Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-23-56 Council Meeting MinutesREGULAR MEETING: JANUARY 23rdl956 The Common,Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, met in the Council Chamber on the 23rd day of January, 1956, at the hour of 8 :08 P.M., (C.S.T.), in regular session in accordance with the rules of the Council. The meeting was called to order by President Stanley Korpal, who presided. Present: Councilmen Stanley Korpal, George. Carr, Albert Tellson, Julius B. Christman, Jr., Joseph T. Kroll, Walter Glass, William A. Hahn, Walter Erler and Chester Muszynski. REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON MINUTES: To the Common Council of the City of South Bend: Your Committee on the inspection and supervision of the minutes, would respectfully report that they have in- spected the minutes of the previous meeting of the Council and found them correct. Their, therefore, recommend that the same be approved. STANLEY C. KORPAL ) GEORGE CARR ) Chairman JULIUS B. CHRISTMAN, JR. ) Councilman Glass made a motion that the report be accepted and placed on file. Councilman Muszynski seconded the motion. Motion carried. COMMUNICATIONS: Communication from Judge Edward Olczak relative to transfer of funds in the City Court Budget. N REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23rd, 1956 Councilman Glass made a motion that the communication be accepted and placed on file. Councilman Muszynski seconded the motion. Motion carried. Communication from Attorney Guy H. McMichael relative to withdrawal of previous lierman-Light petition without prejudice. Councilman Hahn made a motion that the communication be accepted and placed on file. Councilman Muszynski seconded the motion. Motion carried. DATTY'TAV Petition of John C. Stith, et al, to rezone from "B" Use District and "B" Height and Area, lots 61 through 68 Kaley's 1st Subdivision and lots 89 through 95 in Kaley's Second Addition. Councilman Erler moved that the petition be referred to the City Plan Commission. Councilman Glass seconded the motion. fiction carried. REPORT OF CITY PLAN COMMISSION: Honorable Common Council City of South Bend, South Bend, Indiana Gentlemen: January 9, 1956 In the matter of the attached petition of Herman R. Larson, et. al, to zone lots numbered 191 through 196, in- clusive, of Berner Grove Addition from "B" Residential Use District and "B" Height and Area District to "C" Commercial Use District and "D" Height and Area District, said lots facing Mishawaka-Avenue on the north side of the street between 28th and 29th Streets, your Planning Commission found as follows: That subject property was generally surrounded by commercial zoning districts and commercial land use, and that the general trend in vicinity of subject property was clearly towards increasing need for commercial frontage., The ptition and ordinance is favorably recommended after legal advertising and public hearing before the Commission on October 6, 1955. This communication of recommendation has been held pending the submission of the necessary ordinance by the petititioners. Very trVly yours, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Robert L. Huff Director RLH :aed $Motion by Councilman Hahn that the report be accepted and placed on file. Seconded by Councilman Erler. Motion carried. ORDINANCE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 3702, COMMONLY KNOWN AS ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA. (The North Side of Mishawaka Avenue, between 28t1i and 29th streets, South, Bend, Indiana) The Ordinance was given first reading by title and second reading in full. Councilman Hahn made a motion that the Ordinance be set for public hearing on February 14th, 1956. Seconded by Councilman Erler. Motion carried. REPORT OF CITY PLAN COMMISSION: Honorable Common Council City of South Bend South Bend, Indiana Gentlemen: January 20, 1956 The attached petition of Herman N. Light to zone 35 acres on East Jefferson Boulevard to "C -2" Planned Shopping Center District was legally advertised ".under date of September 26, 1955, and given public hearing under date of October 6, 1955, and continued to Novik4er 3, 1955. On January .19, 1956. the Commission in executive session, having fully considered the petitition and remonstrances thereto, found as follows: 1. A Shopping center on subject property would be convenient, reasonable, accessible, and would bear a substantial relationship to the general welfare. Public convenience and welfare would be best served. It would not, therefore, be an unreasonable or arbitrary exercise of the police -power of the municipality. 2. The granting of the petition would not single out one lot or a small piece of' property for a use which is inconsistent with the use to which the rest of the area is restricted. The granting of the . pdtition does not, therefore, constitute spot zoning. A line dividing one zoning district from another must obviously be drawn somewhere. 3. Consolidated shopping centers with adequate off- street parking in efficient and convenient retail store groupings are sound when considered in relation to the buying power of the area they are to seRve. Strip and spot zoning, with their social and economic waste and lessening of the amenities of residential neighborhoomd, will be discouraged within the primary trade area of such a consolidated shopping center. 4. The basic items for a successful shopping center are present in subject proposal, to -wit: a. The Economic Analysis is sound in method and substantiates the sales volume potential. On the basis of the market analysis, a shopping center of proposed size on subject property is feasible. b. The shopping facility will have adequate accessibility and be adequately served by mass transit. c. Adequate off- street parking will be available and agress and ingress con- trolled. S. Existing streets and thoroughfares in vicinity of subject property will deaand certain street and traffic improvements. To this end the Commission adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Commission found that the creation of the proposed Light's Jefferson Plaza Shopping center would create under existing conditions, a traffic problem in the vicinity of subject property, particularly on Jefferson Boulevard and McKinley Highway, and that said problem would not exist in kind and degree in the absence of said shopping center; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the improvement, channelization, storage, acceleration and deceleration lanes, and all and any traffic con.tro.l.dev.idew designs, and arrangements that in the opinion of the City Planning Commission, the City Engineer, and the City Traffic Engineer are necessary in the general vicinity of subject property, particularly on Jefferson Boulevard and McKinley Highway, be considered as part of the Development Plan for proposed shopping center; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the petitioner sha111.cause the design and specifications for said traffic control to be made for such improvement at no cost to the City of South Bend, and that such design and specifications shall conform to any and all standards of the Board of Public Works and Safety, the City Traffic Engineer, and the City Planning Commission, and be subject to acceptance and approval, thereof; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said plans and specifications shall be prepared and presented to the above- mentioned offices and commission of the City of South Bend, Indiana, after the passage and adoption by the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, its approval by the Mayor and legal publication of the ordinance zoning the subject land of the proposed shopping center to "C -2" Planned Shopping Center District; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said plans and specificatioon, after approval as herein prescribed shall be carried out in full by the petitioner at the earliest pppottunity, at no cost to the City of South Bend, Indiana; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Board of Public Works and safety, the City Engineer, the City Traffic Engineer, and the Building Commissioner of the City of South Bend, Indiana. 6. Because of required and proposed front, side, and rear yard setbacks and planting screen barriers on subject property, an adverse effect on properties immediately adjacent to the center would be minimized while properties beyond those immediately adjacent would become more desirable due to the existence of convenient and accesible shopping facilities. 7. City sewers adjacent to the site are adequate in present and future capacity-to accommodate the proposed center. Adequate city water is likewise available. 8. The Real Estate Research Corporation, authors of the Economic Analysis, presented as required by Section 4 -B, of Ordinance No. 3702, are a recognized, reputable, authoritative and qualified-cor- poration in the field of economic analysis; and their analysis is acceptable. The Traffic Analysis is likewise acceptable and the authors, Associated Consultants, Traffic and Transportation Engineers, fully qualified to make such studies. 9. Subject petition complies with the intent of and meets the conditions of Section 4 -B, Sub - section C -2 of Ordinance No. 3702, as required before a zoning change is granted. Therefore, the proposed center as presented in the architect's preliminary sketch, meets the conditions imposed on it by Ordinance No. 3702, as above, and conforms to the recommendations and conclusions presented in the Traffic Survey Report and the Economic Analysis. 10. Relative to the River Park Business and Professional Men's Association, the Commission found that the purpose of zoning is not to restrict competition; the limiting of competition would be an unlawful, arbitrary, and unreasonable use of the zoning ordinance. 11. Finally, the Commission found that the proponents have shown sufficient financial responsibility to carry the proposal to completion. It was, therefore, duly moved, seconded and unanimously carried tkkt the petition. -be favorably recommended to the Common Council. Very truly yours, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RLH:aed Robert L. Huf6irector- Secretary I REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23rd, 1956 Motion by Councilman Glass that the report be accepted and placed on file. Seconded by Councilman Muszynski. Motion Carried. ORDINANCE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3702, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA. (A part of the Westk of the Northeastk , Sec.8, Twp.37 N.,R 3 E., now within and an part of the City of South Bend,) The ordinance was given first reading by title and second reading in full. Councilman Hahn made a motion that the Ordinance be set for Public hearing on February 14th, 1956. Seconded by Councilman Muszynski, Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: Motion by Councilman Hahn that Judge Olczak's request be heard at the special meeting. Seconded by Councilman Carr. Motion carried. Councilman Glass announced that last year he had requested that action be taken for the removal of flasher lights located throughout the City. City Attorney Irving Smith informed Mr. Glass that the Traffic and Police Departments were taking action to eliminate these lights. Matter referred to the City Attorney. There being no "further business before the Council, Councilman Muszynski made a motion to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Kroll. Motion carried. Council adjourned at 8:32 P.M. ATTEST: CLERK