Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-23-15 Zoning and Annexation ZONING &ANNEXATION NOVEMBER 23,2015 3:40 P.M. Committee Members Present: Oliver Davis(XAB), Henry Davis Jr,Valerie Schey(XAB), Derek Dieter Citizen Members Present: Ron Okoye (AB) Other Council Present: Tim Scott (XAB), Dr. Fred Ferlic, Dr. David Varner, Gavin Ferlic, Karen White Others Present: Matt Chappuies, Mike Danch,John Murphy, Corbett Kerr, Mr. S. Szabo, Eric Horvath,Ayoka Paek,Angela Smith, Mike Divita Agenda: Bill No. 50-15 Annexation & Rezoning—52933 Shellbark Ave. Bill No. 15-100 Fiscal Plan for Shellbark Annexation Bill No. 69-15 Amend Chapter 21 of the SBMC to include new Service Charges in Connection with the Development Plan Application Process Bill No. 70-15 Amend Chapter 21 of the SBMC to Adopt the most Recent Federal and State Requirements on Floodplains Four bills were scheduled for consideration by the Zoning&Annexation Committee, Henry Davis, chairing the hearings in Oliver Davis' absence noted with only one other member, Derek Dieter, present a quorum was lacking so no recommendations could be forwarded to full Council. Bill 50-15 was first on the agenda. This was a request to annex and rezone a small parcel at 52993 Shellbark Avenue. The parcel,only.17 acres, is part of a much larger parcel being developed on Cleveland Road by Beacon Health Systems as a family health clinic. This small contiguous parcel was inadvertently left off the Beacon acquisition list when the other parcels were assembled. It is to be used for a retention pond. Matt Chappuies from Area Plan Commission (APC)explained the technical requirements, adding that the APC had given it a favorable recommendation. Mike Danch, representing the petitioner, provided a site plan noting the additional piece honored all the landscaping and zoning requirements of the large parcel. As he had previously stated at the outset, Henry noted that without a quorum there would be no recommendation. 1 Bill 15-100 was next. This bill spelled out the City's required fiscal plan for providing services to the parcel identified in bill 50-15. Mike Divita from Community Investment explained the fiscal plan. After a clarification question from Derek Dieter, Henry repeated that the bill would be forwarded without recommendation. Bill 69-15 was next. This bill initiated by the City would add to the Municipal Code charges related to the development plan application process. Corbett Kerr, City Engineer, made the presentation. He explained that the proposed fees would help cover the expense of processing and inspecting applications coming before the BPW. Corbett explained that the fee, previously absent, would help cover the costs of the Public Works Department. He maintained that the fees were fair, reasonable, and appropriate. Again, after brief discussion,the bill was forwarded without recommendation. Bill 70-15, last on the agenda, was meant to adopt recent federal guidelines for flood plains. Matt Chappuies from Area Plan presented the bill. He said the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had made a number of changes to the Model Floodplain Ordinance requesting communities that participate in the National Flood Plain Insurance Program adopt these changes. Matt explained most changes were definitional intending to broaden and clarify existing definitions. It did not represent any substantive changes in flood plain areas. Council questions, specifically from Dr. David Varner were looking for assurance that citizens in flood plain areas would not be negatively impacted. He was told there were not any hidden surprises in the FEMA model ordinance. Matt added that the Area Plan Commission had recommended the changes favorably. Ayoke Paek from the Building Department and Angela Smith from Area Plan were present to answer questions. This bill, like others, was forwarded without recommendation. Henry Davis adjourned the meeting at 4:00 P.M. Respectf bmitted, S . H.�ry Davis Jr,Vice-Chairperson Zoning&Annexation Committee 2 (LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A PART OF ME SMTHFAST =RIM OF SECTOR II AND A ART M NE SOTH RENAISSANCE DISTRICT P.U.D. - 1 I, 1 I,. - ,'I PA VWJnER OF SENON 12 ALL IN r.SJ N R 2 E.CITY OF SMITH BEND PORTAGE TOWNSHIP. ST.JOSEPH COUNTY. X°WU BEING°6CRgp"5,BEGONIA AT THE ARNE=CORNER Of TRAM N M THE PLAT M SRECORDER`°RH'ATIM SEPLA'"WARDED N PLAT BOOK A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 11 AND A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12 f + 1 .I I 11 ON PALE# 154 w THE RECORDS OF THE ST.JOSEPH COUNTY,NSNN RECORDERS OFFICE;THENCE S. E OR LEE(OEWNGS ASSUMED)ALONG THE UNE OF AD TRACT. ALL IN TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH, RANGE. 2 EAST, CITY OF SOUTH BEND, PORTAGE TOWNSHIP, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA SAID I1HE N50 BERG THE WEST pICH!pF W"Y OHE OF pYpKrt[BOULEVARD.p DISTANCE _ t 'I OF 090.31 FEET MORE OR HESS THENCE TA CE 5912•54'6. p DISTANCE OF 59050 REF MORE ' OR LESS, ALSO I pTHE WE W.G DISTANCE OF 20678 PET MORE UL LESS DISTA X =ARM W, A 0ISTMCE OF 0816 FES MME OR LESS THENCE X WI210" W, A DISTANCE Of 12070 FEET MME M LEA,THENCE H 241630•W A 04rANCE OF 91A FEET MORE OR LESS THENCE N.692914•w.A DISTANCE OF 31055 FEET MORE OR LESS CONRAIL TO ALONG NE CENTRUNE CB/TM a ROMEO wurro DRR RAFT-OF-WAY-WAY A AVENEL THENCE N zFEET MORE E RAILROAD N t SITE Ni; ° s NMC ME CB/TM=OF SAD VACATED RIErt_oF war a wsraxcE M NAM Fm uoRE / GRAND TRUNK WESTERN M Las TO"Pow M mERSECnox rmx WE scum RHOIT DF War uxE a cMwut �� RAILROAD WMVD(DATA=;THENC WJUr ENippm ED ALBANS SX0 V"UTED UxREp DIM u CORRAL aRNINOO THENCE Noxc sTR ENTEXDm), AND THE w.. MGANTA ar SITE LOCATION MAP ._ 7NE 8 AEI ORE OM (NW PENN CENTRAL '49"E.A S DISTANCE O5' E. a ET moRE oR _ • - ,.. J2].m FEET MORE OR LESS THENCE S W23'49'E a ObTµGE OF 8.98 FEET MORE°R LESS TO TIE HARM IIXE OF yVO TRACT NO.y,TIERCE S.8911'59'E ALAN SAIp HARM xi UNE A DISTANCE OF 318.74 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF REONMNG. ' CONTAINING 13.18 MPs Moles M LEA 0 B • SUBJECT TO ALL LEGAL xIOHwan,FMEMEms MD RESTUMMS OF RECORD. ••'•'••••EXISTING - . . c •,2 '� //•to z BUILD NGRY WATER TOWER • EXIS BUILDING ORY ra e� OLO BLDG. 112 LOCATI0N1 T0� OLD BLDG. 112 LOCATION TO ESE p'S° ', 2 /� # / DETERMINED OLD BLDG. ({84 JC •, i • dam/ ./L,4;/ �>j ---.�JA� / / COURTYARD AREA ///:/ / /ill it/0;y4' ,'/ //�/F A� FUTURE ATRIUM / / -/ FUT Be /h. -_ - -a Lj/,.uI V2KGSWR€ FINAL SIZE 70 BE Y /� /:- // / / O , . i/ ADDITION, // DETERMINED �� N @X29 14 W 310.35 —_ / ��// ��� �� PETITION 0.00RFSS / Q fd• L J L 635 SOUTH LAFAYETTE BOULEVARD Q SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46601 EXISTING / / (I q{''/J,�('//I ��j//��. 1-!,)--�--� ——\ 2 & 3 STORY j (/1i cJ Y IC N TA. BUILDING ?it iZ�LD=Fg�T[4 OLD Lt N 89'36 07 W 66.16 }� r "—A SB ' UP Nft L2 N 0012 30 W 120.76' L3 N 24'6630"W 91.77' m c — T is s aoz.93<s^a 9s.es 0~ O ;FO �a-xT 30' WD.`ACCESS DRIVE ^P' �pREA ARCHITECTURAL POSSIBLE `�1 �I i° I Or G —i O Jar. -t•B 2� ih 9 E 580't / J I .y / // / //CAI g p tct $ m I EtF PETITION ,. I BG ..3. `'��o"� o FUTURE SLEVEL- / / w �`��fl tT Ta ,`"p 1 t a t HmN $RE 4 L lI PARKING GARAGE ,�m� 4 0 (nix 01 / /��° ;in ft.-7—'1'744r' H N(,��� I T IT I' ' IL LANOSGAPE / �� f tl�'E L i • 851,/ 4I Y} i t . . ^ .r. _ .. , , , p hwz.' '., , _ ,sao'f // ��� ` !��{ ill N i , 4,'„,- • y '.k a ,<'1 3 "v= dT� ';.r DRIVEWAY 1 1 I� .-r I T7fy- ,f 1 H ; Ii I e Jr_ Two d e IIQ, 'Q' I0 © vs a I..I Ir ;: ... 1 �'r { '• • ow ly 0—$a �i, . 9 i 1 8 4 .§ T5 16:;.` 16�p0 �1 NISTTNG L.L. a'3r g. .2 Na W °•..z0 - --` a c.—r___ TREE B .I ~ N ��� �Cw' � CPL EOBU°TREES B SERVICBERRY SHRUBS 4._ .�1 EVERGREEN 1 gI i se a •'I SITE VICINITY MAP Lwo p SCALE: 1•= 300' �3—d GENERAL SURVEY=CANER XVIA: I S.?S mE INFORUnnM sxOwx M THANIS Dramxc Is HNHwDED FM THE cuFNr ONLY. REUSE BUILDING BABACRS S e WITHOUT WRRIEN VERIFICATOry D ADAPTATION BY THE LAND SURRTOR FOR THE SPECIFIC .e.-5 e PURPOSE MENDED WILL BE AT ME USERS SOLE MK AND WITHOUT Ly.81Ury OR LEGAL O 0'SETBACK EXPOSURE TO ME MOD SURIEYOR. ANT/TOUT/M FASOIEM LOCATIONS.F SHOWN,ARE A➢NNNINATL THE WEM MUST FIELD OB 10'SIDE-YARD SETBACK =CAT S NO LOCATIONS MM THE RESPECTIVE COMPANY. THIS LAND SURVEY/5R • ASSUMES NO LLONry FOR ME"E MAC(OF THE LOCATOR OR SIZE OE DATING EYOR1A OR THE IXISIFNCE M NONEXISTENCE IXW.VXECITOI IxO VI UTIES OR STRUCTURES. © 5'SETBACK PRG SETBACK Vli•'. NO IMPROIENENTS SHOULD BE MME SN ME MSS OF THIS FLAT ALONE. FIELD I 99 �UMENTATHN OF CRITICAL POINTS SHOULD BE ESF"BUSHE°PRIOR TO CONMENCEMFM OF O 0'SETBACK I NA ALL CONSTRUCT= FOR BNLON°UNES.EASEMENTS MID OTHER RESTWMONs NOT S 910MV HEREON REFER TO MR DEED,ABSTRACT,TIRE POUCL.CONVECTSµD LOCK BUILDmc,ZONING MD weDmvox ORDINANCES. OE 0' SETBACK IMILSS E OR ABSENCE SHOWN NFREON, THIS SURELY 00ES NOT PURPORT TO INDICATE SHE O S'PEDESTRIAN SPACE D 60 I(?D 180 PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF WETLANDSµD WSApMUS OR EIMROTEMEMNLY INIVRICVO I� MATERIALS. NE SURVEYOR=RESSAT DECLAIMS MY RESPON51BUry OR LIABILITY FOR ME son. IN NANATION les ON I =BIT a NOT=:E°TO BE ANAL RR MS SCALE 1' = 50' DATE OT AM=SON FAH M CD SROTSN OR ART OMB6 El MONAN O Iles �TIEIRATS cm FOG Am 15E ANT OTHER FW,LCC RWE IIxHOIR =RN CAL DRAW BY I AS MNNTNNDED WE TIE AT T¢HST SAOUSCF,6M'ID MI NTSON WNiNS CR,BARE y('•y)y.Iu)g. 7-10-15 TB REVISIONS �s1tLT oR IEVL PAni1R 10 ME WE BE MLMEOI OR sIW2yOL MHOµKAMER N ASSOCIATES.INC. SCALE CHECKED$i: NS LERMK. IND MMES MAT RE FF10 READ RI TIE �0 \COMPACTOR MOM NH CONSTRUCTION MAY BRM. 180.1 COMMERCE ORM SOUTH REND,M.4652H "= 60' MJD �p IOU sNF Eumm�s (570 2N-4003 RE'/ P,ONJ.WPM V ATM:=HAT DWCH __ 150185 JIB - McKINLEY FAIR II PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, CITY OF SOUTH BEND, CLAY TOWNSHIP, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA. Z—'3' t d •N - /5 � � 1 t SITE LOCATION MAP'.: air I FGAL DESCRIPBONL PARCEL 1:NAT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 6. TOWNSHIP 37 PRESTON STREET 60'R NORTH,RANGE 3 EASE PORTAGE TOWNSHIP,CITY OF SOUTH BEND,Si'.JOSEPH AMT COUNTY, INDIANA WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS:LOT/ I OF THE PLAT OF'MC KINLEY- , — — — — _ HICKORY MINOR SUBDIVISION'AS RECORDED BY DOCUMENT NO.0734550 IN THE RECORDS OF THE ACRES JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA RECORDER'S OFFICE ❑ -1 LI Lic cI c J-L a ri T-L 11 rYl E LL c E ' I LJ7LI CONTAINING THE ACRES MORE O LESS. 'I--'L}J,IIL,'L-II LL Jy 'uI I �Jt I Ir I�.11 I�IL-ITrI J SUBJECT TO ALL LEGAL HIGHWAYS,EASEMENTS AND RESTRICPONS OF RECORD. , • , „ u u fl IN m °E r" u u u• PARCEL 2:THAT PART OF NE SOUTHEAST WARIER OF SECTION 6,TOWNSHIP 37 - T N 00'00'00'W 1411.91' I T NORTH. RANGE 3 EAST,PORTAGE TOWNSHIP,CITY OF SOUTH BEND,SL JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS:LOT Y 3 OF THE PLAT OF'MC KINLEY- —J s HICKORY MINOR SUBDIVISION'AS RECORDED BY DOCUMENT NO.0734550 IN THE �I RECORDS OF THE ST.JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA RECORDER'S OFFICE. - \ N \ 0 MN PARK so CONTAINING 15.60 ACRES MORE OR LESS. \\\ L u SUBJECT TO ALL LEGAL HIGHWAYS.EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTONS OF RECORD. i I 22?' / ry A• P.U.D PERMITTED USES' _ _ ,F-IDD• ^ �.._.._.._..–.._ ' £ m SF-1, SF-2 n I LOT 3 `Q :_ •MF-2 J' _ 15.60AC.f 1,I - LIMITED FOR USES - -zoo' /CJn CB r Bg FREE-STANDING I WITH OUTSIDE f, yI S •'28'12'E -T I S 0.01'12'1°43W O S 00'24'33'W x,41 • BUN DING SETBACKS I 560' a®�®, 416.31 DO'OT'6'W I II�'II •0 30'BUILDING SETBACK UNE 0 5 D001'12'W 404.58' I OB 10'SIDE YARD SETBACK ( .PROP:ROM ' I ` O10' REAR YARD SETBACK N I O Of 12 W 686.02' N r 1 — C•D 15 PARKING SETBACK S 892622'1 E I I of 100' BUILDING SETBACK LINE IT�Ty — � �IPT'� FO 225'BulmwG SETBACK UNE `I f - FORMER TARGET STORE LOT 4 I © 100'SETBACK UNE — O 5'SIDE YARD SETBACK UNE I 0 10'SIDE YARD SETBACK LINE F��-I1� �` _A J 1 E • LKS LODGE, - - p- PARCEL 1 I 'I REZONING . TO ERA - BUSINES I� IQ • BUSINESS DISTRICT II�I� � n L4 \ suI ' a GENERAL Q Eil DOLLAR`EET E2RAL 9 ✓Q LOT 1 BB o I 0 75AC.i: o — — — 0 I Aso a HICKORY 8 l? '' UNE TABLE: 96 i1 LINE swore; DISTANCE 1555 LI S 00'0206"W 72.87' i 8jY L2 S 0002'06'W 211.22' I L3 N 8957'54 W 155.61 6 E$p L4 N 00'0206'E 211.22' wO 3_S 8 .5754 E 1555 g1 2 rg5 ! t. 0 100 2I 301 F1�' SCALE 1' = 100' Mr wauumI NB us mtlWE N NOT MENDED TO W wMME ITS REUSE DRAWN BY Im MT 4907{ THEY OR COMMON ORµy OTHER PISA Of 11R SR=W r MY USE M OI1IX OIS SOLE. MW T 911 T1gR MAIN . ..... ...n 1 WbYfLN KKMMI BY ME M.EER.ARIMCI OR ARMOR Tat TE 511RhYORC&FNfI4EFPN , DBH REVISIONS SNRT MOC PURPOSE MOB Wil UMWDISIl:MO MOW N491R 15u COMMERCE DRIVE }i .�. 04 551 1 lIE m M FEr Tit UMW OR 9FtlOR WICK 1NMx1A k ASSOCIATES.INC. sLVE CHECKED BY: mQ ALL IX8IERCRO8 MOSS WS!NT rm tt.®m BY ITS SOWN BEND.1x..S6tB 1'- NO0' MJo• OJNIWL'YR asIP my 9101 Lay 5095 l:M aa-ww �� MTN:M1uu¢CMCN FILE/ PEN.WNCR: __ 1 t,C - 1s- .z.--P I I . 2c-e5 - 1 5— • I - -- FILL IN GAPS IN EXISTING �x+o`p �[ ``J\�}21IIIIlI//////0 1 I _ EVERGREEN SCREEN. 4-FG0 EXISTING EVERGREEN WEE SCREEN, SlfRSCLI�JPS INC. • `��4,n I - SPACEt9CC, I ,l_J/ , y 4-PPG A m 49 s P+ v „KO a ®�'','., 1 `Il ; • i /'� _ N�450.EO�E 480 / / Lentlscapa Arch11ec1ure8 Planning z M1Ze -\•• t\ 1 10030ncolnway WeN•apes no ke,IMlana 46544 \, 1 p\I�.- d'" nu ere aF _ x I I T EVERGREEN SCREEP�{ UBLE Telephone(5( 4)255477 Fax(574)2177890 �Mp \5 1/ iA ` �� -_r— V IL.7 ,SIIeScapeSInc.col /%//III81I3I\L\\\\ J R�trjj I' 1 ,,\ �t 1 '4 .I2 °L\"' O p ROW.SPACE tY OC. WM �11LI�A i285,_�/aU�./li"„ �aP..P'a� e , O,—_ - 0 S a) ' GROUPING OF EVERG ENS ��• -" v v AROUND RETENTION E9 II 1 ‘ : �l,",•�� �1',.•■• ® ® ��Ore, 13VGD / • • I al $x IIIII111 4'•5' / M1gE:pINrt1PEES B'MiG4 S , '1 i ,w 1-GTI ,1111111 / IR 1FCEFROMESW.S n 6 1 I �` rvoam II11I'1 3H' 1FEp PEM�Y'IN qI 1 1 r5 s LnIiE "'PRFA V L / > n+�, � Y� 114 ==:m 1 1 11 1,1 Y 11 \ I E S q w $1Iuii!iiii1IIIiII! ® lallli }� }� rvO 'j1. LWi I 1 1 ' v \p "%r ACKET o nLE�9 • I 4. /4 n 1 I 3-TMD 4O LS . 111 1fi.T // 4 M ` r U1EWRV'1see.rrGn OPEamEE) - to / ` I I 3-TMD I1 I I / , ', SYCRmE Nr , 1 11�AI I 1 I A)4\ I, , , , nS�o. `°ry`:• PULNING MIXTURE.SEE NO70 I I I / fx ■I � \ J I D 1 11\/ t i� I, \\ vv 4 TREE PLANTING DETAIL j II +z•GRAVELMOwsm1P 1 II L\ �g O c.ff ■`. II F v Wp,,,; i W , y'i1! _ - 3-TMD PROPOSED �4-, 1 I 1 = wn NOTE.Pw�,Swxuwervlary �, 'w I lJ I I < 1cn ,E:mPOOSORaw.SESaLS. a u I t� 3- 0 BUILDING I x I, � < g ��� � 1 I — I LI l I I i "c I t-PCR I GROUND LINE TO OR WM / ,.1I 1 �1 tY GRAVEL MOW STRIP I , I / H I x's'1000 Dww.SEND MULCH p\I >'p 1 W 1 ` 6-RR rII� 1 ' 11 i I 11 REMOVE ALL 41709 OFBF BALL 0f1D L"d'$,d,' / G]I / 0I� IMP ip• 6-.RR it-LV v I I 1 ,• 1cTl j 4 JO SLOW' aL iva/EiYU¢lx PER PACKET 0`�^o^o I z / /•4 \11\ gal•q 000uoo"o_ogoa 2431.19C-PP 2-RP 1 4J• Fw EGCHIA I ? 1 I\ ` \e-" ; zvc 3.vc 24m 1 / / C SIG SRR }TMD I I / / PJW,WO PRISM SLE Noms a •I % Y+ 1 1TMD 3TMD ��\3 SIGC SIG• ` f�"xcb I I / % we••>. _••' •'• 2-RP VI 50-HPP , / I \rte. �� 1-OTI I 1 11 1 tin jO] SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL FFFO I _�� ale .8. .. // I I I I 2 xOrrosrxE pAy II YI /% 1G °' j SARA ; t.�/�.�� 12-Ha.. 24-PA 1 2-HE / // I I I co" c° / I I �' ryT I 1-GTI c �/ N, / • i I ="�1 FI co / / 1 LAWN e / / 1 III 1 ; H Q Q _ / Y W 9 o'99� / .- f , 111 I W A � < / " �� / 5 . $OUm ' 1 I I I PwtTTSEESe wce p / 1 N / RETENr10N iii,--- y I - I 1 NO1EimwwpwxncESOlu. Z Z 2.APD ` 2.PC3 3-PCR AREA / [� A, / •, III 1 I O / Ifr 2.PCS ,� '"- ` . �` •'':;i�LAwn Illz11w11 i __ I MAT U O u // I i 1 Y I I , / II 3'vwEGDEDHARDWCGDRVLEN V/ / 111.SAW 1 11 I 1 I 1 I - uw.Exim�.srNwcsum t I I 1 &APO I III ` c_ _ III , III I I LINE eEAmrvc DISTANCE BURLAP TwoPeuL W R t1 'w EI 01 _�� �I""` rill ! ) 11 I 1 I LLZ u s aroO E.9 w ea oo' Tuvwc lo-ae.arEwLa PER XI N to I H W 111 • �'1 11 W 1W tt q 3�HS — 'I' I I I L3 R S Oc0D00 W 5300' JS � ��II .Y► II ..... mai, T isms, I ma. AYY�3.c3KAPD !`�..E -=—JI ' I 1 1 GrI i i ;;' FINISH / 1 t���.�e! �I \�E �{ � _` s ,M, III J - JJ PLAVrwcmxTUaasEExmEa O� T.B.M. 1 0_#,./.4 s=/ , � �S ! a LP®=- J--" .\° _ _ BE. �AR3 sAK1LOD I - _ om—∎Int- ns / O EVERGREEN PLANTING DETAIL EV + " 3 NOT 70 U i — II � PEI y1�` �\ — 8 ° e FED'9. ♦ — \ — — — —MI DNM P05m0= D1 PLANT LIST CLEVELAND ROAD (80.0' R/W) SITE PLAN Ernw + + Z CODE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SI2E ON REMARKS 1'=3tl-B' NORTH ® 1+ APD ACER FLATANOIDES'DEBORAH' DEBORAH NORWAY MAPLE 3'ON- 17 BEE.SPACE490.G. LANDSCAPE NOTES �-P + 4- J CKF CALAMAGROSTIS xACVPFLORA'KARL FOERSTER' KARL FOERSTER FEATHER REED GRASS 52 CONT. 6 /l 071 GLEDITSIATRNCPNTHOS INERMIS'IMCOLE' IMPERIAL HONEYLOCUST 3'CAL. 11 BEG 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE FOR ONSRE E. ALL SOIL PREPARATION OF PLANTING AREAS TO 14, ALL EXISTING LAWNS DAMAGED BY /A' Egli LL MARKING OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO BE DONE BY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. SEEDED. SHALL BE GRASS FINISH GRAVE / BEFORE muxrs FIB HEMERCCPLLIS'BAJA' BAIA RED DATLILY #1 CONT, 96 SPACE 12'O.C. ANY WORK ON-SITE.NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANY SEEDED. CONFLICTS WITH PROPOSED WORK 9, ALL PROPOSED PLANT MATERIALS ARE SHOWN E1 HPP HEUCHEFA x'PLUM PUDDING' PLUM PUDDING CORAL BELLS #1 CONT. 95 SPACE 12'0.C. AT MATURE GROWTH.SPACE AS INDICATED ON 15. ALL SEEDED AREA WITH SLOPE 3:1 OR GREATER 1=11=11°IL �1Cx�b� ` �1`1'J"1"-1'L LL IGC ILEX GENERA•HVA2IN' NORDIC HOLLY 18' 10 z. ALL TREES PAID EVERGREEN PLANT MATERIAL TO PLANT LIST OR TO PROPER HORTICULTURAL SHALL RECEIVE EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS. LV LIGVSTRUMx VICARYI BE BALLED AND BURLAPPED,UNLESS OTHERWISE METHODS. II II Jl�mmo'3L T ' ' li Q GOLDEN VICAR'PRIVET 24• 22 NOTED, 16, ALL PLANTING BEDS SHALL HAVE CLEAN,SHOVEL 1111IIIIltl➢=�l! B II 11 II tL11=T1 711 I. II�11=1LIII 11 11-11 0 LS LIRIOPE SPICATA I=II=I1=--•--_ 3=11=11-11 11 en LILY 32 CT.FLATS 140 SPACE B'O.C. tD. LANDSCAPE OF ANY FOREIGN SUBSTANCE EDGE. _ =11=11-11-1 MP HALOS PROFUSION PROFUSION CRABAPPLE 2'CAL 2 SEE S. OLL ALLED AND BURHERSE CONTAINER GROWN MYBEADAMGIG TO PLAITMST MATERIAL.PEOHAT Q OR BALLED AND BURLPPPEO. TOYBN11NG. LNG TOPCOAT MATERW..PRIOR 17. PLANTIBSOIIMI.MIX:COPORTE ROTSOILPNO MRJ MPLUS'RED JEWEL' RED JEWEL CRABAPPLE 2'CAL 5 B&B TOPIPNITNG. WATERING CRYSTAL INTO FATERWT BED orEP 9110/RE PA PENNISENMALOPECVROIDES FOUNTAIN GRASS #1 CONT. 24 4. THEE CALIPER SIZE INDICATES THE DIAMETER OF WATERING CRYSTALS INTOPWJTING MEG BED L'0rvF1rep -SOIL SORAOE THE TRUNK TAKEN AT 6•ABOVE GROUND LEVEL 11. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR ISWORK RESPONSIBLE FOR TREES;2'CL=q OUNCES CULTIVATE 09500 GNEF0CE RL POD PICEA GLAUCA'DENSATA' BLACK HILLS SPRUCE 6• 17 B&B,SPACE IS'O.C. PLACEMENT WITH OTHER WORK FOR PROPER SHRUBS;CAL=I CUP PPG PICE4 PUNGENSGIAVLq LOLONPDO DIVESPRUCE 6' 17 B88,SPACE IS'O.G S. KEEP THE SOIL MOIST OF BALLED AND PLACEMENT OF RANT MATERIALS AND SHRUBSa GAL.=12 OUNCE CONTAINER PLANTS UNTIL THEY ARE FLAMED, LANDSCAPE WORK. SHRUBS:3 GAL,=1 OUNCE ®PERENNIAL PLANTING DETAIL PCR PRUNUS VIRGIN'''.CANADA RELY CANADA RED CHOKECHERRY 2*CAL 6 B&B SHRUBS:5 GAL=1-12 OUNCES rv0,N5UaE PDX PYRUS CPLIERYMLACLEVEIPNOSELECT CLEVELAND SELECT GALLERY PEAR 2-12' CAL 4 %B 6. IF PLANTS CANNOT BE PLANTED IMMEDIATELY. 12. °CANINES SHOWN ON THE PT LIST IS FOR SHEET THEY SHOULD BE HEELED I N AND CONTRACTORS INFORMATION ONLY.IN CASE OF RR ROSA'RADMO' RED DOUBLE KNOCK OUT ROSE #3 CONT. 22 BALLS/CONTAINERS COVERED WITH MULCH. DISCREPANCY.mE ACTUAL COUNT ON THE RP ROSA'RADMOPINIC PINK DOUBLE KNOCK OUT ROSE 1/3 CONT. 10 LANDSCAPE PWJPftEVAILS L 1 7. BY ONIRB T LOCATIONS PROBE SYPR HITEp 0.FG ftUDBECI(BL FULGIDALOLOSiRVM' GOLDSTRVM BLACK-EYED SUSAN #1 CONT. 50 BY CONTRACTOR FOR ARCHITECT 13. NEW SODDED AS SHALL ON BE LANDSCAPE OR SAW SRRAEA x BUMAIDA'ANTHONY WATERER ANTHONY WATERER SPIRASA z4' 132 SPACE 3'O.C. MID PRIOR FUNCTIONAL FORPROPFRPFSTHETIC SODOEOAS INOICATEOO4IANOSCAPE PUJJ. ANC'FUNCTIONAL USE. TMD TAXUS x MEDW•OENSIFORMIS' DENSE YEW 24• 21 VC VIBURNUM CARLESII KOREANSPICE VIBURNUM 308 7 (kI i ( l 1 11/23/2015 (Proposed BBIIs 68-15 , 69-15 eludes New Rules, Regulations, and \Addresses Engineering Service Charges Service Charges for Various Permits in-Connection with the Development and Reviews in Connection with Plan Application Process Stormwater Control and Construction in the Right-Of-Way CITY OF SOUTH BEND I DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 11/23/0015 63-15 6 69.15 Background Does not balance service with revenue currently. Many fees have not been adjusted since 1962. Inflation of the US Dollar has not been reconciled. Permit fees are a low percentage service cost born by the developer and contractor. Permit fees are an Industry expectation. Out-of-town developers are confused by our lack of or low fees. Fees are much lower than neighboring cities or we do not charge for them. Current Ordinance contains non-uniform Contractor bonding requirements with too short of a duration. 11/2312O15 6.:5 6 6 9-15 • 1 11 /23/2015 Purpose of these Bills Charge reasonable fees to recover the costs of providing services: Site, Drainage, Subdivision, and Zoning Approval Excavation permits Construction or repair of sidewalks, curbs, gutters, driveways, alleys and roadways; Occupancy(Barricade) permits The Permit Deficit • The Capitol collected from the Permit Current Permit Deficit Analysis Fees in 2014 totaled $24,585 5200,000 5150,000 • The Estimated Expenses that the 5100,000 Department Assumed by processing and reviewing permits in 2014 totaled 550,000 ■Capitol Collected $147,685 so ✓Expenses •Current Deficit 1550,0001 • 2014 Net Diff = $123,100 ($100,000) 15150,0001 2 11/23/2015 Additional Objectives: Create uniformity regarding Bonding and insurance requirements Clean and/or remove outdated language Address location and organization of permit language to simplify and clarify requirements Insert classifications into permit language to account for scale, duration, risk, and type of work involved Address downspout/drainage disconnection 11/2 3/2015 __....,... Bill Summary of Changes 68-15 Section I: Building Review Fees for Downspout Disconnection and Drainage Review Section II: Remove Barricade Language from Chapter 6 and move to Chapter 18 Section III: Erosion Control Plan Review Fees Section IV: Referencing New Article 7 in Chapter 18 for Barricade Permits Section V: Clarification regarding Self Charging Section VI: Excavation Permit Fees and Bond Language Section VII: Simplification of Surface Specifications Section VIII: Construction Permit for Sidewalks,Curbs, Drives,Alleys,and Roadways Section IX: Barricade Permits 69-15 Section I: Review Fees for Subdivisions, Rezoning,and Site Plans 3 11/23/2015 68-15 Sec I : Building Permit Fees Engineering Review Fees for: a) Downspout/Drainage Disconnection Check: • Field check to determine whether building or site discharges stormwater through pipe conveyance into City sewer system 1. Previously Confirmed Disconnect exempt 2. Single-Use Residential $20 3. Other $50 b) Drainage Review $150 • Before Building Department will approve a building permit,they require authorization from Public Works that they meet the City's Drainage Standards.This is a cost for redevelopment of a non-residential property. c) Utility Verification Fee $50 • Before Building Department will approve a building permit,they require authorization from Public Works that there are available services with sufficient capacity.This is a cost born by developers requesting new service. 68-15 Sec I : Justification a) Downspout Disconnection($20 Residential/$50 Other) • This fee covers the cost for a project inspector to go into the field and visually verify that the downspouts are disconnected.For a residential property this would cost the city$38 and be accomplished visually.For a non- single use residential property,this would involve a tracing technique via either smoke or dye;and would cost the city at minimum$75. b) Drainage Review($150) • This fee covers the cost for the MS4 Coordinator,Assistant City Engineer and City Engineer to attend Building Department Review Meetings and Review Site Plans to verify that the applicant is meeting City Standards.This will cost on average$180:$36 MS4 Coordinator,$110 Assistant City Engineer,and$34 City Engineer. c) Utility Verification Fee($50) • This fee covers the cost for the Permit Manager and Controller's Office to:(1)determine if adjacent service exists;(2)verify sufficient capacity;(3)provide the applicant with the necessary paperwork to deliver to the building department;and(4)document and submit the payment to Billing;and(5)handle payment.Typical City Cost is$50:$36 Permit Manager and$14 Assistant City Engineer. 4 11 /23/2015 68-15 Sec III : Erosion Control • An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP)permit is a State Required permit that is intended to protect sediment runoff during construction. •The current permit fee is$100 from 2009.Our fee is far less than the average of Indiana cities greater than 90,000 in population.Average is$312. • The City is responsible for filing,review,and inspection services.Average City expenditure is$225. Review time depends on scale of project.The City has performed over 70 reviews in the last three years with an average acreage of 6 acres. • Public Works recommends scaling the permit to reflect the size of the disturbed area similar to the City of Elkhart.A filing fee in the amount of$100 per disturbed acre of land and per fractional acre exceeding a whole acre. • Current is$100. Proposed is$100 filing plus$100 per acre disturbed. 1i:_ 015 63.158.69-15 68-15 Sec III : Justification • Processing:Recording the permit and processing the fee.This includes time for the MS4 coordinator and the Controller's Office to:(1)process the application and provide the applicant with a receipt;(2)review bonding and insurance;(3)document and submit the payment to Billing;and(4)handle payment.This fee is set at $100 to cover the additional time that the MS4 coordinator is responsible for documentation per IDEM's requirements. • Review:This includes providing comments,alternate direction,and re-review.Review is performed by the MS4 Coordinator and approved by the City Engineer.The size of the project determines the number of sheets to review as well as the complexity of the drainage.This fee is set at$47 per acre to cover the review time necessary to cover 1 acre of an ESCP. • Inspection:A project inspector will review the plan and visit the site to ensure that proper measures were taken.For larger and/or longer projects,this may require additional time and/or multiple visits.This fee is set at$72 per acre to cover the time necessary for an inspector to visit and walk a site twice. • The fee per acre is$100,but it costs the city$119 per acre to review and inspect($47+$72). r 5 11 /23/2015 68-15 Sec VI : Excavation •Background • An excavation permit allows for the open cut of the right-of-way. This could be either in the pavement or outside the roadway.This is typically for the repair or placement of a new public or private utility.These types of cuts lessen the integrity of the roadway and disturb the area in front of adjacent property owners. • The current permit fee is$25 from 1981. Inflated for 2015 it would be$26.25. • The current permit does not account between type of excavation.Many other cities have different fees for pavement vs.non-pavement. For cities over 90,000,on average,permits for pavement cuts are 2.3 times higher than non-pavement cuts.Other cities also charge a premium for excavating new roads. • The City of Elkhart has a more costly excavation fee than the city of South Bend.For a 1,000 FT utility cut,the fee in Elkhart would be$250.In South Bend it would be$25. • Average Public Works expenditure is approximately$130 per permit,but has recently exceeded$2,000 on a larger permit.Public Works recommends using a similar format to the City of Elkhart,whereby fee reflects size of excavation.Additional linear footage matches City of Elkhart Permit Fees. 68-15 Sec VI : Process • Processing: Recording the permit and processing the fee.This includes time for the permit manager and the Controller's Office to: (1) process the application and provide the applicant with a receipt; (2) review bonding and insurance; (3)document and submit the payment to Billing; and (4) handle payment. • Review:This includes providing comments, alternate direction, and re-review. Review is performed by the Manger of Public Construction,Assistant City Engineer, and/or City Engineer. • Inspection: A construction inspector will review the permit request and visit the site to ensure that proper measures were taken. For larger projects, this may require multiple visits. w75 6 11 /23/2015 68-15 Sec VI : Proposal •Proposed Fee Structure: •Filing Fee $25 •Excavation of 100 linear feet or less, and for each tunnel opening greater: • In Roadway Pavement $200 • Outside of Roadway Pavement $25 •An additional charge of$25 required for each additional 100 linear feet of continuous excavation.). 1112312015 5.1566-15 13 68-15 Sec VI : Justification -The long-term integrity and durability of pavement is lessened with each patch. It is important that it be properly inspected to prevent degradation. -Proper Inspection of an excavation in a roadway requires multiple site-visits. 1. Prior to Excavation—Authorization of location 2. Final Excavation 3. Placement and Compaction of Backfill 4. Pavement Concrete-Authorization to pour based on reinforcing,dowels,etc. Asphalt—Material,Layers 5. Final •Costs • 5 visits by a Project Inspector would cost$190 • Review and Scheduling by Manager of Public Construction would cost at minimum$24 • 7 11 /23/2015 68-15 Sec VIII : Construction • The current permit fee for a curb cut or sidewalk contractor license is $10 from 1962. Inflated for 2015 they would be $78.75(BLS, CPI). • For other Indiana cities with populations over 90,000, • Curb Cut fees are: • Average Residential fee is$74;Average Non-Residential is$160 • Average sidewalk fees are:$50 •The current permit does not account for the amount of construction work that is being performed and the effort contributed by the city.The permit fee should reflect the scale of the work and city's expenditure. A permit to build a subdivision should cost more than a permit to construct 10 FT of sidewalk in front of a residence. 1s 68-15 Sec VIII : Justification • Processing: Recording the permit and processing the fee.This includes time for the permit manager and the Controller's Office to: (1) process the application and provide the applicant with a receipt; (2) review bonding and insurance; (3) document and submit the payment to Billing; and (4) handle payment. • Review:This includes providing comments, alternate direction, and re-review. Review is performed by the Manger of Construction or an Assistant City Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. Repair/Replacement projects do not require engineering review. • Inspection: A construction inspector will review the permit request and visit the site to ensure that proper measures were taken. For larger projects,this may require multiple visits. 8 11 /23/2015 68-15 Sec VIII : Proposal • Current fees are$10 curb cut and$10 sidewalk contractor.Public Works recommends scaling the permit to reflect the effort of the City. • Separate Processing Fee $25 • Curb or Sidewalk—Repair (Replacement In-Kind) $15 • Curb or Sidewalk- New/Alter $5 per 10 ft (min 30 ft) • Roadway or Alley $10 per 10 ft (min 50 ft) • Driveway Repair(Replacement In-Kind) $15 • Residential Curb Cut(Driveway)—New/Alter $35 • Residential Curb Cut(Driveway)—Repair/Replace $15 • Non-Residential Curb Cut(Driveway) —New/Alter $130 • Non-Residential Curb Cut(Driveway) —Repair/Replace $95 • Re-inspection $25 • Typical Residential Lot is 40 ft • Less Complex than Other Cities 68-15 Sec VIII : Justification Permit ®DDDD_TOTAL •Separate $25 Filing Fee Curb or Sidewalk—Repair $15 $38 $12 $50 •PI—Proj. Inspector Curb or Sidewalk—New $25 MIN $38 $12 $17 $67 •CM—Construction Mgr. Roadway or Alley $50 MIN $38 $12 $28 $17 $95 Residential Curb Cut—New $35 $38 $12 $17 $67 •ACE—Asst. City Engineer Residential Curb Cut—Repair $15 $38 $12 $50 •CE—City Engineer Other Curb Cut—New $130 $38 $24 $55 $34 $151 •Based on Average Cost. •Reduced to reflect the Other Curb Cut—Repair $95 -$38 $24 $34 $96 market and account for variability in effort. Re-Inspection $25 $38 $12 $50 9 11 /23/2015 68-15 Sec IX: Barricades • A permit to allow the occupation or barricading of City Right-of-Way. This could be a parking lane,travel lane,sidewalk, or open space. • The current permit fee is$20 from 1992. Inflated for 2015 it would be$33.90(BLS CPI) • The current permit does not account between type of occupancy or duration.There is no limit to the permit. For example, a dumpster could be placed in front of a business, blocking parking, for an extended period of time, reducing access, visibility, and attractiveness. • Our fees are far less than the average of other Indiana cities greater than 90,000 in population.Average is$100/day for complete arterial closure. 68-15 Sec IX: Process • Processing: Recording the permit and processing the fee. This includes time for the permit manager and the Controller's Office to:(1) process the application and provide the applicant with a receipt; (2) review bonding and insurance; (3)document and submit the payment to Billing; and(4) handle payment. • Review: Reviewing the traffic closure form. This includes providing comments, alternate direction, and re-review. Review is performed by the Manger of Construction or an Assistant City Engineer.Traffic restrictions less than 90 days require City Engineer approval. (Greater than 90 require Board approval). • Inspection:A construction inspector will review the traffic closure request and visit the site to ensure that proper measures were taken. For longer closures, this may require multiple visits. • Notification: Notifying the public of the closure. 1irsrms 10 11 /23/2015 68-15 Sec IX: Proposal • Public Works recommends using the same format as the City of Fort Wayne. It is also very similar to Indianapolis in that type of street and type of closure are considered. • A time-based fee will provide an incentive to accelerate construction that impacts Right-of- Way. • New classification scheme will also scale inspection cost. Longer duration barricades require more inspection time and need for adaptive management. • The greater the restriction to traffic, the more review time necessary. Type Street Complete Closure Traffic Lane Restrictions Non-Traffic Restrictions Local $75/week $35/week $25/week Collector $50/day/lane $50/day/lane $35/week Arterial $75/day/lane $75/day/lane $35/week :1/23/2015 63.15 S e 9-15 21 68-15 Sec IX: Justification Type Street Type Barricade FEE ® P1 CM an •FILE—Permit Mgr& Complete Closure $75/week $25 $38/wk $24/wk $34 Controller's Office Local Traffic Lane Restrictions $35/week $25 $38/wk $24/wk $34 .PI—Proj. Inspector Non-Traffic Restrictions $25/week $25 $38/wk $24/wk $34 .CM—Construction Mgr. Complete Closure $50/day/lane $25 $38/day S24/wk $55 $34 Collector Traffic Lane Restrictions $50/day/lane $25 $38/day $24/wk $28 $34 "ACE—Asst. City Engineer Non-Traffic Restrictions $35/week $25 $38/wk $24/wk $34 .CE—City Engineer Complete Closure $75/day/lane $25 $38/day $24/wk$110$34 Arterial Traffic Lane Restrictions $75/day/lane $25 $38/day $24/wk $55 $34 'Based on Average Cost. Non-Traffic Restrictions $35/week $25 $38/wk $24/wk $34 'Reduced to reflect the market and account for variability in effort. 11 11/23/2015 69-15 Sec. 1 : Review Fees • Area Plan Commission (APC) handles all Subdivision, Zoning, and Site Plan requests. • City of South Bend Engineering reviews these requests and provides their comments to Area Plan Commission. • APC receives filing fees. • Other towns, such as Osceola, Lakeville, New Carlisle,and North Liberty receive review fees, while the City of South Bend does not. • The City of South Bend currently receives a filing fee of$100 ($150 if annexing)for rezoning requests only. 11/23/2015 r - Z. 69-15 Sec. 1 : Process • Processing: Filing and processing the fee. This includes time for the permit manager and the Controller's Office to: (1) process the application and provide the applicant with a receipt; (2) document and submit the payment to Billing; and (3) handle payment. • Review: Reviewing the request. This includes providing comments, alternate direction, and re-review. Engineering attends Area Plan Plat Review meetings as well as meetings with the applicant. An assistant city engineer manages each application and obtains final approval from the City Engineer and/or Director of Public Works. 12 11/23/2015 69-15 Sec. 1 : Proposal •The City of South Bend does not charge,but other towns in St.Joseph County do have review fees. Major—Primary fee for Town of New Carlisle is$500. Major—Primary fees for the Cities of Mishawaka and Elkhart are$250(min)and$500, respectively. •Fee Collection Process:Applicants must obtain a receipt of payment from the City of South Bend Engineering prior to filing with Area Plan Commission. Engineering is only two floors away from Area Plan Commission.Applications are currently required to do this with the Health Department(also in the building).The early notification in the process will allow for engineering to prepare for review and reduce the turnaround time. SUBDIVISIONS FEE REZONING FEE SITE PLANS FEE Major—Primary $200 Single Family $75 Final Site Plans $50 Major—Secondary $400 Other Than SF $75 PUD—Secondary Approval $150 Minor $125 PUD $150 PUD—Minor Modification $50 Replat $75 Plat Vacation $75 63-15 E 6c-:S 25 69-15 Sec. 1 : Justification Application Type ®® ACE CE TOTAL SUBSIDY •FILE Permit Mgr& SUBDIVISIONS Major—Primary $200 $25 $165 $136 $326 111M11 Controller's Office Major—Secondary $400 $25 5330 $204 $559 $159 1 •ACE—Asst. City Engineer Minor $125 $25 $110 $34 $169 $44 Replat $75 $25 $28 $17 $84 $9 •CE—City Engineer Plat Vacation $75 $25 $28 $17 $84 $9 1 'Based on Average Cost of REZONING Single Family $75 $25 $28 $17 $84 $g Performing Review. Other Than SF $75 $25 $28 $17 $84 $9 •Reduced to reflect the PUD $150 $25 $110 $51 $186 $36 , market and account for variability in review effort. SITE PLANS Final Site Plans $50 $25 $55 $17 $70 $20 PUD—Secondary Approval $150 $25 $110 $34 $169 $19 PUD—Minor Modification $50 $25 $28 $17 $70 $20 6Z-:566-:5 r� 13