Laserfiche WebLink
Area Board of Zoning Appeals—December 6,2017 <br /> MR. URBANSKI: Okay. <br /> MR.CRUMLISH: Are there any additional questions or comments? I'll open the session to the public then. If there is <br /> anyone here wishing to speak in favor of or ask additional questions about this petition you may approach the podium? <br /> You will be allowed two minutes each. <br /> IN FAVOR <br /> MR.TIM CORCRAN: I'm the Director of Planning for South Bend. I wish to support this project. While we are opposed to <br /> the spot rezoning that happened in 1991 and would not support that today, it is in place. We do feel that this proposal is <br /> an improvement a vacant building and clearly out of character,style of the existing building. We would like the <br /> proponent to look into ways to reducing the height,which we know is not something that we're talking about today, but <br /> as a way to help mitigate the fears of the neighbors and to continue to work towards that. But in essence we do support <br /> the change and the Special Exception. <br /> MR. LEBBIN: Will please state your address. <br /> MR.CORCRAN: 14TH floor, County City Building. <br /> MR. DAVID BUCKINMEYER: I am Director of Business Development for the City of South Bend,also on the 14"floor of this <br /> building. We support the request being made by the petitioner here today. The improvements in question are clearly an <br /> enhancement to the building,the intersection,the neighborhood. Also brings a residential element to a residential area. <br /> From our business and economic and development perspective,supporting this request will also the retention of high end <br /> jobs and a high end business critical to the South Bend economy, a business and employees which might otherwise leave <br /> South Bend and St.Joe County. Thank you. <br /> MR. CRUMLISH: Is there anyone else wishing to speak in favor of? <br /> MS. ELIZABETH BURMAN: I live at 920 N. Notre Dame Ave. and I will say I am not speaking in favor of,I have a question <br /> though. And this is mostly to the staff, I'm confused because I heard a preamble that seemed to sort of undo any basis for <br /> objections. I'm not sure what it is that we are speaking to if all of this is already been approved...) mean I maybe not <br /> understanding so perhaps...what is it if we can't talk to the... <br /> MR.CRUMLISH: Can you repeat the variances? <br /> MRS.SMITH: Sure. The height is the one that I said is not under consideration today. The height is allowed in this district <br /> up to 50'. So the height of this building is not under consideration... <br /> MR.CRUMLISH: No variance was even requested. <br /> MRS.SMITH: No variance is needed for the height of the building. The reason for the variances that are requested all <br /> relate back to, I guess I should have explained it this way.The building can continue to operate as an office. It can expand <br /> up to 50' in height if they could meet the requirements that were improved in 1992 and they could remodel the building <br /> accordingly. By seeking the Special Exception Use for the residential dwelling unit,the way the ordinance is currently <br /> written, it says that they must bring the entire site up to the current code. So if the request for the residential dwelling <br /> unit that warrants the setback variances,the parking variance and the landscape variance for the parking and the drive <br /> 14 <br />