HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.05.22 BZA Agenda Packet1 | P a g e
City of South Bend
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
AGENDA
CANCELLED
Tuesday, July 5, 2022 - 4:00 p.m. County-City Building Fourth-Floor Council Chambers www.tinyurl.com/sbbza PUBLIC HEARING:
1.Location: 4007 KIRBY CT BZA#0116-22
Owner: JOHN C & SHARON K ENGSTROM
Requested Action: Variance(s): 1) to allow a fence to be erected so the finished side of the
fence faces the interior of the lot
Zoning: S1 Suburban Neighborhood 1
2.Location: 3825 WILLIAM RICHARDSON DR BZA#0117-22
Owner: OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE INC ATTN: JERRY CANADA
Requested Action: Variance(s): 1) from the 6' maximum fence height in the established front
yard to 8'; and 2) to allow barbed wire on the fence
Zoning: I Industrial
3.Location: 4316 Michigan BZA#0120-22
Owner: The BarClay Corporation
Requested Action: Variance(s): 1) from the required 200' lineal spacing from a public park to
162' and from the maximum allowable 35' height to 50' for a billboard
Zoning: C Commercial
4.Location: 404 INDIANA AVE BZA#0122-22
Owner: 466 WORKS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Requested Action: Variance(s): 1) to allow accessory structures without a primary building;
and 2) from the 4' maximum fence height to 6'
Zoning: U1 Urban Neighborhood 1
5.Location: 1430 MISHAWAKA AVE BZA#0118-22
Owner: JAIME DIAZ
Requested Action: Variance(s): 1) to allow parking in the established front/corner yard; 2)
from the 5' minimum parking area screening to none; and 3) from 1 shade tree for every 30' to
none
Special Exception: Vehicle Service, Minor
Zoning: NC Neighborhood Center
6.Location: 223 N. LAFAYETTE BLVD BZA#0119-22
Owner: SOUTH BEND TRIBUNE % MARK HOCKER
Requested Action: Variance(s): 1) from the 60% minimum transparency to 5%
Special Exception: Vehicle Service, Minor
Zoning: DT Downtown
City of South Bend BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
2 | P a g e
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING:
1.Findings of Fact – June 6, 20222.Minutes – June 6, 2022
3.Other Business4.Adjournment
NOTICE FOR HEARING AND SIGN IMPAIRED PERSONS Auxiliary Aid or other services may be available upon request at no charge. Please give reasonable advance request when possible.
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 3
Staff Report – BZA#0116-22 July 5, 2022
Property Information
Location: 4007 KIRBY CT
Owner: JOHN C & SHARON K ENGSTROM
Project Summary
Erect a fence with the finished side facing the interior of the lot.
Requested Action
Variance(s): 1) to allow a fence to be erected so the finished side of the fence faces the interior of
the lot
Site Location
Staff Recommendation
Based on the information available prior to the public hearing, the Staff recommends the Board approve the variance as presented.
Staff Report – BZA#0116-22 July 5, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 3
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0116-22 July 5, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 3 of 3
State statutes and the Zoning Ordinance require that certain standards must be met before a
variance can be approved. The standards and their justifications are as follows:
(1) The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general
welfare of the community
Granting the variance should not impact the public health, safety, or general welfare of the
community. Orienting the fence with the support structure facing out may pose security
concerns for the property owner, but since this is not the street facing side, it should not
impact the public.
(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
Orienting the fence with the support structures facing the neighbor may impact their property
values. However, constructing it with the finished side out also requires permission from the
neighbor. If the neighbor is unwilling to provide the permission, the assume the
consequence.
(3) The strict application of the terms of this Chapter would result in practical
difficulties in the use of the property
Strict application would require the fence to be located 2' - 3' off the property line so as to
not encroach on the neighbors property when installing the fence. This creates awkward
strips of land between properties that may be difficult to maintain.
(4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary
The petition is not requesting a variance for the portion of the fence that faces the street,
only the side where access is limited.
(5) The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of
the property
The hardship in placing a fence with the finished side out on the side and rear of the
property is the inability to get access from the neighbor. This is not a a hardship caused by
the current or former owner.
Analysis: The standards for the orientation of the fence are designed to protect the safety of
the property owner and the property value of the adjacent neighbor. However, the ability to
install a fence in this manner requires either permission from the neighbor or the fence to be
installed 2' - 3' off the adjacent property. The latter may result in areas difficult to maintain in the
future.
Staff Recommendation: Based on the information available prior to the public hearing, the
Staff recommends the Board approve the variance as presented.
Analysis & Recommendation
Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s)
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 4
Staff Report – BZA#0117-22 July 5, 2022
Property Information
Location: 3825 WILLIAM RICHARDSON DR
Owner: OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE INC
Project Summary
Replace existing fence with the addition of barbed wire.
Requested Action
Variance(s): 1) from the 6' maximum fence height in the established front yard to 8'
2) to allow barbed wire on the fence
Site Location
Staff Recommendation Based on information provided prior to the public hearing, the staff recommends the Board
approve variance #1 for the height of the fence, and deny variance #2 for the addition of barbed wire.
Staff Report – BZA#0117-22 July 5, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 4
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0117-22 July 5, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 3 of 4
State statutes and the Zoning Ordinance require that certain standards must be met before a
variance can be approved. The standards and their justifications are as follows:
(1) The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general
welfare of the community
The proposed height variance should not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals
and general welfare of the community. The primary building is set back significantly from the
right of way, creating a very large established front yard. Allowing a taller fence where
indicated on the site plan should not be injurious to the public health, safety or general
welfare of the community.
The proposed barbed wire variance may be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community. Barbed wire is not an appropriate material to be used in
the city for fences unless where specifically stated in the Zoning Ordinance where restricted
public access is vital. Furthermore, barbed wire is not allowed in front or corner yards for
even those allowed uses.
(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 proposed height variance should not impact the use or value of the adjacent properties
due to the significant setback of the propsed fence and primary building.
The proposed barbed wire variance may be injurious as it is an inappropriate material for
fencing material.
(3) The strict application of the terms of this Chapter would result in practical
difficulties in the use of the property
Due to the significant setback of the building, strict application of the ordinance would result
in practical difficulties. The requirements of the industry necessitate an 8’ fence for security
purposes. With the building setback 250’ from the front property line, strict application would
either require the removal of additional trees and large paved areas being installed on
adjacent properties or a variance that exceed the height in an appropriate location on the
property.
There are no practical diffuclties on the property that would support the request for barbed
wire. The use of the property does not require a barbed wire fence, it is simply preferred by
the operator.
(4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary
The proposed height variance is the minimum necessary to provide adequate security to the
property. The significant setback of the fence, behind on-site parking minimizes the impact
of the added fence height.
The proposed barbed wire variance is not the minimum necessary to provide security to the
property. The 8’ fence height is adequate to provide the necessary security and is consistent
with what is existing on the property.
Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s)
Staff Report – BZA#0117-22 July 5, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 4 of 4
(5) The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of
the property
The owner is proposing to reuse the existing building and site layout. The large setback of
the existing building and existing fence height were in place when the property was
acquired. The slight adjustment requires the extension of the fence and intalling a gate.
The petitioner's desire for the barbed wire is a hardship created by the petitioner.
Analysis: The primary building is approximately 225’ from the right of way, creating a larger
than normal established front yard. Allowing a taller fence where indicated on the site plan
should not have injurious impacts on the community. While it is technically in the established
front yard it is set back a significant distance from the road and behind other site improvements
on the property. The proposed height variance should not impact use and value of the adjacent
properties due to the significant setback of the primary building.
The proposed barbed wire variance, however, is not an appropriate material to be used in the
City, espeically in the front yard. This is not a use in which the federal or state government
require that security measure. There are other security measures available to the petitioner,
including the height variance for the fence.
Staff Recommendation: Based on information provided prior to the public hearing, the staff
recommends the Board approve variance #1 for the height of the fence, and deny variance #2 for
the addition of barbed wire.
Analysis & Recommendation
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 4
Staff Report – BZA#0120-22 July 5, 2022
Property Information
Location: 4316 Michigan
Owner: The BarClay Corporation
Project Summary
Replace existing static billboard with a digit face.
Requested Action
Variance(s): 1) from the required 200' lineal spacing from a public park to 162' and from the
maximum allowable 35' height to 50' for a billboard
Site Location
Staff Recommendation
Based on the information available prior to the public hearing, the staff recommends the Board deny the variance, as presented.
Staff Report – BZA#0120-22 July 5, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 4
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0120-22 July 5, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 3 of 4
State statutes and the Zoning Ordinance require that certain standards must be met before a
variance can be approved. The standards and their justifications are as follows:
(1) The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general
welfare of the community
Approval would have a negative impact on the public health, safety, and general welfare of
the community. Two important purposes of the sign regulations in the Zoning Ordinance are
to protect public and private investment in buildings and open spaces and eliminate potential
hazards to motorists and pedestrians resulting from signs. By granting the variances, the
non-conforming off-premise sign face would be replaced with a digital display facing a
nearby park. This would not only affect the public and private investment nearby, but
creating a changing display may create a hazard to motorists as well.
(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 use and value of adjacent properties may be negatively impacted if the variances are
approved. Allowing an off-premise sign to be legalized in a location not otherwise allowed by
the Ordinance is in conflict with the intent of the sign regulations, which could have a
negative impact on the use and value of the adjacent properties.
(3) The strict application of the terms of this Chapter would result in practical
difficulties in the use of the property
There are no practical difficulties created by the strict application of the Ordinance. The sign
can continue to exist in the current manner until such time as the structure needs to be
replaced. The only practical difficulty is the sign owners desire to remove the sign face to
replace it with a digital display.
(4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary
There are no practical difficulties on the property, so the variance requested is not the
minimum necessary. The sign is legal non-conforming. The sign is allowed to be refaced as
needed, which allows the use to continue as originally approved. When a variance was
pursued to allow a digital display, the petitioner specifically stated that it would only be
limited to the south face in order to limit the exposure to the park.
(5) The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of
the property
The variance requested is not to correct a hardship, but because the sign owner has a
desire to convert the static display to a digital display in order to generate more income.
Analysis: The non-conforming provisions of the Ordinance are designed to allow legally
established structures to continue, but not encourage their survival. Granting the variance
requested would legalize the structure and allow it to exist in perpetuity. Any conversion of a
sign from a static display to a digital display should be treated as a new sign. If there is no
Analysis & Recommendation
Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s)
Staff Report – BZA#0120-22 July 5, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 4 of 4
practical difficulty that would warrant the installation of a new off-premise sign in a manner that
doesn't meet the current separation and height requirements, than the variance should not be
approved.
Staff Recommendation: Based on the information available prior to the public hearing, the staff
recommends the Board deny the variance, as presented.
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 3
Staff Report – BZA#0122-22 July 5, 2022
Property Information
Location: 404 INDIANA AVE
Owner: 466 WORKS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Project Summary
To allow for a temporary fenced play area for the new neighborhood center's daycare until
construction of the playground can be completed.
Requested Action
Variance(s): 1) to allow accessory structures without a primary building
2) from the 4' maximum fence height to 6'
Site Location
Staff Recommendation Based on the information available prior to the public hear, the staff recommends the Board
approve the variances as presented, subject to the fence being removed when the permanent playground is installed.
Staff Report – BZA#0122-22 July 5, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 3
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0122-22 July 5, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 3 of 3
State statutes and the Zoning Ordinance require that certain standards must be met before a
variance can be approved. The standards and their justifications are as follows:
(1) The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general
welfare of the community
The proposed variance is to install a fence in order to ensure the safety and welfare of the
daycare children.
(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 fence is located behind the front facade of the adjacent house and in a manner
consistent with the residential character of the area, surrounding property values should not
be adversely impacted. The proposed use is temporary and can be removed after the
permanent playground is constructed.
(3) The strict application of the terms of this Chapter would result in practical
difficulties in the use of the property
Strict application of the Ordinance would prohibit the installation of the fence to secure the
play area.
(4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary
Because the fence is located behind the front lot line of the adjacent house and is only
needed for a temporary enclosure of a play area, the variance requested is the minimum
necessary to meet the licensing requirements.
(5) The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of
the property
The need for the variance to allow a temporary playground is the result of the project
contractors being behind schedule, thus not caused by the current or former owner.
Analysis: The proposed variance is to allow a temporary use of the property as a playground
for the daycare on the adjacent property. Because of licensing requirements, the fence must be
permanently affixed to the ground.
Staff Recommendation: Based on the information available prior to the public hear, the staff
recommends the Board approve the variances as presented, subject to the fence being
removed when the permanent playground is installed.
Analysis & Recommendation
Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s)
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 4
Staff Report – BZA#0118-22 July 5, 2022
Property Information
Location: 1430 MISHAWAKA AVE
Owner: JAIME DIAZ
Project Summary
Operation of an automotive repair shop
Requested Action
Special Exception: Vehicle Service, Minor
Variance(s): 1) to allow parking in the established front/corner yard
2) from the 5' minimum parking area screening to none
3) from 1 shade tree for every 30' to none
Site Location
Staff Recommendation
Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, the staff recommends the Board send the Special Exception to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation. The staff recommends the Board approve Variance #1 to allow parking in the established front/corner yard.
The staff recommends the Board deny Variance #2 from the minimum 5' parking area screening to none and Variance #3 from 1 shade tree for every 30' to none.
Staff Report – BZA#0118-22 July 5, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 4
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0118-22 July 5, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 3 of 4
A Special Use may only be granted upon making a written determination, based upon the
evidence presented at a public hearing, that:
(1) The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort,
community moral standards, convenience or general welfare;
Provided the proper landscaping and screening are provided, the proposed use should not
be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare of the community. The
site development standards in the Ordinance are established to limit potentially negative
impacts on the surrounding properties.
(2) The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or
property values therein;
Mishawaka Avenue is a long established mixed use corrirdor. The building was constructed
in 1930 to accommodate an automotive repair use. The approval of the Special Exception
should not adversely affect the use or value of adjacent area, provided the appropriate
landscaping and buffering is installed.
(3) The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is
located and the land uses authorized therein;
The original development of this property was for vehicle repair. The NC Neighborhood
Center District allows this as a Special Exception in order to eveluate the appropriateness in
specific areas. At this location, the reactivation of the vacant building to its original use is
consistent with the character of the district and surrounding area.
(4) The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan.
The plan is consistent with City Plan (2006) Objective LU 2: Encourage a compatible mix of
land uses in the communicty.
State statutes and the Zoning Ordinance require that certain standards must be met before a
variance can be approved. The standards and their justifications are as follows:
(1) The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general
welfare of the community
Approval of Variance #1 should not be injurious to the public health, safety and general
welfare of the community. This variance allows for the building to be used for its original
intent. To help mitigate any potential impact on the general community, proper parking area
screening and site landscaping should be upheld.
(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 use and value of the area adjacent to the property should not be affected in a
substantially adverse manner. The site has existed in this layout for almost 100 years. While
Criteria for Decision Making: Special Exception
Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s)
Staff Report – BZA#0118-22 July 5, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 4 of 4
parking in the established front/corner yard is not preferred, the proper parking area
screening and site landscaping should reduce any negative impact on the surrounding
properties.
(3) The strict application of the terms of this Chapter would result in practical
difficulties in the use of the property
Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would require the building be demolished and
relocated in order to allow access and parking in a different configuration. The addition of
landscaping, however, could easily be accomplished.
(4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary
The variance for parking location is the minimum necessary to operate the intended use in a
reasonable manner. Though parking is not required, providing some off-street parking would
be practical for the business. There is no practical difficulty for the requested landscaping
variances, so it is not the minimum necessary.
(5) The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of
the property
This site has been in this configuration for almost 100 years. the Zoning regulations at the
time did not prohibit parking in the front yard. Variance #1 is not correcting a hardship
caused by the current owner. There are remedies that would allow the petitioner to install
the proper landscaping.
Analysis: The original intent of the building was for an automotive repair shop. Though the
Neighborhood Center Zoning District is designed for pedestrian orientated development, the use
of Vehicle Service, Minor is a Special Exception to allow for this type of use where appropriate.
The property was rezoned in the mid 2010’s to allow for auto repair Because the proposed use
is consistent with the original use and is located along a mixued use corridor, it is within the
character of the district and surrounding area.
The current layout of the parking area, if brought into conformance would hinder the usability
and reactivation of the building. However, the site contains no practical difficulties and it would
not affect the usability of the site to install code compliant landscaping.
Staff Recommendation: Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, the staff
recommends the Board send the Special Exception to the Common Council with a favorable
recommendation. The staff recommends the Board approve Variance #1 to allow parking in the
established front/corner yard. The staff recommends the Board deny Variance #2 from the minimum
5' parking area screening to none and Variance #3 from 1 shade tree for every 30' to none.
Analysis & Recommendation
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 4
Staff Report – BZA#0119-22 July 5, 2022
Property Information
Location: 223 N. LAFAYETTE BLVD
Owner: SOUTH BEND TRIBUNE
Project Summary
Request a Special Exception to allow for automotive detailing services
Requested Action
Special Exception: Vehicle Service, Minor
Variance(s): 1) from the 60% minimum transparency to 5%
Site Location
Staff Recommendation Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, the staff recommends the Board
send the Special Exception to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation. The staff recommends the Board approve the variance as presented.
Staff Report – BZA#0119-22 July 5, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 4
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0119-22 July 5, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 3 of 4
A Special Exception may only be granted upon making a written determination, based upon
the evidence presented at a public hearing, that:
(1) The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort,
community moral standards, convenience or general welfare;
The proposed use should not be injurious to the public health, safety, or general welfare of
the community. The building has been designed for automotive services for several
decades. All the vehicle service activties occur within the fully enclosed building. There are
not hazordous materials being used or fumes created by this particular automotive service.
(2) The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or
property values therein;
Since all the vehicle service activies occur with the fully enclosed building, approval of the
Special Exception should not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area.
(3) The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is
located and the land uses authorized therein;
The Downtown Zoning District encourages active building frontages at or close to the
sidewalk. Although it would be preferred to have a service door with higher level
transparency and more windows along the street frontage, the practice of having the door
open during normal business hours provides an active frontage encouraged in the district.
(4) The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan.
The peition is consistent with City Plan (2006) Objective ED1: Stimulate the rehabilitation
and adaptive reuse of property in the City.
State statutes and the Zoning Ordinance require that certain standards must be met before a
variance can be approved. The standards and their justifications are as follows:
(1) The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general
welfare of the community
Approval of the variance should not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals or
general welfare of the community. The variance allows for the building to be reused as an
active business in the core of the City.
(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 reduced transparency should not adversely affect the use and value of adjacent
properties. The building has existed with the current level of transparency for over 2
decades. While we would encourage the property owner to improve the overal transparency
Criteria for Decision Making: Special Exception
Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s)
Staff Report – BZA#0119-22 July 5, 2022
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 4 of 4
for the building frontage, the buildings in the surrounding area where all built with roughly
the same amount of transparency.
(3) The strict application of the terms of this Chapter would result in practical
difficulties in the use of the property
Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would require a extensive remodel of the front of
the buiding in order for this business to operate the vehicle service use. The building has
been used for automotive purposes in the past and is well suited for the reuse in this
manner. While the building owner is strongly encouraged to make improvements to the
façade with additional transparency, the tenant’s operations happen completely inside the
building. There are limited uses which would be able to utilize this space without a special
exception. If the special exception wasn’t needed, the building improvements would not be
required.
(4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary
The variance requested is the minimum necessary to operate in a reasonable manner. The
business owner operates with the overhead door open during business owners. While there
is not a window install, this does create the active store front and interaction with the street
that is intended by the minimum transparency requirements.
(5) The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of
the property
The building has not undergone any modifications to the facade in at least two decades,
therefore, the hardship was not created by the current property owner.
Analysis: The proposed use as a vehicle service center, namely car detailing, is a desirable
reuse of a building that has existed for 100 years. Because the use requires a special exception,
the building is required to be brought to current standards. To fully restorer the façade of the
building would be a large undertaking. The petitioner is meeting the intent of the ordinance by
ensuring the existing windows are not covered and operating with the overhead door open
during the day, which creates the vibrancy expected in a downtown location.
Staff Recommendation: Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, the staff
recommends the Board send the Special Exception to the Common Council with a favorable
recommendation. The staff recommends the Board approve the variance as presented.
Analysis & Recommendation