Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Exception - 1750 Willis AvenueRESOLUTION 3707-07 Passed by the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana February 26, Attest: +~~7 r 07 zo Presented by me to the Mayor of the City of South Bend, Indiana February 27, 07 20 City Clerk President of Common Council Approved and signed by me February 28 20~Z. %~ ~Y~' City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 310 ? - o A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROVING A PETITION OF THE SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT (1750 WILLIS 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 pursuant to I.C. 36-7-4-918.6; 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 South Bend 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 I. The Common Council has provided notice of the hearing on the Petition from the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to Indiana Code Section 5-14-1.5-5, requesting that Special Exceptions be granted for the property located at: (1750 WILLIS AVENUE, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA) in order to permit: The Approval of a Special Exception to allow for off-site parking useage for 1750 Willis Avenue, South Bend, Indiana per Section 21-02.03 ~ of the City of South Bend Zoning Ordinance and the Approval of a Special Exception to allow for Single-family residential dwellings for 1750 Willis Avenue, South Bend, Indiana per Section 21-02.03 (D) of the City of South Bend Zoning Ordinance. SECTION II. Following a presentation by the Petitioner, and after proper public hearing, the Common Council hereby approves the petition of the South Bend Board of Zoning Appeals, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. SECTION III. The Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana, hereby finds that: 1. The proposed uses will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort, community moral standards, convenience or general welfare; 2. The proposed uses will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or property values therein; 3. The proposed uses will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located and the land uses authorized therein; 4. The proposed uses are compatible with the recommendations of the City of South Bend Comprehensive plan; all of which is requested by the South Bend Municipal Code § 21-09.03 (i). SECTION IV. Approval is subject to the Petitioner complying with the reasonable conditions established by the 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. ,______~ Member of the Com n Council PRESENTED 2 -Z`O'O' NOT APPROVED ~DOPTED 2-Z~~"'~~ Filed In Cl~~k' Ofifiice DEC 2 ~ 2006 JOHN VOORDE C{TY CLERK, S0. BEND, IN., TO THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND: Your Committee of the Whole, to whom was referred: BILL NO. 07-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, APPROVING A PETITION OF THE SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1750 WILLIS AVENUE, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA Respectfully report that they have examined the matter and that in their opinion, this bill is being recommended to the full Council with no recommendation due to a lack of a quorum. Karen L. White Chairperson G~~ G I erks 5e~ BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS NO. NOTIFIED , 20 FILED 20 HEARING , 20 APPEAL Applicant's Name: WILLIS STREET TOWNHOMES, LLC ATTN: MR. MARK CARNEY Phone 1-317-776-1007 Address: 19468 BLUE OAK COURT, NOBLESVILLE, INDIANA 46060 Address of Property: 1750 WILLIS AVENUE, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46637 Present Zoning of Property: "MF1" URBAN CORRIDOR MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT Owner's Name: WILLIS STREET TOWNHOMES, LLC ATTN: MR. MARK CARNEY Phone 1-317-776-1007 Address: 19468 BLUE OAK COURT, NOBLESVILLE, INDIANA 46060 Counsel or Consultant: DANCH, HARMER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Phone 234-4003 Address: 1643 COMMERCE DRIVE, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46628 TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA Appeal is hereby taken from the decision of the Building Commissioner in the matter of erecting, occupying, building, addition at 1750 WILLIS AVENUE, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46637 NATURE OF APPEAL: SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTS: A). Special Exception Request: PARCELS "A" through "H"; A). Approval of a Special Exception as allowed under Section 21-02.03 (F) of the City of South Bend Zoning Ordinance to allow for Single-family Attached Dwellings on individual Parcels; B). Special Exception Request: PARCEL "I"; A). Approval of a Special Exception as allowed under Section 21-02.03 (D) of the City of South Bend Zoning Ordinance to allow for Nine (9) off-site Visitor Parking Spaces for use by PARCELS "A" through "H"; 2 VARIANCE REQUESTS- PARCEL "A": 1). A Variance from the Minimum required 6 ft. Wide Side-yard Setback (along the North property line) to a Minimum of 5 ft. more or less; 2). A Variance from the Minimum required 25 ft. Wide Rear-yard Setback (along the East property line) to a Minimum of 0 ft.; 3). A Variance from the Minimum required 6 ft. Wide Interior-yard around a building to a Minimum of 5 ft. more or less along the North property line and to a Minimum of 0 ft. along the East property line; 4). A Variance from the Maximum allowed 40~ Building Lot coverage to a Maximum of 52~ more or less; 5). A Variance from the Minimum allowed Lot size of 4,000 sq.ft. for an MF1 Zoned parcel and 6,000 sq.ft. Single-family Lot to a Minimum of 1,864 sq.ft. more or less; 6). From the requirement of providing perimeter landscape deciduous trees at a minimum spacing of 40 feet on-center along the North, East and South property lines to providing no trees. PARCEL "B": 1). A Variance from the Minimum required 6 ft. Wide Side-yard Setback (along the East and West property lines) to a Minimum of 0 ft.; 2). A Variance from the Minimum required 25 ft. Wide Rear-yard Setback (along the North property line) to a Minimum of 5 ft. more or less; 3). A Variance from the Minimum required 6 ft. Wide Interior-yard around a building to a Minimum of 5 ft. more or less along the North property line and to a Minimum of 0 ft. along the East and West property lines; 4). A Variance from the Maximum allowed 40~ Building Lot coverage to a Maximum of 63$ more or less; 5). A Variance from the Minimum allowed Lot size of 4,000 sq.ft. for an MF1 Zoned parcel and 6,000 sq.ft. Single-family Lot to a Minimum of 1,544 sq.ft. more or less; 6). From the requirement of providing perimeter landscape deciduous trees at a minimum spacing of 40 feet on-center along the North, West, East and South property lines to providing no trees. 3 7). A Variance from the Minimum required Frontage 50 ft. for a Parcel Zoned MF1 and 60 ft. for a Single-family Lot on a Public Right-of-way to 0 ft. with access allowed over a Ingress and Egress easement on Parcel "I" to Willis Avenue. PARCEL "C": 1). A Variance from the Minimum required 6 ft. Wide Side-yard Setback (along the East and West property lines) to a Minimum of 0 ft.; 2). A Variance from the Minimum required 25 ft. Wide Rear-yard Setback (along the North property line) to a Minimum of 5 ft. more or less; 3). A Variance from the Minimum required 6 ft. Wide Interior-yard around a building to a Minimum of 5 ft. more or less along the North property line and to a Minimum of 0 ft. along the East and West property lines; 4). A Variance from the Maximum allowed 40~ Building Lot coverage to a Maximum of 63$ more or less; 5). A Variance from the Minimum allowed Lot size of 4,000 sq.ft. for an MFl Zoned parcel and 6,000 sq.ft. Single-family Lot to a Minimum of 1,545 sq.ft. more or less; 6). From the requirement of providing perimeter landscape deciduous trees at a minimum spacing of 40 feet on-center along the North, West, East and South property lines to providing no trees. 7). A Variance from the Minimum required Frontage 50 ft. for a Parcel Zoned MF1 and 60 ft. for a Single-family Lot on a Public Right-of-way to 0 ft. with access allowed over a Ingress and Egress easement on Parcel "I" to Willis Avenue. PARCEL "D": 1). A Variance from the Minimum required 6 ft. Wide Side-yard Setback (along the East and West property lines) to a Minimum of 0 ft.; 2). A Variance from the Minimum required 25 ft. Wide Rear-yard Setback (along the North property line) to a Minimum of 5 ft. more or less; 3). A Variance from the Minimum required 6 ft. Wide Interior-yard around a building to a Minimum of 5 ft. more or less along the North property line and to a Minimum of 0 ft. along the East and West property lines; 4 4). A Variance from the Maximum allowed 40~ Building Lot coverage to_a Maximum of 63~ more or less; 5). A Variance from the Minimum allowed Lot size of 4,000 sq.ft. for an MF1 Zoned parcel and 6,000 sq.ft. Single-family Lot to a Minimum of 1,609 sq.ft. more or less; 6). From the requirement of providing perimeter landscape deciduous trees at a minimum spacing of 40 feet on-center along the North, West, East and South property lines to providing no trees. 7). A Variance from the Minimum required Frontage 50 ft. for a Parcel Zoned MF1 and 60 ft. for a Single-family Lot on a Public Right-of-way to 0 ft. with access allowed over a Ingress and Egress easement on Parcel "I" to Willis Avenue. PARCEL "E": 1). A Variance from the Minimum required 6 ft. Wide Side-yard Setback (along the North. property line to a Minimum of 2 ft. and to 0 ft. along the South property line); 2). 'A Variance from the Minimum required 25 ft. Wide Rear-yard Setback (along the East property line) to a Minimum of 5 ft. more or less; 3). A Variance from the Minimum required 6 ft. Wide Interior-yard around a building to a Minimum of 2 ft. more or less along the North property line and to a Minimum of 5 ft. along the. East property line and to 0 ft.along the South property line; 4). A Variance from the Maximum allowed 40~ Building Lot coverage to a Maximum of 60~ more or less; 5). A Variance from the Minimum allowed Lot size of 4,000 sq.ft. for an MF1 Zoned parcel and 6,000 sq.ft. Single-family Lot to a Minimum of 2,443 sq.ft. more or less; 6). From the requirement of providing perimeter landscape deciduous trees at a minimum spacing of 40 feet on-center along the North, West, East and South property lines to providing no trees. 7). A Variance from the Minimum required Frontage 50 ft. for a Parcel Zoned MF1 and 60 ft. for a Single-family Lot on a Public Right-of-way to 0 ft. with access allowed over a Ingress and Egress easement on Parcels "F", "G" and "I" to Willis Avenue. 5 PARCEL "F": 1). A Variance from the Minimum required 6 ft. Wide Side-yard Setback (along the North and South property lines) to a Minimum of 0 ft.; 2). A Variance from the Minimum required 25 ft. Wide Rear-yard Setback (along the East property line) to a Minimum of 5 ft. more or less; 3). A Variance from the Minimum required 6 ft. Wide Interior-yard around a building to a Minimum of 5 ft. more or less along the East property line and to a Minimum of 0 ft. along the North and South property lines; 4). A Variance from the Maximum allowed 40~ Building Lot coverage to a Maximum of 53~ more or less; 5). A Variance from the Minimum allowed Lot size of 4,000 sq.ft. for an MF1 Zoned parcel and 6,000 sq.ft. Single-family Lot to a Minimum of 1,870 sq.ft. more or less; 6). From the requirement of providing perimeter landscape deciduous trees at a minimum spacing of 40 feet on-center along the North, West, East and South property lines to providing no trees. 7). A Variance from the Minimum required Frontage 50 ft. for a Parcel Zoned MF1 and 60 ft. for a Single-family Lot on a Public Right-of-way to 0 ft. with access allowed over a Ingress and Egress easement on Parcels "G" and "I" to Willis Avenue. PARCEL "G": 1). A Variance from the Minimum required 6 ft. Wide Side-yard Setback (along the North and South property lines) to a Minimum of 0 ft.; 2). A Variance from the Minimum required 25 ft. Wide Rear-yard Setback (along the East property line) to a Minimum of 5 ft. more or less; 3). A Variance from the Minimum required 6 ft. Wide Interior-yard around a building to a Minimum of 5 ft. more or less along the East property line and to a Minimum of 0 ft. along the North and South property lines; 4). A Variance from the Maximum allowed 40~ Building Lot coverage to a Maximum of 53$ more or less; 5). A Variance from the Minimum allowed Lot size of 4,000 sq.ft. for an MF1 Zoned parcel and 6,000 sq.ft. Single-family Lot to a Minimum of 1,869 sq.ft. more or less; 6 6). From the requirement of providing perimeter landscape deciduous trees at a minimum spacing of 40 feet on-center along the North, West, East and South property lines to providing no trees. 7). A Variance from. the Minimum required Frontage 50 ft. for a Parcel Zoned MF1 and 60 ft. for a Single-family Lot on a Public Right-of-way to 0 ft. with access allowed over a Ingress and Egress easement on Parcel "I" to Willis Avenue. PARCEL "H": 1). A Variance from the Minimum required 6 ft. Wide Side-yard Setback (along the North property line) to a Minimum of 0 ft.; 2). A Variance from the Minimum required 25 ft. Wide Rear-yard Setbaek (along the East property line) to a Minimum of 5 ft. more or less; 3). A Variance from the Minimum required 6 ft. Wide Interior-yard around a building to a Minimum of 5 ft. more or less along the East property line and to a Minimum of 0 ft. along the North property line; 4). A Variance from the Maximum allowed 40~ Building Lot coverage to a Maximum of 63~ more or less; 5). A Variance from the Minimum allowed Lot size of 4,000 sq.ft. for an MF1 Zoned parcel and 6,000 sq.ft. Single-family Lot to a Minimum of 1,544 sq.ft. more or less; 6). From the requirement of providing perimeter landscape deciduous trees at a minimum spacing of 40 feet on-center along the North, West, East and South property lines to providing no trees. 7). A Variance from the Minimum required Frontage 50 ft. for a Parcel Zoned MF1 and 60 ft. for a Single-family Lot on a Public Right-of-way to 0 ft. with access allowed over a Ingress and Egress easement on Parcel "I" to Willis Avenue. PARCEL "I" (Visitor Parking Area and access driveway to Willis Ave.): 1). A Variance from the Minimum required 6 ft. Wide Side-yard Setback along the North property line to a Minimum of 0 ft. for pavement; 2). A Variance from the Minimum required 25 ft. Wide Rear-yard Setback (along the East property line) to 0 ft. for pavement; 3). A Variance from the Minimum allowed Lot size of 4,000 sq.ft. for an MF1 Zoned parcel and 6,000 sq.ft. Single-family Lot to a Minimum of 5,859 sq.ft. more or less; 7 4). From the requirement of providing perimeter landscape deciduous trees at a minimum spacing of 40 feet on-center along the North, and East property lines to providing no trees. 5). A Variance from the Minimum required Frontage 50 ft. for a Parcel Zoned MFl and 60 ft. for a Single-family Lot on a Public Right-of-way to a Minimum of 57 ft. on Willis Avenue. 6). A Variance to allow an Accessory Visitor Parking Lot that does not contain a Primary use. THIS REAL ESTATE IS COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS: 1750 Willis Avenue, South Bend, Indiana 46637. The Petitioners are the owners of the real estate parcel shown on the attached site plan and as shown in the records of the St. Joseph County, Indiana Auditor's office. The Petition property presently has a Zoning classification of "MF1" Urban Corridor Multifamily District. The owners of Parcel "A" are in the process of constructing their residential development. This property was recently annexed and rezoned to allow for an eight-unit residential townhome development. The original owner had gone through those procedures to create the development. The present owners purchased the property, but desire to take the recently approved project and create Single-family attached townhomes. They would like to be able to allow any contingent purchaser to buy one of the shown townhomes on a legal lot of record, instead of a condominium or a rental property. In order to create individual Lots for each residential townhome, the petitioners discovered that there are several procedures that must be approved. After discussions with the Building Department, it was decided that in order to create individual Lots for the Single-family attached townhomes, a Special Exception Use was required to be approved to allow for that use within the "MF1" Urban Corridor Multifamily District, and a Special Exception Use is also required for the Accessory Visitor parking area on shown parcel "I". Also in order to create the individual lots as shown, several Variances are required for each Parcel which run from Variances for Side and Rear Yard Setbacks to Frontage Variances, Building Lot Coverage Variances and Lot Size Variances. The number of Variances shown, are numerous, but that is due to the fact that the Petitioners are attempting to create Nine (9) Legal Lots of record. As shown Parcel "I" will remain in common ownership by the owners of all Lots within this development. It will be transferred to a Property Homeowners Association. This Association will maintain the shown paved areas, visitor parking area, and several common ownership maintenance issues, such as building roofs, siding, painting, brick work, pavement repair and snow plowing. The Homeowners Association will also be responsible to maintain the landscape areas on all lots. 8 The first portion of this Petition details each of the required Variances for each Parcel and details the requested Special Exception Uses. In regards to the Special Exception Use requests to allow for Single- family residential in the "MF1" District, the Petitioners would state that the dwelling units will be single-family which should have no detrimental affect on any adjacent property or affect any surrounding property value. This request is being made due to the fact that the Ordinance requires it. The Petitioners also believe approval of this Special Exception Use allows for more flexibility for purchasers who desire to own their property fee-simple. The request for the Special Exception Use for Visitor parking which is off-site, should also have no detrimental affect on any adjacent property or have a negative impact on surrounding property values. This parking area by design has been incorporated into the development and will lessen any possibility of persons parking along the Willis Avenue frontage. The Petitioners would ask the Board Members to agree that approval of the Special Exception Uses as stated above, would not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort, community moral standards, convenience or general welfare, or injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or property values therein, and that the proposed uses will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located and the land uses authorized therein, and that the proposed uses are compatible with the recommendations of the City of South Bend Comprehensive plan, all of which is requested by the South Bend Municipal Code ~ 21-09.03 (i). With regards to the Variance requests for the Parcels shown, the Petitioners would state they are being requested in order to allow for the creation of individual Lots. The approval of the Variances would not allow a development that would place any building or structure closer to the perimeter of the Petition site than is presently allowed under the "MF1" Urban Corridor Multifamily District development standards. These Variances requests are being done strictly to create individual lots with single-family attached townhomes. The one Variance request to allow for the Visitor Parking area (i.e. Accessory Use) on a Parcel without a Primary Use (i . e . Dwelling Unit) is being done , as this Parcel will be owned by the Homeowners Association. The Petitioners do not believe that approval of this Variance would have any detrimental impact on the surrounding properties or their values. The Petitioners believe that approval of the above Special Exception Uses and the Variances for this proposed Single-family residential development will not be detrimental to adjacent properties, nor will it adversely affect the surrounding property values. The Petitioners would ask the Board Members to agree that approval of the above described Special Exception Uses and Variances will not have a detrimental affect for this area, nor would the property values, public's health, safety, morals, or general welfare be adversely affected. 9 The Petitioners contend that the strict application of the terms of the Zoning ordinance will constitute an unusual and unnecessary hardship as applied to the property for which the Variances and Special Exceptions are sought: that the need for the Variances and Special Exceptions arises from such condition peculiar to the property in the same Zone: and that the use or value of the area adjacent to the property described in the petition for the Variances and Special Exceptions will not be injurious to the public health, Safety, morals, or general welfare of the community. I attest, under the penalties for perjury, that the foregoing representations are true. President Danch, Harner & Associates, Inc. ~~ Uanch, F/arner ~ Associates, Inc. MICHAEL J. DANCH, L.A. RON HARNER, P.S. DANIEL W. AKIN, P.E., L.S. Honorable Members of the City of South Bend Common Council 4th Floor County-City Building South Bend Indiana 46601 RE: Petition for Special Exception Uses for property located at 1750 Willis Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, 46637: Dear Council Members: Land Surveyors Professional Engineers Landscape Architects Land Planners December 24, 2006 Our clients are requesting the approval of Special Exception Uses for their property located at 1750 Willis Avenue, South Bend, Indiana. These Special Exception Uses will allow the construction of Single-family attached townhomes on individual lots and a Visitor Parking area (i.e. off-site parking) on a Lot adjacent to the above Single-family townhomes on property located in a "MF1" Urban Corridor Multifamily District zoning classification. Our clients believe that the approval of the proposed Special Exception Uses will fit with the existing mixed uses along this portion of Willis Avenue neighborhood. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to give me a call at 234-4003. Sincerely, Michael J. Danch President Danch, Harner & Associates, Inc. File # 060277 Md. "C" Fi{ ~ Cl~r6c'~ ®fifice DEC 2 6 2006 JOHf3 VOORDE CITY CLERK, S0. BEND, IN. 2422 Vridian Drive, Suite 201 ^ South Bend, IN 46628 office 5741234-4003 ^ 800/594-4003 ^ Fax 574/234-4119 208 West Mars ^ Berrien Springs, MI 49103 othce 269/471-3010 ^ Fax 269/471-7237 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND 125 S. Lafayette Blvd. Suite 100 South Bend, Indiana 46601 (574) 235-9554 Fnx: (574) 235-5541 January 19, 2007 The Honorable Common Council of the City of South Bend 4th Floor, County-City Building South Bend, Indiana 46601 RE: Petition for Special Exceptions BZA 1/18/07 The petition of Willis Street Townbomes seeking a Special Exception on parcels A through H to allow single family attached dwellings on individual parcels, a Special Exception for parcel I to allow for nine off-site visitor parking spaces for use by parcels A through H Dear Council Members: The above referenced petition of Willis Street Townbomes was legally advertised on January 4, 2007. The Board of Zoning Appeals gave it a public hearing on January 18, 2007, at which time the following action was taken: Upon a motion by Mr. Hoban, being seconded by Ms. Wilder-Hamilton and unanimously carried, the petition for Special Exceptions of Willis Street Townbomes for parcels A through H to allow single family attached dwellings on individual parcels and a Special Exception to for parcel I to allow for nine off-site visitor parking spaces for use by parcel A through H, on property located at 1750 Willis Avenue, is sent to the Common Council with a ravorable Recommendation. The deliberations of the 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. Sincerely, Charles C. Bulot Assistant Zoning Administrator DFF/cab ~~'ILLIS STREET TOE\'NI-IONIES (Of7~site earl:in) SPECIAL EXCEP"PION PURSUANT ? 1-09.3(D) BOARD OF CONING APPCALS CITY 01= SOUTI-] BEND, INDIANA FINDINGS OP FAC'1- 1. THE PROPOSED USE \\~ILL NOT BE 1N.IURIOUS TO "1~]-I L- PUBLIC I-IEAL"1'I-I- SAFL-TY, COMFORT, CONIMUNITl' )\IOP.AL STANDARDS, CON\~ENILNC'I~ OR GENERAL WELFARE BECAUSE: Development and use as presented will comply with all building. fire safety, traffic, and parking regulations as to not being= i~~jurious to the puUlic health, safet~~, morals, and Leneral welfare of the convnunity. 3. Tl-IE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT IN.TURE OR ADVERSELY AFFECT TI-IE U.SE OF TI-IE AD.TACENT APNEA OR I'P.OPEP.TY VALUES TI-IEREIN BECAUSE: The variance or special use shall improve the appearance of the neighborhood and will not devalue the surrounding properties. .. TI-I L- PROPOSED U.SL- WILL BE CONSISTENT \VITI-1 TI-I L- CI-IARACTER 01= THE- DISTRICT IN WI-IICI-I IT IS LOCATED AND TI-IE LAND USES ALJ"1~1-IORIZED TI-IEREIN BECAUSE: It is the feeling of the Board that the Special L-xception is not deviating fi-om the spirit, character and intention of the district in which it is located. 4. Tl-IE PROPOSED USE IS COMPATIBLE VVI"1'I-1 TI-IE RECOMMENDATIONS OF TI-IE CITY OF SOUTI-I BEND COAlPREFfEldSII EPLAN BECAUSE: It is the feeling of the Board that the variance is blending into the overall Comprehensive Plan and is not deviating li-om its intent. CONDITIONS OR RE\~ISIONS: DECISION IT IS TI-IEREFORE the decision of the Board that this request for Special Exception shall be passed onto the City of South Bend Common Council with a: FA~'OR4BLE RECOt11ME?VllAT10N ADOPTED this 1 Sth Day of ,lanuary, ?007. YES NO ® RICHARD KILBASE ® CHRISTOPH I-IOFFNIAN ® DAVID SASSANO ® MAURICE HOBAN ® L-LONDA WILDEP.-I-IAMILTON `VILLIS STRIJCT TO~'NHONIIJS The petition of Willis Street Townhomes seeking a Special Exception on parcels A through H to allow Single-family attached dwellings on individual parcels, a Special Exception for Parcel I to allow for nine off-site visitor parking spaces for use by parcels A through H; and variances as follows: Parcel A: From the minimum required 6' side yard setback along the North property line to 5', from the required 25' rear yard setback along the east property line to 0', from the required 6' interior yard around a building to 5' along the north property line and to 0' on east property line, fi-ot11 the tllaxttnutn 40% lot coverage to 52%, from the mininuun allowed 4,000 s.f. lot size for MFl and 6,000 s.f. for single family lot to 1,864 s.f.; and from the required perimeter landscape deciduous trees at a minimum spacing of 40' on-center along the.north, east, and soudl property lines to no trees; Parcel B: from the tnitiinnun 6' side yard setback to 0' on east anal west property lines, from the required 25' rear yard setback to 5' on the north property line, from the minimum required 6' interior yard around a building to 5' along north property line and to 0' on east 14 ~: Board of Zoning Appeals - .lanuary 18, 2007 anti west property lines, from the maximum 40`%~ lot coverage to 63`%; from the minimum 4,000 sq. ft. lot size in MFl and 6,000 sq. ft. for single family lot to 1,544 s.f.; from the required perimeter landscape deciduous tl'ees al a Illlillllllllll SpaClllg Of 40' on-center along the North, West, ~ast, alld SOUth pl'Opel'ty fines t0 110 tl'ees, alld a V211'I~111CC fI'0111 the l'egUll'ed 5O' frontage for MFl and GO' for single family lot on a public right-of=way to 0' with access allowed over a ingress and egress easement on Parcel I to Willis Avenue; Parcel C: from the illlllllllllill 1'egUll'ed C' side yard setback to 0' along the east and west property lines, from the required 25' rear yard setback to 5' on the north property line, fl'Olll the Illllllllllllll I'equll'ed 6' interior yard around a bulldulg to 5' OIl Ilofth pl'OI)erty Mlle alUl t0 O' alOllg East alld West pl'Operty hlleS; from the 40% Illaxlllllllll lot COVeI'age t0 63%~, a variance Gon1 the 4,000 s.f. lot size for MFl and 6,000 s.f. for single family lot to 1,545 s.f., from the 1'egUll'ed pel'lilletel' lalldSCapC deCldllollS tl'eeS at a lllllllllllllll SpaClllg Of 40' on-center along the North, West, East alld SOUth pl'Operty IIIIeS t0 Il0 tl'eeS; alld fl'0111 the lllmlllllllll Sn' frOlltage for MFI and 60' for single family lot on a public right-of--way to 0' with access allowed over an ingress and egress easement on Parcel [ to Willis Avenue; P~ll'Cel D: CI'Olll the nlllllllllilll 6' side yard setback to 0' along the east and west property lines, from the required 25' rear yard setback to 5' along the north property line, fl'Olll the Illlllllllllill l'egUll'ed 6' llltel'IOY yal'd al'Olllld a blllldlllg t0 S' along the north property line and to 0' along the east and west property lines; from the 40%~ lot coverage to 63%, from the 4,000 s.f. lot size for MF1 and 6,000 s.f. for single family lot to 1,609 s.f., from the required perimeter landscape deciduous trees at a minimum spacing of 40' on-center along the north, west, east, and south property lines to no trees, and from the required 50' frontage for MFl and 60' for single family on a public right-of--way to 0' with access allowed over an Ingress and egress easement on parcel I to Willis Avenue; Parcel E: from the 6' side yard setback along to the north property line to 2' and 0' along the south property line, from the 25' rear yard setback along the east property line to 5', fi'om the required 6' interior yard around a building to 2' on the north property line, 5' along the east property line, and to 0' along the south property line, from the 40% lot coverage to 60%, from the 4,000 s.f. lot size for MF1 anti 6,000 s.f. for single family to 2,443 s.f., from the required perimeter landscape deciduous trees at a Illlllilllllill SpaClllg of 40' on-center along the north, west, east, and south property lines to no trees, and from the 50' frontage for MF1 and 60' for single family on a public right-of--way to 0' with access allowed over a an ingress and egress easement on parcels F, G, and I to Willies Avenue; Parcel F: from the 6' side yard setback to 0' along the north and south property lines, from the required 25' rear yard setback to 5' along the east property line, from the 6' interior yard around a building to 5' along the east property line and 0' along the north and south property lines; from the 40% lot coverage to 53%, from the 4,000 s.f. lot size in MFl and 6,000 s.f. for single family to 1,870 s.E, from the required perimeter landscape deciduous trees at a minimum spacing of 40 feet on-center along the north, west, east, and south property lines to no trees; and from the required 50' frontage for MF1 and 60' for single family on a public right-of--way to 0' with access allowed over an ingress and egress easement on parcels G and I to Willis Avenue; Parcel G: from the 6' side yard setback to 0' along the north and south property lines, from the 25' rear yard setback to 5' along the east property line, from the 6' interior yard around a building to 5' along the east property line and to 0' along the north and south property lines, from the 40% lot coverage to 53%, from the 4,000 s.f. lot size for MFl and 6,000 s. f. for single family l0 1,869 s.f, from the required perimeter landscape deciduous trees at a minimum Spaclllg of 40' on-center along the north, west, east, and south property lines to no trees; and from the minimum 50' lol frontage for MF1 and 60' for single family on a public right-of--way to 0' with access allowed over an ingress and egress easement on Parcel I to Willis Avenue; Parcel H: from the 6' side yard setback to 0' along the north property line, from the 25' rear yard setback to 5' along the east property line, fi'on1 the 6' interior yard around a building to 5' along the east property line and to 0' along the north property line, from the 40% lot coverage to 63%, from the 4,000 s.f. lot size for MF1 and 6,000 s.f. for single family to 1,544 s. f., from the required perimeter landscape deciduous trees at a minimum spacing of 40' on-center along the north, west, east, and south property lines to no trees; and from the required 50' frontage in MF1 and 60' 15 Board of Zoning Appeals -January 18, 2007 for single family on a public right-of--way to 0' with access allowed over an ingress and egress easement on Parcel I to Willis Avenue; Parcel l: from the G' side yard setback to 0' along the north property line for pavement, from the 25' rear yard setback to 0' along the east property line for pavement, from the 4,000 s. f. lot size for MFI and b,000 s.f. for single family to 5,859 s. f., from the required perimeter landscape deciduous trees al ~l 1111nImUm SpaClllg of 40' On-Centel' along the north and G~lst property 11neS t0 no trees, fl'om the 50' frontage for MFl and CO' for single fanllly on a public right-of--way to 57' on Willis Avenue; and for an accessory visitor parking lot without a prnnary use, on property located at 1750 Willis Avenue. This property is zoned MFI. MR. MICHAEL DANCH: Danch, Aarner & Associates, 1643 Commerce Drive, South Bend representing then petitioners Willis Sheet Townhomes, LLC. Also here with me today is one of the member of the LLC is Mr. Mark Carney and also he brought Mr. Steve Snyder the attorney who put together all of the documents for the homeowners association. As you can see, what We're really asking for, and I'll get down to the basics, there's an existing residential development that we had approved and we had it brought into the City of South Bend. This property was originally in St..1oe County under the R residential. Last year we came through an annexation and a rezoning procedure and rezoned it to the MF1 district for single family attached villas. At the time Oul' petltlOllel' W1S Mr. John Roy. Mr. Joht1 Roy has since sold that property to Willis Street Townhomes LLC. When Mr. Carney decided to this particular development instead of doing rental units on this property they would like to sell the units fee simple to their contingent purchasers. What they have found from a marketing standpoint is that by selling fee simple on a piece of property it is easier for a client to obtain a mortgage than going through the condominium through the state of Indiana. So the reason that We're asking for a lot of the variances you see here this afternoon is the ability to basically split property lines down party walls between the single family attached Townhomes units. The petitioner has had a lot of experience doing this. We did a similar project for them in the Town of Roseland which is called Dublin Village. And that particular one we had a several acre tract of grotuld and we had approximately I believe 55 to 60 units. We went through the Town of Roseland and did exactly the same thing you see here Where they split off each of the units and sold them as a fee simple on a legal lot of record. Because of the way the Town of Roseland was set up we did not need several variances that you see here. Basically we were able to get approval with the zoning and then go back and do a subdivision plat. So it was a little simpler there. But because of the way the ordinance is written for the City of South Bend though, even though I'm going to be doing single family and are under the MFl district in order to have a single family unit in the MF1 district I'm required to come before this Board for a recommendation for obviously favorable approval to have a single family dwelling unit under the MF 1 district. That's one of the Special Exceptions that we're asking this Board to grant us. The other Special Exception is because of the way the development was done we provided additional parking on the site for visitor parking, obviously for the townhome development. Again because the way the ordinance is described I have to ask for a Special Exception for off site par(<ing. We Will be putting that parking on what you see as Parcel I on this c}evelopment. The units themselves will be the Parcel A through H. The wrap around parcel to the north and to the east of the buildings will be outlot A. Homeowners association is a very detailed anti Don had received a copy from the petitioners attorney on how that will specifically be }aid out to basically address Don's concerns on the conunoll ownership areas. The documents, or the homeowners association will continue to have ownership of the visitor parking area. Access into this particular site and they will also own that outlot A which is that perimeter landscape area along the north and east boundary of the property. Area Plan had a concern that because those particular parcels were not going to Ue attached to the single family units that they could potentially come up for a tax sale and they would be removed from this and the county would get them back through a tax sale. Because of the way the documents are written and obviously for parcel I because it has the direct access to Willis Street that will not happen. outlot A because it 16 Board of Zoning Appeals - January 18, 2007 is so small you would not be able to build on it and basically we are using it for our landscape requirements [or the City of South Belld. Agalll that's IIOt gOlllg t0 COllle lip for' a taX Sale, that W111 ]llallltaln Wlth the hO111eOWlle1'S aSSOClatl011 s0 WG hOplllg that pal'tlClllal' item is addressed. The other variances that you see are strictly because we're creating lot lines between the buildings along the party walls and due to the way the ol'dinance for the City of South Bend is written what [had attempted to do is meet the single family standards so all the variances you see for side yard setbacks, rear yard setback, frontage requirements, density because under the single family COCIGS 1 be11eVG lhel'e 1S a I11aXllllu111 density OI' COVerage Of blllldlllgS Of 40'%x. SO What you're seeing through this whole thing is because we're selling the building on a smaller piece of property it's going above that 40~%~ requirement. So we have attempted to basically ask for all the variances that would be allowed for these individual Townhomes to be sold fee simple to a owner and then we Would go before the AI'ea Mall COI111111SSIOl1 and do a llllllol' SllbdlVl51011 to create legal lots of record. That's kind of the jest of what you're seeing here. The request that we had for landscaping we had is we ah'eady had a site plan approved for this development with the City of South Bend. The landscaping request clown to zero trees is because we are doing the perimeter tree and landscaping on that outlot A around the site. And if you have any questions for n1e or Mr. Carney or his attorney we Would be happy to answer them. MR. SASSANO: I have one quick question, there's a homeowners association that will oversee landscaping and maintenance. Are there requirements about rentals? I mean could these turn into eight rental units? MR. STEVE SNDYER: 200 W. Main St., Syracuse, Indiana. I'm the attorney for the project that wrote the covenant There is no restrictive covenant prohibiting rental of those at the present time. It would be no different than owning a COlldOnllll(11111 or owning a single family residence and renting it out. It will be individual ownership. MR. FOZO: Excuse ule the declaration that was given to nle as an example I thought it did not restrict rental hilt It reStClCtGd rental fOr at least a SlX IllOlltll SO yoll COllld not CIO It Oll a ]llontllly baS1S Ol' a[lytlllllg. A lOllg tel'lll. MR. SNYDER: Yes. IN I+AVOR There was no one present to speak in favor of this petition. RCI\~IONSTRANCiJ There was no one present to speak in remonstrance of this petition. MR. HOFFMAN: And this time I won't forget you. Does Area Plan have any comments? MR. NEMETH: I'll just keep it brief. Our department supports both Special Exceptions and variances. The planning director informed me just before the meeting, just because of the Commissioners policy during the subdivision phase the developer might be required to extend the lot lines into the parking lot and the outlot. But it's a might is what he said. 17 . ' Board of Zoning Appeals - .lanuary 18, 2007 MR. DANCI-I: And we understand that particular requirement. I was talking to John Byorni also just before the meeting slatted and if that's the case probably the one that would cause a problem would be outlot A that we would be extending the lot lines up and through, that's where our landscaping is going to be on the perimeter boundary. I think they are going to be okay with Parcel I because that has the parking on it and that is the one that guarantees access for all these individual units so I don't think that will be difficult. MR. SASSANO: I need to ask one question and I'll try to ask as quickly as possible. When I read this I thought one of two things, either A our language In OUI' ZOning Is JUSt, we missed that. Why can't you have a single Family townhouse. The first paragraph for the zoning for multi family urban corridor says the development standards are designed to promote the establishment of multifamily dwelling projects including apartment, townhouse and row house style development. This is clearly a row house style development but then Otl the OlhGl' hftnCl they almOSl Seelll t0 pUl'pOSCIy eXCIUde Slagle fanllly. SO I'm thinking to myself here, what am I missing here? MR. FOZO: They're excluding a single family residence sitting out that we don't think in the -i)ixed use if you're dense area that a single family might not fit into a street side mixed use. Do you understand... MR. SASSANO: Single family. I'm not talking about detached dwellings ... MR. FOZO: I know it and let me continue. That is what they were looking at in malting a Special Use is if you allow a single family as a permitted use, you could have a residence built in the middle of your two story mixed use. Very dense city urbanized area. So that is why it addresses it. The townhomes if they were rental units and it's all connected absolutely wouldn't need any type of variances. Even though they ace townhomes and even if you go the condo they are still a multi family. MR. SASSANO: Why aren't these townhomes? What is a townhome? MR. FOZO: A townhome is just an upper lower. Villas, townhomes, condo's, and David we can talk about this for an hour, are the most missed used terms in the country. Villas, there are no such things They are a marketing tool the realtors came up with to charge more for certain units and have some outside maintenance with it but it's a single family home. But anyway in order to do this, this can come through what has already been issued it could stay a rental unit and basically they would not be before this Board. They could go a condo and it would not go before the Board. But for marketing concept to own that ground underneath these, they have to through the variances and the Special Use. MR. SASSANO: My question is, did the intent of that, is there something I'm missu)g...? MR. POZO: It would be no different than to stop a single family residence from coming into the middle of downtown South Bend, period. MR. SASSANO: The question then is, what do we have against ownership? What an) I missing here? MR. FOZO: Well, you as a designer, and that you addressed aesthetics quite often, I think there's times that you would not want that one story single family among the large buildings. MR. SASSANO: You're missing my ... 18 ' Board of Zoning Appeals - .lanuary 18, 2007 MR. I±OZO: No you're missing the point of why mixed use, or why multi family in some cases addresses a single lamily as a Special Exception. That is why. There arc some points that they need to be addressed. MR. SASSANO: Correct me if I'm wrong, but this doesn't even allow it as a Special Exception? MR. BOZO: Yes, that's why they're before you. They're asking for a Special Exception. MR. SASSANO: Single family? MR. DANCH: Yeah, that's why we're actually asking for that because since we're going to be doing what we consider single family even though it's attached with that party wall. Because of the way the ordinance is worded I have to ask for that Special Exception. MR. SASSANO: So the city's only concern is that there be a detached single family home, okay. So it doesn't have to do with the fact that you have party walls. A renter next to an owner, or I have legal issues w-th Water runoff? I mean that's what I'm thinking, I'm missing something. Because it seems you have gone out of your way to specify that. MR. FOZO: The first cut of the ordinance did not even allow a single family as a Special Exception which we corrected already. And we're making continual corrections to that ordinance. MR. SASSANO: Okay I just wanted to make sure [wasn't missing something. A motion to send the Special Exceptions to the Common Council with Favorable Recommendations was made by Mr. Hoban and seconded by Ms. Wilder-Hamilton The lllotloll Cal'1'led LlllallllllOllsly. A motion for approval of all the variances for Parcel A through I was made by Mr. Hoban and seconded by Mr. ICilbase. The motion carried unanimously. After hearing the evidence on the petition, the Board of Zoning Appeals find that you did satisfy the Standards as set forth in LC. 36-7-4-918.5; therefore, the petitions for Special Exception were sent to the Common Cowlcil with Favorable Recommendations and the petition for all the variances for Parcels A through I granted. Based on the testimony presented, the Board of Zoning Appeals, after careful consideration, finds the petitions for Special Exceptions sent to the Common Council with Favorable Recommendations and the petition for variances for lots A through I granted and will issue written Finding of Facts. PCTITIONS FOR SPrCIAL iJXCCPTIONS SCNT TO THC COMMON COUNCIL WITH FAVORAI3LC RCCOMMCNDATIONS PIJITION FOR ALL VARIANCCS FOR PARCCL A TIIROUGH IGRAN Filed !n C1eI`Ec'~ Office FEB 5 2007 19 JG~a>`J VCCRDE C{iY Ci.~',"si:, ~0. E3END, IN.