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 />Gary King, 730 N. Hill Street, spoke in favor of the bill. He stated he is concerned it may be <br />more difficult now to have a household employee. Mr. King stated his experience in special <br />education has presented times where a family will have personal assistants live at home because <br />they need constant care. We want flexibility but it has to be the right flexibility. We should be <br />removing hurdles that serve no purpose. <br />Marguerite Taylor, 714 Corby Blvd South Bend, spoke in favor of the bill. We want the Council <br />to close the loophole. We need to stop having neighborhoods with six (6) to seven (7) students <br />living in two (2) and three (3) bedroom houses. <br />Gregg Hackenin, 415 Main Building Notre Dame Indiana, stated he is both the Director of <br />Northeast Neighborhood Redevelopment and a board members of the NNRO. There are two (2) <br />basic parts to the text amendment being proposed here. We are trying to preserve and continue <br />the Northeast Neighborhood as a family neighborhood and the single biggest barrier to that is a <br />house that was built as a Single Family Home and being rented to four (4), five (5) or six (6) <br />college students. He stated he is not hostile to students but that lifestyle is inconsistent with the <br />neighborhood. The definitions as they exist allow someone to have six (6) unrelated residents <br />and list them as household servants and then it's legal. This is the single largest threat to what we <br />have accomplished in the neighborhood over the last sixteen (16) years. The second part of this <br />amendment permits these types of residents in the Central Business District. We are not opposed <br />to group residences but only if it is in the proper location. It is appropriate to have a public <br />process through which to review those as they come forward. <br />Those from the public wishing to speak in opposition: <br />David Matthews, 215 East Colfax, stated he is the guy who figured out this loophole four (4) <br />years ago. The quick history is that four (4) years ago seven (7) guys came to him and stated they <br />wanted to start a company and live together in downtown South Bend. The option for a special <br />exception did not exist in the CBD. He read the. rules and found the loophole which worked. The <br />group of guys ended up forming EnFocus, which has done a phenomenal job for us in South <br />Bend. That project took between four (4) and six (6) months. If we would have to go through the <br />process laid out in this new bill it would have taken much longer and been far more burdensome. <br />This bill doesn't make sense. In the Central Business District we let most everything go. A <br />developer can have a bar downstairs or restaurant downstairs in a residential unit. Buildings can <br />go from vacant to occupied very easily because of this loophole and positive things happen. The <br />CBD has no parking requirements. It would be easier to convert a building to a bar or restaurant <br />with almost no public input than it would be to have three (3) roommates if this bill passes. A <br />two (2) month process added on to the normal time of doing business can be the difference <br />between being business friendly and looking somewhere else. The Northeast Neighborhood has <br />done a phenomenal job cleaning up that neighborhood and this would be a positive change to get <br />rid of the loophole for that neighborhood. Just don't make extra needless paperwork to do <br />something that has been working successfully in the CBD. The only thing to do would be modify <br />the section where it says group housing is a special exception in the CBD and make it a <br />permitted use. <br />Willow Wetheral, 701 North Niles Ave., spoke in favor of the bill. She stated she is friends with <br />many of the people who spoke in favor of the change and she previously lived on Notre Dame <br />Avenue and she understands having college students crammed into single family homes is an <br />issue. Downtown is a different case though than the neighborhoods. There are many people who <br />use this loophole in the right way and the way we are trying to attract millennial and young <br />professionals downtown. We should not penalize people with a lot of bureaucracy and hurdles <br />when they are trying to do positive things for the community. <br />Dr. Matthew Teeters, 223 East Colfax Ave., stated he is the homeowner association president of <br />the East Bank Townhomes. He stated he moved downtown in 2012 with his girlfriend and they <br />are not traditional and do not plan on getting married but they are still a family. It was always his <br />intention to have a roommate in his townhome. These are people who through the experience of <br />living downtown have enriched lives. This proposal puts an undue burden upon the homeowners <br />to provide that enriched environment. <br />►A <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.