The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-10-10 Council Agenda & PacketAGENDA SOUTH BEND COMMON COUNCIL MDNDAY, MAY 10, 2010 ~;pp p,M, 1. INVOCATION 2. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. REPORT FROM THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON MINUTES 5. SPECIAL BUSINESS 10T22 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, HONORING ALL POLICE OFFICERS KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY AND DECLARING MAY 7, 2010 THROUGH MAY 15, 2010 AS LAW ENFORCEMENT MEMORIAL WEEK TN SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 6. REPORTS OF CITY OFFICES A. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS UPDATE GARY GILOT SAM HENSLEY 7. RESOLVE INTO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE TIME: BILL N0. 15.10 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 521 ECLIPSE PLACE, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 4662$, COUNCTLMANIC DISTRICT N0. 2, IN THE CITY QF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 16-10 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CLEVELAND RDAD AND MAYFLOWER ROAD, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46628, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT N0. 1, IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 8. BILLS, THIRD READING TIME: BILL NO. 15-10 THIRD READING ON A BILL AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE F(QR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 521 ECLIPSE PLACE, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46628, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT NO. 2, IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA. 16-10 THIRD READING ON A PILL AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CLEVELAND ROAD AND MAYFLOWER ROAD, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46528, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT NO. 1, IN THE CITY OF SOUTH SEND, INDIANA 9. RESOLUTIONS BILL NO. 10-20 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 6879 ENTERPRISE DRIVE 10-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROVING A PETITION DF THE AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT ].019, 1019 ~, 1021 NORTH ST. PETER STREET SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 1Q. BILLS, FIRST READING BILL N0. 23-10 FIRST READING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, ANNEXING TO AND BRINGING WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA CERTAIN LAND IN CENTRE TOWNSHIP, CONTIGUOUS THEREWITH; COUNCTLMANIC DISTRICT 5, LOUISE BERKHEISER, 60601 SOUTH MAIN STREET, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, 46614 24-10 FIRST READING ON A BILL AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATEp AT 850 FELLOWS STREET, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 45501- 3121, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT 2 IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR 14. ADJOURNMENT TIME: Honorable N.iembers of the City of February 25, 2010 South Bend Cnmmon Council 4~' Floor County-City Building South Bend, Indiana 45601 RE: Rezoning Petition fox South Bead Parks Department and South Bend Animal Control for property located at 52~. Eclipse Place, South Bend, Indiana 46628: Dear Council A~embers: Our clients are requesting the approval of a Rezoning Petition for the property located at 521 Eclipse Place, South Bend, Indiana. This requested Rezoning would allow far the re-locata~on of the City's Animal Shelter facility presently located on South Olive Street. This rezoning will allow for a larger and modern Animal Shelter facility, which will be operated by the City of South Bend. They believe this facility would be an acceptable use along this portion of Bendix Drive and Eclipse Plane with the other existing mixed uses in the neighborhood. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to give me a call at 234-4003. Sincerely, I~Yiehael 0°. Danc President Danch, Harney ~ Assooiates File AIo . 100113 "C" Md . ~ p. (. p ~- :,~ tea, ;~, ,!G~5`~ ~~'t~1F~utr /a{.q~ / ~a~7"~ ~ 1843 Commerce Drive ~ Soufh Bend, IN 46628 208 West Mars ® i3errien Springs, MI 49103 o~~~a 5741234-4003 ~ 8001594-4003 ~ Fax 5741234-4119 office 2891471-3010 ® Fax 2691471-7237 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 521 ECLIPSE PLACE SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46628, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT NO. 2, IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 521 ECLIPSE PLACE, SOUTH SEND, INDIANA AND IS PRESENTLY ZONED SF2 SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS REQUESTED TO BE REZONED TO THE GB GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR A CITY OPERATED ANIMAL SHELTER FACILITY. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA: SECTION I. ORDINANCE NO. 9495-04, IS AMENDED, WHICH ORDINANCE IS COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, SE 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: THAT A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, PORTAGE TOWNSHIP, CITY OF SOUTH BEND, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH-RIGHT'-OF-WAY LINE OF BENDIX DRIVE WITH THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GOODLAND AVE.; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF GOODLAND AVENUE A DISTANCE OF 467 FEET MORE OR LESS; THENCE EAST A DISTANCE OF 562 FEET MORE OR LESS; THENCE SOUTH PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID GOODLAND AVE. A DISTANCE OF 473 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID BENDIX DRIVE; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 562 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 6.19 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL LEGAL HIGHWAYS EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. BE AND THE SAME HEREBY ESTABLISHED AS GB GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. SECTION II. THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT FROM AND AFTER ITS PASSAGE BY THE COMMON COUNCIL, APPROVED BY THE MAYOR, AND LEGAL PUBLICATION. MEMBER OF THE COMMON CO CIL ~ ,.. _.. _ E_.t„e.6sic~~ n d'~ DATE FILED APPLICATION NO. DATE RECEIVED BY AREA PLAN COMMISSION I (WE) THE UNDERSIGNED MAKE APPLICATION TO THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS HEREIN REQUESTED. 1). THE PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE REZONED IS LOCATED: 521 ECLIPSE PLACE, SOUTH SEND, INDIANA 4662$. 2}. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROPERTY OWNER(S) OF THE PETITION SITE: SOUTH BEND PARKS DEPARTMENT AND SOUTH BEND ANIMAL CONTROL 321 EAST' WALTER STREET SOUTH BEND, IN 46614 PH. NO. 574-299-4765 3}.NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTINGENT PURCHASERS}, IF APPLICABLE: N/A 4). IT IS DESIRED AND REQUESTED THAT THIS PROPERTY BE REZONED: FROM: SF2 SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY DISTRICT T0: GB GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 5). THIS REZONING IS REQUESTED TO ALLOW THE FOLLOWING USE{S}: A). CITY OPERATED ANIMAL SHELTER {KENNEL) 6). ATTACHED IS A COPY OF (A) LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTX; (H} SEVENTEEN (17) PRELIMINARY SITE PLANS; (C} A STATEMENT OF PURPOSE .AND INTENT; (D) A LIST OF NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE TAX KEY NUMBERS FOR ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE PETITION PROPERTY; AND (E} ADDRESSED, STAMPED ENVELOPES FOR ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE PETITION PROPERT% (F} A LOCATION MAP, IF AVAILABLE, DRAWN TO SCALE, WHICH INCLUDES STREET NAMES, PRINTED IN $ '~" x 11" FORMAT. SIGNED, PETITIONED PREPARED SY: DANCH, HARNER & ASSOCIATES 1643 COMMERCE DRIVE SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 4662$ {574) 234-4003 t~'>p~~c ~6 ~,ii~ ~~t g~ ~1fx.R~p~ It ~_~:i ti 4~,.. b LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, PORTAGE TOWNSHIP, CITY OF SOUTH BEND, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH-RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BEND IX DRIVE WITH THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GOODLAND AVE.; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF GOODLAND AVENUE A DISTANCE OF 487 FEET MORE OR LESS; THENCE EAST A DISTANCE OF 562 FEET MORE OR LESS; THENCE SOUTH PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID GOODLAND AVE. A DISTANCE OF 473 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID BENDIX DRIVE; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 562 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 6.19 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL LEGAL HIGHWAYS EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. _ _ _ ,..~- 7: F~ .! ni~.nn Property Owners Within 300 Feet South Bend Community Schools Kenneth Washington Timothy G Scott 215 S. St.Jaseph 3D26 WestmOOr 3D18 Westmoor South Bend, IN. 46601 South Bend, IN. 46628 South Bend, IN. 46628 Tax- Key # 018 2070 2554 Tax Key # 018 2fl56 2024 Tax Key # 018 2056 2025 Clinton & Ruth Mack Terry D Beck Michael R Riffel 3010 Westmoor 3002 Westmoor 719 Goodiand South Bend, IN. 46628 South Bend, IN. 46828 South Bend, fN. 48628 Tax Key # 018 2056 2026 Tax Key # 018 2056 2029 Tax Key # 01$ 2056 2030 Charles A White Albert &~ Shenna Garvin Albert & Sheena Garvin 715 Goodiand Ave 3003 Longfey Ave 3003 Longfey Ave South Bend, f N. 46628 South Bend, fN. 46628 South Bend, IN. 4662$ Tax Key # 01 8 2056 2040 Tax Key # 01 8 2056 2041 Tax Key # 018 2056 2042 Hugh Lambert Renew Inc Jerome Ivancic 28041 Layton Rd 914 LWW 3019 S Michigan St North Liberty, IN. 48554 South Bend, #N, 46616 South Bend, IN. 46614 Tax Key # 018 2058 2039 Tax Key # 018 2056 203$ Tax~Key # 018 2056 2037 Lois Veers Lois A Veen Lois A Veen 3018 Longfey Ave 3018 Longfey Ave 3018 Longfey Ave South Bend, fN. 46628 ~ South Bend, fN. 46628 South Bend, fN. 4682$ Tax Key # 018 2055 i 971 Tax Key # 018 2055 1972 Tax Key # 018 20551973 Richard & Alice Karczewski Danaid & Dolores Andrzejewski Richard & Alice Karczewski 3012 Longfey Ave 3006 Longfey Ave 3D12 W Longfey Ave South Bend, iN. 46628 South Bend, IN. 46628 South Bend, IN. 46628 Tax Key # 018 2055 1974 Tax Key # 018 2055 1975 Tax Key # 018 2055 197401 Kimberly Davis Bendix Carp. Honeywell Inc. Leeanne Thiefmann 3002 Longfey Ave PO Box 4900 3017 Rogers St South Bend, iN. 46628 Scottsdale, AZ. 85261 South Bend, IN. 46528 Tax Key # 018 2055 1976 Tax Key # 018 2055 19$4 lax Key # 018 2055 1985 Patricia Byrd Buford & Ernes#ine Freeman Linda Lowrance PO Box 11013 615 Goodiand 664 41st Street South Bend, IN. 46634 South Bend, IN. 46628 Dakland, CA. 946D9 Tax Key # 018 2055 1986 Tax Key # 018 2D55 1987 Tax Key # 018 2055 1968 Scott Trost ~ Christine Sykes James R Phillips Florida M Smith 3001 Roger St 3018 Rogers PO Box 3914 South Bend, fN. 46628 South Bend, IN. 46628 South Bend, IN. 45619 Tax Key # 018 2055 1990 Tax Key # 018 2053 1997 Tax Key # 018 2055 1996 James R Phiilips Michael B Roseman Bendix Corp. 1 Honeywell Inc. 3018 Rapers 3D10 Rogers PO Box 49DD South Bend, #N, 46628 South Bend, PN. 46628 Scottsdale, A~ 85261 Tax Key #(318 2055 1998 Tax Key # 018 2055 200A Tax Key # 018 2055 2001 Bendix Corp. /Honeywell Inc, PO Box 4900 Scottsdale, AZ. 85261 Tax Key # 018 2055 2006 City of South Bend 12D0 County City Building South Bend, IfV. 46601 Tax Key # 018 2066 2414 City of South Bend 1200 County City Building South Bend, 1N. 466D1 Tax Key # 018 2066 2415 City of South Bend 1200 County City Building South Bend, iN. 46601 Tax Key # 018 2065 2416 City of South Send 120D County City Building South Bend, IN. 466D1 Tax Key # D18 2D66 2445 City of South Bend 1200 County Ci#y Building South Bend, iN. 46501 Tax Key # 018 2066 2417 Clty of South Bend 1200 County City Building South Bend, IN. 46601 Tax Key # 0182066 2450 City of South Bend 2615 Kenwood Ave South Bend, IN. 46628 Tax Key # 018 2066 2436 ~' rA; (~ Area Plan ~®nna~lssi®n ®f St. J®seph C®unty 1140 County-City Building South Bend, Indiana 46601 John W. Byorni harry P. Magliozzi Executive Director Assistant Director Phone 574 235-9571 www.stjosephcountyindiana.aom/areaplan Fax 574 235.9813 April 21, 2010 The Honorable Council of the City of ~ ~ ~ ~~k ~~ South Bend ~~_ 4th Floor, County-City Building South Bend, IN 46641 RE: A proposed ordinance of South Bend Park Department and South Bend Animal Control to zone from S`F2 Single Family and Two Family District to GB General Business District, property located at 521 Eclipse Place, City of South Bend. - APC# 2550-10 Dear Council Members: I hereby Certify that the above referenced ordinance of South Bend Park Department and South Bend Animal Control was legally advertised on Thursday, April S, 2014 and that the Area Plan Commission at its public hearing on Tuesday, April 24, 2010 took the following action: Upon a motion by John McNamara, being seconded by Barrett Berry and unanimously carried, the proposed ordinance of South Bend Park Department and South Bend Animal Control to zone from SF2 Single Family and Two Family District to GB General Business District, property Iocated at 521 Eclipse Place, City of South Bend is sent to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation. Rezoning the site to General Business will allow the city to redevelop a vacant city owned structure into a community asset. The new animal shelter will enhance and expand the services, which are currently provided by South Bend Animal Control, and will blend in with the balance of the uses within Kennedy Park. The deliberations of the Area PIan 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, w ohn W. Syo .IWB:jsc Attachment CC: South Bend Park Department and South Bend Animal Control Danch, I-Iarner & Associates $er~ing South Bend, Lake~iile, New Cariisfe, North Liberty, Osoeola, Roseland and St. Joseph County, fndiana staff Report A~'~ # 2550-IO ®wner: South Bend Park Department and South Bend Animal Control Location: 521 clipse Place .lurisdicS~aon: City of South Bend 1$egatested Action: The petition is requesting a zone change from SF2 Single Family and Two Family District to GB General Business District to allow far a Citj operated animal shelter (kennel;. Land iJses and Zoning: On site: On site is a vacant city owned structure and parking area zoned SF2 Single Fatrtily & Two Family District. North: Tv the north is Kennedy Park zoned SF2 Single Family & Two Family District. East: To the east is Kennedy Paris zoned SF2 Single Family & Two Family District. South: To the south is the Bosch manufacturing plant zoned I.,l l.,ight Industrial District. West: To the west is a parking area zoned LI Light Industrial District and single-family residences zoned SF2 Single Family & Two Family District. District uses and development standards: The GB General Business District is established to provide a location for those retail sales and service functions whose operations are typically characterized by: outdoor display or sales of merchandise; major repair of motor vehieIes; commercial amusement and recreational activities; ar, activities yr operations conducted in structures which are not completely enclosed. The types of uses found in the GB District are often brightly lighted and noisy. Permitted uses contained in this district are such that this district may be used to form a grouping of similar uses along certain portions of major commercial thoroughfares. Special attention should be paid to buffering whenever this district is located adjacent to any residential district or residential uses. Site plan description: The total area of the site is 6.I9 acres. The existing building will be expanded to a 9,945 sq. ft. structure covering 3.9% of the site. A majority of the existing parking will be removed. Anew 32 space public parking area and a 20 space employee and service parking area both covering 36,390 sq. ft., or 13.5% ofthe site, will be constructed. Open space will total 5.07 acres or $1.9% of the site. Two access points will be provided along Eclipse Drive. Variances requested by the petitioner for the location of the parking area, access drive, and recreational trail, and for reduced landscaping was considered and approved by the Area Board of Zoning Appeals on April 7, 2040. Zoning and land use history & trends: There is no land use or zoning history for this site. The existing structure has been located on this site for approximately 70 years. TraDic and transportation consideratinas: Eclipse Drive is a two lane private street providing access through Kennedy Park from Bendix Drive to the south to Westmoor Street to the north. Utilities: The groposed structure will continue to be served by municipal sewer and water. South Bend Park Department and South Bend Animal Central #2550-10 Page 1 of 2 ~ Criteria {per IC 36-7-~-643): !.. Comprehensive Plan: Policy IP4an: Ci Plan South Bend Com rehensive Plan November 2005 , Objective PF I.1: Coordinate planning and development activities for murvcipaI buildings and facilities. Policies FF I.I.I: Maintain and upgrade municipal buildings and facilities to provide the highest level of City services. Land iTse Plan: The Future Land Use Map shows this area as institutional which includes al! government facilities. 2. Current conditions and character: The proposed site is located within Kennedy Park at the northeast corner of Bendix Road and Goadland Avenue. It includes an approximate 5,30Q sg. ft. building which served as a maintenance facility for the Department of Code Enforcement until 199b. A ma}ority of the site is currently covered with an existing parking lot. Eclipse Drive provides access to the existing building. 3. Most desirable use: The prior and proposed governmental use of the site meets the nbj ectives of City Plan to enhance city services. Therefore, continued governmental use of the site is desirable. 4. Conservation of property values: It is the staffs opinion that the surrounding propeRy values should not be adversely affected. 5. Responsible development and growth: The proposed redevelopment of a vacant city owned structure is a positive example of adaptive reuse. The new Larger animal shelter will expand the current services provided to the community. Recommendation: Based nn information available prior to the public hearing, the staff recommends that this petition be forwarded to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation. Analysis: Rezoning the site to General Business will allow the city to redevelop a vacant city owned structure into a community asset. The new animal shelter will enhance and expand the services, which are currently provided by South Bend Animal Control, and will blend in with the balance of the uses within Kennedy Park. South Bend Park Department and South Bend Anima! Control #2550-l0 page 2 of 2 OA ~1 5~J 5 ~4 ',, "h e ~ Westrn~a~- ' : ~~ y ~, h TS FF I _ L ~~~. ~ ~ 5` ~ ~y ~' ~ -i'~i ~ ~~ ~ 1 e~ d ~ _ _ ~ e ~~~ }s '~ ~~ ~ eL' t~l, y ~` >Rt~ger _ rye e, ~, ~ 1 'Y kY.y4 . ey %w' ~ ~_. a~ ~. 4y v d~ jj^~~ (4p ~ ' m m ~ i y a9 ~ ,Y~ y§ N ,h ~ ff~~ ~p`n g~ +~ . S `a~ ~ `fr ~ ~~ ~ R w _ ~ 1 ~ h h. ~ .. .~~ r ® P ~'tl, _ ~ ~. .:I ~-S Y4LY 4, ~ y ~ SOUTH BEND Bertrand ~~ ~~ ~ ~` Kenvrood u IL] P_ IT v 4} ~, ~ a: ~~ ~ ~~ R~ZrDnl~t~ ~1'~D111: "~F~" SINt~LE F~aI~ILY ~ Td's F~-IMTLIf L~I~T~TCT ~~ "t~~" ~ENER~4.L EU~~~IE~~ C~-ISTRI~T ~o n i nc~ FCey~ SOUTH BEND "SF2"SINGLE FAMILYAND TV~D FAMILY DISTRICT SOUTH BEND "OB"OFFICE BUFFER DISTRICT SOUTH BEND "O"OFFICE DISTRICT SOUTH BEND "LI" LIGHT INDUSTRIALDISTRICT SOUTH BEND "G I" GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ~.. ~, w~-~ a~ }~,~ ..~~:., S 1 i~Ch = ~~~ feet ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 521 ECLIPSE PLACE SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46628, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT NO. 2, IN THE CITY OF SOUTH HEND, INDIANA STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 521 ECLIPSE PLACE, 50UTH BEND, INDIANA AND IS PRESENTLY ZONED SF2 SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS REQUESTED TO BE REZONED TO THE GB GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR A CITY OPERATED ANIMAL SHELTER FACILITY. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA: SECTION I. 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 HERESY IS AMENDED IN ORDER THAT THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF SOUTH SEND, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, STATE OF INDIANA: THAT A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, PORTAGE TOWNSHIP, CITY OF 50UTH BEND, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH-RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BENDIX DRIVE WITH THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GOODLAND AVE.; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST LINE. OF GOODLAND AVENUE A DISTANCE OF 487 FEET MORE OR LESS; THENCE EAST A DISTANCE OF 562 FEET MORE OR LESS; THENCE SOUTH PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID GOODLAND AVE. A DISTANCE OF 473 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID BENDIX DRIVE; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 562 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 6.19 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL LEGAL HIGHWAYS EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. BE AND THE SAME HEREBY ESTABLISHED AS GB GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. SECTION II. THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT FROM AND AFTER ITS PASSAGE BY THE COMMON COUNCIL, APPROVED BY THE MAYOR, AND LEGAL PUBLICATION. MEMBER OF THE COMMON COUNCIL 2 ATTEST: CITY CLERK PRESENTED BY ME TO THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SEND, 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 f'i ~~i tj ,~ ~/'~~ l ~. ~'. ~ i . ~ ~ J 1'st ~~/~L7~~~Ca ~ '~ <. C3 PtJUL~C ~4E1~~.l~G 3 r:,~ ~EA~~P~G I~01' Ai'~RC3~Ei} ~~,~5~~ M'°.a-~-" ""T~:'t ti~t~~...r~ Ohl, ~~=Y ~~', '+~ r.): ,~; ~ESV .~ µ DATE FILED APPLICATION NO. DATE RECEIVED BY AREA PLAN COMMISSION I (WE} THE UNDERSIGNED MAKE APPLICATION TO THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS HEREIN REQUESTED.. 1) THE PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE REZONED IS LOCATED: 521 ECLIPSE PLACE, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 4662$. 2). NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROPERTY OWNER(S) OF THE PETITION SITE: SOUTH BEND PARKS DEPARTMENT AND SOUTH BEND ANIMAL CONTROL 321 EAST WALTER STREET SOUTH BEND, IN 46624 PH. NO. 5'74-299-4765 3).NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTINGENT PURCHASER(S), IF APPLICABLE: N/A 4}. IT IS DESIRED AND REQUESTED THAT THiS PROPERTY BE REZONED: FROM: SF2 SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY DISTRICT TO: GB GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 5). THIS REZONING IS REQUESTED TO ALLOW THE FOLLOWING USE(S): A). CITY OPERATED ANIMAL SHELTER (KENNEL) 6}. ATTACHED IS A COPY OF (A) LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY; (B) SEVENTEEN (17) PRELIMINARY SITE PLANS; {C) A STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT; (D) A LIST OF NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE TAX KEY NUMBERS FOR ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE PETITION PROPERTY; AND (E) ADDRESSED, STAMPED ENVELOPES FOR ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE PETITION PROPERTY {F) A LOCATION MAP, IF AVAILABLE, DRAWN TO SCALE, WHICH INCLUDES STREET NAMES, PRINTED IN $ '~" x 11" FORMAT. SIGNED, PETIT PETITIONED PREPARED BY: RANCH, HARNER & ASSOCIATES 1543 COMN~RCE DRIVE SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 4662$ (574) 234-4003 a i, r~ r-~'i( ~fl:~~:~ yr~.~;>rwc ~ ~ s MfCWAEf_ .1. DANCW, L.A. RON HARNEf?, P.S. Honorable Members of the City of South Bend Common Council 4th Floor County-City Building South Bend, Indiana 465#31 Land Surveyors ~ Professional engineers Landscape Architects Land Planners February 25, 2010 RE: Rezoning Petition for Brick Road LLC: Dear Council Members: Our clients are requesting the approval of a Rezoning Petition for their property located at the Northeast corner of Cleveland Road and Mayflower Road, South Bend, Indiana. The vacant property is approximately 44.33 acres in size. The owners desire to rezone the property from the classification of O Office District to the PUD Planned Unit Development District to allow for permitted uses under the follawa~ng classifications: MF1 Urban Corridor Multifamily District, LB Local Business District, CB Community Business District and the GB General Business District. As shown on the provided preliminary site plan the owners envision a mixture of uses for the property which include a residential component of a multi-generational community, a retail component of a commercial center, smaller individual commercial sites for retail and restaurants and a larger site for single commercial user. This mixed development would be tailored to meet the needs of the existing residential neighborhoods, located a~n close proximity to this site and also meet the needs far the mix of existing commercial and industrial users located .slang this portion of Cleveland Road. Our clients believe that this type of a mixed-use development would fit well for this Northeest City neighborhood, If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to give me a cal]. at 234-4003. Sincerely. Michael Q`. Danch ~"F` f President Danah, Horner ~ Associates File No. ].00110 ~~(;rr Md. CYO; ~~^`f~S4~ ~~' ~v• 1643 Camrneree Drive ~ South Bend, fN 46628 affce 5741234-4003 8001594-4043 ~ Fax 5741234-4119 248 Wesf Mars Berrien Springs, MI 49143 OtTce 2691471-3010 ~ Fax 2651471-7237 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CLEVELAND ROAD AND MAYFLOWER ROAD, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46628, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT NO. 1, IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT THE VACANT PROPERTY IS LOCATED OPT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CLEVELAND ROAD AND MAYFLOWER ROAD, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 96628, AND IS PRESENTLY ZONED O OFFICE DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS REQUESTED TO BE REZONED TO THE PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR USES PERMITTED UNDER THE FOLLOWING DISTRICTS: MF1 URBAN CORRIDOR MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT; LB LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT; CB COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND THE GB GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA: SECTION I. ORDINANCE NO. 9495-04, IS AMENDED, WH3CCH 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: A PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 38 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, CITY OF SOUTH BEND, GERMAN TOWNSHIP, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOTS # 1 THROUGH ~ ~.0 OF THE PLAT OF "HUTTO MINOR SUBDIVISION" AS RECORDED BY DOCUMENT NO. 0833593 IN THE RECORDS OF THE ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA RECORDERS OFFICE. CONTAINING 43.33 ACRES MORE OR LESS. EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. BE ANU THE SAME HEREBY ESTABLISHED AS DISTRICT. SUBJECT TO ALL LEGAL HIGHWAYS, "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMEN'T' SECTION II. THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE IN F°[TLL FORCE AND EFFECT FROM AND AFTER ITS PASSAGE BY THE COMMON COUNCIL, APPROVED HY THE MAYOR, AND LEGAL PUBLICATION. ~~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MEMBER OF THE COMMO COUNCIL` ~:~.<.: . ~a~- ATTEST: CITY' CLERK 2 PRESENTED SY ME TO THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SOUTH REND, INDIANA ON THE DAY OF , 2 , AT O'CLOCK M. MAYOR, CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIAPIA APPROVED AND SIGNED HY ME ON THE DAY OF 2 AT O'CLOCK .M. ~ SF ~F~n~<r,~ ,~ -~ ---tom ~~~~~~ r~E:x'~~~fG 3 r[~ RE~;~+.i`~Ca t`~dT f~PPi~©1~E~ I'v~fEr~;EF~ P~^-.55EE7 CITY CLERK ~~,FI~F~ e 3 t~30 ~!L'3i~# V:~u~C~~ CITY C?,=rte, ~:~, f'~N'l: ?M, Property Owners Within 300 Feet Norman i~ Bonnie Mueller Clayton & Dolores Close Robert Pryer 23234 Brick Road 23206 Brick Rd 23178 Brick Rd South Bend, IN. 46628 South Bend, IN. 46628 South Bend, fN. 46628 Tax Key # 004 1012 019910 Tax Key # 004 1012 019901 Tax Key # 004 1012 019905 [=rank & Virginia Tirotta Joshua & Keyna Martinez Patricia Ransberger 23166 Brick Rd 23595 Brick Rd 51913 Mayflower Rd South Bend, fN, 46628 South Bend, fN. 46628 South Bend, lN. 46628 Tax Key # D04 1012 019936 Tax Key # D04 1009 015616 Tax Key # 0441009 015610 Neil & Diana Dockemeyer Neii & Diana Dockemeyer Mark & Margaret Donoha 23573 Brick Rd 23573 Brick Rd 23555 Brick Rd South Bend, IN. 46628 South Bend, IN. 46628 South Bend, IN, 46628 Tax Key # OD4 1009 015614 Tax Key # 004 1009 015617 Tax Key # 004 1009 015609 Mark & Margaret Donoho Richard & Patricia Lutz Pauline Yeakley 23555 Brick Rd 23501 Brick Rd 51975 Mayflower Road South Bend, IN. 46628 South Bend, lN. 46628 South Bend, fN. 46628 Tax Key # 004 1009 015608 Tax Key # 004 1009 015613 Tax Key # 004 1009 015612 Maureen Donlon Danie! & Kimberly Eckhart Patricia Ransberger 51955 Mayffawer Rd 51935 Mayflower Rd 51913 Mayflower Rd South Bend, I.N. 46628 South Bend, IN. 4662$ South Bend, IN. 46628 Tax Key # 00 41009 015607 Tax Key # 004 1009 015615 Tax Key # 404 1009 015610 Holy Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Robert & Veidoris Nielsen Robert & Veldoris Nielson Church 23435 Brick Rd 23413 Brick Rd 5190D Mayflower Rd South Bend, fN. 46628 South Bend, fN. 46628 South Send, IN. 46628 Tax Key # 004 1009 0158 Tax Key # 004 1009 015901 TaX uPV # nn a~nna n~~~n~ Ralph & Martha Whiting Orval Sellers Orval Sellers / Connie Warnke 6450 Miami CR.Apt. 205 23287 Brick Rd 23287 Brick Rd South Bend, IN. 46614 South Bend, IN. 46628 South Bend, IN. 46628 Tax Key # 004 1009 015902 Tax Key # D04 1009 0160 Tax Key # 004 1009 016001 Home City Ice Co. Rew LLC Gregory P Barkley P.O.f3ox 111116 5681 W Cleveland 17780 Waxwing Ln Cincinnati, OH. 45211 South Bend, 1N. 46628 South Bend, f N. 46635 Tax Key # 025 101 B 061615 Tax Key # 025 1018 061605 Tax Key # 025 1018 061607 South Central Industrial Properties Oi Capital Carp Pochi Investments LLC 16225 Park Ten Place #200 421 Second St P.O.Box 1630 -louston, TX. 77084 Elkhart, IN. 46516 Green Bay, WI. 54305 fax Key # 025 1018 061606 Tax Key # 025 1018 061602 Tax Key # 025 1018 061611 Oi Capital Corp tJSF Holland #nc. Gladys Shively /Frank 8. Marian Hutto 421 S. Second St 750 E. 40th St. 58000 W, $ Mile Road Elkhart, IN. 46516 Holland, M#. 49423 Northvi#le, ML 48167 Tax Key # 025 1018 061612 Tax Key # D25 1018 0618 Tax Key # 025 1 D 18 0620 Brian & Sharon Steinke Marc & Diana Breden Clint Dewispelaere 23231 Brick Rd 23140 Brick Rd 52041 Patricia Lane South Bend, IN. 46628 South Bend, fN. 46628 South Send, IN. 4662$ Tax Key # 004 1009 D16101 Tax Key # 004 1012 019904 Tax Key # 004 1012 019903 ©ennis & Beverly Hanyzewski Mason & Stephanie Rusk James & Catherine Riordan 52040 Patricia Lane 52035 Tara Drive 52069 Patricia Ln South Bend, IN, 46628 South Bend, IN. 46628 South Bend, IN. 46628 Tax Key # 004 1012 019926 Tax Key # 004 1012 019934 Tax Key # 004 1012 019925 Brent & Sharon Myers Tamara Robert & Carolyn Gaby John Pierson Revoc.Living Trust 52062 Patricia Lane 52057 Tara Dr 52101 Patricia Lane South Bend, IN. 46628 South Bend, IN. 46628 South Bend, IN. 46628 Tax Key # 004 1012 019927 Tax Key # 004 1012 019906 Tax Key # 004 1012 D19909 Kenneth & Jerrie Balogh Joseph & Jacqueline Kozakiewicz Richard & Carolyn Coddens 521 DD Patricia Lane 52189 Patricia Lane 23136 Acadia South Bend, IN. 46628 South Bend, IN. 46628 South Bend, IN, 46628 Tax Key # 004 1012 019928 Tax Key # D04 1021 019921 Tax Key # 004 1012 019907 Gretchen Katiun Gretchen Katiun Robert & Norma Span 23156 Acacia Pl 23156 Acacia PI 52167 Patricia Ln South Bend, IN. 46628 South Bend, 1N. 46628 South Bend, IN. 46628 Tax Key # 004 1012 019919 Tax Key # 004 1012 019920 Tax Key # 004 1012 019922 Frank & Frances Biedinger James L Galeziewski Tcaliptree Associates LLC 52141 Patricia Ln 52119 Patricia Lane 2180 Hornig Road South Bend, lN. 46628 South Bend, lN. 46628 Philadelphia, PA. 19116 Tax Key #~ 004 1012 019923 Tax Key # 004 1012 019924 Tax Key # 025 1012 019937 Edward & Helen Jiftler Eugene & Roberta Zarembka 52120 Patricia Lane 23155 Acacia PI South Bend, #N. 4662$ South Bend, 1N. 46628 Tax Key # 004 1012 019930 Tax Key # OD4 1012 019931 5~~a .r.~.ri r t~y,f. ~• .''~s aim h r.~-4:r 1 !. ~ ~.; ~ },. ~~ --. ... .V ~-.ry,...- LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 38 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, CITY OF SOUTH BEND, GERMAN TOTnTATSHIP, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOTS # 1 THROUGH #~ 10 OF THE PLAT OF "HUTTO MINOR SUBDIVISION" AS RECORDED SY DOCUMENT NO. 0833593 IN THE RECORDS OF THE ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA RECORDERS OFFICE. CONTAINING 43.33 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL LEGAL HIGHWAYS, EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. ... 4.. _ Area Plan ®rnmissi®In ®f S~. J®seph C®unty 1 i 40 County-City Building South Bend, Indiana 4fifi01 John W. Byorni Larry P. Magliozzi Executive Director Assistant Director Phone 574 235-9571 www.stjosephcountyindiana.com/areaplan Fax 574 235-8813 Apri121, 2010 ~ The Honorable Council of the City of ~ South Bend 4th Floor, County-City Building South Bend, IN 46601 RE: A proposed ordinance of Brick Road, LLC to zone from O Office District to PUD Planned Unit Development, property located at northeast copper of Cleveland Road and Mayflower Road, City of South Bend - AFC# 2549-10 Dear Council Members: 1 hereby Certify that the above referenced ordinance of Brick Raad, LLC was legally advertised on Thursday, April S, 2010 and that the Area Plan Commission at its public hearing on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 took the following action: Upon a motion by Donna Chamblee, being seconded by Jnhn McNamara and unanimously carried, the proposed ordinance of Brick Road, LLC to zone from O Office District to PUD Planned Unit Development, property located at northeast corner of Cleveland Road and Mayflower Road, City of South $end is sent to the Common Council with no recommendation. 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, ~~~~~ ~W. Byorni JWB;jsc Attachment CC: Brick Road, LLC Danch, Harper & Associates Serving South Bend, Lakeville, New Carlisle, NarEh Liberty, Osceoia, Roseland and St. Joseph County, Indiana Staff Report Aff'C # 2549-10 ®wner; Brick Road, LLC Location: northeast cornier of Cleveland Road and Mayflower Road ,turisdiction: City of South Bend Requested Action: The petitioner is requesting a zone change from O Office District to PUD Planned Unit Development to allow Primary permitted uses listed in the MF1 Urban Corridor Multifamily District, LB Loeal Business District, CB Community Business District, and GB General Business District. Land >IJses and Zoning: On site: On site is an old barn and farmland. North: To the north are 3 single family horses, a church and an elderly cars home, all zoned R Single Family District {County). East: To the east are single family homes zoned R Single Family District (County) and a City of South Bend well field zoned Lf Light Industrial (City). South: To the south is a proposed commercial development recently rezoned to CB Community Business District (City}. West: To the west are several businesses, including a fire store and an equipment rental facility zoned Ll Light Industrial district (City). District uses sad development standards; The Planned Unit Development {PUD) District is designed and intended to: encourage creativity and innovation in the design of developments; provide for more efficient use of land; permit special consideration of property with outstanding natural ar topographical features; facilitate use of the most appropriate construction techniques in the development of Land; and, provide far any individual Land use not otherwise specified elsewhere in this Ordinance. The PUD District encourages imaginative uses of open space, promotes high standards in design and construction, and furthers the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. Site plan description: The entire site is 43.33 acres and is proposed to be a mix of retail uses, a residential care facility, and attached single family units identified as senior cottages. The I 43,162 square feet of retail is broken up into several buildings of varying sizes. The residential care facility consists of 245,956 square feet, and the 4S senior cottages have a total of S 1, 800 square feet. Total building coverage is 18% of the site. A total of 1,485 parking spaces are located on the site, covering 33% of the site: 875 for retail, 150 for the residential care facility and 60 for the senior cottages. bighting and sign standazds will adhere to the City of South Bend Zoning Ordinance. Landscaping, parking and loading follow the format of the City of South Bend Zoning Ordinance, but with changes to the content. Mayflower Road is proposed too be re-aligned. A pedestrian/bicycle trail is being proposed to connect Cleveland Road to Brick Road, and the residential component to the existing residential subdivision to the east. Zoning $nd land use history & trends: The Iarger portion of this property was annexed into the City in I993. In i 494, the Area Plan Commission initiated a rezoning to D Industrial and BP Business Park for the property annexed. Brick Road, LLC #2549-10 Page l of 3 The parcel containing the barn was annexed into the City in 2001. A 2001 petition to rezone that property to BP Business Park expired due to lack of final site plan. 'i'raRic and transportation considerations: Cleveland Road has four ]apes with a center median. Mayflower Road has two lanes. Brick Road has two lanes. The re-aligned Mayflower Road will have two lanes. I.Ttilities: All buildiangs will be connected to City water and sewer facilities. Additional information.: {Agency comments) The St. Joseph County Airport Authority is opposed to the project, stating that the entire development is within the Noise Sensitive Zone for Runway 18 at the South Bend Regional Airport. The St..loseph County Health Department states that the proposed project is very near a corntnunity public water supply system. All of the PUD is within the S year time of travel (Zane 2} of the Wellhead Protection Area. Some of the proposed PUD, including the parking area of one retail/commercial facility is located within the 200 foot Zone 1 setback of the Wellhead Protection Area. The Health Deparment recommends approval subject to stipulations as to what is placed within the 200 foot Zone 1 setback of the Wellhead Protection Area. A subdivision will be required to dedicate the right-of--way and reassign easements. Commitments: The petitioner has prohibited the construction of billboards within the P.U.D. 5 Criteria (per [C 36-7-4-6f#3}: 1. Comprehensive Plan: Polic}r PCan: Ci Plan South Bend Cote rehensive Plan November 200b Objective LU 5.4: Consider the needs of the South Bend Regional Airport when planning for the future of surrounding neighborhoods. The entire developtttertt is within the Noise Sensitive Zone far Runway 18 at the South Bend Regional Airport. Objective PF 3.1: Ensure a clean and dependable water supply to meet the existing and future needs of the community. The proposed project is very near a community public water supply system Objective 2.1.2: Improve bicycle and pedestrian safety on local streets by providing bike lanes, paths and pedestrian walkways. There are currently bike lanes on the nortlt side of Cleveland Raad. Thrs development proposes extending the lanes to Brick Road and to the east. Land Use Plan: The future Land use maps identifies this area as LI Light Industrial. f Plaa implementationlOt6er Plaes: Michiana Re final Trans ortation Center Master Plan U ate 2004 The approach slope for the property in Appendix 2 approach north of Runway 18-36 is 34:1. brick Road, LLC #2549- ] 0 Page 2 of 3 When modifcations are made to existing runway systems, aircraft noise is often the most obvious impact on a community. NOTE: Runway IS-36 was extended in 20Q7. ?. Current conditions and character: There is an established neighborhood to the east and industria! uses to the west. There is limited residential to the north consisting of homes on Larger lots fronting Brick and Mayflower Roads. 3. Most desirable rase: The most desirable use is Iight industrial. The offce uses originally contemplated by the property owner several years ago would also be suitable. 4. Conservation of property values: Any development to the site may affect surrounding property values, although the location of the proposed uses will minimize any property value impact, especially to the existing homes to the east. §. Responsible development and growth: With the recent rezoning of the property to the south for a commercial development including a hotel and restaurants, i# is appropriate to allow the site to accommodate additional, and compatible uses. Recommendation: Based on information available prior to the public hearing, the staff recommends the petition be sent to the Common CaunciI with a favorable recommendation for the LB,CB and GB uses. Analysis: Being in the Noise Sensitive Zone is not be best location for residential uses. City Plan recommends this property be Light Industrial. Therefore the commercial portion can be supported to act as a buffer between the existing light industrial to the west and the existing residential to the north and east. Brick Road, LLC #2549-l0 Page 3 of 3 ~~~on~ I'f~~ CC7UNTY "R" SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT SOUTH BEND "C° OFFICE DISTRICT ® SOUTH BirND "CB" CDMM UNITY BUSINESS DI STRICT SC~UTHBEND "Ll" LIGHTiNDUSTRIALDISTRiCT ~, ~. ~-~= S 1 inch ~ 4~0 fe~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 1~iCC~~t~n ingy~fraT~ml: +~ ~ . .... _ 7F~" ~r~SF ~Mieid7~~~~ ~~I~ Yiw~L L~~~~~~ 'ti April 16, 2010 The Area Plan Commission St..loseph County, 1N 1140 County City Building South Bend, IN 46601 VIA ~VERIiiIGHT DE~.I~R'Y ~~~ ~~ ., n RE: Proposal from Brick Road LLC to rezone property located at the corner of Cleveland Rd. and Mayflower Rd. from O Office District to PUD Planned Unit Development - APC# 2549-10 Dear Commission: Estes Express Lines owns the property located at 5550 W. Cleveland Rd., City of South Bend. Our property is across Cleveland Rd. from the above referenced site and is zoned Light Industrial. We currently lease the site to YRC Inc. who uses the facility as a truck terminal, which is its intended use. If YRC should move out at some point in the future, Estes would operate a truck terninal from this facility, sa the current use would continue. Our property and the other industrial properties surrounding the above referenced parcel along Cleveland Rd. are not a good mix for the proposed development. Industrial traffic mainly consists of large tractor-trailers and heavy dump trucks, straight trucks, etc. We have dealt with noise and traffic complaints in other locales where our terminals are located near residential developments and we foresee this as a problem here. These cross-dock facilities are often open 24 hours, seven days per week. The noise that comes from such a facility would not be conducive to sleeping during the night hours and is generally considered a nuisance by residents during the day-time hours. 3n addition, it is canceming that the proposal includes a pedestrian and bicycle trail an Mayflower Rd. to connect Cleveland Rd. and Brick Road. Cleveland Rd. does not have any sidewalks or traffic signals to currently make it pedestrian or bicycle safe. There is also an industrial business that fronts Mayflower Rd. that will have heavy vehicles coming and going. Mixing pedestrians and bicyclists with heavy industrial traffic along Mayfield and Cleveland roads is highly unsafe. Neither road is appropriate for this type of proposed traffic. In summary, industrially developed areas should not adjoin a residential development to protect the enjoyment of all property owners involved. We oppose the proposal to rezone the property to FUD. The property should remain as O Office District as the uses under this zoning would be amore appropriate buffer and transition from the current residential areas along Brick Road to the Industrial uses along Mayflower and Cleveland. In addition, the traffic along this area of Cleveland Road should continue to accommodate industrial traffic for the safety of all involved. VR 23234-3962 ~ P-0• i3ox 25612, Richmond, VA 23260-5612 3901 W i3rnad St., Richmond, • 6041353-6661•www.estes-expross.cauo ESTE& p; ~6641353~19~6•F.{ In closing, please note that if this development is approved, we would like to note that the industrial businesses surrounding it were here first. Any noise or traffic complaints from residents in this development will need to be addressed by the county and the developers proposing the zoning change and not the business owners in this area. If you have any questions or need additional information, please give me a call at 804-353-1900, ext. 2263. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully yours, Ange a J. Maidment V.P. of Corporate Real Estate ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CLEVELAND ROAD AND MAYFLOWER ROAD, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46628, COUNGILMANIC DISTRICT NO. 1, IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT THE VACANT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CLEVELAND ROAD AND MAYFLOWER ROAD, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 4562$, AND IS PRESENTLY ZONED O OFFICE DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS REQUESTED TO BE REZONED TO THE PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR USES PERMITTED UNDER THE FOLLOWING DISTRICTS: MF1 URBAN CORRIDOR MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT; LB LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT; CB COI4~lUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND THE GB GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED SY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA: SECTION I. ORDINANCE NO. 9495-04, IS AMENDED, WHICH ORDINANCE IS COMMONLY I~TOWN 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: A PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 38 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, CITY OF SOUTH BEND, GERMAN TOWNSHIP, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOTS ~ 1 THROUGH # 10 OF THE PLAT OF "HUTTO MINOR SUBDIVISION" AS RECORDED BY DOCUMENT NO. 0833593 IN THE RECORDS OF THE ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA RECORDERS OFFICE. CONTAINING 43.33 ACRES MORE OR LESS. EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. BE AND THE SAME HEREBY ESTABLISHED AS DISTRICT. SUBJECT TO ALL LEGAL HIGHWAYS, "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SECTION II. THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT FROM AND AFTER ITS PASSAGE BY THE COMMON COUNCIL, APPROVED BY THE MAYOR, AND LEGAL PUBLICATION. MEMBER OF THE COMMON COUNCIL ATTEST: CITY CLERK 2 PRESENTED BY ME TO THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SEND, INDIANA ON THE DAY OF , 2 , AT O'CLOCK M. MAYOR, CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA APPROVED AND SIGNED BY ME ON THE DAY OF , 2 , AT O'CLOCK .M. ~ .~'_.{ ~ '~ st ~2EAD~P~zG PUC~~C t;k,~.R!NG 3 rd RE~;f)(t~G MOT AP~RaVED ^4~c~n CITY CLERK ~s~H ~ "~ ~ 2.0 I V ~~{;~ V~Cf~~~ C#TY C?.riP,~, ~~~, f3~~1, IN9. DATE FILED DATE RECEIVED BY AREA PLAN COi~ISSTON APPLICATION NO. I (WE) THE UNDERSIGNED MAKE APPLICATION TO THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH REND, INDIANA TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS HEREIN REQUESTED. 1). THE PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE REZONED IS LOCATED: NORTHEAST CORNER OF CLEVELAND ROAD & MAYFLOWER ROAD, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 4662$ 2). NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROPERTY OWNER(S) OF THE PETITION SITE: BRICK ROAD LLC 58000 WEST EIGHT MILE ROAD NORTHVILLE, MICHIGAN 48167 (248) 361-3669 3).NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTINGENT PURCHASER(S), IF APPLICABLE: N/A 4}, IT IS DESIRED AND REQUESTED THAT THIS PROPERTY BE REZONED: FROM: O OFFICE DISTRICT TO: PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 5). THIS REZONING IS REQUESTED TO ALLOW THE FOLLOWING USE(S): PRIMARY PERMITTED USES LISTED IN THE: A). MF1 URBAN CORRIDOR MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT, 8). LS LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT C). CB COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT D). GB GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 6) . ATTACHED IS A COPY OF (A) LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY; (B) SEVENTEEN (17) PRELIMINARY SITE PLANS; (C) A STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT; (D) A LIST OF NAME5 AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE TAX KEY NUMBERS FOR ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE PETITION PROPERTY; AND (E) ADDRESSED, STAMPED ENVELOPES FOR ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE PETITION 2 PROPERTY (F) A LOCATION MAP, IF AVAILABLE, DRAWN TO SCALE, WHICH INCLUDES STREET NAMES, PRINTED IN 8 '~" x 11" FORMAT. FOR: BRICK ROAD LLC 58000 WEST EIGHT MILE ROAD NORTHVILLE, MICHIGAN 46167 (248) 361-3669 PETITIONED PREPARED BY: CONTACT PERSON (IF DIFFERENT): RANCH, HARNER & ASSOCIATES 1643 COMN~RCE DRIVE SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46626 PHONE NUMBER (574)-234-4003 `~ `' 2030 ,~ JCir; K~r,~-'~~ CITY C.'.'r;~~~, ~•`:, 't3;n'~,'~. ~~~. ~"` ' f-! d L LA DAY ~V _~~'-: ~~ PRaPER~1ES Building Solutions Since 1952 ..9:Y9~~ 227 South Main Street Suitel300 South Bend Indiana 4660I ~ PHOfVE (574) 234-2073 ~~ FAX (574} 2$4-3790 March 11, 201i} _- Area Board of Zoning Appeals City of South Bend 227 W. Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, ffV 46601 Re; Petition for Special Exception and Parking Variance To whom it may concern, A. The information for the party applying for this special exception is below: Olive Enterprise Partners, L. P. 227 South Main Street, Suite 300 South Bend, ifv 4b601 Ph: (57A) 2~7-4498 B. Location of the property in the petition: Olive Enterprise Center 6879 Enterprise Drive South Bend, !N 4662$ C. The purpose of this variance is to apply for a special exception use of Recreation far a Gymnastics Studio in an existing fight industria! zoning in South fiend and to reduce the required amount of parking from 640 spaces to 4q spaces far this use. d. The special exception will not cause undue harm to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community. This will provide a clean secure space to an organization who teaching gymnastics skills and lessons on teamwork, competition, and persona! effort to young children and adults. An open, tail industrial space is ideal for the task of gymnastics. Currently, there is one other tenant in this building, but the spaces are sufficiently separated and neither party will be in any immediate danger as a result of the other's operation. Also, most operations in this area take place between the hours of 7 am and 5 pm, and the gymnastics operation will have their heaviest use in the evening between the hours of 5 pm to 9 pm, so the possible interaction of this group with others in the area is minimal. r South Bend ~ Nashville ~ Indianapolis ~ Chicago/Portage ~ f~ichmond, Virginia www. holladayproperfies•com F.f (~1 ~ ~ e ~C ~ ; O W ''{ ry r = ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 4 ~~~ $ ~ ~ + r~~- J ~ ~ `. '+'`t \ ~ ~ i cli !~ Q ~ r it 3 ~ ~ ` +~ ri39 DS O Q,Z ~`'~ ,~~ ~?.,~~ ~ ~ l N31 ~ i Y 1 1 1 ~~ .~`> ~6, ~ ~Q 1 aQ 1 i 1 ` 60¢' ~ '~~'~`~fbcy '~ 1 ~ '~d y r a b ~ t 1 ~ ~~~ { ~~ ~ s i d 1 4 ~ ~i D ~ p ~~ ~1 ~ ~,\~~~ ~, ~~ E ~ ~ u°i , F 1 1 ~ ztd ._... - ~ '~ ~-'" - \ ~ o 1 1 _-~"" 1 -..^ 1 _1 ~~ ~ ~~ 1 { 1 ` ` 1 1i} 1 1 a ] ~ ' ~~ ~` 1 1 o`r' '1 1 1 \ 1 1 14 i-- W -~- ~ N ~~~ r ~!+ - z m~ c 1 ~r ~ t~.t ~ W ~'$ e ~ ~ w 1 ~ ~t ~ ~` kJ ~ ~ U 4~- oL a'1~ir N ~ 1 a o` ~'! ~r ,n11a ~, ',n1 a1; zl [~ '~1~, o! ~.1 ~,1 l~ 1 t ~ t a 1 a 1 r~' 1 -i' a i i ~r k 1 1 i 1 1 1 1° $_ o i cn r ~1 w~ r ~ w i .~ J ,1 it {'1 ~ f ~~1'f fir rr~ ri~ ~~~~~s ,~, .1 iii t :~ f" ``SCJ ~r ~~ ~~ 4 } i~ ii ~k ~~ AREA B®ARl® ®F Z®NING APPEALS 125 S. Lafayette Blvd. Suite 100 South Bead, Indiana 40601 {574) 235-9554 P.qx: (574} 235-5541 April S, 2010 The Honorable Common Council Of the City of South Bend 4th Floor, County-City Building South Bend, Indiana 46601 RE: Petition for Special Exception of Olive Enterprise Partners, LP ABZA 417/10 Dear Council Members: The above referenced petition of Olive Enterprise Partners, LP was legally advertised on March 21, 2010. The Area Board of Zoning Appeals gave it a public hearing on April ~, 2010, at which tune the following action was taken: Upon a motion by Mr. Phipps, being seconded by Mr. Vellerrian and unanimously carried, the petition for Special Exception to allow a Gymnastics Stadia in a "LI" Light Industrial District, on property located at 6879 Enterprise Drive, is sent to the Common Council with a Favorable Recorntnendation. The deliberations of the Area Board of Zoning Appeals and points considered in arriving at the above decision as shown in the Minutes of the Public Hearing, and will be forwarded to you at a later date, to be made part of this report. Since~~re%ly, / `/C ~ Mary A. Lyons Assistant Zoning Administrator MAL/cah ®LIVE EN1'ERI'RISE 1C'AItTNERS, L..I'. SPECIAL E?CCET'TION T}UIZSUANT 21-09.3 (p) AREA BC7ARD OF ZONING APPEALS FINDIN S OF FACT 1 . THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT BE FNJ~1Ri0US TO THE PUBLIC HEALTI~, SAFETY, COMFORT, COMMUNITY MORAL STANDARDS, CONVENIENCE OR GENERAL WELFARE T3ECAUSE: Development and use as presented will comply with al] building, fire safety, traffic, and parking regulations as to not being injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the eommunity._ 2. TI~II PROPOSED USE WILL NOT INJUI21 OR ADVERSELY AFFECT THE USE OF THE ADJACI'NT AREA OR PROPERTY VALUES '3'I-IEREiN I:iECAi.JSE: The variance or use shall improve the appearance of the neighborhood and will not devalue the surrounding properties. 3. THE PILOPOSEI] LTSE WILL T3E CONSISTENT WITI~ THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTR.IC7" IN WHICI-I IT lS LOCATED ANI~ TIDE LAND USES AUTHORIZED TI-IEREIN BIwCAUSE: Conditions do the property predate the Zoning Ordinance, which creates a different condition for this property. 4. TI-IE PROPOSED USI' IS COMPATIBLE WITI-T THE RECOM1vII~NDATIONS OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND COMPREHENSIT/E PL.~N $ECAUSE: It is the feeling oFthe I3oard that the variance is blending into the overall Comprehensive Plan and is not deviating from it's intent. CONDITIONS OR REVISIONS: DECISION IT T5 THEREFORE the decision of the Board that this request far Special T~xception shall be passed onto the City of South Bend Common Council with a: FA'l~QRABLE I2ECOTVIMEI~II7ATIQN ADOPTED this 7th I7ay of APRIL, 2070. YTwS NO ® MICHAEL 1JR13ANSICI ® RANDALL MATTHYS ASSEN"l' JACK YOUNG A~s~NT JACK HICKEY ® GERALD PI-IIPPS ® ROI3EI2T I-IAWLEY ® JOE VIWLLEMAN f ~LI~E El~'TRERPRISE PAI2TI~ERS, L.Pm The petition of Olive Enterprise Partners, L.P. seeking a Special Exception far a Recreational Use far a Gymnastics Stadia in a "LI" Light Industrial District and a variance from the required 640 parking spaces to 40, an property located at 6$79 Enterprise Drive, German Township. Zoned' "LI" Light Industrial. MR. JOHN PHAiR: 227 S. Main St., South Bend, Indiana and Pm president of Holladay Properties and also general partner of the petitioner. Thank you 1VIr. Chairman_ I've heard several people that say they're going to be short, but I'm going to be short. VLjith me are Adam and Camile Cole from the Elite Sports Academy and they are the operations of the gymnastics facility that hope to occupy the space in this building. This is an existing building in the Blackthorn park. It literally backs up to the Toll Road. They have the end bay in the building along the Tall Road. We have contacted all of the people that we have sent letters to in regard to this which are alI commercial tenants in the neighborhood. 'There are no residential there and have no negative feedback from them and I don't think you'd hear any tonight and haven't received any letters, I don't believe so. The purpose of the variance is to apply for the Special Exception use of recreation. for the gymnastic stadia in an existing "Light Industrial" zoning in the City of South Bend. We have had two other very similar uses, one in a Similar building in Portage, Indiana, again along Interstate 94 and one in Indianapolis in the Amen Park there. And have found them to be totally successful in terms of their compatibility because these folks operate at night. They typically have fheir students canning between 5 and 9 o'clock at night and on weekends and of course the commercial businesses in the building have nobody there typically during those hours. So it has never been a problem at all and certainly the parking. They only have two students today that drive, Everyone else is under 16 and gets dropped off by the parents and so Earth, so we request approval of the variance. Thank you. Ili FAVOR There was no one present to speak in favor of this petition. R~IVIONS')i'I~AI~CE There was no one present to speak in remonstrance of this petition. $6 Are a Board of Zoning Appeals -April 7, 2aI ~ A motion for approval of the variance subject to the Special Exception being approved was made by Mr. Phips and seconded by Mr. Hawley. The motion carried unanimously. A motion to send the Special Exception to the Common Council with a Favorable Re¢arnmendation was made by 1VIr. Phipps and seconded by Mr. Veilerr~an. The motion carried unanimously. After hearing the evidence an the petition, the Area Board of Zoning Appeals find that you did satisfy the Standards as set forth in 1.C. 36-7-4-918.5; therefore, the petition for variance was granted subject to the Special Exception being approved and the petition for Special Exception is sent to the Common Council with a Favorable Recommendation. Based on the testimony presented, the Area Board of Zoning Appeals, after careful consideration, finds this variance granted subject to the Special Exception being approved and the Special Exception is sent to the Common Council with a Favorable Recommendation and will issue written Finding of Facts. PETITIOl~T FOR VARIANCE GRAiNTED SUBJECT T® TIIE SPECIAL EXCEPTION BEING APPR®VED PETITI®N F+®lt SPECI~4.L EXCEPTION IS SENT TO 1'IIE COMii'ION COUNCIL ~VITTI A F'AV®RABLE RECOMiVI[ENI)AT'ION 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; 4. The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the City of South Bend Comprehensive plan; ' 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. 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. Member of the Common Coup ~~ ~~ ~~ ~'C73' APP~CiVE~ A~.~OPT~t~ . ~ 9 6 ~~~ ~lis MAC ~ ~ 2x10 a~~s v~~~t~~ ~mr c~~~rc> s~, ~~~~, tr~• N ~ d 'p - a v m ~ n v ~ ° ~ n N ~ I - } N q c C ~ 5 4 0 ~ n o ~ c ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T-~ C~ is py ul L O ~ n O ~- a `" c o m a -f o cv ~. >O> L 7 a ~ N P 4 0 C ~~ . O • n J 'W Q y 6 h 9 .~..... _ - _ - - M~21.~,•Z8 €332115 2J3~3d '15_ ,.. _ _ - _ aana N~tlM3415 ~~ Q - __-__ Do'OB 36140.005 L~J .00'04 , of}~04 ~___ IZ ~ s ~ I ~ ~~ ~J O ~ ¢ - i'L l ~ oo 6 0 \ J Z H ~ ~ ~ O ~ .55 .~Z 1 Z Q © ~...~ ~ O ~ .~ N C.L. `~ ~ m ~ ~- ~,`~•~ ;., ' z a. x N y J H n r,_ M - ~- L.L~ ~' p ~ Qf ~ N z it) W n ~ ~ n O rn Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Cl y l~G }'G 1 ~ ~ O U F- '- N n ' , . ~~'-'~ ~ ' o J , ,4 Pt o ~ O 3F3ii3N{Y~ ~ I ® O ~ E rn (D fig L L~ Ll h- ~d n }~ 4 ; . ~ ~ z p ~ t z 90'oti oo•o~ ~ , ,90'4B "' I z o p a p ~ ~ ¢ 1 ~4 ~ h ~ ~ W ~ n z i- ~ 1 ~ ~ O c^c . ~ ~ 313N~N0~ 1 ~ C° .a 11 w- a ~ IS `5151 n ~ ~ ~ e 3S ~df1Q ri I ~ w \\ ,t ,E ,0'LL ' I _ _-...__ o~•oe I ~ ,ai•oa ~n„61,~o.oonl _ ~~n ,41 n ~, ~ AREA BOARD OE ZOl\III~TG APPEALS 125 S. Lafayette Blvd. Suite 1 aU 5ou€h Bend, Indiana 4GbU 1 (574) 235-9554 Fnx: (574) 235-5541 April 8, 2010 The Honorable Comrnan Council 4f the City of South Bend 4th FIoor, County-City Building South Bend, Indiana 46fi01 RE: Petition for Special Exception for J. Patrick Matthews ABZA 4/7/10 Dear Council Members: The above referenced petition of J. Patrick Matthews was legally advertised an March 21, 2010. The Area Board of Zoning Appeals gave it a public hearing an April 7, 2010, at which time the following action was taken: Upon a motion by Mr. Phipps, being seconded by Mr. Hawley and unanimously carried, the petition far Special Exception for a Duplex in a "SF2°' District, an property located at 1019, 1019'/ & 1021 N. St. Peter Street, is sent to the Corrimon Council with an Unfavorable Recommendation. The deliberations of the Area Board of Zoning Appeals and points considered in arriving at the above decision as shown in the Minutes of the Public Hearing, and will be forwarded to you at a later date, to be made part of this report. Sincerely, ~%~~ <~ Mark A. Lyons Assistant Zoning Administrator MAL/cah J_ 1'ATRACI{ IYfiA.TT1~EWS SPECIAL EXGEFTION PURSUANT 21-09.3(D) AREA BOARD QF ZONING APPEALS FINI]INGS OF FACT 1 . THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT SE INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, COMFORT, CC31vI1VIUNITY MORAL STANDARDS, CONVENIENCE OR GENERAL WELFARE 33ECALJSE: Development and use as presented will no# comply with all building, fire, safety, traffic, and parking regulations as to not being injurious to the public heat#h, safety, morals, and general welfare ofthe community. 2. TI-iE PROPOSED USE' WILL NOT I'1~1JURE OA ADVEIEZSELY AFFECT THE USE OF THE AL7JACENT AREA OR PROI~ERTY VALUES THEREIN 88CAUSE: The variance or use will not improve the appearance of the neighborhood and could devalue the surrounding properties. 3. THE FROPUSED USE WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE Cl-3ARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED AND THE LAND USES AIJTI-IORIZEIa THEREIN BECAUSE: Conditions on this property just do not create a different situation Far this property. 4. THE PROPOSED USE IS COMPATIBLE WITI-I THE RECpIvIMENL3ATIONS OF Ti-IE CITY OF' SdUTH I3ENI7 CprYtPREI3ENSIYE I'.L.AN 13HCAUSE: It is the feeling of the Board that the variance will not blend into the overall Comprehensive Plan and may be deviating from its intent. CONDITIONS OR REVISIONS: DEC_ T5I~?`_l. IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Board that this request far Special Exception shall !~e passed onto the City of South Bend Common Council with an: UNF'AVO1R_ABLE RECOIVIIViEN13ATI01V ADOPTED this 7th Day of APRIL, 2010. Y£S T~10 ® MICHAEL, URSANSICI ~ RANDALL MATTHYS ,aBS1r~rT JAGIC YOUNG A>~sE~-r JACK HICKEY ~ GL~RALD PHIPPS ~ ROBERT HA WLEY ~'I JOE VELLEIVIAN Area Board of Zoning Appeals - April 7, 2010 ,, ~ } ,., J. PATRICK MA'PTIICEWSS The petition of ~. Patrick Matthews seeking the following: PARCEL 1: from the required 4,000 sq.ft. lot area to 3,892.77 sq. ft.; from the required 25' front yard setback to 12'; from the required 5'side yard setback to 4' along the south property line; PARCL~'L Z: from the required 4,000 sq.ft. lot area to 3,$97.42 sq. ft.; LET 3: seeking a Special Exception to allow a duplex in a "Sp`2" District;. from the required 6,000 sq.ft. lot area to 5,417.99 sq.ft.; from the required b0' frontage to 0'; from the required b' side yard setback to 1' on the north and south property lines, on property located at 1019, 1019 % and 1021 N. St. Peter Street, .Portage Township. Zoned "SF2". MR. TERRY LANG: Lang, Feeney & Associates, 715 S. Michigan Street, South Bend and I represent the petitioner here, Mr. Matthews. Before you I passed out a series of handouts to you guys to kind of help visualize what the site looks like. The variances that we are asking for on these three parcels, basically there are two existing homes and a duplex on what's labeled on my site plan as Parcels 1 and 3. On that Parcel 1 is a single family home and on Parcel 3 is duplex and Parcel 2 is what we are desiring to build a new single family home on. If you look at the tax snap that was submitted with the petition you'll see that we currently have theee tax parcels that this property encompasses and. our proposed reconfiguration of these three parcels will make the parcels as shown an our site plan. The variances that we are asking for parcels 1 & 2 are square footage and a side yard for the existing home on Paxcel 1 and then strictly a square footage on Parcel 2. If you look we're about 1 I 0 square feet short from meeting the single family residential requirement for those two lots. On the site plan there, Parcel 3, the duplex Iocation there, we're about 580 some square feet short of the requirement an that parcel itself. The pictures that you're looking at that I handed out, the first page of those pictures is what the site looked like when Mr. Matthews bought the property in November of 2008. I-Ie went in there to purchase the property to do renovations, to fix them up and had also met with the Planning Commission staff and Building Department with what can be done and what can be done with possibly putting a future home on the vacant area there also. The first page is the existing conditions that you can see the home that's there, it's not the best pictures I could get, but I wasn't involved with it when he had purchased the property and the owner had provided me those pictures of what it looked like first. The home was an owner lived in home that was there anal had a history with Code Enforcexnent of quite a few calls, complaints with regards to the.area right there. I'll let the owner, Mr. Matthews, ga into more details with that since his familiarity with that is much better than mine. The Parcel 3 that we have right there has been a duplex on site far, our office records ga back to 190 i, the latest map that l can show that duplex has been there prior to 1950. Sa it's anon-conforming use. It's been there for over sixty years from the maps that I have on f le in my office. The owner had purchased and done huge renovations. If you look at page 2 you'll see the renovations to the duplex as well as the renovations that were done to the home. The home located on Parcel 1, have renovations that amounted to roughly $100,000 worth of renovation and current has a family living in it. The renovations that were done to Parcel 3, the duplex was approximately $150,000 worth of renovations and you can see that it's a great improvement to the area that we have right there between those two sets of photos. The third through pages eight, I believe, are the proposed new home that's proposed for Lot 2. You'll see that the owner has hired an architect to design a home for the site. It's a nice two bedroom home to be located on there. Estimated value will probably be somewhere around $140,000 to $150,000. So the investment that the owner has made in the neighborhood right here, with the purchase price that he made originally, is pushing close to X500,000. Sa it's not like we're proposing to hinder the neighborhood by throwing up shoddy housing or anything like that. We"ve made an investment in the area 67 Area Board of Zoning Appeals -April 7, 2010 that has cleaned up the neighborhood. Resolved a lot of the Code Enforcement problems that have been going on in this area for quite some time. I know that the staff is not real fond of, according to their recommendation that they have, but the duplex is the use that has been there well over 60 years. The home has been. there as well and I don't have any proof but T figured tlzexe probably waa a house an that vacant parcel at one time, but I can't find anything because it predates anything that I have record wise for that site. We're looking to reconfigure the three parcels in a manner tha# basically adds a value to the area for the owner as well as a new home being built in the area. i know there are several new homes built in the area already over the last five years or more so it's not like we're going to be hurting anything with regards to that, harmful to the neighborhood. Anew home does add value to the area mare so than a vacant lot. The owner has also extended new utilities into the home sites there at great expense to him also, sa it's not we're going to be doing this and we're going to be gone in two years. There's an investment here that, like T say is close to a half million dollars that we would like to go to the Council with favorable xecommendation. With what you can already see what we've done to the area and what we're proposing to do with the third parcel. If you have any questions I'd be more than happy to answer those. If there's something that would be more than before I got involved, Mr. Matthews is here and he can help with some of those questions also he'll be speaking in favor of the petition also. MR. FEDDER: Is this going to be a rental type property or is he going to live in there? MR. LANG: He does not live on site. l~Ie lives in Granger. So it will probably be a rental. MR. FEDDER: Because I'm always concerned, we're always finding ourselves fighting whether or not you're in compliance with vne student, two students, three students, four students, to one unit, so... MR. LANG: That'll be a question that you can ask Mr. Matthews when he comes up. MR. URBANSKI: Yes, Christa. MS. CHRISTA NAYDER: I just want to reiterate ow- comments. Currently the duplex is anon-conforming use and the fact that the lots are being reconfigured is what's causing it to lose the non-conforming use because the lot is changing it's configuration so that's why we need to ask for the Special E~cception. The Special Exception is then going to make it a permanent use and T think that is what we are kind of against. We're hoping that this is going to turn back into something that is single family since that's what the Northeast Neighborhood Development and Area Plan has identified this area to be. I don't think we have a problem necessarily with the variances for anything that's existing. You know the house is too close to the lot line, they are existing and we understanding that but all three lots need size variances, probably means that there is not enough room there far three separate lots. I also have addition comments from the City Engineers Department. This was in response to the subdivision that may be relative here, it says "no engineering feasibility report has been submitted". Terry said something about the utilities being extended, so I think that's been covered. It's says lot 3 must be served by an improved street, alley must be paved from St. Peter to west side of lot 3 and they also asked if a variance is being sought for any off street parking`? And that conformance with the above comments plus what was requested at the BZA and they t•ecommend approval for the subdivision subject to all of those things. 68 Area Board of Zoning Appeals -April 7, 24l 4 MR. LANG: Same of those questions can be answered by the owner regards to that. IN )li A~®R MR. MATTHEWS PASSED OUT PAPERS TO THE BOARD AT THIS TIME MR..l. PATRICK MATTHEWS: I live at 52127 Fall Creek Drive, Granger, Indiana. In particular the items that I would to address are the ones that were submitted by Area Plan and the letter that l received last week. And for the Special Exemption Use determination, the Special Use determination and adapting of appropriate Findings of Fact, so we would stick with the Findings of Fact. One of their initial unfavorable recommendations is that the use may be injurious to the health and safety of those living in the duplex. By allowing the duplex to continue and building another house in front of it and blocking views from the street, will make access to it harder and harder to see and get to my emergency vehicles. My rebuttal to that is that the access to the duplex is not now and was never intended to be across this vacant lot. The issue that Y ann going to reiterate here is that this is about new construction of a new bungalow home. The duplex that is existing right now was existing for many, many years and when I went to get the necessary permits to improve it there were no remonstrators then. The neighbors was very happy that I was removing the existing conditions and improving the property. But getting back to the access, any reasonable and prudent responder will notice that they could access by using the north south or east west alley adjacent to the building. With respect to the visibility the current building is a two story structure that will be easily visible behind a one scary bungalow and within seconds they will be able to realize that they should access it through the alley. Further I would be happy to visit with any local fire or emergency personnel to determine if it is in fact a concern in fact for the responding departments. Their second rebuttal ox unfavorable recommendation that the use may adversely affect the adjacent area or property values therein since the duplex is out of character with the neighborhood. And I'm just going to continue on. The character of the district in which it is located is largely single family in nature. New haznes are being built in the neighborhood and older homes are being renovated. The Northeast Neighborhood Development Area Plan, I]ecember, 24x3, has identified this area for single family home ownership preservation. Which we all agree. And in my opinion all of these statements support the fact that I would like to build a new single family bungalow style Name. I don't understand the unfavorable recommendation comment. The fact that the investment and the mortgage on the duplex has been made and that issue is not debatable. Whether you approve this favorably or pass it an without any recommendation at all, the duplex is going to continue for decades to come. The investment has been made. The neighbors and the neighborhood and Code Enforcement were all very happy to have the previous owner and tenants removed. They were happy for me to clean up the property and make the investment and the improvements. There were na concerns about the fact that the property was a duplex at that time, they were just happy to see it get cleaned up. This is about construction of a new bungalow and the increased property values and improved streetscape that this building will bring to the area. I've already invested tens of thousand of dollars just in the preparation of the vacant lot. I have had new water and sewer taps installed. Site work has been completed by civil engineers. Architectural work has been completed to design a home appropriate for the area. This work was all performed in goad faith that I gained from initial meetings with the Building Department and the Area Plan. over the last year. Practical difficulties will result from stranded investment in the property tat will not be recoverable. The neighbors will not benefit from a 69 Area Board of Zoning Appeals - Apri17, 2010 vacant lot, void of landscaping, that will become a dumping grounds despite my best efforts to keep it cleaned up. In summary, the existing duplex has been improved and this investment will stay as is for the next several decades. That investment has been made. The issue is whethex or not a new bungalow home is keeping with Area Plan guidelines and will improve the streetscape, improve the values of the surrounding property values and lifestyle. Any questions? MR. HAWLEY: I am looking at the first floor floorplan and I see it looks like you have two full baths and two bedrooms, so you could possibly have two ar three students in there? MR, MATTHEWS: it is possible and it would be my recommendation and zny belief it would be a great property for mazried student housing or just a ... MR. HAWLEY: In looking at the foundation plan, I don't see any windows. Isn't it required to have windows in there or are you going to have any egress ...? On the foundation, yes. MR. MATTHEWS: if it was living space, yeah that would be required. MR. URBANSKI: In going aver to this last piece of paper, now you've got some information from Code Enforcement that there were between ` 98 and ` 48, there were 54 complaints... MR. MATTHEWS: And last year there were zero. MR. URBANSKI: That shed, does that shed sit on one of those pieces of property? Behind the tree looking from the front photo on the second from the last page, I guess it would be. MR. MATTHEWS: That's an existing shed that was on the property when we purchased it. lt's on blocks. MR. URBANSKI: And where it shows the green stakes there, is that the existing property line between the two fats facing the street? MR. MATTHEWS: No that initial green stake next to the mail box is the sewer cleanout for the property in the rear. MR. URBANSKI: Sa you've put new water and sewer service to the existing, plus setting it up for the new one? MR. MATTHEWS: Correct. Over $30,000 worth afexcavation and sewer and water tap work. New curb. new sidewalk. On one of the photos I've provided, it's about the fourth page, it's a little wider view of the vacant lot. On the right hand side there just in front of the bumper there, there are a couple of stakes if you can spot those, those are the new taps far the sewer and water. MR. URBANSKI: There is now an easement now going through that property for the sewer and water going back to the duplex? 70 Area Board of Zoning Appeals -April 7, 2010 MR. MATTHEWS: We would create that easement. MR. URBANSKI: Is there a chance of putting a sidewalk, I mean if this passes, I mean were just recommending, if something Iike this went through, putting a sidewalk back through there so there is a concrete access, walls access to the street? MR. MATTHEWS: Yeah we can certainly da that. MR. URBANSKI: Is there anyone else wishing to speaking in favor of? MR. STEVEN SMITH: I'm a residential real estate broke with the Corner Real Estate Group and Irish Realty, located at X404 Technology Drive, South. Bend, Indiana. Our company name is Irish Realty and we do a lot of work in the area surrounding the University of Notre Dame. We work with local residents, students, faculty, staff and all kinds of different people who make the neighborhood surrounding the University of Notre Dame their home. And many people that I have worked with in recent years have sought and this is an area that is up and coming with the investment that has been made with the Eddy Street Commons Development and now with the St. Joe Hospital relocating and offering up a redevelopment site there and some of the work that's begun but not completed on the triangle development that South Bend Heritage has been working on bringing to the marketplace. Many people are desiring to move back into the City. And as a young real estate professional this is an exciting trend forme. I have been working a lot with investors and homeowners looking to live in this area and there are very view quality housing opportunities available to them. The University of Notre Dame has purchased many properties and torn them down and the structures they have erected are fantastic and have offered up an opportunity here to help farther strengthen and stabilize this neighborhood. But those opportunities are not available to the general public. They are only available to people that are affiliated with the University of Notre Dame and the homes that are built there are three to four times above the medium housing price of our area, And also the project that the South Bend Heritage Foundation sought to bring the market at the triangle and it's taken years and years and it's still not available. And many buyers, renters and home owners and people wanting to live in that area, do not have opportunities to do so. This is a great example where when can improve the streetscape of the property. As Pat has already confirmed the duplex is already been renovated to an extremely high level. It will remain there for years and years regardless of your decision. Right now we have a vacant lot and we have the opportunity to build a beautiful new home that will complete the streetscape, improve the streetscape and offer an affordable housing opportunity for the kind of people that really live in South Bend. MR. URBANSKI: I'm going to ask you a question and maybe you know, we had an instance, if you folks that are sitting here, on Angela of a property that is owned from someone from Schaumberg, Illinois, and managed by who, will this be managed by you as a realty group or the owner? I mean is it going to be something that's going to be handled locally? MR. SMITH: Absolutely. If this does in deed become a rental property and that has not been determined yet. It will have no mare than two unrelated occupants. Ii will be managed personally by me and it will conform to all standards in the area. 71 Area Board of Zoning Appeals - Apri17, 2010 MR.. FEDDER: That was my concern because so many of those houses out there near Notre Dame have violated that section of the code by putting in four, five or six students. And we've been fighting that far several years and it's nice to hear that you will be in compliance with the code. MR. URBANSKI: That will be on the house that's up front, correct? MR. SMITH: That is exact right and that applies to the back property as well. MR. URBANSKI: The duplex too? MR. SMITH: They all have to conform to the standards that are in place and we like to conform to those standards as well. That's why you see the plan that's proposed in front of you is for a two bedroom plan, such if it becomes a rental property there would be no more than two unrelated occupants. The property adjacent is currently rented to a married Notre Daz~ne law student couple and they've signed a two year lease. MR. URBANSKI: The one that has been remodeled? MR, SMITH: Correct, The one next door on Parcel l,1 believe. R.~MONS"~'RANCE MR. PHIL BYRD: Tam the Executive Director ofthe South Bend Heritage Foundation and also work for and with the Northeast Neighborhood Revitalization C7rganization and we're herE to appose the plan development. There are a number of reasons we're in opposition of that. One is parking. We don't think there's suffcient parking with the limited space that's available there to accommodate the residents. There's the duplex, that started out as a four Alex, as they were correct in their statement that was remodeled rota a duplex, however that duplex has four bedrooms and unless I'm incorrect there's a student that lives in each one of those bedrooms which. is probably in violation of the current zoning standards. Ifthere are four students there and two students that would live in the new home that will be constructed, that's six and the family that lives there, that's seven to eight. That requires most students to have their own automobiles so that requires six, seven, eight parking spots. So we don't think that's a doable deal there and for that reason we oppose the development. In addition we remodeled 15 to 20 homes in the last ten years fox all law to moderate income families, so not all the harries that are being constructed ar remodeled in the neighborhood are not all for Notre Darne professors or staff. Again we've remodeled a number on St. Louis, South Bend Ave. axzd some of the other streets. We've also built two homes for law moderate families and there's a third home built by Garden Homes for a Iow moderate family. Sa there's a number of new construction that's gone on in the neighborhood that's specifically targeted for low to moderate income families. We've been at this now for ten years. We do have the triangle development, we hope that will start this summer. There'll be 54 units there or 54 building sites. Thirty per cent of those building sites have been reserved for low moderate families. That's about 14, 15 ar 16 and the rest will be market rate so they will be 30 or 40 market rate opportunities for families to build in the triangle. We're looking at much mare modest houses than are being built on Notre Dame Ave. Probably the largest home that will be built in tl~e triangle, will be about 2400 square feet. Maybe a little larger so a couple hundred or 300,000 will be a maximum far that. Again 72 Area Board of Zoning Appeals -April 7, 2010 these are market rates. Dne of our main objections is presently the duplex is grandfathered which is somewhat controlled if it ever ceases to be occupied for one year, two years, we all know the grandfather goes away. But looking far a Special Use exemption which in effect if that exemption is granted, then it's allowed far every, I mean I don't know if rt will ever be taken away. So we also feel that it also is not an appropriate use for that land. That duplex is actually in the alley. It took zne three years to a find it. I drove down St. Louis and T'd see, I'd go down Hill Street and I'd see it, but I can never f nd it. Well if you ever go down the street, it's really in the alley. It's really an inappropriate use of that space. I don't what it started out probably in the early days it was some type of out building for the farmers or whatever before that became a city dwelling. As was stated, and we do have design guidelines that are being constructed or are being developed that will be processed through the Common Council that will control the kinds of types of constructions that will take place but we haven't had that done yet. That will probably give us some support here but what our mission has been is to create a neighborhood choice for mixed income for residents, owners, owner occupants, not resident renters. We don't have anything against renters but we want more owner occupants. All of the homes that we remodeled that I mentioned previously that however many, 15 or 2a, they were all rental units and they are now all owned by homeowners. I know Notre Dame is here so I won't speak for them, but I'm sure that all of the homes that have been built in their program are all homeowners. I think the operable word is homeowner, not renter. We think that the neighborhood has made great strides. We do not want to take a step back. We think providing, I don't know how many square feet of land is here, but we think providing living accommodations for up to ten people in that small of space and the parking and just the general activities that will take place is probably not an appropriate use. So for those reasons the NNRO and the South Bend Heritage Foundation opposes this Special Use Exemption request. MR. URBANSKI: Anyone else wishing to speak? ANN PUZZELLD; South Bend City Council. l live at 1247 E. LaSalle and I have here a letter written by Stephen and Elizabeth Kollar and I would like to give a copy to the Board if I could. MRS. PUZZELLD GAVE A COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE BOARD AT THIS TIME MRS. PUZZELLD: And I would like to read part of it but partieularIy since things are going so late I'll make it a short part. But I want you to understand what's going on in this neighborhood. What's been going on with this property. You've already been made to understand the character of the neighborhood which tends to be largely single fataaiIy. The character of the neighborhood. We live in a single family neighborhood. These parcels have been an eyesore and an issue for a very long period oftime. The structure on parcel 3 should never have been permitted to be built in the f rst place. It sits at the back intersection of two alleys, each half of the building sits on a separate lot, and it is completely out of character for a single family two neighborhood. It looms over our backyards and dominates the landscape. Safety. Considering the current tenants of the building that straddles parcel 2 and 3 use tl~e public alley as a driveway, there are numerous safety concerns with the upswing in traffic since the new tenants have moved in. And I understand they are students that came in the fall. That's what I understand, There are currently six cars parked in the backyard, front yard of the structure, not to rrzention the 4 cars parked along the street. And there's not hard surface as I understand on the property either. These_ cars race down the alley without stopping to check far any pedestrians or children. This is a tragedy waiting to happen. Then there's zoning 73 Area Board of Zoning Appeals -April 7, 2010 problems right now and Mr. Matthews I believes owns the property and has allowed these zoning violations. The density of non blood related tenants. There are currently nine tenants, and this is not the only time 1 have read this, in this structure for which they are only allowed four. The maximum lot coverage by structure is 50%. This structure violates that as it stands now. The off street parking, it should have I6, if were to do the new parcel, it would need 16 parking spaces on a hard covered lot, a hard surface lot. So I wonder if that's possible. I have not heard anything about that. The off street parking area must be on the same lot as the building and there would be three lots if we allowed this today and I wonder whether if the parking far all three lots would be azre parking area that savers all three, parts of all three lots ar not. And I don't personally know if that's legal or nat. And that's all from that. I just want to mention that the history with this owner as what to understand from neighbors and more than several of them has been too many students irx the duplex, nine or ten of therm. The students were talked to and they said they had ten but they said it was grandfathered. But it isn't grandfathered at all. The fact that they're using parking on dirt when they must know that it's required that it be hard surfaced. Adding another house to it and it would probably be occupied non-related students just adds the possibility for mare violations. And the history is not very goad. So I'm against the... MR. URBANSKI: 1 just have a question Ann, maybe I just read this wrong and help, that the duplex in the back isn't that grandfathered, they can have mare than two unrelated? MRS. PUZZELLO: No it's grandfathered to be a duplex, that's all. MR. URBANSKI: Just a duplex? MRS. PUZZELLO: Yeah and they can have two students on each side of the duplex. Thank you. MRS, CHRIS OLEKSAK: My husband Jim live next door at 1035 N. St. Peter. First I want to say I'm sorry he spent all that money, but he never talked to any of us. I don't know who he's talking about that he was sa happy that he moved in. We wanted that tarn down when Demitris owned it. We tried to have that happen but we could never win that battle when it was condemned. But just let me tell you what's going on and I also have the neighbors that are furious about this. They signed this petition to not let this happen. MR. URBANSKI: Yau understand oar's is just a recommendation? MRS. OLEKSAK: Okay, this is the start my husband told me so this is where I'm starting. My husband Tim and I have lived at 1035 N. St. Peter Street far the past 35 yeas. We raised five children in this neighborhood and by the way that lot they're talking about could possibly have had a house on it. That was part of our iot and Timmy Carter, back there (pointing to someone in the audience) was born and raised in that neighborhood, he'll tell you that thing used to be a laundry, a dog kennel, a store front. It used be a lot of things. Jim's back there, (painting to someone in the audience) he doesn't want to talk though. I'rn a RN working a local hospital here. Jim couldn't be here because he's out of town on business and I just want to use this, we got together and wrote this, sa we'll present it to you. Our lot is next door to 1021 N. St. Peter St. The history of St. Peter Street and the surrounding neighborhood has been a constant struggle between absentee landlords and families who own single family homes. The struggle on St. Peter Street has revolved 74 Area Board of Zoning Appeals _ April 7, 2010 around the rental property at 1021 N. St. Peter Street During the last 3b years we have had to deal with many problems that were caused by the renters at 1021 and the absentee landlord fox failure to keep the property up to City codes. I strongly urge you to review the city files on this property before considering the request. First of all, we have had to deal with drug dealers. One incident occurred in front of my children where a drug dealer chased a person down the street firing a gun at another man. We reported suspicious activity to the police and formed a neighborhood watch many years ago. Ovex the years at 1021, there have been regular loud blaring music till eaxly morning hours and I just want to add here, I work the day shift at the hospital and I have to get up at 4:30 and when they play they're rap music_until 2 in the morning and I get up to have to take care of people that are dying, I can't handle it. I can't take good care of these patients. And that's my dedication is the dying, okay? We have had multiple incidents with loud drunks including out of control drunk driving down the alley and down our street during early morning hours multiple times, loud domestic disputes, f ghts and a stabbing. A renter, one of the guys over there, exposed himself to one of my daughters while she was playing in the back yard. V,le have had to deal with roaches, rats and mice after fumigation on that property. When the apartments at 1021 were acquired I saw the renovation plans that were to make two 2 story units. However, we were informed by the formex absentee landlord, that was Demitris, that the new landlord was going to try to renovate the apartments so that 10 persons could rent the apartment, that legally he is only allowed to rent to four. This fall when the present renters were having a loud party with between 35 to 40 kids, I went over to ask them to turn dawn the music because my grandson could not sleep due to the rap music that was blaring sexual, violent lyrics to a heavy deep drum beat, in our quite little neighborhood, I asked one ofthe men how many people were living there and he said "10, but we're grandfathered in." He repeated to me four times as I walked away. And rr~y only response quietly and I said this to him, "this is a family neighborhood and we'll see about that." Please investigate how many bathrooms are in this building. I think you're going to f nd out this landlord had no intention of following the code to rent to just four people. Parking is a serious problem. Caxs are being parked on the 1019 property's back yard on what's left of the grass. These issues have led us to believe the new absentee landlord is not fallowing the City codes and that he only wants to rent to as many persons as he can, possibly legally or illegally, at the expense of the families trying to survive in the surrounding area. We feel that the City's plan for this part of the North East side is to encourage single family home development. Indeed, the new construction on St. Peter Street and Notre Larne Avenue has been single family homes. With the never resident halls on the Notre Dame campus and the new apartments at the Foundry, we believe that there is no justification for student housing in the residential neighborhoods around St. Peter Street. We also fell that the City Council has set a precedent with the recent denial of Windmaor House, another non-conforming property one block from 1021, for variance because the character of the neighborhood is single family ownership. Our home has been broken into and our garage broken into several tunes. Our cars have been broken into sa many times that we don't even lock our doors anyxnare. A fight at the Notre Dame Avenue Apartments two blocks away resulted in the death of a kid. Rental units do not stabilize neighborhoods, home ownerships do. We believe that the real reason behind the request for the variances is to give the new absentee landlord the ability in the future to construct another rental duplex in the front yard of 1021, which I might add is very tiny. I mean I couldn't live in a house like that and my husband and me are the only ones left. I'm almost done. In fact, I, my husband was asked by one of the partners, one of the people over here, owner of 1019, 1021, what the neighbors would think if he was to build another rent unit in the front yard at apartments at 1021 St. Peter, My comment, this is facetious, but why doesn't this guy just tear everything 75 Area Board of Zoning Appeals -April 7, 2010 down and build up a high rise if that's what he wants to do to rent to like 30 or 40 people. This is my last paragraph. We and the other neighbors do not want anymore rental units and the petition, that I'm going to give you, is a signed list of those living in the neighborhood who do not want you to approve the requested variances. One development criteria used is to consider the best use of the properties in a given area. The best development use for North St. Peter Street is single family homes. I urge you to deny the variance fax 1019 and 1021 N. St. Peter Street and respect the voice of the people in our neighborhood. Renters come and ga and don't care about the property, We have the safety of our homes and families to consider whenever new rental properties open up. We were here first and have dedicated our lives to making this neighborhood a gentle place to live. Please don't let us down by making the wrong decision. Single family homes is definitely the wave of the future for this neighborhood to ensure safety and stability to this part of South Bend. That's it. MRS. BETH SA1~iFORD: I Live at 1013 N. St. Peter Street. I'd Tike to thank you for giving us this opportunity to be able to present our petition to the Board. First of all, you have the letter, which you can pass around, I' 11 try to summarize due to the time. My husband and I have been homeowner of our property for the last 17 years. We have five children ranging in age from one to eleven. This property is, although it is two over, it basically has been looming in our backyard far the last, for as long as we have lived there. Over the years we have had to deal with drug dealers, prostitution raids, pedophiles, domestic abuse calls, drug users, transients, and illegal immigrants living in conditions that were substandard. N.E.S.T. raids, theft, underage drinking, loud obnoxious parties and increased traffic flow. These properties have always been a problem. Over the years, well recently, it is true the property has been cleaned up but I'd like to address the fact that far the character of the neighborhood this is established as a single family. We live in a neighborhood that is rich in family history. I know several families on our Mock alone ... MR. FEDDER: Ma'am, take your time. You don't have to rush. I know you're nervous, just take your tune. MRS. SANFORD: The character of our neighborhood is single family, We Iive in a neighborhood that is rich in family history. I know several families an our block alone that leas multiple generations that have lived within two blocks from one another and continue io do sa. Our neighbor next door to us, the Kollar's, they're actually second family to live there, in 1901 the Gates had built it his daughter and up anti! 199$ she passed away. There are still elderly people who live there. The Ice's on the corner have been there since 1955. Thus far, from what we have seen Mr. Matthews has already been non-compliant which causes great concern far the future of these said properties. From rrly understanding he wants to build an additional building an the property known as 1021 N. St. Peter Street as he had confirmed that. The density of such student housing is z~at consistent with the character of our neighborhood. There are plenty of areas with a concentration of student housing that is much mare appropriate than our quiet street. Since the students have moved in we have been awakened several times in the middle of the night from the students yelling and screaming, not to mention to say their m.usie often contains profanity. Like I said I have a one year old and I don't know if any of you have children or grandchildren but after you get the baby to sleep and you get waken up at 3 a.m. because people are screaming and yelling and they don't care the fact that they live in a residential neighborhood, you know they're students. They're not really considerate of others. And our children, we have f ve children and the children up in front have also been. woken up and I have called and I know the Kollar's have called as well, the police several times. So when he says he has zero violations, I'm 7C Area Board of Zoning Appeals -April 7, 2010 surprised he doesn't have any noise violations with regard to his property. We have the residents, the students, we have asked them numerously if they could please quiet down. And even after they have not responded to our "please be quiet" and even after the police have left the scene they would be quiet for five minutes and then five minutes after they knew the police would be gone, the music goes back up. 1 often have wandered over the years haw has this property been able to remain.? And why would you give it exceptions that would continue to bring dawn the quality of life in our neighborhood? We should strive to bring families back into the neighborhoods, not drive them out. Thank you very much for your time. MR. URBANSKI: Anyone else wishing to speak in apposition to? MR. 3OE QUEENAN: Live at 912 N. St. Peter Street and 1 too have made a significant investment in the neighborhood although I decided to live there. When we built our house there was absolutely no question an complaining with the zoning ordinances. We decided to make our home in South Bend we invested our hard earned money to build a house on St. Peter Street because we believed there was a shared vision between the City of South Bend and the residents of this transforming Northeast Neighborhood community. While there is a need for affordable, multi unit rental housing across the country, the petition submitted by Mr. Matthews stands in direct contrast with this vision specif tally in direct contrast to the stability and long term outlook that can only be provided by permanent family residents. When we first moved in to our new home my wife and I would often walk past this area and many times we were almost hit by cars coming out of this alley at a rate that you think they're running the Indianapolis 500. Now we walk across the other side of the street so we don't get hit. As we walk past there we constantly ask ourselves "how can what our neighbors call the "Barracks" have ever been passed in a zoning ordinance like what we're talking about here today. And to this day we often wonder how emergency vehicles could ever respond to a fire or other emergency situations at this property? It seems there is neither street front access nor an alley setback that would a11aw adequate access for emergency response and rescue teams. We are very concerned that by granting Mr. Matthews petition you would essentially confer legal standing to something which should never been built in the first place and the safety of the families in the surrounding homes may be placed at permanent risk. We strongly feel that the home owners and permanent residents of St. Peter Street would not be well served by the committee forcing our neighborhood to take a step back in time and permit additional multi unit transient rental properties. I feel bad that Mr. Matthews jumped the gun and spend the money that he had but however, we strongly appose the petition submitted by him and urge you to reject his request for variances and Special Use Exception an the St. Peter properties. Thank you. MR. GREG HAKANEN: Pm the Director of Asset Management and Real Estate Development for Notre Dame. I guess more importantly in this context the University has worked very closely over a long period of time with the NNRO, NENC and neighborhood residents to help re-establish this neighborhood as a quality family neighborhood. And it's in that context, and I'll keep my comments brief because the local homeowners have said much more eloquently than I. 1'Il start with the concern we don't have which is in isolation the structure that's being proposed, we don't object to. lt's a modest 1,100 square foot home. That's fine. We want diversity of housing in the neighborhood. Architectural style while modest is traditional and so we simply don't object to the structure itself. Our concern has to do with use and occupancy. And it all starts with the duplex building, that several people have painted out is built at the intersection of two alleys. And the relevance in my mind is that is it's location itself will always diminish the type of people who will want to live there no matter how much money has been spent inside the 77 Area Board of Zoning Appeals -April 7, 2010 structure. And so if 1 understand correctly it's duplex, two units, four bedrooms apiece. I take the word of the homeowners that there are more than 4 unrelated parties living there. I went by this morning to take some pictures and observed many more cars in the ]ot than 4 in the lot, sa I have a tendency to believe that. And so the concern with the new structure, isn't the structure itself but it's adding mare of what I think inevitably will be student renters tp an already overly subscribed site. I think a family that's paying attention would look out the back door of this house and see a large structure with rental units in it probably occupied by students and they'd say "I'd rather be somewhere else." Sa I think inevitably whatever his intentions might be, I think this new stricture is going to wind up in the hands of under graduate students. And we Iave our students but the problem their lifestyle is often incompatible with the lifestyle of the residents that live there. Finally I guess in full disclosure mode, when we became aware that these properties had been purchased we approached the owners of the properties to see if we could buy them and fold them into the Notre Dame Avenue housing program, we discovered they were asking twice the appraised value. And we had appraisals done, even Notre 1'7ame couldn't justify those kinds of numbers so. But l just want you to know that this is not a case of sour grapes. We would have loved to folded them into the program but we couldn't pay the price. Finally this wasn't our issue, but one of the pictures I took from the street and if the issue is visibility for emergency vehicles, I think a structure on this property is absolutely going abscuxe the new building. And from my perspective the issue wasn't emergency vehicles but it just further Iawers the desirability of living there and therefore the desirability of the people that will rent there. Thank you for your time. MR. URBANSKI: Greg can I ask you a question? 1VIR. HAKANEN: Sure. MR. URBANSKI: First of all, my comment, I have all respect for the University of Notre Dame and everything you do. The largest employer, without Notre Dame, who knows where South Bend would be. But also I hope you understand because I was a landlord at one time, close to the University and I had grad students. Four ar eve grad students who are very prominent in the community at this time, two of them are. You talk about the rental houses, but it's supply and demand and I'm not sure what the University can do to promote more housing, apartments. I don't know what it is. There's a gentleman sitting in the back, Sohn Phair, ten or fifteen years ago had a plan for that whale neighborhood and it kind of fell an his face for whatever. I think people buy property in that neighborhood because of supply and demand and unfortunately, and I understand your position on that and I think it is great what you have done on Notre Dame Avenue and St. Peter Street, but the supply and demand and the supply is conning from your organization and same kind of spark business, please understand, it's just the way it is. MR HAKANEN: I guess on the demand side what I would say is that Notre Dame does house 80% of it's students on campus and I don't know if you have perspective country wide, that's quite unusual. So in a sense we do to an amazing extent take care of and house our own. But you're right a simple head count tells you that 20% of those students are going to seek housing else where. And our hope, there actually has been a lot of new student oriented housing developed, not so much south of campus but east of campus. My personal hope is that that will absorb a lot of the demand for students that want to live off campus. And what 78 Area Board of Zoning Appeals -- April 7, 2010 t~vill hurt is the sort of marginal housing where housing developed for single families is converted into student housing. We're hoping that goes away. MR. URBANSKI: Because the key before us, south of South Bend Avenue, and I know it's going late but I think it's an issue, south of South Bend Avenue, I think we're seeing appears from St. Louis Street a young man came here, the house was the grandparents, parents and he owns it and I think there were 13 houses on that block from South Bend Avenue going south and out of 13 houses l0 were rentals. They were multi family, I mean duplexes and we sent it with an unfavorable recommendation. It's kind of rough on both sides of the issue for the people out there, okay and 1 know what's happened with Eddy Street Commons is fantastic, I know the plan to get housing was at one time the old woods, which is where it sits at, the ' gentleman in the back of the room, but to put apartments there and clean up the rental properties from Michigan Street to I forget where it was, okay. And I don't know if that's ever going to happen. Ironic someone just passed a photo here in opposition, showed one of the vehicles parked there was a Hummer II, a big four door Hummer lI. You might have seen that today? MR. HAKANEN: I did. Guess who owns that vehicle? A student. MRS. ERIN RYAL: I live at I I05 N. St. Peter Street a little bit further down the street but not too far. I'm here on behalf of myself: My neighbor took the time to write a letter, I took the time to come down here just to voice the opposition to this. They said pretty much everything I wanted to say. We made a big investment to move into this neighborhood. We have seven children and I just really feel Iike everything what ever they said is how we feel, how our neighbor feels but I do have her Ietter. And I really don't have anything to add. Everybody did such a great jab, I just wanted to let you know ai-ter sitting here all this time, I just wanted to say something. MR. FEDDER: Is that a letter frarn your neighbor? MRS. RYAL PRESENTED THE BOARD WITH A LETTER AT THIS TIME MR. URBANSI~I: We have two letters. We have one from Jill Bodensteinex, Associate Athletics Director at the University of Notre Dame. She owns a house at 920 St. Peter, for the reasons set forth in the attached letter submitted by the University of Notre Dame, I oppose the following petition. And Greg you were here and gave the views. There's also a letter to the Board members from the University of Notre Dame. The second one which is signed by Greg Hakanen. The third letter we received is from Brian Levey, 91$ N. St. Peter St., I am writing to oppose the above referenced petition. And I could read through them but they're basically what everyone has said. With the public portion closed, Terry or Pat Matthews if you have any rebuttal. I~EBUT'TAL: MR. LANG: We're not going to stand up here and say this neighborhood was perfect before we got here. The history of the reiterated by all of the residents here. The fact that we've cleaned the neighborhood up with what we have done to it. Remember the number of Code Enforcement complaints have gone from 54 to 0, I think says a lot far the character of the owner of the property. I did happen to talk with him with regards 79 Area Board of Zoning Appeals - Apri17, 2410 to a couple of items that came up. In the set of pictures that Pat had presented, he did show a possible plan for the parking behind the homes and also in front of the duplex. It was kind of a colored plan with parking an that. This is a work in the process. The parking tha#'s there right now is just a dirt parking area which we're trying to get anything we do pavement wise, we' d like to do ail at once with regard to a new home if at all possible. I guess one of the main issues why we're here for the new home site. We're 100 square feet away from what's required by the City of South Bend. 100 square feet. I can move that back property line 2 feet over and I have a lot that complies with that 4,000 square foot. The grandfathered use of that duplex, it's going to continue to be a duplex. It's been there before the zoning ordinance came into effect in 1960. My maps go back before 1950 and it was shown an there so it predates at least 60 years that that building has been there. It may not of always been a duplex or some sort of facility was there, that the neighbors have seen that building there probably longer than some of the people that have lived there now, the building has been there. We've fixed it up. We've made, I thought, an improvement to the area and we would like to put a new home on the vacant lot right there which would also be an improveixient other than a vacant lat. Pat isn't an absentee owner. He lives here in South Bend in the Granger so he is here to address concerns or complaints that may be on it and I think that is relevant to the number of complaints that the neighborhood has gotten on this property since then. The University, they've done wonders for the area out, I'll be the first to admit it even though I'm a Purdue grad. The fact that the University owns several properties out there. I went through my list, the University's name comes up on six of the properties. They're an absent landlord too. Na different than Pat living in Granger. The University owns several properties. A iot of them are that works as professors grid stuff like that, or other employees but the University's name comes up on the tax statement as owners of those properties that has houses on them. Sa they're not any different then we are an putting a home on a piece of property and trying to provide something the University uses. Your comment on supply and demand, the University can come up with a hundred million dollars for a new football stadium but they can't come up with money for a new dorm building that can hawse another 10% of the students out there. That would eliminate a lot of the problems. As long as there is a supply and demand you're going to have the different people that rent properties. The domer.com out there, the Kramers, the people that are taking advantage of the fact that the University had a hundred million dollars for a new stadium but they couldn't afford to Pat a $100,000 for a piece of property that has two buildings on it. I'rn just throwing numbers out there, l'rn not sure what the appraised values was, but it's kind of talkixig out of both sides of your mouth. If you want to buy it, buy it. It was up for sale and they didn't. Pat did. He's cleaned it up, he's fixed up. He's putting an investment into the area and would like to put another single family home on the vacant piece up front. Pat has a few things to say also, MR. FEDDER: Just for the record, this is the petitioner now talking. MIZ.. PAT MATTHEWS: I would like to reiterate some of things that Terry mentioned and also to say that I have a tremendous amount of respect for the home owners of the neighborhood and for Notre Dame and Greg. I think that Notre Dame acts professionally and I think Greg does a great job representing Notre Dame. With respect to some of these items they've brought up. I want to be a good neighbor and I've told and talked with some ofthe people that have come up here before and I've given them my business card. Some of these instances that they're referring to, I'm unaware of because I haven't been contacted. I haven't contacted by the Neighborhood Code Enforcement, I haven't been contacted by the neighbors and as far as I know, and I'm not looking for a pat on the back, but Pve improved the property and want to eon#inue to improve the property. As Terry irientioned, with all due respect, Notre Dame rents homes in the $0 Area Board of Zoning Appeals - Apri17, 2010 neighborhood. They. rent homes across the street. They own vacant property that's not well maintained right across the street frazn this. The property looks in worse shape then my property does when I took it over. So I just wanted to share that. I'm happy to visit with anybody or answer any questions. I would hope that you would pass this on with a favorable recommendation. The issue is not the duplex. The duplex will be there for decades to come. The investment has been made. The issue is whether a new single family home will be an impraveznent to the neighborhood and the streetscape and to the lifestyle. MR. URBANSKI: Any questions from the Board or staff? SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE WANTED TO SPEAK AGAIN MR. URBANSKI: Normally you can only speak one time. Please speak at the microphone Phil because it's being recorded. MR. PHIL BYRD: I would agree with the gentleman here that the new construction might not be the issue, the issue is the duplex and to go from anon-conforming use to give it Special Use Exception forever is one of our primary objections. We do not want that structure to get Special Use Exception, period. MR. VELLEMAN: You all hope that it will never be a duplex is what I'm understanding, is that right? MR. BYRD: It's a duplex now. MR. VELLEMAN: You'll all holding out hope that one year it won't get rented out and it will revert back? MR. BYRD: It will revert back, yes. MR. VELLEMAN: Do you think that's a realistic objective? MR. BYRD: Who knows. Who knows. If you vote and grant the Special Use, we know it will always be that way. MR. FEDDER: Mark, do want to add something? MR. MARK LYONS: Just a real quick point of clarification. The duplex is one of the issues here because as soon as you change the legal lot of record that that duplex sits on, as a legal non-confarrning use, if that Special Use is not granted that duplex does have to cease to exist and can not he used. As soon as you change the lot lines, it would lose it's legal non-conforming status. MR. PAT MATTHEWS: I was not aware of that nor was I aware that was the issue that was standing in their way. If it would appease them, I think they all recognize the investment has been made in the duplex as it is, but if the issue is whether or not this duplex will 6e a duplex for the next 10(3 or i 50 years, even if it remains vacant for several years, I would be happy to concede on that concession. That it would remain a grandfathered unit and allow us to move forward. $1 Area Board of Zoning Appeals - Apri17, 2014 MR. URBANSKI: But then you couldn't build the other house because you'd have two pauses nn the same piece of property. I'm sorry, go ahead Mark. . MR. MATTHEWS: Well we'll move along with the Special Exception, if we need to re-apply we could do that, but we can move along with the Special Exception that says even though this is a legal non-conforming it would lose it status if it doesn't go far a year or two. Again the issue is whether the new construction, again the duplex is going to be there. The issue is whether the new construction will improve the streetscape and improve lifestyle of the neighborhood. MR. VELLEMAN: But we can't do one without the other. MR. MATTHEWS: I understand and that's why I'm offering this concession. 1 didn't realize that was the issue that the fear was that this would be a duplex for the rest of eternity. I can help them with that. MR. PHIPPS: I don't think rt the whole issue concerning of the neighbors. MR. URBANSKI: I'll tell you. I have a suggestion, I can't make a motion. MR. PHIPPS: I'll make a motion. Back a long time ago, Angela Blvd. proposal, was that today Mark? 1 repeat what I said then. I think it is appropriate for this proposal too. We have no control over whether people live in their property or rent it out. W e have no control whether they rent it to students and certainly no control aver student behavior. But one thing that we do have some degree of control over is the density of the development. And that's really what they're asking far would be variances to change lot lines and with the variances for each is to allow another house to be built where there is already a density factor and one house on a relatively small property. T again would say I am opposed to grant any variances that would relax the standards which would increase, in this case, the density because I think that's not the only problem, it's part of the problem. The more students you get in a small area adds to the behavior problems the neighbors suffer from. It may be that the students out number the residents and I think they should be able to decide what goes on but that's not for me to say. But what we're asked to do is to approve same variances which would allow them to increase the density from what it legally is now to another two or three people. And I'm opposed to that, so I'll make a motion to deny the variances. MR. URBANSKI: I guess before we get a second, my comment is... MR. FEDDER: You have a motion on the floor. MR. URBANSKI: Okay, do we have a second? MR. PHIPPS: One thing I failed to mention, as I pointed if we deny the variances the Special Use is irrelevant because they can't get the Special Use ifthey don't have the variances. So we eventually will be making the decision. ~ - 82 Area Board of Zoning Appeals - Apri17, 201:0 MR. HAWLEY: I'II second that. MR. URBANSKI: I guess one of the things that I have thought about is on this, is to approve the variances and put it aver to the Council. As you well know I don't like to take it off of us, okay. That was icy thoughts. Do we have any other questions on the motion`? MR. MATTHYS: If we were to approve the motion here now, it would basically die. MR. URBANSKI: Correct, it would die before it goes to the Council. MR. FEDDER: Na if it dies it will ga to the City Council with an unfavorable recoi:cimendatian. MR. URBANSKI: If we deny the variances they cannot... so I said the wrong thing at the start of this meeting when we didn't have the final answer of the recammendatian and I stand corrected. MR. MATTHYS: So if we were to make a motion that approved the variances and it went to the City Council and they denied the Special Exception, Special Use, then what happens to the duplex? It goes back to being grandfafhered the way it was. The existing non-conforming, exactly as it is? MR. URBANSKI: So that was my thought is if we send it, it's not that... MR. LANG: A lot of the variances that we're asking far here is for the existing side yards far the buildings that are already there. . MR. URBANSKI: So here is one of my difficulties are, okay? We have a duplex sitting on two lots. One of the lots has to be 40' x 30'... MR. LANG: I think it's 40' x40'. MR. URBANSKI: 40 X 40 and the lot the petitioner wanted to build a house on that lot in the back, okay? If we approve everything except for the square footage of the lot far the buildable site, we would actually clean up the site. MR. LANG: Correct. MR. URBANSKI: As we did on three or four others. So what I'm saying by this then is the idea of the lot lines. The lot line configuration which. will put both of the houses that are on the property an a lot by themselves at this time. MR. LYONS: He has to have the Special Use .._ MR. URBANSKI: He has to have the Special Use to have the duplex back there? 83 Area Board of Zoning Appeals -April 7, 2D l Q MR. LYONS: If they change the existing lot lines, he has to have the Special Exception. MR. URBANSKI: The existing Iot Iine goes through the center of it. MR. LYONS: Let me explain the situation. If they move those Iot lines and the Special Use is denied, they now lose the right to use that as a duplex. MR. URBANSKI: Okay, so if we approve this change and they go to the City Council and the City Council turns them down, if send it with. no recommendation and approving the variances and it goes to the City Council, to Ann, and the City Council turns it down. They lose the non-conforming issue on ti? MR. LYONS: At that point they just would not submit a subdivision. They can not do a subdivision without that Special Exception. MR. URBANSKI: Without a Special Exception .from us and the City. MR. LYONS: The variances would be irrelevant without the subdivision. MR. URBANSKI: Well I was trying to think of a way to clean up the mess because part of this... but that will not work in this case? Okay any other questions before we call for the vote? MR MATTHYS: So if there's na variance, if the left it the way it is, would there be any variances needed if they weren't creating the three separate parcels? MR. URBANSKI: Well really there should be because, as you see that, it goes all the way through here (Mr. Urbanski showed Mr. Matthys something on the site plan at this time) MR. MATTHYS: Okay I understand. MR. PHIPPS: They wouldn't need them because they're not changing anything. MR. URBANSKI: Today's it's grandfathered but that going to have to be needed whether God forbid the duplex burns down, or something happens to one of the houses, it's going to have to be straightened up someday. What I don't quite understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, he purchased and this is relevant to the vote, he purchased all three properties, nothing was said then that that Iine went right through the center of that duplex? That would not have ...? MR. LYONS: He purchased a legal non-conforming situation. And that Iegal non-conforming situation can remain as long as it remains as purchased and continuously rented and occupied. If you change a legal non- conforming situation, you now must bring everything into compliance. $4 Area Board of Zoning Appeals -- Apri17, 2p 1 Q MR. URBANSKI: Okay and let me ask a question. And I'm not trying to be the devils advocate but I'm just confused, but the property on Howard Street that's the church, now I xealize that he did not come forth for it originally, but if he would have walked into the Building Department across the street and asked for a permit to remodel it, okay, then you would have said to him "you have to have the parking places" da, da, da. Pat Matthews walked into the Building Department to get a building permit and I'm assuming he got a building permit, io remodel the duplex and to remodel the existing home but nothing was ever said to him that he had to bring in... MR. LYONS: Actually before Mr. Matthews bought the property, we worized with the previous owner to make sure it was legally grandfathered for the duplex. So the previous owner actually came in and supplied all the infornr~ation he could to prove it was legal non-confornr~ing duplex and legal non-conforming situation. So when Mr, Matthews bought rt he was aware he was buying a legal non-conforming situation. MR. URBANSKI: But you questioned the church because, for the parking for the non-conforming, isn't that called non-conforming? But you don't question when. a lot line runs through the middle of a house? MR_ URBANSKI: If you own a structure that crosses a lot line, for building purposes it ties those two together for one legal buildable Iot. MR. URBANSKI: That's right, I forgot that. I'm sorry. Alright Iet's call far the vote. A motion for denial of the variances was made by Mr. Phipps and seconded by Mx. Hawley. The motion carried unanimously. A oration to send the Special Exception to the City Council with an Unfavorable Iiecommezedatfon was made by Mr. Phipps and seconded by Mr. Hawley. The motion carried unanimously. After hearing the evidence on the petition, the Area Board of Zoning Appeals find that you did not satisfy the Standards as set forth in l.C. 36-7-4-9i$.5; therefore, the petition for variances was denied and the petition for Special Exception is sent to the City Council with an Unfavorable Recommendation. Based on the testimony presented, the Area Board of Zoning Appeals, after careful consideration, finds these variances denied and the Special Exception is sent to the Conr-mon Council with an Unfavorable Recoinmeodatiun and will issue written Finding of Facts. PETITTOI®I FOIZ YAR][ANCES DENIED PE'I`ITON FOIL SPECIAI, EXCEPTI®N SENT TO THE COMMON COUNCfL WITH AN UNFAVOI~AIII..E IIECOIVINIENDATION $5 Area Board of Zoning Appeals -April 7, 20I 0 IvIR. URBANSKI: I'd Iike to add one comrrient. I appreciate everyone who has come from the neighborhood to vaice their opinion about it and all that Terry and the presenters have done too. I realize it went Iong, but thank you. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, ANNEXING TO AND BRINGING WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA CERTAIN LAND IN CENTRE TOWNSHIP, CONTIGUOUS THEREWITH; COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT 5, LOUISE BERKHEISER, b0601 SOUTH MAIN STREET, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46614 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT A Petition for the voluntary annexation of .2169 acres located in Centre Township, St. Joseph County, Indiana, has been filed by 100% of the owner of the land in the territory sought to be annexed. It is the intent and purpose of this Ordinance to annex this territory to the City of South Bend, Indiana. THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. That the following described real estate situated in St. Joseph County, Indiana, being contiguous by more than one-eight (1 /$) 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: Lot 33 & N 30' lot 34 Gillmeers So Michigan Add. 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 a part of the City of South Bend, Indiana. SECTION III. This Ordinance shall be in full farce and effect 30 days from and after its passage by the Common Council, approval by the Mayor, and Iegal publication. Member of the Common Council ~' Attest: City Clerk City Clerk Presented by me to the Mayor ofthe City of South Bend, Indiana on the of , 2 , at o'clock , m. Approved and signed by rr,e on the at o"clock .m. day of day 2 , Mayor of the City of South Bend ::~'T w,','ic~'tf ~F: ~e ~? X4$3. ~A,55 ~Pft ~ ~ 20101 JCr1~Pd L'Ci7~CE CITY C~.f~`i~i, S^, EEidJ ~~ !~ ~1.,..r, Page 1 of 1 Janice 7Calbonm - Betkheiset Annex Schedule Prom: Jeff Vitton Ta: Talboorn, Janice Date: 5/5/2D10 11:53 AM Subject: Berklzeiser Annex Schedule Janice please review and let me know if this Iooks alright {I'm a little xusty here). I am cutting it close between the Board of Safety meeting and the Resoluticm deadline, but this is a really simple annexal,ion so I don't expect any problems. _.... T~ntatiwe An:texatiooti ScB~~tlule Berkltieiser 60"01 S 1<~iais~ ;Date Input Area `File Date 4f29f10 Letter to Cnuncil SfEsf10 1st Readin _ g _ _. ...,. ~f1D11Q . Service Report Request Sent ' .. Sf11/10 , Service Report Request Due _. . ,... 5f28f10 'Fiscal Plan i7ane t 6f4f10 BOPVs/ Agenda Session ~ __ . 6f10f10 BI~PW Hearing- ~ 6114f10 . l~a~s 6I~311 Ci ;APC Public Hearing.. NIA ....;APC Repnrt to Council NIA av~ner Notification 6f4f10 Cnuncil Aduertisement ... _ 61.4!10 Resalutinn tv Clerk ~ _ 6f23f10 2nd Reading ... .. . 6y28f10 3rd Reading. -° 7/12f1D Adueriised _.. _... 73110 .Remonstrance Start __. .. _. 7f23f10 'Remonstrance End '' ........ 8fZ3f10 Days::: __ ..._ ... ~ 16 Months: _. .... , 3.9 Jeff L. Vittota Community Development Planner City of South Bend, IN South Bend Heritage Foundation 574-2$9-1066X223 (SBHF} 574-235-585$ X 5$27 (City) Voice Mail Only jvitton@soutlzben din.gov South Bend Heritage Foundation $d3 Lincalnway West South Bend, IN 46b1G I'lcasc consider tl~e environsracnt lrefare printing this e+nail. file://C:1IJocdtments and Settingsl~TALB~QMiLocal SettzngslTemplXPgrpwisel4BEI5C2E.,. 5/5/2010 N -C "~ o $ ~ _ _ cn 0 ~ ~ ,; ~' ~~ 1 _. ~ ~~ ~=_- .fir _ ~ ~~ ~l~t- ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ T~~ V ' ~ ~ }} ~ _ _$ ~ 4 _ ~ ---- Y C 0. ~~ k % R ¢¢ k ~~ 4 "".._....- 3 3 ~ ~ ~ F ~~~M~~~ ~. ~ R y( ~ -~ -'_~ ~ ~ f ~~~ •`'~- S`.~(iR ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ yny s~s• ~~ p '~ p Rs~i R ~Z qy _ ~~~ ~~ O ~~ dl~ ~'O SRg~ ~~~~~ ~ EA O#!tn r 1 r ~ ! !S ~ '"~' ~~ ~ ~ ~CI ~I d~ 3HER 3 P. C. ~_ ~ Pp~~~~a$~ ~ ~ XAE S7A SJf3tl ~~ •~~ b 4 - -~ Lja.- ~;~:. ~~\ ~~._ i \~ \\~\ L11"f' S7AEF7 ~~ ~1^_ \~ \\ 1 I I I I { 1 I ~ i NR !S 1 1 ~ r•^ I F I I E f I ~ 1 ~ I ~ I ~ ~7 1 I ~ ! H r-~~ t ® - ~~ 3S+ ~~ ~>•P ~~ ~ ~~_ X37+ ~ r~ I pumn~ sneerr I Y : ~ !~ __ w ~z._.. 'Y: 1 ~i; I f $ ~?38fOC I ~ ~ ice. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f k~ ~ ; '~; ~® ~ I t I +I I AhlLW LAL ST.t .1410 CITY DF' SOUTH BEND ~~ ~, SOUTH 51DE 5ANITARY SEWER AN~7 ,~ ~ WATER MAIN EXTENSIDN PHASE I PLAN AND PRDFILE STA. 33+50 TO STA. 38+50 LINE 'A' ~- ~~ .:I.`. ~i ~,.E ~~I ~~ 4 {~ ~1l ~Jo~ Z`~--(c~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AIVIIENDTNG THE ZONTNG ®RI)TNANCE FOR PROPERTY' LOCATED AT 850 FELT10~4'S S'T'REET, SOUTH BENT), INDIANA 4bb01-3I2)<, COUI®'CILMANIC DISTRICT 2 IN THE CITN OF SOTJTH BEND, TNI)IANA STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT WHEREAS, the property located at $50 Fellows Street, South Bend, Indiana 4650]-3121, is currently zoned bight Industrial District; and WHEREAS, H. C. CHRISTMAN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., wishes to rezone the property located at $50 Fellows Street, South Bend, Indiana 4660 1-3 1 2 1, to General Industrial District; and WHEREAS, rezoning the property located at S50 Fellows Street, South Bend, Indiana 46601-3121, is necessary in order that the property may be used andlor owned by LTODD, LLC and/or Rylynn, LLC, d/b/a Bestway Towing, for a wrecker service; NOW THEREFORE BE lT ORDAINED by the Common Council ofthe 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 classifrcation of the following described real estate in the City of South Bend, St. Joseph County, State of Indiana: Lat bettered `V' as shown on the plat of Monroe-Sample Replat retarded January 31, i 990 in the Office of the Recorder of St. Joseph County, Indiana as Instrument No. 9002533. be and the same is hereby established as General Industrial District. SECTION I1. 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. ,,ff~~ k Member of the Commonif ouncil Attest: City Clerk f R.S. /iy E'~ 9F S 1_a lv'J i..r'~.,' ~9 Presen#ed by one io the Mayor of the City of South Bend, Indiana on the day of , 2010, at n'cfock .m. City Cferk Approved and signed by one t~~~ the day of , 2010, at o'clock .rtt. Mayor ofthe City of South Bend, Indian E st kEl~l~lhf~ 5--~.C~-{'tl 3 rd REA1~It~tu ~C 7 .fa "~ / I J.~ff -~::~~td~It ~,,,,,I:S'S ., ~til~'C~ ~~! ~~~f ~~'~ ~~~Sla~ ~~~ - ~ za~a ~~E1N V~iw fi~~ Date 1~iled Date received by the Area Pian Commission Application No, I (we) the undersigned make application to the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana to amend the zoning ordinance as herein requested. 1)' The property sought to be rezoned is located at: 850 Fellows Street, South Bend, Indiana 46601-3 i2! 2} Name and address of property owner(s) of the petition site: H. G. Christman Construction Co., Inc. 850 Feiiows Street, South Bend, Indiana 4660!-312i Telephone: (574} 287-2827 ~~} Name and address of contingent purchasers}, if applicable: LTODD, LLC 1530 S. Walnut Street, South Bend, Indiana 46619 (574}289-8984 4) It is desired and requested that this property be rezoned From Light Industrial District to General Industrial District 5) This rezoning is requested to allow the following use(s): Wrecker service operated by Rylynn, LLC, d/b/a Bestway Towing. b) Attached is a copy of (a) legal description of the property; {b) seventeen { 17) preliminary site plans; (c) a statement of purpose and intent; (d} a list of names and addresses of al! property owners and the tax key numbers far all properties within 300 feet of the petition property; and (e} addressed, stamped envelopes for al[ property owners within 300 feet of the petition property {f} a location map, if available, drawn to scale, which includes street names, printed in $%" x 11" format. ~~F ~;%r PETITION PREPARED BY: David L. Mirkin Attorney at Law ! 12 W. Jefferson Blvd., Suite 400 South Bend, IN 46601 Telephone: (574} 232-3393 dmirkin@mirkin law.corn CONTACT PERSON: (If different) Same ~~~ ~+ pyq~ pp~~j ~ ,~~,, ~Yl tiy/ -" ~, nns f } I J ~il I'.S ~' EXHIBIT A TO LTODI~, LLC PETITION FOR REZONING 850 FELLOWS STREET SOUTH[ BEND, INDIANA 46601-3121 Lot Lettered `V' as shown on the plat ofMonroe-Sample Replat recorded January 31, 1990 in the Office of the Recorder of St. Joseph County, Indiana as Instrument No. 9002533. r ~,;, I~~AY ~ ~, ,,'~"'~ . .., ~..,... ~... ~m~~ ~'r i PARCELf® NAIVIE_7 IIflAILINGADD h9AILfNGGIT IVIAILINGSTA MAfLINGZlt> MV55tstFtV & 301 E Sample 018-3024-0899 COMPANY INC St Sauth Bend IN 46601 TOROK WILLIAM 17940 Drury 0 ~ 8-302-090 ~ A JR Lane Granger €N 4~~~n 018-3092-35 ~ 3 PRODUCTS INC f P O Box 11 p7~South Send ~IN 018-3092-3504 PAI PROPERTIES P O Box 30 South Bend IN 46E FAMfLY & CHRDRENS CENTER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 1411 018-7009-0360 CENTER [NC Lincolnway 1N Mishawaka 1N 465 CITY OF SOUTH BEND DEPARTMENT _ OF _ REDEVELOPMEN 1200 County 018-7018-0754 T City Building South Bend IN 466C CITY OF SOUTH BEND DEPARTMENT OF REDEVELOPMEN 1200 County- - 018-7018-0753 T City Building South Bend iN 4s6o SEGO JAMES 501 E Sample 018-3036-1366 RAYJR St South Bend IN 4660 8_335- CITY OF SO BEND DEPT OF 1200 County 3330 ~ _ REDEVEL City Bldg South Bend IN 46601 MOSSBERG AND 341 E Sample a1 s-3024-os97 MOSSBERG AND 301 E Sample 018-3024-089$ COMPANY INC St South Bend fN 46601 MOSSBERG ~ 301 E Sample 018-3024-0900 COMPANY INC St South Bend IN 46601 COMPANY INC St Sauth Bend IN 46601 HARBOR 6{72 Fellows 018-3032-1216 METALS LLC S# South Bend IN 46601 F3 G CHRISTMAN CONSTRUCTION 018-3038-13fi5 CO. INC P O B'ox 4117 .South Bend IN 46634 018-3035- CfTY OF SOUTH 1300 County 132301 BEND City Buitd'eng South Bend fN 46601 MOSSBERG AND 301 r_ Sample 018-3024-0869 COMPANY INC. 5E South Bend IN 46601 CITY OF SOUTH BEND DEPARTMENT 01$-3032- °F REDFVELOPMEN .County City 12491 T Bldg South Bend IN 4661}1 CITY OF SOUTH BENp DEPARTMENT OF REDEVELOPMEN .County City 018-3032-1249 T Bldg South Bend IN 46801 cITY OF sO _ BEND DEPT OF 01$-3032-1250 REDEVEL Co-City Bldg South Bend IN 46601 CfTY OF SOUTH BEND DEPT OF REDEVELOPMI=N .Country City 018-3032-1251 r Blag soutn Bend IN 4ssot 018-3024- cuRris 096101 PRODUCTS INC P 0 Box 1167 Sauth Bend IN 46624 HARBOR 802 S 018-3092-3512 METALS LLC FELLOWS South Bend IN aFr;ni HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF ST JOSEPH 402 E SOUTH 01$-7008-0300 COUNTY INC ST South Bend IN ART MOSIAC ANb TILE 018-3092-350$ COMPANY OF SB 844 5 Rush South Send fN 018-3692-3506 ~PAI PROPERTlES'PO BOX 30 South Bend ~IN 4660 Map of 850 Fetlows St South Bend, Indiana by MapQuest Page 1 of I 5arry! When printing directly from the browser your directions or map may not print correctly. For best results, try clicking the Printer-Friendly button. ~~~ ~4'~~OVVS ~'~ South Bend, fN 46601-3121 -0 ~° m n~av~u~s7 ~,_ .. .',:f ~~~ r.r~ihlfr, `,S '•. J ~.•'kin.S~. by Y:r~,tt : kac ~ `t ~ q r~ 2 c) ~. c: ~,, u v.'s.~AV. ':a t~ lr,.,<, ~ St ire " - - 4 t 473 1 _ r .. L•~~r.. ... '~27: ::3 I~ X33 > { :,..., .::~ E, r~ ~ ~; ~ . nEtl~„~~ .o C_~ ' .. - i~. ~. ;.r - .. , ~... ' c ~~,:r r~„ .., ,. - ~~~ 8~]OIOM~}6iiryl'Ponlo-a, ,YOId NtYiEO Directions and maps are infcrmafional only. We make no warranties on the accuracy of their content, road conditions nr route usability or expeditiousness. You assume a!I risk of use. fVlapQuest and its suppliers shall not be liable to you for any loss or delay resulting from your use of MapQuest. ~,? r ; ,~ . ] i i ~_~..-,.. ..... ._ w....~ ;;, ,;; cr' •, l,ttn'/hznzrtu marbm~act rnm/mane`Icity-~nttth-t-RP.nr1R~.cf~FP.=TNRt.9C~c~1'~Cfi=RSO~-FeY~nW~-FS~SC... ~IZHI~O~O ~~- _.- .~ ~ 1 7~~ ~ _-~ ~ ~ ht ~} ~ f i. ~t ~~ 5 1 i ` ~! ! ~I ti ~ 4 ~ ~~ 'i ~ ~~ ~ ,1 ihi, ~~ '' ,N +~ t .. . `4 ~,~ ~. i ~~ ~ ~~ I~. ~~? jk4 1 ' ~ ~~ ~~ ~' ri a a n ~~ .~,~~ ~, 0 o U ~ r~y~ ~ d ~ ~ s ;.,'~ 4 ~~~v ~ ~~~U ~ a~o ~,., - ~F! a}o~ 4 ~ {^~ ~~ ~ i ~ ' i :, i i { i ,' ,i i F~ t ~ ~. ~ ~t '" :{ e+ 1 iy ~+ Y ~~ -' i 'i i if i Y ~ tr w 1 _ 1 1 ~' ~, 1~ A ~~, K ~~ ~~, ~''~-... 1 '` Tie c..+....... r 4 + ` - -- ~ ' A 1~ ~ -- u:~. j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 Iii ~~ ' ~ I ~ 1 3 } .j I { `~ ', o a ~~ is G i- ,€ .. 1 .~. ~~ jIj ~ ,I, ~ 1 I h 11 ~' ~~ ~ ~~' ~ 1 III : - ~, ~ j ~ i~ ~~ i ~ a i; ; - ~ ~ { ~~ 1 I. Ti 'd ~ ~" { i /i ~ ~ ~ ~ i n S ~ . A i I~ i ~ ~ ~I ~ !!! i ' [ h i M G ~, ~~ ~''. h ~ o a ;~ j d~ ~aU ~ ? i a~?+ Z Z `y `-•~ ~ ~ C ~4°' ~~y~ ~ ~~ ~ a A 4 ~ 'l• oiu2 4 Z o b " i ~~~~ b~~~ ~L-0 G~ _ .. ~~ ,M ATTACHMENT TO Sl[TE PLAN 850 FELLOWS STREET . SOiJ'i'kI REND, IND1~,.NA X6601-311 The fallowing variances will be sought to bring the Site Plan into compliance with the General Industrial District standards: 1. Variance from 30 foot front setback on the west side of the property to no feet. 2. Variance from the 30 foot front setback an the east side afthe property to 0 feet. 3. Variance from 10 f©ot side setback on the south side of the property to 0 feet. 4, Variance from all required landscaping to current landscaping. 5. Variance from all setbacks to allow outdoor storage of vehicles within the fenced area on the Site Plan. 6. Variance from required 6 parking spaces to current 4 parking spaces.