Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-25-17 Zoning and Annexation 1,ouI'll O 'id 4 ' U d � rence 1865 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK KAREEMAH FOWLER,CITY CLERK ZONING&ANNEXATION SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 4:50 P.M. Committee Members Present: Oliver Davis, John Voorde, Jo M. Broden Committee Members Absent: Gavin Ferlic Other Council Present: Regina Williams-Preston, Karen White, Dr. David Varner, Tim Scott, Randy Kelly Other Council Absent: None Others Present: Kareemah Fowler, Graham Sparks, Bob Palmer Presenters: David Stanton, Angela Smith, Michael Divita, Tim Corcoran, Mike Danch, Larry Magliozzi, James Mueller Agenda: Bill No. 33-17- Rezoning for Property at 1709 W. Lincolnway West Bill No. 43-17- Rezoning for Property at 1237& 1303 Ironwood Transfer of ABZA & Zoning Administration from the Building Department to APC- Larry Magliozzi, Executive Director of the Area Plan Commission(APC) Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Update Briefmg— Angela Smith(APC) & Michael Divita(DCI) Committee Chair Oliver Davis called to order the Zoning and Annexation Committee meeting at 4:50 p.m. He introduced members of the Committee and proceeded to give the floor to the presenters. Bill No. 33-17-Rezoning for Property at 1709 W. Lincolnway West David Stanton, Area Plan Commission with offices on the 11 th floor of the County-City Building, stated, The petitioner is requesting a zoning change from LB, Local Business District, to CB, Community Business District, as well as three (3) variances from the development standards. On the site is a vacant vehicle repair establishment. To the north of the site is a vacant 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.SouthBendfN.gov JENNIFER M.COFFMAN ALKEYNA M.ALDRIDGE JOSEPH MOLNAR CHIEF DEPUTY/DIRECTOR OF DEPUTY/DIRECTOR OF POLICY ORDINANCE VIOLATION CLERK OPERATIONS home zoned LB, Local Business District. To the east of the site is a local retail establishment also zoned LB, Local Business District. To the south of the site across Lincolnway West is a business zoned LB, Local Business District. And to the west of the site is a restaurant zoned MU, Mixed-Use District. The site plan includes an existing single-story building situated on the corner of College and Lincolnway West. The site is fully enclosed by a barbed wire fence. The staff is requesting written commitments. One (1) of them is to limit the number of vehicles parked on the site to no more than five (5) during the day or over-night. Another one (1) is to remove the barbed wire fencing. This comes to you from the Area Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation. Rezoning this site to CB, Community Business District,will allow for the reuse of an existing commercial structure in a manner consistent with the comprehensive plan. Committee Chair Davis opened the floor to Committee and Councilmembers for questions or comments. Committeemember Jo M. Broden asked, Why was it agreed upon to have the limit be five (5) vehicles? Angela Smith, Area Plan Commission with offices on the 11th floor of the County-City Building, stated, It comes from the number of parking spaces allowed on site. The thought is that they should only have as many vehicles as there are designated spaces. Committeemember Broden followed up, On the barbed wire fencing,to be clear, fencing is allowed but not the barbed on top? And there is no commitment for landscaping? I just want to make sure this is consistent with the corridor planning. I would like to see some level of commitment to landscaping. Ms. Smith replied, That is correct. A four (4) foot fence is allowed if it is open. He obtained a variance to have a six (6) foot fence without the barbed wire on top. There has not been any commitment to landscaping but there have been some conversations about that. Councilmember Tim Scott requested DCI to speak to how this fits into the Master Plan. Michael Divita, Planner with the Department of Community Investment with offices on the 14th floor of the County-City Building, stated, We met with the owner to talk through the process. There are still some things needed to be formalized to do some repair work. Ultimately, we would like to move past the auto repair shop here but in the meantime, as an interim use, that would be good. Broadly,toward the plan, it does provide commercial traffic to the corridor and that is consistent with the plan. Councilmember Scott followed up, So this is consistent with the Wilbur Node? Mr. Divita replied, The instinct is to work toward more of a Mixed-Use so we are not all the way there. We have someone willing to work with the land right now. Tim Corcoran, Director of Planning for Community Investment with offices on the 14th floor of the County-City Building, stated, Ideally we would be tearing this building down and building a 2 new one (1) but we are not at that point yet. We are trying to balance the needs of what people are trying to do right now and the incremental change going forward. Councilmember Scott then asked, Who is it from DCI that spends time on that corridor to help with improvements? Mr. Corcoran replied, More than one (1) person is working on that corridor. We are right now in the process of looking at the ways of reclaiming more pavement for redevelopment sites. There is a lot of effort that goes into that. It will take substantial City investment to shift a market. Where and how we do that is a big question. Committeemember John Voorde asked, Was this a gas station years ago?Are there any UST problems here? Ms. Smith replied, From the aerial view I think it is fair to say it was a gas station. I don't know about prior issues as that is not something we control. Committee Chair Davis opened the floor to members of the public wishing to speak in favor of or in opposition to the legislation. There were none. He then turned the floor back to the Committee for father comment or main motions. Commiteemember Voorde made a motion to send Bill No. 33-17 to the full Council with no recommendation. Committeemember Broden seconded this motion which carried unanimously by a voice vote of three (3) ayes. Bill No. 43-17-Rezonin6 for Property at 1237 & 1303 Ironwood Mr. Stanton stated, The petitioner is requesting a zone change from SF-1, Single-Family District, to SF-2, Single-Family Two (2)-Family District. On the site is a vacant parcel and a single- family home. To the north of the site is a single-family home zoned SF-1. To the east of the site are single-family homes zoned SF-1. To the south of the site are single-family homes zoned SF- 1. To the west of the site are single-family homes zoned SF-1. The proposed plan includes a twenty-six (26) lot single-family residential subdivision. The development includes a basic footprint for homes approximately 1,800 square feet. The proposed plan would utilize reduced setbacks on one (1) side in order to provide a wider side entrance to the homes. The staff recommends the properties adjacent to Ironwood and Rosemary to have front doors and entry ways that interact with the public street. This comes to you from the Area Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation. Rezoning the property to SF-2 will allow for infill housing on a large residential lot in which services are already available. The urban residential lots will offer a variety of housing options compatible with the neighborhood. Mike Danch, Danch, Hamer and Associates with offices at 1643 Commerce Drive, stated, You all know the site very well. What we are asking to do is rezone the property to SF-2 to allow for this pocket neighborhood concept. When we had started this particular project we planned to have thirty (30) single-family houses. After some meetings and at the request of the Area Plan Commission, we talked with the neighbors and we reduced the number to have only twenty-six (26) single-family houses. There will only be two (2)houses facing Ironwood and two (2) houses 3 facing Rosemary. There would be no direct access from any of the houses facing Ironwood or Rosemary onto either of those streets. He showed the site plan depicted on a slide of the presentation(available in the City Clerk's Office). He continued, There are two (2) access points to the development, one (1) from Ironwood and one (1) from Rosemary. You never want to have just one (1) access point. The houses themselves will be one and a half(1.5) stories. Each home will range around$350,000. They will be single-family. We received a few variances for this development. There is a common area in the middle of the development that can be used by all the residents. There will be a walkway that allows access from the visitor parking areas toward the interior portion, allowing access to any single-family home. The sidewalks will be integrated between Ironwood and Rosemary. We committed to continuing the sidewalk up Rosemary to the next intersection. We will have a vinyl fence. We want consistent fencing along that south boundary line. Committee Chair Davis asked, Could you clarify what a pocket neighborhood is? Mr. Danch replied, The main concept is to combine open space areas that are usable by an entire community. In order to do that, we move around the open space area that is usually required under single-family zoning. Instead of dividing it up on four(4) sides of the property, you try to take it all and put it in one (1) spot and make it more useful. We've created one (1) large open space for all residents. It cuts down on the amount of service the City needs to provide, as well. Committee Chair Davis followed up, Will developments like these affect the surrounding neighbor's costs of living? Mr. Danch replied, It would stabilize the neighborhood. This development is assessed independently and would not be taken into consideration when assessing the value of an individual surrounding home. However market values are uncontrollable. Committee Chair Davis then opened the floor to Committee and Councilmembers for questions or comments. Councilmember Scott stated, If this was a traditional housing development in the City, it would be around sixteen(16) houses? Mr. Danch replied, It would probably be around eighteen(18)houses. Strictly on a density evaluation, this is not much different. Councilmember Scott followed up, That is exactly right. We are trying to get more houses on a smaller footprint and that is exactly what this does. Committeemember Voorde asked, Do you have any idea of what kind of commitment there is to landscaping? And what will the drainage be like? Mr. Danch replied, There will be a couple things that happen. Because of the price point at $350,000,there will be a specific landscape plan for the entire development that will go with each home. There will also be additional trees. The drainage will be held on site. We will be doing what is called a French-drain system. There will be piping entirely underground and there will be a retention basin. 4 Committee Chair Davis asked, From your point of view, have you exhausted every possible compromise you could concede? Mr. Danch replied, I think we have. There were issues about parking and visitors. We created a perimeter area for visitor parking. It is more than adequate for twenty-six (26) single-family homes. We will also be looking at speed-monitoring devices for roads in the development. Committee Chair Davis then opened the floor to members of the public wishing to speak in favor of or in opposition to the legislation. Mr. Corcoran stated, DCI worked very closely with the developer. They have taken on board a lot of our suggestions. We are happy with how they have responded to the suggestions. We want to make sure that when people are working with us we are working with them. Pat Matthews, 52127 Fall Creek Drive, stated, I am the developer of the project. The density and parking issues have been resolved. We will be installing friction points so the drive will not become a cut-through street. In addition to coming back with twenty-six (26) lots instead of the thirty (30), we have requested fewer variances. I look forward to it becoming the poster-child for additional development for infill projects throughout the community. Sue Kesim, 4022 Kennedy Drive, stated, I am dismayed at how often zoning has been changed. The individual just gets run over by development. Long-term residents have their homes there. Did this get a tax abatement or any TIF dollars? It disrupts the character of the neighborhood. It is too dense. The City just keeps having a disregard for these long-term residents. There is no regard for the natural character of the land. There are concerns about how fast a fire spread. This project needs more progressive and sustainable ideas. Kevin Dryer, 1905 Dorwood Drive, stated, While it is true there have been alterations,there is still contradictory information. Density information has been unclear. It is apples and oranges. I don't want to derail this project but we aren't getting consistent answers. There are not written commitments on things like trees. What things can be written in with written commitments? We need to be sure it will not disrupt our lives in our neighborhood. Besty Harriman, 1916 E. Hartman Drive, asked, Are they going to keep the sidewalks clear? Will there be a snow fence up? Once they plant the trees, is there a plan to keep those trees maintained? If this is approved, I would put up the six (6) foot fence immediately. Committee Chair Davis turned the floor back to the Committee for further comment or main motion. He stated, I suggest the developer get together with the residents and get those written commitments written down so we have some of those languages. Ms. Smith stated, There are two (2)written commitments already. The first is that the homes facing Ironwood and Rosemary front and operate like front yards. The other commitment is there will be no more than twenty-six (26) units in the lots. 5 Committeemember Broden stated, Commitments go with the property for the length and duration. Some of the things shared are time-specific. Maintenance is large and how we get that into the record is important. I want to make sure we are focusing on the substantial commitments going forward. Committeemember Voorde made a motion to send Bill No. 43-17 to the full Council with a favorable recommendation, subject to the written commitments listed at the Area Plan Commission meeting. Committemember Broden seconded this motion which carried unanimously by a voice vote of three (3) ayes. Transfer of ABZA & Zoning Administration from the Building Department to APC-Larry Magliozzi,Executive Director of the Area Plan Commission (APC) Larry Magliozzi,Director of the Area Plan Commission with offices on the 1 lth floor of the County-City Building, stated, I am coming back for your benefit if you had any questions. I know Andy Kostielney was supposed to send an email to you all. There is no new information. Committee Chair Davis requested to have a follow up at the next Council meeting on October 9, 2017. James Mueller, Executive Director of Community Investment with offices on the 14th floor of the County-City Building, stated, Community Investment supports the consolidation of the zoning functions under the Area Plan Commission. We are still looking at how to streamline the fees for the user. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Update Briefing—Angela Smith (APC) & Michael Divita (DCI) Mr. Divita stated, We spoke last month about some zoning ordinance quick-fixes. They are some straight-forward text changes to some situations where most rezoning and variance requests are always approved. We are proposing six (6)packages of quick-fixes. You will receive that information in advance. We are still working with other departments in polishing up the language. The time-frame depends on whether we have a Councilmember to sponsor it. It would go to the Area Plan Commission in October and would then come back to Council at the end of October. Councilmember Dr. David Varner stated, I suggest we push it back to November in light of the budget. Mr. Divita stated, We can set a date that everyone can agree upon. With no further business, Committee Chair Davis adjourned the Zoning and Annexation Committee meeting at 5:50 p.m. y S mitted, mmi ee Chair 6