My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-24-2022 Agenda Packet
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Common Council Agenda Packets
>
2022
>
01-24-2022
>
01-24-2022 Agenda Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/12/2022 3:32:15 PM
Creation date
1/20/2022 5:00:17 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.
/
126
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
Staff Report -PC#0082-22 1/18/2022 <br /> <br />SOUTH BEND PLAN COMMISSION Page 5 of 6 <br />6) From the 40' minimum setback for the portion of a building in excess of 40' or 3 stories when <br />adjacent to a U1 District to 14' <br />State statutes and the Zoning Ordinance require that certain standards must be met before a <br />variance can be approved. The standards and their justifications are as follows: <br />(1) The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general <br />welfare of the community. <br />Approval of the variances should not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and <br />general welfare of the community. The property is located along a heavily trafficked state <br />highway appropriate for the size and length of the proposed building. Design considerations <br />have been taken into account to meet the intent of the zoning ordinance for each of the <br />variances. <br />(2) The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will <br />not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. <br />The use and value of the areas adjacent to the property should not be affected in a substantially <br />adverse manner. None of the variances proposed should negatively impact the surrounding <br />properties. Development of the currently vacant property should help the use and value of <br />surrounding properties. <br />(3) The strict application of the terms of this Chapter would result in practical difficulties <br />in the use of the property. <br />The site geometry, constrained access, and existing major utilities through the site create <br />practical difficulties for the property. The width of the street, as well as the volume of traffic <br />along the corridor, increases the difficulties of developing the site. <br />The parking variance is unique to the NNZO. With multiple street frontages, it is difficult to locate <br />parking in location that would exclusively be behind the building. The maximum setback <br />variance is only required until the second commercial building to the north is built. The side <br />setback variance was intended to protect neighboring buildings, ensuring adequate room <br />between buildings for maintenance, but the side on this property is an alley. The practical <br />difficulty for the setback of the 4th story is a matter of timing.The current planning process is <br />showing this area as a higher intensity use which wouldn’t require the building to step down. <br />(4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary. <br />The proposed development is consistent with the intent of the NC District and the Zoning <br />Ordinance. The building was designed to meet the intent of all zoning standards, even though <br />the site geometry and strict application of the Ordinance necessitates several variances. <br />(5) The variance granted does not correct a hardship caused by a former or current <br />owner of the property. <br />The shape of the property and the width of the adjacent right of way was not created by the <br />current or previous owner. <br /> <br />Commitments: There are no written commitments proposed. <br /> <br />Analysis: The Northeast Neighborhood has seen significant investment and growth over the past <br />decade. This investment has produced a significant demand and interest in more housing units. <br />The State's rerouting of State Road 23 lead to the property in question being no longer suitable <br />for single family housing as the majority of lots lack true street frontage. Large utility easements <br />Analysis & Recommendation
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.