My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-22-16
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Minutes
>
Common Council Meeting Minutes
>
2016
>
08-22-16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2017 10:48:01 AM
Creation date
9/29/2016 12:26:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2016 , <br />DISTRICT; AND SECTION 11 BY AMENDING THE <br />DEFINITIONS OF DWELLING UNIT, FAMILY AND <br />GROUP RESIDENCE <br />Councilmember Oliver Davis, Chair of the Zoning and Annexation Committee, reported that <br />they met and send this bill forward with a favorable recommendation. <br />Angela Smith, Area Plan Commission with offices on the 1 lth Floor of the County -City <br />Building, served as the presenter of this bill. This bill also looks to protect our Single Family <br />neighborhoods and homes. The current definition of family refers to language that exempts <br />household servants from the definition of family. This is an antiquated term, not too many people <br />have servants these days and those that do typically fall within the regular definition of family <br />which is no more than two (2) unrelated people. What we have found is people have taken that <br />term to create a loophole to have more than two (2) unrelated people within the Single - Family <br />district or a district that only allows one (1) family per dwelling unit. The loophole is not <br />consistent within the intent of the ordinance nor with the City's efforts. We needed to remove the <br />antiquated term and get back to the true definition of Single Family. We also went to the <br />definition of group residence which encompasses anything that doesn't meet the definition of <br />family. If someone wanted to have several bedrooms rented out where a common space is shared <br />that would include group residence which we expanded in this definition change. <br />We also took a look at where group residents are currently permitted in the City. It is currently a <br />special exception use in both Multi - Family Districts and in the Mixed -Use District. Staying <br />consistent with the special exception public process, it was decided to keep it as a special <br />exception but expand it to the Central Business District both east and west of the river. This <br />allows it to stay a public process, there will be site by site analysis to make sure it is consistent <br />with the comprehensive plan and make sure it is an appropriate application of the definition. It <br />does give the opportunity to have a group residence in this type of non - traditional housing in <br />areas where the services are already provided. The downtown area has very ample transportation <br />and employment opportunities so we want to make sure to allow the opportunity to have this <br />type of development in downtown. This comes to the Council with a favorable recommendation. <br />This bill recognized the growing popularity of non - traditional housing arrangements and <br />provides an opportunity for dense building arrangements within the Central Business District. <br />Councilmember Oliver Davis asked what if there are already plans in place to proceed inside of <br />the loophole right now and would it affect a plan that was already in place. <br />Ms. Smith responded those projects would first have to prove that they were legal when they <br />began. There are questions to whether that loophole was a legal use of the ordinance. Perhaps <br />they thought they were utilizing the servant clause, the Building Commissioner may not agree <br />with that. If the individual disagreed, they could appeal to the Area Board of Zoning Appeals for <br />an interpretation. This would close the loophole going forward. <br />Those from the public wishing to speak in favor of the bill: <br />Jason Banicki Critchlow, 3822 West Ford Street South Bend, stated as we go forward with <br />housing we need to look at creative ways to house different people in a more affordable manner. <br />We are going to see in 2019 and 2020 a tightening of resources and the increase in density of <br />population allows us to focus our resources and get a better return on investment as a tax payer in <br />terms of what we can do. Anything that creates flexibility is a good thing. <br />Torrence Moody, 1314 Corby Blvd, spoke in favor of the bill. He stated he is also a board <br />member of the Northeast Neighborhood Council. The Northeast Neighborhood is undergoing a <br />very prominent gentrification process. In our meetings we talk to and hear from a lot of <br />developers who want to develop property in our area. We had a developer come to us and say he <br />wanted to use this loophole to rehab a unit and put a number of unrelated people in the unit and <br />designate them as employees. He would take $50 off of their rent as payment as an employee. <br />This proposed change would actually help that development because then it would not have to go <br />through a loophole. There are also a number of other realtors who are trying to follow that <br />loophole and by amending the definitions we can maintain the integrity of our neighborhoods. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.