjacent Property Owners regarding the petition for seven(7)variances to zoning
regulations filed by Pandora Partners LLC.Please forward this email detailing my opposition to such variances to the Area Board ofZoning
Appeals for consideration.
In light of the overwhelming concern expressed by my neighbors,l am certain that you have received several similar emails or letters.As
such,my comments will be briefand focused on two ofthe legal standards governing the work of the Area Board of Zoning Appeals.
Adverse Affect on Property Values in the Adjacent Area
There is simply no credible argument to be made that the addition of an upstairs dwelling unit(and nearly 15 feet)to the existing structure
and the reduction by 31 in the number of off-street parking spots will do anything other than adversely affect the property values in the
adjacent areas.The site lines,skyline and residential feel ofthe entire neighborhood will change.I can't imagine a potential buyer of my
bungalow home would want the structure two doors down to tower above their new home.The potential for 30+additional cars parking in
front of our houses will also adversely affect the property value.Finally,any argument that the owner intends to improve the exterior
appearance is irrelevant;to my knowledge,there is no related variance in the current petition.
Consistent with the Character of the District
The area surrounding 806 Howard Street is residential with the exception of the structure in question.While already zoned for office use,the
addition of significant height and creation of a mixed use office/residential building will render the existing structure even more out of place
and will establish bad precedent for the future of the neighborhood.An argument that either phases of the Eddy Street Commons project
establishes 806 Howard as part of an existing mixed use district is without merit;a tour of the area would quickly establish the different
character of our properties compared to Eddy Street Commons.
In sum,I strongly opposed the zoning variances sought by Pandora Partners LLC related to 806 Howard Street,and look forward to the
opportunity to share my views at the hearing.
Jill Bodensteiner
Senior Associate Athletics Director
Notre Dame Athletics
email:jbodenst nd.edu
cell:(574)360-9792
office: (574)631-6721
1
110 December 5, 2017
Dear Ms. Henry,
Please pass along our concerns to the Area Board of
Zoning Appeals. We are Dan & Kate Kelly
of 1011 N. Notre Dame Avenue and are within 300 feet of 806 Howard Street. We are writing to
oppose the special exception and variances requested by Alliance Architects on behalf of
Pandora Partners, LLC.
The building's appearance, size,and use as a large office space are already out of place for this
residential neighborhood. The requested alterations would further separate this building from all
the others.
Taking a 2-story office
building andmaking it 3 stories—with a significant increase
in the height of an already large and bulky building(from approximately 28.5 feet to 46 feet)—
not only would make a bigger and taller structure, but would harm the aesthetics of the
neighborhood and the property values of the surrounding homes. The expanded building size
would dwarf nearby homes; permanently alter the character and sight lines ofthe community;
and decrease access to sunlight for neighbors, while increasing noise and light pollution.
In addition,the variances requested with regard to parking would increase on-street congestion
and parking issues and decrease pedestrian and motorist safety. This is problematic because, at
present,Howard Street is incredibly busy and dangerous (with one neighbor describing it as the
Indy 500").
Many children, including our own,cross the street and walk by this building to
access Kelly Park. We have significant safety concerns that the parking and setback variances
would reduce sight lines, increase congestion, and make the walk to Kelly Park for children
unsafe. It may make an intersection without a stop sign (Howard & St. Peter's),where one of
our children and one of us were nearly struck by a vehicle this summer, even more dangerous.
Neighbors seem uniform in opposing the proposed changes. Dozens of homeowners in the
immediate vicinity view it as a bad idea and are actively opposing it. In our view,efforts to
improve or change the external appearance of this structure are laudable. But adding a 3rd floor
to an already oversized building, dramatically decreasing setbacks(including a setback of0' on
the east side),and creating additional parking and safety issues on an already busy street and at a
dangerous intersection are problematic and not in the best interests ofthe community.
The proposed changes do not appear to satisfy any of the standards for approval. The proposed
use would harm public health, safety, comfort, etc.;adversely affect adjacent areas and property
values; be inconsistent with the character of the district and the existing land uses; and be
incompatible with the City of South Bend's comprehensive plan,as well as the many efforts
by and on behalfof homeowners, both longstanding and new,to redevelop this area over the past
two decades. An even larger office building,with reduced setbacks and less off-street parking, is
not consistent with the interests of the neighborhood or the surrounding homeowners.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Katherine O. Kelly& Daniel B. Kelly
Carolyn Henry
From: Joseph Powers <powers @nd.edu>
Sent:
Sunday, December 03, 2017 12:28 PM
To:
Carolyn Henry
Cc: jhaigh @lck-law.com;tmustillo @gmail.com;Jo Broden
Subject: former Pandora's
Dear Ms. Henry,
I was given your name and email address by James Haigh. I write with regard to something to which he alerted me: a
proposed re-purposing of the old Pandora's bookstore building. I live nearby at 1026 N.St. Peter Street, having recently
built a new house and moved here in May 2016.
My understanding is the proposal is to significantly expand the Pandora's site to include new residential units in a new
floor. I oppose this. It is out of character with the neighborhood, and expands upon a bad decision made in the 1990s.
I placed a significant investment in a new home in a neighborhood with the expectation that it would remain a
neighborho od
of single-
family dwellings. Part of the advantage of living in a city is that there are rules and expectations
that allow people to make informed decisions. I followed the rules when I built,and I expect my neighbors to do so as
well. The investors in the former Pandora's building knew the rules when they invested in it.
Please do not grant the variance.
Joseph M. Powers
1206 N.St. Peter Street
South Bend, Indiana 46617
1
Carolyn Henry
From:
John McGreevy <John.T.McGreevy.5 @nd.edu>
Sent:
Sunday, December 03, 2017 2:54 PM
To:
Carolyn Henry
Subject:proposed zoning variance
Dear Ms. Henry,
We write in regard to the proposed zoning variance for the structure formerly known as the Pandora Books
building on the corner of St. Peter and Howard Avenue.
We have lived in the neighborhood at 1010 N. Notre Dame Avenue since 2002 and we are within three hundred
feet ofthe structure. We are, frankly, shocked by the proposal. The existing structure has always been out of
place with the character of the neighborhood. The recent development of the neighborhood with blocks of
single family homes has made this problem only more acute. Adding a residential floor to the top of the
building only accentuates this problem, however enticing the proposition is to the building's owners. In
addition,parking for the building is insufficient even now and this problem will be exacerbated by the request
to have virtually all of the parking on the street.
One of us will be at the zoning meeting to express our objections in person. We have never protested a variance
in our time in South Bend and never anticipated doing so. But this proposal works against the efforts of many
over a long period of time to build a more coherent neighborhood . We wish to register our opposition in the
strongest terms and that you convey this note to the board.
Sincerely,
John McGreevy
Jean McManus
1010 N.Notre Dame Avenue
574-232-1153
John T.McGreevy
I.A. O'Shaughnessy Dean ofthe College of Arts and Letters and Professor of History
University ofNotre Dame
100 O'Shaughnessy Hall
Notre Dame, IN 46556
574)631-6642
American Jesuits and the World: How an Embattled Religious Order Made Modern Catholicism Global
Princeton University Press, available May 2016)
http://Rress.princeton.edu/titles/I 0678.html
i
Carolyn Henry
From: Rita
Schmid <schmidrita @gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, December 03, 2017 9:31 PM
To:
Carolyn Henry
Subject:
Neighborly considerations for ABZA on 806 Howard St.petition
Dear Carolyn,
My name is Rita Schmid,and 1 live at 919 North Notre Dame Avenue.As our home is located within 300 feet of the property commonly
described as 806 Howard Street,I'd like to express our opposition to the proposed expansion and change ofuse identified in a recently-filed
zoning petition,and ifyou could pass these thoughts to the board for consideration,l would greatly appreciate your help..
While it came as a surprise that anyone would seek to expand and amplify such an example ofstructural incongruity in our neighborhood,I
thought it best to approach the matter through the frame of the City of South Bend's Comprehensive Plan(which I understand is a critical
factor in ABZA's recommendation as they assess a proposal's compatibility).Though it should be noted,l do concur wholeheartedly with my
adjacent neighbors,the Haighs and Mustillos,in their overall assessments and personal impressions.
In regard to Chapter 3:Land Use and Growth,Sections D and E of the City Plan,I disagree that the proposed changes support and abide by
the city's stated objectives.In section D,the plan states that mixed-use developments can"benefit a community by helping create a sense of
place"and"encourage the kind of pedestrian activity people enjoy about city life."
It goes on to say that"housing units on a buildings upper floors provide population density,encouraging retail development on the ground
floor...attracting more people to the area;more pedestrian activity helps create street life,an essential element of urban living."
While these points may not contradict the proposal's validity,they certainly don't support it either.These benefits are already well ill place for
our neighborhood thanks to many key factors,including the support of Notre Dame,the positive(and well-deliberated)development plans
along Eddy Street,the city of South Bend,and our wonderful community of neighbors.
Section E ofthe City's Comprehensive Plan on ensuring land compatibility,however,seems to express guidelines that this petition does not
comply with.
It states:
Ensuring compatibility ofland uses helps maintain the quality oflife ofa community.Since a land use decision on any individual parcelwill
affect surrounding parcels ofland,sound decisions have to be made to ensure that different land uses complement each other and create the
best urbanform...City government,land use experts,and the general public recognize that new developments needto integrate well with
their surroundings.
This is achieved byfollowing a plan,incorporating characteristics ofthe surrounding area into file development,and establishing
appropriate buffers,for example,green space and less intensive uses, to reduce land use conflicts."
This building already does not integrate well into its surroundings.Adding 18 feet to the height and widening its allowable structural
presence will certainly not help it to do so.
Thank you for your consideration,and we look forward to discussing the matter further on December 6.
Sincerely,
Rita Schmid and Adam Rebolloso
919 North Notre Dame Avenue
South Bend,IN 46617
1
I 1
NorthcaSt Neighborhood Revitalization Organ)"LiIt10Il
803 Lincoln Wad West 4 South I3end, Indiana 46616 0 Phone: 574-289-1066 0 Pax: 574-289-4550
December 1, 2017 q
South Bend-St.Joseph County Area Board of Zoning Appeals(ABZA)
125 S. Lafayette Blvd. • Suite 100
South Bend, Indiana 46601
RE:806 Howard Street Variance Request for December 6, 2017 ABZA Agenda
Dear Area Board of Zoning Appeals:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that several members of the Northeast Neighborhood
Revitalization Organization (NNRO)are aware of and have briefly discussed the proposal to expand the
building located at 806 Howard St. in the Northeast Neighborhood. However,the full board of the
NNRO has not reviewed the request. Moreover,the NNRO does not meet until December 13 wherein
the full board intends to address the proposal.Therefore, at this time the NNRO is not in support or
opposition to the petitioner's request.
Please know that the NNRO recognizes this is a critical matter for the neighborhood as the building has
been a longstanding problem property. It is important to note that in partnership with the City of South
Bend, Northeast Neighborhood residents and funding partners(South Bend Clinic,The University of
Notre Dame, Beacon Health System,St.Joseph Regional Medical Center),the NNRO has directly
facilitated roughly 30 million in housing production value in neighborhood since 2003.The NNRO has
been very active in all aspects of development in the neighborhood and works to achieve the best
possible outcomes.
Please know that NNRO representatives will be in attendance at December 6 ABZA meeting regarding
this matter.On behalf of the NNRO Board of Directors,we look forward to a decision regarding this
request soon. If you have questions, please contact me directly.Thank you.
Sincerely,
l
Marco Mariani
NNRO Authorized Representative
CC: NNRO
Building Dept.
APC
i
THE PERRET GROUP, L.L.C.
A PRIVATE HOLDING COMPANY
December 6,2017
Area Board of Zoning Appeals
C/O Ms. Carolyn Henry
chenry@southbendin_gov
Dear Area Board of Zoning Appeals Members,
My name is Hunter Perret. I own the property located at 1004 North St. Peter Street, 1005
North Notre Dame Avenue,and 1003 North Notre Dame Avenue, South Bend, Indiana. I
would like to express my opposition to the expansion and proposed variances being sought
by Alliance Architects for the property located at 806 Howard Street. The subject property
is located within 50 feet of my property and I would greatly appreciate my opinion being
considered by the board.
Please let me know what I need to do further to express my great opposition to these
proposed development variances.
Respectfully,
r
H -Perret
50 1 WE ST SAINT MARY BOULEVARD, SUITE 2 10 •LA FA YETTE,L A70506•3 37.233.1114(TELEPHON E)-337.4 56.5474(FACS IMILE)
3. The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located
and the land uses authorized therein. It should also be noted that the proposed uses (office
and residential) are generally considered to be less intensive than the current use (retail).
4. The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the City of South Bend
Comprehensive Plan because it involves the adaptive reuse of an existing structure and
includes an upper floor dwelling unit above office space.
VARIANCE APPROVAL STANDARDS
1. The approval will not be injurious to the public health,safety,morals and general welfare of
the community because on-street parking will be available to supplement the existing on-site
parking. The on-street parking will also serve as"traffic calming"along Howard Street.
2.
The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be
affected in a substantially adverse manner because the on-site parking is existing and will
remain in place. Also,the building setback variances are necessary in order for the existing
building walls to be compliant with the current ordinance.
The north building setback
variance will also permit the construction of a new deck/porch which will project
approximately 6'beyond the existing wall.
3.
The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties
in the use of the property because a similar parking variance was granted when the existing
building was constructed in 1992. The South Bend BuildingDepartment has confirmed that
the parkingrequirements for the existing retail use and proposed office use are identical: 3.5
spaces per 1,000 GSF. The parking requirement for the Dwelling Unit-Upper Floor is two
spaces.
LICANT SIGNATURE Date
Martin J. Murphy, RA
Alliance Architects
Name
PARCEL II: Part of Lot Numbered One Hundred Twenty-Five (125) as shown on
the recorded Plat of Sorin's Second Addition to Lowell, now a part of the City of
South Bend,described as beginning 74 feet East of the Northwest comer of said lot;
thence running South 66 feet; thence East 45 feet to an alley; thence North 12 feet;
thence West 25.5 feet; thence North 54 feet; thence West 19.5 feet to the place of
beginning.
PARCEL III: Part of Lot Numbered One Hundred Twenty-Five (125) as shown on
the recorded Plat of Sorin's Second Addition to Lowell, now a part of the City of
South Bend, described as commencing on the North line of said Lot 125, 93.6 feet
East of the Northwest comer of said lot; thence South 54 feet; thence East 26 feet;
thence North 54 feet; thence West 26 feet to the place of beginning. Together with
the West Half of the vacated alley lying East of and adjacent to Parcels II and III.
PARCEL IV:
Grant of Easement recorded April 21, 2017 as Instrument
No. 1709777 in the Office of the Recorder of Saint Joseph County, Indiana.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION &VARIANCE(S)
Seeking SpecialException Use to allow a "
Dwelling Unit - Upper Level" within the O Office
District and Variances to include:
1)
Variance to reduce the required front yard and building setback from 25' to
10'at north and from 25'to 20'at west;
2)
Variance to reduce the required side residential buffer yard and building
setback from 8'to 5'at south and from 8'to 0'at east;
3)
Variance to reduce the required off-street parking from 35 spaces to 4 spaces;
4) Variance to delete off-street parking area screening at east side yard;
5)
Variance to reduce the required minimum number of ADA parking spaces
from 2 spaces to 1 space; and
6)
Variance to reduce the minimum width ofparking lot maneuvering aisle from
24'to 0'.
REASON FOR REQUEST(S)
These approvals are necessary in order for the existing building to be renovated as planned by
Superior Property Holdings, LLC.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL STANDARDS
1.
The approval will not be injurious to the public health,safety,morals and general welfare of
the community because the proposed residential use is compatible with surrounding land
uses.
2.
The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or property
values therein because the owner will make a significant financial investment and improve
the exterior appearance of the property.
Bianca Tirado
From: Carolyn Henry
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 7:54 AM
To: Bianca Tirado
Subject:
FW: Opposed to changes of bldg on St. Peter
Too late for my meeting. Thought you might want it for the Council.
Carolyn
From: Mary Murphy [mailto:mmurphy08 @gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2017 7:56 PM
To: Carolyn Henry<chenry@south bend in.gov>
Subject: Opposed to changes of bldg on St. Peter
Dear Carolyn,
My husband and I are strongly opposed to the proposed changes of the building located at St. Peter
and Howard St.
Thank you,
Mary and David Murphy
1038 N. Notre Dame Ave
SB, IN 46617
1
Area Board of
Zoning Appeals—December 6,2017
Petition of Pandora Partners, Inc.
Based on information available prior to the public hearing, the staff recommends the Special
Exception Use be sent to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation. The staff
recommends approval of the variances.
1) The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort, community
moral standards, convenience or general welfare.
The accessory residential use should have no impact on the public health, safety, or
general welfare of the community.
2) The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area orproperty
values therein.
Because the site has been used as an office for many years, the proposed addition of the
residential use should not impact surrounding property values.
3) The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located and
the land uses authorized therein.
This Special Exception Use for the upper level dwelling unit is consistent with the O Office
District and the surrounding neighborhood in which it will be located.
4) The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.
City Plan South Bend Comprehensive Plan (November 2006) identifies this area as
Medium Density Residential.
PANDORA PARTNERS,INC.
The petition of Pandora Partners, Inc. seeking the
following: a Special Exception to allow a
dwelling unit—Upper level
within an Office District and for the following variances: from the required 25'front yard setback to 10' along the north
line(Howard Street) and to 20' along the west line (St.Peter Street);from the required 8' residential buffer yard to 5'
along the south property line and to 0' along the east property line;from the required 35 parking spaces to 4;from the
required off street parking screening to none along the east side yard;from the required 2 ADA parking spaces to 1;and
reduce the required 24' width of parking lot maneuvering aisle to 0', on property located at 806 Howard Street, Portage
Township. Zoned "O" Office.
MR. MARTY MURPHY: I'm an architect and President of Alliance Architects. Our offices are located at 929 Lincolnway
East,South Bend. Joining me
today are
Perry Vieth and Jim Passios.
Jim and Perry are the principals in Ceres Partners
and also the affiliated companies,Superior Property Holdings, LLC. Ceres is an investment company specializing in farm
land. Their headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. They also have offices in Chicago and their office at Eddy Street
Commons in South Bend. Their office at Eddy Street currently has about ten employees and they're looking to expand.
Their proposal that we have is for the adaptive reuse of the old Pandora's Book Store. Pandora's was built in 1992. It
11
Area Board of
Zoning Appeals—December 6,2017
consists of a basement plus two stories of retail,approximately 9,000 square feet total. Our proposal has the following
elements. We propose to renovate the two floors of retail to offices. We want to renovate the basement for staff lounge
and storage purposes. We want to add a third floor dwelling unit above the offices. We want to redesign the building
exterior to remove the precast concrete and tinted glass and instead replace it with face brick limestone accents and slate
color roof and I did bring copies of that.
COPIES OF THE RENDERINGS WERE PASSED OUTATTHIS TIME
MR. MURPHY: And finally we want to add an unenclosed porch on the north fagade. The reason that we're here today is
the upper floor dwelling unit requires a Special Exception under the "O" Office zoning. The variances basically affirm the
existing conditions. Our understanding is the variances would not be required if not for the Special Exception request. I'd
like to walk through each of these items. The dwelling unit would be used by Ceres staff friends and associates to
facilitate business travel to the South Bend office. We are willing to commit in writing that it will not be used to rent to
undergraduate students. Although the overlay district is not applicable in this case it is interesting to note that upper
floor dwelling units are actually encouraged in that Overlay District. The building setback variances permit the rebuilding
of the exterior walls in current location. We will reuse the existing building foundations and build the new walls and
design it. There are two exceptions to that. The first is the porch deck element that I had mentioned previously. And the
second is that we would square off the northwest corner of the ground floor, bring it out to the wall line of the second
floor above and element the recessed entrance. But other than that it's rebuild new walls on the existing foundations.
The parking variance is also affirmed existing conditions. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance in 1992 to
reduce the required parking from 32 spaces to 4 spaces.That approved reduction runs with the property. So in a sense it
permanently runs with the property. So in essence that reduction 32 to 4 is already in the bank. For the purposes of this
discussion we're asking an additional 3. Two of these would be attributable to the dwelling unit and there would be
another one that would be attributable to space that's recaptured within the building footprint. That includes the
squared off corner that I referenced earlier. We will retain the existing four spaces on that on site to the east. We will
also retain the existing driveway and shared access condition with the neighboring properties. Now I've had
conversations with the City and the City has indicated a willingness to add parking stripping on both sides of Howard from
Frances to Foster. If we look at the site plan,you'd see that there are five spaces would be accommodated in the half
block immediately adjacent to the site. Then when we include the other,the eastern half of the block,that would add an
additional five and if we add the opposite side of Howard Street the total would be twenty spaces of stripped parking on
the street between Notre Dame Avenue and St. Peter Street. That compares to an estimated peak office load of twenty
to twenty four. We would have twenty that are in that block plus the four on site equals twenty four. We should also
note that the lot immediately to the east and the lot across Howard Street to the north are likely to remain vacant for
various reasons,we can go into them if you'd like, but those are vacant now and will very likely to remain vacant.
However, if we continue to run the math further, between Frances and Foster Streets about seven blocks, if there's 20
spaces stripped...
MR.CRUMLISH: Sorry we have to limit you to five minutes. Thank you Marty. Board or staff any questions to begin with?
MRS.SMITH: I'll start with a little history on this to help frame from where the Staff recommendation comes from. In
1991 the property was actually rezoned to"C-1"Commercial District under the old zoning ordinance. In 2004 when the
map was, back up, in 1992 the Board of Zoning Appeals, as he mentioned,granted the parking reduction from 32 to 4. In
2004 when the new zoning map was adopted this property was identified as"0" Office so essentially the Council
reconfirmed the"0"Office designation in 2004. So from the Staff's perspective the office portion of this building is
already been determined as an appropriate land use by the Common Council. The only item in front of you in terms of
the land use would be a recommendation on the upper story dwelling whether or not that would be an appropriate at this
location. That's what the Staff looks at in our recommendation. The plan for this area calls for or encourages for an
upper level dwelling and it encourages mixed use buildings throughout the area where appropriate and so we felt like the
12
Area Board of
Zoning Appeals—December 6,2017
upper storage dwelling unit is an appropriate Special Exception use of this property. They meet the criteria as set for that.
In terms of the variances it's kind of one of those unique things that are our ordinance doesn't adequately address and it's
actually again'on our list of things to fix in the new year. When someone seeks a Special Exception we currently make
them bring the entire site up to standards. We wrote in a provision into the ordinance a couple of years ago when you
rezone your building and your setbacks become legal non-conforming. So if this was a rezoning for instance they would
not need to get the setbacks for the building,they would not need to get the setbacks for the parking. They would
however need to look at the parking number and the landscaping. The landscaping that they're requesting for the parking
screening would essentially require them to rip up the alley and put in shrubs which would block the access. So we would
not want to encourage that so we support that variance for the landscape,for the parking screening. The other
landscaping,as I understand,will be installing. The parking reduction, in the staff's opinion,was determined in 1992 by
the approval of the Board in terms of the office competent so we were strictly looking at the additional parking that would
be required for the residential dwelling unit and the Staff's opinion the availability of on street parking that would require,
a dwelling unit requires two additional spaces. I believe they said the reconfiguration might add a third. So three spaces
could adequately be handled in the space provided adjacent to that. So with that the Staff recommendation on this is
favorable for the Special Exception and approval of the variances. Is there any questions?
I will say that I have read some
of the letters. The height for this District is not in question by the Board. They are allowed to build up to 50' in height
within the"0"Office District. That item is not under consideration...
MR.CRUMLISH: There's no variance then for the additional area?
MRS.SMITH: There's no variance needed for the height of the building and there's also no maximum floor area
requirement for the"0"Office District. So the only impact of the area would be the impact on the parking calculations.
MR.CRUMLISH: Can you address the ADA parking variance?
MRS.SMITH: The ADA parking variance actually depending on you outcome, may or may not be necessary. The ADA
parking spaces are based on the number of spaces provided so in 1992 when the variances was granted down to 4 spaces
one of those four spaces would have to be ADA compliant. So if the variance is granted from the requirement to 4,the
variance for the ADA spaces would not be necessary because only one of those spaces would need to be ADA compliant.
So that variance is kind of not really needed.
MR. URBANSKI: May I ask a question of the presenter? When looking at the drawing of the proposed three story,what
side of that faces Howard?
MR. MURPHY: Yes, Howard is to the left. That's where the porch is.
MR. HAWLEY: The exterior is all brick?
MR. MURPHY: Correct.
MR. URBANSKI: I have been on this Board in excess of twenty years, I have never seen this amount of letters in
opposition.
MR.CRUMLISH: I'll mention the letters in a minute.
MR. URBANSKI: The contact with the neighbors and the people in the area, I understand that if they were to look at the
remodeling of a
building similar
to"the original
building", have they been notified of what the new building would look
like?
MR. MURPHY: These images have been shared with the neighbors immediately to the south,who are in attendance
today,and also with the NENC Board. So yes that drawing is out there. It's the same drawing.
13
Area Board of
Zoning Appeals—December 6,2017
MR. URBANSKI: Okay.
MR.CRUMLISH: Are there any additional questions or comments?
I'll open the session to the public then. If there is
anyone here wishing to speak in favor of or ask additional questions about this petition you may approach the podium?
You will be allowed two minutes each.
IN FAVOR
MR.TIM CORCRAN: I'm the Director of Planning for South Bend. I wish to support this project. While we are opposed to
the spot rezoning that happened in 1991 and would not support that today, it is in place. We do feel that this proposal is
an improvement a vacant building and clearly out of character,style of the existing building. We would like the
proponent to look into ways to reducing the height,which we know is not something that we're talking about today, but
as a way to help mitigate the fears of the neighbors and to continue to work towards that. But in essence we do support
the change and the Special Exception.
MR. LEBBIN: Will please state your address.
MR.CORCRAN: 14TH floor, County City Building.
MR. DAVID BUCKINMEYER: I am Director of Business Development for the City of South Bend,also on the 14"floor of this
building. We support the request being made by the petitioner here today. The improvements in question are clearly an
enhancement to the building,the intersection,the neighborhood. Also brings a residential element to a residential area.
From our business and economic and development perspective,supporting this request will also the retention of high end
jobs and a high end business critical to the South Bend economy, a business and employees which might otherwise leave
South Bend and St.Joe County. Thank you.
MR. CRUMLISH: Is there anyone else wishing to speak in favor of?
MS. ELIZABETH BURMAN: I live at 920 N. Notre Dame Ave. and I will say I am not speaking in favor of,I have a question
though. And this is mostly to the staff, I'm confused because I heard a preamble that seemed to sort of undo any basis for
objections. I'm not sure what it is that we arespeaking to if all of
this is already been approved...)
mean I maybe not
understanding so perhaps...what is it if we can't talk to the...
MR.CRUMLISH: Can you repeat the variances?
MRS.SMITH: Sure. The height is the one that I said is not under consideration today. The height is allowed in this district
up to 50'. So the height of this building is not under consideration...
MR.CRUMLISH: No variance was even requested.
MRS.SMITH: No variance is needed for the height of the building. The reason for the variances that are requested all
relate back to, I guess I should have explained it this way.The building can continue to operate as an office. It can expand
up to 50' in height if they could meet the requirements that were improved in 1992 and they could remodel the building
accordingly. By seeking the Special Exception Use for the residential dwelling unit,the way the ordinance is currently
written, it says that they must bring the entire site up to the current code. So if the request for the residential dwelling
unit that warrants the setback variances,the parking variance and the landscape variance for the parking and the drive
14
Area Board of
Zoning Appeals—December 6, 2017
aisle. So the setbacks all match the existing building with the exception the porch to be added on the north side and all
the other variances are for existing conditions.
MR. CRUMLISH: That's the explanation.
MS. BURMAN: Thank you.
MR. CRUMLISH: Before I open this up to those who wish to speak against it, I will note that we did receive something like
27 letters and emails generally in opposition to this. If anyone would like to see this list there's a copy of it with our
secretary. I certainly can't read all of these into the minutes but duly noted there is a very large stack remonstrance here.
With that said I will now open this to anyone wishing to speak in opposition to this petition,you may approach. Please be
reminded that you're limited to two minutes. We need you name and address and if I start to hear the same comment
repeatedly I will ask you to stop. We only need to hear the comments originally. Thank you.
REMONSTRANCE
MS. MARGERITE TAYLOR: I live 714 E. Corby Blvd., I'm here to represent the Northeast Neighborhood Council which was
established in 1965. We polled the Board, out of 23 members, 19 of them are adamantly opposed to this project for
many reasons including some of those that you have in you 23 emails. I have a letter that I'll submit to you from the
President, Bill Stentz. Parking was number one and pedestrian safety.The conversion of what is essentially a book
warehouse to four parking spaces and the high density use, questionable purpose of the third story. What I think we're
afraid of is that what will happen to the third floor is what happened on South Bend Avenue. Private bedrooms and
common area which skates around the two unrelated people in the neighborhood. Can't hold the neighborhood hostage
by telling them that it's better than what was there. It isn't better than what's there. If you look at the building it doesn't
fit. The present building is kind of nondescript but it was functional and it hasn't been empty but a few months. The
person died and they bought it. So it hasn't been a building that was empty for years. It's just been a few months. So we
are absolutely,totally opposed to this project and did come to the Northeast Neighborhood Council to explain it to us and
we're still opposed to it. Thank you.
MS. LULELLA WEBSTER: I live at 701 Howard Street, one block west of where this building is. I think the size of the
building,even though the improvements would be disaster to the area. I have worked with Beth Stanford on renovating
South Bend Park Department,the park that's right across there,and one of the main entrances into the park is right there
at St. Peter and Howard. So I'm concerned about additional traffic that goes through there. There's many a time,there
was one time that I called the Police Department,they came out and looked and within an hour they ticketed 25 people
for speeding down Howard Street. So I have very concern about the parking in that area as well as, and I know we're not
talking about height, but it's a humongous size building. Even though they committed to not renting to students they did
not commit about football rental and that is an issue for us. Thank you.
MS. BETH STANFORD: I live at 1013 N.
St. Peter Street.
I am within the 300' of the property. I've been a resident and in
my homes for over 23 years. I have actually, I did an overlay of the drawing of what's current and what their proposing as
well as took a picture of the Mustillo's house which is directly south of the property, proposed property, and as Luella I've
been working with her on Kelly Park. I guess a couple of issues that I have,one, I want to say that I am happy that
someone wants to develop the Pandora Book Store because I've been looking at an ugly building for a long time, but I am
concerned about the height and we are welcome if they want to somehow reduce it,that would be great to work with the
neighbors.
But too my main thing is parking. Notre Dame Legal Aid would be just southwest of that, I'm sorry northwest
of that property on the opposite corner, and daily, I live next door to Legal Aid,daily we have a lot of parking at least 15 to
15
Area Board of
Zoning Appeals—December 6,2017
20 parking spaces that are filled up and I have five young children. My youngest is nine. And trying to cross to going over
to the park and it's very busy and people don't stop between St. Louis,Howard Street stop sign. They race from there to
Notre Dame Avenue and I'm concerned increased traffic. I'm concerned about increased traffic, parking because people
do not slow down. We live with game day parking for a very long time and people don't slow down. And the visibility of
trying to get around the vehicles. I have a suburban and it's hard to see around to get onto Howard Street and I've been
almost hit several times. I'm also concerned especially during the summer...
MR. CRUMLISH: I'm sorry ma'am I have to stop you,that's two minutes.
MS.STANFORD: That's fine,thank you.
MS.JESSICA PAYNE: I live at 1119 N. Frances Street,just a couple of blocks from the Pandora Book Store. The one thing I
want to state is that,and maybe it's my opinion based on the fact that I've been a resident for decades there,to call
Pandora's an active office space up until this point would probably would not be an accurate statement. It was a
warehouse situation. It did not have employees coming and going and parking on a daily basis. It was for most people's
perspective borderline an abandoned building. So to know to have it used in a high capacity state and not add parking
would just be something quite ridiculous. I do live very close to the Eddy Street Commons area and the added traffic,
parking situation that has occurred there has been very intolerable for us and I hate to see that then carry over now
blocks away. It's just going to continue to eat our neighborhood with addition of the second phase. Again I'm truly fearful
of this neighborhood is going to turn into. People are coming to me now, "gosh you guys were right when you though the
Eddy Street Commons situation,
here we bought this house and it's
becoming intolerable
for us."
I'm afraid that that,
now all these people who have built these beautiful homes. We've brought kids back into the neighborhood. We've
brought families back into the neighborhood and they're going to be continuously drawn away. If you allow this to go
forward with no consideration for off street parking that will truly be the worst possible decision you can make. Does the
building look better,yes it
does? Is it too tall,yes itis? Is it ridiculous to say we don't really don't need any additional
parking, absolutely?
And to say that it will only be used for this one purpose, again ten years from now,twenty years
from now,what will
be the situation? Will it turn
into something else?
And if you give it blanket cart blanc to continue as
it is, it would be a grave mistake. Thank you.
MS.SARAH MUSTILLO: I live at 926 St. Peter Street. I'm the brick house that's immediately south of this building. It is
dwarfed by this building. To follow up on what she said, it's great that they're willing to say that they're not going to rent,
that it's going to be residential space, but we can only control,or we can only accept that that's the current use. We
cannot control what the future use of what this residential space that's going to be. And so they may say that it only
requires one additional parking spot right now because the owners are going to occupy it but what about if they sell it in
several years, if something happens to their business? That's 3,000 square feet of residential space. That's bigger than
my entire house. My house is 2300 square feet. So who knows what could happen to that residential space then? And
how many parking spaces they will need at that time. That could become rental space which then leads to another issue.
I don't know where this idea that mixed use is encouraged in our neighborhood came from. We live in a residential
neighborhood. When our neighborhood had a very deliberate redevelopment plan,the idea was for it to be owner
occupied houses. And many of our houses have restrictive covenants that we are not allowed to rent our houses. The
person that sold us our house wanted to rent their house because they went away for a year and they had to sell it
because they were not allowed to rent it. So can't rent our houses yet we might let these guys build something that they
could end up renting. We don't live in a mixed use neighborhood. We live in an owner occupied neighborhood. So if
they would like to build something mixed use,that's wonderful, build it downtown. That's where skyscrapers belong, not
in a residential neighborhood.
Thank you.
16
Area Board of
Zoning Appeals—December 6, 2017
MR,JAMIE HAIGH: I live at 925 N. Notre Dame Avenue, directly behind Mustillo's. Also through one of the other property
owners own the strip of land where the trees are directly across. I would not have paid what I paid for t hose properties if
this had been there. So one of the elements in granting the variances is that it will not harm the property values. It will.
And the letters that you have testify to that. I'd like to present a certificate here,the Mustillo's and Haigh's have a
gathered,this is a certificate listing only property owners within 300' received the notice. Twenty eight of them,through
emails,through personal conversations with us,to letters to you all,twenty eight of them,that's basically all of them, are
adamantly opposed to this saying that it will harm the character of the neighborhood,saying that it will dramatically
reduce property values. Of those 28, 23 felt strongly enough, and you've got some from other people,to write letters
testifying to that fact. So I'd like to introduce this,this is basically everybody. There's some, obviously some out of state
and city owned properties. So when folks say,and these people all think that the current building,which is not attractive,
is better than what is proposed. And regarding the height,technically there's requirement on the height but if they put a
third floor office,they would need what another 15 parking spots,and they would objected to on that. That use does not
belong here. I understand it's there but to amplify it in any way is harmful to the neighborhood,folks everyone around it,
everyone, is adamantly opposed to that. This is all about one person's condo. We have all the neighbors adamantly
opposing it's going to hurt their property values and this is one person's condo. Those belong on the Eddy Street corridor,
downtown, east of campus,that's where those belong. They don't belong in this neighborhood.
MR.WILLIAM MATTISON: I live at 100'from this place at 928 N. Notre Dame Ave. I'm one of your letter writers so I'll
spare you the details of on the parking and what not but I'll address two procedural issues. When the Staff explained the
basis of their recommendations they did mention that no need for the variances have been granted in the previous
hearing which seems absolutely true but my understanding is those are open again once this is being proposed as a
different use of the property.So while it may be the case of it being granted in the past,to apply that therefore there's
confident(could not understand what he said) toward that kind of makes a farce of this, of this(once again could not
un derstand what was said).
So we are legitimately being asked whether these variances now also make sense to spite the
fact that they've been granted in the past. And note that the variance at times attains such a radical nature that it almost
seems to call into the question of the original intent of the zoning ordinance to move parking down from 35 to 4. To
move one setback down to 0', is not just a minor change in judgement. Like the 8'to 5'one,or 25'to 20'one,seem
reasonable. These seem to call into question the very basis into question the very basis for the zoning regulations in the
first place. And the second point as to the mixed use variance. That is actually a new development and does require
wholly new consideration. And for reasons that have been abundantly clear already,to have a mixed use property
approved in this neighborhood where no such property exists and we strenuously tried to avoid,would be a radical
departure from character of the neighborhood. I will say that my understanding is that petitioners have handled
themselves very honorably, been communitive and do have a proposal to improve the aesthetic value of this property. A
rejection of this variance today is not a rejection of any future use of that property it's a rejection of this use for the third
floor and the reduced parking so this not to say on going relations with the neighbors couldn't result in a mutual and
beneficial arrangement,except this one due to its radically should not be accepted. Thank you.
MR. BRIAN LEVY: I live at 918 N.St. Peter, so we're three houses down from the 806 property. And I do appreciate that
the petitioners here want to make an investment in the neighborhood but ten years ago we made an investment in the
neighborhood along with many others here. We moved to this area, we could have moved anywhere,we could have
moved to Granger, could of sent our kid to Penn High School, we wanted to live in South Bend,we wanted to part of
something. We wanted to invest in the community. We met a lot of long time neighbors. We wanted to invest in the
Northeast Neighborhood and we've made a significant investment and I think if you approve this you're sending the
wrong message to those who have already made an investment in single family homes in a residential neighborhood. And
those other would be home builders, what does this message say to anybody else who's thinking about buying a house in
the neighborhood or building a house in the neighborhood? I've sent a letter, one of the many record letter writers and I
ask that my letter be part of the record. Thank you.
17
Area Board of
Zoning Appeals—December 6, 2017
MS.JENNIFER FORTENER: I live 1006 N. Notre Dame Ave. I don't really have anything extra to add except that I have
young children too. I don't like these parking variances. They've a problem. I've seen numerous accidents at Notre Dame
and Howard already. People don't see those signs. People don't stop at those signs. I don't think that this will make that
situation any better or slow traffic in any way with what I witness on a daily basis looking at Howard Street and football
games indicative of how the parking effects the traffic also does not calm traffic.
MR.ADAM REBOLLOSO: I share a home at
919 N. Notre Dame Ave. with
Rita Schmid andwithin
300'. 1 guess to start off
you're hearing a lot about the height of the building which I understand is not in contention but just ask the question,
would
this go up with that
height increase if the
Special Exception wasn't approved?
I think we probably could clear up a
lot of people's confusion on that. We're happy to have interest in the redevelopment of this property. We look forward
to welcoming a new neighbor and spirit to it. And being familiar with a handful of principals of the buying entity, I can say
that I feel confident in their business prudence but the question is what happens in the future when in the case that they
relinquish ownership of the property. The marketability of that building is going to have a very specific end target. And I
don't see any way it could avoid turning into student housing for those who are interested. As far as the mixed use,to
address that,there seems to be a lot of claims that this is a mixed use neighborhood. If you look back at the South Bend,
the City of South Bend Comprehensive Plan, and the future land use map which provides which provides guidance
according to the plan to the Area Plan Commission,the South Bend Common Council regarding rezoning petitions. It also
guides developers and property owners from making investment decisions on the future use of the property. I think if
that was looked at you would see that this is a medium density residential neighborhood. The Eddy Street Commons is
pinpointed as a neighborhood commercial node which is small scaled retail and service area that serves the adjacent
neighborhoods. Mixed uses are encouraged in the neighborhood commercial nodes which we're seeing demonstrated in
Eddy Street but you get to Notre Dame Avenue and you go down far enough west and far enough south and it's all
residential so I'd just like to reference that map, the land use map. Thank you for your time.
MS. GIA HAIGH: I'm at 925 Notre Dame Avenue so also right behind the red brick building and we also own that strip of
land with the trees. I have seven children who, if you ever drive by Howard and Notre Dame,you probably see them
playing outside along with 15 to 20 other children in the neighborhood, every day, all day. I home school so when they're
done with school pretty early they're out there. And also since I home school I have a good sense of what's going in the
neighborhood during the day. To say that stripping parking on Howard is going to mitigate the problem is kind of crazy. I
have elderly parents who often try to visit me now,with this empty, and can't park in front of my house and I have to
move a car out of the driveway for them to come in or run out to the car to bring them something because they can't
even find a parking spot on Notre Dame Avenue. You know you have anything going on with any house there there's only
parking on one side of Notre Dame,so if there's,the thought that people are just going to park there,especially when
coming down Howard this way, it's a lot closer to just park in front of my house on Notre Dame. And when there's only a
few residential spots or a few spots per residence,you know I'm not going to stand out there with cones to not let people
park,you know they're not going to tell people that are visiting or people that are in those offices even if they tell their
workers they can't tell people that are coming to visit them,don't park on Notre Dame Avenue. Already it's, I mean it's a
high traffic area, but I feel like these families that have come in have brought back a neighborhood feel. We've had so
many people comment on how it's bringing this old school Notre Dame family life back to Notre Dame Avenue like it was
years ago. And I can only image that with this building here and if we can't park and if we feel unsafe, if we can't,you
know they put a ton into this new park that's just to the side here, if we feel unsafe walking our kids to the park, it's only
going to push families, like all of us that are on that street have multiple kids, push them out of the city. Many reasons a
lot of our friends are in Granger is because they wanted a safe environment for kids to be able to walk around. And now
we have the same problems as if we lived in the heart of the City. Thank you.
18
Area Board of
Zoning Appeals—December 6, 2017
MS.JULIE PETERSON: I live at 902 N. St. Peter Street just south of the proposed building. My husband and I are probably
some of the newest people that moved into the neighborhood and we were the second owners of the home that we
bought. And what brought us to here was because of the single family environment and we have one son who is in high
school at St.Joe High School. And we previously lived over at Eddy Street campus area which was extremely busy and this
is why we moved here to not have something like this in our neighborhood. We also see a lot of the parking issues and
our son goes to the park to play basketball and it just brings a huge risk for pedestrian accidents. I wrote one of the
letters. My husband and I are both in the medical profession and this is just a huge liability. Thank you.
MR. DAN KELLY: I'm at 1011 N. Notre Dame Avenue. Just want to make three quick points for you. One is I do think it's
pretty clear who walks in the neighborhood or drives through it, it is a residential area and it has made an incredible
comeback from what it was just ten or fifteen years ago in terms of families in the residential area. That being said it's
pretty clear when you look at the drawing that that existing office building, commercial space right now is extremely ugly
to say the least. So when you compare the two structures that really applaud the petitioners for wanting to come in and
do something better than the existing thing and I think aesthetically the building with the nice brick is great. I think the
only problem is it seems like it's kind of
doubling down a use
that's already out of
place. That is we have this sort of one
out of place structure and now it looks better on the outside but I think a lot of the concerns that have been expressed go
to by adding that third floor residential, it's going to dramatically increase the bulk of the building,the overall height,the
effect it has on the neighborhood including some of the site lines so I think aesthetically it looks better. I think there heart
and I sort of applaud the petitioners for doing that. I just think people want it to better but not to get bigger, bulkier and
sort of double down on it being out of place. The last point I'll leave you with is just some of the safety concerns.So my
wife and I have five children, use Kelly Park a lot,we love that. Just this summer in walking to the park both one of my
children and I were almost hit by somebody who, as several people have testified,going too fast,tried to take a left from
Howard to St. Pete very quickly. And so I think so many issues with both parking and the sight lines do have real effects
on welfare and safety for pedestrians, motorists and especially children. Thanks very much.
MR. RUDY REYES: I'm at 1014 N. St. Peter Street.As you heard when a land use was approved in 1992 the area of the
neighborhood was not what it is today. The Pandora Books building was and is an anomie in the neighborhood as you can
see the previous owner,God rest him, held onto the property as long as he possibly could as a matter of personal protest.
Now the surrounding lots to the north as were described by the petitioner as being probably not built on are in fact
owned and buildable. I've spoken with the owner on several occasions and he's expressed interest in building on both of
those lots,the one on Howard and St. Peter Street directly to the north of this building. The parking along Howard is
already dangerous as you heard,this would make it worse. While the height that goes with an Office District,the height
that goes with an Office District unfortunately not in question here. And whether this should be an Office District or not is
also not in question. The City's planner has indicated today that we would never support the spot rezoning that occurred
in 1992,so I would ask you why perpetuate a mistake that wouldn't be repeated today. The Economic Development
representative makes a good point about the impact of such a structure, however,there's amble opportunity in the
expanded Eddy Street Commons as well as other areas of the city. I'd like to emphasize that we were promised certain
standards in moving to and investing in this neighborhood. Having recently completed construction I certainly I am very
familiar with all of the restrictions both in the District as well as the Overlay. Our investment was sought and understood
to be critical to the City's redevelopment plan which was outlined for you just a minute ago. These devaluing
modifications then would be very, very, disheartening. As was made clear by your staff the current ordinance and
regulations require,the current regulations and ordinance require a presentation of the entire site in order for the
requested variance. The current presentation of the request then should be denied. Thank you.
MS.JILL BODENSTEINER: 920 N.St. Peter, so I'm the brown bungalow immediately south of the Mustillios,which is the
brick house. Mine may be more of a question, but as I've been sitting here reflecting on the great comments of my
neighbors thinking back to what the representative for Pandora Partners said we've been guaranteed in writing that there
19
Area Board of
Zoning Appeals—December 6, 2017
will be no undergraduate residents. And maybe I'm making this up but I thought he referenced using that residential
space for business associates. So I would inquire is that really a residential space or is it a crash pad for business for
associates of Ceres? So I think we really need to dig in to what is the purpose of that third floor because it is my
understanding the entire variance hinges on whether that truly residential. If it's going to be business associates crashing
for football games,I don't know that that's residential. I think that's more of a business purpose. So I would just ask that
we would dig into that a little bit more with the exact purpose of the third floor is and I echo all the comments made
about the parking. If this is even possible my colleagues and neighbors are under estimating the impact of the parking on
the safety of that. So really appreciate your consideration and again digging into the exact purpose of that third floor.
Thanks.
MR. CRUMLISH: Is there anyone else wishing to speak in opposition of this petition. Seeing no further,the public session
is now closed.
Would the petitioner care to address some of the comments?
You get five minutes.
REBUTTAL:
MR. MURPHY: We heard a number of things and let me try to address them in order if I can. The possibility of moving to
an expanded Eddy Street Commons that was an option that was explored by Ceres,the issue was that the Eddy Street
Phase would contain no new office space, it's all residential. So that was an issue that was an issue that was already
determined. The safety concern with respect to the parking. Without any Special Exception,without any variances,
without anything,we can go two floors of offices in that existing shell. So the parking is sort of a moot point in that it is
sort of the office,or the Special Exception parking dealt with the difference between that and the office parking is really
the only thing that you're deciding upon here. In terms of property values, I am not an appraiser, I'm an architect,
however, I have bought and sold a few houses in my time. Generally speaking and in my experience is blighted in the
could not understand what he said) properties,surpass property values, not heavy investment like we're showing here.
In terms of the single family nature of the neighborhood,yes we applaud that and we want to support that everyone be a
part of it but I think it's important to point out this zoning predates any of these houses being built. So the builders of
those houses either did know or should have known that this is a possibility on that site and there's not a whole lot else I
can say about that. With respect to the future,the student housing,we agreed that we would commit to writing that it
would not be student housing, but I think more importantly baked into the ordinance under the upper level dwelling unit
is the definition of,it's a single family that's baked into the ordinance which means no more than two unrelated adults.
So any attempt to intensify the residential use would require another trip before this body and Council as well. In
summary I would say this,we don't need avariance for building height. "0" Office District allows what we're showing
here. We don't need a Special Exception for the office use. The office use is granted as a right. The Northeast
Neighborhood Overlay zoning District is not applicable because it's an existing building,so therefore any requirements
related to the exterior design and material are not applicable. The benefits though are it's an adapted reuse of the
existing structure. We are providing an upper level dwelling unit which is encouraged. We are providing porch which is
encouraged. The modest parking increase from what is currently permitted seems to be reasonable in our judgement.
And we've got a good strategy for(could not understand what he said) actually accommodated in reality with the stripped
parking on Howard. And finally the intent would be to rebuild those existing walls in their current location but this time
make it a lot better looking. Thank you.
MR. CRUMLILSH: Staff do you have comments that you'd like to address?
MRS.SMITH: I do. I
first want to say I probably misspoke when I used
the word "mixed use". I see that that set off some
concern of the neighborhood. When we use mixed use what we're talking about is adding a residential dwelling unit to
something that's already non-residential. That is encouraged in this area because of the resurgence of making this
residential again.Adding a residential unit to a non-residential use is something that is thought of as strengthening the
20
Area Board of
Zoning Appeals—December 6, 2017
neighborhood. Again I'll remind the Board the height really isn't in consideration. I think the neighbors understand that.
As a combined request the Board will make a recommendation on the upper storage dwelling unit. I looked and verified
in the resolution that was prepared for the Council,that is the only use listed as a Special Exception Use and it is a singular
use so its single unit is the only thing that could be allowed under that resolution if adopted by the Common Council.
None of the other residential types would be,that are listed as a Special Exception Use,such as multifamily,or anything
like that would be allowed without coming back before the Board. As I mentioned before we are looking at the ordinance
changes and if this were not to go forward now that they could reapply after those ordinance changes came in. But those
are things that we are already considering that once a building is already there the setbacks are kind of established,the
use has already been established and therefore our recommendation remains the same.
MR.CRUMLISH: Thank you.
MR. URBANSKI: I'd like to ask the petitioner a question. In doing your studies and looking at this property along with the
perspective developers. Looking up and down Notre Dame Avenue, I'm just talking about that St. Peter, height wise,
approximately,a lot of the structures are high, 10/8, 10/10, 10/12, 12/12 pitches which are high, approximately how
higher do you feel that this is going to be or have you done any comparison of what's up and down the Avenue, Notre
Dame Avenue.
MR. MURPHY:
Well Notre Dame Avenue by and large are four story structures,we're only proposing three. We're
thinking...
LOUD OUTBURST FROM THE AUDIENCE ABOUTTHAT STATEMENT
MR. CRUMLISH: The public session is not open.
MR. MURPHY: Excuse me, I thought you were referring to Eddy Street Commons, not Notre Dame Avenue. Talking about
houses on Notre Dame Avenue?
MR. URBANSKI: Yes.
MR. MURPHY: I don't have that. I do have a reference for the house to the south,the Mustillios house,the ridge is at
27.8' and that was shot by Abonmarche.
MR. URBANSKI: And what is this ridge approximately, sir?
MR. MURPHY: This ridge is about 48'.
MR. URBANSKI:So we're about 20'over.
MR. MURPHY: That's correct.
MS. SCHUTH: Angela I wanted to verify with you a comment that was made that if a third story office was added to the
existing building, if that would also bring these variances back in front or the Board?
MRS.SMITH: It would depend on the configuration of the building. They could add a third story to this building and
provided their parking calculations does not change beyond what was approved before, so if they came up with, whatever
Configuration the building came up with a calculation of 32 spaces more or less they could go ahead and add on. So say
21
Area Board of
Zoning Appeals—December 6, 2017
they converted some of the building to warehouse for instance,that has a lower parking calculation then you would for
office. So part of this is warehouse and part of it was office,so it would depend on the makeup of the building. There is
nothing in here that would prevent them from adding up to or remodeling up to a 50' height provided they could meet,
not exceed the 32 spaces previously requested.
MR.CRUMLISH: The original variance?
MRS.SMITH: The original variance in 1992.
MR. URBANSKI:Angela, if someone came in and leveled this building and built another building for office, could they?
Office structure on there providing they do the parking and everything else?
MRS.SMITH: This site if leveled would not be able to be built as an office site with the existing setbacks and the parking
requirements. You would not be able to get an office on this site now because you would not be able to meet the setback
requirements or the parking requirements that would go with any size office on this site. So this site would essentially
become unusable as an office site under our current standards.
MR.URBANSKI: But it could as a residential.
MRS.SMITH: If they rezoned it they could use it residentially. They could not,for instance they could not use this,they
could not level this building and build a house on here without going back through the rezoning process because a single
family residential is not a permitted use.
MR. URBANSKI: Which goes to Area Plan and the Council.
MRS.SMITH: Correct.
MR. LESZCZYNSKI: Then I've got a question and maybe I'm confused. I thought you were going to knock it down and save
this floor...
MR. MURPHY: No,John, it's a steel frame,wood structure. The idea would be to take the exterior walls down and leave
the frame and go up.
MR. LESZCZYNSKI: So you're just leaving the frame and...
MR. MURPHY: And the floor structure,yes.
MR. URBANSKI: If they came in, basically they're going to use two floors,correct? The first floor and second floor for
offices?
MR. MURPHY: That's correct.
MR. URBANSKI: I have no other questions.
MR. LESZCZYSKI: The character of this neighborhood has changed dramatically since 92. So the requirements needed in
92 they were trying to get anybody they could into the neighborhood and they went down to the 35 spots.
22
Area Board of
Zoning Appeals—December 6, 2017
MRS.SMITH: I think one of the challenges that Mr. Urbanski hit on and what you're hitting on as well is when the
Common Council approved this for an office use in 1992 or a commercial use actually, it was C-1 Commercial, even at that
time it was extremely difficult if not impossible for this site to meet the standards with that district at that time which is
what warrant the variances back then.So it kind of goes all the way back to the Common Council's approval in 1991 that
kind of set in this chain of events which is always caution when we look at land use issues is once approved that land use
is approved and therefore it presents challenges going forward.
MR. CRUMLISH: However, in 2004 it was changed to "0"?
MRS.SMITH: Because the commercial designation that was there before was not in line with any of the options within
the district. They actually down zoned it to"0"Office. I suppose they could have made it Local Business or Mixed Use or
any other number of things but they generally in 2004 they were looking at the existing use and I don't know if it was
occupied at that point or not but they were generally looking at the existing use and how to bring it in in a zoning
classification that was the lowest possible to meet that existing use without causing any undue hardship on the property
owner by making them a legal non-conforming use.
MR. URBANSKI: The property directly north across Howard Street,which used to be a restaurant years back, is that,did
that revert, I'm assuming it was Commercial because there was restaurant,did that revert to a residential lot? The vacant
lot that's never been built on. Somebody made comment that that's not for sale.
MR. CRUMLISH: The one across the street?
MR. URBANSKI: Yes.
MRS.SMITH: To the north across Howard?
MR.CRUMLISH: What is that zoned?
MR. URBANSKI: Northwest corner?
MRS.SMITH: Northwest corn er?
It's the northwest I'm talking about.
MRS.SMITH: Both of the properties, both the northwest corner and the northeast corner, both are zoned"SF2"Single
Family. I'm guessing the northwest corner is a legal non-conforming use. The northwest corner looks like it has multiple
driveways,so I'm guessing it's probably a multi-family dwelling,or multiple sidewalks.
MR. CRUMLISH: It's the Legal Aid Clinic.
MRS. SMITH: If it's the Legal Aid Clinic so it's probably a legal non-conforming use.
MR.CRUMLISH: Does anybody have any knowledge of when the vacant property immediately north,the structure was
razed that was there,was that prior to 1992?
MRS. SMITH: Immediately north must have been razed after 2015 because I'm looking at a 2017 aerial and there's still a
house on it in 2017.
MR. CRUMLISH: I guess I'm referring to...
23
AreaBoard of
Zoning Appeals—December 6, 2017
MRS.SMITH: Do you mean the property to the east?
MR. CRUMLISH: North and east. It would be the intersection of Notre Dame and Howard.
MRS.SMITH: That I am not sure of.
MR. CRUMLISH: That is zoned single family,correct?
MRS.SMITH:
MR. CRUMLISH: It'svacant now?
MRS.SMITH: Yes.
MR. CRUMLISH: But 30 years ago there was a saloon on that corner?
MRS.SMITH: I would like to say that was before my time but I'll just it was before my time in South Bend.
MR.CRUMLISH: But it was razed but I don't know if it was legal non-conforming at time but it...
MRS.SMITH: But it's now zoned single family.
MR. CRUMLISH: Single family?
MRS.SMITH: Correct. Everything else around here is zoned single family.
MR.CRUMLISH: This property has a structure on it...
MRS.SMITH:Correct.
MR. CRUMLISH: Which is out of character. Probably would not get that special spot zoning today?
MRS.SMITH: But it is zoned "0" Office now.
MR. CRUMLISH: But it is zoned because of our Common Council decision?
MRS.SMITH: Correct. So the office use is not under consideration for us today because it's not something under our
purview. Even the Special Exception we are a recommending body,ultimately the Council will make the decision on the
dwelling unit.
MR.CRUMLISH: We have choices on our recommendations.
MRS.SMITH: Right. The variances would stop here.
MS.SCHUTH: Without the Special Exception the variances are moot?
24
Area Board of
Zoning Appeals—
December 6,2017
MRS.SMITH: Without the Special Use the variances are moot point.
MR. URBANSKI: But in the past it's always been the variances been granted first before the Special Use...
MRS. SMITH: Well they have to because you make a recommendation,they could,the petitioner could choose just to
proceed with the Special Exception and come back and ask for the variances later if the Special Exception was granted but
generally they're handled at the same time and they you guys typically will make your variance approval subject to the
Special Exception getting approved. Therefore, if the Council decides it's not appropriate it really doesn't matter anyway.
MR. URBANSKI:Well at this time I make a motion that we accept the variances that were presented for the property...
MRS. SMITH: Subject to the Special Exception?
MR. URBANSKI: Subject to the Special Exception,yes, by the City of South Bend Common Council.
MR. MATTYS: I have one question. Is there anyway the petitioner can create moreparking spaces? That was the most
common concerns...
MRS.SMITH: I don't think there would be any room on site. The only option would be is if they would consider off-site
parking and coming back for a Special Exception for that. But there's physically, I mean with the existing building that's
there now they pretty much utilized all the area that's remaining for parking.
MR.CRUMLISH:There is an empty lot across the street...
MR. URBANSKI: Yes.
MRS.SMITH: Correct. So there is the lot to the,this is upside down(referring to a site plan)so,the lot to the east is
vacant, privately owned. The lot to the north is occupied by a single family house.The lot to the west is a park.
MR. URBANSKI: I'm sorry my description,the one that sets across the street, it's actually on St. Peter and the one I was
think about was Notre Dame, northwest corner of Notre Dame Ave...
MR. CRUMLISH: Where the saloon used to be?
MR. URBANSKI: Saloon, restaurant. It was a hangout.
MS.SCHUTH: If it's helpful for discussion and I don't know it is but I'd just like to maybe state my own feelings about the
situation which is for the Special Use, I'm actually not opposed at all, I think the upper level dwelling unit do fall in line
with where the City is going in these types of directions and in fact kind of helps mitigate the impact of these types of
buildings, however,when it comes to the variances I in a way looking at it as if this were coming to us fresh and somebody
were proposing these variances on these sites today I would not be in favor of them,that in fact should packing in the site
way too much in a residential district and I think we would be looking for a much less dense building. So that sort of
leaves me in this very strange limbo where I think I would actually be in favor of the Special Use but I would deny the
variances. It's kind of a strange situation but I don't know if that's helpful to at least of where I'm coming down on my
thinking is that I'm not opposed to the residential, in fact if it remained this and the second story was residential, maybe
that would be a different situation, but as far as being to do both, I don't think is appropriate for this area of the City right
25
Area Board of
Zoning Appeals—December 6,2017
now and in sense maybe echoes my statement for the billboard earlier it's like come seeking a situation that is already
bulky and amplifying it instead of doing what I think would, is the opposite of what we would want to do in this situation.
MR. CRUMLISH: I share your feelings. I don't have any exception really with the Special Use. It's the parking. I'm not in
favor of the variances for that reason. They can't have one without the other.
MR. URBANSKI: As per my motion,as far, I think one and two, I don't struggle with that because we've been doing
setback variances along Notre Dame Ave.,St. Pete,for three years or whatever,okay. You know we decide factors when
we make decisions here and what each property is different,okay,I'm assuming and what I kind of know about the offices
were two stories, it's not a continuation or a constant flow of traffic in and out of those and maybe you can ask the
gentlemen who are partners in it. You know it's not a steady flow of people coming in and out, not many people coming.
You said there was going to be somewhere around ten employees, if I recall correctly,...
MR. MURPHY: There are ten currently. The idea is to grow over time. In respect to the use of it,yeah a lot of these
people that are employed there travel,so they're not there 24/7.
MR. URBANSKI: Okay but is there a steady flow of traffic coming in and out daily other than the employees?
MR. MURPHY: The answer to that is no.
MR. URBANSKI: So then to begin with or look at eight to ten cars and possibly up to maybe fifteen or so which is still way
under the 35 spaces required. Again in my opinion, it's supposed to be our opinion,yes were supposed to look at what
comes in but we're also supposed to look at what we feel is best for the neighborhood and that's why I started out to
making a motion to approve the variances.
MRS.SMITH: So as it is right now we have a motion and we have not had a second?
MR. CRUMLISH: We're waiting for a second.
MR. URBANSKI: Subject to...
MRS.SMITH: Subject to the Special Exception being granted by the Council.
MR. URBANSKI: And in doing so I know that I feel that I'm pushing this off and let the Common Council make the decision.
We have to make the decision on the variances. I sometimes think that the City Council hardly doesn't even listen to what
we recommend. That's my opinion.
MR.CRUMLISH: Well I'll ask, is there a second to the motion?
NO ONE MADE A SECOND TO MR. URBANSKI'S MOTION
MR. CRUMLISH: I don't see a second. You motion dies for a lack of a second, Mike.
MRS.SMITH: Maybe a motion on the Special Exception?
MR. LESZCZYNSKI: Can we approve the variances without number three?
26
Area
Board of
Zoning Appeals—December 6,2017
MR. CRUMLISH: You can make another motion...
MRS. SMITH: You can approve or deny any variances in any form.
MR. LESZCZYNSKI: I will try to make a motion that we approve,getting at what Mike was saying we approve setbacks and
stuff like that what we approve everything, all six with the exception of three,their off-street parking. I do feel that from
35 to 4,or even 20 to 4, whatever they need is way too small for something like that.
MRS.SMITH: A motion to deny the parking variance and approve the remainder of the variances.
MR. LESZCZYNSKI: Right.
MRS.SMITH: Deny the parking reduction variance and approve the remaining variances?
MR. LESZCZYNSKI: Yeah,approving 1, 2,4,5,&6.
MR. MATTHYS: Do we do the Special Use first?
MRS.SMITH: It doesn't matter what order you go in.
MR.CRUMLISH: Right now we have a motion.
MRS.SMITH: We have a motion...
MS.SCHUTH: John I would second that. I really think that the parking is the safety issue and when we're talking about
public health and general welfare, I think the parking is a safety issue. I'll second the motion.
MR. URBANSKI: Now let me just ask you, we're not voting on number 3, Mr. Chairman?
MR.CRUMLISH: We're voting to accept 1, 2,4,5,&
6 and deny number 3.
MR.URBANSKI: Okay. On number 6,the variance to reduce the minimum width of parking lot maneuvering from 24'to
0', 1 would say then if we're talking about this parking that that one ought to be...
MRS.SMITH:That one is probably, is not actually not to zero. What happened is is that you have that,what used to be an
alley there, it's been vacated. The parking spots back right up to that,so they're using the alley as their kind of
maneuvering aisle. It's similar to what we've viewed in other cases, again it's something we're trying to address in the
ordinance, but technically when you have a ninety degree parking spot you technically have to have 24' behind it. They're
using what used to be an alley and is not an easement, I believe, across those properties.
MR. URBANSKI: Thank you for clarification, leaving 6 in there is fine.
MR. CRUMLISH: Any further discussion? I'll call for the vote on
the variances.To approve variances 1, 2,4,
5&6 and to
deny variance number 3. We have a motion and a second.
MRS. HENRY: And that motion was made by Mr. Leszczynski and seconded by Ms.Schuth. Mr.Young?
27
Area
Board of
Zoning Appeals—December 6,2017
MR.YOUNG: Yes.
MRS. HENRY: Mr. Hawley?
MR. HAWLEY:Yes.
MRS. HENRY: Mr. Matthys?
MR. MATTHYS: Yes.
MRS. HENRY: Mr. Urbanski?
MR. URBANSKI: Yes.
MRS. HENRY: Ms.Schuth?
MS.SCHUTH: Yes.
MRS. HENRY: Mr. Leszczynski?
MR. LESZCZYNSKI: Yes.
MRS. HENRY: Mr.CRUMLISH:
MR.CRUMLISH: Yes. Based on the testimony presented here today,the Area Board of Zoning Appeals, after careful
consideration,finds this amended variances granted and will issue written Findings of Fact and subject to the approval of
the Special Exception. Now do I have a motion favorable, unfavorable or no recommendation for the Special Exception?
MR. MATTHYS: I will make a motion in favor of no recommendation.
MR. URBANSKI: You said no recommendation?
MR. MATTHYS: Yeah.
MRS.SMITH: I strongly encourage the Board to try to make a recommendation whenever possible and if you're unable to
make a recommendation then go ahead with no recommendation but the duty of the Board is to try to make a
recommendation one way or the other. So I encourage someone to make a motion one way or the other and see how
the votes place before you and then if you have to,go to a no recommendation.
MR. MATTHYS: I rescind my motion.
MR.CRUMLISH: Excuse me,the motion was retracted. We don't need a second. Would you like to make a motion,
Mike?
MR. URBANSKI: Yes. I would like to make-a motion to send it to the City of South Bend Common Council with a Favorable
Recommendation.
MR.CRUMLISH: Is there a second to Mike's motion?
28
Area Board of
Zoning Appeals—December 6, 2017
MS.SCHUTH: I'll second.
MR.CRUMLISH: Any further discussion?
Carolyn we have a motion to send this with a Favorable Recommendation and a
second.Will you call for the vote please?
MRS. HENRY:And that motion was made by Mr. Urbanski and seconded by Ms. Schuth, Mr. Leszczynski?
MR. LESZCZYNSKI: Yes.
MRS. HENRY: Mr.Young?
MR.YOUNG: Yes.
MRS. HENRY: Mr. Hawley?
MR. HAWLEY: No.
MRS. HENRY: Mr. Matthys?
MR. MATTHYS: Yes.
MRS. HENRY: Ms.Schuth?
MS. SCHUTH: Yes.
MRS. HENRY: Mr. Urbanski?
MR. URBANSKI: Yes.
MRS. HENRY: Mr.Crumlish?
MR. CRUMLISH: Yes. Based on the testimony presented,the Area Board of Zoning Appeals, after careful consideration,
will send this Special Exception to the City Council with a Favorable Recommendation and will issue written Findings of
Fact.
VARIANCES NUMBER 1,
2 4,
5,&6 APPROVED AND VARIANCE NUMBER 3 FOR THE PARKING VARIANCE DENIED
PETITION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SENT TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND COMMON COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE
RECOMMENDATION
29
I
u v
l T, ll JCITY SOUTH BEND PEA E
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Filed in Clerk's Office
December |V, 2O)7
DEC 2 2 2017
KAREEMAH FOWLER
Mr. Tim Scott CITY CLERK,Suu/HuEmu IN
President, South Bend Common Council
227W. Jefferson 8)vd., Suite 4OUS
South Bend, Indiana 466Ol
RE: AN ORDINANCE OFTB2 COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY 0F SOUTH BEND,
INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 2 (ADMINISTRATION) AND CHAPTER 6
0DD.DlNG)OP THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE,BY REMOVING ZONING
ADMINISTRATION AND AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FROM THE
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND REMOVING
ASSOCIATED FEES
Dear President Scott:
Attached for filing, please findthe above-referenced ordinance tohe considered hy the Common
Council at its January 8, 2010 meeting. This ordinance amends Chapters 2 and 6 of the South Ocud
8uoioipu\ Code to reflect the transfer ofzoning-related responsibilities formerly vested with the Building
Department to the Area Planning Department of St. Joseph County.
Specifically,the Building Department will no longer be chiefly responsible for the enforcement o[
the City's Zoning Ordinance, nor administration of Zoning Ordinance fuondoux and the Area Board of
Zoning Appeals. This ordinance rescinds those responsibilities from the Municipal Code's list ofBuilding
Department functions, along with certain fees associated with those functions.
I will be pn:neodug this ordinance to the Common Council. Your favorable consideration in
requested. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need additional information.
Siouerc|y,
Cbudeu Qulnt, Building Commissioner
Building Department
EXCELLENCE
I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION | |N[LU5|(}N
I EMPOWERMENT N
Vze5s.Lafayett ea.u.|svxr,00|South Bend.Ind iana^oanz|v5/'/.
zus.,o*|/s/4.
ea5-5,mz
BILL NO.01-18
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND,
INDIANA AMENDING CHAPTER 2 (ADMINISTRATION) AND CHAPTER 6
BUILDING) OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE,BY REMOVING ZONING
ADMINISTRATION AND AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FROM THE
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND REMOVING
ASSOCIATED FEES.
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT
Historically the Building Commissioner has also served as the Zoning Administrator for the
City of South Bend, with the Building Department providing the appropriate staff functions
associated with these responsibilities. Throughout the State, these responsibilities are usually
assigned to the planning staff. The Building Department and Area Plan Commission staffs have
worked closely to establish a process and timeline by which these responsibilities will transfer to the
Area Plan Commission on January 1, 2018.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council ofthe City of
South Bend, Indiana as follows:
SECTION I. Chapter 2, (Administration), Article 4, (Executive Departments), Section 2-
13 (Departments established) of the South Bend Municipal Code is amended at subsection(B)
9)to read as follows:
9) Building Department:
C
d) Board of Zoning Appeals administfative suppeft;
e)_LcjBuilding trade licensing/registration testing and enforcement.
SECTION II. Chapter 6, (Building),Article 1 (General Provisions), of the South Bend
Municipal Code, is hereby amended at Section 6-4.1 to read as follows:
Sec. 6-4.1Filing fees; improvement location permits and document
Processing/preparation fees.
The fees levied by this section shall be paid prior to the issuance or acceptance
by the
Building Commissioner of any qpplications filed. petitions filed with the Board ofZoning
Appeals. impr-ovemei4
leeations pefmits, of
w6tte:fi d-Ae-1—iffl-ents on zoning and uses as regulated
by Chapter-21 of the South Bead UnioinAj Code. Deetffnent preeessing fees sha4l be paid prior-
to the
issuanee of doet-iffi-em S, iffie._ limited to ver-if ing zoning, legal
uses, lots of r-eeoFds and rebuild letters.
1) Board of Zoning Appeals-
a. peals and ar--ianee ..... $85-.00
b.Sp c a xceptio 300.0-0
e.
Eaeh varianee filed simultaneously with another-var-ianee or special exception
45.00
2) (1)MVrovement Location Permit Tent and Temporary Structures:
a. First Term ..... $40.00
b. Renewal ..... $45.00
2)Document Processing/Preparation Fees:
a. er-
ineatie„ only ..... $30.00
b. A'Qther Verification Documents ..... $50.00
SECTION III. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage by
the Common Council and approval by the Mayor, retroactive to January 1, 2018.
Member of the Common Council
Attest:
City Clerk
Presented by me
to the Mayor of
the
City of South Bend, Indiana on the
day of
2 at o'clock M.
City Clerk
Approved and signed
by me on the
day of 2 at
o'clock M.
Mayor, City of
South Bend, Indiana
120ON COUNTY-CITY BUILDING 4G PHONE 574/235-9822
227 W.JEFFERSON BLVD. y FAX 574/235-9928
SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46601-1830
U
Filed in Clerk's Office
I's
JAN 0 21018
KAREEMAH FOWLER
CITY OF SOUTH BEND PETE BUTTIGIEG, MAYOR
CITY OLFRK,SOUTH REND, Ifs!
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE
January 2, 2018
Mr. Tim Scott
President, South Bend Common Council
227 W. Jefferson Blvd., Suite 400 S
South Bend, Indiana 46601
RE:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FUNDS TO PAY
FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL PROJECTS AND INCIDENTAL EXPENSES IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE ISSUANCE OF
THE BONDS, AND ALL MATTERS RELATED THERETO
Dear Council President Scott:
Attached for filing, please find the above-referenced ordinance to be considered by the
Common Council for first reading at its January 8,2018 meeting,and for public hearing on January
22, 2018.
This ordinance authorizes the issuance of general obligation bonds for the purpose of
providing the payment of costs and expenses for the construction of a new Fire Station 9 at the
corner of Mishawaka Avenue and 21 st Street, and the construction of an additional classroom
building on the grounds of the Luther J. Taylor Sr. Fire Training Center.
Randy Rompola of Barnes &
Thornburg LLP and Herschel Frierson of Crowe Horwath
LLP will be presenting this ordinance to the Common Council, and I will be in attendance along
with representatives of the South Bend Fire Department.
Your favorable consideration is
requested. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need additional information.
Sincerely.
Jennifer Hockenhull, Controller
Department of Administration and Finance
Excellence
I Accountability I Innovation
I Inclusion
I Empowerment
Filed in Clerk's Office
JAN 0 2 2018
Bill No. KAREEMAH FOWLER
CITY CLERK,SOUTH REND,IN
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING
FUNDS TO PAY FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL PROJECTS AND
INCIDENTAL EXPENSES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH AND ON
ACCOUNT OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS, AND ALL MATTERS
RELATED THERETO
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT
The Common Council (the "Council") of the
City of South Bend, Indiana (the "
City"),
has considered undertaking (i) replacement of current Fire Station 9 with a newly constructed
station at the corner of Mishawaka Avenue and 21 st Street in the City which new station would
be approximately 10,000 square feet and would house Engine 9, Medic 9, and Boat 2 and
accommodateup to 7 assigned firefighters per
day and (ii) construction of an additional
classroom building on the grounds of the Luther J. Taylor Sr. Fire Training Center which
proposed building would be an approximately 3,000 square foot building and would house a
rugged, divisible classroom with capacity for 100 personnel and additional training props and
storage areas (collectively, the "Projects")
in the City. It would be of public utility and benefit
and in the best interests of the City and its citizens to pay the costs of all or a portion of the
Projects through the issuance of general obligation bonds of the City payable from a tax levied
upon all of the taxable property of the City, as described herein, to the extent other revenues of
the City are not available for such purpose, as more fully described herein.
The Council now deems it advisable to issue, pursuant to Ind. Code §
36-4-6-19, Ind.
Code §
6-1.1-20-1, et. seq., and other applicable provisions ofthe Indiana Code (collectively, the
Act"), the "
City of South Bend, Indiana, General Obligation Bonds, Series 2018" (the
Bonds"),
in one (1) or more series (with an appropriate series designation for each such series),
in the original principal amount of not to exceed Five Million Four Hundred Thirty Thousand
Dollars ($5,430,000) (the "Authorized Amount")
for the purpose of providing for the funding of
i) all or a portion of the costs of the Projects, (
ii) preliminary expenses related thereto and all
incidental expenses incurred in connection therewith (all of which are deemed to be a part of the
Projects), (
iii) the costs of selling and issuing the Bonds, and (iv) a debt service reserve fund for
the Bonds as provided herein. The original principal amount of the Bonds, together with the
outstanding principal amount of previously issued bonds or other obligations which constitute a
debt of the
City, is no more than two percent (2%) of one-third (1/3) of the total net assessed
valuation of the
City. The amount of proceeds of the Bonds allocated
to pay costs of the Projects,
together with estimated investment earnings thereon, does not exceed the cost of the Projects as
estimated by the Council.
The Council now finds that all conditions precedent to the adoption of an Ordinance
authorizing the issuance ofthe Bonds have been complied with in accordance with the Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND,INDIANA,AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Authorization for Bonds.
In order to provide financing for the Projects
and incidental expenses incurred in connection therewith and on account of the issuance of the
Bonds,the City shall borrow money and issue the Bonds as herein authorized.
SECTION II. General Terms of Bonds. In order to procure said loan for such purposes,
the Controller is hereby authorized and directed to have prepared and to issue and sell negotiable
general obligation bonds of the City, in one or more series, in an amount not to exceed the
Authorized Amount, to be designated "City of South Bend, Indiana, General Obligation Bonds,
Series 2018" (with an appropriate additional series designation, if applicable) for the purpose of
providing financing for the Projects and incidental expenses, such expenses to include without
limitation all expenses of every kind incurred preliminarily to the funding of the Projects, and the
costs ofselling and
issuing the Bonds. The final principal amount of the Bonds (not exceeding
the Authorized Amount) shall be determined by the Controller of the City prior to the sale of the
Bonds.
The Bonds shall be signed in the name of the City by the manual or facsimile signature of
the Mayor of the City and attested by the manual or facsimile signature of the Clerk ofthe City,
who shall affix the seal of the City to each of the Bonds manually or shall have the seal
imprinted or impressed thereon by facsimile or other means. In case any Officer whose signature
or facsimile signature appears on the Bonds shall cease to be such Officer before the delivery of
the Bonds, such signature shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes as if such
Officer had remained in office until delivery thereof. The Bonds shall also be authenticated by
the manual signature of the Registrar (as hereinafter defined). Subject to the provisions of this
Ordinance regarding the registration of the Bonds,
the Bonds shall be fully negotiable
instruments under the applicable laws ofthe State of Indiana.
The Bonds are, as to all the principal thereof and interest due thereon, general obligations
of the City, payable from ad valorem property taxes on all taxable property within the City, to
the extent other revenues of the City are not sufficient for such purpose as described in Section
VIII hereof.
The Bonds shall be issued in fully registered form in denominations of Five Thousand
Dollars ($5,000)
or any integral multiple thereof (or such different denominations as the
Controller shall determine prior to the sale of the Bonds),
shall be numbered consecutively from
2018R-1 upward, and shall be originally dated as oftheir date of issuance. The Bonds shall bear
interest payable semiannually on January 15 and July 15 of each year, beginning not earlier than
July 15, 2018, at a rate or rates notexceeding six percent (
6.00%) per annum (the exact rate or
rates to be determinedby bidding pursuant
to Section 6 of this Ordinance). Interest shall be
calculated on the basis of a three hundred sixty (360) day year comprised of twelve (12) thirty
30) day months.
The Bonds shall mature serially on January 15 and July 15 of each year,
beginning on July 15, 2018, and ending not later than January 15, 2038, in such amounts as the
2
Controller, with the advice of the City's municipal advisor, shall determine prior to the sale of
the Bonds.
All payments of interest on the Bonds shall be paid by check mailed one (1) business day
prior to the interest payment date to the registered owners thereof as ofthe last day of the month
preceding such month in which such interest payment date occurs at the addresses as they appear
on the registration books keptby the Registrar (the "Registration Record"), or at such other
address as is provided to the Paying Agent (as hereafter defined) in writing by such registered
owner. All principal payments on the Bonds shall be made upon surrender thereof at the
principal office of the Paying Agent, in any coin or currency of the United States of America
which on the date of such payment shall be legal tender for the payment of public and private
debts.
Interest on Bonds shall be payable from the interest payment date to which interest has
been paid next preceding the authentication date thereof unless such Bonds are authenticated
after the last day of the month preceding the month in which such interest payment date occurs
and on or before such interest payment date in which case they shall bear interest from such
interest payment date, or unless authenticated on or before the last day of the month preceding
the month in which the first interest payment date occurs, in which case they shall bear interest
from the original date, until the principal shall be fully paid.
Each Bond shall be transferable or exchangeable only upon the Registration Record by
the registered owner thereof in person, or by his attorney duly authorized in writing, upon
surrender of such Bond together with a written instrument of transfer or exchange satisfactory to
the Registrar duly executed by the registered owner or his attorney duly authorized in writing,
and thereupon a new fully registered Bond or Bonds in the same aggregate principal amount, and
of the same maturity, shall be executed and delivered in the name of the transferee or transferees
or
the registered owner, as
the casemay be, in exchange therefor. The costs of such transfer or
exchange shall be borne by the City, except for any tax or governmental charge required to be
paid in connection therewith, which shall be payable by the person requesting such transfer or
exchange.
The City, the Registrar and the Paying Agent may treat and consider the persons in
whose names such Bonds are registered as the absolute owners thereof for all purposes including
for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal thereof and interest due
thereon.
In the event any Bond is mutilated, lost, stolen or destroyed,the City may execute and the
Registrar may authenticate a new Bond of like date,maturity and denomination as that mutilated,
lost, stolen or destroyed, which new bond shall be marked in a manner to distinguish it from the
Bond for which it was issued, provided that, in the case of any mutilated bond, such mutilated
Bond shall first be surrendered to the Registrar, and in the case of any lost, stolen or destroyed
bond there shall be first furnished to the Registrar evidence of such loss, theft or destruction
satisfactory to the
City and the Registrar, together with
indemnity satisfactory to them. In the
event any such Bond shall have matured, instead of issuing a duplicate Bond, the City and the
Registrar may, upon receiving indemnity satisfactory to them, pay the same without surrender
thereof.
The City and the Registrar may charge the owner of such Bond with their reasonable
fees and expenses in this connection.
Any Bond issued pursuant to this paragraph shall be
deemed an original, substitute contractual obligation ofthe City, whether or not the lost, stolen or
destroyed Bond shall be found at any time, and shall be entitled to all the benefits of this
Ordinance, equally and proportionately with any and all other Bonds issued hereunder.
3
SECTION III. Terms of Redemption. The Controller, upon consultation with the City's
municipal advisor, may designate maturities of Bonds (or portion thereof in authorized
denominations) that shall be subject to optional redemption and/or mandatory sinking fund
redemption, and the corresponding redemption dates, amounts and prices (including premium, if
any). Except as otherwise set forth in this Ordinance, the Controller, upon consultation with the
City's municipal advisor, is hereby authorized and directed to determine the terms governing any
such redemption.
Notice ofredemption shall be mailed by first-class mail or by registered or certified mail to the
address of each registered owner of a Bond to be redeemed as shown on the Registration Record
not more than sixty (60) days and not less thanthirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for
redemption except to the extent such redemption notice is waived by owners of Bonds redeemed,
provided, however, that failure to give such notice by mailing, or any defect therein, with respect
to any Bond shall not affect the validity of any proceedings for the redemption of any other
Bonds.
The notice shall specify the date and place of redemption, the redemption price and the
CUSIP numbers (if any) of the Bonds called for redemption.
The place of redemption may be
determinedby the
City. Interest on the Bonds so called for redemption shall cease on the
redemption date fixed in such notice if sufficient funds are available at the place of redemption to
pay the redemption price on the date so named, and thereafter, such Bonds shall no longer be
protected bythis Ordinance and shall not be deemed to be outstanding hereunder, and the holders
thereof shall have the right only to receive the redemption price.
All Bonds which have been redeemed shall be canceled and shall not be reissued;
provided, however, that one (1) or more new registered Bonds shall be issued for the
unredeemed portion ofany Bond without charge to the holder thereof.
No later than the date fixed for redemption, funds shall be deposited with the Paying
Agent or another paying agent to pay, and such agent is hereby authorized and directed to apply
such funds to the payment of, the Bonds or portions thereof called for redemption, including
accrued interest thereon to the redemption date. No payment shall be made upon any Bond or
portion thereof called for redemption until such Bond shall have been delivered for payment or
cancellation or the Registrar shall have received the items required by this Ordinance with
respect to any mutilated, lost, stolen or destroyed bond.
SECTION
IV. Appointment of Registrar and
Paving Agent.
The Controller is hereby
authorized to serve as, or to appoint a qualified financial institution to serve as, Registrar and
Paying Agent for the Bonds (the "Registrar" or "
Paying Agent").
The Registrar is hereby
charged with the responsibility of authenticating the Bonds, and shall keep and maintain at its
principal office or corporate trust office books for the registration and transfer of the Bonds. The
Mayor and the Clerk are hereby authorized to enter into such agreements or understandings with
such institution as will enable the institution to perform the services required of the Registrar and
Paying Agent. The Controller is authorized to pay such fees as the institution may charge for the
services it provides as Registrar and Paying Agent.
The Registrar and Paying Agent may, at any time, resign as Registrar and Paying Agent
by giving thirty (30) days written notice to the Controller and to each registered owner of the
Bonds then outstanding, and such resignation will take effect at the end of such thirty (30) days
or upon the earlier appointment of a successor Registrar and Paying Agent by the Controller.
4
Such notice to the may be served
personally or be sent
by first-class or registered mail. The
Registrar and Paying Agent may be removed at any time as Registrar and Paying Agent by the
Controller, in which event the Controller may appoint a successor Registrar and Paying Agent.
The Controller shall notify each registered owner of the Bonds then outstanding of the removal
of the Registrar and Paying Agent. Notices to registered owners ofthe Bonds shall be deemed to
be given when mailed by first-class mail to the addresses of such registered owners as they
appear on the bond register.
Any predecessor Registrar and Paying Agent shall deliver all the
Bonds, cash and investments in its possession and the bond register to the successor Registrar
and Paying Agent. At all times,the same entity shall serve as Registrar and as Paying Agent.
SECTION V. Form of Bonds. (a) The form and tenor of the Bonds shall be
substantially as follows, all blanks to be filled in properly and all necessary additions and
deletions to be made prior to delivery thereof-
2018R-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF INDIANA COUNTY OF ST.JOSEPH
CITY OF SOUTH BEND,INDIANA
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND,SERIES 2018
Interest
Maturity Original Authentication
Rate Date Date Date CUSIP]
REGISTERED OWNER:
PRINCIPAL SUM:DOLLARS($_)
The City of South Bend,Indiana(the"
City")for value received,hereby promises to pay to the Registered
Owner set forth above, the Principal Sum set forth above on the Maturity Date set forth above, and to pay
interest thereon until the Principal Sum shall be fully paid, at the Interest Rate per annum specified above from
the interest payment date to which interest has been paid next preceding the Authentication Date of this bond
unless this bond is authenticated after the last day of the month preceding the month in which such interest
payment date occurs and on or before such interest payment date in which case it shall bear interest from such
interest payment date,or unless this bond is authenticated on or before June 30,2018,in which case it shall bear
interest from the Original Date,which interest is payable semiannually on January 15 and July 15 of each year,
beginning on
July 15, 2018. Interest shall be calculated on the basis of a three hundred sixty (360) day year
comprised of twelve(12)thirty(30)day months.
The principa l of this bond is payable at the "Registrar" or "
Paying Agent"), in
Indiana. All payments of interest on this bond shall be paid by check mailed one(1)business day
prior to the interest payment date to the registered owner hereof as ofthe first day of the month in which such
interest payment date occurs at the address as it appears on the registration books kept by the Registrar or at
such other address as is provided to the Paying Agent in writing by the Registered Owner. All payments of
principal of and premium, if any, on this Bond shall be made upon surrender thereof at the principal [corporate
trust] office ofthe Paying Agent in any coin or currency of the United States ofAmerica which on the dates of
such payment shall be legal tender for the payment of public and private debts.
This Bond is one(1)of an authorized issue of negotiable bonds of the City, of like original date,tenor and
effect, except as to denomination, numbering, interest rates, and dates of maturity, in the total amount of
Million Hundred Thousand Dollars ($ numbered
consecutively from 2018R-1 upward,issued for the purpose ofproviding funds to pay for all or aportion ofthe
5
costs of construction of certain capital projects,and the costs of the issuance of bonds therefor,as authorized by
Ordinance No. adopted
by the Common Council of the
City on the_
day of 2018, entitled
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FUNDS TO PAY FOR
CERTAIN CAPITAL PROJECTS AND INCIDENTAL EXPENSES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH AND
ON ACCOUNT OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS, AND ALL MATTERS RELATED THERETO" (the
Ordinance"), and in accordanc e with I.C. § 36-4-6-19 and other applicable provisions of the Indiana Code,as
amended (collectively, the "Act").
The owner of this Bond, by the acceptance hereof, agrees to all the terms
and provisions contained in the Ordinance and the Act.
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE ORDINANCE, THE PRINCIPAL OF
THIS BOND AND ALL OTHER BONDS OF SAID ISSUE AND THE INTEREST DUE THEREON ARE
PAYABLE AS A GENERAL OBLIGATION OF THE CITY, FROM AN AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX
TO BE LEVIED ON ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY TO THE EXTENT OTHER
REVNEUES OF THE CITY ARE NOT SUFFICIENT FOR SUCH PURPOSE.
INSERT REDEMPTION TERMS]
Notice of such redemption shall be mailed by first-class mail or by registered or certified mail not more
than sixty(60)days and not less than thirty(30)days prior to the date fixed for redemption to the address of the
registered owner of each Bond to be redeemed as shown on the registration record of the City except to the
extent such redemption notice is waived by owners of the Bond or Bonds redeemed; provided, however, that
failure to give such notice by mailing,or any defect therein with respect to any bond shall not affect the validity
of any proceedings for the redemption
ofany oth er
Bonds.
The notice shall specify the date and place of
redemption,
the r e d emption price
and the CUSIP numbers, if any, of the Bonds called for redem p tion. The
place of redemption may be determined by the City. Interest on the Bonds so called for redemption shall cease
on the redemption date fixed in such notice if sufficient funds are available at the place of redemption to pay the
redemption price on the date so named, and thereafter, such Bonds shall no longer be protected by the
Ordinance,and shall not be deemed to be outstanding thereunder.
This Bond is subject to defeasance prior to payment as provided in the Ordinance.
If this Bond shall not be presented for payment on the date fixed therefor,the City may deposit in trust with
the Paying Agent,or another paying agent,an amount sufficient to pay such Bond,and thereafter the Registered
Owner shall look only to the funds so deposited in trust for payment and the City shall have no further
obligation or liability in respect thereto.
This Bond is transferable or exchangeable only upon the books of the City kept for that purpose at the
office of the Registrar by the Registered Owner in person, or by his attorney duly authorized in writing, upon
surrender of this Bond together with a written instrument of transfer or exchange satisfactory to the Registrar
duly executed by the Registered Owner or his attorney duly authorized in writing, and thereupon a new fully
registered bond or bonds in the same aggregate principal amount, and of the same maturity, shall be executed
and delivered in the name of the transferee or transferees or the Registered Owner, as the case may be, in
exchange therefor.
The City, any Registrar and any Paying Agent for this Bond may treat and consider the
person in whose name this Bond is registered as the absolute owner hereof for all purposes including for the
purpose ofreceiving payment of,or on account of,the principal hereofand interest due hereon.
The bonds maturing in any one (1) year are issuable only in fully registered form in the denomination of
5,000 or any integral multiple thereof.
A Continuing Disclosure Contract from the City to each registered owner or holder ofany bond,dated as ofthe
date of initial issuance of the Bonds (the "Contract"),
has been executed by the City, a copy of which is
available from the City and the terms of which are incorporated herein by this reference. The Contract contains
certain promises of the City to each registered owner or holder of any Bond, including a promise to provide
certain continuing disclosure. By its payment for and acceptance of this bond,the registered owner or holder of
this bond assents to the Contract and to the exchange of such payment and acceptance for such promises.]
It is hereby certified and recited that all acts, conditions and things required to be done precedent to and in
the execution, issuance and delivery of this Bond have been done and performed in regular and due form as
provided by law.
6
This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose until the Certificate of Authentication
hereon shall have been executed by an authorized representative ofthe Registrar.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of South Bend, Indiana, has caused this Bond to be executed in its
corporate name by the manual or facsimile signatures of its duly elected, qualified and acting Mayor,
countersigned by its duly appointed, qualified and acting Controller, and its corporate seal to be hereunto
affixed,imprinted or impressed by any means and attested manually or by facsimile by the Clerk of the City.
CITY OF SOUTH BEND,INDIANA
By:
Mayor
Countersigned:
Controller
SEAL)
ATTEST:
Clerk
It is hereby certified that this Bond is one (1) of the Bonds described in the within-mentioned Ordinance
duly authenticated by the Registrar.
as Registrar
By:
Authorized Representative
The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond, shall be construed as
though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:
TEN.COM.as tenants in common
TEN.ENT.
as tenants by the entireties
JT.TEN.
as joint tenants with right of survivorship and
not as tenants in common
UNIF.TRANS.
MIN.ACT Custodian
Cust.) Minor)
under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act of
State)
Additional abbreviations may also be used,although not contained in the above list.
FOR VALUE RECEIVED the und ers i gned
hereby sells, assigns
and transfers un to
Please Print or Typewrite Name and Address)
principal amount (must be a multiple of $5,000) of the within bond and all rights
7
thereunder,and
hereby irrevocably cons titut es
and appoints attorney to transfer
the within bond on the books kept for the registration thereof with full power of substitution in the premises.
NOTICE: The signature to this assignment must correspond
with the name as it appears on the face of the within bond in
every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any
chan ge w hatsoever.
Signature Guaranteed:
NOTICE: Signature(s)must be guaranteed by an
eligible guarantor institution participating
in a Securities Transfer Association recognized
signature guarantee program.
End of Form of Bonds)
b)
The Bonds may, in compliance with all applicable laws, initially be issued and
held in book-entry form on the books of the central depository system, The Depository Trust
Company, its successors, or any successor central depository system appointed by the City from
time
to time (the "
Clearing Agency"), without physical distribution of bonds to the purchasers.
The following provisions ofthis section apply in such event.
One (1) definitive Bond of each maturity shall be delivered to the Clearing Agency (or its
agent) and held in its custody. The City and the Registrar and Paying Agent may, in connection
therewith, do or perform or cause to be done or performed any acts or things not adverse to the
rights of the holders of the Bonds as are necessary or appropriate to accomplish or recognize
such book-entry form Bonds.
During any time that the Bonds remain and are held in book-entry form on the books ofa
Clearing Agency, (1) any such Bond may be registered upon the books kept by the Registrar in
the name of such
Clearing Agency, orany nominee thereof,
including Cede & Co., as nominee
of TheDepository Trust
Company; (2) the Clearing Agency in whose name such Bond is so
registered shall be, and the City and the Registrar and Paying Agent may deem and treat such
Clearing Agency as, the absolute owner and holder of such Bond for all purposes of this
Ordinance, including,without limitation,the receiving ofpayment ofthe principal of and interest
on such Bond,the receiving of notice and giving of consent; (
3)neither the City nor the Registrar
or Paying Agent shall have any responsibility or obligation hereunder to any direct or indirect
participant, within the meaning of Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, of such Clearing Agency, or any person on behalf of which, or otherwise in respect of
which, any such participant holds any interest in any Bond, including, without limitation, any
responsibility or obligation hereunder to maintain accurate records ofany interest in any Bond or
any responsibility or obligation hereunder with respect to the receiving of payment of principal
of or interest or premium, if any, on any Bond, the receiving of notice or the giving of consent;
and (4) the Clearing Agency is not required to present any Bond called for partial redemption
prior to receiving payment so long as the Registrar and Paying Agent and the Clearing Agency
8
have agreed to the method for noting such partial redemption.
If either the City receives notice from the Clearing Agency which is currently the
registered owner of the Bonds to the effect that such Clearing Agency is unable or unwilling to
discharge its responsibility as a Clearing Agency for the Bonds, or the City elects to discontinue
its use of such Clearing Agency as a Clearing Agency for the Bonds, then the City and Registrar
and Paying Agent each shall do or perform or cause to be done or performed all acts or things,
not adverse to the rights of the holders of the Bonds, as are necessary or appropriate to
discontinue use of such Clearing Agency as a Clearing Agency for the Bonds and to transfer the
ownership of each ofthe Bonds to such person or persons, including any other Clearing Agency,
as the holders ofthe Bonds may direct in accordance with this Ordinance. Any expenses of such
discontinuance and transfer, including expenses of printing new certificates to evidence the
Bonds, shall be paid by the City.
During any time that the Bonds are held in book-entry form on the books of a Clearing
Agency, the Registrar shall be entitled to request and rely upon a certificate or other written
representation from the Clearing Agency or any participant or indirect participant with respect to
the
identity ofany beneficial owner of Bonds as of a record date selected
by the Registrar. For
purposes of determining whether the consent, advice, direction or demand of a registered owner
of a Bond has been obtained, the Registrar shall be entitled to treat the beneficial owners ofthe
Bonds as the bondholders, and any consent, request, direction, approval, objection or other
instrument of such beneficial owner may be obtained in the fashion described in this Ordinance.
During any time that the Bonds are held in book-entry form on the books of a Clearing
Agency, the Mayor, the Controller and/or the Registrar are authorized to execute and deliver a
Letter of Representations agreement with the Clearing Agency, or a Blanket Issuer Letter of
Representations, and the provisions of any such Letter of Representations or any successor
agreement shall control on the matters set forth therein. The Registrar,by accepting the duties of
Registrar under this Ordinance, agrees that it will (i) undertake the duties of agent required
thereby and that those duties to be undertaken by either the agent or the issuer shall be the
responsibility of the Registrar, and (ii) comply with all requirements of the Clearing Agency,
including without limitation same day funds settlement payment procedures. Further, during any
time that the Bonds are held in book-entry form, the provisions of Section 5 of this Ordinance
shall control over conflicting provisions in any other section of this Ordinance.
SECTION VI. Sale of Bonds. The Bonds shall be sold
in a competitive sale. The
Controller shall cause to be published a notice of sale once each week for two (2) consecutive
weeks in accordance with I.C. § 5-3-1-2. The date fixed for the sale shall not be earlier than
fifteen (15) days after the first of such publications and not earlier than three (3) days after the
second of such publications. Said bond sale notice shall state the time and place of sale, the
purpose for which the Bonds are being issued, the total amount thereof, the amount and date of
each maturity, the maximum rate or rates of interest thereon, their denominations, the time and
place of payment, that specifications and information concerning the Bonds are on file in the
office of the Controller and are available on request, the terms and conditions upon which bids
will be received and the sale made and such other information as is required by law or as the
Controller shall deem necessary, including any terms and conditions of sale which provide an
exclusion or exemption from the applicability of all or a portion of the provisions of Rule 15c2-
12 of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, as amended (
the "SEC Rule") in which
case the Controller may set the minimum authorized denomination of the Bonds at One Hundred
9
Thousand Dollars ($100,000) and integral multiples of$5,000 in excess thereof as contemplated
by the SEC Rule.
As an alternative to the publication of a notice of sale, the Controller may sell the Bonds
through the publication of a notice of intent to sell the Bonds and compliance with related
procedures pursuant to I.C. § 5-1-11-2(b).
All bids for the Bonds shall be sealed and shall be presented to the Controller in accord
with the terms set forth in the Bond sale notice. Bidders for the Bonds shall be required to name
the rate or rates of interest which the Bonds are to bear, which shall be the same for all Bonds
maturing on the same date, and the interest rate bid on any maturity of Bonds must be no less
than the interest rate bid onany and all prior maturities, notexceeding six percent (6.00%) per
annum, and such interest rate or rates shall be in multiples of one-eighth (1/8) or one-hundredth
1/100) of one per cent. The Controller shall award the Bonds to the bidder who offers the
lowest interest cost, to be determined by computing the total interest on all the Bonds to their
maturities and deducting therefrom the premium bid, if any, or adding thereto the amount of the
discount, if any. No bid for less than ninety-eight percent (98.
0%) of the par value of the Bonds
or such higher percentage as the Controller shall determine, with the advice of the City's
municipal advisor, prior to the sale of the Bonds) and accrued interest, if any, shall be
considered.
The Controller may require that the successful bidder provide to the City a good
faith deposit in the form of cash, certified or cashier's checks payable to the order ofthe City, or
wire transfer (as instructedby the
City) (the "Deposit"), in an amount not to exceed one percent
1%) of the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds as a guaranty of the performance of said
bid. The successful bidder shall be required to submit to the City the Deposit not later than 3:30
p.m. (local time) on the next business
day following the award. In the event the successful
bidder shall fail or refuse to accept delivery of the Bonds and pay for the same as soon as the
Bonds are ready for delivery or at the time fixed in the notice of sale, then such Deposit and the
proceeds thereof shall be the property of the City and shall be considered as its liquidated
damages on account of such default In the event no satisfactory bids are received on the day
named in the sale notice, the sale may be continued from day to day thereafter for a period of
thirty (30) days without readvertisement; provided, however, that if said sale be continued, no
bid shall be accepted which offers an interest cost which is equal to or higher than the best,bid
received at the time fixed for sale
in the bond sale notice. The Controller shall have full right to
reject any and all bids.
After the Bonds have been properly sold and executed, the Controller shall receive from
the purchaser's payment for the Bonds and shall provide for delivery of the Bonds to said
purchaser.
The Controller is hereby authorized and directed to obtain a legal opinion as to the
validity of the Bonds from Barnes &
Thornburg LLP, and to furnish such opinion to the
purchasers of the Bonds or to cause a copy of said legal opinion to be printed on each Bond. The
cost of such opinion shall be paid out of the proceeds of the Bonds.
SECTION VII.
a) Use of Bond Proceeds. A portion of the proceeds received from the sale
of the Bonds shall be deposited into a fund created and designated as the "City of South
Bend, Indiana,
2018 Bond Project Fund" (the "Project Fund"). The proceeds deposited
10
into the Project Fund shall be expended only for the purpose ofpaying expenses incurred
in connection with the Projects, together with the expenses incidental thereto and on
account of the issuance of the Bonds.
Any balance remaining in the Project Fund after
the completion of the Projects that is not required to meet unpaid obligations incurred in
connection therewith and on account of the issuance of the Bonds may be used to pay
debt service on the Bonds or otherwise used as permitted by law.
b) Bond Fund.
There is hereby created a separate fund, designated as the
City of South Bend, Indiana 2018 Bond Fund" (the "Bond Fund"), which shall be
applied to the payment ofthe principal of and interest on the Bonds. As taxes attributable
to the debt service levy for the Bonds are collected, subject to Section VIII hereof, they
shall be accumulated in an account of the Bond Fund hereby created and designated as
the "
City of South Bend, Indiana 2018 Bond Tax Account" (the "Tax Account"). The
Bond Fund shall also have a separate account designated the Revenues Account as
described in Section VIII hereof.
c) Reserve Fund. At the time of the sale of the Bonds, the Controller, with
the advice of the City's municipal advisor, may determine to establish a debt service
reserve fund for the Bonds (the "Reserve Fund"), which shall be funded with a portion of
the proceeds of the Bonds in an amount determined by the municipal advisor to be
required to adequately secure the Bonds (the "Debt Service Reserve Requirement"). All
money in the Reserve Fund shall be used and withdrawn by the City solely for the
purpose of making deposits into the Bond Fund, in the event of any deficiency at any
time in such fund, or for the purpose of paying the interest on or principal of or
redemption premiums, if any, on the Bonds in the event that no other money is lawfully
available therefor.
Any amount in the Reserve Fund in excess of the Debt Service
Reserve Requirement shall be withdrawn from the Reserve Fund and deposited in the
Bond Fund.
Money in the Reserve Fund shall also be available to make the final
payments of interest and principal on the Bonds.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
Controller, with the advice of the City's municipal advisor, may enable the City to satisfy
all or any part of its obligation to maintain an amount in the Reserve Fund equal to the
Debt Service Reserve Requirement by depositing a Reserve Fund Credit Facility in the
Reserve Fund, provided that such deposit does not adversely affect any then existing
rating on the Bonds.
A Reserve Fund Credit Facility is hereby defined as a letter of
credit, liquidity facility, insurance policy or comparable instrument furnished by a bank,
insurance company, municipal institution or other entity pursuant to a reimbursement
agreement or similar instrument between such entity and the City for the purpose of
satisfying in whole or in part the City's obligation to maintain the Reserve Requirement.
In the event the amount on deposit in the Reserve Fund is ever less than the Debt Service
Reserve Requirement,the City shall deposit from available revenues an amount sufficient
to increase the amount on deposit to equal the Debt Service Reserve Requirement.
SECTION VIII. Reduction of Tax Lew and Pledge of Certain Other Revenues. The
amount of the tax levy each year applicable to making payments on the Bonds as set forth in the
budget of
the
City (the "TaxLevy") shall be reduced by available revenues of the City to the
extent such revenues have been set aside and designated by the City for such purpose in the
account of the
City's Debt Service Fund hereby created and designated as the "
City of South
11
Bend, Indiana 2018 General Obligation Bond Revenues Account" (the "Revenues Account").
The City hereby covenants to levy the Tax Levy each year payments are due with respect to the
Bonds to the extent the revenues of the City described herein are not sufficient to timely pay the
principal of and interest on the Bonds.
The amounts available and so deposited in the Revenues Account ofthe Bond Fund shall
be determined at the time the budget and tax levy for a given year is finally fixed, and such
amounts shall be used for no purpose except as contemplated above and are hereby pledged by
the
City to the payment of the Bonds, such pledge
being effective as set forth
in I.C. § 5-1-14-4
without the necessity of filing or recording this Ordinance or any other instrument except in the
records of the City.
The City hereby finds and determines that it reasonably expects to pay debt service on the
Bonds from a combination of EMS Revenues, Local Income Tax Revenues and tax increment
finance revenues from the River East Development Area with such revenues being deposited into
the Revenues Account, and not from the Tax Levy, and that therefore the Project is not a
controlled project" for purposes of I.C. §
6-1.1-20-1.1
SECTION IX. Defeasance. If,when the Bonds or any portion thereof shall have become
due and payable in accordance with their terms or shall have been duly called for redemption or
irrevocable instructions to call the Bonds or any portion thereof for redemption have been given,
and the whole amount of the principal and the interest so due and payable upon such Bonds or
any portion thereof then outstanding shall be paid, or (i) cash, or (ii) direct non-callable
obligations of (including obligations issued or held in book entry form on the books of) the
Department of the
Treasury of the United States of America,
and securities fully and
unconditionally guaranteed as to the timely payment of principal and interest by the United
States of America, the principal of and the interest on which when due without reinvestment will
provide sufficient money, or (iii) any combination of the foregoing, shall be held irrevocably in
trust for such purpose, and provision shall also be made for paying all fees and expenses for the
payment, then and in that case the Bonds or such designated portion thereof shall no longer be
deemed outstanding or secured by this Ordinance.
SECTION X. Amendments. Subject to the terms and provisions contained in this
Section, and not otherwise, the owners of not less than sixty-six and two-thirds percent
66-2/3%) in aggregate principal amount of the Bonds then outstanding shall have the right, from
time to time,to consent to and approve the adoption by the City ofsuch Ordinance or Ordinances
supplemental hereto as shall be deemed necessary or desirable by the City for the purpose of
modifying, altering, amending, adding to or rescinding in any particular any of the terms or
provisions contained in this Ordinance, or in any supplemental ordinance; provided, however,
that nothing herein contained shall permit or be construed as permitting:
a)
An extension of the maturity of the principal of or interest on any
Bond,without the consent of the holder of each Bond so affected; or
b) A reduction in the principal amount of any Bond or the rate of
interest thereon, or a change in the monetary medium in which such amounts are
payable, without the consent of the holder of each Bond so affected; or
12
c)
A preference or priority of any Bond over any other Bond, without
the consent of the holders of all Bonds then outstanding; or
d) A reduction in the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds
required for consent to such supplemental ordinance, without the consent of the
holders of all Bonds then outstanding.
If the City shall seek to obtain any such consent, it shall cause the Registrar to mail a
notice, postage prepaid, to the addresses appearing on the registration books held by the
Registrar.
Such notice shall briefly set forth the nature of the proposed supplemental Ordinance
and shall state that a copy thereof is on file at the office of the Registrar for inspection by all
owners of the Bonds. The Registrar shall not, however, be subject to any liability to any owners
ofthe Bonds by reason ofits failure to mail such notice, and any such failure shall not affect the
validity ofsuch supplemental ordinance when consented to and approved as herein provided.
Whenever at any time within one (1) year after the date of the mailing of such notice,the
City shall receive any instrument or instruments purporting to be executed by the owners ofthe
Bonds of not less than sixty-six and two-thirds per cent (66-2/3%) in aggregate principal amount
of the Bonds then outstanding, which instrument or instruments shall refer to the proposed
supplemental ordinance described in such notice, and shall specifically consent to and approve
the adoption thereof in substantially the form ofthe copy thereof referred to in such notice as on
file with the Registrar, thereupon, but not otherwise, the City may adopt such supplemental
ordinance in substantially such form, without liability or responsibility to any owners of the
Bonds, whether or not such owners shall have consented thereto.
No owner of any Bond shall have any right to object to the adoption of such supplemental
Ordinance or to object to any of the terms and provisions contained therein or the operation
thereof, or in any manner to question the propriety of the adoption thereof, or to enjoin or
restrain the City or its Officers from adopting the same, or from taking any action pursuant to the
provisions thereof. Upon the adoption of any supplemental Ordinance pursuant to the provisions
of this section, this Ordinance shall be, and shall be deemed, modified and amended in
accordance therewith, and the respective rights, duties and obligations under this Ordinance of
the.City and all owners of Bonds then outstanding, shall thereafter be determined, exercised and
enforced in accordance with this Ordinance, subject in all respects to such modifications and
amendments.
Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Ordinance, the
rights and obligations of the City and of the owners of the Bonds, and the terms and provisions
of the Bonds and this Ordinance, or any supplemental Ordinance, may be modified or altered in
any respect with the consent ofthe City and the consent of the owners of all the Bonds then
outstanding.
Without notice to or consent ofthe owners of the Bonds, the City may, from time to time
and at any time, adopt such ordinances supplemental hereto as shall not be inconsistent with the
terms and provisions hereof(which supplemental ordinances shall thereafter form a part hereof),
e)
To cure any ambiguity or formal defect or omission in this
Ordinance or in any supplemental Ordinance; or
13
f) To grant to or confer upon the owners of the Bonds any additional
rights, remedies, powers, authority or security that may lawfully be granted to or
conferred upon the owners of the Bonds; or
g) To procure a rating on the Bonds from a nationally recognized
securitiesrating agency designated in such suppleme ntal ordinance, if such
supplemental ordinance will not adversely affect the owners ofthe Bonds; or
h) To obtain or maintain bond insurance with respect to the Bonds; or
i)
To provide for the refunding or advance refunding of the Bonds; or
0) To make any other change which, in the determination of the
Council in its sole discretion,is not to the prejudice of the owners of the Bonds.
SECTION XI. Continuing Disclosure. The Mayor and the Clerk are hereby authorized
to execute and deliver on behalf of the City a Continuing Disclosure Contract upon delivery of
the Bonds, with such terms therein as approved by such officers,the execution of such document
by such officers to
be evidence of such approval.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Ordinance, failure of the City to comply with the Continuing Disclosure Contract shall not be
considered an event of default under the Bonds or this Ordinance.
SECTION XII. Approval of Official Statement.
If legally required as part of a public
offering of the Bonds,the Controller is hereby authorized to deem final an official statement with
respect to the Bonds, as of its date, in accordance with the provisions the SEC Rule, subject to
completion as permitted by the SEC Rule, and this Common Council further authorizes the
distribution ofthe deemed final official statement, and the execution, delivery and distribution of
such document as further modified and amended with the approval of the Controller in the form
of a final official statement.
SECTION XIII. Other Action. The appropriate Officers of the City are hereby
authorized to take all actions to obtain a rating, bond insurance or any other form of credit
enhancement for the Bonds if economically feasible and desirable and with the favorable
recommendation ofthe municipal advisor to the City. In addition, the appropriate Officers of the
City are hereby authorized and directed to take any other action deemed necessary or advisable
in order to effectuate the acquisition, construction and equipping ofthe Projects, the issuance of
the Bonds, or any other purposes of this Ordinance.
SECTION XIV. No Conflict. All Ordinances, Resolutions, and Orders or parts thereof
in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are to the extent of such conflict hereby
repealed. After the issuance of the Bonds and so long as any of the Bonds or interest thereon
remains unpaid, except as expressly provided herein, this Ordinance shall not be repealed or
amended in any respect that will adversely affect the rights of the holders of the Bonds, nor shall
the City adopt any Law, Ordinance or Resolution that in any way adversely affects the rights of
such holders.
SECTION XV. Severability; Interpretation.
If any section, paragraph or provision of
this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the invalidity or
14
unenforceability of such section, paragraph or provision shall not affect any of the remaining
provisions of this Ordinance.
Unless the context or laws clearly require otherwise, references
herein to statutes or other laws include the same as modified, supplemented or superseded from
time to time.
SECTION XVI. Holidays, Etc.
If the date of making any payment or the last date for
performance of any act or the exercising of any right, as provided in this Ordinance, shall be a
legal holiday or a day on which banking institutions in the City or the city in which the Registrar
or Paying Agent is located are typically closed, such payment may be made or act performed or
right exercised on the next succeeding day not a legal holiday or a day on which such banking
institutions are typically closed, with the same force and effect as if done on the nominal date
provided in this Ordinance, and no interest shall accrue for the period after such nominal date.
SECTION XVII. Effectiveness. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from
and after its adoption and the procedures required
by applicable law. Upon payment in full of
the principal and interest respecting the Bonds authorized hereby or upon deposit of an amount
sufficient to pay when due such amounts in accord with the defeasance provisions herein, all
pledges, covenants and other rights granted by this Ordinance shall cease.
Member ofthe Common Council
Attest:
Kareemah Fowler, City Clerk
Presented by me, the undersigned Clerk of the City of South Bend, to the Mayor of the
City of South Bend, Indiana on the
day of 2018, at
o'clock m.
Kareemah Fowler, City Clerk
Approved and signed
by me on the
day of 2018, at_o'clock
m.
Pete Buttigieg, Mayor
DMS 112812130
15
W Ill /;/.
120ON COUNTY-CITY BUILDING 1
J
PHONE 574/235-9822
227 W.JEFFERSON BLVD.FAX 574/235-9928
SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46601-1830
rr' c t _
x
Filed in Clerk's Office
JAN 0 2 2016
CITY OF
SOUTH BEND PETE BUTTIGIEG, MAYOR h KAREEMAH FOWLER
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE-_7RK,SOUTH BEND,IN
January 2, 2018
Mr. Tim Scott
President, South Bend Common Council
227 W. Jefferson Blvd., Suite 400 S
South Bend, Indiana 46601
RE: AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BEND, INDIANA, APPROPRIATING THE PROCEEDS OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH BEND GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2018
Dear Council President Scott:
Attached for filing, please find the above-referenced ordinance for first reading by the
Common Council at its January 8, 2018 meeting, and for public hearing on January 22, 2018.
This ordinance authorizes the appropriation of a sum not to exceed Five Million Four
HundredThirty Thousand Dollars ($5,430,000), out of the proceeds of sale of the general
obligation bonds described in the general obligation bond ordinance filed contemporaneously with
this ordinance,for the purpose ofproviding the payment of costs and expenses for the construction
of a new Fire Station 9 at the corner of Mishawaka Avenue and 21 st Street, and the construction
ofan additional classroom building on the grounds ofthe Luther J.Taylor Sr.Fire Training Center.
Randy Rompola of Barnes & Thornburg LLP and Herschel Frierson of Crowe Horwath
LLP will be presenting this ordinance to the Common Council, and I will be in attendance along
with representatives of the South Bend Fire Department. Your favorable consideration is
requested. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
0""I UG.
0
Jennifer Hockenhull, Controller
Department of Administration and Finance
Excellence I Accountability I Innovation I Inclusion I Empowerment Q
W
Filed in Clerk's Office
Bill No.
JAN 0 2 2018
KAREEWIAH-=01NLER
ORDINANCE NO. CITYC!.ERK.SOUTH SEND,IN
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND,
INDIANA,
APPROPRIATING THE PROCEEDS OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2018
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT
WHEREAS,the Common Council(the"Council")
of the City ofSouth Bend,Indiana(the
City"),has,on January 22,2018,adopted an ordinance,the provisions ofwhich arehereby included
herein by this reference thereto, determining to issue general obligation bonds of the City in an
original aggregate principal amount ofnot to exceed Five Million Four Hundred Thirty Thousand
Dollars ($5,
430,000) (the "Bonds"),
for the purpose of providing funds for undertaking (i)
replacement of current Fire Station 9 with a newly constructed station at the corner ofMishawaka
Avenue and 21st Street in the City whichnew stationwould be approximately 10,000 square feetand
would house Engine 9,Medic 9,and Boat 2 and accommodate up to 7 assigned firefighters per day
and (ii) construction of an additional classroom building on the grounds of the Luther J Taylor Sr.
Fire Training Centerwhich proposed buildingwouldbe an approximately 3,000square footbuilding
and would house a rugged, divisible classroom with capacity for 100 personnel and additional
training props and storage areas (collectively,the"Projects")
in the City; and
WHEREAS,the Council did not include the proceeds ofthe Bonds in the regular budget for
the City for the year 2018; and
WHEREAS, there are insufficient funds available or provided for in the City's existing
budget and tax levy which may be applied to the cost ofthe Project, and the issuance ofthe Bonds
has been authorized to procure the necessary funds and an extraordinary emergency and necessity
exists for the making ofthe additional appropriation set out herein; and
WHEREAS,the Cityhas caused notice ofahearing on said appropriation to be published as
required by law; and
WHEREAS,such public hearing was held onJanuary 22,2018,at 7:00 p.m.(local time)in
the Common Council Meeting Room,4"'Floor ofthe County-City Building in South Bend,Indiana,
on said appropriation at which all taxpayers and interested persons had an opportunity to appear and
express their viewsregarding such additional appropriation.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH BEND,INDIANA,AS FOLLOWS:
Section I.
There is hereby appropriated a sum not to exceed Five Million Four Hundred
Thirty Thousand Dollars ($5,430,000), out of the proceeds of the Bonds received by the City in
connection with the sale ofthe Bonds,together with any premium paid by the original purchasers of
the Bonds and all investment earnings thereon,for use by the City in paying the cost ofthe Project,
together with any expenses incidental thereto, capitalized interest on the Bonds, if any, funding a
debt service reserve fund, ifnecessary, and the issuance costs of the Bonds.
Section II. Such appropriation shall be in addition to all appropriations provided for in
the existing budget and levy, and shall continue in effect until the completion ofthe Project. Any
surplus of such proceeds shall be credited to the proper fund as provided by law.
Section IV.
A certified copy ofthis ordinance,together with such other proceedings and
actions as may be necessary, shall be filed by the Controller ofthe City, along with a report of the
appropriation, with the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance.
Section V.
Any and all prior actions taken by any officer ofthe City or member ofthe
City in connection and consistent with this ordinance are hereby ratified and approved.
Member of the Common Council
Attest:
Kareemah Fowler, City Clerk
Presented by me,the undersigned Clerk ofthe City of South Bend,to the Mayor ofthe City
of South Bend,Indiana on the
day of 2018,at o'clock
M.
Kareemah Fowler, City Clerk
Approved and signed
by me on the
day of 2018, at_o'clock
m.
Pete Buttigieg, Mayor
DMS 11297932v2
2
LAWRENCE P. MAGLIOZZI
EXECUTI V E D I RECTO R
Angela M. Smith
qm
Deputy Director
AREA PLAN COMMISSION OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, IN
227 W. J EFFERSON B L VD., ROOM 1 14 0 COUNTY-CITY BU ILD ING, SOUT H BEND, I N DIANA 46601 (5 74) 23 S-9571
January 3, 2018 Filed in Clerk's Office
Honorable South Bend Common Council JAN 0 3 2018
4"'Floor, County-City Building
South Bend, IN 46601 KAREEMAH FOWLER
CITY CLERK,SOUTH PEND,IN
RE: 2104, 2108, and 2112 E. Mishawaka Ave. and 914 and 918 S. 215 Street
APC#2858-17
Dear Council Members:
Enclosed in an Ordinance for the proposed Zone Map Amendment at the above referenced location.Please
include the attached Ordinance on the Council agenda for first reading at your January 8, 2018 Council
meeting,and set it for public hearing at your February 26,2018 Council meeting.The petition is tentatively
scheduled for public
hearing at theFebruary 20, 2018 Area Plan Commission meeting. The
recommendation of the Area Plan Commission will be forwarded to your office by noon on the day
following the public hearing.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office.
Sincerely,
Angela M. Smith
Deputy Director
CC: Bob Palmer
SERVIN G S T. JO SEP H COU NTY, SOUTH BEND, L AKEVILLE, NEW CARLISL E, NORTH L IB ERTY, OSCEOLA & RO SEL AND
W W W.S TJ O S E P H C O U N T Y I N D I A N A.C O M/A R E A P L A N
Filed in C'}-nice
EJA'N!L-
KAR,F-MAHORDINANCE NO. FOWLER
CITE'CLERK,SOUTH 77Mn. !N.1
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SEEKING A SPECIAL
EXCEPTION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2104, 2108, AND 2112 E MISHAWAKA
AVENUE, AND 914 AND 918 S 21St STREET, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT NO. 3 IN
THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT
Petitioners desire to rezone the property to MU Mixed Use, and seek a Special
Exception for a fire station.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council of the City of
South Bend, Indiana as follows:
SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 9495-04, is amended, which ordinance is commonly
known as the Zoning Ordinance of the City of South Bend, Indiana, be and the same
hereby is amended in order that the zoning classification of the following described real
estate in the City of South Bend, St. Joseph County, State of Indiana:
Lots 1 - 5 of B FDunns 1 stAddition and the vacatedalley north of &
adjacent to Lot 4.
be and the same is hereby established as MU Mixed Use District.
SECTION II. That a Special Exception Use for a fire station in a MU Mixed Use District
is hereby granted subject to a site development plan hereby attached and made a part
of this Ordinance and which site plan contains and lists all conditions, if any, of
approval.
SECTION III. This ordinance is and shall be subject to commitments as provided by
Chapter 21-09.02(d) Commitments, if applicable.
SECTION IV. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage
by the Common Council, approval by the Mayor, and legal publication, and full
execution of any conditions or Commitments placed upon the approval.
Member of
the Common Council
Attest:
City Clerk
Presented by me to the Mayor of
the
City of South Bend, Indiana on the
day of
2 ato'clock M.
City Clerk
Approved and signed
by me on
the day of 2 at
o'clock M.
Mayor, City of
South Bend, Indiana
PETITION FOR ZONE MAP AMENDMENT
City of South Bend, Indiana
I(we)the undersigned make application to the City of South Bend Common Council to amend the zoning
ordinance as herein requested.
1) The property sought to be rezoned is located at:
2104 E Mishawaka Ave
South Bend, IN. 46601
2) The property TaxKey Number(s)is/are: EXEMPT PROPERTY OWNED BYA MUNICIPALITY
3) Legal Descriptions: Lot 3 B F Dunns 1st Add; Lot 2 B F Dunns 1st Add; Lot 1 N 93.7 Ft B F Dunns;S 38 Ft Lot
1 & N 112 Vac Alley S&Adj B F Dunns 1st;Lot 4 B F Dunns 1st Add& Vac Alley N&Adj. Ex 6'X41'Nw Cor Of
Vac.alley; Lot 5 B F Dunns 1st Add;
4) Total Site Area: 0.68acres
5) Name and address of property owner(s)ofthe petition site:
CIVIL CITY OF SOUTH BEND I South Bend Fire Department
1222 SMichigan St Filed in Clerk's Office
South Bend, IN 46601
574) 235-9255
3 7018scox@sotcthbendin.gov JAN
Name and address of additionalproperty owners,if applicable: KAREEiVIMI FOWLER
CITY CLERK;S0LJTH SE'',1r, !Ili
6) Name and address of contingent purchaser(s), if applicable:
Name
Address
City, State Zip Code
Phone number with Area Code
E-Mail Address
Name and address of additional property owners,ifapplicable:
7) It is desired and requested that this property be rezoned:
From: SF2 Single Family Two Family District Additional zoning district, if applicable
To: MU Mixed Use District
8) This rezoning is requested to allow
the
following use(s): Fire Station
IF VARIANCE(S)ARE BEING REQUESTED(if not,pleaseskip to next section): FILED
1) 1. Setback/Facade Along Mishawaka Avenue Frontage Requirement to None DEC 2 2017
2. Perimeter Landscape Requirements Along North and East To None
3.Front Yard Setback Along
2 1s`Street From 5'Minimum to 1.3' AREA PLA14 COWSS-IIOON
2) A statement on how each of the following standards for the granting of variances is rnet:
a) The approval will not be injurious to the public health,safety,morals and general welfare ofthe
community: Approving requested variances (I and 2) increases visibility for Fire Safety vehicles exiting
the Apparatus Bay, thereby improvingpublic safety. In addition, reducing Landscaping requirements
along the East to none ensures that required trees do not impede the alleyway over time. Approving
requested variance#3 does not impact the public HSW
because the
building still maintains 3'from the
existing sidewalk and 16.5'from 21"St. while also allowingfor appropriate stormwater routing along the
East side ofthe property.
b) The use and value ofthe area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a
substantially adverse manner; and: The new station will improve the existing site conditions and
streetscapes along both Mishawaka Ave. and 21st Street, investing over$3,000,000 into the construction
ofthe station and site.
c)
The strict application of the terms of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulties in the use of the
property:
1. Setbacks along Mishawaka strictly observed reduce the necessary visibility ofthe exiting
Fire Safety vehicles. 2. Perimeter landscaping as required along Mishawaka Ave (North Frontage) also
limits visibility ofexiting Fire Safety vehicles. Perimeter landscaping along East sideyard are limited in
appropriate growth area and may impede alleyway over time. Landscaping is provided where possible
and partially meets requirement.
IF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE IS BEING REQUESTED, (if not,please skip to next section):
1) The Special Exception Use(s)being requested: Special Exception:Fire Station in MU
2) A statement on how each of the following standards for the granting of a Special Exception Use is met:
a) The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety,comfort,community moral standards,
convenience or general welfare: The station is a public safetyfacility and will improve the safety ofthe
public
b) The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or property values
therein: In addition to the newfacility improving the existing site conditions, the existingfire station is
just 8 blocks away(facing Mishawaka Ave. on the same side of the street).
c) The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located and the land
uses authorized therein; and: As previously noted, the existing station is within a close proximity to the
proposed station. In addition to that, the proposed station will meet building height requirements andfit
within the existing setbacks along Mishawaka Ave.
d) The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.It meets response
times andfire suppression coverage requirements outlined within the Public Facilities and Services
section, specifically Objective PF 1.1.4
In the case of a Special Exception Use,the petitioner shall be held to the representations made on the Preliminary
Site Plan included with this petition.
CONTACT PERSON:
Jonathon Geels- Troyer Group
550 Union St.
Mishawaka, IN. 46544
FILED
574.259.9976
jsg
@troyergroup.com
DEC 2 2 2017
AREA PLA14 COMMISSION
APPLICATION NO. ao
BY SIGNING THIS PETITION,THE PETITIONERS/PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE ABOVE-
DESCRIBED REAL ESTATE AUTHORIZE THAT THE CONTACT PERSON LISTED ABOVE MAY
REPRESENT THIS PETITION BEFORE THE AREA PLAN COMMISSION AND COMMON COUNCIL
AND TO ANSWER ANY AND ALL QUESTIONS THEREON.
Signature s)
fall ro erty owner(s), or signature of Attorney for all property owner(s):
FILED
DEC 2 2 2017
AREA PLAN COMMISSION
1
APPUCATiON N0.-3 50 /
73.4
2-0.0
8.0
OL rT,rT 1
0 00
rn
x I b
rn
C)
0
SID ES
IffA
A,
A; a s-
T
0H,o,
2
5 nm
0
N) 3AF=Q
0
0 0
0
N
O
0
m
Z m m
CL
Z 0
M
0 0
g:0
C)
F30
04
10
C=di
CD
cn 1a
0 M
0
z
CD
z
NEW SITE LAYOUT FOR:
Z0 HIBBARD BUILDING
o r PLAZA DESIGN Cjptroyer group323 S MAIN ST.
SOUTH BEND, 46601 troyergroup.com T ogethe r,We Wil l
LAWRENCE P. MAGLIOZZI
EXEC UT I V E D I RECTO R
Angela M. Smith
Deputy Director
AREA PLAN COMMISSION OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, IN
2 27 W. JE FFERSO N BLV D., ROOM 1 140 C OUNTY-CIT1' BUI LDIN G, SOUTH BEND, I NDI ANA +6601 (574) 235-95 71
January 3, 2018 i_..._.
6 Filed in Clerk's Office
Honorable South Bend Common Council
4t'Floor, County-City Building JAN 0 3 2018
South Bend, IN 46601
KAREEMAH FOWLER
CITY CLERK,SOUTH E3P,11D, °N.°.
Q I
RE: 3527 Lincoln Way West
APC#2859-17
Dear Council Members:
Enclosed in an Ordinance for the proposed Zone Map Amendment at the above referenced location.Please
include the attached Ordinance on the Council agenda for first reading at your January 8, 2018 Council
meeting,and set it for public hearing at your February 26,2018 Council meeting.The petition is tentatively
scheduled for public
hearing at the
February 20, 2018 Area Plan Commission meeting. The
recommendation of the Area Plan Commission will be forwarded to your office by noon on the day
following the public hearing.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office.
Sincerely,
P,4
Y. ,(7
Angela M. Smith
Deputy Director
CC: Bob Palmer
S ERVING ST. JOSE PH C O UNT Y, SO UTH BEND, LAKEVI LLE, NEW C ARLISLE, NORTH LIB E RTY, OSCEOL A & R OSELAND
W W W.S TJ O S E P H C O U N T Y I N D I A N A.C O M/A R E A P L A N
Filed in Cler'oce
JAN 0 3 2018
ORDINANCE NO.
1V 1A H
FOWLER i
CITY ,3K,SOUTH B1INn
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 3527 LINCOLN WAY WEST, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT NO. 1 IN THE
CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT
Petitioner is seeking a rezoning to OB Office Buffer for an office.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council of the City of
South Bend, Indiana as follows:
SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 9495-04, is amended, which ordinance is commonly
known as the Zoning Ordinance of the City of South Bend, Indiana, be and the same
hereby is amended in order that the zoning classification of the following described real
estate in the City of South Bend, St. Joseph County, State of Indiana:
Beginning at a point ninety-one feet six inches (91.5') west of the northeast corner of the west
half of the northeast quarter (NE 1/4) of Section lour (4) Township thirty-seven (37) north, Range
two (2) east; thence running south parallel with the east line of the west half (W 1/2) of said
Section four (4) to the northerly line of Lincoln Way West, formerly Michigan Road; thence
northwesterly along the northerly line of said road two hundred thirty-nine feet (239); thence
north to the north line of said Section; thence east along the north line of said Section, two
hundred twenty-four (224) feet to the place of beginning; excepting therefrom a parcel of land
described as a point ninety-one and five tenths (91.5) feet west of the northeast corner of the
northwest quarter (NW 1/4) of the northeast quarter (NE 1/4) of said Section four (4), Township
and Range aforesaid; thence running due south to the northerly line of Lincoln Way West,
formerly Michigan Road; thence northwesterly along the northerly line of said road, one hundred
eight and twenty-six hundredths (108.26) feet; thence in a due northerly direction to the north
line of said section; thence east along the north line of said section, 100 feet to the place of
beginning, all in St. Joseph County, Indiana.
be and the same is hereby established as OB Office-Buffer District.
SECTION II.
This ordinance is and shall be subject to commitments as provided by Chapter 21-
09.02(d) Commitments, if applicable.
SECTION III. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage
by the Common Council, approval by the Mayor, legal publication, and full execution of
any conditions or
Commitments placed upon the approval.
Member of the Common Council
Attest:
City Clerk
Presentedby me to the Mayor of
the
City of South Bend, Indiana on the
day of
2 at o'clock M.
City Clerk
Approved and signed
by me on theday of 2 at
o'clock M.
Mayor, City of South Bend, Indiana
PETITION FOR ZONE MAP AMENDMENT
City ofSouth Bend,Indiana
I (we)the undersigned make application to the City of South Bend Common Council to amend the
zoning ordinance as herein requested.
1) The property sought to be rezoned is located at: Filedi° vlerk'S Office
3527 Lincoln Way West
South Bend,IN 46628 JAN 0 3 2018
2) The property Tax Key Number(s)is/are: 018-2193-7244
KAREEMAH FOWLER
3) Legal Description(s):LGITY CLERK,SOUTH SUM,,!N
Beginning at a point ninety-one feet six inches(91.5')west of the northeast comer ofthe west
half of the northeast quarter(NE 1/4) of Section four(4)Township thirty-seven(37)north,
Range two(2)east;thence running south parallel with the east line of the west half(W 1/2)
of said Section four(4)to the northerly line ofLincoln Way West,formerly Michigan Road;
thence northwesterly along the northerly line of said road two hundred thirty-nine feet(239);
thence north to the north line of said Section;thence east along the north line of said Section,
two hundred twenty-four(224)feet to the place ofbeginning;excepting therefrom a parcel of
land described as a point ninety-one and five tenths(91.5)feet west ofthe northeast comer of
the northwest quarter(NW 1/4) of the northeast quarter (NE 1/4) of said Section four (4),
Township and Range aforesaid;thence running due south to the northerly line ofLincoln Way
West,formerlyMichigan Road;thence northwesterly along the northerly line ofsaidroad,one
hundred eight and twenty-six hundredths(108.26)feet;thence in a due northerly direction to
the north line of said section;thence east along the north line of said section, 100 feet to the
place ofbeginning,all in St.Joseph County,Indiana.
4)
Total Site Area: 0.67 acres(29,133 square feet)
5) Name and address of property owner(s)of the petition site:
Women's Care Center,Inc.
360 N.Notre Dame Avenue
South Bend,IN 46617
574)968-7476
annmanion 13(a),gmail.com
Name and address of additional property owners,ifapplicable:
Not Applicable
6) Name and address of contingent purchaser(s), if applicable:
Not Applicable
Name and address of additional property owners,if applicable:
Not Applicable
7) It is desired and requested that this property be rezoned:
From: SF Single-Family and Two-Family District
FILE
ncP 2 r 2317
To: OB Office Buffer District
AREA PLAN COMMISSION
IlONCATIONNOaI-1
8)
This rezoning is requested to allow the following use(s):
Counseling Offices
IF VARIANCE(S)ARE BEING REQUESTED:
Not Applicable
IF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE IS BEING REQUESTED:
Not Applicable
CONTACT PERSON:
Richard A Nussbaum II
210 South Michigan Street
South Bend,IN 46601
574-234-3000
dickn@sni-law.com
BY SIGNING THIS PETITION, THE PETITIONERS/PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE
ABOVE-DESCRIBED REAL ESTATE AUTHORIZE THAT THE CONTACT PERSON LISTED
ABOVE MAY REPRESENT THIS PETITION BEFORE THE AREA PLAN COMMISSION AND
COMMON COUNCIL AND TO ANSWER ANY AND ALL QUESTIONS THEREON.
Signature(s)of all property owner(s),or signature of Attorney for all property owner(s):
aA,( n CND
t (
t, % dtr \ V
womo n '
S c4 r
n
n a
M
i p
j
1 :j
Zf Cs k 0
i
BFI
rn 0
1
CD
fJO> 20OCZ.Z 1
C« Z m z zr2
m>0x mmG G)D
Om-mi
m
0 AO
mOO mmm
Om—
1
zr IO
N m
Z
m 0 O
10/ O
D r tm t m
m 0
Z
O
z n
z m D
X zmmm
z-
I 1 D --+p II
C z D{,
O O0
O G)D A D m z
G)
0m
G)
li-ocn 212.66' —
1
n m 15'RESIDENTI4L BUFFERYAD SETBACK
C
0 O
A T
y y I D
I ^ z
zs
J
c o m
y m+
Y L _ --
jI mZ
D Oi I
1
z O G)
m
JSID YID E--T A C
262.11 I
NK c)z m mm a) x mm c nm n z m°c
zZx
00 cm c m c m 5>mx x x vm
Izz m o
m-+ o
O o z o cDi*
vcm m=i
G)3 O? z zZ z <z nyzmyz z (
m»Dn DzG)
mz OOa) G) O-
0 OmCU G) vX Om Z0n
Qy m 0 m 0 -1
G)Mm
oD c coo mm I
mZ q 0z 5 Opm KQ
X my OKz
K v 1< z G)
z O
RZ Om m
z mmz
w m-miz '—D D z0 3 m 0
I
z O mmm0 =
0 0
oOzD
c n 0
z myz z Io x
1
I
0OviApppOpm AyNNRICTZ, A Zjj0wRm7Cfm71mOVOVo- A-ZTInZ. PZ( CtomI1 (AmROIZOC2CmyvHmmOOOZOyOmKOPNOKoO 'iOz9wEVtixwazamovi8f. fflmmmtPm0O8A "' mnA5z> cS-"-1z9O-c7oArzOFooococmoyayzfTlyn8.. z92 ,npyzyOfr.11lNllnZZ_ oowmrmyuru ;; OmNfmo0'.remDjDmNm0EP <mg0cinm000OOZolmpD- °mmmOc-h az- OpqpVNOT?Tcz- mD, pNy (D7UlD0OroytAO1\v,TA mEoAOyy ,T. Fm2NOT Z 1 >m0OSmamzNNA7nnmm -iOZmm~>O~ NDd5-t,KZmOillm7GcnOnONN yOymyO5 25 zp0FDZDOCZmnrZ 70intoy0Om ++Rry'nTomDDZ.oSN . 7TOO8ZmOUNTm^! myONGIDCIb0Am700MCZNAZmNOO2T >ONmmxDZInOTU102zmmZOTOOoOOC) m ° aRENOVATIONSFORTHEsFALLIANCENm_ WOMEN'SCARECENTERGeOtiO3527LINCOLNWAYWESTcSOUTHBEND,INDIANA929unca astnaysurcezooIsooneered,cdwoi