Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17-75 Special Exception 806 Howard Street r' AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 125 S. Lafayette Blvd., Suite 100, South Bend, Indiana 46601 574-235-9554 - (Fax) 574-235-5541 - building(a)southbendin.gov www.southbendin.gov SPECIAL EXCEPTION & VARIANCE PETITION ABZA DATE: Wednesday,December 6,2017 PETITIONER Alliance Architects (574)288-2052 mmurphy @alliarch.com Name Phone Email 929 Lincolnway East, Suite 200 South Bend IN 46601 Address City ST Zip PROPERTY OWNER(IF DIFFERENT THAN PETITIONER) Pandora Partners,LLC (574)339-0275 chris.shepherdl @me.com Name Phone Email 1251 N. Eddy Street, Suite 200 South Bend IN 46617 Address City ST Zip PRESENTER(IF DIFFERENT THAN PETITIONER) Name Phone Email Address City ST Zip PROPERTY INFORMATION O Office Portage Zoning Township 806 Howard Street South Bend IN 46617 Address City ST Zip Legal Description PARCEL I: A lot or parcel of land,74 feet in length,East and West,taken off of and from the entire width of the West end of the Lot Numbered One Hundred and Twenty-Five(125)as shown on the recorded Plat of Edward Sorin's Second Addition to the Town of Lowell, now within and a part of the City of South Bend, in St. Joseph County, Indiana. PARCEL 11: Part of Lot Numbered One Hundred Twenty-Five (125) as shown on the recorded Plat of Sorin's Second Addition to Lowell, now a part of the City of South Bend,described as beginning 74 feet East of the Northwest comer of said lot; thence running South 66 feet; thence East 45 feet to an alley; thence North 12 feet; thence West 25.5 feet; thence North 54 feet; thence West 19.5 feet to the place of beginning. PARCEL III: Part of Lot Numbered One Hundred Twenty-Five (125)as shown on the recorded Plat of Sorin's Second Addition to Lowell, now a part of the City of South Bend, described as commencing on the North line of said Lot 125, 93.6 feet East of the Northwest comer of said lot; thence South 54 feet; thence East 26 feet; thence North 54 feet; thence West 26 feet to the place of beginning. Together with the West Half of the vacated alley lying East of and adjacent to Parcels 11 and III. PARCEL IV: Grant of Easement recorded April 21, 2017 as Instrument No. 1709777 in the Office of the Recorder of Saint Joseph County, Indiana. SPECIAL EXCEPTION & VARIANCE(S) Seeking Special Exception Use to allow a "Dwelling Unit - Upper Level" within the O Office District and Variances to include: 1) Variance to reduce the required front yard and building setback from 25'to 10'at north and from 25'to 20'at west; 2) Variance to reduce the required side residential buffer yard and building setback from 8'to 5'at south and from 8'to 0'at east; 3) Variance to reduce the required off-street parking from 35 spaces to 4 spaces; 4) Variance to delete off-street parking area screening at east side yard; 5) Variance to reduce the required minimum number of ADA parking spaces from 2 spaces to 1 space; and 6) Variance to reduce the minimum width of parking lot maneuvering aisle from 24'to 0'. REASON FOR REQUEST(S) These approvals are necessary in order for the existing building to be renovated as planned by Superior Property Holdings, LLC. SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL STANDARDS 1. The approval will not be injurious to the public health,safety,morals and general welfare of the community because the proposed residential use is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or property values therein because the owner will make a significant financial investment and improve the exterior appearance of the property. 3. The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located and the land uses authorized therein. It should also be noted that the proposed uses (office and residential) are generally considered to be less intensive than the current use (retail). 4. The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the City of South Bend Comprehensive Plan because it involves the adaptive reuse of an existing structure and includes an upper floor dwelling unit above office space. VARIANCE APPROVAL STANDARDS 1. The approval will not be injurious to the public health,safety,morals and general welfare of the community because on-street parking will be available to supplement the existing on-site parking. The on-street parking will also serve as "traffic calming"along Howard Street. 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 because the on-site parking is existing and will remain in place. Also,the building setback variances are necessary in order for the existing building walls to be compliant with the current ordinance. The north building setback variance will also permit the construction of a new deck/porch which will project approximately 6'beyond the existing wall. 3. The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because a similar parking variance was granted when the existing building was constructed in 1992. The South Bend Building Department has confirmed that the parking requirements for the existing retail use and proposed office use are identical: 3.5 spaces per 1,000 GSF. The parking requirement for the Dwelling Unit-Upper Floor is two spaces. 1l t--7 LICANT SIGNATURE Date Martin J. Murphy, RA Alliance Architects Name AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 125 S. Lafayette Blvd., Suite 100, South Bend, Indiana 46601 574-235-9554 • (Fax) 574-235-5541 - building(a southbendin.gov www.southbendin.gov NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given to all interested persons that the Area Board of Zoning Appeals will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers on the 4'h Floor of the County-City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, on the 6'h day of December, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard. This hearing is for the purpose of considering a petition that was filed by: Alliance Architects, on behalf of Pandora Partners, LLC, 929 Lincolnway East, Suite 200, South Bend, IN 46601 Seeking: 1) Special Exception Use allowing "Dwelling Unit - Upper Level" within O Office District. 2) Variance to reduce the required front yard and building setback from 25'to 10'at north and from 25'to 20'at west. 3) Variance to reduce the required side residential buffer yard and building setback from 8'to 5'at south and from 8'to 0'at east. 4) Variance to reduce the required off-street parking from 35 spaces to 4 spaces. 5) Variance to delete off-street parking area screening at east side yard. 6) Variance to reduce the required minimum number of ADA parking spaces from 2 spaces to 1 space. 7) Variance to reduce the minimum width of parking lot maneuvering aisle from 24'to 0'. On real estate commonly described as: 806 Howard Street, South Bend, Indiana 46617 and is legally described as follows: PARCEL I: A lot or parcel of land,74 feet in length,East and West,taken off of and from the entire width of the West end of the Lot Numbered One Hundred and Twenty-Five(125)as shown on the recorded Plat of Edward Sorin's Second Addition to the Town of Lowell, now within and a part of the City of South Bend, in St.Joseph County, Indiana. PARCEL 11: Part of Lot Numbered One Hundred Twenty-Five (125) as shown on the recorded Plat of Sorin's Second Addition to Lowell, now a part of the City of South Bend,described as beginning 74 feet East of the Northwest corner of said.lot; thence running South 66 feet; thence East 45 feet to an alley; thence North 12 feet; thence West 25.5 feet; thence North 54 feet; thence West 19.5 feet to the place of beginning. PARCEL III: Part of Lot Numbered One Hundred Twenty-Five(125) as shown on the recorded Plat of Sorin's Second Addition to Lowell, now a part of the City of South Bend, described as commencing on the North line of said Lot 125, 93.6 feet East of the Northwest corner of said lot; thence South 54 feet; thence East 26 feet; thence North 54 feet; thence West 26 feet to the place of beginning. Together with the West Half of the vacated alley lying East of and adjacent to Parcels U and III. PARCEL IV: Grant of Easement recorded April 21, 2017 as Instrument No. 1709777 in the Office of the Recorder of Saint Joseph County,,Indiana. Dated this qd- day of /I��' — AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Carolyn A. He Secretary to the Board TO THE PETITIONER: It is your responsibility to complete this form correctly and deliver it to the Secretary of the Board of Zoning Appeals with the other papers at the time of original filing. Once it is signed by the Secretary, then it is your responsibility to make arrangements to have publication of notice made in a local newspaper having general circulation in St.Joseph County. Such notice must be published one(1) time,being at least ten(10)days prior to the date on which the public hearing is to be held. Proof of publication must be presented to the Board at the time of public hearing. � O `t7 9,C� AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 125 S. Lafayette Blvd., Suite 100, South Bend,Indiana 46601 574-235-9554 • (Fax) 574-235-5541 - building(@southbendin.gov www.southbendin.gov NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS You are hereby notified that a public hearing will be held by the Area Board of Zoning Appeals on Wednesday,the 6`b day of December, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers on the 4`b Floor of the County-City Building,227 W. Jefferson Blvd.,South Bend,Indiana A petition is on file by: Alliance Architects, on behalf of Pandora Partners, L.LC, 929 Lincolnway East, Suite 200, South Bend, IN 46601. Seeking: 1) Special Exception Use allowing "Dwelling Unit - Upper Level" within O Office District. 2) Variance to reduce the required front yard and building setback from 25'to 10'at north and from 25'to 20'at west. 3) Variance to reduce the required side residential buffer yard and building setback from 8'to 5'at south and from 8'to 0'at east. 4) Variance to reduce the required off-street parking from 35 spaces to 4 spaces. 5) Variance to delete off-street parking area screening at east side yard. 6) Variance to reduce the required minimum number of ADA parking spaces from 2 spaces to 1 space. 7) Variance to reduce the minimum width of parking lot maneuvering aisle from 24'to 0'. On property commonly described as: 806 Howard Street, South Bend, Indiana 46617. Said public hearing will be held as authorized by the applicable Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 138, Acts of 1957 of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana. As a property owner within the immediate appeal area, this notice is sent to you as a courtesy. Sometimes,for reasons beyond our control,property owners within the immediate area of the subject property will not receive a copy of this notice. If you know of someone who should have received notice but didn't,please inform them of this hearing. Any persons desiring to oppose or support this petition will be heard at the time of the hearing. AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Carolyn A. H Secretary to the Board 1 i RESOLUTION NO. i A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND,INDIANA, l APPROVING A PETITION OF THE AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 806 Howard Street,Portage Township,South Bend,Indiana 46617 1 WHEREAS, Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-918.6, requires the Common Council to give notice j pursuant to Indiana Code Section 5-14-15-5,of its intention to consider Petitions from the Board f of Zoning Appeals for approval or disapproval; and WHEREAS,the Common Council must take action within sixty(60)days after the Board of Zoning I Appeals makes its recommendation to the Council; and i WHEREAS,the Common Council is required to make a determination in writing on such requests I 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. ' i NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY I OF SOUTH BEND,INDIANA as follows: SECTION 1. 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 f Special Exception be granted for the property located at: 806 Howard Street,Portage Township,South Bend, Indiana 46617 in order to permit Special Exception Use: "Dwelling Unit-Upper Level" SECTION II. 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 t which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. ; I SECTION III. 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; and I s i 4. The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the City of South Bend Comprehensive Plan. i 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, I 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 i i Member of the Common Council r i I i s r i { i i i !I i f -riled in Clerk's Office I 1 st READING PUBUC HEARING NOV 0 9 2017 3 rd READING NOT APPROVE^; f REFERRED ;AREEMAH FOWLER DASCrn CITYCLER&SOUTH BEND,IN j PANDORA PARTNERS LLC 1251 N.EDDY ST,SURE 200 SOUTH SEND,IN 46617 (574)339.0275 CHRIS.SHEPHERD1Qa ME.COM October 31, 2017 To Whom it May Concern, Pandora Partners, LLC hereby authorizes Alliance Architects to serve as its representative during the submission and public hearings related to the petition for a special exception use and variances for the property commonly described as 806 Howard Street, South Bend, Indiana 46617, Sincerely, Christopher Shepherd Member Type: Filing_Fees Payor:ALLIANCE ARCHITECTS License Number: Address:806 HOWARD SP EXCEPTION & VARIANCES 11/9/2017 9:10:49 AM Filing_Fees $570.00 Check 013148 $570.00 chenry 10124 AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 125 S. Lafayette Blvd. Suite 100 South Bend, Indiana 46601 (574)235-9554 FAX: (574)235-5541 December 7,2017 The Honorable Common Council South Bend Of the City of South Bend 4th Floor, County-City Building South Bend, Indiana 46601 RE: Petition for Special Exception Pandora Partners, LLC 12/06/17 Dear Council Members: The above referenced petition of Pandora Partners,LLC was legally advertised on November 16, 2017. The Area Board of Zoning Appeals gave it a public hearing on December 6, 2017, at which time the following action was taken: Upon a motion by Mr. Urbanski, being seconded by Ms. Schuth and by a favorable vote of 4-1,the petition for Special Exception to allow a"Dwelling Unit"—Upper Level in an"0"Office District, located at 806 Howard St., Portage Township,zoned"0"Office is sent to the 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. Sincerely,, Charles C. Bulot, C.B.O. Building Commissioner CCB/cah PETITION SPECIAL EXCEPTION PURSUANT 21-09.3(D) AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Pandora Partners, 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: The accessory residential use should have no impact on the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community. 2. THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT INJURE OR ADVERSELY AFFECT THE USE OF THE ADJACENT AREA OR PROPERTY VALUES THEREIN BECAUSE: Because the site has been used as an office for many years,the proposed addition of the residential use should not impact surrounding property values. 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: This Special Exception Use for the upper level dwelling unit is consistent with the O Office District and the surrounding neighborhood in which it will be located. 4. THE PROPOSED USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BECAUSE: City Plan, South Bend Comprehensive Plan(November 2006)identifies this area as Medium Density Residential. CONDITIONS OR REVISIONS: Click here to enter text. 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 December,2017 MOTION SECOND RECUSED ABSENT YES NO N ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ MICHAEL URBANSKI ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ RANDALL MATTHYS ❑ ® ❑ ❑ N O KATHYSCHUTH ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ JOHN LESZCZYNSKI ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ JACK YOUNG ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ N ROBERT HAWLEY ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 N D BRENDAN CRUMLISH JOOHIN to uo!ss!wad eopu8 peal!ea U uellum ssajdxa 941 lno4►im pazuo4lne lou si leualew s!yl to uo!lnquls!p jo uoilonpadaa au!ualuaO peon ',Qg!geluegojaw io doeinooe jol paluejjem lou s!dew siyl uo UM04S uo!lewJoluj pempea pauopuegy pempea 'wnleo ueouawy pealieb 41JON£96L walsAS aleu!pJooO aueld ale)S lse3 eueipul uo paseq si pub aleu!plooO luudlood 6wpimg 'J 1 ,� laa�lS 1113 = j.. Loo loo 000 0 laejlSOfS = sail" r� s!aoied Hl3 ❑ slaaed OfS 1aa100-9L=40u!L all!19nSiXj o lgnd 'A8 paleiauag deyl suo!suaw!Q I831ed OfS ajIsgaM SIC) leuoiftM uuggoiw pua68-1 EfI P� j LSL6104S 8l0' I t , .r s qq� a k V »v IS plcrnoH moo-" �`��. � � �•� �• � Y� .! I k,,-fa�L � �.�►_ �a r At 6• L — J - w.-�' Zl i 1:" LI ♦ .., � � SZ�,=ILO / d Alice H Isaacson 909 N. St. Peter St. Sasman Enterprises LLC Megan M Kolaczyk 925 N. Notre Dame Ave. 918 N. St. Louis Blvd. South Bend, IN 46617 Parcel#018-5107-3766 South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN 46617 Parcel#018-5107-3771 Parcel#018-5107-3755 Robert D and Katherine C Kossler Hansen Syrus White Jill R. Bodensteiner 1020 N. St. Peter St. Bend, 922 N. 5t. Louis 920 N. St. Peter St. South B IN 46617 Parcel#end,018-5104-3651 6 South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN 46617 Parcel#018-5107-3798 Parcel#018-5107-3778 Pandora Partners LLC Scott R.Appleby Sara and Thomas Mustillo 51720 Bluffside Court 912 N. St. Peter St. 926 N. St. Peter St. Granger, IN 46530 South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN 46617 Parcel#018-5107-3768;#018-5107-3770 Parcel#018-5107-3783 Parcel#018-5107-3774 The University of Notre Dame Julie A. Peterson Robert J. and Deborah S. Bernhard 725 Grace Hall 902 N. St. Peter St. 1019 N. Notre Dame Ave. Notre Dame, IN 46556 South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN 46617 Parcel#018-5107-3772;#018-5104-3632 Parcel#018-5107-3786 Parcel#018-5104-3653 #018-5104-3631 Perret D Hunter Brian R. and Alison K Levey Ebrahim I Moosa 1301 Camelia Blvd., Ste 400 918 N. St. Peter St. Moosa Family 2016(Trust)Lafayette, LA 70508 South Bend, IN 46617 1008 N. St Peter St. Parcel#018-5104366101;#018-5104-3661 Parcel#018-5107-3778 South Bend, IN 46617 #018-5104-3662 Parcel#018-5104-3658;#018-5104-3657 ND 2019 LLC John T. McGreevey and Jean C. c/o Kendall Gray Rita A. Schmid Mamanus 64 Florence Ave 919 N. Notre Dame Ave. 1010 N. Notre Dame Ave. New Providence, NJ 07974 South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN 46617 Parcel#018-5107-376601 Parcel#018-5107-3780 Parcel#018-5105-3673 James and Gia Haigh Rudy N. Reyes Ani Apbrahamian(Trust) 925 N. Notre Dame Ave. 1014 N. St. Peter St. 936 N. Notre Dame Ave. South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN 46617 Parcel#018-5107-3776;#018-5107-3775 Parcel#018-5104-3654 Parcel#018-5106-3713 South Bend Housing Authority Stephen C Smith Thomas J. and Shannon E. Guinan 501 S. Scott St. 4404 Technology Dr. 807 Grace Hall South Bend, IN 46613 South Bend, IN 46617 Notre Dame, IN 46556 Parcel#018-5107-3756 Parcel#018-5104-3630 Parcel#018-5107-3782 Mathew M and Elizabeth Sanford Thomas E and Elizabeth R Burman William C. III and Courtney D. Mattison 1013 N. St. Peter St. 920 N. Notre Dame Ave. 313 Visitation Hall South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN 46617 Notre Dame, IN 46556 Parcel#018-5104-3629 Parcel#018-5106-3721 Parcel#018-5106-3717;#018-5106-3718 John B. Swarbrick and Kimberly A Barbara Virginia Sniegowski as Highsmith Avance Hudgens-Swarbrick Trustee of Barbara Virginia 924 St. Louis Blvd. 1016 N Notre Dame Ave. 917 N. St. Peter St. 7 South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN Parcel#018-5105-3672 Parcel#018-5107-3763;#018-5107-3762 Parcel#018-5107--379379 7 d " Willie and Brenda J. Martin-Groves Mark Kurtis 713 Howard St. 702 E Howard St. South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN Parcel#018-51043616 Parcel#018-5107-3789 Thomas Stroka 1017 N. St Peter St. South Bend, IN 46617 Parcel#018-51043628 Marc D. and Jeanette M. Burdell 901 N. Notre Dame Ave. South Bend, IN 46617 Parcel#018-5107-3788 Irish Homestead LLC 150 Carondelet Piz.#2601 Saint Louis, MO 63105 Parcel#018-5106-3750 Steven T.and Jennifer H. Fortener 1006 Notre Dame Ave. South Bend, IN 46617 Parcel#018-510-367302 Daniel B. and Kelly O. Kelly 18471 Spring Mist Ct. South Bend, IN 46637 Parcel#018-5401-3659;#018-5401-3660 Christine M. Boetticher(Trust) 1017 Notre Dame Ave. South Bend, IN 46601 Parcel#018-5104-3655 Cyril J. Oregon and Geraldine Meehan 907 N. Notre Dame Ave. South Bend, IN 46617 Parcel#018-5107-3784 Jan Martin Klass Cremers and Lisbeth Marieke Misdorp 914 N. Notre Dame Ave. South Bend, IN 46617 Parcel#018-5106-3725 City of South Bend 227 West Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, Indiana 46601 Parcel#018-5107-3800;#018-5107-3794 3.° �''�a� r� , E' ..i �yam'},'t 3e '� t• �' '. `{ 1. 1 � ����fi�#•y�{, .,X.. •'e �,eiw. •1 it*4., I� , }i � •:�,,r s .., :4:' °cwt `I t' 7 " ► ��{ e. �( _ '`I �l!E� Y -i�t a a 3'rG 'a,� `" •a`�i•�i[ • � E L i; 'UDR _,(.`' :'�.� as .•1 r+ss {-°•s' 'r /v:.' _.._ 3e �,' jrt',' IMF qw YA , y 1 y n �T' •i... r y t a i 1 f i rr G>•i• r" '' .a7 yy� •y' s ,.P},:•!�� �!(� snt t ^� � + }• � 'i I �( ,�}'s �r�yT,+� �a � ..�sf�`,. . a�4�ra ; V6•+f.1 I' 1 1d•1,�a 1:ta' l V"y�1^ N, �lif�~, 1 Y V31:✓af�•`�\S_+ CcF.- •.. .y 1 - ,, r+�. /eswr•Ll• a��.^, Qn j�pycr.rv���."'d vj.s+"!W' q.�?,9 ,��py." FC � d f' +k n�'?�� i��j i' `� �•. -fib __�T •r F � 'i ��.. • F 3 Aii �.}rr���yy++�rjt" ,��sr' � t-1 � �a.°3' � 9• %- 7fu4 a*.v e F'. t 'J ,o t ,r 'k F t~ 9 � l" IN PARIS y, r* r ��.• (� a s l a e ' a fTC' �t�yy� ♦'q. W. ■' jw NatY�� �• "7lPt t:' {r t,r , ' a� ...Yy S+k'atFs 1. ^ ,., h• ,.y tii.k a' ^t�h ?d � R' fyt;t�,� -} , f 1 T Ir 91�ht a ESN' �`-A,a �t T>a w,• � 1, 1'- ' � +,!'3 e� 'A+. r.�.17/3d,' �/ yet^, !t! Y+ r•� r f eY FiT ,. � #: �1,. �� 7\K h• �� .T,13JGa�rY�G..dx. `'y t A7 _,� '� '�i•t��+%ti S ,t. ��"` v.�i a�'�� e F`�Y t � �"�."�CJCN .. 1t MMWA .-ow,��• .nv-n o •rri+..�a�,c...`', '`'v ..an.. 'f ,I't\�� tv K\s �"�• : .> ^• ` '. '',; - h :� of fi- :.t'.r'�''" .r. ._r; yam'•• .. ;,'_`. i •t ,� - a o y � i 11 1 �• moo?,!. "' � � ��' � ' ��±� „i•' '� .; '?!^F` k��b�, 1 �� r �. l •} a ..7F i� t t �e K *�; 9►��C+k .�"''. � t: L�.`, Y � ,�, •'s try' � `r• {'.� -��1 Y . \♦. '• .. •'mow ;, j.`• t'. �. V"� 'w;`5 a 1h 3. ti L' "k 7c l � Y 7T yq �' A•' to 1 , i' r , 1 { R � .l WWI` r � ,����`y e ♦ I 1 q�. 5 sue•" . S •e �\o= �, � ' o VK F�?"4''t''��''��4fr:ter' 4f ` jY'�•.�: ,yl�j 1 k .... •li G y��d. Y ,� i+ r _ .� h��rf,,�_. a it. _ i I I i � r 6 j<!i2 `{`; •• y iHJ J+, is S y` L JR•� } ;- ! •ai� is it �,.> R '�°"�"�.sm.•-�`•F,u ":7 , -�;�_ .'�r��+ .., ¢ :a ate.•'. '; f +=r �i I �k � 'a t a •+A .M' AW l •� � R :. d., st t ' e t x �a c MI 9. '4 » ty fiat r 4 LALGt 411", 'w 1 v r r , � y • t E f A�l Alm NEW W .. L l� �t � 14� , 1: �► �yy � j�� A co L y m U y U WE U c C WU T s 4W .O Z I 'o c n a c r m000 = R • - vO CI _ s r r� t� a LIS .= U ,O ,t I 3 N N nl r- Z 1 F N � C7 n 4LC,3 -li c ca C ca rA 0 0 0 c� n U o ° ca ca ca .� 0 O +r v� 3 "O a� ca o Uac�a ° c°i '° O 1 O O ink O�•�VV VO; cOCV°EN,•'mRCC«d -ez __ >.eo,^`�i�- O c•C 3 T�o""V u'c4 m pZ� r, u� .U'E vo u Gv:.�U Ery,•a - , •`u°w s n,F =.W�`�vo�,•n�,i� Er e+.nia E° E v ..� u❑°•;�co,-.g>� .emu.. O L_ E��Eoc •Z'N-".-0 A'-^ -i �.-Zrvv O c R:O N V VQi�y o N_-r:Z¢ auu G O c�'�'oc�a:u`�Lac>u•OCti=`✓:_"•3u L7rv�:1__i- F?•fl Z.O -F•°•o..V C G J..r L n y7--G- n� oL•1- L ..04=r.•Z uc�_.•--u,.uou `c 3�_'_-J-.,uy�°AU a°�uEu �LC°�3=-•-cCc�nc v3---_ en�GR-p•••,RrRy 0.ouu00u-u0^00.OU000cu �OdOR 0. n.:L�¢Urn c-cac3= Uuc•-`o3cEs�a`�,c c- Hoe c _ - u o z`o°c°-o'r ca ��_=0 3 n;000 °-° 'E` ER �T'oco�RC"�inc C'ut0 4 R�" v: 0 3 �ry W c c.•c L'C,_°rte'u Oy v o? t•e�-p0 c-.~'.- ovC _E' '_ o'`J u7L jC'C �-. •�OULC.v'a .• �.q9 Oy•C=^C--c-C w•u u -E.--r". �-; Nkp = .v l `.c�3c�p.�0.7U y: V O�C�L^ O .V. U. L ° Lu,�+ E:?u¢-u= o• v�o C C v�N d N d� O N R_O cO,tC`��u c•�°^�C ONEOTR uF ✓y -=�r.V_c U -65 �r'LLuLo uo.3 4.T¢'—°E•-,°nac. }t°vuo ,uw ��O�eusO J L•u���U Vu`r.Gr:°lnC �`• O:L Or•- 13.-C, _._>...ip�e•Oi.�.p=6-0-. ° -_ T.p V r _L. �,. -C...a OC V.0 V C'.,:ry U�.�..-r'•?N�V V` R =J SOS u s e'a'z...r=.�'�'•-O°L E=�s _mac -c e R c 1 ¢R�a> o wa 3 u Om`_.,C.c z en" r ecJ.E,t v.`.• R`_C o•C� u W Et=` cN cZ.E O'E 8,51 C .o O Zc H c:J=1� y?y°- u e or.� �R�°,ao�`°�R 'c�.-.=E c Ez u ovc= u v�L Va au`Ovuo- r,�p�` °c�y yt�•-oCc¢ coo+` �� a¢�o-,a_ m o-u<a_i i a E . � �tl �i GPI i f 1 _fi i��.Sn, &. .... .. ��` w�. _� Go�'0 I �" I:�: _� � t� '' 'a � �� ��- � �. b;, • . �,� �� f �� � "' � � ` B rF .r �} ��� �� _ � � I Y.. .i� �� �� . �ufr i ,� .. � c �� ___ '', �' -- �'-_-I � = r - =i r- a , � �_-� �, �_ _ _- _: ��, � _ _ 1► -�- - it .. ,�. - � I �, VNMONI'ON39HinOS 1 1332LLS QdVAAOH 909 o"�o bps i r d NOliVAON3N 301JJO S2BNiWd S32130 a� €� oe U z > O w wm ONI (wiw c7 Z �� ON H m U O U O Z W V y W y W W x g O U M- w W m O 7aK >-z 7 OW WN'JK OWVr_a J x O W a 60 9> O <!- joza NFaQW y O = W Niu2Q a W p K? Vo�WH N 2 a Wa ya U W LL K LL O N W Y W x f 0¢ a W W a2 OppO.n O N a VQ j�U y W k Zt2 0 amv17 FwYZ Ci W Q QY 4J to mUQ N�O O Z ZZ�Zy W Z p� ¢y7w QLL1 W w m y W Y z m Q iii t7¢ W' . 5 QUn p U� YZ�C7 ><Z O d F_W p t _N mxc O Q lw- p tai= w HZO pam v>N lil mLL Q 3~a,LLtl10 m W 2a O O¢ a m pWLL _ wm Z ww-OwZ H pp o z a m-7 z°z n•7p¢ 5 2Saz o mw ¢ Oy mpmm ¢¢ W C) mNQ O <�WZ7J Z C/� O' �'- m W ~N O<p2 4>O x O a[27a z �6 W 0 W O H 0 1-0 �7 <0<Q K9O z y z,<. Ya �Wx<W� n ZOW W Ua (7 20 ow"m ¢mH O f/l 060 QE Om OpOx O J N. Z Mt11 . ?F- YF<} Z7r K JOi a� Z(7WWZF YZppgO mV ¢<m OLLW�U >O W¢ �a'z m __ 0 a~O -wd <N7>bm.. w 6< W¢ O,amt Em�w Q?x > > 3wz a'w a-wC¢p Ky M 5z F� zo7 �amrc air- i�p� yc au�maoa ro L1J x �x( z a `? aK 0 O Z < ¢ �?¢w LL o (... <0 z 6 N C` 2 2 In 0 O� 1 r of v in m r 6 Y F ¢m LLJ W W MRS'Z -133US i3_d 1S w 0 0 U W o Z 0 w 7 N < :3 2 H Em�7OOm >�Ir¢LLZ LLJ w # 09 �m y;... wxma wxOp ,. Nzz ,OZ99 mwma mwVy o__ O�� �a d n2 O z ` n- U z NIW O 0, m W O Cp < � i C� C7 1 ji Q=W m J W z �_ Y W WPQ�so 0:W co Q m LL U7 J F Q N WUOFO 2 nl I U�WZZ X 7) w m YF. 1 m K zoww¢U0 t Li 4, w I '- �mO�noFCn wit z O r J 501 t z o n C4 Q W CC O wC70, W lWiZ m OwF-��00 cr m LL wUOF U 7 w R L z OEW<O<w .Q W 7 0 0 m< 1 O w .'.ir• Q W Z fj IX co ila° - I;:Q S �o I.. 'O W I I�I N F W F W W ~ (A fp W Q W J Q' w I... W O W �(.�jQ p �U W �W�QWtn [^ W WFpF-Z° W 0-Uc i �0 W~�OaO (J,/ �w�0�0 ofwow zazp ww�.QZ0 W000m� UGH O>N C) cA rCU6 ZJZZQ ZOK WZU Z 07Zn ZOaZw (q>Ua QWS2 W?' QwjmYQ mxZ0ZO W 0Q ¢ ¢O¢Ua ¢Ow0¢m O §0 <<x ¢Ow¢9 >I-acn(5 >rmZn.a z >I- �aMw >HKa<co VWUNI'QN39 H1f10S 133HIS UdVMOH 909 _ op r9 NOliVAON321301JAO S213NlZldd S32130 ^ Nlm N ~ > ° w � nM �w z s z U 210,a _W.1 Q o k w �0 �>- ��a=cw) IS 0 Z H N'aDZQ WLL W HJ V�QW WZyWpa• W 0 2 6 W Q X W QQ lLLi.W W dZ ❑❑p Opt? LL O O N a �UU ¢�N WO zN 06 R'vl0 FWZyc) p n5 r O 7s,❑ W ❑ V� m 5 W y�W 3?j Ow 7 r-0--a wo Qwo) ILA J Wd' t7m0 YF 2� d aw Ill QQSd.LLWLL QUm p Um Y?U`Z Ka0 v°Iw w fU< U ¢W. ° ILLi-� w 4ozo ❑aK F ¢u¢.w w-�LLh❑ a wZ< O 0Z ii mm-2 z°? x ¢ a�U Z Uw0F02 O zw x 00 ❑ rii ❑m z p� Wm K Z❑Oz» z O> y f-W Qzp❑ m,p = 8 I<r U'0 <Q&OWE 0 ~ Z Z W x -� QF KW Q ZLL S2 ft U'Z ma"❑° 6m, ❑ m s2go CO W C~ U2 Q J OLL W O 6 6O 6 ZU'OWzr .�.. ¢¢W� yV. g$�l1w yz K R2Z m QOzOZ -jd «K00 K W^ Ed 11�M1 (a-)Z =U ZO�❑ul Ol�i.in¢ EI=- 5 n VjpIL yC 6W¢dOiL m O x 6 Z 2 V LL o ir 60 Z¢ N `C `L `� ml¢i wa O O° F ¢¢ co }N f- W _ _ _ W CO N NV8,9 Z99 Z8-133211S 9Y '1S 1 Z� w0001- zOxON ¢Wj07�F C)CO O� V WNKG WXO° � w�OQ OZ'99 �)uSma oz� WRX z a O it BE O '3�bi OJ w ti—ao �� W I Z)2 W m�� o) Z Z 65.' '•" w LLI F-Xww¢°o� N (A�_ ¢ U) Y 1 X 1 u~�i r00- z 0 0'W Q Q 1 W M •.�. .n 1 D W UJ- ¢I ¢W jO0m0 �;• C3 2 (D U W F Z � ClfoLL'F a �w O ¢owW¢wr x d = Q W m ° 1 > z co r W O O 1 C12w[llJ� m diQmK w U W 0 W ^w U�Wz ZY z O W w¢UQ "-rt K�Oco •7 >0 LUa<uwi< Nay b L x �a� Q J a I'- N W O 9 W F. J f- W U) O co LL d W O N w yM¢ OLL W =) �¢O0 V! W Lu 07:E- (7_ C!=Ii�(� < w wLLL¢LI¢ W I- ¢QO wrpl-z° wHLLOv x < MONO W W LL al- VJ In �w OHO x LLp tea❑ wF¢zo wUul0wy W V��WF- W UD I- zf$urw- UwC7—� Oz) moW Z 0 Z)z N Z D�_Z W N'Q ¢W?W} Q W 7 D]Y¢ r ¢W m`.LW`� 0 KW 0m wog. ROW E mm ME ¢OZ¢z0 ¢Ow¢a ¢O¢U0 ¢Ow0¢N O ALL >F-w >F-aln fA >1-2'z z Carolyn Henry From: Elizabeth Burman 4eburrnan.rnail @,n ail.co n> Sent: Sunday, December 03,2017 4:11 PM To: Carolyn Henry Subject: Opposition to Rezoning 806 Howard Street Dear Carolyn, Please convey this letter to the South Bend Area Board of Zoning Appeals. Our names are Thomas and Elizabeth Burman, and we joint own and live in a home that is within 300 feet of the property at 806 Howard Street,which is currently appealing for several zoning variances that you will be considering at this month's hearing. We OPPOSE these variances. The reasons for our opposition, in terms of the ABZA's four legal standards: 1) "The proposed use will not be iniurious to the public health,safetv, comfort, community moral standards, convenience or general welfare." A. The planned expansion and use of the property at 806 Howard Street is completely out of character with its immediate neighbors, and violates the standards that have been carefully agreed upon by the Northeast Neighborhood Community and already accepted as an overlay by the ABZA. B. Our traffic and parking patterns are already being affected, and our street parking for our own and our guests' cars by the Eddy Street Commons development, the addition of bike lanes,and the expansion of Keller park,all adjacent to 806 Howard Street. There is insufficient margin for the additional street parking being requested in this appeal. C. The safety of neighborhood children coming and going to Keller park would also be endangered by the requested increase in street parking that the children would now have to traverse. D. There is already a very carefully planned mixed-use area under development on Eddy Street. By contrast, there has been NO neighborhood discussion or approval for a single,massively over-built, mixed-use building at 806 Howard Street,which is in the middle of a single home residential area. 2) "The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or propert- values therein." A. Our property value will definitely be affected if the property at 806 Howard Street is made even taller than it already is(which is at least no taller than the two-story houses around it.) With the requested changes, it would loom above everything else around it and be in view directly across the street from the main living area of our house. B. The value of our home is very much based on its location in a lap Zned, mixed-use community. That community does not allow for haphazard one-offs like the one the owners of 806 would like to develop. Our own recent(2016)purchase of this home was based on our agreement with the vision laid out and already i codified by ND,NENC, and South Bend for this neighborhood, and this vision does NOT include the expanded building size and mixed use proposed for 806 Howard Street. C. Our own street parking will also be adversely affected by the proposed addition of street parking for 35+ more cars in the vicinity of 806 Howard street. D. The value and safe use of our neighborhood's Keller Park, by our own as well as our neighbors' children, also will be adversely affected by the additional traffic and 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." A. The planned expansion and use of the property at 806 Howard Street is completely out of character with its immediate neighbors,and violates the standards that have been carefully agreed upon by the Northeast Neighborhood Community and already accepted as an overlay by the ABZA. B. The addition of non-primary rental space,particularly space that will be open to undergraduate college students, would both adversely affect the value of of adjacent properties,but also directly contravenes the purposes and plans laid out by the NENC zoning overlay. C. Finally: There is already a very carefully planned mixed-use area under development on Eddy Street. Meanwhile,there has been NO neighborhood discussion or approval for a single, massively over-built, mixed- use building in the middle of a single home residential area of the neighborhood. Further, The Eddy Street Commons development also adheres to our neighborhood zoning overlays in a way that the proposed plans for 806 Howard do not. 4 "The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the City of South Bend Comprehensive Plan." A. The City of South Bend and the ABZA have already accepted and codified the northeast neighborhood (NENC) plan as a legal subset of the city's overall plan. The City gives preference to the NENC overlay requirement, for example, that our fences be no taller than 5 feet, even though the City itself allows for 6 foot tall fences. Therefore,the City of South Bend has already demonstrated its acknowledgement that the NENC standards are a legal subset of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and these NENC standards also apply to the property at 806 Howard Street. These standards do not allow for the proposed changes to this property, nor does the City's Comprehensive Plan provide any basis for overturning NENC's standards by default. B. Finally, we have already had a disturbing precedent in both the original building at 806 Howard Street which was developed despite great opposition in the early 1990's, as well as the more recent development at 1121 North Notre Dame Avenue property, in which the by-now-extant NENC plan was disregarded, and the NENC not given a full chance to review. It is my understanding that even the city has acknowledged that this should not have happened. It seems that in in the case of 806 Howard Street,the NENC once again has not been given a chance to meet, review or comment on the proposed variances before the ABZA meets to rule on them on December 6. Every time the neighborhood zoning is ignored and the NENC left out of the vetting process,both the community's and City's plans are further eroded. What a shame, after so many people have spent so much time and money on the vision and plans for our neighborhood,plans in which—Again-mixed use areas of high value to the community and the city have already been included on North Eddy Street. 2 Thank you for your consideration, Elizabeth and Thomas Burman 920 North Notre Dame Avenue South Bend,Indiana 46617 3 Carolyn Henry From: Tom Guinan <thomas.guinan @comcast.net> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 5:13 AM To: Carolyn Henry Subject: Opposition to expansion of 806 Howard St and addition of third story residential City of South Bend Area Board of Zoning Appeals Attn: Carolyn Henry Dear Ms. Henry: I am writing to express my opposition to the planned expansion and change of use of the property located at 806 Howard Street,South Bend, Indiana 46617. My wife and I live at 915 N. Notre Dame Ave.Our house is 3 lots south and 1 lot east of the property in question.We have lived at our current address for nearly 11 years.We believe the property at 806 Howard St. has been an incongruent presence in the neighborhood—both in terms of its architecture and its "purpose"—since even before we built our home as part of the NE Neighborhood redevelopment program. It appears since the sale of the building several months ago, it has sat vacant. While any improvement to the exterior design of 806 Howard would be welcome,the proposed increase in height from 28.5 ft.to 46ft.and the change of use as a combined residential/office building will make an already out of place structure even more so, regardless of the nature of any exterior improvements.As a property owner within the "appeal area" I would like to register my formal opposition to the planned expansion and change of use for the property at 806 Howard St.for the following reasons: 1. The proposed and expansion use will adversely affect the adjacent area or property values therein and the proposed use will be inconsistent with the character of the district in which it is located and the land uses otherwise authorized therein. A mixed office/residential building at such a height is completely out of scale in this residential neighborhood. It will negatively impact the property values of the homes immediately adjacent to it and will have a negative impact on the value of the homes in the appeal area. This negative impact will arise not only from the mere presence of the structure but also from the increased congestion and parking requirements resulting from the expanded business activity in the building. 2. The proposed use will injurious to the public health, safety, comfort, community moral standards, convenience or general welfare. It should be noted that the intersection of Howard St. and Notre Dame Ave. is an extremely busy 4-way-stop intersection.This is particularly the case on weekdays between 7- 8AM and 5-6PM.The requested variance to reduce the required off-street parking from 35 spaces to 4 spaces seems to be the exact opposite of what will be required to ensure that those living and working in the facility would not otherwise be parking on Howard St. right at the Notre Dame Ave. intersection—thus limiting visibility and adding to the congestion—and also along the already limited parking spaces in front of residences on Notre Dame Ave. and St. Peter St. Again, any improvement to the exterior of 806 Howard St.that would be keep the facility within its current scale would be welcome—as would suitable retail or office activity for which the building was originally zoned. While the appeal to potential residents of an additional floor w/essentially unobstructed views of the Golden Dome is obvious, those who have invested in this neighborhood, many of whom have lived here for over a decade, would be significantly and negatively impacted for the reasons noted above.While my opposition to the current expansion and change of use plans is firm, I would welcome the opportunity to join with my neighbors and the property owners to see if other plans might be more acceptable to all parties. 1 Thank you. Tom Guinan 915 N. Notre Dame Ave. i i i z Carolyn Henry From: Thomas Mustillo <tustillo @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 9:54 AM To: Carolyn Henry Cc: 'Isaacson,Alice, MD' Subject: FW: Expansion of former Pandora Building;addition of third story residential (ABZA hearing this Wed) From: Isaacson,Alice, MD [mailto:aisaacson @southbendclinic.com] Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 9:10 PM To:Thomas Mustillo<tmustillo @gmail.com> Subject: RE: Expansion of former Pandora Building;addition of third story residential (ABZA hearing this Wed) Good evening. Thank you for this information. While I will not have the opportunity to attend the hearing, please relay my opinion to the members of the board. I love living in this neighborhood and am so proud to be part of the growth and diversity this area represents.While the Pandora building was always an eye sore,the proposed plans for a mixed use building is disappointing. I do not understand the rationale of creating a building that is not only physically out of character, but one that is not consistent with the ideals that we share as homeowners.The proposed changes will not only create unwanted traffic but create a potential safety issue. My own daughter,who is 11 years old,enjoys walking/biking to Eddy Street Commons to have lunch or playing in the park when her friends visit. I believe the traffic will be a deterrent in allowing her the freedom that she has always enjoyed. When I look outside my window, I do not wish to see a mixed use building that is clearly out of place. If the developers wish to create office space,there are other areas in South Bend that would be more suitable to their needs. I feel they are completely infringing upon our rights to enjoy our neighborhood and the APPROPRIATE growth that is ongoing. HOMES, not businesses, are being built-witness the activity on St. Peter Street-which add to the value of our own homes. The proposed building will greatly diminish or property value. Please forward my opposition to the Board. Thank you in advance. Alice Isaacson 909 N.Saint Peter St. 1 Carolyn Henry From: Thomas Mustillo <tmustillo @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 5:28 PM To: Carolyn Henry Cc: 'Sarah Mustillo' Subject: opposition to 806 Howard expansion and change of use Dear Ms. Henry, We are writing to express our strong opposition to several of the petitions for variance at 806 Howard Street filed by Alliance Architects,on behalf of Pandora Partners, LLC. We own and occupy(with our three children)the adjoining lot, immediately south of the Pandora property, at 926 North Saint Peter Street. Indeed, the structure will stand only about 6 feet from our property line, and only about 12 feet from our own two-story, 2,300 square foot house. Please pass our concerns on to the members of the board for their consideration. The proposed 9000+square foot building will loom more than twice the height of our house. Its repurposed function will create two floors of more than 6000 total square feet of office space, one floor of more than 3000 square feet of residence (larger than our finished living space), and another 3000 square feet of basement.A building this immense will diminish the value of our home, and injure the safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare of our family, as well as the neighborhood at large.An expansion and change-in-use of the existing building will create two adverse impacts for US. First, it will diminish the value of our homes. We have created a neighborhood of mostly owner-occupied single family homes.On the 900 block of North Saint Peter Street,where%of the available land is devoted to a neighborhood park (Kelley Park), 8 of the 9 residential lots are 2-story owner occupied permanent residents. On the contiguous residential lots contained between ND Ave and Saint Peter,all ten are 2-story owner occupied permanent residents. Under the Pandora Partners proposal, a Special Exception Use allowing an 3rd story dwelling unit will undermine the value of our home because we become exposed to the liabilities of 3000+square feet of potential rental units,with insufficient parking. Our own home has a covenant preventing non-owner occupancy,as do many of the homes around us that were part of the revitalization plan.Thus, this variance is exceptional; as an adjoining lot, it will negatively impact the value of our home and the tax value. We would not have purchased this house at the price we paid if we had known that Pandoras would be expanding and incorporating potential rental space. Also,we have been reassured by the petitioners that variance request numbers 3, 5, and 7 are required only to maintain the existing arrangement for parking and exit/entry on the east side of the building. Nevertheless,we would like to note that a grant of easement has been recorded with the county on 4/21/2017 which allows all adjoining parties of the former public alley to retain mutual access to that part of the now private alley.These variances, which request reductions in the setbacks to 0' at east, should they allow for any construction within the easement or change of use, would eliminate the only access we have to our garage. If they could be construed to permit such a use,they would violate the easement agreement and could devastate the value of our house; they must be rejected. Second,the redevelopment of this property as the owner's business offices, plus rental offices,will bring many additional cars to the North West sector of our block and to the alley,which we share via a private easement. During the years we have lived here,Steve Raymond and his assistant, Patty,turned on the lights and the "open"sign every day from noon to five until the summer of 2015.There were never more than 2 or 3 cars at a time. Until Mr. Raymond sold the property,the UPS truck pulled up to the door almost every day.That was the extent of the traffic. Under the Pandoras Partners proposal, the request to reduce the off-street parking by 31 spaces (from 35 to 4)is extreme. By the architect's own estimate(conveyed at a meeting in their offices on 10/19), the 2 floors of office space alone will draw 24 cars. During the ND home football game against Navy,on 11/18,the block of Howard street between ND Ave and Saint Peter Street was filled to capacity with 24 cars. Of course, on a regular day,cars will distribute themselves around the area less densely, leave little or no room for us and our guests,for the two or three homes-to-be on the north side of Howard, and for the patrons of Kelley Park, which the city and neighborhood residents have invested in at considerable cost and effort. Moreover,traffic on Howard Street is already quite aggressive and the addition of so many cars will limit 1 visibility and raise the risk to pedestrians,especially to the dozens of grade school children (including two of our own children)who routinely cross the streets at and around the intersections of Howard with Saint Peter St.and ND Ave. We would like to see an investment to improve 806 Howard Street that is compatible with the vision laid out by ND, NENC,and the city; but,we insist that the proposal be to scale,and without the adverse impacts on our home and our neighborhood. In particular, nearly all the adverse effects arise from the ambition to expand the square footage of the existing building by 50%.Should the petitioners be willing to entertain a proposal with a more neutral impact,we would reconsider our opposition. We will be in attendance at the appeal meeting on 12/6,and look forward to sharing our concerns.Thank you foryour consideration. Sincerely, Thomas and Sarah Mustillo 926 North Saint Peter St. 2 Carolyn Henry From: Ayoka Paek Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 2:21 PM To: Carolyn Henry Subject: FW: 806 Howard Email below for you. Ayoka Paek, MCIP,AICP Zoning and Business Services Administrator (574) 235-9554 apaek(a@southbendin.gov The information provided in this email is in response to the specific information requested and does not necessarily represent all of the restrictions and allowances applicable to any properties identified in this email. From: Donald Sniegowski [mailto:Donald.C.Sniegowski.1 @nd.edu] Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 2:02 PM To:Ayoka Paek<apaek @southbendin.gov> Subject:806 Howard Caroline Henry Secretary to the Board Area Board of Zoning Appeals South Bend, Indiana Dear Ms. Henry: Please forward the following letter to the Area Board of Zoning Appeals. Thank you. Donald Sniegowski To the Area Board of Zoning Appeals: 1 We,the undersigned,have owned and occupied the house at 917 North Saint Peter Street,South Bend, Indiana for eleven years. Prior to our move to St. Peter St.,we lived at 1004 Saint Vincent Street,three blocks away. We have lived in the neighborhood for forty-seven years. Our present house is situated a half-block from 806 Howard Street,the owners of which are appealing for several zoning variances. WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THESE VARIANCES. You will already have received letters from Rita Schmid and Adam Rebolloso, Elizabeth and Thomas Burman,James and Gia Haigh,and Sarah and Tom Mustillo,all of whom oppose the granting of these variances. Rather than repeat their arguments,we wish to underline or add to certain of them. STYLE. It is difficult for us to believe that the ABZA staff could approve plans for a structure which is so out of keeping with the neighborhood. To the east of the proposed building—on Notre Dame Avenue—are various versions of American four-square architecture. (This is the style which predominates in the SF-1 district bounded by the north side of Corby,the south side of Napoleon,the west side of Frances,and the east side of St. Peter. ) On the southeast corner of the Howard/Notre Dame Ave. intersection is a beautiful example of prairie-style architecture. To the south of the proposed building,are variations of bungalow,one of which is in a very attractive version of American Arts and Crafts. To the immediate south of the proposed property is a beautiful version of Georgian architecture,to be found both in England and the United States. It was designed by a faculty member of the Notre Dame School of Architecture. With the occasional exception,the houses in the above-mentioned SF-1 area conform to a broad architectural norm. (It must be said that even the enormous group home in the 1100 block of Notre Dame Ave.,,which we opposed, has tried to conform to this norm.) So,why would the ABZA staff approve a design which,at best,can be called a pseudo-collegiate gothic. That is a style which,in the United States, is reserved almost exclusively for churches and campuses. It is the default style of the whole Notre Dame campus. It does not belong in our residential area! SCALE. We almost feel that it is an affront for the ABZD staff to approve a building in a style as non-residential as collegiate gothic. But the real affront is to propose such a building AND make it eighteen feet taller than the present structure. Those of us who have lived in the neighborhood for a long time had to accept,because of a weird set of circumstances,the present structure,enormously out-of—scale as it was. Most of us,we're sure, have waited for the day when it would be demolished. Now we may have to look forward to a structure that is increased in height by two fifths! It will dwarf the beautiful Georgian house immediately to the south of it. The present structure already is taller than that house. And if the variance to reduce the side residential buffer yard is granted,the house to the south will be even more dwarfed. This,of course,will reduce the value of the house. Indeed,the whole immediate neighborhood will suffer some financial loss. If, indeed,the company wants to buy the property and remodel the building for commercial use—a use which it is already zoned for—then why not keep it at the present height as a goodwill gesture to the neighbors and fix it up so that it is not so ugly. What a gift that would be for all of us! PARKING AND SAFETY. Even keeping the building at its present height and "beautifying" it does not take care of the problems of parking and safety. Thirty-one more parking spaces would be on-street. We have not had time to measure just how many parking places would be on Howard and how many places would be on St. Peter, but both streets would be impacted heavily. This assumes that thirty-one spaces will be used,and that has to be assumed;otherwise,the zoning ordinance would call for fewer. 2 We wonder why the city says that on-street parking on Howard would help to calm traffic. There is a stop sign at Howard/Notre Dame Ave.and there is a stop sign at Howard/St. Louis two blocks to the west. We have not experienced speeding in that two-block area. The odd jerk who revs his motorcycle in that two-block area will not be "calmed" by cars parked on the street. In fact,on-street parking on Howard makes it more difficult to exit from St. Peter onto Howard. If we are trying to exit onto Howard from St. Peter,we have to,first, stop where we are supposed to so that pedestrians can walk across and then creep forward to see beyond the cars that are often parked in front of the Notre Dame Law building on the northwest corner. The difficulty and danger would be doubled if there were significant on- street parking on Howard between St. Peter and Note Dame Ave. It should be noted that,with the reconfiguration of the "Five Corners"—hallelujah—Howard is now part of the Howard-Corby connector,which has become a main east- west thoroughfare in the northern portion of the city. Traffic can be heavy; having to creep forward in one's car becomes more and more problematic. Being in a car and trying to navigate this kind of situation is one thing; being on foot is another.The renovation of Kelly Park,thanks to the generous and able direction of a small group of neighbors, is about to be completed. Even with the renovation not completed, more kids were showing up this summer. Some come from the southeast along St Peter, some come from Notre Dame Ave. We're sure that this foot traffic will increase as the park takes its final shape. And the safety of all of the pedestrians,especially the kids, should be a number-one priority. One wonders,too,about the impact of on-street parking on bicyclists, primarily Notre Dame students and faculty and neighborhood kids, riding along Howard. There are no bike lanes on Howard; on-street parking, especially on both sides of the street will significantly squeeze them,especially on a main thoroughfare. There are many other issues to comment on, but other members of the neighborhood have covered them very well. We would want to take one parting shot—what becomes of the three-story property,with a residence on top,when the potential owners sell and go elsewhere? Will new owners rent out the residential space and to whom? Will they redo the commercial portion of the building into residences and rent it out? Might it be to students,who have been the bane of our neighborhood for a long time? Thank you for your consideration and for the important work you do for the community. Sincerely, Donald and Barbara Sniegowski 3 Carolyn Henry From: Liesbeth Cremers <liesbethcremers @hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 1:27 PM To: Carolyn Henry Subject: zkf Opposition to 806 Howard Street December 4, 2017 Dear Carolyn, We are Martijn and Liesbeth Cremers we own and live at 914 N North Notre Dame Avenue. Our home is located within 300 feet of the property commonly described as 806 Howard Street, and we would like to express our opposition to the proposed expansion and change of use identified in a recently-filed zoning petition. We ask that you please share our concerns with the Board of Zoning Appeals. Upon receiving the"Notice to Adjacent Property Owners"we were shocked to see the number of variances requested by Alliance Architects, wondering if the company plans to adhere to any of the requirements that are currently in place. We are hopeful that their petitions will not be granted, since zoning laws exist for a reason. And while we realize that the property is zoned for office use(which is unfortunate),this neighborhood is now primarily residential. However, if an office is to occupy 806 Howard Street, we would like to see these office builders being held to even higher standards than home builders, since an office will create a lot more traffic, with employees and clients using up a lot of residential parking spaces. A few concerns: 1. ,."The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort, community moral standards, convenience or general welfare." Concern: The reduction in required parking spaces from 35 to 4 would mean that 31 cars may need to park in the area streets.Not only will this reduce parking available for Kelly Park, it will reduce visibility of children potentially crossing the street to use the Park or otherwise. This is definitely a public safety concern. It is also a convenience concern, for it will be more difficult for those visiting homes in the neighborhood to find parking. In addition,the community wants this to be a family friendly neighborhood, and an office does not fit that standard. 2. ,.The owner's petition says the added residential use is "compatible with surrounding land uses". i Concern: Mixed-use(i.e. office &residential) is not compatible with the neighborhood (there are none in the neighborhood that we are aware of,until the Eddy commercial corridor). More importantly, non-primary residence apartment units are not compatible with the neighborhood and have been actively opposed by NENC, ND, and neighbors for years. It is not clear how the residential unit located above the office floors would be used. As a place to stay for game weekends only? Why should there be height requirements for homes built in the area,while Alliance Architects would be allowed to build way higher, creating a penthouse like dwelling with a view of the Golden Dome? 3. s."The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or property values therein." Concern: Consider how a 10-15 feet taller structure at 806 Howard Street will make neighboring houses look in comparison. Consider also the effect on the skyline of the neighborhood, as the building will become visible not just to immediate neighbors, but to the entire surrounding area. It may be difficult to estimate how exactly this office/home building would negatively affect area property values,but surely common sense tell us that building one taller(office)structure in a residential area does not look good,and will not improve the value of the neighboring properties. 4. a."The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located and the land uses authorized therein." Concern: Obviously, there are no other retailers or mixed-use or office/residential buildings in the immediate neighborhood of 806 Howard, so how the proposed use will be consistent with the current character of the district is baffling. In short, if an office/residential building must be constructed at 806 Howard Street,the architects and builders should be required to strictly adhere to the current zoning laws, and not be permitted any variances, nor be allowed to add residential use to the structure. We thank you in advance for sharing our concerns with the Board. Sincerely, Liesbeth&Martijn Cremers 2 Carolyn Henry From: Jim Farrington <jfarring @nd.edu> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 8:15 PM To: Carolyn Henry Subject: Re: 806 Howard Street Variance Petition Revised to add my address. On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 17:13 Jim Farrington<jfarring@..nd.edu>wrote: I am writing to object to the petition of Pandora Partners seeking various variances in respect of its property at 806 Howard Street. I urge you to use the experience gained from last decade in the many wise and forward looking decisions that the ABZA made to continue to enhance our neighborhood and not make a horrible situation worse. The existing two story"office"property is a horrible eye sore in this terrific neighborhood. I realize this property is already zoned for office use. However,that decision was made when this was a very different neighborhood. I know what it was like decades ago when I frequented the local bars during my student days at Notre Dame. The combined efforts of South Bend,NENC and ND have worked hard in the last 10 years or more to transform this neighborhood of bars,barely habitable student housing, and abandoned properties into a terrific neighborhood with homes valued at$1 million or more that provide an increasing tax base to South Bend. Granting these variances would: (1) Allow the building's height to increase by 61% (from 28.5' to about 46'), which NVould be more than 30%above the height to which all current properties are subject; (2) Increase traffic along a busy throughfare where east-west traffic is not controlled by stop signs; (3) Continue and exacerbate a use without adequate off-street traffic; and (4) Continue and exacerbate a use that is already not consistent with the residential use of the neighborhood. These consequences would be injurious to the public safety,comfort, convenience and general welfare, adversely affect the use and values of adjacent properties and not be consistent with the character of the district in which this property is located. Thank you. Jim Farrington 1032 St. Peter St. South Bend, IN 46617 Jim Farrington I Adjunct Professor University of Notre Dame I The Law School Colleges of Business,Science&Engineering ESTEEM Graduate Program i 1190 Eck Hall of Law I Notre Dame, Indiana 46556 Cell: +1203-550-1683 jfarringQnd.edu UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME Jim Farrington I Adjunct Professor University of Notre Dame Law School ESTEEM Graduate Program of the Colleges of Business, Science and Engineering 1190 Eck Hall of Law I Notre Dame, Indiana 46556 Cell: 203-550-1683 jfarring2nd.edu 2 Carolyn Henry From: gia haigh <giaandjamey @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 7:51 PM To: Carolyn Henry Subject: Opposition to 806 Howard/Pandora expansion and change of use Ms. Henry, We write in opposition to the requests for variance made by the owners of the former Pandora building, located at 808 Howard.We would very much appreciate if you forwarded this letter to the Area Board of Zoning Appeals. We own two properties adjacent to the former Pandora building:a single-family, owner-occupied residence at 925 N. Notre Dame Ave,and (through the Sasman LLC)a parcel of property directly to the east of the building, on the corner of ND Ave and Howard. We purchased our home at 925 N. Notre Dame 8 years ago and we purchased the corner lot about a year ago, in order to fix up the lots and adjacent sidewalks and curbs and to ensure that it would someday be occupied by a nice single-family, owner-occupied home in the character of the neighborhood. We are happy that the investment fund has purchased the building and will fix it up commensurate it with its nice offices in Boston, Chicago, and Eddy St. However,as the owner of two adjacent properties,we wanted to register our strong objections to the proposed variances,with objections broken down by the special exception approval standards: 1. "The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health,safety, comfort, community moral standards, convenience or general welfare." a. The owner's petition says that on-street parking is sufficient for the 31-car variance,and that on-street parking will "calm" traffic along Howard.With 7 children of our own,and numerous other children living on ND Ave, who all use Kelly Park(located across St. Peter from the Pandora building), we disagree.We believe that more parked cars will reduce parking available for Kelly Park and will reduce visibility of children crossing the street to use the Park and to visit friends' houses in the neighborhood.The comfort and convenience of the neighbors will be harmed by additional cars parking in front of houses, making visitors have to park away from our houses.The parking situation is particularly significant as half the parking along ND Ave was recently lost due to bike lanes.The addition of the top level residential unit for an out-of-town Notre Dame donor will mean far more parking on game and event weekends,when neighborhood parking is already particularly scarce. b. The owner's petition says the added residential use is compatible with surrounding land uses. It is not. Some residential use is compatible with the neighborhood, and some is not. For example,student housing and apartments in the neighborhood have been actively opposed by NENC, ND, and neighbors for years.Apartment/condo residences for Notre Dame donors like this owner have been limited to the Eddy St corridor and the area east of the Notre Dame campus.There is"Office" of"Office/Residential" use near this building. 2. "The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or property values therein." a. The owner's petition says that property values will not be adversely affected because the owner will improve the exterior appearance of the property.We disagree that fixing up the appearance of a property justifies zoning variances, as that would justify zoning variances throughout our neighborhood to the point where the exceptions trump the rules.The point is that the requested new"use" (residential) is inextricably tied to increasing the height of the property by about 18 feet,which will adversely affect property values.Our view, and the view of neighbors (from everything we've heard), is that as bad as the building looks currently,status quo is much preferable to the proposed use. 1 b. This structure is already too-large and out-of-place in the residential neighborhood and the scale dwarfs neighboring houses.When people find out where I live they inevitable remark on the Pandora building, and how out-of-place it is,and ask how it was allowed to be built in that neighborhood. It is an obvious failure in zoning,though I understand the building was permitted over strong neighborhood objection in the early 1990s in part based on the idea that a local bookstore would benefit a community of professors and students and in part to resolve litigation against the city relating to another property. But let's please not double-down on bad zoning variances to change a smaller bookstore into a much larger mixed use building even more out-of-character with the neighborhood. c. A building 45-50 feet tall will affect the skyline of the neighborhood, as the building will become visible over houses to neighbors who don't currently see the building.A collegiate gothic, mixed-use structure visible throughout the neighborhood will adversely affect property values. d. As proof that tall structures adjacent to homes adversely affect the values of the homes, consider that the South Bend Code for residential houses specifies a maximum height of 35',and even then limits the height to 2.5 stories,so that the height of the building is at the center of the property. With appropriate setbacks required by zoning,the adverse effect on neighbors is minimized. Here,we have zero setback from a neighbor, and a 45-50 structure. It will block the view of the sky from my kitchen and will block the sky and sun from the backyard and rear of the future house on our property on the corner of Howard and ND Ave. e. We've spoken to numerous people, including various friends and people with backgrounds in architecture, as a check to determine whether our concerns are unfounded.The feedback from these people—to a person—has confirmed and strengthened our view of how detrimental the proposed changes to the building and its use would be to the value of our house and our lot that will be occupied by a house some day.We would not have paid what we paid for that lot if this propsed building were built, because anyone would insist on a discount to purchase a house with a large mixed-use building looming behind it. 3. "The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located and the land uses authorized therein." a. The owner's petition says that the proposed use (office and residential) is generally considered to be less intensive than the current use(retail).This may be true generally, but not in our neighborhood. If the current office building was proposed to be converted to apartments,the neighborhood objection be extremely strong.We prefer office use to apartment/residential use.Student residences in the past,and Notre Dame donor vacation/rental use now, have been strongly resisted in the neighborhood by NENC, Notre Dame, and neighbors. b. As noted above,the building(zoned "Office") is already completely out-of-character for the neighborhood(no other parcels zoned "Office" much less"Office and Residential" or"Mixed Use"), and increasing its mass and changing its character to mixed use makes it even more inconsistent with the neighborhood.To say this building is consistent with the neighborhood would be cited as precedent for more buildings like this in our neighborhood.That would be exactly the wrong direction for our neighborhood. 4. "The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the City of South Bend Comprehensive Plan." a. The owner's petition says that proposed use is compatible with the Plan because it involves adaptive reuse of an existing structure and includes residential above office space.The building property is currently zoned office, so its use as office is consistent with that and is certainly fine.There is insufficient off-street parking(per zoning rules)to add another story of office space. I'm not sure the adaptive use 2 referenced.The addition of residential is not adapting office to residential, it is adding an entire new story. b. Not being an expert on the Plan, I briefly reviewed it and I saw nothing to suggest that a large mixed-use building within our neighborhood is consistent with the Plan;those structures, and Notre Dame donor apartments,are focused on commercial corridors like Eddy/23 and east of ND's campus. Thanks very much for your consideration,and we look forward to discussing these issues further at the hearing on Wednesday. Jamey and Gia Haigh 925 N. Notre Dame Ave and 920 N. Notre Dame Ave. 3 ,�� q Area Board of Zoning Appeals C/O Ms Carolyn Henry Dear Ms. Henry, Our names are Geraldine Meehan and Cyril O'Regan and we live in, and own, the property at 907 N. Notre Dame Avenue,which is located within 300 feet of 806 Howard Avenue. We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed enlargement and change of use for the Howard Avenue property and our specific opposition to the applications for zoning variances which will be reviewed at the South Bend Area Board of Zoning Appeals on December 6, 2017. Please convey our objections to the Board by providing them with this letter. The reasons for our opposition are as follows and fall within the 4 legal standards of the ABZA: 1. A. The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort, community, moral standards, convenience or general welfare. The reduction in required parking from 3S to 4 is so excessive that it can only be referred to as an extreme variance from the standard. Without the 31 off-street parking spots, street parking will be the only possibility. Reduced visibility will be a safety concern as will the inevitable concerns about the potential behavior of any number of strangers in a neighborhood where parents currently enjoy their young children playing outside in a space close to 806 Howard Avenue. Parked cars will also reduce the number of parking spots available for guests of ND Avenue residents. Residents in a neighborhood should not have to scramble for parking spots for their visitors. B. The owner's petition says that the added residential use is "compatible with surrounding land uses" This is clearly not the case. There is no mixed use buildings (residential and office) adjacent to 806 Howard Avenue. 2. The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or property values therein The suggested changes to 806 Howard Avenue will impact the number of people interested in buying houses adjacent to it and by implication will decrease the competitiveness of the home prices. 3. The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located and the land uses authorized therein. As there are no such mixed use buildings in the neighborhood,it is not consistent with the use in the area. 4. The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the City of South Bend Comprehensive Plan The proposed plan for 806 Howard is not consistent with plans for the area in Howard Street and Notre Dame Avenue. Thank you for taking our concerns to the Board Yours faithfully Geraldine Meehan &Cyril O'Regan 907 North Notre Dame Avenue South Bend, IN 46617 Carolyn Henry From: Robert Kossler <robkossler @alumni.nd.edu> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 10:13 PM To: Carolyn Henry Subject: Petition for variances 806 Howard St Dear Carolyn, Our names are Rob and Catherine Kossler and we would like to convey to you our opposition to the requested variances for the property at 806 Howard Street(we recently received the"Notice to Adjacent Property Owners"related to this petition). We reside at 1020 N. Saint Peter Street which is within 300 feet of the property. We ask that you please convey this email and our opposition to the petition to the attention of the Area Board of Zoning Appeals. Our primary objection relates to the increased size of the building. In particular,the proposed height increase is not in character with this residential neighborhood and we believe it will negatively impact property values of the surrounding residences. Specifically,we disagree that the petition meets the following standards • The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or property values therein • The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located and the land uses authorized therein Our secondary objection relates to the reliance on on-street parking. We believe that added traffic and parked cars in the immediate vicinity will impact visibility at this corner and be a potential hazard to the neighborhood children—especially those taking advantage of the park located directly across the street. Thus,we disagree that the petition meets the following standard • The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort, community moral standards, convenience or general welfare Thank you for sharing our concerns with the board. Sincerely, Rob and Catherine Kossler 1020 N Saint Peter St, South Bend IN 46617 1 Carolyn Henry From: Robert Bretz <rbretz @nd.edu> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 4:21 PM To: Carolyn Henry Subject: Opposition to Expansion of former Pandora Bookstore Building Dear Ms. Henry, I am Bob Bretz. I live at 1029 N. Notre Dame Ave and recently became aware of the proposal to expand the size and proposed uses of the former Pandora building. I am strongly opposed and ask that you convert my strongest possible opposition to the zoning board and all others who will be involved in making the decision about the proposal. The building is already inconsistent with the nature and purpose of the neighborhood. The proposed expansion would serve to make it even more out of line with the neighborhood. This is a neighborhood that is specifically residential, single family, and owner occupied. Any use beyond that does irreparable damage to both the neighborhood culture, and to the property values of the other residents. I won't leave not have purchased a home here without the zoning protections being in place. Mixed use buildings certainly have a place in but that place is not in a residential single family, owner occupied neighborhood. Of particular concern to me, in addition to the proposed use, are the size of the proposed building and the amount of on street parking that the neighborhood would have to absorb. The size and the parking problems would cause significant problems for the current residents and would negatively affect our property values. Again, I am strongly opposed and ask that you make this known to all those involved in the decision making process. Thank you, Bob Bretz 1029 N. Notre Dame Ave 1 Carolyn Henry From: Brian Levey <blevey @nd.edu> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 1:41 PM To: Carolyn Henry Cc: Alison Levey Subject: Letter in opposition to proposed variances for 806 Howard Street Attachments: Levey letter re 806 Howard v6.pdf Dear Ms. Henry: We are writing to oppose the requested variances for 806 Howard Street. We request that you share the enclosed letter with the South Bend Area Board of Zoning Appeals (ABZA). Thank you, Brian &Alison Levey 918 North Saint Peter Street South Bend, IN 46617 i Carolyn Henry From: Jesse Barrett <jmjbarrett @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 2:50 PM To: Carolyn Henry Subject: Proposed Expansion of Pandora's Dear ABZA, My name is Jesse Barrett. My family lives at 302 Peashway St., South Bend, IN 46617. We live in Harter Heights,just down the street from Pandora's. I understand that there is a proposal to expand the building and make it a multi-use office/residential building. I strongly oppose this plan. Pandora's is already inconsistent with the residential neighborhood and is already an eyesore. To make it larger would only increase the inconsistency. That area of Howard Street is not commercial, it is residential, and virtually everything around it is residential. It would be ridiculous to take an unattractive building that is out of character with the neighborhood and expand it. I strongly oppose this proposed action. Please convey this message to the Area Board of Zoning Appeals. Sincerely, Jesse Barrett i Carolyn Henry From: Timothy Matovina <Timothy.Matovina.l @nd.edu> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 1:09 PM To: Carolyn Henry Subject: Pandora Partners ABZA requests Dear Ms. Henry, We write with regard to the requests that the Area Board of Zoning Appeals is considering from Pandora Partners and their property at 806 Howard Street in South Bend. We ask that you convey our views on this matter to members of the Board. We live at 1115 N Notre Dame Avenue. Our opposition to the Pandora Partners petitions are as follows: 1. The requested 31-car variance is not conducive to community use of Kelly Park,nor to general public safety. When cars park on both sides of narrower streets like St. Peter St., it is difficult to see children who are crossing the street between the vehicles. Having that many extra cars in the street- especially if they are for residents who would live in the building and leave their vehicles outside overnight-will make the parking situation on the streets around this property more congested and more hazardous than any other streets in the immediate vicinity. 2. The scope of the proposed project is not consistent with the residential development in the neighborhood. This property is not located on a commercial street, nor a street with office space. It is located on a residential street. The city planning has already designated the Eddy Street corridor for those times of developments. Residents agreed to this approach of having offices and business establishments in that corridor, and leaving other parts of the neighborhood residential. The requested use is inconsistent with that agreement and with the character of land use in the neighborhood surrounding 806 Howard Street. 3. The proposed alteration to the property would almost certainly have a negative impact on property values, especially those of homeowners immediately adjacent to the property. Adding an additional story to a building already oversized for the neighborhood would make adjacent properties less attractive and valuable to nearly any buyer we can imagine, and certainly to potential buyers with children. Thank you for considering our views on this matter and passing them along to the Area Board of Zoning Appeals. If you or any of the Board members have further questions about our views,please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours sincerely, Timothy and Elida Matovina 1115 N Notre Dame Ave South Bend, IN 46617 (574)283-0737 i 1f_1 University of Notre Dame Institute for Educational Initiatives December 5, 2017 Dear Area Board ol'Zoning Appeals Members, I am writing you this letter to express opposition to the variance being sought by Alliance Architects,at the December 6 meeting of your Board,for the property located at 806 Howard St. in South Bend. I am a homeowner at 928 N.Notre Dame Ave, located within 300 feet of the property for which the seven variances are sought,as described in the November 2017 letter to neighborhood residents from Ms. Carolyn Henry. I understand that on certain matters(such as front porch setbacks)variances are commonly sought and granted with little need for deliberation. However,what is sought in this case is a radical departure from the neighborhood's zoning regulations. The plan has significant negative impact on the neighborhood as to both general welfare (safety, aesthetics, convenience) and property value. The plan is a laudable one for a different location, but not at in character with the neighborhood. I will address these concerns in more detail,but note them up front to claim the degree of variance in this case places a heavy burden of proof on the part of the petitioner, rather than on those opposing it,to convincingly argue to the contrary. In this case the variances sought are so out of line with zoning regulations as to call into question the very existence of such regulations should a variance be warranted here. Others have no doubt expressed the specific problems with the proposed variances in more detail, so I will here note only three. First,the parking variance sought would entail this property's absorption of a significantly disproportionate amount of street parking. The fair sharing of street parking is presumably why zoning regulations demand that office spaces have adequate off street parking. Abandoning that zoning regulation in such a radical manner would not only be an issue of fairness and inconvenience to local homeowners (and their guests), but also pose a threat to the safety of the literally dozens of children in the immediately surrounding houses who play on the park and field that surround 806 Howard St. Second, the height variance would significantly impact the aesthetics of the neighborhood and therefore property value. Again it is worth reflecting on why such a zoning regulation exists in this neighborhood in the first place. The reason for it surely relates to fairness to all neighborhood property owners,aesthetics, and property value. A variance on the height would impact all of these. Third and finally,the proposal is not at all in line with the character of the neighborhood. The plan entails a significantly more attractive building in its exterior, as well as an exciting commitment to mixed use space that the City rightly supports in areas zoned for Visitation Hall,Notre Dame,Indiana 46556 P: 574-631-4449 F: 574-631-2833 E: iei@nd.edu nd.edu W:http://ici.nd.cdu it, such as Eddy St. But this neighborhood is not a mixed use neighborhood. Why have a zoning regulation at all for residence, office or mixed use if one can simply obtain a variance to avoid the regulation? This development in the Northeast Neighborhood has proceeded very deliberately in property use, including a requirement of residence. The proposal not only defies the character of the neighborhood in adding mixed use space at that location (rather than, say,Eddy St.),but also defies efforts to foster permanent residence rather than periodic use for events such as Notre Dame football games. Space is already zoned for this latter purpose at Eddy St. There are other considerations that surely other residents have addressed. For instance, while a variance from 8' to 5' on a property line could be a judgment that respects the original intent of the zoning regulation, it is hard to see how the elimination of the east setback to 0' could be said to honor that zoning regulation. Similarly,the elimination (by half)of ADA-required disabled parking for no compelling reason other than the requirement's inconvenience calls into question the very existence of the requirement. Variances are a standard part of zoning regulations and rightly so since good judgment sometimes indicates the legitimacy of a variance without sacrificing the integrity of the area zoning regulations. I can see such a case being made for variances Two and part of Three as described in Ms. Henry's letter(front yard setbacks to 10' at north and 20' at west,and the south residential setback from 8' to 5'). But in all other variances sought I see no way to establish how the proposed variances are anything other than such radical departures from zoning regulations as to call into question very integrity of neighborhood zoning. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ' > William C. Mattison III Associate Professor, Department of Theology Senior Advisor: Theological Formation,Alliance for Catholic Education University of Notre Dame December 5,2017 Dear Ms Henry, We, Ebrahim Moosa and Nisa Moosa,are residents of 1008 N.Saint Peter Street,South Bend IN.We live within 300 feet of the property for which seven variances are sought as the per your November letter to residents. We write to express our opposition to the variances being sought by Alliance Architects at the 6 December meeting of the Area Board Zoning Appeals. While run of the mill variances are sought on a regular basis,the current variances will not only alter the character of our neighborhood,affect property values but will overall negatively impact a residential area that has only recently been significantly rehabilitated by the homeowners and a University of Notre Dame plan to upgrade the area. There are technical matters related to the variances that other neighbors have expressed in detail and submitted to your board and with we concur fully. We request that you forward our objection to the Board on or before the 6 December meeting. With best wishes, Ebrahim&Nisa Moosa Carolyn Henry From: Julie Peterson <juliepeterson99 @yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 12:06 PM To: Carolyn Henry Subject: 806 Howard Street 12/5/17 Dear Carolyn, We are Charles and Julie Peterson,vehemently oppose the variances requested at 806 Howard St. We are residing at 902 N.Saint Peter Street, living within 300 feet of the aforementioned property.We recently purchased our home because of its location in a quiet residential area of single family homes.There is a newly redone Keller Park within easy walking distance for our son to play basketball. Our understanding is that the variances requested, in the center of our neighborhood,will drastically disrupt the character of this previously planned housing district. The proposed on street parking will increase the traffic pattern,therefore, increasing the risk of accidents to pedestrians. It will also increase the congestion of on street parking in front of our homes. The building is already out of character for this neighborhood and with the additions of a proposed third story, office space and a larger foot print, it will make it even more obstructive.Those changes would definitely decrease the value of our properties. Other than the zoning board meeting,there has been no other study or evaluation done by the neighborhood council, or any other advance warning about these proposed changes.There have been major objections to this building's location ever since its inception in 1991.These factors all violate our agreement with the vision that had previously been outlined by Notre Dame,the NENC and the City of South Bend. With the purchase of our house,we agreed to the more stringent codes for building in our neighborhood than even the city of South Bend requires. We needed to be approved by the Notre Dame Council as second owners to this neighborhood,as a single family dwelling.All proposed changes to this building are not consistent with the vision of our neighborhood. For these reasons, and as well as other pertinent facts and concerns that our other neighbors have voiced,we respectfully request that you vote no to these outlandish requests. Sincerely, Charles&Julie Peterson 902 N. Saint Peter Street South Bend, IN 46617 1 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 I have abided by the terms of the residential and overlay district in the construction of my home and investment in my property because I felt the zoning regulations were sound. I request that the same observance be required by the owner of the above property. Thank you for your consideration. Rudy Reyes Jr. Rudy Reyes Jr. Director of University Relations,Pacific Northwest and Concurrent Faculty,First Year of Studies UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME Eddy Street Commons at Notre Dame 1251 N.Eddy Street,Suite 300 1 South Bend,Indiana 46617-1403 U.S.A. Office:574.631.0694 I Associate:574.631.99451 Facsimile:574.631.8325 eMall:rrevesPnd.edu I Twitter.therealNDRudy I Web:http;//giving,nd.edu What Would You Fight For?:htto://riightingfor,nd.edu Omnia dlsce videbis postea nlhil else superJluum. Hugonis de S Victore 2 Carolyn Henry From: Jennifer D'Ambrosia <jdambros @nd.edu> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 3:51 PM To: Carolyn Henry Subject: Area Board of Zoning Appeals:Old Pandora's Dear Board Members, I am writing to share my concerns and opposition to the proposed variances that the old "Pandora's" building at 806 Howard Street have requested. My name is Jennifer D'Ambrosia and I've been a resident of Notre Dame Ave for 15 years. I have seen the emence expansion of this area -with Eddy Street,the Triangle, the monstrosity of a building that is Opus Day—Windmoor House (which was passed without any notice to the neighbors due to some high paid lawyers) and now the continued construction of Eddy Street-Phase Two. People are moving out of the neighborhood because it is becoming difficult to park in front of your own house because of all the cars coming to Eddy Street. Whether to shop or work or go to a Bar/Restaurant;along with the residence in the Foundry that find it easier and closer to park in front of your house than the parking garage, and also most likely they don't have a spot in the garage.This problem is sure to only get worse now with the addition of phase two of Eddy Street. So with that being said, I find it very disconcerting that you would even consider allowing a variance for reduced off-street parking.As it is today,the area has a heightened level of auto brakes-ins, so by allowing more cars to be along the streets just invites more of that type of activity.And it certainly posses a safety and comfort hazard to the homeowners around the said property. I could continue with how unsettling it is to think about adding to the size of a building that is already so out of place in the neighborhood, and probably never should have been allowed to be built in that location in the first place. However, I will just say that as a resident who grew up in Harter Heights, moved away for some 20 years and then returned to the area, I was pleased to see the vast improvements that were made along Notre Dame Ave. and the adjoining streets. Nevertheless, allowing this building to be added to and then decrease the amount of parking it needs to provide, will take us back a decade to when the Ave.was not a desirable place to live–a neighborhood.The neighborhood has come such a long way from the time of rundown, rental houses and bad activity leading to the campus.You are reversing all the positive improvement that have developed in the neighborhood if you allow these changes to be made to this structure. Thank you for your time, Jennifer D'Ambrosia 1104 N. Notre Dame Ave. 574-234-2348 1 Carolyn Henry From: Brian Mulhern <brian.p.mulhern @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 7:08 PM To: Carolyn Henry-e I Subject: 806 Howard Street, South Bend Dear Carolyn, My name is Brian Mulhern and I am the owner of 726 Corby Blvd (South Bend—bear the intersection of Corby and St Peter). I am writing because I oppose the petition for 806 Howard Street and wanted to pass this on to the Area Board of Zoning Appeals. I believe that this proposal would be damaging to neighbors' property values and would be out-of-character with this residential neighborhood. Please pass my opposition on the Area Board of Zoning Appeals. Thank you Brian Mulhern cell phone 917-445-3036 1 The Forteners 1006 N.Notre Dame Ave,South Bend,IN 466171 574-387-5987 1 fortenerj @hotmail.com December 5,2017 Carolyn Henry Secretary to the Board Area Board of Zoning Appeals 125 S.Lafayette Boulevard,Suite 100 South Bend, IN 46617 Via email Dear Carolyn, We, Steven&Jennifer Fortener,own and live in the home at 1006 N.Notre Dame Avenue which is located within 300 feet of the property commonly described as 806 Howard Street. We want to express our opposition to the zoning variances sought by Alliance Architects on behalf of Pandora Partners for 806 Howard Street. We respectfully ask that you convey our opposition to the Area Board of Zoning Appeals("ABZA"). While there are many reasons we object to these variances, we will frame our concerns within the legal standards the ABZA must hold true to grant the requested variances as outlined below. We,along with many homeowners in the immediate,area have children who frequent Kelley Park which is adjacent.to 806 Howard Street. The requested parking variances present a risk to the safety and comfort of the many neighborhood children and groups from the Robinson Community Learning Center who enjoy the enhanced park amenities. Allowing for the requested parking variances would significantly increase the number of cars parked on the street reducing visibility for and of pedestrians. As a home that has a consistent view of the traffic on Howard Street we do not see how a parking variance will "calm"traffic in any way. Additionally,allowing this building to potentially monopolize street parking that residents and their guests also need to make use of is certainly an inconvenience. The variance to reduce the number of ADA spaces should be frowned upon as clearly injurious to public health,safety and comfort. Second,to allow a"Dwelling Unit-Upper Level" is outside of the moral character of the neighborhood. Our immediate neighborhood and community has been developed as an area composed of full-time primary residents. We are not aware of any mix-use office and dwelling properties within the area,aside from those on Eddy Street,which were developed for that express intent. Additionally,the development of new non-primary resident apartment units are not compatible with the neighborhood and have been actively opposed by the North East Neighborhood Council,the University of Notre Dame and neighborhood residents. Third,the building is already an out ol'place structure that sticks out like a sore thumb in the neighborhood. To add a third story,making it an even taller,out of place structure will certainly injure and adversely affect the use of and property values in adjacent areas. The structure already takes up much of the lot due to variances granted when it was initially constructed. To make it taller,thereby reducing the amount of natural light available to the surrounding homes and land is detrimental to their value. Additionally, an additional level on the building would reduce the amount of privacy afforded to nearby homes,making them less desirable thereby impacting the value. As it currently stands,the building is already completely out of character for our residential neighborhood as the only structure zoned as"Office". To make it a larger, more obtrusive mixed-use building makes it even more inconsistent with the district and neighborhood. To allow such a tall, out of place mixed-use structure in the neighborhood would set a dangerous precedent going forward. The proposed variances in no way help this building or its land use complement the surrounding parcels of land,nor would the help the building integrate well with its surroundings,both of which are requirements of section E of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The variances only make it a more obtrusive structure, in height and on land,all around. We have enjoyed seeing the neighborhood grow and expand into a community we are proud to be a part of,however we cannot see how these proposed changes to 806 Howard Street would be beneficial to our community or its development. Thank you for your consideration and for passing our comments along to the Board. Sincerely, Steven an Jennif ortener 1006 N.Notre Dame venue Carolyn Henry From: Jill Bodensteiner <jbodenst @nd.edu> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 8:57 PM To: Carolyn Henry Cc: James Haigh;Tom Mustillo;Jill.R.Bodensteiner.2 Subject: Zoning Appeal --806 Howard Street Dear Ms. Henry, My name is Jill Bodensteiner,and t live at 920 North St.Peter Street.Because my home is located within 300 feet of the property located at 806 Howard Street,I received the Notice to Adjacent Property Owners regarding the petition for seven(7)variances to zoning regulations filed by Pandora Partners LLC.Please forward this email detailing my opposition to such variances to the Area Board of Zoning Appeals for consideration. In light of the overwhelming concern expressed by my neighbors,l am certain that you have received several similar emails or letters.As such,my comments will be brief and focused on two of the legal standards governing the work of the Area Board of Zoning Appeals. Adverse Affect on Property Values in the Adjacent Area There is simply no credible argument to be made that the addition of an upstairs dwelling unit(and nearly 15 feet)to the existing structure and the reduction by 31 in the number of off-street parking spots will do anything other than adversely affect the property values in the adjacent areas.The site lines,skyline and residential feel of the entire neighborhood will change.I can't imagine a potential buyer of my bungalow home would want the structure two doors down to tower above their new home.The potential for 30+additional cars parking in front of our houses will also adversely affect the property value.Finally,any argument that the owner intends to improve the exterior appearance is irrelevant;to my knowledge,there is no related variance in the current petition. Consistent with the Character of the District The area surrounding 806 Howard Street is residential with the exception of the structure in question.While already zoned for office use,the addition of significant height and creation of a mixed use office/residential building will render the existing structure even more out of place and will establish bad precedent for the future of the neighborhood.An argument that either phases of the Eddy Street Commons project establishes 806 Howard as part of an existing mixed use district is without merit;a tour of the area would quickly establish the different character of our properties compared to Eddy Street Commons. In sum,I strongly opposed the zoning variances sought by Pandora Partners LLC related to 806 Howard Street,and look forward to the opportunity to share my views at the hearing. Jill Bodensteiner Senior Associate Athletics Director Notre Dame Athletics email:jbodenst nd.edu cell:(574)360-9792 office: (574)631-6721 1 .110 December 5, 2017 Dear Ms. Henry, Please pass along our concerns to the Area Board of Zoning Appeals. We are Dan & Kate Kelly of 1011 N. Notre Dame Avenue and are within 300 feet of 806 Howard Street. We are writing to oppose the special exception and variances requested by Alliance Architects on behalf of Pandora Partners, LLC. The building's appearance, size,and use as a large office space are already out of place for this residential neighborhood. The requested alterations would further separate this building from all the others. Taking a 2-story office building and making it 3 stories—with a significant increase in the height of an already large and bulky building(from approximately 28.5 feet to 46 feet)— not only would make a bigger and taller structure, but would harm the aesthetics of the neighborhood and the property values of the surrounding homes. The expanded building size would dwarf nearby homes; permanently alter the character and sight lines of the community; and decrease access to sunlight for neighbors, while increasing noise and light pollution. In addition,the variances requested with regard to parking would increase on-street congestion and parking issues and decrease pedestrian and motorist safety. This is problematic because, at present,Howard Street is incredibly busy and dangerous (with one neighbor describing it as the "Indy 500"). Many children, including our own,cross the street and walk by this building to access Kelly Park. We have significant safety concerns that the parking and setback variances would reduce sight lines, increase congestion, and make the walk to Kelly Park for children unsafe. It may make an intersection without a stop sign (Howard & St. Peter's),where one of our children and one of us were nearly struck by a vehicle this summer, even more dangerous. Neighbors seem uniform in opposing the proposed changes. Dozens of homeowners in the immediate vicinity view it as a bad idea and are actively opposing it. In our view,efforts to improve or change the external appearance of this structure are laudable. But adding a 3rd floor to an already oversized building, dramatically decreasing setbacks(including a setback of 0' on the east side),and creating additional parking and safety issues on an already busy street and at a dangerous intersection are problematic and not in the best interests of the community. The proposed changes do not appear to satisfy any of the standards for approval. The proposed use would harm public health, safety, comfort, etc.;adversely affect adjacent areas and property values; be inconsistent with the character of the district and the existing land uses; and be incompatible with the City of South Bend's comprehensive plan,as well as the many efforts by and on behalf of homeowners, both longstanding and new,to redevelop this area over the past two decades. An even larger office building,with reduced setbacks and less off-street parking, is not consistent with the interests of the neighborhood or the surrounding homeowners. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Katherine O. Kelly& Daniel B. Kelly Carolyn Henry From: Joseph Powers <powers @nd.edu> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 12:28 PM To: Carolyn Henry Cc: jhaigh @lck-law.com;tmustillo @gmail.com;Jo Broden Subject: former Pandora's Dear Ms. Henry, I was given your name and email address by James Haigh. I write with regard to something to which he alerted me: a proposed re-purposing of the old Pandora's bookstore building. I live nearby at 1026 N.St. Peter Street, having recently built a new house and moved here in May 2016. My understanding is the proposal is to significantly expand the Pandora's site to include new residential units in a new floor. I oppose this. It is out of character with the neighborhood, and expands upon a bad decision made in the 1990s. I placed a significant investment in a new home in a neighborhood with the expectation that it would remain a neighborhood of single-family dwellings. Part of the advantage of living in a city is that there are rules and expectations that allow people to make informed decisions. I followed the rules when I built,and I expect my neighbors to do so as well. The investors in the former Pandora's building knew the rules when they invested in it. Please do not grant the variance. Joseph M. Powers 1206 N.St. Peter Street South Bend, Indiana 46617 1 Carolyn Henry From: John McGreevy <John.T.McGreevy.5 @nd.edu> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 2:54 PM To: Carolyn Henry Subject: proposed zoning variance Dear Ms. Henry, We write in regard to the proposed zoning variance for the structure formerly known as the Pandora Books building on the corner of St. Peter and Howard Avenue. We have lived in the neighborhood at 1010 N. Notre Dame Avenue since 2002 and we are within three hundred feet of the structure. We are, frankly, shocked by the proposal. The existing structure has always been out of place with the character of the neighborhood. The recent development of the neighborhood with blocks of single family homes has made this problem only more acute. Adding a residential floor to the top of the building only accentuates this problem, however enticing the proposition is to the building's owners. In addition,parking for the building is insufficient even now and this problem will be exacerbated by the request to have virtually all of the parking on the street. One of us will be at the zoning meeting to express our objections in person. We have never protested a variance in our time in South Bend and never anticipated doing so. But this proposal works against the efforts of many over a long period of time to build a more coherent neighborhood . We wish to register our opposition in the strongest terms and that you convey this note to the board. Sincerely, John McGreevy Jean McManus 1010 N.Notre Dame Avenue 574-232-1153 John T.McGreevy I.A. O'Shaughnessy Dean of the College of Arts and Letters and Professor of History University of Notre Dame 100 O'Shaughnessy Hall Notre Dame, IN 46556 (574)631-6642 American Jesuits and the World: How an Embattled Religious Order Made Modern Catholicism Global (Princeton University Press, available May 2016) http://Rress.princeton.edu/titles/I 0678.html i Carolyn Henry From: Rita Schmid <schmidrita @gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 9:31 PM To: Carolyn Henry Subject: Neighborly considerations for ABZA on 806 Howard St.petition Dear Carolyn, My name is Rita Schmid,and 1 live at 919 North Notre Dame Avenue.As our home is located within 300 feet of the property commonly described as 806 Howard Street,I'd like to express our opposition to the proposed expansion and change of use identified in a recently-filed zoning petition,and if you could pass these thoughts to the board for consideration,l would greatly appreciate your help.. While it came as a surprise that anyone would seek to expand and amplify such an example of structural incongruity in our neighborhood,I thought it best to approach the matter through the frame of the City of South Bend's Comprehensive Plan(which I understand is a critical factor in ABZA's recommendation as they assess a proposal's compatibility).Though it should be noted,l do concur wholeheartedly with my adjacent neighbors,the Haighs and Mustillos,in their overall assessments and personal impressions. In regard to Chapter 3:Land Use and Growth,Sections D and E of the City Plan,I disagree that the proposed changes support and abide by the city's stated objectives.In section D,the plan states that mixed-use developments can"benefit a community by helping create a sense of place"and"encourage the kind of pedestrian activity people enjoy about city life." It goes on to say that"housing units on a buildings upper floors provide population density,encouraging retail development on the ground floor...attracting more people to the area;more pedestrian activity helps create street life,an essential element of urban living." While these points may not contradict the proposal's validity,they certainly don't support it either.These benefits are already well ill place for our neighborhood thanks to many key factors,including the support of Notre Dame,the positive(and well-deliberated)development plans along Eddy Street,the city of South Bend,and our wonderful community of neighbors. Section E of the City's Comprehensive Plan on ensuring land compatibility,however,seems to express guidelines that this petition does not comply with. It states: "Ensuring compatibility of land uses helps maintain the quality of life of a community.Since a land use decision on any individual parcel will affect surrounding parcels of land,sound decisions have to be made to ensure that different land uses complement each other and create the best urban form...City government,land use experts,and the general public recognize that new developments need to integrate well with their surroundings. This is achieved by following a plan,incorporating characteristics of the surrounding area into file development,and establishing appropriate buffers,for example,green space and less intensive uses, to reduce land use conflicts." This building already does not integrate well into its surroundings.Adding 18 feet to the height and widening its allowable structural presence will certainly not help it to do so. Thank you for your consideration,and we look forward to discussing the matter further on December 6. Sincerely, Rita Schmid and Adam Rebolloso 919 North Notre Dame Avenue South Bend,IN 46617 1 � I 1 NorthcaSt Neighborhood Revitalization Organ)"LiIt10Il 803 Lincoln Wad West 4 South I3end, Indiana 46616 0 Phone: 574-289-1066 0 Pax: 574-289-4550 December 1, 2017 q South Bend-St.Joseph County Area Board of Zoning Appeals(ABZA) 125 S. Lafayette Blvd. • Suite 100 South Bend, Indiana 46601 RE:806 Howard Street Variance Request for December 6, 2017 ABZA Agenda Dear Area Board of Zoning Appeals: The purpose of this letter is to inform you that several members of the Northeast Neighborhood Revitalization Organization (NNRO)are aware of and have briefly discussed the proposal to expand the building located at 806 Howard St. in the Northeast Neighborhood. However,the full board of the NNRO has not reviewed the request. Moreover,the NNRO does not meet until December 13 wherein the full board intends to address the proposal.Therefore, at this time the NNRO is not in support or opposition to the petitioner's request. Please know that the NNRO recognizes this is a critical matter for the neighborhood as the building has been a longstanding problem property. It is important to note that in partnership with the City of South Bend, Northeast Neighborhood residents and funding partners(South Bend Clinic,The University of Notre Dame, Beacon Health System,St.Joseph Regional Medical Center),the NNRO has directly facilitated roughly 30 million in housing production value in neighborhood since 2003.The NNRO has been very active in all aspects of development in the neighborhood and works to achieve the best possible outcomes. Please know that NNRO representatives will be in attendance at December 6 ABZA meeting regarding this matter.On behalf of the NNRO Board of Directors,we look forward to a decision regarding this request soon. If you have questions, please contact me directly.Thank you. Sincerely, l Marco Mariani NNRO Authorized Representative CC: NNRO Building Dept. APC ,i THE PERRET GROUP, L.L.C. A PRIVATE HOLDING COMPANY December 6,2017 Area Board of Zoning Appeals C/O Ms. Carolyn Henry chenry @southbendin_gov Dear Area Board of Zoning Appeals Members, My name is Hunter Perret. I own the property located at 1004 North St. Peter Street, 1005 North Notre Dame Avenue,and 1003 North Notre Dame Avenue, South Bend, Indiana. I would like to express my opposition to the expansion and proposed variances being sought by Alliance Architects for the property located at 806 Howard Street. The subject property is located within 50 feet of my property and I would greatly appreciate my opinion being considered by the board. Please let me know what I need to do further to express my great opposition to these proposed development variances. Respectfully, _ r / H -Pe rret 501 WEST SAINT MARY BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 •LAFAYETTE,LA 70506•337.233.1114(TELEPHONE)-337.456.5474(FACSIMILE) RESOLUTION NO. 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 806 Howard Street,Portage Township, South Bend,Indiana 46617 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 I. 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: 806 Howard Street, Portage Township, South Bend,Indiana 46617 in order to permit Special Exception Use: "Dwelling Unit-Upper Level" SECTION II. 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 III. 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; Z. 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; and 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. Member of the Common Council Filed in Clerk's Office 1 st READING PUBLIC HEARING 3 rd READING NOV 0 q 2017 NOT APPROV'- REFERRED KAREEMAH FOWLER 0 AC«'1 CITY CLERK,SOUTH BEND,IN AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 125 S. Lafayette Blvd., Suite 100, South Bend, Indiana 46601 574-235-9554 • (Fax) 574-235-5541 - build ing(a iniz(@southbendin.gov www.southbendin.gov NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given to all interested persons that the Area Board of Zoning Appeals will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers on the 4" Floor of the County-City Building, 227 W. Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana, on the 6" day of December, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard. This hearing is for the purpose of considering a petition that was filed by: Alliance Architects, on behalf of Pandora Partners, LLC, 929 Lincolnway East, Suite 200, South Bend, IN 46601 Seeking: 1) Special Exception Use allowing "Dwelling Unit - Upper Level" within O Office District. 2) Variance to reduce the required front yard and building setback from 25'to 10'at north and from 25'to 20'at west. 3) Variance to reduce the required side residential buffer yard and building setback from 8'to 5'at south and from 8'to 0'at east. 4) Variance to reduce the required off-street parking from 35 spaces to 4 spaces. 5) Variance to delete off-street parking area screening at east side yard. 6) Variance to reduce the required minimum number of ADA parking spaces from 2 spaces to 1 space. 7) Variance to reduce the minimum width of parking lot maneuvering aisle from 24'to 0'. On real estate commonly described as: 806 Howard Street, South Bend, Indiana 46617 and is legally described as follows: PARCEL 1: A lot or parcel of land,74 feet in length,East and West,taken off of and from the entire width of the West end of the Lot Numbered One Hundred and Twenty-Five(125)as shown on the recorded Plat of Edward Sorin's Second Addition to the Town of Lowell, now within and a part of the City of South Bend, in St. Joseph County, Indiana. PARCEL II: Part of Lot Numbered One Hundred Twenty-Five (125) as shown on the recorded Plat of Sorin's Second Addition to Lowell, now a part of the City of South Bend,described as beginning 74 feet East of the Northwest corner of said lot; thence running South 66 feet; thence East 45 feet to an alley; thence North 12 feet; thence West 25.5 feet; thence North 54 feet; thence West 19.5 feet to the place of beginning. 3. The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located and the land uses authorized therein. It should also be noted that the proposed uses (office and residential) are generally considered to be less intensive than the current use (retail). 4. The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the City of South Bend Comprehensive Plan because it involves the adaptive reuse of an existing structure and includes an upper floor dwelling unit above office space. VARIANCE APPROVAL STANDARDS 1. The approval will not be injurious to the public health,safety,morals and general welfare of the community because on-street parking will be available to supplement the existing on-site parking. The on-street parking will also serve as"traffic calming"along Howard Street. 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 because the on-site parking is existing and will remain in place. Also,the building setback variances are necessary in order for the existing building walls to be compliant with the current ordinance. The north building setback variance will also permit the construction of a new deck/porch which will project approximately 6'beyond the existing wall. 3. The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because a similar parking variance was granted when the existing building was constructed in 1992. The South Bend Building Department has confirmed that the parking requirements for the existing retail use and proposed office use are identical: 3.5 spaces per 1,000 GSF. The parking requirement for the Dwelling Unit-Upper Floor is two spaces. LICANT SIGNATURE Date Martin J. Murphy, RA Alliance Architects Name PARCEL II: Part of Lot Numbered One Hundred Twenty-Five (125) as shown on the recorded Plat of Sorin's Second Addition to Lowell, now a part of the City of South Bend,described as beginning 74 feet East of the Northwest comer of said lot; thence running South 66 feet; thence East 45 feet to an alley; thence North 12 feet; thence West 25.5 feet; thence North 54 feet; thence West 19.5 feet to the place of beginning. PARCEL III: Part of Lot Numbered One Hundred Twenty-Five (125) as shown on the recorded Plat of Sorin's Second Addition to Lowell, now a part of the City of South Bend, described as commencing on the North line of said Lot 125, 93.6 feet East of the Northwest comer of said lot; thence South 54 feet; thence East 26 feet; thence North 54 feet; thence West 26 feet to the place of beginning. Together with the West Half of the vacated alley lying East of and adjacent to Parcels II and III. PARCEL IV: Grant of Easement recorded April 21, 2017 as Instrument No. 1709777 in the Office of the Recorder of Saint Joseph County, Indiana. SPECIAL EXCEPTION &VARIANCE(S) Seeking Special Exception Use to allow a "Dwelling Unit - Upper Level" within the O Office District and Variances to include: 1) Variance to reduce the required front yard and building setback from 25' to 10'at north and from 25'to 20'at west; 2) Variance to reduce the required side residential buffer yard and building setback from 8'to 5'at south and from 8'to 0'at east; 3) Variance to reduce the required off-street parking from 35 spaces to 4 spaces; 4) Variance to delete off-street parking area screening at east side yard; 5) Variance to reduce the required minimum number of ADA parking spaces from 2 spaces to 1 space; and 6) Variance to reduce the minimum width of parking lot maneuvering aisle from 24'to 0'. REASON FOR REQUEST(S) These approvals are necessary in order for the existing building to be renovated as planned by Superior Property Holdings, LLC. SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL STANDARDS 1. The approval will not be injurious to the public health,safety,morals and general welfare of the community because the proposed residential use is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or property values therein because the owner will make a significant financial investment and improve the exterior appearance of the property. AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 125 S.Lafayette Blvd., Suite 100, South Bend, Indiana 46601 574-235-9554 • (Fax) 574-235-5541 • building(@southbendin.gov www.southbendin.gov SPECIAL EXCEPTION & VARIANCE PETITION ABZA DATE: Wednesday,December 6,2017 PETITIONER Alliance Architects (574) 288-2052 mmurphy @alliarch.com Name Phone Email 929 Lincolnway East, Suite 200 South Bend IN 46601 Address City ST Zip PROPERTY OWNER(IF DIFFERENT THAN PETITIONER) Pandora Partners,LLC (574)339-0275 chris.shepherdl @me.com Name Phone Email 1251 N.Eddy Street, Suite 200 South Bend IN 46617 Address City ST Zip PRESENTER(IF DIFFERENT THAN PETITIONER) Name Phone Email Address City ST Zip PROPERTY INFORMATION O Office Portage Zoning Township 806 Howard Street South Bend IN 46617 Address City ST Zip Legal Description PARCEL I: A lot or parcel of land,74 feet in length,East and West,taken off of and from the entire width of the West end of the Lot Numbered One Hundred and Twenty-Five(125)as shown on the recorded Plat of Edward Sorin's Second Addition to the Town of Lowell, now within and a part of the City of South Bend, in St. Joseph County,Indiana. RESOLUTION NO. 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 i 806 Howard Street,Portage Township,South Bend,Indiana 46617 f i 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 I 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 I WHEREAS,the Area Board of Zoning Appeals has made a recommendation,pursuant to applicable 1 state law. I NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND,INDIANA as follows: I SECTION I. 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 i Special Exception be granted for the property located at: ; 806 Howard Street,Portage Township,South Bend,Indiana 46617 in order to permit Special Exception Use: "Dwelling Unit-Upper Level" j I SECTION U. Following a presentation by the Petitioner, and after proper public hearing, the fi 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 III. 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, i 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; and i i 4. The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the City of South Bend Comprehensive Plan. i 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. Member of the Common Council I i I 1 I I r I I I t f r i Filed in Clerk's Office I sF READING PUBLIC HEARING NOV 3 rd READING N 0 9 2017 NOT APPROV'-� REFERRED KAREEMAH FOWLER oA;Cc6n CITY CLERK,SOUTH BEND,IN PANDORA PARTNERS LLC 1251 N.EDDY ST,SUCTE 200 SOUTH SEND,IN 46617 (574)339.0275 CHRIS.SHEPHERDI @ME.COM October 31, 2017 To Whom it May Concern, Pandora Partners, LLC hereby authorizes Alliance Architects to serve as its representative during the submission and public hearings related to the petition for a special exception use and variances for the property commonly described as 806 Howard Street, South Bend, Indiana 46617, Sincerely, Christopher Shepherd Member Type: Filing_Fees Payor:ALLIANCE ARCHITECTS License Number: Address: 806 HOWARD SP EXCEPTION & VARIANCES 11/9/2017 9:10:49 AM Filing_Fees $570.00 Check 013148 $570.00 chenry 10124 d Alice H Isaacson 909 N. St. Peter St. Sasman Enterprises LLC Megan M Kolaczyk South Bend, to St. 925 N. Notre Dame Ave. 918 N. St. Louis Blvd. Parcel#end, 107-3766 South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN 46617 Parcel#018-5107-3771 Parcel#018-5107-3755 Robert D and Katherine C Kossler Hansen Syrus White Jill R. Bodensteiner 1020 N. St. Peter St. Bend, 922 N. St. Louis 920 N. St. Peter St. South B IN 46617 Parcel#end,018-5104-3651 6 South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN 46617 Parcel#018-5107-3798 Parcel#018-5107-3778 Pandora Partners LLC Scott R.Appleby Sara and Thomas Mustillo 51720 Bluffside Court 912 N. St. Peter St. 926 N. St. Peter St. Granger, IN 46530 South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN 46617 Parcel#018-5107-3768;#018-5107-3770 Parcel#018-5107-3783 Parcel#018-5107-3774 The University of Notre Dame Julie A. Peterson Robert J. and Deborah S. Bernhard 725 Grace Hall 902 N. St. Peter St. 1019 N. Notre Dame Ave. Notre Dame, IN 46556 South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN 46617 Parcel#018-5107-3772;#018-5104-3632 Parcel#018-5107-3786 Parcel#018-51043653 #018-5104-3631 Perret D Hunter Brian R. and Alison K Levey Ebrahim I Moosa 1301 Camelia Blvd., Ste 400 918 N. St. Peter Moosa Family 2016(Trust) South Bend, IN Lafayette, LA 70508 6 1008 N. St Peter St. Parcel#018-5104366101;#018-51043661 - South Bend, IN 46617 #018-5104-3662 Parcel#018-5107-3778 3778 Parcel#018-51043658;#018-51043657 ND 2019 LLC John T. McGreevey and Jean C. Go Kendall Gray Rita A. Schmid Mamanus 64 Florence Ave 919 N. Notre Dame Ave. 1010 N. Notre Dame Ave. New Providence, NJ 07974 South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN 46617 Parcel#018-5107-376601 Parcel#018-5107-3780 Parcel#018-5105-3673 James and Gia Haigh Rudy N. Reyes Ani Apbrahamian(Trust) 925 N. Notre Dame Ave. 1014 N. St. Peter St. 936 N. Notre Dame Ave. South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN 46617 Parcel#018-5107-3776;#018-5107-3775 Parcel#018-5104-3654 Parcel#01&51 G6-3713 South Bend Housing Authority Stephen C Smith Thomas J. and Shannon E. Guinan 501 S. Scott St. 4404 Technology Dr. 807 Grace Hall South Bend, IN 46613 South Bend, IN 46617 Notre Dame, IN 46556 Parcel#018-5107-3756 Parcel#018-5104-3630 Parcel#018-5107-3782 Mathew M and Elizabeth Sanford Thomas E and Elizabeth R Burman William C. III and Courtney D. Mattison 313 Visitation Hall 1013 N. St. Peter St. 920 N. Notre Dame Ave. South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN 46617 Notre Dame, 46556 Parcel#018-51010 6-3717;#018-5106-3718 Parcel#018-5104-3629 Parcel#01&5106-3721 John B. Swarbrick and Kimberly A Barbara Virginia Sniegowski as Highsmith Avarice Hudgens-Swarbrick Trustee of Barbara Virginia 924 St. Louis Blvd. 1016 N Notre Dame Ave. 917 N. St. Peter St. 7 South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN 46617 South Bend, IN Parcel#018-5105-3672 Parcel#018-5107-3763;#018-5107-3762 Parcel#018-5107--379379 7 -E)OOV V 10 uo!ss!wad aopug peoJliea L! ueU!jm ssaJdxa ayl lnoylim pazuoylne lou st leualew s!yl}o uo!lnquls!p Jo uo!pnpadaa awualuaa peoa �lli!gelueyoJaw Jo 6oeJnooe Joj palueLem lou s!dew siyl uo urnoys uo!lewJO}ul peagiea pauopuegy Peollica •wnlea ueouawy peoJl!ea WON£96t walsAS aleu!pJOOO aueld alelS 1683 eue!pul uo paseq s!pub aleu!pJOoo luudlooj 6u!plm8 i J laaAS N-13 m to o ton 000 0 l laajlSOfS = :S'.i s sapyy rl slaoJed Nl3 ❑ �y^^.^^.::�i'�°•°�"""�" LIOUEIU -Patuud aled 1aa100'9L=you!t oggnd Ag pale�auag deyy slaaJed�fS ❑ a1311q�S3X3 suo!suaw!o IaoJed OrS a;IsgaM SIC) IeuoiBab eueiyoiw pua6a-1 cc LO qtr- � �'L r 9t+64d I 1 . °m a V ti � i iryr,C., tL5-yl..� N L r y a � E. 11 'Viol IL o .> T µ 4 IL tS:plernop x�n filZuLa tS I i i l fl —.9 + Y\ ti:. AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 125 S. Lafayette Blvd., Suite 100, South Bend,Indiana 46601 574-235-9554 - (Fax) 574-235-5541 - building(@southbendin.gov www.southbendin.gov NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS You are hereby notified that a public hearing will be held by the Area Board of Zoning Appeals on Wednesday, the 6`b day of December,2017, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers on the 4`h Floor of the County-City Building, 227 W.Jefferson Blvd.,South Bend, Indiana A petition is on file by: Alliance Architects, on behalf of Pandora Partners,LLC, 929 Lincolnway East, Suite 200, South Bend,IN 46601. Seeking: 1) Special Exception Use allowing "Dwelling Unit - Upper Level" within O Office District. 2) Variance to reduce the required front yard and building setback from 25'to 10'at north and from 25'to 20'at west. 3) Variance to reduce the required side residential buffer yard and building setback from 8'to 5'at south and from 8'to 0'at east. 4) Variance to reduce the required off-street parking from 35 spaces to 4 spaces. 5) Variance to delete off-street parking area screening at east side yard. 6) Variance to reduce the required minimum number of ADA parking spaces from 2 spaces to 1 space. 7) Variance to reduce the minimum width of parking lot maneuvering aisle from 24'to 0'. On property commonly described as: 806 Howard Street, South Bend, Indiana 46617. Said public hearing will be held as authorized by the applicable Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 138, Acts of 1957 of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana. As a property owner within the immediate appeal area, this notice is sent to you as a courtesy. Sometimes,for reasons beyond our control,property owners within the immediate area of the subject property will not receive a copy of this notice. If you know of someone who should have received notice but didn't,please inform them of this hearing. Any persons desiring to oppose or support this petition will be heard at the time of the hearing. AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OP Carolyn A. Hffuy Secretary to the Board PARCEL III. Part of Lot Numbered One Hundred Twenty-Five(125)as shown on the recorded Plat of Sorin's Second Addition to Lowell, now a part of the City of South Bend, described as commencing on the North line of said Lot 125, 93.6 feet East of the Northwest corner of said lot; thence South 54 feet; thence East 26 feet; thence North 54 feet; thence West 26 feet to the place of beginning. Together with the West Half of the vacated alley lying East of and adjacent to Parcels II and III. PARCEL IV: Grant of Easement recorded April 21, 2017 as Instrument No. 1709777 in the Office of the Recorder of Saint Joseph County, Indiana. Dated this WL day of /ce,emL. AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS "4L) kmw Carolyn A. He Secretary to the Board TO THE PETITIONER: It is your responsibility to complete this form correctly and deliver it to the Secretary of the Board of Zoning Appeals with the other papers at the time of original filing. Once it is signed by the Secretary, then it is your responsibility to make arrangements to have publication of notice made in a local newspaper having general circulation in St.Joseph County. Such notice must be published one(1) time,being at least ten(10)days prior to the date on which the public hearing is to be held. Proof of publication must be presented to the Board at the time of public hearing. 916 i� ,6©k' 0 1s Bianca Tirado From: Carolyn Henry Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 7:54 AM To: Bianca Tirado Subject: FW: Opposed to changes of bldg on St. Peter Too late for my meeting. Thought you might want it for the Council. Carolyn From: Mary Murphy [mailto:mmurphy08 @gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2017 7:56 PM To: Carolyn Henry<chenry @south bend in.gov> Subject: Opposed to changes of bldg on St. Peter Dear Carolyn, My husband and I are strongly opposed to the proposed changes of the building located at St. Peter and Howard St. Thank you, Mary and David Murphy 1038 N. Notre Dame Ave SB, IN 46617 1 Area Board of Zoning Appeals—December 6,2017 Petition of Pandora Partners, Inc. Based on information available prior to the public hearing, the staff recommends the Special Exception Use be sent to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation. The staff recommends approval of the variances. (1) The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort, community moral standards, convenience or general welfare. The accessory residential use should have no impact on the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community. (2) The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or property values therein. Because the site has been used as an office for many years, the proposed addition of the residential use should not impact surrounding property values. (3) The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located and the land uses authorized therein. This Special Exception Use for the upper level dwelling unit is consistent with the O Office District and the surrounding neighborhood in which it will be located. (4) The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. City Plan South Bend Comprehensive Plan (November 2006) identifies this area as Medium Density Residential. PANDORA PARTNERS,INC. The petition of Pandora Partners, Inc. seeking the following: a Special Exception to allow a dwelling unit—Upper level within an Office District and for the following variances: from the required 25'front yard setback to 10' along the north line(Howard Street) and to 20' along the west line (St.Peter Street);from the required 8' residential buffer yard to 5' along the south property line and to 0' along the east property line;from the required 35 parking spaces to 4;from the required off street parking screening to none along the east side yard;from the required 2 ADA parking spaces to 1;and reduce the required 24' width of parking lot maneuvering aisle to 0', on property located at 806 Howard Street, Portage Township. Zoned "O" Office. MR. MARTY MURPHY: I'm an architect and President of Alliance Architects. Our offices are located at 929 Lincolnway East,South Bend. Joining me today are Perry Vieth and Jim Passios. Jim and Perry are the principals in Ceres Partners and also the affiliated companies,Superior Property Holdings, LLC. Ceres is an investment company specializing in farm land. Their headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. They also have offices in Chicago and their office at Eddy Street Commons in South Bend. Their office at Eddy Street currently has about ten employees and they're looking to expand. Their proposal that we have is for the adaptive reuse of the old Pandora's Book Store. Pandora's was built in 1992. It 11 Area Board of Zoning Appeals—December 6,2017 consists of a basement plus two stories of retail,approximately 9,000 square feet total. Our proposal has the following elements. We propose to renovate the two floors of retail to offices. We want to renovate the basement for staff lounge and storage purposes. We want to add a third floor dwelling unit above the offices. We want to redesign the building exterior to remove the precast concrete and tinted glass and instead replace it with face brick limestone accents and slate color roof and I did bring copies of that. COPIES OF THE RENDERINGS WERE PASSED OUTATTHIS TIME MR. MURPHY: And finally we want to add an unenclosed porch on the north fagade. The reason that we're here today is the upper floor dwelling unit requires a Special Exception under the "O" Office zoning. The variances basically affirm the existing conditions. Our understanding is the variances would not be required if not for the Special Exception request. I'd like to walk through each of these items. The dwelling unit would be used by Ceres staff friends and associates to facilitate business travel to the South Bend office. We are willing to commit in writing that it will not be used to rent to undergraduate students. Although the overlay district is not applicable in this case it is interesting to note that upper floor dwelling units are actually encouraged in that Overlay District. The building setback variances permit the rebuilding of the exterior walls in current location. We will reuse the existing building foundations and build the new walls and design it. There are two exceptions to that. The first is the porch deck element that I had mentioned previously. And the second is that we would square off the northwest corner of the ground floor, bring it out to the wall line of the second floor above and element the recessed entrance. But other than that it's rebuild new walls on the existing foundations. The parking variance is also affirmed existing conditions. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance in 1992 to reduce the required parking from 32 spaces to 4 spaces.That approved reduction runs with the property. So in a sense it permanently runs with the property. So in essence that reduction 32 to 4 is already in the bank. For the purposes of this discussion we're asking an additional 3. Two of these would be attributable to the dwelling unit and there would be another one that would be attributable to space that's recaptured within the building footprint. That includes the squared off corner that I referenced earlier. We will retain the existing four spaces on that on site to the east. We will also retain the existing driveway and shared access condition with the neighboring properties. Now I've had conversations with the City and the City has indicated a willingness to add parking stripping on both sides of Howard from Frances to Foster. If we look at the site plan,you'd see that there are five spaces would be accommodated in the half block immediately adjacent to the site. Then when we include the other,the eastern half of the block,that would add an additional five and if we add the opposite side of Howard Street the total would be twenty spaces of stripped parking on the street between Notre Dame Avenue and St. Peter Street. That compares to an estimated peak office load of twenty to twenty four. We would have twenty that are in that block plus the four on site equals twenty four. We should also note that the lot immediately to the east and the lot across Howard Street to the north are likely to remain vacant for various reasons,we can go into them if you'd like, but those are vacant now and will very likely to remain vacant. However, if we continue to run the math further, between Frances and Foster Streets about seven blocks, if there's 20 spaces stripped... MR.CRUMLISH: Sorry we have to limit you to five minutes. Thank you Marty. Board or staff any questions to begin with? MRS.SMITH: I'll start with a little history on this to help frame from where the Staff recommendation comes from. In 1991 the property was actually rezoned to"C-1"Commercial District under the old zoning ordinance. In 2004 when the map was, back up, in 1992 the Board of Zoning Appeals, as he mentioned,granted the parking reduction from 32 to 4. In 2004 when the new zoning map was adopted this property was identified as"0" Office so essentially the Council reconfirmed the"0"Office designation in 2004. So from the Staff's perspective the office portion of this building is already been determined as an appropriate land use by the Common Council. The only item in front of you in terms of the land use would be a recommendation on the upper story dwelling whether or not that would be an appropriate at this location. That's what the Staff looks at in our recommendation. The plan for this area calls for or encourages for an upper level dwelling and it encourages mixed use buildings throughout the area where appropriate and so we felt like the 12 Area Board of Zoning Appeals—December 6,2017 upper storage dwelling unit is an appropriate Special Exception use of this property. They meet the criteria as set for that. In terms of the variances it's kind of one of those unique things that are our ordinance doesn't adequately address and it's actually again'on our list of things to fix in the new year. When someone seeks a Special Exception we currently make them bring the entire site up to standards. We wrote in a provision into the ordinance a couple of years ago when you rezone your building and your setbacks become legal non-conforming. So if this was a rezoning for instance they would not need to get the setbacks for the building,they would not need to get the setbacks for the parking. They would however need to look at the parking number and the landscaping. The landscaping that they're requesting for the parking screening would essentially require them to rip up the alley and put in shrubs which would block the access. So we would not want to encourage that so we support that variance for the landscape,for the parking screening. The other landscaping,as I understand,will be installing. The parking reduction, in the staff's opinion,was determined in 1992 by the approval of the Board in terms of the office competent so we were strictly looking at the additional parking that would be required for the residential dwelling unit and the Staff's opinion the availability of on street parking that would require, a dwelling unit requires two additional spaces. I believe they said the reconfiguration might add a third. So three spaces could adequately be handled in the space provided adjacent to that. So with that the Staff recommendation on this is favorable for the Special Exception and approval of the variances. Is there any questions? I will say that I have read some of the letters. The height for this District is not in question by the Board. They are allowed to build up to 50' in height within the"0"Office District. That item is not under consideration... MR.CRUMLISH: There's no variance then for the additional area? MRS.SMITH: There's no variance needed for the height of the building and there's also no maximum floor area requirement for the"0"Office District. So the only impact of the area would be the impact on the parking calculations. MR.CRUMLISH: Can you address the ADA parking variance? MRS.SMITH: The ADA parking variance actually depending on you outcome, may or may not be necessary. The ADA parking spaces are based on the number of spaces provided so in 1992 when the variances was granted down to 4 spaces one of those four spaces would have to be ADA compliant. So if the variance is granted from the requirement to 4,the variance for the ADA spaces would not be necessary because only one of those spaces would need to be ADA compliant. So that variance is kind of not really needed. MR. URBANSKI: May I ask a question of the presenter? When looking at the drawing of the proposed three story,what side of that faces Howard? MR. MURPHY: Yes, Howard is to the left. That's where the porch is. MR. HAWLEY: The exterior is all brick? MR. MURPHY: Correct. MR. URBANSKI: I have been on this Board in excess of twenty years, I have never seen this amount of letters in opposition. MR.CRUMLISH: I'll mention the letters in a minute. MR. URBANSKI: The contact with the neighbors and the people in the area, I understand that if they were to look at the remodeling of a building similar to"the original building", have they been notified of what the new building would look like? MR. MURPHY: These images have been shared with the neighbors immediately to the south,who are in attendance today,and also with the NENC Board. So yes that drawing is out there. It's the same drawing. 13 Area Board of Zoning Appeals—December 6,2017 MR. URBANSKI: Okay. MR.CRUMLISH: Are there any additional questions or comments? I'll open the session to the public then. If there is anyone here wishing to speak in favor of or ask additional questions about this petition you may approach the podium? You will be allowed two minutes each. IN FAVOR MR.TIM CORCRAN: I'm the Director of Planning for South Bend. I wish to support this project. While we are opposed to the spot rezoning that happened in 1991 and would not support that today, it is in place. We do feel that this proposal is an improvement a vacant building and clearly out of character,style of the existing building. We would like the proponent to look into ways to reducing the height,which we know is not something that we're talking about today, but as a way to help mitigate the fears of the neighbors and to continue to work towards that. But in essence we do support the change and the Special Exception. MR. LEBBIN: Will please state your address. MR.CORCRAN: 14TH floor, County City Building. MR. DAVID BUCKINMEYER: I am Director of Business Development for the City of South Bend,also on the 14"floor of this building. We support the request being made by the petitioner here today. The improvements in question are clearly an enhancement to the building,the intersection,the neighborhood. Also brings a residential element to a residential area. From our business and economic and development perspective,supporting this request will also the retention of high end jobs and a high end business critical to the South Bend economy, a business and employees which might otherwise leave South Bend and St.Joe County. Thank you. MR. CRUMLISH: Is there anyone else wishing to speak in favor of? 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 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 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 understanding so perhaps...what is it if we can't talk to the... MR.CRUMLISH: Can you repeat the variances? MRS.SMITH: Sure. The height is the one that I said is not under consideration today. The height is allowed in this district up to 50'. So the height of this building is not under consideration... MR.CRUMLISH: No variance was even requested. MRS.SMITH: No variance is needed for the height of the building. The reason for the variances that are requested all relate back to, I guess I should have explained it this way.The building can continue to operate as an office. It can expand up to 50' in height if they could meet the requirements that were improved in 1992 and they could remodel the building accordingly. By seeking the Special Exception Use for the residential dwelling unit,the way the ordinance is currently written, it says that they must bring the entire site up to the current code. So if the request for the residential dwelling unit that warrants the setback variances,the parking variance and the landscape variance for the parking and the drive 14 Area Board of Zoning Appeals—December 6, 2017 aisle. So the setbacks all match the existing building with the exception the porch to be added on the north side and all the other variances are for existing conditions. MR. CRUMLISH: That's the explanation. MS. BURMAN: Thank you. MR. CRUMLISH: Before I open this up to those who wish to speak against it, I will note that we did receive something like 27 letters and emails generally in opposition to this. If anyone would like to see this list there's a copy of it with our secretary. I certainly can't read all of these into the minutes but duly noted there is a very large stack remonstrance here. With that said I will now open this to anyone wishing to speak in opposition to this petition,you may approach. Please be reminded that you're limited to two minutes. We need you name and address and if I start to hear the same comment repeatedly I will ask you to stop. We only need to hear the comments originally. Thank you. REMONSTRANCE MS. MARGERITE TAYLOR: I live 714 E. Corby Blvd., I'm here to represent the Northeast Neighborhood Council which was established in 1965. We polled the Board, out of 23 members, 19 of them are adamantly opposed to this project for many reasons including some of those that you have in you 23 emails. I have a letter that I'll submit to you from the President, Bill Stentz. Parking was number one and pedestrian safety.The conversion of what is essentially a book warehouse to four parking spaces and the high density use, questionable purpose of the third story. What I think we're afraid of is that what will happen to the third floor is what happened on South Bend Avenue. Private bedrooms and common area which skates around the two unrelated people in the neighborhood. Can't hold the neighborhood hostage by telling them that it's better than what was there. It isn't better than what's there. If you look at the building it doesn't fit. The present building is kind of nondescript but it was functional and it hasn't been empty but a few months. The person died and they bought it. So it hasn't been a building that was empty for years. It's just been a few months. So we are absolutely,totally opposed to this project and did come to the Northeast Neighborhood Council to explain it to us and we're still opposed to it. Thank you. MS. LULELLA WEBSTER: I live at 701 Howard Street, one block west of where this building is. I think the size of the building,even though the improvements would be disaster to the area. I have worked with Beth Stanford on renovating South Bend Park Department,the park that's right across there,and one of the main entrances into the park is right there at St. Peter and Howard. So I'm concerned about additional traffic that goes through there. There's many a time,there was one time that I called the Police Department,they came out and looked and within an hour they ticketed 25 people for speeding down Howard Street. So I have very concern about the parking in that area as well as, and I know we're not talking about height, but it's a humongous size building. Even though they committed to not renting to students they did not commit about football rental and that is an issue for us. Thank you. MS. BETH STANFORD: I live at 1013 N.St. Peter Street. I am within the 300' of the property. I've been a resident and in my homes for over 23 years. I have actually, I did an overlay of the drawing of what's current and what their proposing as well as took a picture of the Mustillo's house which is directly south of the property, proposed property, and as Luella I've been working with her on Kelly Park. I guess a couple of issues that I have,one, I want to say that I am happy that someone wants to develop the Pandora Book Store because I've been looking at an ugly building for a long time, but I am concerned about the height and we are welcome if they want to somehow reduce it,that would be great to work with the neighbors. But too my main thing is parking. Notre Dame Legal Aid would be just southwest of that, I'm sorry northwest of that property on the opposite corner, and daily, I live next door to Legal Aid,daily we have a lot of parking at least 15 to 15 Area Board of Zoning Appeals—December 6,2017 20 parking spaces that are filled up and I have five young children. My youngest is nine. And trying to cross to going over to the park and it's very busy and people don't stop between St. Louis,Howard Street stop sign. They race from there to Notre Dame Avenue and I'm concerned increased traffic. I'm concerned about increased traffic, parking because people do not slow down. We live with game day parking for a very long time and people don't slow down. And the visibility of trying to get around the vehicles. I have a suburban and it's hard to see around to get onto Howard Street and I've been almost hit several times. I'm also concerned especially during the summer... MR. CRUMLISH: I'm sorry ma'am I have to stop you,that's two minutes. MS.STANFORD: That's fine,thank you. MS.JESSICA PAYNE: I live at 1119 N. Frances Street,just a couple of blocks from the Pandora Book Store. The one thing I want to state is that,and maybe it's my opinion based on the fact that I've been a resident for decades there,to call Pandora's an active office space up until this point would probably would not be an accurate statement. It was a warehouse situation. It did not have employees coming and going and parking on a daily basis. It was for most people's perspective borderline an abandoned building. So to know to have it used in a high capacity state and not add parking would just be something quite ridiculous. I do live very close to the Eddy Street Commons area and the added traffic, parking situation that has occurred there has been very intolerable for us and I hate to see that then carry over now blocks away. It's just going to continue to eat our neighborhood with addition of the second phase. Again I'm truly fearful of this neighborhood is going to turn into. People are coming to me now, "gosh you guys were right when you though the Eddy Street Commons situation, here we bought this house and it's becoming intolerable for us." I'm afraid that that, now all these people who have built these beautiful homes. We've brought kids back into the neighborhood. We've brought families back into the neighborhood and they're going to be continuously drawn away. If you allow this to go forward with no consideration for off street parking that will truly be the worst possible decision you can make. Does the building look better,yes it does? Is it too tall,yes it is? Is it ridiculous to say we don't really don't need any additional parking, absolutely? And to say that it will only be used for this one purpose, again ten years from now,twenty years from now,what will be the situation? Will it turn into something else? And if you give it blanket cart blanc to continue as it is, it would be a grave mistake. Thank you. MS.SARAH MUSTILLO: I live at 926 St. Peter Street. I'm the brick house that's immediately south of this building. It is dwarfed by this building. To follow up on what she said, it's great that they're willing to say that they're not going to rent, that it's going to be residential space, but we can only control,or we can only accept that that's the current use. We cannot control what the future use of what this residential space that's going to be. And so they may say that it only requires one additional parking spot right now because the owners are going to occupy it but what about if they sell it in several years, if something happens to their business? That's 3,000 square feet of residential space. That's bigger than my entire house. My house is 2300 square feet. So who knows what could happen to that residential space then? And how many parking spaces they will need at that time. That could become rental space which then leads to another issue. I don't know where this idea that mixed use is encouraged in our neighborhood came from. We live in a residential neighborhood. When our neighborhood had a very deliberate redevelopment plan,the idea was for it to be owner occupied houses. And many of our houses have restrictive covenants that we are not allowed to rent our houses. The person that sold us our house wanted to rent their house because they went away for a year and they had to sell it because they were not allowed to rent it. So can't rent our houses yet we might let these guys build something that they could end up renting. We don't live in a mixed use neighborhood. We live in an owner occupied neighborhood. So if they would like to build something mixed use,that's wonderful, build it downtown. That's where skyscrapers belong, not in a residential neighborhood. Thank you. 16 Area Board of Zoning Appeals—December 6, 2017 MR,JAMIE HAIGH: I live at 925 N. Notre Dame Avenue, directly behind Mustillo's. Also through one of the other property owners own the strip of land where the trees are directly across. I would not have paid what I paid for t hose properties if this had been there. So one of the elements in granting the variances is that it will not harm the property values. It will. And the letters that you have testify to that. I'd like to present a certificate here,the Mustillo's and Haigh's have a gathered,this is a certificate listing only property owners within 300' received the notice. Twenty eight of them,through emails,through personal conversations with us,to letters to you all,twenty eight of them,that's basically all of them, are adamantly opposed to this saying that it will harm the character of the neighborhood,saying that it will dramatically reduce property values. Of those 28, 23 felt strongly enough, and you've got some from other people,to write letters testifying to that fact. So I'd like to introduce this,this is basically everybody. There's some, obviously some out of state and city owned properties. So when folks say,and these people all think that the current building,which is not attractive, is better than what is proposed. And regarding the height,technically there's requirement on the height but if they put a third floor office,they would need what another 15 parking spots,and they would objected to on that. That use does not belong here. I understand it's there but to amplify it in any way is harmful to the neighborhood,folks everyone around it, everyone, is adamantly opposed to that. This is all about one person's condo. We have all the neighbors adamantly opposing it's going to hurt their property values and this is one person's condo. Those belong on the Eddy Street corridor, downtown, east of campus,that's where those belong. They don't belong in this neighborhood. MR.WILLIAM MATTISON: I live at 100'from this place at 928 N. Notre Dame Ave. I'm one of your letter writers so I'll spare you the details of on the parking and what not but I'll address two procedural issues. When the Staff explained the basis of their recommendations they did mention that no need for the variances have been granted in the previous hearing which seems absolutely true but my understanding is those are open again once this is being proposed as a different use of the property.So while it may be the case of it being granted in the past,to apply that therefore there's confident(could not understand what he said) toward that kind of makes a farce of this, of this(once again could not understand what was said). So we are legitimately being asked whether these variances now also make sense to spite the fact that they've been granted in the past. And note that the variance at times attains such a radical nature that it almost seems to call into the question of the original intent of the zoning ordinance to move parking down from 35 to 4. To move one setback down to 0', is not just a minor change in judgement. Like the 8'to 5'one,or 25'to 20'one,seem reasonable. These seem to call into question the very basis into question the very basis for the zoning regulations in the first place. And the second point as to the mixed use variance. That is actually a new development and does require wholly new consideration. And for reasons that have been abundantly clear already,to have a mixed use property approved in this neighborhood where no such property exists and we strenuously tried to avoid,would be a radical departure from character of the neighborhood. I will say that my understanding is that petitioners have handled themselves very honorably, been communitive and do have a proposal to improve the aesthetic value of this property. A rejection of this variance today is not a rejection of any future use of that property it's a rejection of this use for the third floor and the reduced parking so this not to say on going relations with the neighbors couldn't result in a mutual and beneficial arrangement,except this one due to its radically should not be accepted. Thank you. MR. BRIAN LEVY: I live at 918 N.St. Peter, so we're three houses down from the 806 property. And I do appreciate that the petitioners here want to make an investment in the neighborhood but ten years ago we made an investment in the neighborhood along with many others here. We moved to this area, we could have moved anywhere,we could have moved to Granger, could of sent our kid to Penn High School, we wanted to live in South Bend,we wanted to part of something. We wanted to invest in the community. We met a lot of long time neighbors. We wanted to invest in the Northeast Neighborhood and we've made a significant investment and I think if you approve this you're sending the wrong message to those who have already made an investment in single family homes in a residential neighborhood. And those other would be home builders, what does this message say to anybody else who's thinking about buying a house in the neighborhood or building a house in the neighborhood? I've sent a letter, one of the many record letter writers and I ask that my letter be part of the record. Thank you. 17 Area Board of Zoning Appeals—December 6, 2017 MS.JENNIFER FORTENER: I live 1006 N. Notre Dame Ave. I don't really have anything extra to add except that I have young children too. I don't like these parking variances. They've a problem. I've seen numerous accidents at Notre Dame and Howard already. People don't see those signs. People don't stop at those signs. I don't think that this will make that situation any better or slow traffic in any way with what I witness on a daily basis looking at Howard Street and football games indicative of how the parking effects the traffic also does not calm traffic. MR.ADAM REBOLLOSO: I share a home at 919 N. Notre Dame Ave. with Rita Schmid and within 300'. 1 guess to start off you're hearing a lot about the height of the building which I understand is not in contention but just ask the question, would this go up with that height increase if the Special Exception wasn't approved? I think we probably could clear up a lot of people's confusion on that. We're happy to have interest in the redevelopment of this property. We look forward to welcoming a new neighbor and spirit to it. And being familiar with a handful of principals of the buying entity, I can say that I feel confident in their business prudence but the question is what happens in the future when in the case that they relinquish ownership of the property. The marketability of that building is going to have a very specific end target. And I don't see any way it could avoid turning into student housing for those who are interested. As far as the mixed use,to address that,there seems to be a lot of claims that this is a mixed use neighborhood. If you look back at the South Bend, the City of South Bend Comprehensive Plan, and the future land use map which provides which provides guidance according to the plan to the Area Plan Commission,the South Bend Common Council regarding rezoning petitions. It also guides developers and property owners from making investment decisions on the future use of the property. I think if that was looked at you would see that this is a medium density residential neighborhood. The Eddy Street Commons is pinpointed as a neighborhood commercial node which is small scaled retail and service area that serves the adjacent neighborhoods. Mixed uses are encouraged in the neighborhood commercial nodes which we're seeing demonstrated in Eddy Street but you get to Notre Dame Avenue and you go down far enough west and far enough south and it's all residential so I'd just like to reference that map, the land use map. Thank you for your time. MS. GIA HAIGH: I'm at 925 Notre Dame Avenue so also right behind the red brick building and we also own that strip of land with the trees. I have seven children who, if you ever drive by Howard and Notre Dame,you probably see them playing outside along with 15 to 20 other children in the neighborhood, every day, all day. I home school so when they're done with school pretty early they're out there. And also since I home school I have a good sense of what's going in the neighborhood during the day. To say that stripping parking on Howard is going to mitigate the problem is kind of crazy. I have elderly parents who often try to visit me now,with this empty, and can't park in front of my house and I have to move a car out of the driveway for them to come in or run out to the car to bring them something because they can't even find a parking spot on Notre Dame Avenue. You know you have anything going on with any house there there's only parking on one side of Notre Dame,so if there's,the thought that people are just going to park there,especially when coming down Howard this way, it's a lot closer to just park in front of my house on Notre Dame. And when there's only a few residential spots or a few spots per residence,you know I'm not going to stand out there with cones to not let people park,you know they're not going to tell people that are visiting or people that are in those offices even if they tell their workers they can't tell people that are coming to visit them,don't park on Notre Dame Avenue. Already it's, I mean it's a high traffic area, but I feel like these families that have come in have brought back a neighborhood feel. We've had so many people comment on how it's bringing this old school Notre Dame family life back to Notre Dame Avenue like it was years ago. And I can only image that with this building here and if we can't park and if we feel unsafe, if we can't,you know they put a ton into this new park that's just to the side here, if we feel unsafe walking our kids to the park, it's only going to push families, like all of us that are on that street have multiple kids, push them out of the city. Many reasons a lot of our friends are in Granger is because they wanted a safe environment for kids to be able to walk around. And now we have the same problems as if we lived in the heart of the City. Thank you. 18 Area Board of Zoning Appeals—December 6, 2017 MS.JULIE PETERSON: I live at 902 N. St. Peter Street just south of the proposed building. My husband and I are probably some of the newest people that moved into the neighborhood and we were the second owners of the home that we bought. And what brought us to here was because of the single family environment and we have one son who is in high school at St.Joe High School. And we previously lived over at Eddy Street campus area which was extremely busy and this is why we moved here to not have something like this in our neighborhood. We also see a lot of the parking issues and our son goes to the park to play basketball and it just brings a huge risk for pedestrian accidents. I wrote one of the letters. My husband and I are both in the medical profession and this is just a huge liability. Thank you. MR. DAN KELLY: I'm at 1011 N. Notre Dame Avenue. Just want to make three quick points for you. One is I do think it's pretty clear who walks in the neighborhood or drives through it, it is a residential area and it has made an incredible comeback from what it was just ten or fifteen years ago in terms of families in the residential area. That being said it's pretty clear when you look at the drawing that that existing office building, commercial space right now is extremely ugly to say the least. So when you compare the two structures that really applaud the petitioners for wanting to come in and do something better than the existing thing and I think aesthetically the building with the nice brick is great. I think the only problem is it seems like it's kind of doubling down a use that's already out of place. That is we have this sort of one out of place structure and now it looks better on the outside but I think a lot of the concerns that have been expressed go to by adding that third floor residential, it's going to dramatically increase the bulk of the building,the overall height,the effect it has on the neighborhood including some of the site lines so I think aesthetically it looks better. I think there heart and I sort of applaud the petitioners for doing that. I just think people want it to better but not to get bigger, bulkier and sort of double down on it being out of place. The last point I'll leave you with is just some of the safety concerns.So my wife and I have five children, use Kelly Park a lot,we love that. Just this summer in walking to the park both one of my children and I were almost hit by somebody who, as several people have testified,going too fast,tried to take a left from Howard to St. Pete very quickly. And so I think so many issues with both parking and the sight lines do have real effects on welfare and safety for pedestrians, motorists and especially children. Thanks very much. MR. RUDY REYES: I'm at 1014 N. St. Peter Street.As you heard when a land use was approved in 1992 the area of the neighborhood was not what it is today. The Pandora Books building was and is an anomie in the neighborhood as you can see the previous owner,God rest him, held onto the property as long as he possibly could as a matter of personal protest. Now the surrounding lots to the north as were described by the petitioner as being probably not built on are in fact owned and buildable. I've spoken with the owner on several occasions and he's expressed interest in building on both of those lots,the one on Howard and St. Peter Street directly to the north of this building. The parking along Howard is already dangerous as you heard,this would make it worse. While the height that goes with an Office District,the height that goes with an Office District unfortunately not in question here. And whether this should be an Office District or not is also not in question. The City's planner has indicated today that we would never support the spot rezoning that occurred in 1992,so I would ask you why perpetuate a mistake that wouldn't be repeated today. The Economic Development representative makes a good point about the impact of such a structure, however,there's amble opportunity in the expanded Eddy Street Commons as well as other areas of the city. I'd like to emphasize that we were promised certain standards in moving to and investing in this neighborhood. Having recently completed construction I certainly I am very familiar with all of the restrictions both in the District as well as the Overlay. Our investment was sought and understood to be critical to the City's redevelopment plan which was outlined for you just a minute ago. These devaluing modifications then would be very, very, disheartening. As was made clear by your staff the current ordinance and regulations require,the current regulations and ordinance require a presentation of the entire site in order for the requested variance. The current presentation of the request then should be denied. Thank you. MS.JILL BODENSTEINER: 920 N.St. Peter, so I'm the brown bungalow immediately south of the Mustillios,which is the brick house. Mine may be more of a question, but as I've been sitting here reflecting on the great comments of my neighbors thinking back to what the representative for Pandora Partners said we've been guaranteed in writing that there 19 Area Board of Zoning Appeals—December 6, 2017 will be no undergraduate residents. And maybe I'm making this up but I thought he referenced using that residential space for business associates. So I would inquire is that really a residential space or is it a crash pad for business for associates of Ceres? So I think we really need to dig in to what is the purpose of that third floor because it is my understanding the entire variance hinges on whether that truly residential. If it's going to be business associates crashing for football games,I don't know that that's residential. I think that's more of a business purpose. So I would just ask that we would dig into that a little bit more with the exact purpose of the third floor is and I echo all the comments made about the parking. If this is even possible my colleagues and neighbors are under estimating the impact of the parking on the safety of that. So really appreciate your consideration and again digging into the exact purpose of that third floor. Thanks. MR. CRUMLISH: Is there anyone else wishing to speak in opposition of this petition. Seeing no further,the public session is now closed. Would the petitioner care to address some of the comments? You get five minutes. REBUTTAL: MR. MURPHY: We heard a number of things and let me try to address them in order if I can. The possibility of moving to an expanded Eddy Street Commons that was an option that was explored by Ceres,the issue was that the Eddy Street Phase would contain no new office space, it's all residential. So that was an issue that was an issue that was already determined. The safety concern with respect to the parking. Without any Special Exception,without any variances, without anything,we can go two floors of offices in that existing shell. So the parking is sort of a moot point in that it is sort of the office,or the Special Exception parking dealt with the difference between that and the office parking is really the only thing that you're deciding upon here. In terms of property values, I am not an appraiser, I'm an architect, however, I have bought and sold a few houses in my time. Generally speaking and in my experience is blighted in the (could not understand what he said) properties,surpass property values, not heavy investment like we're showing here. In terms of the single family nature of the neighborhood,yes we applaud that and we want to support that everyone be a part of it but I think it's important to point out this zoning predates any of these houses being built. So the builders of those houses either did know or should have known that this is a possibility on that site and there's not a whole lot else I can say about that. With respect to the future,the student housing,we agreed that we would commit to writing that it would not be student housing, but I think more importantly baked into the ordinance under the upper level dwelling unit is the definition of,it's a single family that's baked into the ordinance which means no more than two unrelated adults. So any attempt to intensify the residential use would require another trip before this body and Council as well. In summary I would say this,we don't need a variance for building height. "0" Office District allows what we're showing here. We don't need a Special Exception for the office use. The office use is granted as a right. The Northeast Neighborhood Overlay zoning District is not applicable because it's an existing building,so therefore any requirements related to the exterior design and material are not applicable. The benefits though are it's an adapted reuse of the existing structure. We are providing an upper level dwelling unit which is encouraged. We are providing porch which is encouraged. The modest parking increase from what is currently permitted seems to be reasonable in our judgement. And we've got a good strategy for(could not understand what he said) actually accommodated in reality with the stripped parking on Howard. And finally the intent would be to rebuild those existing walls in their current location but this time make it a lot better looking. Thank you. MR. CRUMLILSH: Staff do you have comments that you'd like to address? MRS.SMITH: I do. I first want to say I probably misspoke when I used the word "mixed use". I see that that set off some concern of the neighborhood. When we use mixed use what we're talking about is adding a residential dwelling unit to something that's already non-residential. That is encouraged in this area because of the resurgence of making this residential again.Adding a residential unit to a non-residential use is something that is thought of as strengthening the 20 Area Board of Zoning Appeals—December 6, 2017 neighborhood. Again I'll remind the Board the height really isn't in consideration. I think the neighbors understand that. As a combined request the Board will make a recommendation on the upper storage dwelling unit. I looked and verified in the resolution that was prepared for the Council,that is the only use listed as a Special Exception Use and it is a singular use so its single unit is the only thing that could be allowed under that resolution if adopted by the Common Council. None of the other residential types would be,that are listed as a Special Exception Use,such as multifamily,or anything like that would be allowed without coming back before the Board. As I mentioned before we are looking at the ordinance changes and if this were not to go forward now that they could reapply after those ordinance changes came in. But those are things that we are already considering that once a building is already there the setbacks are kind of established,the use has already been established and therefore our recommendation remains the same. MR.CRUMLISH: Thank you. MR. URBANSKI: I'd like to ask the petitioner a question. In doing your studies and looking at this property along with the perspective developers. Looking up and down Notre Dame Avenue, I'm just talking about that St. Peter, height wise, approximately,a lot of the structures are high, 10/8, 10/10, 10/12, 12/12 pitches which are high, approximately how higher do you feel that this is going to be or have you done any comparison of what's up and down the Avenue, Notre Dame Avenue. MR. MURPHY: Well Notre Dame Avenue by and large are four story structures,we're only proposing three. We're thinking... LOUD OUTBURST FROM THE AUDIENCE ABOUTTHAT STATEMENT MR. CRUMLISH: The public session is not open. MR. MURPHY: Excuse me, I thought you were referring to Eddy Street Commons, not Notre Dame Avenue. Talking about houses on Notre Dame Avenue? MR. URBANSKI: Yes. MR. MURPHY: I don't have that. I do have a reference for the house to the south,the Mustillios house,the ridge is at 27.8' and that was shot by Abonmarche. MR. URBANSKI: And what is this ridge approximately, sir? MR. MURPHY: This ridge is about 48'. MR. URBANSKI:So we're about 20'over. MR. MURPHY: That's correct. MS. SCHUTH: Angela I wanted to verify with you a comment that was made that if a third story office was added to the existing building, if that would also bring these variances back in front or the Board? MRS.SMITH: It would depend on the configuration of the building. They could add a third story to this building and provided their parking calculations does not change beyond what was approved before, so if they came up with, whatever Configuration the building came up with a calculation of 32 spaces more or less they could go ahead and add on. So say 21 Area Board of Zoning Appeals—December 6, 2017 they converted some of the building to warehouse for instance,that has a lower parking calculation then you would for office. So part of this is warehouse and part of it was office,so it would depend on the makeup of the building. There is nothing in here that would prevent them from adding up to or remodeling up to a 50' height provided they could meet, not exceed the 32 spaces previously requested. MR.CRUMLISH: The original variance? MRS.SMITH: The original variance in 1992. MR. URBANSKI:Angela, if someone came in and leveled this building and built another building for office, could they? Office structure on there providing they do the parking and everything else? MRS.SMITH: This site if leveled would not be able to be built as an office site with the existing setbacks and the parking requirements. You would not be able to get an office on this site now because you would not be able to meet the setback requirements or the parking requirements that would go with any size office on this site. So this site would essentially become unusable as an office site under our current standards. MR.URBANSKI: But it could as a residential. MRS.SMITH: If they rezoned it they could use it residentially. They could not,for instance they could not use this,they could not level this building and build a house on here without going back through the rezoning process because a single family residential is not a permitted use. MR. URBANSKI: Which goes to Area Plan and the Council. MRS.SMITH: Correct. MR. LESZCZYNSKI: Then I've got a question and maybe I'm confused. I thought you were going to knock it down and save this floor... MR. MURPHY: No,John, it's a steel frame,wood structure. The idea would be to take the exterior walls down and leave the frame and go up. MR. LESZCZYNSKI: So you're just leaving the frame and... MR. MURPHY: And the floor structure,yes. MR. URBANSKI: If they came in, basically they're going to use two floors,correct? The first floor and second floor for offices? MR. MURPHY: That's correct. MR. URBANSKI: I have no other questions. MR. LESZCZYSKI: The character of this neighborhood has changed dramatically since 92. So the requirements needed in 92 they were trying to get anybody they could into the neighborhood and they went down to the 35 spots. 22 Area Board of Zoning Appeals—December 6, 2017 MRS.SMITH: I think one of the challenges that Mr. Urbanski hit on and what you're hitting on as well is when the Common Council approved this for an office use in 1992 or a commercial use actually, it was C-1 Commercial, even at that time it was extremely difficult if not impossible for this site to meet the standards with that district at that time which is what warrant the variances back then.So it kind of goes all the way back to the Common Council's approval in 1991 that kind of set in this chain of events which is always caution when we look at land use issues is once approved that land use is approved and therefore it presents challenges going forward. MR. CRUMLISH: However, in 2004 it was changed to "0"? MRS.SMITH: Because the commercial designation that was there before was not in line with any of the options within the district. They actually down zoned it to"0"Office. I suppose they could have made it Local Business or Mixed Use or any other number of things but they generally in 2004 they were looking at the existing use and I don't know if it was occupied at that point or not but they were generally looking at the existing use and how to bring it in in a zoning classification that was the lowest possible to meet that existing use without causing any undue hardship on the property owner by making them a legal non-conforming use. MR. URBANSKI: The property directly north across Howard Street,which used to be a restaurant years back, is that,did that revert, I'm assuming it was Commercial because there was restaurant,did that revert to a residential lot? The vacant lot that's never been built on. Somebody made comment that that's not for sale. MR. CRUMLISH: The one across the street? MR. URBANSKI: Yes. MRS.SMITH: To the north across Howard? MR.CRUMLISH: What is that zoned? MR. URBANSKI: Northwest corner? MRS.SMITH: Northwest corner? It's the northwest I'm talking about. MRS.SMITH: Both of the properties, both the northwest corner and the northeast corner, both are zoned"SF2"Single Family. I'm guessing the northwest corner is a legal non-conforming use. The northwest corner looks like it has multiple driveways,so I'm guessing it's probably a multi-family dwelling,or multiple sidewalks. MR. CRUMLISH: It's the Legal Aid Clinic. MRS. SMITH: If it's the Legal Aid Clinic so it's probably a legal non-conforming use. MR.CRUMLISH: Does anybody have any knowledge of when the vacant property immediately north,the structure was razed that was there,was that prior to 1992? MRS. SMITH: Immediately north must have been razed after 2015 because I'm looking at a 2017 aerial and there's still a house on it in 2017. MR. CRUMLISH: I guess I'm referring to... 23 Area Board of Zoning Appeals—December 6, 2017 MRS.SMITH: Do you mean the property to the east? MR. CRUMLISH: North and east. It would be the intersection of Notre Dame and Howard. MRS.SMITH: That I am not sure of. MR. CRUMLISH: That is zoned single family,correct? MRS.SMITH: MR. CRUMLISH: It'svacant now? MRS.SMITH: Yes. MR. CRUMLISH: But 30 years ago there was a saloon on that corner? MRS.SMITH: I would like to say that was before my time but I'll just it was before my time in South Bend. MR.CRUMLISH: But it was razed but I don't know if it was legal non-conforming at time but it... MRS.SMITH: But it's now zoned single family. MR. CRUMLISH: Single family? MRS.SMITH: Correct. Everything else around here is zoned single family. MR.CRUMLISH: This property has a structure on it... MRS.SMITH:Correct. MR. CRUMLISH: Which is out of character. Probably would not get that special spot zoning today? MRS.SMITH: But it is zoned "0" Office now. MR. CRUMLISH: But it is zoned because of our Common Council decision? MRS.SMITH: Correct. So the office use is not under consideration for us today because it's not something under our purview. Even the Special Exception we are a recommending body,ultimately the Council will make the decision on the dwelling unit. MR.CRUMLISH: We have choices on our recommendations. MRS.SMITH: Right. The variances would stop here. MS.SCHUTH: Without the Special Exception the variances are moot? 24 Area Board of Zoning Appeals—December 6,2017 MRS.SMITH: Without the Special Use the variances are moot point. MR. URBANSKI: But in the past it's always been the variances been granted first before the Special Use... MRS. SMITH: Well they have to because you make a recommendation,they could,the petitioner could choose just to proceed with the Special Exception and come back and ask for the variances later if the Special Exception was granted but generally they're handled at the same time and they you guys typically will make your variance approval subject to the Special Exception getting approved. Therefore, if the Council decides it's not appropriate it really doesn't matter anyway. MR. URBANSKI:Well at this time I make a motion that we accept the variances that were presented for the property... MRS. SMITH: Subject to the Special Exception? MR. URBANSKI: Subject to the Special Exception,yes, by the City of South Bend Common Council. MR. MATTYS: I have one question. Is there anyway the petitioner can create more parking spaces? That was the most common concerns... MRS.SMITH: I don't think there would be any room on site. The only option would be is if they would consider off-site parking and coming back for a Special Exception for that. But there's physically, I mean with the existing building that's there now they pretty much utilized all the area that's remaining for parking. MR.CRUMLISH:There is an empty lot across the street... MR. URBANSKI: Yes. MRS.SMITH: Correct. So there is the lot to the,this is upside down(referring to a site plan)so,the lot to the east is vacant, privately owned. The lot to the north is occupied by a single family house.The lot to the west is a park. MR. URBANSKI: I'm sorry my description,the one that sets across the street, it's actually on St. Peter and the one I was think about was Notre Dame, northwest corner of Notre Dame Ave... MR. CRUMLISH: Where the saloon used to be? MR. URBANSKI: Saloon, restaurant. It was a hangout. MS.SCHUTH: If it's helpful for discussion and I don't know it is but I'd just like to maybe state my own feelings about the situation which is for the Special Use, I'm actually not opposed at all, I think the upper level dwelling unit do fall in line with where the City is going in these types of directions and in fact kind of helps mitigate the impact of these types of buildings, however,when it comes to the variances I in a way looking at it as if this were coming to us fresh and somebody were proposing these variances on these sites today I would not be in favor of them,that in fact should packing in the site way too much in a residential district and I think we would be looking for a much less dense building. So that sort of leaves me in this very strange limbo where I think I would actually be in favor of the Special Use but I would deny the variances. It's kind of a strange situation but I don't know if that's helpful to at least of where I'm coming down on my thinking is that I'm not opposed to the residential, in fact if it remained this and the second story was residential, maybe that would be a different situation, but as far as being to do both, I don't think is appropriate for this area of the City right 25 Area Board of Zoning Appeals—December 6,2017 now and in sense maybe echoes my statement for the billboard earlier it's like come seeking a situation that is already bulky and amplifying it instead of doing what I think would, is the opposite of what we would want to do in this situation. MR. CRUMLISH: I share your feelings. I don't have any exception really with the Special Use. It's the parking. I'm not in favor of the variances for that reason. They can't have one without the other. MR. URBANSKI: As per my motion,as far, I think one and two, I don't struggle with that because we've been doing setback variances along Notre Dame Ave.,St. Pete,for three years or whatever,okay. You know we decide factors when we make decisions here and what each property is different,okay,I'm assuming and what I kind of know about the offices were two stories, it's not a continuation or a constant flow of traffic in and out of those and maybe you can ask the gentlemen who are partners in it. You know it's not a steady flow of people coming in and out, not many people coming. You said there was going to be somewhere around ten employees, if I recall correctly,... MR. MURPHY: There are ten currently. The idea is to grow over time. In respect to the use of it,yeah a lot of these people that are employed there travel,so they're not there 24/7. MR. URBANSKI: Okay but is there a steady flow of traffic coming in and out daily other than the employees? MR. MURPHY: The answer to that is no. MR. URBANSKI: So then to begin with or look at eight to ten cars and possibly up to maybe fifteen or so which is still way under the 35 spaces required. Again in my opinion, it's supposed to be our opinion,yes were supposed to look at what comes in but we're also supposed to look at what we feel is best for the neighborhood and that's why I started out to making a motion to approve the variances. MRS.SMITH: So as it is right now we have a motion and we have not had a second? MR. CRUMLISH: We're waiting for a second. MR. URBANSKI: Subject to... MRS.SMITH: Subject to the Special Exception being granted by the Council. MR. URBANSKI: And in doing so I know that I feel that I'm pushing this off and let the Common Council make the decision. We have to make the decision on the variances. I sometimes think that the City Council hardly doesn't even listen to what we recommend. That's my opinion. MR.CRUMLISH: Well I'll ask, is there a second to the motion? NO ONE MADE A SECOND TO MR. URBANSKI'S MOTION MR. CRUMLISH: I don't see a second. You motion dies for a lack of a second, Mike. MRS.SMITH: Maybe a motion on the Special Exception? MR. LESZCZYNSKI: Can we approve the variances without number three? 26 Area Board of Zoning Appeals—December 6,2017 MR. CRUMLISH: You can make another motion... MRS. SMITH: You can approve or deny any variances in any form. MR. LESZCZYNSKI: I will try to make a motion that we approve,getting at what Mike was saying we approve setbacks and stuff like that what we approve everything, all six with the exception of three,their off-street parking. I do feel that from 35 to 4,or even 20 to 4, whatever they need is way too small for something like that. MRS.SMITH: A motion to deny the parking variance and approve the remainder of the variances. MR. LESZCZYNSKI: Right. MRS.SMITH: Deny the parking reduction variance and approve the remaining variances? MR. LESZCZYNSKI: Yeah,approving 1, 2,4,5,&6. MR. MATTHYS: Do we do the Special Use first? MRS.SMITH: It doesn't matter what order you go in. MR.CRUMLISH: Right now we have a motion. MRS.SMITH: We have a motion... MS.SCHUTH: John I would second that. I really think that the parking is the safety issue and when we're talking about public health and general welfare, I think the parking is a safety issue. I'll second the motion. MR. URBANSKI: Now let me just ask you, we're not voting on number 3, Mr. Chairman? MR.CRUMLISH: We're voting to accept 1, 2,4,5,&6 and deny number 3. MR.URBANSKI: Okay. On number 6,the variance to reduce the minimum width of parking lot maneuvering from 24'to 0', 1 would say then if we're talking about this parking that that one ought to be... MRS.SMITH:That one is probably, is not actually not to zero. What happened is is that you have that,what used to be an alley there, it's been vacated. The parking spots back right up to that,so they're using the alley as their kind of maneuvering aisle. It's similar to what we've viewed in other cases, again it's something we're trying to address in the ordinance, but technically when you have a ninety degree parking spot you technically have to have 24' behind it. They're using what used to be an alley and is not an easement, I believe, across those properties. MR. URBANSKI: Thank you for clarification, leaving 6 in there is fine. MR. CRUMLISH: Any further discussion? I'll call for the vote on the variances.To approve variances 1, 2,4, 5&6 and to deny variance number 3. We have a motion and a second. MRS. HENRY: And that motion was made by Mr. Leszczynski and seconded by Ms.Schuth. Mr.Young? 27 Area Board of Zoning Appeals—December 6,2017 MR.YOUNG: Yes. MRS. HENRY: Mr. Hawley? MR. HAWLEY:Yes. MRS. HENRY: Mr. Matthys? MR. MATTHYS: Yes. MRS. HENRY: Mr. Urbanski? MR. URBANSKI: Yes. MRS. HENRY: Ms.Schuth? MS.SCHUTH: Yes. MRS. HENRY: Mr. Leszczynski? MR. LESZCZYNSKI: Yes. MRS. HENRY: Mr.CRUMLISH: MR.CRUMLISH: Yes. Based on the testimony presented here today,the Area Board of Zoning Appeals, after careful consideration,finds this amended variances granted and will issue written Findings of Fact and subject to the approval of the Special Exception. Now do I have a motion favorable, unfavorable or no recommendation for the Special Exception? MR. MATTHYS: I will make a motion in favor of no recommendation. MR. URBANSKI: You said no recommendation? MR. MATTHYS: Yeah. MRS.SMITH: I strongly encourage the Board to try to make a recommendation whenever possible and if you're unable to make a recommendation then go ahead with no recommendation but the duty of the Board is to try to make a recommendation one way or the other. So I encourage someone to make a motion one way or the other and see how the votes place before you and then if you have to,go to a no recommendation. MR. MATTHYS: I rescind my motion. MR.CRUMLISH: Excuse me,the motion was retracted. We don't need a second. Would you like to make a motion, Mike? MR. URBANSKI: Yes. I would like to make-a motion to send it to the City of South Bend Common Council with a Favorable Recommendation. MR.CRUMLISH: Is there a second to Mike's motion? 28 Area Board of Zoning Appeals—December 6, 2017 MS.SCHUTH: I'll second. MR.CRUMLISH: Any further discussion? Carolyn we have a motion to send this with a Favorable Recommendation and a second.Will you call for the vote please? MRS. HENRY:And that motion was made by Mr. Urbanski and seconded by Ms. Schuth, Mr. Leszczynski? MR. LESZCZYNSKI: Yes. MRS. HENRY: Mr.Young? MR.YOUNG: Yes. MRS. HENRY: Mr. Hawley? MR. HAWLEY: No. MRS. HENRY: Mr. Matthys? MR. MATTHYS: Yes. MRS. HENRY: Ms.Schuth? MS. SCHUTH: Yes. MRS. HENRY: Mr. Urbanski? MR. URBANSKI: Yes. MRS. HENRY: Mr.Crumlish? MR. CRUMLISH: Yes. Based on the testimony presented,the Area Board of Zoning Appeals, after careful consideration, will send this Special Exception to the City Council with a Favorable Recommendation and will issue written Findings of Fact. VARIANCES NUMBER 1,2 4,5,&6 APPROVED AND VARIANCE NUMBER 3 FOR THE PARKING VARIANCE DENIED PETITION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SENT TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND COMMON COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION 29 I