Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-13-18 Zoning and Annexation SpUTIi8 �psC �d :•: U d •f\PEAICE / 1865 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK KAREEMAH FOWLER, CITY CLERK ZONING&ANNEXATION AUGUST 13, 2018 3:22 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, Tim Scott, Sharon L. McBride Other Council Absent: None Others Present: Kareemah Fowler, Bianca Tirado, Graham Sparks, Bob Palmer, Gabriel Murei,Elivet Navarro Presenters: Adam Toering, Angela Smith, Kathy Schuth, Brian McMorrow, Michael Divita, Steve Cox Agenda: Bill No. 33-18- Establishing Historic Landmark Status- Civil Rights Heritage Center- 1040 West Washington Street Bill No. 18-34- Special Exception: 719 and 721 W. Rex Street Bill No. 26-18- 24632, 24650, 24700, 24810, 24820, 24762 US Highway 20 and 54270 Pine Road Annexation Bill No. 18-36- South Bend Chocolate Annexation Fiscal Plan Committee Chair Oliver Davis called to order the Zoning and Annexation Committee meeting at 3:22 p.m. He introduced members of the Committee and proceeded to give the floor to the presenters. Bill No. 33-18- Establishing Historic Landmark Status- Civil Rights Heritage Center- 1040 West Washington Street Adam Toering, Historic Preservation Specialist with offices on the 14'' floor of the County-City Building, stated, I am here to bring forward the historical landmarking of the Engman Natatorium at 1040 West Washington. We have attempted to landmark repeatedly, going back all the way to the 1990s and even in the early 2000s. Now we have the owner's consent and they are on board. INTEGRITY1 SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY JENNIFER M.COFFMAN BIANCA L.TIRADo JosEm R MOLNAR CHIEF DEPUTY/DaECrOR OF OPERATIONS DEPVTyjDmECroR OF POLICY ORDINANCE VIOLATION CLERK EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION ( EMPOWERMENT 455 County-City Building 1 227 W.Jefferson Blvd.I South Bend,Indiana 466011 p 574.235.92211 f 574.235.9173 1 www.southbendin.gov CITY OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK They are the South Bend Heritage Foundation. This comes to you with a favorable recommendation from Historic Preservation and I can answer any questions you may have. Councilmember Karen White asked, Did anyone present speak in opposition to the landmarking proposal? Mr. Toering replied,No. Committeemember Jo M. Broden asked, Could you address the history of the owner's consent? Please explain how it is different now. Mr. Toering replied, The South Bend Heritage Foundation purchased the building from the Parks Department of the City and they are supportive of this. They own other landmarks. Committee Chair Davis then opened the floor to members of the public wishing to speak in favor of or in opposition to the legislation. 'Elicia Feasel,Historic Preservation Administrator with offices on the 14th floor of the County-City Building, stated, I'm here to speak in support. I would like to give credit to Adam for really working with and hearing both the Civil Rights Heritage Center's as well as the owner of the building's interests. He worked with them and helped them understand the process. The building itself maintains a very high level of integrity but the reflecting garden in the back where the pool once was is also a part of the legal description of the landmark. So any future developments that are proposed for that area can be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. Committeemember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to send Bill No. 33-18 to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Committeemember Broden seconded this motion which carried by a voice vote of four(4) ayes. Committeemember Broden requested the presentation of Bill No. 33-18 be more significant in terms of drawing out the history of the building. She stated, There is an opportunity, toni ht, to education generations on the past history. I hope we are not short on that segment tonig Bill No. 18-34- Special Exception: 719 and 721 W. Rex Street Angela Smith, Deputy Director of the Area Plan Commission with offices on the 11th floor of the County-City Building, stated, This special exception before you is part of a larger project that is being developed along Portage Avenue between California and Rex. This only involves these two (2) properties here (referencing a presentation which is available in the City Clerk's Office) on Rex Street. The underlining zoning district for those two (2)properties is Single-Family. The rest of the project is already zoned Mixed-Use and if these two (2) parcels were to zone Mixed-Use, parking would be allowed as well. But in working with the petitioner and looking at the information here,this is a housing development project and if for some reason the project does not go through,they wanted to try and retain the underlying zoning district to allow for Single-Family development in the future. The best course of action for that is this special exception. The special exception would allow for a parking lot to serve the residential development at this site. Here (referencing the presentation)you can kind of see which portion we are talking about. This comes to you from the Area Board of Zoning Appeals with favorable recommendation. 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 TM 574.235.5567 www.southbendin.gov 2 CITY OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK Committeemember Broden asked, With regard to the petitioner and ownership, could someone address this project? Council has seen this before and I'm trying to understand the relationship in roles of the various individuals on the petition. Kathy Schuth, Director of the Near Northwest Neighborhood with offices located at 1007 Portage Avenue, replied, This is a proposed low-income housing tax credit project. The ownership is very confusing in that we are combining different parcels. Also, this will be the sixth (6th) time submitting this application. The way we have done it is the main portion of it is an existing building. Most recently the Ford Distribution Company was in there. The County has access to the ownership of the building through taxes that are due. We have applied to the County and we have a County Commissioner resolution to receive the building if we go through the legal process.Now what we've done every year then is, when we did not receive the low-income housing credits, we just simply did not complete the legal process. The building is still, officially, in the hands of Richard and Linda Ford. They live in Florida now and they have interest or stake in the building at this point. I think there are over$250,000 of back taxes on the property. They have no intention of swooping back in and regaining the property but we are, again, on the sixth (6th) attempt and we are all set up with the County Commissioners to receive the building if we go through the legal process. We've timed that so we won't continue that process if we don't receive the funding. We are also working with the City as there is City-owned property and that is where there will be a second (2nd)building. We have been working with the Department of Community Investment and have an agreement similar to that of the agreement we have with the County and the tax credits. We are, in all essence, the petitioner even though at this point we actually own none of the land. We have an agreement set in place with the County, with the City and with THRIVE Michiana and Mike Keen. Mr. Keen has already stated his interest in developing Single-Family housing there should this all fall through. So there is actually a contingency plan in place as well. This is why we prefer to have a special use exception for the parking rather than switching the zoning. I will say that our preference is kind of low stakes. Actually, with the Mixed-Use District we are okay on parking and we don't need this to complete what is required for the project itself. Wei ust think this really helps the project. Committeemember Broden followed up,And the two (2)other lots are owned by Mr. Keen,is that correct? Ms. Schuth replied, That is correct. Ms. Smith stated, We received signatures on that piecemeal. So the copy you all may have may not have all the signatures but we do have an original in the office that has all the required signatures. Committeemember Broden then asked, And what is the timeline for submission and then hearing back? Ms. Schuth replied, The submission already happened as it went in July 30th, 2018 and we will hear back the second(2nd) week of November 2018. EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT 455 County-City Building I227W.Jefferson BvldI South Bend,Indiana 46601 p574.235.9221 f574.235.9173ITD574.235.5567 www.southbendin.gov 3 ®CITY OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK 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. Councilmember Tim Scott stated, As Kathy said, this is our sixth (6th) go around on this. This is another one (1) of these buildings that, I don't think will turn into anything else without the creativity of collaboration. Everyone is collaborating and think that is a good thing. They have come so close over and over again. My wife was the one (1) that submitted the very first (Ist) application which we got bumped below the Hoffman Hotel project. This would be a great center piece right along Portage Avenue. I appreciate support on this and this was good teamwork from everybody. Committeemember Broden requested a copy of the application. Committeemember John Voorde made a motion to send Bill No. 18-34 to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Committeemember Ferlic seconded this motion which carried by a voice vote of four(4) ayes. Committeemember Ferlic then made a motion to hear together Bill Nos. 26-18 and 18-36 for purposes of public hearing. Committeemember Broden seconded this motion which carried by a voice vote of four(4) ayes. Bill No 26-18- 24632, 24650, 24700, 24810, 24820, 24762 US Highway 20 and 54270 Pine Road Annexation Bill No. 18-36- South Bend Chocolate Annexation Fiscal Plan Ms. Smith stated, Before you is a project that I am sure you are very familiar with. It is a proposed planning and development. We are essentially at the corner of the bypass (referencing a presentation which is available in the City Clerk's Office). Some of this property came in a couple of years ago for an annexation when the airport owned it. They annexed it and it is zoned LI — Light Industrial. When Mr. Turner started talking to us about his project,I know you guys are fully aware that we are not keen on using Planned Unit Development method, but this case is a prime example of why we have that district classification. The mix of uses proposed in this project are such that we could not put it in any district within the City of South Bend and allow for the wide range of uses. By the time you add the agricultural type uses, the commercial and residential, we simply don't have a zoning district that would accommodate all of those things. So shy of parceling out certain areas for certain uses which might restrict the development as the project goes on, the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District is really the only option here. She continued, So this PUD essentially has the edge of the City and will also be picking up a couple of parcels in the County. It will be surrounded by County-zoned Manufacturing and Residential in the area. This (referencing the presentation) is the proposed entrance off of Lincoln Way. The PUD will essentially have two(2)districts. The Core District will allow for a wide range of uses. The description of it was an `old world village.'_They included uses such as the factory, the dinosaur museum, a restaurant,retail,hotel,possibly a fuel station and a Farmer's Market. The other district will be the Agricultural District and this is designed to highlight the natural and agricultural amenities of the property. These include things such as orchards, buffalo paddocks, EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT 455 County-City Building!227W Jefferson Bvld I South Bend,Indiana 466011 p 574.235.9221 f 574.235.9173 I TTD 574.235.55671 www•southbendin.gov 4 ®CITY OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK cutting barns,maybe some restaurants and some other agricultural uses. There are existing written commitments on the property that stay with it which primarily states that at the time they develop the site,they will have to have a traffic study for Pine because of the potential impact that it might have. The County, City and potentially INDOT will have to come and study that. This comes to you from the Area Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation. Utilizing the Planned Unit Development will allow a large Mixed-Use project that will be a major point of interest for the City of South Bend. There were no additional commitments that come of this. Essentially a PUD is one (1) large written commitment. Everything that is in the PUD is what they are allowed to do. Brian McMorrow, Abor marche Consultants with offices located at 750 Lincoln Way East, stated, I am here on behalf of the SBCC Development Corp.which is the South Bend Chocolate Company. Our challenge was to take Mark's vision, which was in his head, and try to codify it in a way that would provide some structure for future development but not be so rigid that it would limit creativity and the natural form of development. The image you see on the screen here (which is available in the City Clerk's Office) is our current working concept of what we are proposing for the first(1 sh phase of the development. The larger rectangular structure on the lower left-hand side is the Southl Bend Chocolate Company Building. The rectangular building to the right would be the dinosaur museum. And then we are looking to repurpose those out buildings and other structures that are up against the road right now. It is a combination of hard asphalt and some gravel parking areas that would be reminiscent of an agricultural feel. It is conceptual at this point but we want to thank the Community Investment staff,Angela and the Area Plan staff in working together with us to craft what we think is a pretty good framework for development. We do have Regional Cities funding, we have the support of the City and they are preparing sewer and water plans right now. They have helped assemble the properties and we look for your support this evenin . Committee Chair Davis asked, While it is not determined, yet, where the South Shore will go, could you share where the station might be? This location was one (1) of the options of the initial study. Mr. McMorrow replied, It captures it over here (referencing the picture). Ms. Smith stated, When they first (Is') submitted the PUD, they actually had three (3) districts. They had the Core District,Agriculture District and a Transportation District. We just allowed for that transportation use to be in the Core District instead of pigeonholing it, if for some reason that didn't happen, we didn't want them to not be able to use that strip of land. So it has been incorporated into what is allowed within the Core District. We did try to allow for some flexibility in the PUD. So there are options as the PUD develops to modify the plan without going back through the whole process. There are some things that could potentially end up at the Area Board of Zoning Appeals. Committeemember Broden asked, There is an Architectural Review Board that is part of the ordinance, could you address that and whether or not that is a typical set up? And how would be the composition of that? Ms. Smith replied, It is typical. We saw this on Portage Prairie. In that case, Holiday formed an Architectural Review Committee that was handled through that. I think Ignition Park has something similar as well. It is pretty common in PUDs and, in fact, that is one (1) of the reasons EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT 455 County-City Building 1 227 W.Jefferson Bvld South Bend,Indiana 46601;p 574.235.9221 if 574.235.9173 i TTD 574.235.5567 www.southbendin.gov 5 CITY OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK people like to use PUDs because they feel there is an extra sense of control in there which, in reality, it could go either way. It gives an extra bit. Before development would occur, we require a letter from that Architectural Review Committee stating that the development would meet those standards and requirements. Mr. McMorrow replied, At the present time, it is Mark Tamer because he is the SBCC Development Corp. and they are the sole owner of the property. There could be a point in time where he would sell off a parcel to a hotel operator and, for example, they would likely then be part of that Architectural Review Board to make sure that the future development happens in a way that is cohesive. Committeemember Broden followed up, Then I also saw a maximum number of signage and that was unlimited. Can someone explain that? Ms. Smith replied, So right now in the City of South Bend,roof signs aren't a permitted sign type. We have worked those into this particular PUD because of some of the drawings they showed us. The wall signs, however, in the City of South Bend are unlimited as well. It all goes back to a percentage. So, it is based on a percentage of the fagade and other factors. It is pretty consistent with what the current City of South Bend sign regulations permit. Mr. McMorrow stated, Additionally,these will not be public streets. All of these streets and roads will be maintained privately. There is text about that. Ms. Smith stated, And the whole PUD is kind of designed to focus our attention on the edges of the development as it interacts with the public right-of-way and the adjacent neighbors. How it develops internally is not as critical to manage as the edges are. Committeemember Broden then asked, The PUD ordinance includes five (5) amendments, could you address those? Ms. Smith replied, So because of how extensive the PUD is, we were reviewing it right up to the Area Plan Commission meeting. So essentially those items highlighted are things that changed between the time we legally advertised the petition and the actual meeting. They are all things that 'Have been agreed upon by both parties. They have to do with some clarification on the edges. The first (1St) one (1) allows for setback adjustments. We added a setback for the agricultural district. We referenced the existing written commitments in allowing for the airport review because this is in a flight path so we added items specifically so that was very well known. We also added some language that would help cover the existing uses on the site. Committee Chair Davis asked, Could you talk about the expense of the developers with regard to the written commitment on the property? Ms. Smith replied, That has to do with the traffic study. Mr. McMorrow stated, We were well aware that the written commitments that are attached to the property obligated the developer to do a study of traffic impacts on Pine Road and to make any improvements that would be needed. Our plan, specifically, is looking to not have any new access points on Pine Road. All the traffic is intended to come through Lincoln Highway opposite Olive 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 574.235.5567 I www_southbendin.gov 6 CITY OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK Road. So we will do the traffic study and we think the conclusion will be that the way it is on Pine Road is the way it can stay but we will conduct that study. It will then be reviewed by the City,the County and INDOT. Ms. Smith stated, A project of this nature would have this any way. I think that was a cautious effort initially because there were multiple jurisdictions working together. Michael Divita, Planner for the Department of Community Investment with offices on the 14th floor of the County-City Building, stated, I will cover the fiscal plan portion. Angela touched on it but there are four(4)parcels at the northwest corner of the larger project site that will be annexed into the City to go together with the land previously annexed to make this project happen. The annexation portion is about thirteen point two(13.2)acres. Part of the annexation is to build capital improvements. The City water is already available. As Brian mentioned, the City had previously committed to extending the sewer to this area. A portion of US-20 will come into the City but will continue to be maintained by INDOT. The annexation area will be added to the Councilmanic District One (1) and will be serviced by Police beat twenty-four(24) and Fire Station eleven (11) on Bendix Drive, Emergency Medic Four (4) and Code Enforcement eight (8) with no additional equipment or personnel being needed. We give a favorable recommendation. Councilmember Scott stated,I've toured the site and I think this is an exciting development. I think there are still a lot of fluid and moving pieces to it but that is the nice thing about it. It can develop into a number of things. Committeemember Voorde asked,Has there been any consideration for an additional Fire Station? Steve Cox, Fire Chief for the City of South Bend with offices located at 1222 S. Michigan Street, replied, We have been analyzing this particular area of the City. This particular annexation isn't the only thing to consider for building an additional station out there. There are some possibilities for this area but if that addition happens, we would maintain our current stations as well. Councilmember White stated, Every time we look at new development, a question historically asked has to do with our use of resources. I would caution us to continue looking at that as we prepare for increased development as it pertains to the fiscal side of the conversation. Committeemember Broden asked, Could I get some more clarification on adding US-20 but it still being maintained by INDOT? Mr. Divita replied, The portion of US-20 is immediately adjacent to the annexation part but, by State Law, you have to also annex in any adjoining right-of-way as part of any annexation. Since it happens to be a State highway,the State will continue maintaining that. Committeemember Broden followed, And so did we see, pictorially on this, that is only a portion of that? Or is it up to that? You can actually address it afterwards, that is fine. I'm sure I'm the only one (1)that is not clear on that. Mr. Divita, pointing to a picture in the presentation, stated, The red is the larger context site. The blue is existing City limit and between the blue and red lines there are additional. 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 TfD574.235.5567 www.southbendin.gov 7 ®CITY OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK Committeemember Broden stated, Ok, good, thank you. I thought that was the case. Lastly, is anyone here to address the jobs or what this represents economically? Mr. McMorrow replied, Mr. Tamer is out of town tonight and he is better able to answer that than I. Clearly there will be new jobs. We are maintaining the South Bend Chocolate Factory. It is a growing business. We are then looking to attract other businesses into the project as well. Committee Chair Davis then opened the floor to members of the public wishing to speak in favor of or in opposition to the legislation. Sue Kesim, 4022 Kennedy Drive, stated, I am a citizen advocate. There has been some concern from the environmental groups about the special marsh and critical nature areas there. They want to know if you are going to require an environmental study and perhaps corner off some potentially sensitive environmental areas. Committee Chair Davis then gave the floor to the presenter for rebuttal and response. Mr. McMorrow replied, This is a petition not to build anything at this time so these are not permits for construction.Nevertheless, I would love to have your information about what you know about environmentally sensitive areas because it is our intention to design environmentally sensitive infrastructure. Committeemember Ferlic made a motion to send Bill No. 26-18 to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Committeemember Broden seconded that motion which carried by a voice vote of four(4) ayes. Committeemember Ferlic then made a motion to send Bill No. 18-36 to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Committeemember Broden seconded that motion which carried by a voice vote of four(4) ayes. With no further business, Committee Chair Davis adjourned the Zoning and Annexation Committee meeting at 4:00 p.m. Respe"Commi iver , EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT 455 County-City Building 1227 W.Jefferson Bvld j South Bend,Indiana 46601;p 574.235.9221 f574.235.9173 TTD574.235.5567 www.southbendin.gov 8