Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-13-17 Council Minutes REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE ON MINUTES TO THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND: THE SUB-COMMITTEE HAS INSPECTED THE MINUTES OF THE November 13, 2017 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL AND FOUND THEM TO BE CORRECT. THEREFORE,WE RECOMMEND THE SAME BE APPROVED: TIM SCOTT ID VARNER APPROVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL ON: December 11, 2017 ATTEST: EMAH FO ER, CITY CLERK REGULAR MEETING November 13, 2017 Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana met in the Council Chambers of the County-City Building on Monday,November 13th, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Council President Tim Scott and the Invocation was given by Rabbi Karen Campanez of Temple Beth-El and Pledge to the Flag was given. ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tim Scott 1St District, President Regina Williams-Preston 2nd District Randy Kelly 3rd District Jo M. Broden 4th District Dr. David Varner 5th District Oliver J. Davis 6th District, Vice President Gavin Ferlic At-Large, Chairperson Committee of the Whole Karen L. White At-Large ABSENT: John Voorde At-Large OTHERS PRESENT: Kareemah Fowler City Clerk Jennifer Coffman Chief Deputy Clerk Bianca Tirado Deputy Clerk Graham Sparks Clerk Executive Assistant Bob Palmer Council Attorney REPORT FROM THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON MINUTES Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion that the minutes of the October 23rd, 2017 meeting of the Council be accepted and placed on file. Councilmember Karen White seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight(8) ayes. SPECIAL BUSINESS Councilmember Tim Scott announced that Bills No. 78-17 and 79-17 have been continued indefinitely. REPORTS OF CITY OFFICES Representing the City Administration: Mayor Pete Buttigieg I Pete Buttigieg, Mayor of the City of South Bend, with offices on the 14th Floor of the County- City Building, South Bend, IN, approached the podium. Mayor Buttigieg stated, First of all, let me just reiterate my appreciation to the Council for a great budget process. I happen to believe the compromise—I think it will serve the residents well. I wanted to let you know that we are now developing a full framework for some of the newer policies. Now that we know that they 1 REGULAR MEETING November 13, 2017 are funded, we know that they are going to need to be programmed in great detail, including the funding program, the inspection program, lead exposure mitigation, support for early childhood, health and addiction issues, inclusive economic developments, and a number of other programs that are, of course, existing and articulated that we need to carry forward with the resources that the Council has approved. The My SB Parks and Trails budget was also approved and now we are fully underway, as you may have noticed if you have passed by the Charles Black Center or Howard Park, or any of the other sites that are getting some of these improvements. So, we're very excited for the opportunity, in the coming months and years, to unveil a lot of major developments across our parks. You're probably getting some communications, as I am, about leaf pickup. I just want to let you know help is on the way, so we're working now on a third pass. A lot of folks are wondering, "Did I miss my shot? Two (2)passes have come through my neighborhood and the leaves aren't even down, yet." So, what we're going to do is we're going to continue working as much as weather will permit. We hope to announce very soon a plan for a third pattern of sweeps, and, if there's still a need after that,we'll do as much as we can before it gets prohibitive because of the weather. Please stay tuned on that front. Mayor Buttigieg continued, I also want to spend just a couple of minutes talking about the issue of homelessness. I think it's something that's on everybody's minds. I know some people have joined today to speak about this, too. In our office, we've been hearing from people who represent a spectrum of opinion, and there are some who are demanding to know why people are permitted to remain in a public right-of-way. There are other people who believe it is cruel to disrupt the lives of people in that public right-of-way, at all. So, what we're trying to do, as an administration, is find an approach that balances law, compassion, and—most importantly—safety for everybody that's involved. As you know, for the better part of a year, we've had a working group on homeless issues, which represented a very diverse range of opinion and backgrounds and has been gathering to discuss solutions and present them to the Administration. We received those recommendations in August. For those who are interested, the full report of that working group is available online, including a lot of research that went into the recommendations. Those recommendations are the framework, as far as my administration is concerned, for our policies going forward. We know that the best solutions have to do with sheltering and services, so that's where the bulk of our attention is going. It's become clear from our experience as a community that an enforcement-only approach doesn't work, but it's also clear that abandoning enforcement is a mistake. There is a balance to be struck among all of the different approaches, and that's what we're seeking to do as an administration. The good news is our community is blessed with a number of first-rate services that have an excellent track record of supporting those in need and, most importantly of all, a good track record of moving people out of homelessness. But we estimate approximately one-hundred and twenty-five (125) unsheltered homeless people living in St. Joseph County, and the bulk of those are in South Bend. Many of them are unable or unwilling to use the services that are available here, sometimes because of mental health challenges that they're facing or substance abuse issues. These are,by definition, some of those most in need of services, and those most difficult to serve in our community. We don't have any hard data that shows any evidence that the number of unsheltered homeless in our community has increased, but certainly the visibility of the issue has increased, due partly to an encampment that has formed immediately south of the downtown area. Mayor Buttigieg continued, Our approach, as laid out in the working group report, is guided by a housing-first mentality this has emerged as a best practice for cities dealing with these issues. In order to do housing-first properly,you need two (2) elements—and we're acting to do both. One (1) is that you have a need for permanent supportive housing. So,the working group estimates about eighty (80) additional units are needed. Meeting with the Fuse Project, which is opening very shortly on the site of the former Oliver School—we expect to have the first thirty-two (32) of these needed units becoming available. The second thing that's needed is an intake center, and that's why the City has committed$1,500,000 to help establish a center like that, which we hope will be in action by this time next year and that we envision as an entry point to the system of care, as well as a location for some of the housing-first services that are needed. I believe right now, the City is putting the most concentrated effort and investment on this issue that we have seen since the establishment of the Center for the Homeless, and we 2 REGULAR MEETING November 13, 2017 believe that's positioning us to make leaps forward in how we address the issue. But we can't wait until next year, and that's why the City is again supporting Project Warm, which will become available in December, as well as partnering with life treatment centers and the Center for the Homeless, who are already operating weather amnesty programs—and we still have the issue of the encampment. The City's policy is that no one (1) should be spending the night at this location, and, in particular, it's not safe and it's not lawful to have beds,tents, pallets, anything else that is permanent in the public right-of-way. The City has a responsibility to look after safety requirements in that right-of-way. The main concern, though, is that encampments are not good for the people that are in them. There is a lot of evidence that encampments lead to increased disease, violence, crime, abuse, and victimization of the chronically homeless. So, as a city, we're particularly concerned about efforts to distribute materials that have the effect of encouraging people to remain in the encampment. I am sure that these efforts are well- intentioned, but we need to be very careful about anything that might send the message that an encampment is a good place to be, because that could be contributing to the victimization of the chronically homeless. People respond to the signals that are sent their way, and not because they're homeless but because they are people. As a community, we need to send the message that everyone belongs under a roof, indoors, in a warm bed. We need to guide people in these circumstances toward warm shelter and treatment for their issues, and avoid anything that signals to any human being that where they belong is under a bridge. Mayor Buttigieg continued, So, in the medium term, we think the framework we've laid out in the working group report is going to make a major difference. In the short term, we have to rely on a balance of practical resources, compassionate care, and the enforcement required for health and safety needs. Our intention is not to be punitive—our focus is on the safety of all concerned. I spent some time under the bridge, this morning, trying to get to know the situation, talking to some of the individuals who were concerned. They're not bad people. These are people who are in a very bad situation. And, again, for a number of different reasons, and there's probably as many different reasons as there are people—which was, by my estimation between fifteen(15) and twenty(20)who actually spent the night there. Everyone's got their story, but a lot of them had stories that had to do with them being unwilling or unable to take advantage of some of the services that our community provides. The reality is that I don't have the right to drag somebody into services they're not willing to accept. But the question that's before the City is, "Do they have a right to refuse those services, and remain in a situation that may be posing a threat to them as well as to others?" If these situations were easy to deal with, we would have fixed it a long time ago. But, we're striking the best balance that we can to find a way to handle this compassionately and safely. And, as we have in funding some of what we're already doing, we are going to rely on Council support for continuing to guide the community forward in this area. Mayor Buttigieg continued, I know a lot of people are here to discuss the issue, and I know the Council has some important business to take care of—I've got a few things to take care of in my office—but I'll make a point of being back here to listen. As we listen to any ideas in this administration,the thing that will get our attention the most is anything that points to a documented track record of delivering results—in this case, results meaning getting people indoors and out of the cycle of chronic homelessness, so they can be better off. Councilmember Oliver Davis asked Mayor Buttigieg if, for the public, he could elaborate on the notice given by the City for the homeless to vacate the encampment under the bridge within forty-eight(48)hours. Additionally, Councilmember Davis asked Mayor Buttigieg if he could list the criteria for eligibility for the Fuse Project. Mayor Buttigieg responded that the City was effectively citing itself, as the City's right-of-way has become a public nuisance for the City itself, and thus Indiana State laws of public safety. Regarding the second question, Mayor Buttigieg explained that admission is based on need, and things like alcohol and drug screenings are not part of the admissions process. Mayor Buttigieg encouraged the public to consult the working group report for more details. Councilmember Davis asked if the part of the report specifically pertaining to admissions requirements for Project Fuse could be highlighted for easier accessibility for the public. 3 REGULAR MEETING November 13, 2017 Mayor Buttigieg stated that the City would work with its partners to coordinate the dissemination of that information upon the opening of Project Fuse. When asked by Councilmember Davis if that information would be available online, Mayor Buttigieg responded, Yes, we can do that. RESOLVE INTO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE At 7:16 p.m. Councilmember Karen White made a motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic, Chairperson,presiding. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic explained the procedures to be followed for tonight's meeting in accordance with Article 1, Section 2-11 of the South Bend Municipal Code. PUBLIC HEARINGS BILL NO. 72-17 PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ARTICLE 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO AMEND AVERAGE FRONT SETBACK PROVISIONS; ARTICLE 3 COMMERCIAL/MIXED USE DISTRICTS TO REMOVE MAXIMUM AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR OUTDOOR SEATING FOR RESTAURANTS IN THE O OFFICE DISTRICT, LB LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND CB COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND ADD PROVISION TO ALLOW OUTDOOR SEATING IN THE GB GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT; AND ARTICLE 7 GENERAL REGULATIONS TO ALLOW REQUIRED LANDSCAPING TO BE PLACED WITHIN RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EXEMPT THE MU MIXED USE DISTRICT FROM MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic asked Council Attourney Bob Palmer if it was appropriate to entertain a motion to hear Bills No. 72-17, 73-17, and 74-17 together, to which Mr. Palmer responded that it was appropriate. Councilmember Regina Williams-Preston made a motion to hear Bills No. 72-17, 73-17, and 74- 17 together. Councilmember Karen White seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. 7347 PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ARTICLE 1 BASIC PROVISIONS TO REVISE CLEAR SIGHT AREA REQUIREMENTS AND PRIVATE STREET WIDTHS, ARTICLE 2 RESIDENTIAL 4 REGULAR MEETING November 13, 2017 DISTRICTS TO REVISE GRADE LEVEL IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS, AND ARTICLE 3 COMMERCIAL/MIXED USE DISTRICTS TO REVISE DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITY STANDARDS 74-17 PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ARTICLE 1 BY ALLOWING USES PERMITTED IN A LESS INTENSE DISTRICT TO BE PERMITTED IN A MORE INTENSE DISTRICT Councilmember Oliver Davis, chair of the Zoning and Annexation Committee, reported that they met this afternoon and send these bills forward with a favorable recommendation. Angela Smith, the Area Plan Commission, with offices on the 11th Floor of the County-City Building, South Bend, IN, served as the presenter of these bills. Ms. Smith stated, What you have before you are three (3)text amendments that deal with issues that we have found as being problematic within the zoning ordinance for South Bend. The first deals with things that are commonly fought before the Area Board of Zoning Appeals, or before the Area Plan Commission, for variances from development standards. This includes parking in a mixed-use district, allowing landscaping in a tree-lawn instead of on the property, and the average setback for nonconformance, among a couple of other things. The outdoor seating is an exciting addition to encourage pedestrian activity in the commercial districts, as well. The second set of items deal with engineering standards and have also been reviewed by the Engineering Department in the City of South Bend. These primarily deal with private streets,the clear-sight triangles, and some grade-level improvements within the engineering sections of the ordinance. The final ordinance deals with the use-tables that you find in our zoning district. Currently in the South Bend ordinance, we list an exorbitant number of uses. Everything to very specific things as haberdasheries to general things like retail uses. This would allow, if you have a more intense district, such as an industrial district, you would be allowed to do the uses that would be found in some of the other districts, with the exception of residential. These kind of follow the logic that if you are a more intense zoned district, it seems logical to allow something that would be allowed, say, in a mixed-use district, as well, as opposed to making someone rezone their property. The process that we have right now puts an extreme burden on the property owner and often leads to properties that are not zoned properly for the district that they're in, because they would be zoned for a specific use and not necessarily the district in which it's located. All of these come to you from the Area Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation. Councilmember Tim Scott asked, How many variances that you have seen in the last year or two (2)that have come before us would this take care of? Ms. Smith responded that the Area Board of Zoning Appeals has seen a significant increase in variance petitions, explaining that, for example, forty percent(40%) of parking variances that come before the ABZA have to do with parking in the mixed use district, and each of those variances is granted. She stated, That's always a clear sign to us, as the planning staff, that that's probably a section of our ordinance that's broken and needs to be addressed. Councilmember Scott asked, So, the City has blessed these changes? Ms. Smith responded, This is a conjunction between the Building Department, the Department of Community Investment, our office, and the Engineering office. Councilmember Scott asked, Does this streamline business? Ms. Smith responded, This should encourage development within the City. 5 REGULAR MEETING November 13, 2017 This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill,proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Those from the public wishing to speak in favor of this bill: Michael Divita, the Department of Community Investment, with offices on the 14th Floor of the County-City Building, South Bend, IN, stated that the proposed bills would allow for better blending of development projects into their respective neighborhoods as well as greater investment by small business owners, would allow better urban design outcomes in an urban context, and would allow development projects that are less intense than the zoning ordinance allows to proceed while leaving room in the zoning for future allowable uses as the market and land uses change over time. Addressing Councilmember Scott's question about the number of variances that would be resolved by these bills, Mr. Divita stated that anywhere between fifteen (15%) and fifty percent(50%) would be taken care of by these bills. Jesse Davis, P.O. Box 10205, South Bend, IN, stated that he is in favor of these bills if they help bring more people downtown and help businesses to thrive. Mr. Davis stated that outdoor seating and right-of-way landscaping is a problem downtown, elaborating to state that navigating the walkways when there is any semblance of a crowd downtown is very difficult. He asked, Did they take all that into consideration,before you pass this, to make sure that this is ADA- compliant, and that people that are handicapped are going to be able to maneuver around with all the extra landscaping in the right-of-way and these outdoor seating areas? None from the public wished to speak in opposition to this bill. Angela Smith returned to the podium for a rebuttal. Ms. Smith stated that, regarding ADA- compliance of outdoor seating, federal law trumps the local zoning ordinance. She stated that the zoning laws apply to privately owned property, so if there are any issues with the right-of-way they would be covered by the Board of Public Works. And, regarding landscaping, Ms. Smith stated that as it occurs in the tree-lawn and not the crosswalk, landscaping would not be affected by ADA-compliance. Councilmember Oliver Davis asked if the issues brought up by Jesse Davis and at the committee meeting were all handled by the Board of Public Works. Ms. Smith responded, In the downtown area?Probably. There's nothing in these ordinances that change the setback requirements or change the placement requirements. All of the areas that are addressed require that they not obstruct any safe travel to a business. Councilmember Davis asked if the Board of Public Works has the power to enforce ordinances through the Building Department, Code Enforcement, the Police Department, or if it would be a Council action or under the discretion of the Mayor. Ms. Smith responded, As far as I know, the Board of Public Works has complete control over anything that happens in the right-of-way. I believe, as the Mayor was speaking of earlier, with City-owned property the City has the right to enforce anything within that, and that would cover anything in the right-of-way. Councilmember Davis asked, So, they are not enforcing that issue that Mr. Davis was talking about, possibly? Ms. Smith responded, I'm not sure of the answer to that. Councilmember Davis responded, Let me rephrase that: if there's a problem with enforcement, we have to address that as a Board of Public Works issue? Ms. Smith responded, Correct. Councilmember Jo M. Broden asked, What would your department provide in terms of disseminating these changes to the public? Ms. Smith responded that on the APC website the ordinances are updated within a week of change. She stated that in anticipation of these ordinance changes,her department has met with groups such as the Board of Realtors and the Homeowners Association. Ms. Smith stated that the 6 REGULAR MEETING November 13, 2017 APC has discussed highlighting such changes on the APC website for the convenience of the public. Councilmember Tim Scott made a motion to send Bill No. 72-17 to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Councilmember Karen White seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight(8) ayes. Councilmember Tim Scott made a motion to send Bill No. 73-17 to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Councilmember Karen White seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. Councilmember Tim Scott made a motion to send Bill No. 74-17 to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Councilmember Randy Kelly seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. 78-17 PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,AMENDING A SECTION OF CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 6, SECTION 2-84.14 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO TAX ABATEMENTS Councilmember Tim Scott made a motion to continue Bill No. 78-17 indefinitely. Councilmember Dr. David Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. 79-17 PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING SECTIONS 2-84.9(c)AND 2-84.9 (e) OF CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 6 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO TAX ABATEMENTS Councilmember Tim Scott made a motion to continue Bill No. 79-17 indefinitely. Councilmember Dr. David Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. RISE AND REPORT Councilmember Karen White made a motion to rise and report to full Council. Councilmember Dr. David Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. REGULAR MEETING RECONVENED Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Bend reconvened in the Council Chambers on the fourth floor of the County-City building at 7:32 p.m. Council President Tim Scott presided with eight(8) members present BILLS —THIRD READING BILL NO. 72-17 THIRD READING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA,AMENDING 7 REGULAR MEETING November 13, 2017 CHAPTER 21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ARTICLE 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO AMEND AVERAGE FRONT SETBACK PROVISIONS; ARTICLE 3 COMMERCIAL/MIXED USE DISTRICTS TO REMOVE MAXIMUM AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR OUTDOOR SEATING FOR RESTAURANTS IN THE O OFFICE DISTRICT, LB LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND CB COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND ADD PROVISION TO ALLOW OUTDOOR SEATING IN THE GB GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT; AND ARTICLE 7 GENERAL REGULATIONS TO ALLOW REQUIRED LANDSCAPING TO BE PLACED WITHIN RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EXEMPT THE MU MIXED USE DISTRICT FROM MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. Councilmember Karen White made a motion to pass Bill No. 72-17. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic seconded the motion which carried by a roll call vote of eight(8) ayes. 73-17 THIRD READING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ARTICLE 1 BASIC PROVISIONS TO REVISE CLEAR SIGHT AREA REQUIREMENTS AND PRIVATE STREET WIDTHS, ARTICLE 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO REVISE GRADE LEVEL IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS, AND ARTICLE 3 COMMERCIAL/MIXED USE DISTRICTS TO REVISE DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITY STANDARDS Councilmember Karen White made a motion to pass Bill No. 73-17. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic seconded the motion which carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) ayes. 74-17 THIRD READING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ARTICLE 1 BY ALLOWING USES PERMITTED IN A LESS INTENSE DISTRICT TO BE PERMITTED IN A MORE INTENSE DISTRICT Councilmember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to pass Bill No. 74-17. Councilmember Karen White seconded the motion which carried by a roll call vote of eight(8) ayes. 8 REGULAR MEETING November 13, 2017 RESOLUTIONS BILL NO. 17-70 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROVING A PETITION OF THE AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3419 W. WASHINGTON STREET Councilmember Oliver Davis, chair of the Zoning and Annexation Committee,reported that they met this afternoon and send this bill forward with a favorable recommendation. Ayoka Paek, Zoning and Business Services Administrator, the Building Department,with offices at 125 Lafayette Boulevard, Suite 100, South Bend, IN, served as the presenter of this bill. Ms. Paek stated, This special exception petition for a community center and an SF2, Single-Family and Two (2)-Family District, comes to you with a favorable recommendation from the Area Board of Zoning Appeals. The ABZA also approved some parking and landscaping variances as part of the petition. The building, as it exists now, is a legally nonconforming building, and proposed changes require that a special exception be applied for before we can issue any permit for it.No one spoke in remonstrance at the ABZA meeting. Chris Chalkley, 325 South Lafayette Boulevard, South Bend, IN, served as the petitioner of this bill. Mr. Chalkley stated that he has been working with Jones Petrie Rafinski and the Venues Parks &Arts Department on the improvement of the Charles Black Center's offices, gymnasium, and other items, and the expansion of the front entrance. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. None from the public wished to speak in favor of or opposition to this bill. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to adopt Bill No. 17-70. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) ayes. BILLS FIRST READING BILL NO. 80-17 FIRST READING ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND AND THE COUNTY OF ST. JOSEPH TO PROVIDE CITY MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY (THE HPC) AND AMENDING CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 4, SECTION 2- 13, SUB-PART(B) (7) OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCLUDE THIS AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY INVESTMENT Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to send Bill No. 80-17 to the Community Investment Committee for November 27th. 2017. Councilmember Karen White seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9 REGULAR MEETING November 13, 2017 BILL NO. 17-74 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA APPROVING A PETITION OF THE AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 926 S. ERSKINE PLAZA Councilmember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to send Bill No. 17-74 to the Area Board of Zoning Appeals for December 6t", 2017 and set it for Second and Third Reading on December 11th, 2017. Councilmember Jo M. Broden seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. BOYD VS. HPC APPEAL- COA 42017-0602A As Mr. Eric Boyd was not present at the commencement of the hearing, the Council—after some deliberation on what precisely to do in light of this—decided to take a five (5)minute break. Councilmember Dr. David Varner made a motion to take a five (5) minute recess at 7:43 p.m. Councilmember Jo M. Broden seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight(8) ayes. The Council reconvened at 7:48 p.m. I - Councilmember Tim Scott Provides the Rules of the Proceedings: Councilmember Tim Scott explained, Under this process,the petitioner will have a maximum of twenty (20)minutes to make a presentation of the case, which needs to address specific issues under review, stating the position by the petitioner, or his or her attorney,relative witness statements, if there are any, and requested action which the petitioner is seeking. After that, the Historic Preservation Commission will have a maximum of twenty (20) minutes to include a statement of position of HPC, or attorney, relevant witness statements, if any, and request action of the HPC. The petitioner will have a maximum of five (5) minutes for rebuttal. The Common Council may ask questions of the party up to the maximum of fifteen (15) minutes for this portion of the public hearing. The Common Council shall review actions of the HPC and the appeal before them to determine whether actions are, one (1), arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with ethical law; or two (2), contrary to constitutional rights of power, privilege, or immunity; or three (3), in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority limitations, or statutory rights; or four (4), without observation of the procedures required by ethical law and/or ordinance, and/or supported by substantial evidence. Each Councilmember, having the opportunity to comment before the motion of this position on the appeal process, is accepted by the Chairperson. Proper motions of the Common Council be acknowledged by the Chairperson of either sustaining the action of the HPC or overruling their decision based on the evidence provided by the parties and the governing law, followed by the roll call vote by the Common Council. The Office of the Clerk shall, within a reasonable period of time, send confirmation of the Common Council's actions to all parties maintaining minutes of the public hearing as part of the regular meeting with the Common Council. At this point, the Common Council is acting in a quasi-judicial role on this. The public does not have any input on this. This is Mr. Boyd making his case, and HPC making their case, and then it's back to Council for questions and final ruling. II - Opening Statement, Mr. Eric Boyd: Eric Boyd, 1240 West Thomas Street, South Bend, IN, approached the podium to present his case to the Common Council. Mr. Boyd stated that he was present on behalf of himself, those at the Thomas Street property, and the west side of South Bend, to appeal the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission. Mr. Boyd stated that the property at 1240 West Thomas Street is a historic property of St. Joseph County. In September, 2016, Mr. Boyd submitted his first COA. He received notice of hearing, an agenda of the HPC, which included descriptions of the structure, staff recommendations, and photos taken by the HPC. His application for the COA 10 REGULAR MEETING November 13, 2017 was denied, and, afterward, he was given proper notice of an upcoming municipal administrative hearing and given a copy of evidence before the meeting. Mr. Boyd stated that his second submission of an application for a COA went differently, in June, 2017. According to Mr. Boyd,the HPC failed to issue a notice of the hearing, withheld evidence,photos, staff reports, and staff recommendations from multiple applicants during the June 19th, 2017 municipal administrative meeting. He stated that the HPC knowingly violated policies and procedures, and that commissioners admitted as much but offered no documents to be inspected by applicants at the hearing. Instead, Mr. Boyd stated, blame was redirected toward the St. Joseph County Building Department's mail room. Mr. Boyd found many discrepancies between the HPC's interpretation of the matter and his own. He stated that the staff report contained no information on the building permit given to him for the current roof. In addition, according to Mr. Boyd, the HPC's interpretation of the structural engineer's report was incorrect. The HPC noted deficiencies in the property's current roof, but the St. Joseph County Building Department structural engineer did not recognize deficiencies in his report—it was noted therein that the roof, whose construction was permitted by the St. Joseph County Building Department, was simply incomplete. Mr. Boyd directed the Council to Exhibit J, a remedy given by the Building Department stating that if the HPC granted the permit for the roof as-is,the Building Department could move forward with the remedy. This document was not given to commissioners voting on Mr. Boyd's case. The HPC President stated that"long-term preservation of the structure and safety of its occupants are not served by this installation." Mr. Boyd stated that the HPC's jurisdiction, by virtue of the Common Council, is restricted to the exteriors of historical properties. He stated, Nowhere in the South Bend Municipal Code does it give HPC the right or power to issue occupancy permits or determine the structure's shortened lifespan because of the roof choice. According to Mr. Boyd,the Building Department structural engineer requested that a State- registered engineer evaluated the project. Mr. Boyd stated, The engineer's findings differ from the HPC's non jurisdictional opinions. Mr. Boyd recounted for the Council a timeline of events (in which he referred to himself as "the applicant"): 1. The applicant submitted a building permit, blueprints, and elevations to the Building Department in 2015. 2. A building permit was issued, and the applicant proceeded to construct the roof. 3. Approximately one (1) year later, the HPC pressured the Department to revoke the permit. 4. In HPC's original letter of denial, dated September 19th, 2016, they made claims that the applicant had received assistance from the Department of Community Investment. The applicant had requested funding from DCI since 2015,and that has yet to materialize. It took seventeen(17) months for DCI to respond to the applicant original email inquiry in 2015; it took fifty-three (53) days to receive an email response in 2017. 5. On December 80'. 2016, a temporary improvement construction trailer permit was reviewed by the Zoning and Business Administrator and was issued by the St. Joseph County Building Commissioner, despite the HPC's unfiled claims. Mr. Boyd stated that the HPC operated without observance of the proper policies and procedures in failing to send due notice of municipal administrative hearings to the relevant applicants. A document providing evidence to be used during the municipal administrative hearing, dated June 14th, 2017, was not received by Mr. Boyd until a week after the meeting had passed. Mr. Boyd stated, The applicant finds this to be substandard, unprofessional, and inconsistent with the administrative practices of other historic preservation commissions in the State of Indiana. He stated that the HPC violated Public Access Law IC 5-14-1 by failing to comply and properly mail public administrative hearing documents; by failing to notify parties of the completion and availability of the COA, staff reports, or staff recommendations for public inspection. Mr. Boyd stated that the Common Council had given the HPC the power to award an applicant a COA even if the construction of the property is deemed not architecturally appropriate or correct, however the HPC refuses to evaluate the totality of the situation and regard the hardship caused 11 REGULAR MEETING November 13, 2017 to Mr. Boyd due to the denial of the COA. Mr. Boyd, in the previous appeal meeting before the Common Council, had asked the HPC for a preservation plan for the property and,to this day, has not received one (1). In the first appeal submitted to the HPC, Mr. Boyd sought, in addition to the rear, a partial roof. In this meeting,the appeal in question is one (1) asking for a mono roof. Mr. Boyd stated, The City issued the permit, we executed the permit,the City stopped the permit. That is the difference between the two (2) appeals. We are also asking for an open courtyard. The structural engineer has reviewed the plans. There are no issues with the courtyard. Mr. Boyd concluded, stating that he was present as a resident of the west side, asking for the City to help complete the renovation of the building they built; asking not for vacancies but for development in the west side. II.a—Testimony, Ms. Kirstin Champer: Kirstin Champer, spouse of Mr. Eric Boyd, 1240 West Thomas Street, South Bend, IN, approached the podium, as a witness,to speak on the topic of the aforementioned economic hardships brought on by the denial of the COA by the HPC. Ms. Champer stated that the police reports included in the packet given to the Council include reports of BB guns used to vandalize the dump truck present on the property, as well as windows of the facility proper. It had to be cleaned up and a dumping fee had to be paid. A security system had to be installed, as well. Ms. Champer explained that when it was obvious to the neighborhood that the facility was being restored,there were few problems. On the other hand, once restoration stopped and the building had the air of vacancy, it started to attract unwanted attention again. II.b—Testimony, Mr. Michael Clark: Michael Clark, 1222 West Western Avenue, South Bend, IN, approached the podium, as a witness. Mr. Clark stated that he has known Mr. Boyd since he began the project of restoring the old firehouse. He stated that he has not seen anyone else put money into that part of town like Mr. Boyd has. He stated that Mr. Boyd sought out a permit,put in the money and put in the work, and that if the HPC wants a flat roof, they should pay for it themselves. lI.c—Opening Statement,the Historic Preservation Commission: Brandie Ecker, Attorney at Thorne Grodnik, LLP, 420 Lincoln Way West, South Bend, IN, approached the podium to present the case on behalf of the Historic Preservation Commission. Ms. Ecker stated that Mr. Boyd originally applied for and received, on or about November 10th 2011, a routine maintenance exemption to "replace metal roofing to secure the burned out landmark and protect from the elements."The RME was only for repairs to the current roof and not for the construction of a different roof style, and it was originally for one (1) year and was extended, upon request, until November 10th, 2013. Mr. Boyd, instead of repairing the roof as per the RME began construction of a gabled, asymmetrical roof sometime after the RME expired in 2013. Sometime between 2015 and 2016, Mr. Boyd applied for a building permit,then sometime later applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness. That application was for modifications to the building. The COA was unanimously denied by members of the HPC present at the meeting of September 19th, 2016. The denial was appealed to the Common Council where it was upheld by a tied vote. Mr. Boyd then appealed the denial to the St. Joseph County Superior Court, where the appeal was dismissed—first, against the HPC, the St. Joseph County Council, and the St. Joseph County Building Department, then,two (2) months later, against the City of South Bend. Ms. Ecker stated that Mr. Boyd applied for another COA on June 2nd, 2017. The COA was, again, unanimously denied by the HPC on June 19th, 2017. The HPC mailed a copy of its findings on June 23`d, 2017, setting forth the reasons for their denial of the COA—in summary, that the roof would not meet the existing or historical character of the building, that the materials that would be used to construct the roof were omitted from the application, and that the proposed modification did not satisfy the criteria for a COA. Ms. Ecker stated that Mr. Boyd's first COA application and second application are identical. The HPC denied the first application, and so, on the grounds that this application is no different than the previous one (1), Ms. Ecker argued,the denial should be upheld. She stated that even if the Council votes in favor of Mr. Boyd, Mr. Boyd's proposed basis for reversing the HPC's denial are inappropriate. She stated that the 12 REGULAR MEETING November 13, 2017 Council may only reverse the HPC's decision for the reasons enumerated by Councilmember Scott, and that most of Mr. Boyd's contentions are irrelevant to those considerations. According to Ms. Ecker, the HPC did send their meeting notice in the mail, meeting their administrative policy requirement. Ms. Ecker explained that the onus is placed on the applicant to receive any notices that have been sent by the HPC. Additionally, the HPC is empowered to draw up a preservation plan but is not required to do so. She stated that the HPC is required to consider three (3) factors in requests for COA's: appropriateness of the proposed action,the detriment to the public welfare if the action is permitted even if it is not deemed appropriate, and the potential hardship of the denial. Though Mr. Boyd stated that the HPC did not consider his hardship in their evaluation, Ms. Ecker stated that the HPC considered it several times in the June 19th, 2017 meeting, even suggesting ways in which Mr. Boyd could reuse the materials he spent money on to construct the roof, among other things. Ms. Ecker stated, It was Mr. Boyd's decision to go ahead and have the Commission vote on the application as it stood, which they then did. IIA—Testimony, Ms. Elicia Feasel: Alicia Feasel, Historic Preservation Commission of South Bend and St. Joseph County, approached the podium as a witness. Ms. Feasel stated that she agrees with everything stated by the HPC's counsel. Ms. Feasel stated that she wanted to impressed upon the Council the fact that this is a repeat of the previous appeal that was brought before them. She stated that the Commission is only concerned with the exterior aesthetics of a historic property, adding that she was not privy to any request to observe the interior of the property in question. Ms. Feasel explained that the only power commissioners have is to issue a routine maintenance exemption, which they did for Mr. Boyd,which was to fix and finished the flat roof. The previous director gave Mr. Boyd leeway in allowing him to use metal in the construction of the roof. The current design—an asymmetrical, gabled roof that drops off exposing an open courtyard—is what the HPC deems inappropriate. Ms. Feasel stated that Mr. Boyd had several times in his statement made the point that the HPC thinks that other departments or agencies should pay for the roof. She stated that she surmises that the origin of this statement is the fact that certain commissioners have recommended to Mr. Boyd agencies and the like for funding. The HPC, according to Ms. Feasel, has been in support of Mr. Boyd, even writing letters of support for tax abatements, et cetera. The HPC, Ms. Feasel stated, is doing its duty and upholding City ordinance by declaring the proposed roof inappropriate. A proposition made by the HPC was for Mr. Boyd to provide quotes that show that a flat roof would be beyond his fiscal capacity. Another proposition made by the architect on the board was to provide a quote of how much it would cost to reuse the materials—donated to him for the current roof—to reformat the roof into a hipped roof that could cover the entire property. Mr. Boyd has not provided the HPC with quotes for either. Ms. Feasel concluded stating that she is eager to hear the Council's vote, but explained that this should not be a matter for the HPC but should have been turned over safety agencies. II.e—Conclusion of Opening Statement, the Historic Preservation Commission: In conclusion, Ms. Ecker reiterated the bases upon which the Council could reverse the HPC's decision: That its actions are found to be arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with ethical law; contrary to constitutional rights of power,privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority limitations, or statutory rights; without observation of the procedures required by ethical law and/or ordinance, and/or supported by substantial evidence. She stated that the proposed roof would destroy the historical value of the landmark, and asked the Council uphold the HPC's denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness. III—Rebuttal, Mr. Eric Boyd: 13 REGULAR MEETING November 13, 2017 Mr. Boyd stated that Commissioner Molnar suggested that the HPC work with the Department of Community Investment,regarding neighborhood resources. He also stated that he had submitted a quote for the flat roof to the HPC at the previous appeal, dated August 27th, 2013, in which the membrane of the roof was quoted at$23,000, which was why he went with an asymmetrical roof. Mr. Boyd stated that transcripts of the meetings with the HPC are available that can corroborate his statements. Referring to Ms. Feasel's statements regarding the HPC attempting to aid him, Mr. Boyd stated that transcripts would reveal that there were discussions with Legal regarding drawing up citations against him. Mr. Boyd concluded by asking the Council for help with this situation. Before leaving the podium, Mr. Boyd present the notice of the hearing which, he stated,was still sealed, and arrived a week after the municipal administrative meeting. IV—Questions from Councilmember Gavin Ferlic: Councilmember Gavin Ferlic asked Mr. Boyd what the date of the postmark on the notice was, to which Mr. Boyd responded, It's June 14th, 2017. Councilmember Ferlic asked Mr. Boyd for the date of the meeting, which was June 19th, 2017. Councilmember Ferlic confirmed that the notice was sent before the meeting, and also that, despite that, Mr. Boyd received it a week after the meeting. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic asked the HPC what the differences between the two (2) COA applications were, asking in addition whether or not the applications were completely identical. Ms. Feasel stated that it was the written portion of the application that had changed. IV.a—Questions from Councilmember Karen White: Councilmember Karen White asked if the HPC had gotten in contact with Code Enforcement and the Building Department regarding this matter, given what Ms. Feasel stated regarding the matter being an issue for safety agencies. Ms. Feasel stated that there was a recent Code Enforcement meeting in which the roof was found to be in violation of code, but the whole process was restarted by Mr. Boyd's submission of another application of a COA. So long as this appeal process goes on, Ms. Feasel explained, the involvement of the Building Department and Code Enforcement is put on hold. Ms. Ecker stated that it is not clear, at this point, whether or not there are safety issues at play, but that those assessments cannot be made until this appeal process is complete. Ms. Feasel stated that an inspection process should have taken place before the submission of a second COA application. Councilmember White stated that, from what she has gathered from statements made this evening, mistakes were made in terms of communication between the HPC and Mr. Boyd. Ms. Feasel asked if Councilmember White was referring to the circumstances surrounding the first application, to which Councilmember White responded that she was. Ms. Ecker stated that the circumstances surrounding the first application have no bearing on the current appeal and are only relevant insomuch that the proposals made in both applications are very similar, and the Council upheld the HPC's previous denial of a COA to Mr. Boyd. Councilmember White stated, I'm fully aware of that. IV.b—Question from Councilmember Oliver Davis: Councilmember Oliver Davis asked Mr. Boyd what the difference between the two (2)proposals is. Mr. Boyd stated, The difference is that what was submitted to me was for a whole roof. We also gave them an estimate—I think it was between$8,000 and$10,000—to complete the whole building in order to satisfy them. In the last appeal, which was in June, we only asked to roof half of the building. IV.c— Questions from Councilmember Dr. David Varner: 14 REGULAR MEETING November 13, 2017 Councilmember Dr. David Varner asked the HPC if the building was historically designated before Mr. Boyd took it on, to which Ms. Feasel responded that it was. Councilmember Dr. Varner stated that Mr. Boyd had in the past provided plans for a complete roof, to which Ms. Feasel responded that though Mr. Boyd stated that it was a complete roof, it was not actually a complete roof. Councilmember Dr. Varner asked if the HPC's legal obligation is to deny a COA if an element of a property is deemed inappropriate, to which Ms. Feasel responded that it was. Ms. Feasel added, If a complete roof in this shape is inappropriate,then a half-roof in that shape is probably even more inappropriate. Councilmember Dr. Varner then asked if the St. Joseph County Building Department could supersede the HPC's authority and overrule their decision, to which Ms. Ecker responded it could not. Councilmember Dr. Varner asked the same question to Council Attorney Bob Palmer,who echoed Ms. Ecker. IVA—Question from Councilmember Jo M. Broden: Councilmember Jo M. Broden asked Mr. Boyd if his proposal could be broken down into the following three (3) asks: the roofing of half of the building, an additional mono roof in the rear, and an open courtyard. Mr. Boyd responded that that was correct. IV.e—Questions from Councilmember Randy Kelly: Councilmember Randy Kelly asked Mr. Boyd, In your opinion, sir, what about the HPC's actions are specifically arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of their discretion? Mr. Boyd responded that the HPC has the option to regard the totality of the situation and take into account the applicant's hardship. He stated that in denying him a COA, the HPC has effectively stated that they do not acknowledge his hardship. Councilmember Kelly stated that just as the HPC has the option to grant a COA in cases of hardship,they also have the option to deny it. This, Councilmember Kelly argued, is not necessarily arbitrary or capricious or an abuse. Mr. Boyd responded, My understanding is that,behind the scenes, my interaction with Community Investment was that they were willing to pay for a portion of the flat roof, but they were instructed by the HPC not to fund the project. So, I'm really confused as to if it's the roof we're fighting over, or is there a deeper issue? IV.f=Questions from Councilmember Regina Williams-Preston: Councilmember Regina Williams-Preston asked the HPC what the nature of the communication between them and DCI was regarding the funding of the roof. Ms. Feasel stated that she had had many email exchanges with Jacob Alexander of DCI and in none of them did she presume to have any sway over their decision-making. She stated that she only ever spoke on the merits of the HPC's meetings and the reasons behind their decisions. Ms. Ecker echoed Ms. Feasel's statement. Councilmember Williams-Preston stated that she would like to hear a statement from Jacob Alexander on the matter. She stated that she was concerned about the fact that the HPC sent out their meeting notice the Wednesday before their Monday meeting, leaving two (2) business days for the receipt of the notice by Mr. Boyd. Councilmember Williams-Preston stated that she has never seen an important document arrive in two (2) days with guarantee. She then asked the HPC what exactly was mailed to Mr. Boyd. Ms. Feasel responded that they mailed an agenda and a staff report pertaining to his particular project. Councilmember Williams-Preston stated that she has concerns about the procedures in place, regarding communicating in a timely manner with applicants. She also stated that it was also concerning that a permit was issued mistakenly. 15 REGULAR MEETING November 13, 2017 Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to extend the allotted time for the Council portion of the hearing by ten(10) minutes. Councilmember Karen White seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. Councilmember Williams-Preston stated that she understood that the HPC is not obligated to create a preservation plan for an applicant, but wondered under which circumstances would the HPC not provide a preservation plan. Ms. Feasel responded, Well, we start with the basic framework of the Group B standards, and those are standard for all of the designated landlords of the City and the County. If we were specifically asked to give a plan, we would probably assess if we have the staff time available to us to do so, and we would most likely do it. Councilmember Williams-Preston stated that Mr. Boyd has stated that he has not received a plan. Councilmember Williams-Preston asked why he was not provided with a plan. Ms. Feasel responded, I'm not allowed to enter the building without permission. I wasn't specifically requested to develop a plan. Councilmember Williams-Preston asked Mr. Boyd if he had requested a plan,to which Mr. Boyd responded that he had several times done so. Councilmember Williams-Preston asked whether or not Mr. Boyd had this in writing. Mr. Boyd stated that he had made his requests verbally, by phone, and was told that he had to schedule time to come into the building. Councilmember Williams-Preston asked if progress on the possibility of a preservation plan halted because the HPC wanted to gain entry into the building. Mr. Boyd stated that that was correct,that he did not think it wise to let them into the building while there were discussions of citations against him. He stated that he has welcomed them to draw up a plan for the exterior for five (5) years. IV.2—Questions from Councilmember Tim Scott: Councilmember Tim Scott asked how many times the HPC and Mr. Boyd had met one-on-one regarding this issue. Ms. Feasel responded, Prior to the roof being constructed without the HPC's approval, we were meeting regularly. I would say that Eric popped into the office every other month. Councilmember Scott asked, After the roof? Ms. Feasel responded that Mr. Boyd came into the office very rarely after the roof had been constructed. Councilmember Scott stated, But you two (2)have not worked together for a solution. Ms. Feasel responded, Yes, we did. She explained that when the addition to the rear had been approved by the HPC, the HPC was instructed to help Mr. Boyd, so they helped with coming up with a plan for the windows. Ms. Feasel invited Mr. Boyd to the HPC office, Mr. Boyd complied, and they worked out a plan together. Councilmember Scott asked Mr. Boyd what the quote was for the flat roof, to which Mr. Boyd responded, $23,000. Councilmember Scott asked Mr. Boyd why he did not seek out other quotes. When Mr. Boyd struggled to articulate his reasoning, Councilmember Scott asked, Sticker shock? Mr. Boyd responded, Yeah,pretty much. IV.h — Questions from Councilmember Oliver Davis: Councilmember Oliver Davis asked why the HPC needed access to the interior to make a preservation plan for the exterior of the facility. Ms. Feasel stated that she had not personally offered to or asked to see the interior of the facility, and that she has not received a request for a preservation plan from Mr. Boyd. 16 REGULAR MEETING November 13, 2017 Mr. Boyd stated he has on numerous occasions asked for a preservation plan and that, furthermore, it would be easier to satisfy the HPC's renovation standards if all nine (9)members of the Commission agreed on them. He stated that in the last hearing it had been revealed by the Commission itself that they had not created a preservation plan for an applicant in approximately forty-seven(47) years. IV.i–Questions from Councilmember Tim Scott: Councilmember Tim Scott asked, If this is denied, at this point, what do you do with the roof? What do you do with the building? Mr. Boyd stated that Code Enforcement has given him sixty(60) days to finish this project, adding that he has been robbed of three-hundred and sixty five (365) days by the HPC's invalidation of his building permit. Councilmember Tim Scott asked, But you continue no matter how this comes out? Mr. Boyd responded, If we could move forward with the permit, that would be great. IV.i –Questions from Councilmember Reizina Williams-Preston: Councilmember Regina Williams-Preston asked Mr. Boyd if there would be any hardship from a denial of COA and to define that hardship. Mr. Boyd responded that Code Enforcement had given him sixty(60) days to complete what is normally allotted two (2) years' time to complete. He stated, That is my hardship. V–Motion of the Common Council: Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to overrule the decision, by the Historic Preservation Commission,to deny Mr. Eric Boyd a Certificate of Appropriateness. Councilmember Karen White seconded the motion which carried by a roll call vote of six (6) ayes and two (2) nays (Councilmembers Jo M. Broden and Dr. David Varner). Councilmember Dr. David Varner asked Council Attorney Bob Palmer, Where then does this head next? There's no requirement to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness as part of our action. This simply overturning the denial of the- Councilmember Tim Scott interjected, Mr. Boyd still has to follow the rules of the Building Department and Code Enforcement on everything going forward. It is basically considered a variance to the Historic Preservation on this application only. Any other changes to the exterior of this building have to go back through HPC. The only thing that you're getting dispensation on is the roof, at this time. I wish you the best of luck, and I wish that this works in cooperation with HPC, moving forward. Mr. Palmer, addressing Councilmember Dr. Varner, explained that this Council decision requires the HPC to grant Mr. Boyd a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed roof of the firehouse. Councilmember Jo M. Broden asked if there was a timeframe in which Mr. Boyd is required to finish the project. Councilmember Scott responded that that is between Code Enforcement and Mr. Boyd. Councilmember Oliver Davis stated he hopes that the pertinent departments and agencies dealing with Mr. Boyd, going forward, would be cognizant of fairness in light of a year of the Building Department's "inadequacies"in their handling of this situation. Councilmember Davis stated that giving Mr. Boyd sixty (60) days to do two (2) years of work is unfair. 17 REGULAR MEETING November 13, 2017 NEW BUSINESS Councilmember Oliver Davis stated, I was just glad that Councilwoman Williams-Preston and I and the Mayor were able to join with the opening of Western Avenue the new extension for that. I'm looking forward to that being extended up to Falcon Street, and to follow along the recommendation that was passed several years ago. Now, we're up to Dundee, and we'll continue to go west. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Jesse Davis, P.O. Box 10205, South Bend, IN, stated that advocates for the homeless are appreciative of what's going on regarding the City's tackling of its homelessness crisis, but he disapproves of the fact that the City spent $3,000,000 to build the Fuse Center when there is a another candidate building, purchasable for$500,000, that has been renovated, and has thirty (30) rooms and office space. Mr. Davis stated that the Mayor's working group did not consist of many of the advocates Mr. Davis among whom Mr. Davis would count himself, and that the final report of the working group made little mention of helpful measures for mental health. He stated that it is exceedingly difficult to get help for mental health and that many of the homeless have mental health issues. Mr. Davis also pointed out that there are still housing barriers in place—such as the fact there are more housing managers to deal with than landlords and that there are credit checks that stop homeless applicants at the first step—that will challenge the endeavor to house the homeless. John Shafer, 2206 Miami Street, South Bend, IN, stated that there is not sufficient warm shelter space for the homeless in South Bend, and that he urges the City to be in communication with the homeless—to let their voice be heard,to be shown respect in all matters. Between Weather Amnesty and Project Fuse, there are only eighty-seven(87)beds available for the over one- hundred and fifty (15 0) homeless in the city. Mr. Shafer stated, This simply is not good enough. Mr. Shafer stated that Thomas Rebman, a noted homeless solutions expert,visited South Bend in February and March to advise the City as to how it could solve its homelessness problem, but that his recommendations were ignored. Mr. Shafer stated, I would like to know why his recommendations were ignored and why the Mayor won't meet with him. Charles Smith, 2011 South Warren Street, South Bend, IN, stated that homelessness is often the culmination of many other hardships for a person. Mr. Smith stated that the encampment under the bridge is not blocking the right-of-way and that the skids that were ordered by Mayor Buttigieg to be removed should technically be considered the property of those in the encampment, and that their rights to that property should be protected. He suggested a bill of rights for the homeless be created by the City, following the lead of Indianapolis. Mr. Smith stated that, as there are not twenty-four(24) hour bathrooms in South Bend, the homeless are forced to urinate publicly. He urged for the provision of temporary waste facilities for the homeless. Henry Davis, Jr., 5117 Idlewood Drive, South Bend, IN, echoed Mr. Smith's statement regarding a homeless bill of rights. Mr. Davis stated that time on the issue of homelessness would be better spent acting legislatively than discussing without action things like the number of homeless people in the city. Cody Williams, 20880 Roycroft Drive, South Bend, IN, stated that he was present with a petition with over four-hundred(400) signatures, regarding the disrespectful treatment of the homeless in particular, signs in downtown South Bend discouraging the donation of dollars to panhandlers. Mr. Williams compared these to signs that state "don't feed the animals," adding that he found the matter disconcerting. Jason Heuberger, 808 East Bowman Street, South Bend, IN, stated that the notion that panhandling is a protected form of speech has been upheld in many courts throughout the United States. Mr. Heuberger noted one (1)particular case where the judge stated that he made no distinction between a charity soliciting donations for itself and a person doing so for his-or- herself. Mr. Heuberger stated that the City seems to be more concerned with having the image of 18 REGULAR MEETING November 13, 2017 not having a homelessness problem than actually solving the problem, all for the sake of drawing in investment and development. Otis Jones, 1412 South Carroll Street, South Bend, IN, stated that even at the hospital the homeless—including himself—have been told by the police that they cannot use the restroom. Mr. Jones stated that he has been told by the police to leave the hospital premises and that they warned him that if he returns, he will be arrested. David Vanderveen, 432 South Lafayette Boulevard, South Bend, IN, stated that though there are easy solutions to the homelessness problem in the short term, the long term solution is permanent supportive housing, and it is important not to lose sight of it. Mr. Vanderveen stated that he was present for Mr. Rebman's meetings regarding solving homelessness, and also stated that he felt that the Mayor's plan gets things about halfway to the goal and is headed in the correct direction. He emphasized, though,the need to not lose sight of the long term. Rolanda Hughes, 1029 Riverside Drive, South Bend, IN,thanked the City for recent appropriations its made, stating that the Gateway Center would be a great asset and that Project Fuse already has people in it. Ms. Hughes stated that though the Mayor's vision is good,the recent execution of that vision has been problematic. She stated that the reason Code Enforcement gave for the destruction of pallets at the encampment was public safety—that they prevented easy passage through the right-of-way. Ms. Hughes stated that that was a"red herring" and that even if all the pallets were still present, the walkway was wide enough to accommodate pedestrians. She stated to the Council that this is not their fault, but it is their responsibility to voice concerns to the Administration that the homeless have been treated inhumanely, and this issue has been handled poorly. Ms. Hughes pointed to the narrative that the homeless are not taking advantage of housing options available to them, stating that this narrative is untrue and that there is not enough emergency housing for the homeless in South Bend. Ms. Hughes also pointed out that though the Mayor stated that he does not intend to push the homeless away or make them feel unwelcome,the communications posted at the encampment calling for vacation within forty-eight(48) hours suggest the opposite. Michael Clark, 1121 North Olive Street, South Bend, IN, stated throwing millions of dollars at homelessness won't solve the problem, as one can only feed those who want to be fed. Yatish Joshi, 215 South Hawthorne Drive, South Bend, IN, stated homeless lives matter. Mr. Joshi thanked Councilmembers Regina Williams-Preston, Oliver Davis, and Karen White for working with community leaders to try to end the dire housing crisis, adding that he believes that by working together the residents of South Bend can find a creative solution to this problem. Jill Scicchitano, 217 South Michigan Street, South Bend, IN, stated that DTSB has, in 2017, spent more time on this issue than ever before. Ms. Scicchitano stated that DTSB supports a unified approach and coordinated leadership regarding the next steps of this issue, as well as permanent supportive housing. She stated that the issue of panhandling,homelessness, and the Opioid Epidemic is a nationwide one (1), and that a unified approach is crucial to dismantling this problem over time. Allan Klein, 1412 South Carroll Street, South Bend, IN, stated that he is glad that the City is doing what it is doing for the homeless, and that South Bend is a beautiful city that will come to attract many millions of people to it. Virginia Dicken, 2129 South Dorothy Street, South Bend, IN, stated that the values that attracted her and her partner to South Bend were not represented by the signs in the downtown area against panhandling. Ms. Dicken stated that the solutions that are known to work do not include this method. She urged the City to recognize that values of collaboration with and compassion for the homeless and all people are some of what drive people to want to live here. Councilmember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to extend the time allotted for Privilege of the Floor. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of eight (8) ayes. Clare Ross, 726 Cushing Street, South Bend, IN, stated that the number of homeless people in South Bend greatly exceeds the stated number of one-hundred and fifty (150), and that the 19 REGULAR MEETING November 13, 2017 problem does not simply get solved by providing beds. Ms. Ross stated, They need to be dealt with on all levels. The [issue of] women out here that are homeless is not being addressed. Their being invisible is not being addressed. Ms. Ross asked why homeless people were not recruited when the Mayor's working group was assembled. She concluded by stating, We're not talking about a house. We're talking about a home. Paula Kelly, 234 East Irvington Avenue, South Bend, IN, stated that the homeless do not choose to be homeless. Ms. Kelly stated that it is tragic that there are even homeless children in South Bend, adding that she believes that, with so many formats and venues for discussion on the issue, a solution to the problem must be out there. She expressed hope that the Council may help with the solution to the problem. Councilmember Oliver Davis suggested that a review of the Indianapolis homeless bill of rights by members of the Council take place in preparation for the next Health and Public Safety Committee meeting. Councilmember Davis invited the Mayor and Suzanna Fritzberg to join the discussion, widening his invitation to residents, the homeless, and even those residing outside of South Bend. Councilmember Tim Scott affirmed that this would be a priority at the next Health and Public Safety Committee meeting, informing the public that there is a forty-eight(48)hour notice given for any public meeting of the Council or the City's committees, and that that would be viewable to the public and disseminated through the media. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, President Tim Scott adjourned the meeting at 9:47 p.m. I 20