17-75 Special Exception 806 Howard Street

Home Browse Search

Carolyn Henry From: Rudy Reyes Jr. <rreyes@nd.edu> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 3:21 PM To: Carolyn Henry Subject: RE: Petition from Alliance Architects on behalf of Pandora Partners 5.xiii.17 Dear Ms. Henry, Please accept this email as a formal expression of opposition to the petition currently on file with the Area Board of Zoning Appeals by by Alliance Architects on behalf of Pandora Partners LLC, for variances on the property commonly described as 806 Howard Street,South Bend, Indiana 46617. 1 am the property owner of 1014 North Saint Peter Street,South Bend, Indiana 46617, located within 300 feet of the above named property. I understand that opposition is wide in this case, but I feel it important to voice my concerns. .As I understand it,the Area Board of Zoning Appeals exists to ensure that use of various properties is consistent with established norms and thoughtfully done.This is an important element of urban planning. .The current structure at the property in question stands out as different.While recent improvements—paint and grounds cleanup—have aided the appearance,the structure clearly pre-dates the enormous effort and investment that has been put into the neighborhood. .The planned increase to the height of the building will adversely affect the rest of the property owners in the vicinity. To be sure,such a move would severely impact the property values of those have made significant investment in revitalizing what was admittedly a depressed area. .Additionally,the mixed use of the property, along with the addition of residential use and deletion of parking on- property will add to an already congested and dangerous parking situation for the adjacent streets. .The requested variances are not in keeping with zoning of the area, nor is the intent behind them.The expansion of Eddy Street Commons, as well as the current —only a few blocks away—presents plenty of opportunity for mixed-use. This should not occur in an overwhelmingly residential district. . If the property owner would like to change from Office District to Residential District,this move would be welcomed by me and I imagine many neighbors.At that time,the Residential District zoning requirements, including those of the overlay should then apply.Any other move, up to and including the granting of these variances,would seem to contribute to and augment what appears to be an errant building of a previous era. I request that the Board consider why these zoning regulations exist: to preserve public health,safety, comfort, community moral standards, convenience or general welfare; to prevent injury or adverse effect to the adjacent property and values therein; to ensure uses consistent with the character of the district in which the property is located and the land uses therein; to ensure uses compatible with the recommendations of the City's comprehensive plan. i