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 />Councilmember John Voorde stated that the Central Business District and the areas east of the <br />river are so unique and attuned to what developers want to do that there almost should be no <br />restrictions at all. In that situation you are not trying to preserve the integrity of a family centered <br />neighborhood. He stated it seems based on the Committee discussion we are leaning to expand <br />this further down the road. He stated he is in favor of continuing it for now. <br />Councilmember Scott stated he has within his district issues where houses are stuffed full of <br />people, usually migrant workers, with no running water or heat. That is usually a predatory <br />landlord who takes advantage of people. It is good to get this limited down to the Central <br />Business District. He stated it was his opinion they should pass this tonight and then possibly <br />expand upon it down the road. He stated one of the issues about using this in the CBD is we do <br />have a neighborhood there east of Memorial Hospital. <br />Ms. Smith stated that is one reason there is a good argument that it should remain special <br />exception and not permitted use. You can only be grandfathered in to something if you were <br />legal to start with. If it is in a Single - Family District it is currently not an option and they would <br />have to rezone to be Multi Family. <br />Councilmember Scott stated he definitely thinks this will clean up the neighborhoods but is <br />concerned about the burden of the process. He is willing to try it and come back and tweak the <br />ordinance. In the CBD there needs to be a streamlined process, whatever that may be. <br />Ms. Smith stated the special exception is outlined by state law. Unfortunately, St. Joseph County <br />is one (1) of two (2) counties in the state where it has the burden of coming to the Council. In <br />most counties it is just a thirty (30) day process. There are some tweaks to how it can be altered <br />but a lot of it is set by state statute. <br />Councilmember White stated it is not a very good position to be in when you hear individuals <br />saying they have found loopholes. We need to listen to our citizens and what works best for <br />them. If we are going to treat certain districts differently we need to have straight forward <br />guidelines in place. She asked Councilmember Broden what are her concerns and where we are <br />at. <br />Councilmember Broden responded that consistency is important and that's why across all <br />districts there is an ease to the process if you know what it is. Across a lot of the districts it is the <br />same process and in the CBD we are allowing the group residences that everyone wants to see. <br />We want to see these creative opportunities come to be. <br />Chairperson Ferlic stated very few people are actually using the employee loophole. If it was <br />legal, even if we pass this they will be legal non - conforming. All we are doing here is closing the <br />loophole going forward into the future. This also may help rent costs in the City because a <br />landlord cannot now charge ten (10) Notre Dame students five - hundred dollars ($500) a month <br />each to live in what is supposed to be a single family home. There are certainly areas, like the <br />CBD, where group residences should be permitted. Chairperson.Ferlic stated it would be his <br />preferred option to raise the number of non - related people in a family in the CBD to three (3) or <br />four (4) people where we are trying to increase density. These text amendments however do not <br />affect anyone except those taking advantage of the loophole and if that loophole is deemed legal <br />by the Building Commissioner then they will not be affected either. <br />Councilmember Scott asked if we amend this ordinance will it have to go back to the Area Plan <br />Commission. <br />Council Attorney Cekanski- Farrand responded yes, if it is amended it goes back. <br />Councilmember Oliver Davis asked if the Building Commissioner has determined if this <br />loophole is legal. <br />Ms. Smith stated there has not been an official challenge as of yet so the Building Commissioner <br />has not ruled on this specific loophole. If it is deemed legal now, it would be legal for these few <br />individuals who are currently using the loophole to continue to do so. No one else though going <br />forward could do so. <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.