08-22-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2016 , DISTRICT; AND SECTION 11 BY AMENDING THE DEFINITIONS OF DWELLING UNIT, FAMILY AND GROUP RESIDENCE Councilmember Oliver Davis, Chair of the Zoning and Annexation Committee, reported that they met and send this bill forward with a favorable recommendation. Angela Smith, Area Plan Commission with offices on the 1 lth Floor of the County -City Building, served as the presenter of this bill. This bill also looks to protect our Single Family neighborhoods and homes. The current definition of family refers to language that exempts household servants from the definition of family. This is an antiquated term, not too many people have servants these days and those that do typically fall within the regular definition of family which is no more than two (2) unrelated people. What we have found is people have taken that term to create a loophole to have more than two (2) unrelated people within the Single - Family district or a district that only allows one (1) family per dwelling unit. The loophole is not consistent within the intent of the ordinance nor with the City's efforts. We needed to remove the antiquated term and get back to the true definition of Single Family. We also went to the definition of group residence which encompasses anything that doesn't meet the definition of family. If someone wanted to have several bedrooms rented out where a common space is shared that would include group residence which we expanded in this definition change. We also took a look at where group residents are currently permitted in the City. It is currently a special exception use in both Multi - Family Districts and in the Mixed -Use District. Staying consistent with the special exception public process, it was decided to keep it as a special exception but expand it to the Central Business District both east and west of the river. This allows it to stay a public process, there will be site by site analysis to make sure it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and make sure it is an appropriate application of the definition. It does give the opportunity to have a group residence in this type of non - traditional housing in areas where the services are already provided. The downtown area has very ample transportation and employment opportunities so we want to make sure to allow the opportunity to have this type of development in downtown. This comes to the Council with a favorable recommendation. This bill recognized the growing popularity of non - traditional housing arrangements and provides an opportunity for dense building arrangements within the Central Business District. Councilmember Oliver Davis asked what if there are already plans in place to proceed inside of the loophole right now and would it affect a plan that was already in place. Ms. Smith responded those projects would first have to prove that they were legal when they began. There are questions to whether that loophole was a legal use of the ordinance. Perhaps they thought they were utilizing the servant clause, the Building Commissioner may not agree with that. If the individual disagreed, they could appeal to the Area Board of Zoning Appeals for an interpretation. This would close the loophole going forward. Those from the public wishing to speak in favor of the bill: Jason Banicki Critchlow, 3822 West Ford Street South Bend, stated as we go forward with housing we need to look at creative ways to house different people in a more affordable manner. We are going to see in 2019 and 2020 a tightening of resources and the increase in density of population allows us to focus our resources and get a better return on investment as a tax payer in terms of what we can do. Anything that creates flexibility is a good thing. Torrence Moody, 1314 Corby Blvd, spoke in favor of the bill. He stated he is also a board member of the Northeast Neighborhood Council. The Northeast Neighborhood is undergoing a very prominent gentrification process. In our meetings we talk to and hear from a lot of developers who want to develop property in our area. We had a developer come to us and say he wanted to use this loophole to rehab a unit and put a number of unrelated people in the unit and designate them as employees. He would take $50 off of their rent as payment as an employee. This proposed change would actually help that development because then it would not have to go through a loophole. There are also a number of other realtors who are trying to follow that loophole and by amending the definitions we can maintain the integrity of our neighborhoods.