86-23 Special Exception at 3001, 3011 and 3015 West Western Avenue

Home Browse Search

Staff Report - BZA#0245-24 January 2, 2024 (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 The approval of variance #1 may adversely impact the use and value of adjacent properties. Design standards in the NC district encourage buildings with active facades that address the street. The existing 7% transparency does not meet the intent of the Ordinance. Variance #2 should not adversely impact the use and value of adjacent properties. The parking lot will be built to all development standards and mirrors the layout of several proximal buildings. (3) The strict application of the terms of this Chapter would result in practical difficulties in the use of the property The strict application of the Ordinance would not result in practical difficulties in the use of the property for variance #1. The building could meet transparency standards utilizing existing window openings. Due to the narrow width of the corner lot, strict application of the Ordinance on variance #2 would substantially reduce the parking capacity of the parcel. (4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary Granting variance #1 would not be the minimum necessary. Reducing minimum transparency requirements from 60% to 7% would not meet the intent of building standards in the NC district. Granting variance #2 would be the minimum necessary. The Ordinance mandates a 12' setback for corner yard parking when no building is present on the parcel. Reducing this setback to a type 1 buffer would allow for more parking while still preserving the intent of the Ordinance to buffer the lot from the sidewalk and adjacent parcels. (5) The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of the property Variance #1 corrects a hardship caused by a former owner of the property. The existing window openings would meet the 60% transparency requirements but were boarded up by a previous owner. If the current owner were granted the Special Exception, the owner would have to meet all development standards, including transparency standards. Variance #2 responds to the narrow width of the lot, which was not a hardship created by a former or current owner of the property. Analysis: The building was originally constructed for window manufacturing, and was then used as a commercial vehicle service station from the mid 1980s until 2017. While the Neighborhood Center Zoning District outlines pedestrian orientated development, the use of Vehicle Service, Minor is an allowed Special Exception in the district, particularly for such instances. Because the proposed use is consistent with a previous use, it is within the character of the district and surrounding area. The site contains no practical difficulties and it would not affect the usability of the site to install appropriate transparency that meets the standards of the Ordinance. However the use of the corner parcel as a parking area, if held to setback requirements, could hinder the usability and reactivation of the parcel. SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 4 of 5