Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-28-04 Zoning & Annexation • Contittittu Iteport Zoning atO linntxation tontittititt The January 28, 2004 meeting of the Zoning and Annexation Committee was called to order by its Chairperson, Council Member Ervin Kuspa at 4:03 p.m. p.m. in the Council Informal Meeting Room. Persons in attendance included Council Members Kelly, Dieter, Coleman, Kirsits, Puzzello, and Kuspa; Executive Director of Area Plan Robert Sante, Assistant Director of Area Plan John Byorni, Jeff Myers, Brent Bajdek, Assistant City Attorney Ann-Carol Nash, Neighborhood Code Enforcement Director Catherine Bruecker,and Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand,Council Attorney. Council Member Kuspa noted that the Committee is composed of himself as Chairperson, Council Member Ann Puzzello as Vice-Chairperson,and Council Members Kelly and Coleman. Council Member Kuspa noted that this Committee meeting was called to continue to review and discuss 2nd Substitute Bill No. 81-03 which would amend Chapter 21 of the South Bend Municipal Code by incorporating a new zoning ordinance. Council Member Kuspa noted that the draft bill received a favorable recommendation from the Area Plan Commission, In light of two(2) new Council Members beginning their service on the Common Council he suggested that the Bill be continued until the February 9th Council meeting to permit as much review and input as possible by the Council and the public. He noted that many terms and been changed and a new zoning map would ultimately be reviewed. Council Member Kuspa suggested that the final version of the zoning ordinance must be neighborhood friendly, contractor & developer friendly, and people friendly. He noted that the long review is necessary so that the final version of the ordinance will be worthwhile. He then called upon Ann-Carol Nash from the City Attorney's Office he wrote a memo late last Fall expressing concerns with regard to several items addressing enforcement in the proposed draft. Ms. Nash noted that City Attorney Charles Leone assigned her to review the enforcement provisions of the proposed ordinance in light of her close dealings with the Department of Code Enforcement. She noted that she met earlier this week with the Building Commissioner and the Director of Code Enforcement to discuss several of her concerns. She stated that several of those items have been resolved however still expressed concern with regard to notice, discretion with regard to the timing of enforcement through the counts, and the definition of oversize vehicles. She and Catherine Bruecker cited § 21-10(g)(1)(A) on page 5 and also on page 10. They cited concerns on page 6 with regard to enforcement procedures, noting that it appears that a"Traffic& Misdemeanor" procedure is set forth rather than dealing with ordinance violations which have a two (2) year period to be pursued. Ms. Nash stressed the need for flexibility and options for the City Attorney's Office with regard to when and where they would file suit. She noted that the City Attorney's Office need room to negotiate with violators, noting that often times they would void a citation after a six(6) month period if the individual had no additional violations within that period of time. She noted that city ordinance violations are pursued in Small Claims Court and not through Traffic and Misdemeanor Court,as proposed in the draft ordinance. Council Member Kelly noted that the ordinance must be very clear, and if there is confusion that amendatory language should be proposed to address these concerns. Catherine Bruecker then gave an example of some of the negotiations that take place with violators, noting that zoning is one area of the law which is extremely hard to prove in court since an "enormous amount of evidence is required of a violation". Citations are aimed at giving a person an immediate document so that action can then take place in perfecting the zoning violation. V Zoning and Annexation Committee January 28, 2004 Page 2 Council Member Coleman noted that it appears that the citation procedure permits more room for settlement and addressing the violation more directly. John Byorni stated that it appears that what is being proposed is that q B and 5 C on page 6 under enforcement be deleted. Ms. Nash then raised concerns with regard to the role of the Board of Zoning Appeals as addressed on page 6 of the draft ordinance, noting that the BZA may interpret but that the courts make decisions, since a violation must be proven in court. Ms. Bruecker noted that she has spoken to the consultant from Baker and Daniels with regard to "trailers"as currently addressed on page 3 under"Enforcement", § 21-10(0(4)(A). She added that Don Fozo may be able to address whether trailers are addressed under the "RV section", but there is no definition of"recreational trailer"and a"utility trailer". Council Member Puzzello questioned the language on page 3, § 21-10 (0(3), regarding "outdoor storage". An example was given of an old school bus having trash stored within it. Ms. Bruecker stated that § 16-53 of the South Bend Municipal Code would address that problem, rather than the zoning code. Ms. Bruecker and Ms. Nash stated that they would meet and send by email their proposed amendments to the Council Attorney for further discussion at the Zoning and Annexation Committee meeting next Monday. Both noted that they would be unable to attend the Monday Committee meeting. Ms. Bruecker noted that she requested that the limitations on garage sales be included in the draft ordinance. She noted that it permits three (3), and suggestion that it be included in light of the many complaints which her department has received. Council Member Kelly noted that he is aware of at least one location where it is almost a continuing garage sale when the weather is good. He noted however that he has not received complaints about it. Council Member Kirsits voiced concerns about the proposed flag regulations in the draft ordinance. He referred to pages 1-2 under"Exempt Signs", § 21-07.03. He stated that it requires a "set of flags". He noted that Holy Cross School is investing $3 million in a new addition. In order for the school to fly a school and/or religious flag, they would first be required to have three (3) separate flag poles for a United States flag, an Indiana State flag, and a City of South Bend flag before they could fly a school and/or religious flag. Council Member Kirsits questioned the wisdom of this entire provision noting that there are many establishments such as the LaSalle Grill and Fiddlers Pub in the downtown who fly many flags which are attractive. He questioned why we would force people to fly all of these flags including a City Flag;noting that the regulations are far too restrictive. He questioned the additional cost which would be involved to install four (4) flag poles in order to fly a school and/or religious flag. Ms. Bruecker noted that she did not have input on the flag regulations and agreed that they are too restrictive as proposed. It was further noted that the small decorative flags which are seen in many neighborhoods are also not exempt from the restrictions, noting that many of These flags have Zoning-and Annexation Committee January 28, 2004 Page 3 improved neighborhoods. Mr. Byorni stated that the regulations as drafted would apply to churches and schools. Mr. Sante stated that the regulations were proposed to address the very large American flags. Jeff Myers then provided a brief power point presentation on the map of the city which has been divided into(23) sections which can be accessed in greater detail. Council Member Dieter and Council Member Puzzello requested 8 1/2" x 11" maps of their Councilmanic Districts. Mr. Myers stated that the person who could provide that information is currently in the hospital. Mr. Sante stated that the Council could access such information on the internet by going to the Baker and Daniels site. Council Member Puzzello noted that duplexes would be permitted in residential zones and voiced concern with regard to four(4) students living in such duplexes. Mr. Byomi and Mr. Sante noted that in order for them to be permitted that a special exception which would require Council action must take place. Ms. Bruecker stated that only existing duplexes which are properly grandfathered would continue. Council Member Coleman noted that the duplex on Sherman last Fall involved a situation where the petitioner stated that he would be unable to get financing. He noted that legal non-conforming uses require proof and evidence. Ms. Bruecker stated that a special exception helps for financing purposes. Special exceptions are permitted uses which can be rebuilt if the structure burns down. Brent Bajdek stated that legal non-conforming uses can be rebuilt and that a rebuilt letter can be issued. The Council Attorney noted that Council President White had called and has been delayed at IUSB at a meeting. She noted that the Council President authorized her to research the proposed draft in light of other city zoning regulations and to proposed amendments which would improve the draft. Ms. Cekanski-Farrand noted that the proposed amendments are based on that research and are offered in the interest of making a good draft zoning ordinance even better. She then provided three(3) sets of handouts to the Committee (copies attached), and noted that the attachments to the draft language are examples from other communities on the topics addressed. She then briefly highlighted each of the proposed amendments. The Council Attorney stated that the proposed amendments to § 21-09.05 Development Review Procedures (e) (2) Zone Map Amendments, have been drafted with considerable input from the City Clerk's Office who is the office that deals directly with individuals wishing to file such ordinances. She noted that this proposed amendment would include notice to South Bend's Neighborhood Based Organizations which were addressed in a prior memo to Council. It would Zoning and Annexation committee January 28, 2004 Page 4 also call for a power of attorney from the petitioner if a different individual would be attending the Zoning and Annexation Committee and/or the Council meeting which is different from the person who signed the rezoning petition. The amendment would also call for a preliminary site plan for informational purposes for all rezoning proposals other than residential. Language from zoning ordinances in Evansville and Greencastle were attached to this proposed amendment. The proposed amendment addressing § 21-09.04 Staff Agencies, (e) Advancement of New Technologies, is in response to the City Administration and the Common Council working together to make South Bend a "world-class 21st Century City". This language would required quarterly updates to the Z&A Committee by the Office of the Area Plan Commission on new technologies. Examples from Indianapolis and Bloomington in this area were attached to the amendment. The proposed amendment addressing § 21-01.02 Zoning Districts and Zone Map (I) Official Zone Map Amendments Incorporated in Geographic Information System (GIS), is patterned after the City of Bloomington's regulations in this area which were attached. Council Member Kuspa thanked everyone for their input. He then invited everyone to come back next Monday, February 2, 2004, at 4 p.m., for continued discussions. Council Member Kuspa then adjourned the Committee meeting at 5:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Council Member Ervin Kuspa, Chairperson Zoning and Annexation Committee KCF:kmf Attachments