Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Exception - 508 & 512 W ColfaxRESOLUTION 4197 -12 Passed by the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana July 23, Attest: 12 20 Presented by me to the Mayor of the City of South Bend, Indiana July 24, 2012 Approved and signed by me I vCy Z5- City Clerk President of Common Council 2oLZ. City Clerk �� 1 a RESOLUTION NO. l � i � — I %, A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROVING A PETITION OF THE AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 508 & 512 WEST COLFAX AVENUE, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA WHEREAS, Indiana Code Section 36 -7 -4- 918.6, requires the Common Council to give notice pursuant to Indiana Code Section 5- 14- 1.5 -5, of its intention to consider Petitions from the Board of Zoning Appeals for approval or disapproval; and WHEREAS, the Common Council must take action within sixty (60) days after the Board of Zoning Appeals makes its recommendation to the Council; and WHEREAS, the Common Council is required to make a determination in writing on such requests pursuant to Indiana Code Section 36 -7 -4- 918.4, and WHEREAS, the Area Board of Zoning Appeals has made a recommendation, pursuant to applicable state law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA as follows: SECTION L The Common Council has provided notice of the hearing on the Petition from the Area Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to Indiana Code Section 5- 14- 1.5 -5, requesting that a Special Exception be granted for the property located at: 508 & 512 W. COLFAX AVENUE, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA in order to permit a Special Exception Use to allow for a commercial parking lot SECTION IL Following a presentation by the Petitioner, and after proper public hearing, the Common Council hereby approves the petition of the Area Board of Zoning Appeals, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. SECTION 11I. The Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, hereby finds that: 1. The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort, community moral standards, convenience or general welfare; 2. The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or property values therein; 3. The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located and the land uses authorized therein; 4. The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the City of South Bend Comprehensive plan; SECTION IV. Approval is subject to the Petitioner complying with the reasonable conditions established by the Area Board of Zoning Appeals which are on file in the office of the City Clerk. SECTION V. The Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption by the Common Council and approval by the Mayor. I of • • Council Filed Mice PRESENTED -� -Z3 - ( L NOT APPROVED ADOPT&D %'-. THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND AND ST. JOSEPH COUNTY AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PETITION a. PETITIONER'S NAME: South Bend Heritage Foundation, Inc. PETITIONER'S ADDRESS: 803 Lincoln Way West, South Bend, IN 46616 PETITIONER'S PHONE: (574) 289 -1066 b. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY: 508 & 512 West Colfax Street, South Bend, IN 46601 c. STATEMENT OF VARIANCE REQUESTED AND REASON FOR REQUEST; The petitioner requests a special exception use to allow for a commercial parking lot containing 22 parking spaces and 2 handicapped spaces (24 in total). The petitioner wishes to develop a parking lot at this location to support its parallel re- development of the nearby Rushton Building. The Rushton project will rehabilitate 23 senior housing units with funding received through Low Income Housing Tax Credits and Historic Preservation tax credits. The subject property at 512 West Colfax is just north of the Rushton Building and an easy 75' walk away. d. STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS I.C. 36 -7 -918.4 addressed as follows: i. The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort, community moral standards, convenience or general welfare. The parking lot will be a positive support for the senior housing facility located nearby. It will be policed and maintained by South Bend Heritage Foundation. ii. The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or property values therein. The South Bend Heritage Foundation will maintain the landscaping in an effort to screen visual blight and improve the area's appearance and will also be responsible for debris removal, snow plowing, and patrol the lot for unauthorized use. Further, the parking lot will be used by residents of the Rushton Building, located just south of the proposed parking lot. iii. The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located and the land uses authorized therein. The proposed parking lot will be tastefully done. This will be achieved by acknowledging the commercial character of the historic area and providing parking spaces that are consistent with said character. � 1 I nl" nW 3NOZ ,LL'90L nvi 3NOZ W \J z �o UX O W � %n L I I 1 �I I 1IJ I �= I 5) Il. a 6Z O W�l %I S � Z o C O ro I 1 Q .b I I I ~ 1 X13 N - W \J z �o UX O W � %n L I I 1 �I I 1IJ I �= I 5) Il. a 6Z O W�l %I S � Z o C JIB _ ~ X13 N - I O J C� ' I I _ � Is, z I I `tea or U I I S �(J'. W I— ^1 �►i k� J LI � � "� '� s AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 125 S. Lafayette Blvd. Saute 100 South Bend, Indiana 46601 (574) 235 -9554 FAX: (574} 235 -5541 June 7, 2010 The Honorable Common Council Of the City of South Bend 4th Floor, County -City Building South. Bend, Indiana 46601 RE: Petition for Special Exception of South Bend Heritage Foundation, Inc. ABZA 6/6/12 Dear Council Members: The above referenced petition of South Bend Heritage Foundation, Inc. was legally advertised on May 25, 2012. The Area Board of Zoning Appeals gave it a public hearing on June 6, 2012, at which time the following action was taken: Upon a motion by Mr. Velleman being seconded by Mr. Hawley and unanimously carried, the petition for Special Exception to allow a commercial parking lot in a "MU" District, is sent to the South Bend Common Council with a Favorable Recommendation. The deliberations of the Area Board of Zoning Appeals and points considered in arriving at the above decision as shown in the Minutes of the Public Hearing, and will be forwarded to you at a later date, to be made part of this report. Sincerel Charles C. Bulot, C.B.O. Building Commissioner CCB /cah SPECIAL EXCEPTION PURSUANT 21- 09.3(D) AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS SOUTH BEND HERITAGE FOUNDATION, INC. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, COMFORT, COMMUNITY MORAL STANDARDS, CONVENIENCE OR GENERAL WELFARE BECAUSE: Development and use as presented will comply with all building, fire safety, traffic, and parking regulations as to not being injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. 2. THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT INJURE OR ADVERSELY AFFECT THE USE OF T) _E ADJACENT AREA OR PROPERTY VALUES THEREIN BECAUSE: The variance or use shall improve the appearance of the neighborhood and will not devalue the surrounding properties. 3. THE PROPOSED USE WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED AND THE LAND USES AUTHORIZED THEREIN BECAUSE: Conditions on the property predate the Zoning Ordinance, which creates a different condition for this property. 4. THE PROPOSED USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BECAUSE: It is the feeling of the Board that the variance is blending into the overall Comprehensive Plan and is not deviating from it's intent. CONDITIONS OR REVISIONS: DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Board that this request for Special Exception shall be passed onto the City of South Bend Common Council with a: FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION ADOPTED this 6TH Day of JUNE, 2012. YES NO Q MICHAEL URBANSKI ABSENT RANDALL MATTHYS Q JACK YOUNG Q GERALD PHIPPS Q ROBERT HAWLEY Q JOE VELLEMAN Q BRENDAN CRUMLISH Area Board of Zoning Appeals — June 6, 2012 SOUTH BEND HERITAGE FOUNDATION, INC. The petition of South Bend Heritage Foundation, Inc. seeking a Special Exception to allow for a commercial parking lot, on property located at 508 & 512 W. Colfax Street, Portage Township. Zoned "MU ". MR. PAT LYNCH: With South Bend Heritage Foundation, 803 Lincolnway West, South Bend. We are here today to request a Special Exception for a commercial lot at the address that was mentioned. We're doing this project in conjunction with redevelopment of the Rushton Building which sits on the corner of west Washington and William. And we're very excited about that project and we'll make this lot available to the seniors who will be living at that project. MR. URBANSKI: Is there some parking right behind the building too, Pat, behind the Rushton Building? MR. LYNCH: That property immediately north of the Rushton does not belong to the Rushton it belongs to the next building north. The Rushton does not have access directly to the alley. MR. URBANSKI: Okay will the people have to walk all the way around to William Street to enter the building? MR. LYNCH: That is correct. MS. NAYDER: Just want to point out where our comments are. They're in the Special Exception, so there's 1.3 and then 15 so didn't want you to miss because we did make comments on petition number 14. We recommended favorably because it's going to help with the re -use of an existing building. MR. VELLEMAN: Will there be any improvement to the alley done by either the City or South Bend Heritage. It was a pretty rough alley when I drove down it. MR. LYNCH: It is rough, I agree. I'm with Toy Villa in Engineering right now. And we also have to get into that alley a little bit to bring power to the Rushton. So we do intend to improve at least from our parking lot to the east William Street, yeah. IN FAVOR MR. WILLIAM PERKINS: I live at 119 N. Taylor Street. I live right around the corner from the property in question. And I want to know how big is the parking lot going to be and what they plan on doing as far as landscaping and also how it's going,to affect the apartment building directly next to it which is now unoccupied and being renovated. Before it had a reputation for being undesirable, yeah will it be? And I really want to see the Rushton, I'd love to see the Rushton rehabilitated, I really would. I also wonder how many people are going to make the actual stroll from the parking lot in the dead of winter over to the Rushton. That's kind of a little hike there. I wonder if there is some other way they could get a parking lot there. So I just basically have questions about the whole thing. MR. PERKINS WAS SHOWN A SITE PLAN OF THE PARKING LOT AT THIS TIME 28 Area Board of Zoning Appeals — June 6, 2012 MR. CHARLES LEONE: I'm an attorney with offices at 521 W. Colfax which is across street from the proposed parking lot. The law firm is Leone Halpin, LLP. We are in a building that was formally owned by James Childs Architects and have done quite a bit of work fixing up that particular property over the last five years since we've been there. Our concerns of course are have to do with the immediate neighborhood. These lots as they exist now are vacant. They're typically kept up and mowed but they're generally unused. We do support the South Bend Heritage project to use this land as a parking lot in conjunction with the renovation of the Rushton Building. We think that the Rushton Building is a critical piece in the western edge of downtown and the redevelopment and repair of that particular building would enhance the immediate neighborhood. We've been given some comfort by the fact that South Bend Heritage will be the designer and will be having on going responsibility for this particular lot. Our concern of course has been the apartment complex that is immediately to the west of these lots which had a very large number of tenants and has been subject to a number of issues over the past several years that is vacant now. I know that there is some renovation going on with good advice in terms of how to do that but one concern we would have of course is that once that building is re- occupied at some point, because apparently it will be, that in fact the tenants from that particular building may end up finding the parking lot easy parking because I don't think that the building immediately to the west has any on site parking. So that would be our main concern but in general we do support this particular project and I think it's all in the execution in the way it's managed over time that'll make the difference. REMONSTRANCE There was no one present to speak in remonstrance of this petition. MR. URBANSKI: Pat are you going to have something where there'll be stickers for the people who live there so cars won't be towed if belonging to the Rushton? REBUTTAL: MR. LYNCH: I think that we will definitely have to have some sort of protocol for anybody who is in the lot. They will need to have permission to be there, a sticker in their car or something on their dashboard as well as signs are up to indicate to people that if they do not have permission they will be towed away. We have a management company that oversee all of our properties, it's Herman and Kittle and they would be responsible for patrolling the lot making sure that it is appropriately used and towing anybody that's not authorized to be there. There will be more information, the Rushton will be 23 units and this parking lot here is 26, I believe, spots although there is no relationship between those two numbers it's just that what works. A motion to send the Special Exception to the Common Council with a Favorable Recommendation was made by Mr. Velleman and seconded by Mr. Hawley. The motion carried unanimously. After hearing the evidence on the petition, the Area Board of Zoning Appeals find that you did satisfy the Standards as set forth in I.C. 36 -7 -4- 918.5; therefore, the petition was sent to the Common Council with a Favorable Recommendation. Based on the testimony presented, the Area Board of Zoning Appeals, after careful consideration, finds this Special Exception is sent to the Common Council with a Favorable Recommendation and will issue written Finding of Facts. PETITON SENT TO THE COMMON COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION 29 JOHN W. BYORNI EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LARRY MAGLIOZZI DEPUTY DIRECTOR kN COMMISSION OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, IN 227 W. JEFFERSON BLVD., ROOM 1140 COUNTY -CITY BUILDING, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46601 1574) 235 -9571 May 25, 2012 Area Board of Zoning Appeals 125 S. Lafayette, Suite 100 South Bend, Indiana 46601 RE: Area Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Dear Board Members: Common Council Attn: Janice 4th Floor County City Building South Bend, IN 46601 The following comments are being made concerning some of the items to be heard at the Area Board of Zoning Appeals meeting on Wednesday, June 6, 2012. The absence of comments on any particular item should not be construed to mean that the staff agrees with the request. Variances A variance from any of the development standards of the Zoning Ordinance may only be approved upon the Board of Zoning Appeals making a written determination and adopting appropriate Findings of Fact, based upon the evidence presented at a public hearing, that: (1) The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, (2) The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner, and, (3) The strict application of the terms of this Chapter would result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. 12. The petition of Air Park South Bend, I.I.C. The staff recommends denial of these variances. As part of the 2004 update of the City of South Bend Zoning Ordinance, the sign ordinance was significantly revised. The intent of the sign ordinance is to eliminate excessive and confusing sign displays; maintain and improve the agaearance of the City of South Bend as an attractive place in which to live and conduct business; and safeguard and enhance property values by minimizing the possible adverse effects of signs on nearby public and private property; and to avoid sign clutter. The desire of the petitioner to place these additional signs defies the very intent of the sign ordinance and the effort the City took in establishing the standards. The staff would find it difficult to find a sign ordinance in a large city that would allow such excessive signage. A comparison would be to then allow every multi- tenant commercial /industrial center in the City to have a street sign for each of the tenants. The sign ordinance accommodates the needs SERVING ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, SOUTH BEND, LAKEVILLE, NEW CARLISLE, NORTH LIBERTY, OSCEOLA, 8, ROSELAND W W W.STJOSEPHCOU NTY IND IAN A. COM (2) The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or property values therein; This parking lot's intent is to support the residents of the proposed apartments in the Rushton Building. By offering dedicated spaces for these residents, on street parking for nearby businesses and the Portage Township Assessor, could benefit from the additional off - street parking. (3) The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located and the land uses authorized therein; The block is zoned MU Mixed Use, however, there is multifamily nearby. Parking areas are common in the MU Mixed Use District as an accessory to the business /commercial or multi- family use. (4) The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. City Plan, South Bend Comprehensive Plan (November 2006j -The first Housing Objective encourages a mix of housing types and densities, specifically mentioning those for seniors. The first Economic Development Objective encourages the reuse of abandoned and underutilized land and structures. Sincerely, cif %,k Christa Nayder, Planner SERVING ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, SOUTH BEND, LAKEVILLE. NEW CARLISLE, NORTH LIBERTY, OSCEOLA, & ROSELAND WWW.STJOSEPHCOU NTY IN DIAN A.COM