HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-25-18 Zoning and Annexation ° TH8 d
U ' d
\PEA'CE
x x
1865
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
KAREEMAH FOWLER, CITY CLERK
ZONING&ANNEXATION JUNE 25, 2018 4:48 P.M.
Committee Members Present: Oliver Davis, John Voorde, Gavin Ferlic, Jo M. Broden
Committee Members Absent: None
Other Council Present: Regina Williams-Preston, Karen White, Jake Teshka,
Sharon L. McBride
Other Council Absent: Tim Scott
Others Present: Bianca Tirado, Graham Sparks, Bob Palmer, Casey Colvin,
Gabriel Murei, David Boling,Elivet Navarro
Presenters: Michael Divita,Angela Smith, Brian Horwitz, Bernie
Feeney, Tim Corcoran
Agenda: Update- Zoning Ordinance: Subdivisions- Michael Divita
Bill No. 24-18- Revise Off-Street Parking Regulations
Bill No. 18-15- 122 Milton Street- Special Exception Use
Bill No. 18-23- 117 S. William Street- Special Exception
Use
Bill No. 18-24- 112 E. Indiana Ave- Special Exception Use
Bill No. 14-18-Rezoning for 1619 S. Michigan Street
Committee Chair Oliver Davis called to order the Zoning and Annexation Committee meeting at
4:48 p.m. He introduced members of the Committee and proceeded to give the floor to the
presenters.
Update- Zoning Ordinance: Subdivisions- Michael Divita
Michael Divita, City Planner for the Department of Community Investment with offices on the
14th floor of the County-City Building, stated, This should be quick as I just want to give you a
heads up on the next Zoning Ordinance revision after the off-street parking changes we will be
looking at next. This is about the Subdivision Ordinance. Since the Subdivision Ordinance was
created, it changed elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance as well as other City standards. Certain
sections in the Subdivision Ordinance are redundant. In a few cases the standards in the
INTEGRITY1 SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY
JENNIFER M.COFFMAN BLANCA L.ThmDo Josmi R MOLNAR
CHIEF DEPUTY/DIRECFOR OF OPERATIONS DEPUTY/DmaroR OF POLICY ORDINANCE VIOLATION CLERK
EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT
411 County-City Building,227 W.Jefferson Blvd.I South Bend,Indiana 46601 I p 574.235.9221 1 f 574.235.9173 1 www,southbendin.gov
CITY OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK
Subdivision Ordinance and the other standards in the City even can conflict. The primary goal for
the amendments are not to change standards but to pull out the places where it is redundant or
conflicting. The Area Plan Commission has identified, in the Subdivision Ordinance, the flood
plain definitions, the lot sizes and the setback standards that will be covered elsewhere in the
Zoning Ordinance. Additionally,the street and alley width and construction standards are already
being handled through the Board of Public Works' design and construction standards. So rather
than having two (2) sets of standards, we would like to pull those out of the Ordinance.
Committee Chair Davis asked, Are you going to put something together to pull all of that out?
Mr. Divita replied, Yes we will have a summary prepared on those. Those amendments will go
before the Area Plan Commission for their meeting in Au ust.
Bill No. 24-18- Revise Off-Street Parking Re;ulations
Angela Smith, Deputy Director of the Area Plan Commission with offices on the I Ph floor of the
County-City Building, stated, The Zoning Ordinance only applies to what is on private property. I
believe the ordinance that the Council recently passed deals with right-of-way and legal parking
within the right-of-way. That is usually handled by the Board Public Works so that is not under
the Zoning Ordinance jurisdiction. The revisions you have before you for the off-street parking are
the ones happening on private property in relation to developments going on within an individual's
lot. So one (1) of the things we take into account in this zoning change is something I would like
to thank the Department of Community Investment for their research in best practices. Parking and
landscaping are the two (2) things we see the most variances for. Part of it is because we took a
suburban standard way of looking at parking and tried to apply it to the City which doesn't really
work. We looked at how that works. For instance one (1) of the things is now on street parking
can be counted toward a business' parking. The bottom line is that the parking standards were way
antiquated for the way people were actually using the properties within South Bend. They didn't
fit with the urban context.Usually the people most affected by these are the small business owners.
This realigns-the requirements with what is practical and applicable to South Bend. This comes to
you from the Area Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation.
Mr. Divita stated, Community Investment was pleased to work with the Area Plan Commission
staff on developing this proposed ordinance amendment. As Angela mentioned, the Zoning
Ordinance's current minimum parking standards are based on a decades old suburban parking
calculation that doesn't translate well to today's realities and context. The existing minimum
counts tend to oversupply off-street parking that requires developers to go through the expense of
building parking spaces that will never be used. Using aerial photography,we analyzed the current
parking needs for various uses around the City to better calibrate what the minimum standards
should be. The proposed amendments would provide greater flexibility in how off-street parking
requirements can be met including a reduction in required parking near transit.The bicycle parking
provisions are updated to align the Ordinance with current best practices. It has improved graphics
and simplified provisions that make it easier to use by property owners and easier to administer
from the staff side as well.
Committeemember John Voorde asked, At the same time, are you looking at the time regulated
off-street parking?
EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT
455County-City Building 227W.Jefferson Bvld South Bend,Indiana 46601p574.235.9221If574.235.9173 TTD574.235.5567jwww.southbendin.gov
2
CITY OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK
Mr. Divita replied, That is not a part of the proposal here but yes we have worked with the Board
of Public Works and I know there has been work on that the last couple of years.
Committeemember Jo M. Broden asked, How is near transit defined? How will this ordinance
adjust and be updated as those transit locations change? How does this have that flexibility going
forward?
Mr. Divita replied, In relation to public transit lines, it is within 1,000 feet of the line. In a sense,
it is a general principle of how far people are willing to walk.It is a little bit short of a quarter mile.
We regard that as a very reasonable number and a standard acceptable number. TFANSPO does
make some adjustments to its line but at the same time, those lines especially along the major
corridor are fairly static of where they are.
Ms. Smith stated, And you can only swap ten percent (10%) of it. So if you are required twenty
(20) spaces, you can't just say you don't need any spaces. So there is a cap it just allows you to
reduce it.
Committeemember Voorde asked, Do you allow double counting? Say if there are two (2)
businesses and they both have a little off-street parking?
Mr.Divita replied,In the Ordinance,it just applies to what is on that property and the spots directly
in front of the business. There is no double counting.
Ms. Smith stated, One (1) of the other provisions we did update is minimum parking to include
nearby lots given the proper documentation.
Committee Chair Davis stated, I'm at peace.
Committee Chair Davis then opened the floor to members of the public wishing to speak in favor
of or in opposition to the legislation. There were none. He then turned the floor back to the
Committee for further comment or main motion.
Committeemember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to send Bill No. 24-18 to the full Council with a
favorable recommendation. Committeemember Broden seconded this motion which carried by a
voice vote of four(4) ayes.
Bill No. 18-15- 122 Milton Street- Special Exception Use
Bill No. 18-24- 112 E. Indiana Ave- Special Exception Use
Ms. Smith stated, These two (2) properties, both 122 Milton Street and 112 E. Indiana have gone
through the Area Board of Zoning Appeals. One (1) in April and May 2018 were when they came
through for the special exception request. Both are properties that the petitioner is looking to
continue using as duplexes. The ordinance allows up to a two(2)-family unit as a special exception
in the Single-Family Districts and that is what they are seeking here. This (referencing a slide in
the presentation available in the City Clerk's Office) is the property. And then the other property
at 112 E. Indiana used to be a triplex at one(1)point but it has expired so they are coming through
to get the appropriate approvals. 122 Milton Street came with no recommendation because the
Area Board of Zoning Appeals had a split vote. There were some members of the Board that have
EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT
455 County-City Building',227W.Jefferson Bvld South Bend,Indiana 46601 j p 574.235.9221 l f574.235.9173',TTD574.235.5567 www.southbendin.gov
3
CITY OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK
been around for a really long time and remember a point and time when there was a lot of concern
about duplexes. These two (2) properties are immediately adjacent to Commercial in a
neighborhood where a duplex is probably in an appropriate place as an affordable housing option.
They have favorable staff recommendations. There was no one at the meeting to speak in favor of
or in remonstrance to the legislation.
Brian Horwitz, 2269 Chestnut Street, San Francisco, CA, stated, I am here representing VH
Investments. I am here for two (2)bills regarding 112 Indiana Street and 122 Milton Street and we
seek to change the zoning from Single-Family to Two (2)-Family. 112 Indiana is currently vacant
but appears to previously have been used as a duplex but it was incorrectly zoned Single-Family
at some point. 122 Milton is currently a vacant Single-Family home that I would like to turn into
a duplex. On page three (in a handout available in the City Clerk's Office)there are several empty
lots near the properties so there is ample street parking. Many properties in this area have been
removed in the adjacent lots due to property values being lower than the cost of the extensive
repairs. Converting 122 Milton into a duplex would align with the City Plan. As displayed in page
four(4),there is currently an occupied duplex at 119 Calvert and also an eight(8)unit building at
202 Calvert. Those are in the same neighborhood. VH Investment has extensive experience
rehabbing dilapidated properties. We plan to hold these units as investment properties and use a
professional property management company to manage the units correctly. I believe this will
improve property values in the neighborhood and will make South Bend a nicer place to live.
Committee Chair Davis opened the floor to Committee and Council Members.
Committeemember Ferlic asked,For the existing properties that are rehabbed and currently leased,
are there any issues with Code Enforcement or the Building Department?
Mr. Horwitz replied, Not once we finish, definitely not. When we first get them, a lot of times I
can't get to them before they start asking about it but I have a relationship with them and I let them
know. I've repaired some of these properties and they know I'm trying to get them in shape.
Councilmember Regina Williams-Preston stated, I am very interested in making sure we are
developing affordable housing.I'm curious what is the price point for these two(2)bedroom units?
Mr. Horwitz replied, Somewhere between six hundred to six hundred and fifty dollars ($600 -
$650)per month.
Councilmember Karen White asked, Do you have a history with the management team you will
choose?
Mr. Horwitz replied, A lady named Cindy Hendrich with DC Holdings, she manages all of my
properties at this time. At this point I plan to have her take care of everything for me. I am out here
about once a month. I have about sixteen(16)total properties and they are all basically in this area.
I do have some other properties but they are not in this State.
Councilmember Sharon L. McBride stated, Thank you. We have had a lot of problems with
landlords not living in the area and with trespassers. This puts me at ease that someone is local to
manage the properties.
EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT
455 County-City Building.227W.Jefferson BvldI South Bend,Indiana 46601 i p574.235.9221 f574.235.9173ITTD574.235.55671www.southbendin.gov
4
®CITY OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK
Mr. Horwitz stated, My goal is to get the units nice and I feel that gets you a more responsible
tenant.
Committee Chair Davis then opened the floor to members of the public wishing to speak in favor
of or in opposition to the legislation. There were none. He then turned the floor back to the
Committee for further comment or main motion.
Committeemember Ferlic made a motion to send Bill No. 18-15 to the full Council with a favorable
recommendation. Committeemember Voorde seconded this motion which carried by a voice vote
of four ayes.
Committeemember Ferlic made a motion to send Bill No. 18-24 to the full Council with a favorable
recommendation. Committeemember Broden seconded this motion which carried by a voice vote
of four ayes.
Bill No. 18-23- 117 S. William Street- Special Exception Use
Ms. Smith stated, This is a special exception for a commercial parking lot in an MU, Mixed-Use
District. When we assumed Zoning Administration and were asked to comment on the City
licensing and approval of this, we discovered that the proper approvals were never acquired for
this property. So it had a house on it, it was removed, it became paved and then a parking lot. It
became a parking lot after the ordinance required it to go through the special exception process. It
has been in operation for many years without the proper approvals through the Council. So we
weren't able to sign off on it and they are now going through the process to get it approved. There
were some variances approved by the Area Board of Zoning Appeals. There were two (2)
conditions based on their favorable recommendation. The first being some kind of screening
element along the south property line. There was a property owner of the house to the south and
they had concerns about trash and debris. Then also along the east. That one (1) will need Board
of Public Works approval before they can do that.
Bernie Feeney, 715 S. Michigan Street,stated,I'm here on behalf of Coin Investments,the owners
of the parking lot. This used to be the Disabled Vets building on William Street. That was torn
down in the early 2000s. The property was first sold in 2003 by the disabled veterans. In 2006 it
was picked up by the Coins and has been operated continuously by the Coins as a paid parking lot.
They operate a number of paid parking lots throughout town and this is one(1)of their properties.
They were completely unaware of any requirements but are willing to comply with the process.
They have gone through the Area Board of Zoning Appeals. In speaking with the owner he is more
than happy to comply with the conditions.
Committee Chair Davis then opened the floor to members of the public wishing to speak in favor
of or in opposition to the legislation. There were none. He then turned the floor back to the
Committee for further comment or main motion.
Committeemember Ferlic made a motion to send Bill No. 18-23 to the full Council with a favorable
recommendation. Committeemember Voorde seconded this motion which carried by a voice vote
of four ayes.
Bill No. 14-18-Rezonin;_for 1619 S. Michigan Street
EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT
455 County-City Building 1227W.Jefferson Bvld I South Bend,Indiana 466011 p 574.235.9221 If 574.235.91731 TfD 574.235.5567 I www.southbendin.gov
5
®CITY OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK
Ms. Smith handed out copies of the written commitments which are available in the City Clerk's
Office. Ms. Smith stated, The majority of the presentation was already given to the Committee so
I won't repeat the details in the land-use of the property.
Committee Chair Davis interrupted, Let me guide you in a sense that there were some questions
regarding the fact that your decision was based on a plan that has not been approved. So that was
a lot of concern. Can you address that? Was your decision based on that plan? And then how did
you all come up with the written commitments?
Ms. Smith stated, If you have your packet and look at the staff report, our recommendation was
actually based on the City Plan which is the adopted plan. That is what we reference in terms of
the comprehensive plan. We do reference another plan but our recommendation was based on the
adopted Comprehensive Plan by the City Council. You can see here (referencing a presentation
available in the City Clerk's Office) that you have a consistent block that is zoned LB, Local
Business. You have a Mixed-Use across the street. We look at the City Plan but then also look at
the other criteria as well. Our recommendation was based on the South East Plan. We have a
comprehensive look at what is going on in the area. The 2006 City Plan is what we reference as
the comprehensive plan for our recommendation. This has to do with improving the character of
entry ways and ensuring the coordination of land-uses among the adjacent lands and surrounding
property. So the recommendation was not based on the plan that was referenced. We do look at
other plans but it was not the basis for our recommendation. In terms of the written commitments,
they have to do with the Department of Community Investment's recommendation. It says if the
Council chooses to approve this,they have design suggestions to be sure this will actually beautify
the corridor. The petitioner still has to go back to the Board of Zoning Appeals. You do not have
authority to grant them variances on landscaping so the Board may take this into consideration.
But all the things in the written commitments need to go back to the Board of Zoning Appeals for
approval. Ultimately, even if land uses change, the Board can choose to either uphold the
Ordinance or make them comply with the commitments.
Committee Chair Davis asked, Is the past practice on this where they approve it first and then it
comes to us? Or they approve it and it never comes to us?
Ms. Smith replied, The land-use is always going to come to you. So the fact they want to use it as
a car lot always comes to you. We try to make it a combined public hearing to make it easier for
the petitioner. The Plan Commission denied the variances which means they will have to wait six
(6) months from that Plan Commission date to go back to the Board of Zoning Appeals. If the
Council decides this is an appropriate land-use here,they will go back to the Area Board of Zoning
Appeals and say Council thinks it is appropriate and propose landscaping to make that happen.
Committee Chair Davis asked, When did these commitments come up?
Ms. Smith replied, Within the last week?
Committee Chair Davis followed up, So this did not go before Area Plan or any of those other
kinds of things?
EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT
455 County-City Building 1227 W.Jefferson Bvld I South Bend,Indiana 46601 p 574.235.9221If574.235.9173 ITTD574.235.5567Ivwdw.southbendin.gov
6
®CITY OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK
Ms. Smith replied,No, they were referenced in the staff report but these were not discussed at all
by the Area Plan Commission. The Council can put on conditions that are more restrictive than
the Plan Commission.
Committeemember Voorde asked, What are the commitments regarding the fence?
Mr. Feenie replied, These commitments are the commitments that were recommended in the DCI
review of this site plan. In reviewing the site plan, these commitments were almost word for word
what Michael Divita had proposed. These are only possible if the Council and Plan Commission
approve the zoning. The one (1)modification I asked for after discussing this with the owners was
to modify the fencing from four (4) feet to six (6) feet. But we would remove the barbed wire on
the top of it. The areas around this property have six (6) foot fences. This would keep the owners
desire for security.
Ms. Smith stated, To clarify, you are allowed to have six (6) foot fence from the front part of the
building and back. We are only talking about the front. The only portion in question is in front of
the front facade of the building.
Mr. Feenie stated, We had fencing across the front on both sides of the building.
Committeemember Broden stated,A solution is that those panels could be removed or moved back
five (5) feet.
Ms. Smith stated, If you want to make sure the Board of Zoning Appeals doesn't grant that, you
could add another commitment stating the fence height has to comply with the Ordinance.
Tim Corcoran,Department of Community Investment with offices on the 14th floor of the County-
City Building, stated, I would like to reiterate that our recommendation is unfavorable for the
rezoning based on the combined comments. We don't feel the more intense zoning is appropriate
for this area, however, you are the ultimate zoning authority on this and so we wanted to provide
suggestions in case it is passed.
Committee Chair Davis asked, So what is in front of us is in case we decide to go with it and those
are parameters to consider? Okay, I understand now.
Councilmember White asked,Looking at the picture there,where would the cars go and how many
spots would be available?
Mr.Feenie replied,There are eight(8)devoted to the restaurant parking. The balance of the spaces
and the commitment has something in there. DCI asked for a landscape island and that is part of
those commitments. Then the twenty-seven(27) cars would be in the surrounding.
Councilmember Jake Teshka asked, So the fence we were talking about securing the lot, in my
mind, doesn't that kind of become a barrier to the restaurant?Most car lots I see have a pretty open
concept. If we rezone this to CB, what other things could go there?
EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT .
455 County-City Building 227 W.Jefferson BvId South Bend,Indiana 466011P574.235.9221lf574.235.9173 T1D574.235.5567;www.southbendin.gov
CITY OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK
Ms. Smith replied, CB is not our most intense zoning but it could be a gas station, other auto-
related uses and it could be anything below that. It won't be anything industrial. It couldn't be a
storage unit and I'm trying to think of another intense use.
Mr. Feenie stated, Without any rezoning, what is allowed now is a self-service Laundromat, a
cabaret, a fast-food and family restaurant, a mortuary, a check cashing outlet, a liquor store and a
pawn shop.
Councilmember Teshka stated, Whatever we do with this property is not done just for this
petitioner. It is done in perpetuity forever. So we need to consider that moving forward.
Councilmember Williams-Preston stated, We have examples throughout the City that as they have
developed and matured, we see them as mistakes today.
Committeemember Voorde stated, You used to be able to drive through the alley there. Do you
intend to do that?
Mr. Feenie replied, The traffic pattern is through the area and then back out again.
Committeemember Broden asked, Where do car sales belong in the City?
Mr. Corcoran replied, We have been asked that many times. We struggle with that question and it
is a problem. We see some of the areas like on Western Avenue,they are not seen as positive uses
for those areas. I do think there are places that are further out and less urban that are potential areas
where we could see this. When we look at the zoning that is there now, it is about ensuring the
consistency of the area rather than allowing things that are inconsistent with the uses around it.
Across the street is Mixed-Use as well.
Councilmember McBride stated, There are a lot of car lots around the area.
Ms. Smith stated, And they are probably legal non-conforming and they are allowed to continue
existing.
Committee Chair Davis stated,I think Councilmember Broden asked a good question. While some
have negative views of car lots,a tremendous amount of our population utilize car lots. They aren't
able to go over to Gates Auto. There were times in my own life that I couldn't go. Thank God for
those places.When we get to a good status of financial well-being,we also have to remember there
are a tremendous amount of people that do not have that. While we can look down on car lots,
where do we go? Do we put them all in one (1) section? On the far ends? Then they are going to
fight. If we put them all on the inside, they are going to fight. It is a very interesting thing that we
have to look at. Then it is a negative. It goes back to where there are people like Dollar General
versus this kind of thing or big stores and that, I'm glad I have a Dollar General where I live. It
worked out well. So we have that kind of thing so it's always those kinds of concepts. I put that to
us because we have to look at those kinds of concepts. So, I don't know.
Councilmember Williams-Preston stated, I am an absolute lover of used car lots. My husband
happens to whole sale used cars so it is not something I would ever say is not needed. I see the
need. I just wonder about moving forward. As we look at corridors, how can we begin to have a
EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT
455 County-City Building 1 227 W.Jefferson Bvld I South Bend,Indiana 466011 p 574.235.9221 If 574.235.9173 1 TTD 574.235.55671 www.southbendin.gov
8
®CITY OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK
conversation about making sure we are providing some diversity and other types of institutions
and operations? With this particular one (1)I have concern about the combination. I don't know if
that is too much to go on at that site. I am heavily considering the recommendation from the Area
Plan Commission. What is the best use in looking forward?
Committee Chair Davis stated, I would like for us to look at the whole plan. That has been sitting
there for a long period of time. I have a hard time, even when we first saw the plan and it has not
been done. We need to look at that because it causes zoning problems. We should not wait till Mr.
Feenie comes in here to deal with these kinds of things. It just creates conflict. I do appreciate
DCI's opinion both ways. I suggest you do that even in the future. I like that. You have helped
guide us both ways.
Committeemember Broden asked, What is a legal non-conforming use? Secondly, are there any
other main corridors? When I look at them there really isn't much of a difference to me. I can't
square, if this is a major corridor, saying tinker all you want and that is fine, but if you are ready
to go, hold on. It really isn't that much different from the special exceptions in Local Business. I
assume the market, at some time, will adjust. It should and can help with that. So that is one (1)
thing,you have a major corridor.Where would we put these?And then my second point is squaring
this with the existing vision that is not approved for that neighborhood. What the Area Plan saw
and what we saw as Council was that plan being referenced. How do I square referencing
something that has been approved? I'm feeling we have a lot of conflicting information.
Committee Chair Davis asked, How long do we have to take action on this?
Council Attorney Bob Palmer replied, You have until August 8th, 2018.
Committee Chair Davis then opened the floor to members of the public wishing to speak in favor
of or in opposition to the legislation. There were none. He then turned the floor back to the
Committee for further comment or main motion.
Committeemember Ferlic made a motion to send Bill No 14-18 to the full Council with no
recommendation. Committeemember Voorde seconded this motion which carried by a voice vote
of three (3) ayes and one (1) nay (Committeemember Broden).
With no further business, Committee Chair Davis adjourned the Zoning and Annexation
Committee meeting at 5:50 p.m.
Re pvis, Committee
> Chair
i
EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT
455 County-City Building 227W.Jefferson Bvld South Bend,Indiana 46601 p574.235.9221 f574.235.9173':TTD574.235.55671www.southbendin.gov
9