Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-22-11 Common Council Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana met in the Council Chambers of the County-City Building on Monday, August 22, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Council President Dieter and the Invocation and Pledge to the Flag were given. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS: Present: Derek D. Dieter 1st District, President Henry Davis, Jr. 2nd District Thomas LaFountain 3rd District Ann Puzzello 4th District David Varner 5th District Oliver Davis 6th District, Vice-President Al “Buddy” Kirsits At-Large Timothy Rouse At-Large, Chairperson Committee of the Whole Karen L. White At-Large OTHERS PRESENT: Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand Council Attorney John Voorde City Clerk Janice I. Talboom Deputy City Clerk Mary Beth Wisniewski Chief Deputy REPORT FROM THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON MINUTES To the Common Council of the City of South Bend: The sub-committee has inspected the minutes of the August 8, 2011 Meeting of the Council and found them to be correct. Therefore, we recommend the same be approved. s/Derek D. Dieter s/David Varner Councilmember White made a motion that the minutes of the August 8, 2011 Meeting of the Council be accepted and placed on file. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. SPECIAL BUSINESS Report on Graffiti Program From Phil St. Clair, Director of Parks and Recreation. Mr. St. Clair, Director, Parks & Recreation, 321 Walter Street, South Bend, Indiana, advised that the Parks Department operates a year round graffiti removal crew which uses a variety of removal methods involving soda blasting, chemicals, and painting. He stated that they also work in conjunction with the existing SBPD crew providing them with work assignments and maintaining the SBPD graffiti database. Additionally, the Community and Economic Development Department hires independent contractors, via a grant, to perform graffiti removal in its designated area. An agreement allowing the Parks Department to directly oversee the Weed and Seed contractors for the remainder of the grant is currently under discussion. He stated that from May 26, 2011 to August 18, 2011, the Park Department has cleaned 352 sites. 173 privately owned properties (homes 1 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 and businesses.), 53 public parks, 84 pieces of public property (signs, bridges, utility boxes), 42 properties have been “retagged” after their initial cleaning and cleaned again. 11 sites have done by the property owner, SBPD has done 130 individual sites, Weed and See has painted 15 sites. He stated that the City of South Bend’s Graffiti Abatement Program has cleaned 497 individual sites of graffiti. Furthermore out of the 173 sites on private property, 101 of those were identified and cited by Code Enforcement. The remaining 72 property owners signed waivers allowing us to legally work on the site. It is estimated that there are an additional 200 sites out there not yet reported. To date the Parks Department has spent 759.50 man hours and $15,846.81 in payroll in our budget. 448.80 of those hours and $6,184.30 of that cost is spent on the actual removal of graffiti with the remaining 310.70 hours and $9,662.503 being spent on site inspection and travel. A large portion of the crew’s time is spent finding addresses and getting permission to perform the work on private property, either through a signed waiver or a citation by Code Enforcement. In many cases we’ve had to simply walk door to door and speak to people about the program and leave printed information in their door if they were not home. To date we have spent $5,644.96 in materials for the Parks Department program. Additionally we have spent $3,885 purchasing supplies for the SBPD crew as well as an estimated $1,240 in site inspections. All of our capital purchases have been purchased under budget with a combined savings of $4,183 with the exception of the trucks which are currently out to bid through Equipment Services. Mr. St. Clair stated that they are extremely positive with the overall success of the program. For the few short months it has been in existence we have had noticeable results within the neighborhoods of the City of South Bend are establishing positive one-on-one relationships with the community. He stated that they are constantly working to provide a quick response time especially regarding vulgarity and gang related graffiti. Once such a site is reported we often are able to clean the site with 48 hours. A fast response time is critical to a successful abatement program and we often clean “re-tagged” sites within 24 hours. They have developed and maintain a robust database with the SBPD that includes not only the addresses but also the names of the “tagger” and content of the graffiti. This gives them the potential to track individual taggers and trends. In addition the Park Department also catalogues all of the graffiti sites with before and after pictures to aid in our tracking. Using the internet and various social media programs we have been able to watch and track individual “taggers” in order to facilitate cleaning up their graffiti. By watching their websites and the pictures they post we have found a large number of sites to clean. The crews communicate face to face with residents while we work in neighborhoods. He stated that if they are working on an identified site they will walk along the street and go door to door with waivers and information regarding the program. They have also set up specific times to meet with homeowners and business owners so that they can see the removal technique in person. He stated that the crews are very flexible and able to respond quickly as needed. Beyond graffiti removal and maintaining the SBPD database they also have an educational aspect to the graffiti program. They have gone out and spoke to volunteer groups at St. Adalbert about the negative impact of graffiti in their neighborhood. The St. Adalbert group has currently logged over 50 hours of volunteer work removing graffiti with plans for 200 hours more. In addition, the SBPD has highlighted the impact of graffiti in a Crime Stoppers commercial and plan to have their School Resource Officers provide additional education within the school system. He stated that they would like to streamline the process of identifying and reporting sites in order to improve effectiveness. While in 2011 they had a large existing back log of graffiti, in 2012 they want to cut down on the cost and time it takes them to find, report, and get permission to perform work at the address. As the City continues to move forward with an integrated job order and facility management system they should be able to increase overall effectiveness as they cut down on paperwork, site inspections, and travel time. He stated that they have been striving for a personal relationship with the community they recognize that community involvement is the key to a successful graffiti removal program. They did not receive as many community reported sites containing graffiti as they projected they would. He stated that they are currently working on ways to improve the ease at which the community can report graffiti around the city, with a heavy focus on the Parks and Recreation’s new web page which is currently under a massive re-design and set to go live 9/12/11. Due to winter approaching they will focus and be shifting towards street and traffic signs that are often difficult to clean and often must be replaced. They have also looked into commercial 2 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 products to protect signs and cut down on replacement costs. Additionally, over the winter they would like to refine and rebuild the SBPD database as well as the internal Park’s database in order to bring out details and facilitate searches within them. He stated that currently the City has three separate groups which provide graffiti removal. The SBPD program, Weed and Seed grant program, and the City of South Bend Graffiti Abatement Program run by the Parks Department. White the Park’s Graffiti Removal Coordinator provides additional assignments and oversees the results of the other programs; we could increase effectiveness by combining or modifying the existing programs. This year we are currently exploring options such as the SBPD employees being contracted by the Weed and Seed Grant and working under direct Park supervision within the Weed and Seed area. RESOLVE INTO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE At 7:11 p.m. Councilmember Henry Davis made a motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole. Councilmember David Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. Councilmember Timothy Rouse, Chairperson, presiding. Councilmember Rouse explained the procedures to be followed for tonight’s meeting in accordance with Article 1, Section 2-11 of the South Bend Municipal Code. Councilmember Rouse stated that a brochure may be found on the railing in the Council Chambers explaining those procedures. PUBLIC HEARINGS BILL NO. 49-11 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL TO VACATE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THE FIRST EAST/WEST ALLEY NORTH OF CEDAR STREET, FROM NILES AVENUE EAST, 172 FEET EAST/WEST TO THE VACATED NORTH/SOUTH ALLEY Councilmember Varner, Chairperson, Public Works and Property Vacation Committee, reported that this Committee met on this bill this afternoon and sends it to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Bernie Feeney, Registered Land Surveyor, Lang, Feeney & Associates, Inc., 715 South Michigan Street, South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill. Mr. Feeney advised that the vacation is to make better use of the property currently separated by the alley in preparation of a subdivision which shall incorporate it. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above, bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. There was no one present wishing to speak to the Council in favor of this bill. The following individual spoke in opposition to the bill: Mr. Charles Hayes, 814 Marietta Street, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is not totally against this bill; however, he has some concerns regarding the vacation. Mr. Hayes wondered if access to a cell tower he owned would be impeded. Mr. Feeney assured him it would not. He stated that they are only vacating a portion of the alley and that they will still have access. Mr. Feeney noted that they will have access near Midwest Athletics, it would be resurfaced and he would have unrestricted access to his cell tower. There was no one else present wishing to speak in opposition to this bill. 3 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 Councilmember Dieter made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council concerning this bill. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. BILL NO. 10-11 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING CHAPTER 21: ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, AS AMENDED, AMENDING ARTICLE 6, OVERLAY AND SPECIAL USE DISTRICTS BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 21- 06.03, NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT AREA OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT; AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND TO APPLY THE NEW OVERLAY DISTRICT TO AN AREA GENERALLY KNOWN AS NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT AREA Councilmember Kirsits, Chairperson, Zoning & Annexation Committee, reported that this committee held a Public Hearing on this bill this afternoon and sends it to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. th Mr. John Byorni, Director, Area Plan Commission, 11 Floor County-City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana made the presentation for this bill. Mr. Byorni advised that this bill initiated by the Area Plan Commission on behalf of the Northeast Neighborhood Revitalization Organization amending and supplementing Chapter 21, Zoning Ordinance of the City of South Bend, Municipal Code, as amended, amending Article 6, Overlay and Special Use Districts by adding a new Section 21-06.03, “NNDA” Northeast Neighborhood Development Area Overlay Zoning District; and amending the zoning map of the City of South Bend to apply the new overlay district to an area generally known as Northeast Neighborhood Development Area (NNDA), City of South Bend. On site are single family homes zoned SF2 Single Family and Two Family District; the new St. Joseph High School site to be zoned SF2 Single Family and Two Family District; the State Road 23 corridor zoned MF1 Urban Corridor Multifamily District, MU Mixed Use District and GB General Business District; parts of the former Madison Center campus zoned CBD Central Business District; and Eddy Street Commons zoned PUD Planned Unit Development. To the north is the University Notre Dame zoned U University District. To the east, across Twyckenham Drive, is the Coquillard Woods neighborhood zoned SF1 Single Family and Two Family District. To the south are single family homes zoned SF2 Single Family and Two Family District and various businesses on Colfax Street zoned MU Mixed Use District. To the west is the St. Joseph River. An overlay district does not change the underlying zoning of any parcel within the boundary. The proposed overlay district will encourage high quality design to future buildings and site development, allow for development reviews to maintain the character of the neighborhood, and create a strong and cohesive neighborhood image. City Plan, South Bend Comprehensive Plan, November 2006: LU 1.2 Integrate City Plan policies into future plans for the city’s districts, neighborhoods and corridors. The Northeast Neighborhood Development Area Plan, December 2003: Objective: To promote design standards that respect and conserve the architectural and social fabric of the neighborhood. Based on information available prior to the public hearing, the staff recommends that the petition be sent to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation. The overlay zoning district is the logical fruition of the objectives of the Northeast Neighborhood Development Area Plan and City Plan. It establishes a development environment that not only protects the existing character of the neighborhood but encourages future, new development to reinforce the unique neighborhood identity. Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand, Council Attorney read the changes into the record: Page 4 Sub Section (15.2) delete 75% insert 70%. Page 7 Sub Section (d) (1) (D) delete 8’ insert 6’. 4 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to accept the changes as read by the Council Attorney, seconded by Councilmember Kirsits. The motion carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. Marco Mariani, Executive Director, South Bend Heritage Foundation, 803 Lincolnway West, South Bend, Indiana. Mr. Mariani advised that South Bend Heritage serves as staff to the Northeast Neighborhood Revitalization Organization. Mr. Mariani thanked everyone involved for their patience. He thanked Mr. Byorni for providing technical assistance, as well as Chuck Bulot, for his assistance on how the overlay will be enforced to protect the quality of the area. Mr. Mariani thanked Councilmember’s Puzzello and Rouse on their leadership on bringing this forward. Mr. Mariani stated that the Northeast Neighborhood, all of the residents and business owners, stakeholders in the Northeast Neighborhood are whole-heartedly behind this effort. They have been working on this for sometime. He stated that Mr. Gene Valanzano, from Baker and Daniels, a zoning expert is here tonight and will comment on his part in helping with the language for this bill. Mr. Mariani stated that they also got rid of the “should” language, that ambiguous language that they heard some concerns about. They also eliminated any confusion about the ordinance addressing the existing residential buildings in the neighborhood and excluded that. He also noted that they reduced the size of the area, taking out the former Madison Center area. It just made some sense to take that out and look at existing development there. Mr. Mariani stated that they believe this is a great step for the neighborhood, and we think the new and improved overlay is a high quality document. It is much clearer and more enforceable. Mr. Gene Valanzano, Land Use Consultant with Baker and Daniels, 200 S. Michigan Street, South Bend, Indiana, advised that when he first saw this document, it was around fifty some pages. He stated there was a lot of ambiguous language, hard to deal with, and hard to enforce. He stated that the main revision is that they took out subjective type of comments. He reiterated that if someone is doing a renovation or expansion to an existing building, this ordinance doesn’t deal with them. This ordinance deals with new construction from the ground up. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above, bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Mr. Greg Hakanen, Director Asset Management, Office of Business Operations, University of Notre Dame, 910 Flanner Hall, Notre Dame, Indiana, and Vice-President Northeast Neighborhood Revitalization Organization (NNRO). Mr. Hakanen advised that the University and the NNRO have been very involved in this process and supports it. They are pleased that they took the extra time to gather additional information and significantly streamlined the guidelines. He stated that they reflect the interest of the residents and developers. Councilmember Oliver Davis questioned whether other areas of the city are going to have something like this. Mr. Mariani advised that he has not heard of any other areas of the city that are interested in anything like this. Councilmember Henry Davis stated that he has concerns about how they are going about doing business in the city as a whole. He questioned why are they doing this? Mr. Bill Stenz, 1020 E. Colfax, South Bend, Indiana, President, Northeast Neighborhood Council, stated that there are a number of northeast neighborhood residents present tonight who have followed this process for a very long time. The Northeast Neighborhood Council is grateful to the NNRO and to Councilmember’s Rouse and Puzzello in particular for following this process for over 20 years. John Phair, Hollday Corporation started this process ten years ago and the NNRO was formed and has 5 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 contributed to where we are now. He stated that Neighborhood Housing Services back 20 years ago started this process of defining the neighborhood. Through the NNRO efforts and Notre Dame’s housing program. Mr. Stenz stated that the neighborhood has changed quite a lot. He stated that they have seen some smart growth and also seen some inconsistent housing go up in the form of for lack of a better word, the believed that they are labeled as multi-family, but basically eight (8) bedroom group homes that is how they are used. This overlay would prevent that from happening or at least make more compatible with the neighboring houses. Marguerite Taylor, 714 Corby, South Bend, Indiana, Officer of the NNRO, Officer of the NENC. Ms. Taylor stated that she would like to give Councilmember Henry Davis a tour of the neighborhood. She stated that they have tons of Habitat for Humanity housing in their neighborhood. She stated that on North Frances Street, 737 to be exact, they built a Habitat house that doesn’t look like a habitat house, it actually looks like a four-square, but for more than 30 years they had not had one new house built in the Northeast Neighborhood. Not one private developer built a house in the Northeast Neighborhood and they through the city efforts, the NNRO, the Northeast Neighborhood Council, which is the oldest neighborhood organization still meeting within the City. She stated that there was plenty of neighborhood input that went into this overlay district of which she stated she was a part of. She stated that when this document was first put out, fifty some pages, she couldn’t really understand it, and there was too much nebulous stuff going on it. She stated that they went back and fixed it, and now everyone can understand what the document is new construction only. Ms. Taylor stated that their neighborhood has the largest amount of student housing. She stated that she lives on Corby, and when she moved there, five houses in front of her were owner occupied; now 4 of the 5 are rentals. She stated that what they are trying to stop is stiff being built that doesn’t fit. She stated that they have ugly apartments on South Bend Avenue and to ugly houses that look like she doesn’t know what, they are just ugly. She stated that people just come in because it is the place to be. It’s the new Granger. They come in and put up stuff and then they leave. They don’t live in the neighborhood. She stated she lives there and has lived there her entire life and that is almost as old as Councilmember Rouse is. Councilmember Puzzello stated that the Northeast Neighborhood is a very old diverse neighborhood, and has always been in everyway there is to be. One of the ways is financial ability. There have always been, not just now, for example, Professor’s at Norte Dame who wanted to live in the Northeast Neighborhood, maybe had a lot more money than other people, but wanted to live there and wanted to be a part of it. So it has always been even in people’s ability to pay a very diverse neighborhood. When the programs began that where the housing was changed a little bit and particularly when it became clear that a lot of people were coming into the neighborhood kind of for a fast buck. She stated that they saw money there and saw the opportunity to make fast money and didn’t worry very much about what they were building and didn’t try to match what was there at all. Notre Dame and their housing did try to match what was already there in that neighborhood and it may have been for a few more dollars but it did match up and look like the neighborhood it had been. So when they first put together the overlay it concerned everybody. Everybody who went for a building department for a building permit had to follow the rules of the overlay. She stated that she was particularly concerned about that because many of the people who had perfectly fine houses in the northeast neighborhood could possibly not afford to add on the way the overlay insisted that they do. First, they took all residential out of it. Then it became clear, that with some of the stuff going up that they did want to include residential, so they did not include existing residential. She stated that will help those living there already and to make sure that they stay there and can afford to do what they want to do to their homes. She stated that is very important and that she is very pleased with the overlay and hopes that the Council will vote in favor. She stated that she lives in the overlay area, in spite of what Marguerite says often that she doesn’t. She stated that this is a good thing and it will help the Northeast Neighborhood. 6 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 Charles Hayes, Managing Partner of Five Corners LLC. Mr. Hayes advised that should not be confused with the tower company. Mr. Hayes stated that Fiver Corners LLC owns three of the five corners Notre Dame owns the other two, so they are looking forward to participating in the development of this neighborhood in fact; he hopes that he will be a resident of the neighborhood when the triangle development is open for single family. As a future resident and a future developer participate he is speaking in favor of this bill. The following individual spoke in opposition to the bill: Mr. Wayne Curry, 1050 Burns Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in opposition to this bill. Mr. Curry advised that he is a current resident in the triangle, and one of the people along with his neighborhood that lives in a Habitat for Humanity home, who the NNRO has tried to gentrify and kick out of the neighborhood. He stated that these guidelines are a part of the reason that there homes were not allowed to stay because they don’t match the current guidelines back in 2000, there was discussion on leaving their homes. He stated that over the years the interest in their neighborhood is actually simply because of a document that the had read that the northeast neighborhood is like the gateway into Notre Dame’s campus and having been run down according to the document it has a negative impact on the perception of the University of Notre and their goal was to clean-up the gateway to the university. As well as them wanting to come up with a campus town setting so that they can become a top 10 university in the world. He stated that while there is nothing wrong with their goals, but when you actually make the guidelines in ordinances and force people to build more expensive homes what happens is that you are pushing out the poor and average folks out of the neighborhoods and making room for the wealthier folks. Now, if they are going to pass guidelines like this then you should pass them for the entire city, not just a neighborhood. Some other things that might be unattended consequences to this, is that they say it is for new construction only, what if you have a current house and it burns down or a tornado comes and takes it, now you have to rebuild that home up again, new construction and you would have to use these guidelines. He stated that he thinks that everyone in this neighborhood has the potential of having their insurance premiums increased with these guidelines if they are passed as well. So there are some other questions that have to be thought through a little more and how it will impact those who live here if there was a catastrophe or a disaster happened to their homes. Some other things were requiring porches to be 24 to 48 “ off the ground, realizing that might look nice, but lets say if you have a handicapped person who wants to build in the neighborhood, the higher the elevation of the porch, you have to have 1 foot per every inch of rise on the elevation, so that would require a 48’ foot ramp to get into their home. So there are certain instances where these guidelines would not want to be followed. He stated that it says that these guidelines are first and foremost over any South Bend guidelines. He stated that he did not see anything in there for the handicapped. He reiterated that the potential for increased insurance premiums, handicapped accessibility, and he doesn’t believe that it is fair for others to impose building standards on property that they don’t own. If you have a subdivision and you own all the property and you want to have covenants in that subdivision there is nothing wrong with saying that if you want to build here this is what you have to do. But to go out there is a certain part of the city and say that every single empty lot has to build our way, even though we don’t own it, is highly unfair. He stated that he thinks it violates property owner’s rights. No, rebuttal from the petitioner. Councilmember Varner stated Mr. Curry brought up some very good questions, how it affects the handicapped. Also, in the event of a loss of a home, will that property be subject to the overlay. Mr. Mariani advised that in regard to the handicapped accessibility, there is a variance process that is built into this, so if there is a question of hardship from anybody there it can certainly be brought to the attention to the Board of Zoning Appeals and there can be a conservation and a remedy brought forward to deal with that. 7 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 Mr. Valanzano stated that if there would be destruction of a home, through the provisions of the zoning ordinance, there are non-conforming use provisions that would deal with the reconstruction or the reestablishment of the use after damage or destruction would probably control under that circumstance. The home could be reconstructed based on those provisions without necessarily having to follow the initial requirements of the overlay because those would be reconstruction after destruction as opposed to new construction. Councilmember Oliver Davis asked how clear is that. Mr. Valanzano stated that he did not have the language in front of him but was pretty confident that is how the case would be, because that talks about how reconstruction after damage or destruction. So if you can prove that there was fire that destroyed the house, and it was reconstruction after fire, or tornado, those are going to be a pretty obvious test that can be passed as opposed to new construction from the get go. This would be opposed to somebody buying a home tearing it down and start over. Mr. Valanzano stated that there is a provision in the zoning ordinance for the City of South Bend, there is a whole chapter on non-conforming uses that talks about reconstruction after damage or destruction that results from fire or tornado or natural disaster. He stated that he thinks those provisions in the case of the home burning down would control and say that you can rebuild that house to the standards that it was at before without having to comply with the new standards of the overlay district. Councilmember’s Varner and Oliver Davis still questioned the language that this overlay district supersedes. Mr. Valanzano stated only for new construction. He stated that it would be a case by case basis and determine if this is reconstruction or new construction. Councilmember Kirsits on page 2 under section (b) (4) it still allows for a special exception use to come before the Board of Zoning Appeals and the South Bend Common Council and this route could still be used if needed. Mr. Valanzano stated that he wasn’t specifically dealing with the handicapped accessibility. He stated that the variances process that is available throughout all the zoning ordinances is still available to this district. So if there is a situation where a ramp would violate a setback or a height issue or something like that those can be dealt with the variance process that would definitely be a hardship. The special exception process is a slightly different process animal that talks about uses but that is also available in this district. Mr. Valanzano stated that all those relief valves that are built into zoning are still going to be there. Councilmember Oliver Davis asked why if this is so good for this district, why isn’t it good for all district throughout the City of South Bend. Mr. Valanzano stated that he was asked to come in to re-write this ordinance. Mr. Mariani stated that he thinks it could and would be a question that neighborhoods could look at throughout the city. He stated that this is specific to this neighborhood at this time because of what the neighborhood has been experiencing and expects to experience. So it’s a place where they are seeing additional new development and again there was some wanting to control on that new development to assure that certain quality of development was maintained. Councilmember Oliver Davis stated that he is concerned that if this is just put out in one area, what about the other districts of the city. 8 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 Mr. Mariani stated that this might be conversation that needs to take place in the Zoning and Annexation Committee of the Council to talk about that on a city-wide level and to talk about it from the entire zoning code perspective. He stated that he can’t speak to that, but that it is a larger conversation that the Council needs to have about the existing code and what the Council wants to see in the City. Mr. Byorni stated that it might be that every neighborhood in South Bend should have its design criteria, but not necessarily these design criteria. He stated that the thinks the criteria needs to come from the neighborhood residents, what they envision their neighborhood to look like. For instances the commercial here will be very similar to Eddy Street Commons. Mr. Byorni stated that you wouldn’t necessarily see that along Ireland Road, it is a different type of commercial area. So you probably don’t want to take these guidelines like they exist today and apply them everywhere in the city, but it might be a good idea if the neighbors want guidelines that reflect their neighborhood that the city adopts those guidelines. Councilmember Henry Davis asked if there had been a project population growth for that area for over the next five or ten years? If so, what is it? Mr. Mariani advised that he had not seen any projects for the northeast neighborhood, nor has he seen any market projections. He stated that they probably exist, but he has not seen any nor has he seen any census tracks for the next five to ten years. Councilmember Henry Davis stated that he felt it was germane to what is being talked about because we are trying to see where markets are going and what the values are going to be, and where the new population is going to be at. It has everything what they do up here, so that is why he was asking. Councilmember Oliver Davis stated that regarding handicapped and ADA issues, storm issues, fire issues, is there any way, beside the special exception, and the other interpretation of all that, but in the event of any of those kinds of issues that could happen, is there anyway that it could be put in this kind of ordinance without going through that kind of process. Mr. Mariani stated that you could with the help of the Council Attorney, but was unsure of how that point would be made. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand advised that it is her understanding and agrees with Mr. Valanzano that the variance process with regard to hardship is spelled out in the ordinance. She stated that she can get the code book and look it up. She stated that she believes the process is set forth with regard to variances. The examples that were given with regard to a disaster whether it is by fire or Mother Nature or with regard to handicapped disabled situation, those are clearly fall within the variances process right now. Mr. Byorni stated that what we are looking at is handicapped ramps right now. He stated that the only time that they are going to be faced with a variance is for brand new construction. Mr. Byorni used Councilmember Puzzello’s home for an example, if she needed to put in a handicapped ramp that would not come under the guidelines, because her home exists. Councilmember Oliver Davis stated that he understands that and is there anyway that could be expedited because there is an ageing population out there and not everybody who has aged has to deal with ramps, but it could be anybody, so is there anyway that could be expedited to deal with that. 9 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 Mr. Byoni stated that he believes they need to go through the variance procedure, but he is not sure. He stated that it would be a normal part of building, when you build you need to meet certain standards anyway, this would be extra standards. He stated that he doesn’t think that is an owner standard. He stated that he thinks it would be very difficult to say well in this circumstance you don’t have to meet it and this one you have to go through the variance; he doesn’t think that would be legal or a way to do things. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand asked Mr. Bulot, Building Commissioner, to address this question, because he gets this kind of question on a daily basis. Mr. Bulot stated that we are dealing with a couple of issues here. The concern about the handicapped accessibility ramps for new construction. When push comes to shove it is going to come down to him as to his interpretation in terms of design and review. Because that is what this is, a design review district that is now part of the ordinance. So he would have some form of discretion. If someone comes in with a beautiful ramp design for their front porch and it is not too ornate and it keeps somewhat in the style of the neighborhood and what the other requirements are, he is going to use his own discretion and allow it, it is only common sense, he is not going to stand in the way of someone coming into the neighborhood who has disabilities. The other issue that was brought up was it goes to a legal non-conforming, there is a section in the zoning ordinance, unfortunately he did not have a copy in front of him, but there is a section that deals with damage or destruction and it relates to a fifty percent threshold, so it you damage more than 50% of your home, or if you home is damaged more than 50% through storm, fire, flood, whatever, they are again required to bring that building up to the current standard. They would lose their non-conforming status, so this brings us back to the relationship of the overlay district design district and what kind of influence that has on the underlying zoning district. In the overlay district it indicates that will trump the underlying district, but once again, common sense has to be used in this, if something is, or an existing homes is destroyed and has to be rebuilt, he thinks in that instance the home, the structure would have to conform to the underlying zoning, but the actual design would be grandfathered. Councilmember Oliver Davis stated that with all due respect, if something would happen to Mr. Byorni and there would be someone else making that decision, is that something that there could be room for debate. The issue that he is trying to share here and what was presented, is there something that could be put into writing that could strengthen that common sense so that it could be practical in written sense and so that it is not just based on somebody’s interpretation of that. Mr. Bulot stated that it could be done and it could say something like that it must comply with ADA standards. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that under the variance provisions Section 21-09.03 its specifically provides that any strict application of the terms of the ordinance which would result in practical difficulties in use of the property is a warrant for a variance. So, again that is a safety net that is already built into the current ordinance. She stated that Mr. Bulot did quote it correctly and this is in addition to. Councilmember Varner stated that with regard to the ramp whether it is a new house or it is a existing house that has damage done to it or if you had to make something in the form of a ramp now for this house, if there is enough discretion involved in one way shape or form a ramp is going to appear or see that a ramp is provided or access is provided or a variance is given what is left in the air is the rules by which that ramp must be constructed. That is still subject to interpretation. Mr. Bulot stated that the ramp would be constructed to the ADA guidelines which are very specific. 10 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 Councilmember Dieter made a motion to recommend this substitute bill favorably, as amended to the full Council. Councilmember Kirsits seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of seven (7) ayes and two (2) nays (Councilmember’s Varner, Oliver Davis.) BILL NO. 18-11 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING VARIOUS ARTICLES AND SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 6 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO BUILDING FEES Councilmember Dieter made a motion to continue this bill indefinitely at the request of the petitioner. Councilmember White seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. BILL NO. 48-11 PUBLIC HEARING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE PROVISIONS FOR LICENSING OF TAXICAB COMPANIES, VEHICLES AND DRIVERS nd Councilmember Dieter made a motion to consider the 2 substitute version of this bill. Councilmember White seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. Councilmember White, Chairperson, Health and Public Safety Committee, reported that this committee met on this bill this afternoon and voted to send it to the full council with no recommendation. th Ann-Carol Nash, Assistant City Attorney, 14 Floor County-City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation for this bill. Ms. Nash advised that they identified three goals that they would like to meet with this ordinance. The first is safety for passengers, drivers, and general public. Second, reliability of enforcement, consistent service and knowledge of the general public, drivers and the companies of what the standards are for this type of service. Thirdly, the quality of life. They want to promote tourism and encourage people to bring their businesses here, to come here to live and they want city residents who depend on this service to enjoy consistent quality service. As a part of the committee meeting this afternoon, they discussed removing from this bill, the provision of the age of taxi cabs. She stated that the cabs would not be any older than seven (7) years old. If a vehicle is older than 7 model years old and can still meet all of the strenuous guidelines that they have then they would be able to pass that and retain it as a vehicle in a company’s fleet. She stated that they do want to have a re-inspection fee. She noted in the past they have had companies not being very careful about meeting the appointments that they had. She stated that they would like to charge a $25.00 fee for a missed appointment or if a vehicle does not pass inspection. She stated that one question that was brought up and kept this bill from a completely favorable recommendation was the question of the uniform appearance of taxi cabs. She stated that is one thing in her 16 years of enforcing the licensing ordinances of the city has become a very obvious problem for her. If a vehicle goes from one company to another to another to another and the vehicles in an individual company’s fleet all differ from each other it is very difficult for them to first all determine which company a vehicle and a drive belong to and then to go from there to investigate a complaint. She stated that they think it would be much more professional and easier for the general public and the enforcement people and the companies themselves if all of the vehicle in a fleet of an individual company look similar to each other, so you could tell that was a yellow cab or a Smith Company Cab or some other kind of cab. She stated that she spoke at length at the committee meeting and doesn’t want to monopolize the Council’s time. She stated that she did provide the Council with a PowerPoint that summarizes the changes. 11 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 Councilmember Oliver Davis asked regarding the cameras that would be placed in the cars, who will have access to view those cameras and will the public have access to that through the Freedom of Information Act if it goes through the city. How will that be dealt with? Ms. Nash advised that if there is still the camera provision still in place it would first of all the requirement would begin in 2013. She stated that the company itself would maintain ownership and control of that and have to maintain it for sixty (60) days. If the City for some reason is following up on a complaint or a concern and has to ask for access to that, then it would become a document if you will an item that the public could have access to. The provision that is in the language of the ordinance to answer Mr. Dieter’s question is that it must be in use during the passage ride. So there is that provision. She stated that they would propose to have some sort of warning to people that they are on camera. She stated that a question was raised about what if you are saying something and you wouldn’t want it on camera or be repeated. She stated that she thinks that everyone should know that they are on camera. Personally as a person traveling late at night maybe getting off a plane and going to her home, she would like very much to know that she is on camera and the driver is on camera. She stated that if she were a driver she would like very much to know that she is on camera and that the passenger is on camera as well. She stated that it would feel like a measure of safety in that and prefer that. Councilmember Oliver Davis stated that while that would make him feel safe, he wants the public to clearly understand and know that they are on camera and that the public has access to view those tapes. Councilmember Dieter stated that for clarification these cabs do not all have to be the same color for each company. Ms. Nash stated at this time they do not. Councilmember Dieter asked if those recording are going to be private property of each individual business or are they going to be under the umbrella of the city. Ms. Nash stated that they would belong to the business, unless the City has to ask for them for some reason. It would be just like the driver’s logs, each company is required to have its driver’s keep a log of each of the trips that it makes and those stay with the company unless the City has to ask for them. Councilmember Dieter stated that it would be the interpretation of each company’s attorney whether they want to release any information to people who want to come in for tapes. Ms. Nash stated no, the requirement would be that they have access to them. Councilmember Dieter asked who would. Ms. Nash stated the City. Councilmember Dieter stated that they would have to go through the City, and there would have to be a legitimate reason for someone to get the recordings that were made in a taxi. Ms. Nash asked a member of the public. Councilmember Dieter stated yes. Ms. Nash stated that she thinks under the Freedom of Information Act and Access to Public Records Act that if the City has them, for some investigative reason, then they would be public documents. 12 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 Councilmember Dieter stated that the City does not maintain them, or having the database, it’s the cab company, correct? Ms. Nash advised that it stays with the cab company unless the City requests a copy of that particular tape of that particular ride. Councilmember Dieter stated that the police car tapes are stored with the City, these cab companies are going to store them at their respective places of business and at some time anyone could come and ask for those tapes. Ms. Nash stated yes, they would have to maintain them. Councilmember Dieter stated that is a dangerous situation, because any cab company that has access to that could also add verbiage into a tape. He stated that is something that they are going to have to consider, because he thinks that it is a very important point if those tapes are going to be somewhere, unless the City comes up with a SOP that they are locked and stored. You could have someone come in their and dub someone’s voice over in the tape, and that could be a dangerous situation. Councilmember Oliver Davis asked how will they be assured that those tapes would be disposed of properly after the sixty days. Ms. Nash stated that they suggested sixty (60) days, and they have not addressed disposal of them, but they certainly could do that following up after the passage of this bill. Councilmember Dieter stated that there needs to be a lot of work on this, and how to make if fair and equitable for the cab companies. He stated that the legal aspect of how it is going to be determined whether the general public could come in and see what someone was doing in a cab. Councilmember White stated that she would like to put on the table for the administration, since we are looking at 2013 in terms of the cameras and it has been indicated that there will be a sixty (60) day period on which the various companies should maintain the evidence or the tape. She recommended that this portion of the ordinance be pulled out and give ample time to discuss with not only the cab companies, owners, and drivers, but also with the City’s Legal Department. So they can think this portion of the ordinance over and take it out now, because they do have time if they so wish to do so. Ms. Nash stated that the portion is all within Subsection (b) 22, page 9 on the second substitute. There might be another reference to it in terms of effective date. She stated that she could easily take that out of there and then renumber 23 to 22. nd Councilmember White made a motion to amend the 2 Substitute Bill 48-11, by deleting any references to the cameras in terms of this particular current ordinance and remove that from the ordinance and continue to have discussions with the various cab companies, the Legal Department of the City of South Bend to really rethink this particular issue and to make sure that all the legal areas have been addressed. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. Councilmember Puzzello stated that since directed to Page 9 of the bill, she stated she just happened to see 23 is the one about the age of the cab. st Ms. Nash stated that the document that Ms. Puzzello has in front of her is the 1 nd substitute, the 2 substitute bill that was filed with the Office of the City Clerk this evening takes out (23) and makes (24) now (23). Councilmember Oliver Davis asked Ms. Nash to restate owner/operators. 13 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 Ms. Nash stated that the taxi drivers have been very helpful in this whole process as well as cab company owners and at their request before this bill was filed, she took out the requirement that the company own the vehicle. She stated that they still do want to continue to have the company responsible to make sure that it has adequate vehicles in its fleet that meet the requirements, but they would still propose to allow the driver’s to owner their own vehicles as they requested in previous meetings. Councilmember Rouse stated that they are reducing the year of the vehicle to 7 years old and is a part of the substitute bill, but if he understands correctly the city would like to see those cabs be one color per company. Ms. Nash stated that is what she would request. She stated that after 16 years of trying to enforce this ordinance, she thinks that it would make it so much easier for Central Services, the City, and the general public, enforce this bill and help us all. Councilmember Dieter stated that as this bill is written, they do not have to. Ms. Nash stated that in the current ordinance they do not, in the bill provided here, color or design, yes. She stated that they would want them to be uniform with each other. Councilmember Dieter stated as in this current ordinance, if it is passed, they do not all have to be the same color for so and so company. All they have to have is the same decals. Ms. Nash stated that was not her intent in drafting this ordinance. Councilmember Dieter questioned do they or don’t they? Ms. Nash, yes, but two different companies could have the same color. Councilmember Oliver Davis stated it’s like the TRANSPO buses; they have different colors but the same logo on each bus. Ms. Nash stated that this is the language that is in the ordinance and perhaps it could be interpreted in the way that the Council is stating. Ms. Nash read into the record: To promote uniform standards and to assist the public in identifying taxi companies. All taxi cabs licensed under the same company name shall bare the same color, color scheme or design as the other taxi cabs licensed under the same company name. Councilmember Oliver Davis stated that is what they are looking at same design. Ms. Nash stated that traditionally, it was something people may do and if there was any confusion between companies, the controller would say oh no, the new company coming in couldn’t have this different design. They certain would be able to work with the companies. She stated that what they want to avoid is confusion for the public. Everybody knows that a TRANSPO bus is a TRANSPO bus even if it has different ads or different colors or whatever. But they don’t all know if something is a Yellow Cab if its not look the same. Councilmember White stated that she has another friendly recommendation. She stated that as they look at this particular area of the bill. She suggested because of the language “or” could be interpreted that if they have some type design and not necessarily color. She suggested that we give this ordinance a year to see in terms of vehicles and to see exactly if they can work with making sure that each cab company was clearly identifiable and not just necessarily the color and then they can come back and continue discussions, because the way that it is worded does open it up for interpretation. Something as serious as this, they need to make sure that it is as clear as possible and that they give themselves the opportunity to see what the impact is going to be. Councilmember Dieter seconded. 14 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 Ms. Nash stated that this is one of those provisions that would not come into effect until January 2013. She stated that would give them some time to make some changes to this to make something that everyone could be comfortable with. Ms. Nash asked if the Council would like for her to delete the provision that she just read. Ms. Nash stated that the language reads: The taxi cab right now it reads “may” and what she proposes to do is change it to shall, and identifying color, color scheme or design approved by the Central Services Division. She stated that could be kept in there and then it wouldn’t necessarily have to be all the same color, just design. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that with the 2013 triggering mechanism for this particular bill. Ms. Nash stated that this is at the end of the bill. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated to address Councilmember’s Oliver Davis; Dieter and White. She asked that this be considered as a friendly amendment: To promote uniform standards and to assist the public in identifying taxi companies all Taxi Cabs licensed under the same company name shall bear the same design or logo as other taxi cabs licensed under the same company name. Councilmember Dieter stated take out the word color. County Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated yes. She stated that on page 10 of the nd 2 substitute bill, keeping the language: To promote uniforms standards and to assist the public in identifying tax companies. All taxi cabs licensed under the same company name shall bear the same design or logo as other taxi cabs licensed under the same company name. She stated that is proposed as a friendly amendment for the Council to consider. Councilmember Rouse asked Ms. Nash if that amendment is okay. Ms. Nash stated that her question is that if Council Attorney would back up one sentence. The taxi cab right now would say: This taxi cab shall bear an identifying color, color scheme or design approved. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that can be switched back to may. Ms. Nash said okay. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that it would still give a year to work through the bill. Ms. Nash reiterated that the change would be not changing "may" to a "shall" keeping it a "may" and the next sentence delete color, color scheme, or. Ms. Nash agreed that would be fine. Councilmember White made the motion to make the amendment as previously read. Councilmember Dieter seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. The following individuals spoke in favor of this bill: Mr. Patrick McCormick, Student Body President, University of Notre Dame, 203 LaFortune Student Center, Notre Dame, Indiana. 15 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 Mr. McCormick stated that he wanted to express his gratitude to the Council and Ms. Nash for trying to not only improve standardization but also transparency in the delivery of taxi services here in the City. He stated that the City has a ready partner with the University of Notre Dame’s student government and they are really so grateful for this effort to meet these three goals of improved safety; reliability; and enhancing the quality of life for not only those who are being transported by taxi’s, but those that are driving them as well. He stated that he looks forward to continue to work with the Council and the City Administration and thanked everyone in the development of this proposal. Mr. Mark Elliott, 29900 Grant Road, New Carlisle, Indiana. Mr. Elliott thanked the Council for listening and making the changes that have been needed. He stated that the video taping being put off for another time is a good thing and appreciate that, because it is going to contain hundreds of hours of videos that somebody needs to hold onto and for owner operators like himself questioned whether he retained those tapes or would he give them to the company and then in 60 days could he get those tapes and erase them and reuse them or does he have to buy new tapes each time. So he thanked the Council and Ms. Nash for putting that off. As for the color scheme, putting it off is greatly appreciated because that is going to be a considerable cost. He stated that he personally drives a 2007 vehicle and to have it repainted would cost about $2,500 to $3,000 dollars. He stated that is insane and thanked the Council for putting that off. Ms. Pamela Sobet, Owner, Golden Dome Taxi, stated that she has been in business for four (4) years. She stated that she has worked throughout the industry which she loves and puts everything back into the city. She stated that she is from Mishawaka, and drives here in South Bend. She stated going through all the stuff that they have through the Council for many years, she is glad that they do have something that is actually going to help them. As far as the colors of the taxi’s, she thinks that if a company stays with the color of the cars, she stated that her company has three colors of cars, but her logos were required to be put on the sides of the car, the back of the car. Her cars now have it on the hood. So you can see them coming, you know that’s her company. Taxi companies are made to do that as uniform that would be good. She stated that there are drivers that do jump from company to company. She stated that she has seen them paint their cars and they look terrible. She stated that Ms. Nash has been very diligent on this and working with the Council and with the drivers, and owners and have pretty much come to an agreement on what they would like to see as taxi drivers. She stated that they want to remain safe within the city and has seen other places where they do have cameras in the cars and have done some investigation herself and there are cameras like the police have where you can see inside your car and outside of the car that costs around $500.00 dollars. She stated that Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that you can get an inexpensive one for around $100.00 the indoor/outdoor, but that would require them to have a memory card, and they could keep those in a box or whatever, and she thinks that would be better. She stated that if the City would require them to come up with footage of that particular day or drive because they are all around in the different towns, maybe there is something that might have gotten caught on their tape that some other camera overhead at a various intersection didn’t see would be a good idea. Ms. Christine Huff, Manager, United Cab Company, residing at 206 Remington Ct. North, Mishawka, Indiana. Ms. Huff thanked Ann-Carol Nash and the Council for working with their company and listening to their concerns. There was no one else wishing to speak to the Council either in favor or in opposition to this bill, Councilmember Dieter made a motion for favorable recommendation to full nd Council concerning this 2 substitute bill as amended. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. 16 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 RISE AND REPORT Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to rise and report to the full Council. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. ATTEST: ATTEST: _________________________ _________________________ John Voorde, City Clerk Timothy Rouse, Chairperson Committee of the Whole REGULAR MEETING RECONVENED Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Bend reconvened in the Council Chambers on the fourth floor of the County-City Building at 8:43 p.m. President Derek Dieter presided with nine (9) members present. BILLS – THIRD READING ORDINANCE NO. 10112-11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL TO VACATE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THE FIRST EAST/WEST ALLEY NORTH OF CEDAR STREET, FROM NILES AVENUE EAST, 172 FEET EAST/WEST TO THE VACATED NORTH/SOUTH ALLEY This bill had third reading. Councilmember White made a motion to pass this bill. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a roll call vote of nine (9) ayes. ORDINANCE NO. 10113-11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING CHAPTER 21: ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, AS AMENDED, AMENDING ARTICLE 6, OVERLAY AND SPECIAL USE DISTRICTS BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 21-06.03, NORTHEASTNEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT AREA OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT; AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND TO APPLY THE NEW OVERLAY DISTRICT TO AN AREA GENERALLY KNOWN AS NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT AREA This bill had third reading. Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to amend this bill as in the Committee of the Whole. Councilmember White seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. Additionally, Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to pass this bill as amended. Councilmember LaFountain seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a roll call vote of seven (7) ayes and two (2) nays (Councilmember’s Varner and Oliver Davis.) 17 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 ORDINANCE NO. 10114-11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE PROVISIONS FOR LICENSING OF TAXICAB COMPANIES, VEHICLES AND DRIVERS This bill had third reading. Councilmember Varner made a motion to amend this bill as in the Committee of the Whole. Councilmember White seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. Additionally, Councilmember Varner made a motion to pass this bill as amended. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried. The bill passed by a roll call vote of nine (9) ayes. RESOLUTIONS BILL NO. 11-47 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, SUPPORTING THE NEED FOR QUALITY ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL SERVICES INCLUDING SPACE TO HOUSE AND CARE FOR SUCH ANIMALS AT A REASONABLE COST TO THE TAXPAYERS Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to strike this bill from consideration. Councilmember Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 4118-11 A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE ADOPTION OF A DECLARATORY RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1122 NOTRE DAME AVENUE AS RESIDENTIALLY DISTRESSED AREAS FOR PURPOSES OF A (5) FIVE-YEAR RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR JOHN AND JENNIFER SEJDINAJ WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, has adopted a Declaratory Resolution designating certain areas within the City as Residentially Distressed Areas for the purpose of tax abatement consideration; and WHEREAS, a Declaratory Resolution designated the area commonly known as 1122 Notre Dame Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, and which is more particularly described as follows: Real estate in St Joseph County, in the State of Indiana described as Lot lettered B in E & M Goerner Replat as per plat thereof recorded May 19, 1988 as Instrument 8812958 in the Office of the Recorder of Saint Joseph County, Indiana. , and this property has Tax Key Number 18-5105-3666be designated as a Residentially Distressed Area under the provisions of Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1 et seq., and South Bend Municipal Code Sections 2-76 et seq., and; WHEREAS, notice of the adoption of a Declaratory Resolution and the public hearing before the Council has been published pursuant to Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1-2.5; and 18 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 WHEREAS, the Council held a public hearing for the purposes of hearing all remonstrance’s and objections from interested persons; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the qualifications for a residentially distressed area have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, as follows: SECTION I. The Common Council hereby determines and finds that the petition for real property tax abatement and the Statement of Benefits form meet the requirements of Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1 et seq., for tax abatement. SECTION II. The Common Council hereby determines and finds that the area meets one of the following conditions as formally established in Ordinance No. 9394-03, which was passed on February 10, 2003: A. The area is comprised of parcels that are either unimproved or contain only one (1) or two (2) family dwellings designed for up to four (4) families, including accessory buildings for those dwellings; or B. Any dwellings in the area are not permanently occupied and are: i. the subject of an order issued under IC 36-7-9; or ii. evidencing significant building deficiencies; or C. Parcels of property in the area: i. have been sold and not redeemed under IC 6-1.1-24 and IC 6-1.1-25; or ii. are owned by a unit of local government; or D. A significant number of dwelling units within the area are not permanently occupied or a significant number of parcels in the area are vacant land; or E. A significant number of dwelling units within the area are: i. the subject of an order issued under IC 36-7-9; or ii. evidencing significant building deficiencies; or F. The area has experienced a net loss in the number of dwelling units, as documented by census information, local building and demolition permits, or certificates of occupancy, or the areas are owned by Indiana or the United States; or G. The area (plus any areas previously designated under this subsection) will not exceed ten percent (10%) of the total area within the Council’s jurisdiction. SECTION III. The Common Council also hereby determines and finds the following: A. That the description of the proposed redevelopment meets the applicable standards for such development. B. That the estimate of the value of the redevelopment is reasonable for projects of this nature; C. That the other benefits about which information was requested are benefits that can be reasonably expected to result from the proposed described redevelopment; and D. That the totality of benefits is sufficient to justify the requested deduction, all of which satisfy the requirements of Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1-3. E. The deduction will not be allowed unless the dwelling is rehabilitated to meet local code standards for habitability. F. The deduction will not be allowed unless the dwelling rehabilitation is completed within five (5) calendar years from the date of the adoption of this Resolution by the Common Council. 19 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 SECTION IV. The Common Council hereby confirms its Declaratory Resolution designating the area described herein as a Residentially Distressed Area for the purposes of tax abatement. Such designation is for Real property tax abatement only and is limited to five (5) calendar years from the date of adoption of the Declaratory Resolution by the Common Council. SECTION V. The Common Council hereby determines that the property owner is qualified for and is granted Real property tax deduction for a period of five (5) years, and further determines that the petition complies with Chapter 2, Article 6, of the Municipal Code of the City of South Bend and Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1 et seq. SECTION VI. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption by the Common Council and approval by the Mayor. s/Derek D. Dieter Member of the Common Council Dale DeVon, Devon Custom Homes, 17876 St. Rd. 23, South Bend, Indiana, made the presentation on behalf of the owners John and Jennifer Sejdinaj. Mr. DeVon advised that the petitioner intends to construct an approximate 3,000 square foot residence. The home will have four bedrooms with 3 ½ bedrooms along with a partially finished basement, a two-car garage, and a screened in porch. The project is part of the Notre Dame Avenue Housing Program and as such will follow the design specifications and standards required by that program. The cost of the home will be approximately $600,000. Total taxes to be abated during the five (5) year abatement period are estimated at $1,893.34. Total taxes to be paid during the five (5) year abatement period are estimated at $31,837.55 A Public Hearing was held on the Resolution at this time. There being no one present wishing to speak to the Council either in favor of or in opposition to this Resolution, Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to adopt this Resolution. Councilmember White seconded the motion which carried and the Resolution was adopted by a roll call vote of nine (9) ayes. BILLS - FIRST READING BILL NO. 50-11 FIRST READING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND TO TRANSFER A PORTION OF FREDRICKSON PARK FROM THE BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS TO THE STATE OF INDIANA AND TO RESCIND ORDINANCE 10079-11 This bill had first reading. Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to refer this bill to the PARC Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on September 12, 2011. Councilmember White seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. BILL NO. 51-11 FIRST READING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROPRIATING $280,080 WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND 212 FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT SHELTER PLUS CARE GRANT PROGRAM 20 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 This bill had first reading. Councilmember Henry Davis made a motion to refer this bill to the Community and Economic Development Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on September 12, 2011. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. BILL NO. 52-11 FIRST READING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF CERTAIN ADDITIONS, EXTENSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY’S SEWAGE WORKS, THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF ADDITIONAL REVENUE BONDS TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE COSTS THEREOF, AND THE COLLECTION, SEGREGATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE REVENUES OF SUCH SEWAGE WORKS AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS This bill had first reading. Councilmember Henry Davis made a motion to refer this bill to the Utilities Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on September 12, 2011. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. BILL NO. 53-11 FIRST READING ON A BILL FIXING THE RATE OF TAXATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING REVENUE TO MEET THE NECESSARY EXPENSES OF THE CIVIL CITY OF SOUTH BEND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2012 This bill had first reading. Councilmember LaFountain made a motion to refer this bill to the Personnel & Finance Committee and set it for Public Hearing on September 26, 2011 and Third Reading on October 10, 2011. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. BILL NO. 54-11 FIRST READING ON A BILL APPROPRIATING MONIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE EXPENSES OF SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS OF THE CIVIL CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2012, AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2012, INCLUDING ALL OUTSTANDING CLAIMS AND OBLIGATIONS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL TAKE EFFECT This bill had first reading. Councilmember LaFountain made a motion to refer this bill to the Personnel & Finance Committee and set it for Public Hearing on September 26, 2011 and Third Reading on October 10, 2011. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. 21 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 BILL NO. 55-11 FIRST READING ON A BILL OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND APPROPRIATING MONIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE EXPENSES OF THE DESIGNATED ENTERPRISE FUNDS OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2012 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2012, INCLUDING ALL OUTSTANDING CLAIMS AND OBLIGATIONS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL TAKE EFFECT This bill had first reading. Councilmember LaFountain made a motion to refer this bill to the Personnel & Finance Committee and set it for Public Hearing on September 26, 2011 and Third Reading on October 10, 2011. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. BILL NO. 56-11 FIRST READING ON A BILL FIXING SALARIES AND WAGES OF APPOINTED OFFICERS AND NON-BARGAINING EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2012 This bill had first reading. Councilmember Henry Davis made a motion to refer this bill to the Personnel & Finance Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on September 12, 2011. Councilmember White seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. UNFINISHED BUSINESS REPORTS FROM AREA PLAN COMMISSION: BILL NO. 34-11 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3500 BLOCK OF EAST MCKINLEY AVENUE AND 600 BLOCK OF HICKORY ROAD, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT FOUR, IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA Councilmember Dieter made a motion to refer this bill to the Zoning and Annexation Committee and set it for Public Hearing and Third Reading on November 14, 2011. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. BILL NO. 42-11 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY BOUNDED BY PINE STREET, WESTERN AVENUE, LAUREL STREET, AND THE FIRST ALLEY NORTH OF WESTERN AVENUE, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT 2, IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA BILL NO. 47-11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMDNEING CHAPTER 21 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE, ARTICLE 1 BASIC PROVISIONS, SECTION 21-01-03 NON- CONFORMING LOTS, USES, BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES OR SIGNS; AND ARTICLE 4 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, SECTION 21-04.11 GENERAL REGULATIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS 22 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 Councilmember Puzzello made a motion to refer Bill Nos. 42-11 and 47-11 to the Zoning and Annexation Committee and set them for Public Hearing and Third Reading on September 12, 2011. Councilmember Henry Davis seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. NEW BUSINESS Councilmember Henry Davis, Chairperson, Community Relations Committee, stated that he would like to schedule a meeting on Monday, September 12, 2011 to discuss the South Bend Community School Corporation’s asking the City of South Bend for funds. Councilmember Davis also asked about funding for Public Access Michiana. He also asked for an update on the intersection of Western and Walnut. Councilmember Varner stated that a letter went to the City of Mishawaka and to the St. Joseph County Council to join in on funding Public Access Michiana. Gary Gilot stated that he will get back to Councilmember Henry Davis regarding the intersection of Western and Walnut. Councilmember Dieter asked Mr. Gilot for an update on the 933 Bridge near Northshore. Mr. Gilot advised that they are awaiting the consultant’s report. Councilmember Oliver Davis thanked everyone involved in getting the lights installed on Main Street for Xavier School. He stated that TRANSPO will be releasing the changes of their routes. Councilmember Oliver Davis also noted that in Mr. St. Clair’s report on th the Graffiti Program that there were over 200 sites in the 6 District alone. He thanked Mr. St. Clair and his department for their continued hard work in ridding the City of graffiti. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR COMMENTS REGARDING TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SIGNAGE ON MICHIGAN STREET FOR XAVIER SCHOOL Ms. Tonia Harman Grimer, 26315 U. S. 31, South Bend, Indiana, thanked the Council for the installation of light on Main Street. She stated that they would still like to have a light on Michigan Street as well as signage. She stated that this is a public safety issue. Charles Jameson, (no address given) stated that he is one of the Founder’s of the Xavier School. He would like to see lights installed on Main Street to slow down traffic in front of the school. Mercedes Schuber, 136 Webster, South Bend, Indiana, advised that she would like to see signage and a traffic signal installed on Michigan Street in front of Xavier School. She stated that the flow of traffic is much too fast and needs to be slowed down for safety of the students as well as faculty and staff at the school. Veronica Martinez, 2829 Sampson, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she was almost hit dropping off and picking up her children from Xavier School. She stated that a traffic signal and signage are needed to slow down the traffic on Michigan Street. Dan Bergman, 1757 Crestwood, South Bend, Indiana, stated that there is a serious public safety issue at Xavier School. He stated that a traffic signal and signage is also needed on Michigan Street. He thanked everyone involved for the light on Main Street; however, the trees need to be trimmed on Main Street that are obstructing the view of the lights. 23 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, President Derek D. Dieter adjourned the meeting at 9:08 p.m. ATTEST: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ John Voorde, City Clerk Derek D. Dieter, President 24