04-24-17 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING APRIL 24, 2017 buildings that are along South Bend Avenue, and also along Twyckenham Drive. We kept buildings away from the east portion. One (1) of the commitments that we have is that the very east side of our property will be used as open space, as reflected on this particular site plan. Even though it's not required by the ordinance, we will have nine (9) visitor parking spaces. Mr. Danch explained that his party has worked with residents at the Wooded Estates nearby, and that the petitioners intend to keep as many of the trees on the site as possible. The east boundary will �I be fenced to help separate the property from the single-family residents on that side. There will be additional landscaping that will go around each building. The architecture of the proposed project will blend not only into that of the neighborhood overlay but that of the Wooded Estates. Mr. Danch stated that an additional set of written commitments are listed in the substitute bill which the Council has received. The first three (3) commitments are enforceable by the governmental body in charge of zoning as well as the neighborhood associations, while the last three (3) are only enforceable by the neighborhood and homeowners' associations. He stated that a project of this sort would most likely be an investment of$4,500,000 to $6,000,000. Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to accept Substitute Bill No. 04-17. Councilmember John Voorde seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of seven (7) ayes. Councilmember Oliver Davis asked Mr. Danch to go into further detail regarding the written commitments and to also address worries about the project, such as that it is out-of-character for the neighborhood. Mr. Danch explained that the first set of written commitments are concerned specifically with how far the units will be set back on the property. The remaining commitments are concerned with determining who can be in the building. He explained that either the owner can occupy a unit or someone could own the place and have a student, son, daughter, or grandchild living there—there just cannot be more than two (2) unrelated persons in those buildings, reflecting the zoning code for the City of South Bend. Councilmember Davis asked, And the street issue? Mr. Danch responded that the street issue is that there is a homeowner that would have preferred to have an access point off SR 23 at the northeast corner of this project. He stated that the Indiana Department of Highways would not approve a driveway so close to a signalized intersection, and that a driveway placed at that point of the property would adversely affect an existing single-family home that is set very close to the project's property line. Addressing the heights of the proposed buildings, Mr. Danch stated that they adhered to the guidelines of the MF-1 District and did not ask for any variances. The buildings peak at three (3) stories, and the ordinance asks that for buildings of that height the setback be larger. He stated that there would only be balconies on the second floor of the buildings, not the third floor. Along with landscaping and fencing, the petitioners will be adding tall trees with larger canopies to buffer any direct view of where the balconies are to the single-family homes to the east. Councilmember Davis asked about City regulations regarding noise. Mr. Danch responded that these townhomes would be subject to the same noise ordinance as everyone else. Councilmember Davis asked Mr. Danch to discuss the nearby property that may be converted into a multi-use property. Mr. Danch responded he was doubtful that the property would be rezoned to MF-1 as that would run counter to the SF-1 properties in the area. This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Those from the public wishing to speak in favor of this bill: Stephen Hayes, 1219 White Oak Drive, South Bend, IN, stated that the neighborhood currently has a neutral attitude toward the proposed project, as it shifts away from the single-family trend of the neighborhood. Mr. Hayes stated that they were "less unhappy" with the project now than when it was first proposed, since the petitioners have worked with the neighborhood to address 4