HomeMy WebLinkAbout03.06.23 BZA Agenda Packet
1 | Page
City of South Bend
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
AGENDA
Monday, March 6, 2023 - 4:00 p.m.
County-City Building
Fourth-Floor Council Chambers
www.tinyurl.com/sbbza
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Location: 626 LINDENWOOD DR BZA#0170-23
Owner: TERRY VAN DUYNE
Requested Action: Variance(s): 1) From the 48' maximum duplex width to 80'; and 2) From
the maximum one curb cut per street frontage to two
Zoning: U3 Urban Neighborhood 3
2. Location: 5010 BIRCHWOOD LN BZA#0171-23
Owner: BKMO2 LLC
Requested Action: Variance(s): 1) From the 48' maximum duplex width to 80'; and 2) From
the maximum one curb cut per street frontage to two
Zoning: U3 Urban Neighborhood 3
3. Location: 1715 SCOTT ST BZA#0173-23
Owner: BRIDGETT C CARPENTER
Requested Action: Variance(s): 1) From the 6’ maximum fence height to 7'-6"
Zoning: U1 Urban Neighborhood 1
4. Location: 825 POTTER POINT DRIVE BZA#0174-23
Owner: MICHAEL D & TERESA L HARDY
Requested Action: Variance(s): 1) from the maximum 1383.3 sq. ft. for an accessory structure
to 3120 sq. ft; and 2) from the maximum 4 car capacity for all garages and carports to 5
Zoning: S1 Suburban Neighborhood 1
5. Location: 2101 MORRIS ST BZA#0176-23
Owner: RYAN & STEPHANIE DEBAILLIE
Requested Action: Variance(s): 1) from the 3' maximum fence height in the established corner
yard to 6'
Zoning: U1 Urban Neighborhood 1
6. Location: 2621 MISHAWAKA AVE BZA#0169-23
Owner: JJB HOMES LLC
Requested Action:
Variance(s): 1) from the required 1 streetscape tree for every 30' of street frontage to none;
and 2) from the required 1 shrub for every 5' of facade foundation landscaping to none
Special Exception: Restaurant
Zoning: UF Urban Neighborhood Flex
City of South Bend BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
2 | Page
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Findings of Fact – February 6, 2023 2. Minutes – February 6, 2023 3. Other Business
4. 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#0170-23 March 6, 2023
Property Information
Location: 626 LINDENWOOD DR
Owner: TERRY VAN DUYNE
Project Summary
Construction of new duplexes with two curb cuts.
Requested Action
Variance(s): 1) From the 48' maximum duplex width to 80'
2) From the maximum one curb cut per street frontage to two
Site Location
Staff Recommendation
Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, the staff recommends the Board
approve the variances as presented, subject to reconfiguring the garage layout to the outside of
the building to create separation between the driveways.
Staff Report – BZA#0170-23 March 6, 2023
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 3
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0170-23 March 6, 2023
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
A variance to increase the maximum width of a duplex should have no impact on the public
health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. Similarly the curb cut variance
will ensure adequate access to each duplex, the additional space between the two will
ensure engineering standards are met for the safe development of the property.
(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 duplexes have been designed with the intent to blend in with the current
neighborhood context. The proposed variances allow the site to develop consistently with
the existing built environment.
(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 result in the construction of buildings that are out of
character for the area. The duplex variance allows for the structures to meet the minimum
transparency requirements, especially without the presence of an alley. The curb cut
variance specifically allows the garage to be placed on the site, modifying the layout to the
outside of the duplexes will make it so it does not conflict with engineering standards.
(4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary
The proposed building width variance is nominal and the minimum necessary to allow the
building to be designed in a way that is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. The curb
cut variance is the minimum necessary to allow access to both dwellings.
(5) The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of
the property
The subdivision and layout of lots were developed under previous standards. Changes in
the zoning ordinance since the establishment of the subdivision have created hardships in
development of this property within the established neighborhood context.
Analysis: The proposed variances are consistent with the character of the area and the intent
of the ordinance. Approving the variance will allow for the construction of a multi-unit dwelling
consistent in scale with the surrounding neighborhood.
Staff Recommendation: Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, the staff
recommends the Board approve the variances as presented, subject to reconfiguring the garage
layout to the outside of the building to create separation between the driveways.
Analysis & Recommendation
Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s)
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 3
Staff Report – BZA#0171-23 March 6, 2023
Property Information
Location: 5010 BIRCHWOOD LN
Owner: BKMO2 LLC
Project Summary
Construction of new duplexes with two curb cuts.
Requested Action
Variance(s): 1) From the 48' maximum duplex width to 80'
2) From the maximum one curb cut per street frontage to two
Site Location
Staff Recommendation
Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, the staff recommends the Board
approve the variances as presented, subject to reconfiguring the garage layout to the outside of
the building to create separation between the driveways.
Staff Report – BZA#0171-23 March 6, 2023
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 3
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0171-23 March 6, 2023
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
A variance to increase the maximum width of a duplex should have no impact on the public
health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. Similarly the curb cut variance
will ensure adequate access to each duplex, the additional space between the two will
ensure engineering standards are met for the safe development of the property.
(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 duplexes have been designed with the intent to blend in with the current
neighborhood context. The proposed variances allow the site to develop consistently with
the existing built environment.
(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 result in the construction of buildings that are out of
character for the area. The duplex variance allows for the structures to meet the minimum
transparency requirements, especially without the presence of an alley. The curb cut
variance specifically allows the garage to be placed on the site, modifying the layout to the
outside of the duplexes will make it so it does not conflict with engineering standards.
(4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary
The proposed building width variance is nominal and the minimum necessary to allow the
building to be designed in a way that is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. The curb
cut variance is the minimum necessary to allow access to both dwellings.
(5) The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of
the property
The subdivision and layout of lots were developed under previous standards. Changes in
the zoning ordinance since the establishment of the subdivision have created hardships in
development of this property within the established neighborhood context.
Analysis: The proposed variances are consistent with the character of the area and the intent
of the ordinance. Approving the variance will allow for the construction of a multi-unit dwelling
consistent in scale with the surrounding neighborhood.
Staff Recommendation: Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, the staff
recommends the Board approve the variances as presented, subject to reconfiguring the garage
layout to the outside of the building to create separation between the driveways.
Analysis & Recommendation
Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s)
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 3
Staff Report – BZA#0173-23 March 6, 2023
Property Information
Location: 1715 SCOTT ST
Owner: BRIDGETT C CARPENTER
Project Summary
Extend a section of privacy fence.
Requested Action
Variance(s): 1) From the maximum 6' fence height in the established side yard to 7'-6"
Site Location
Staff Recommendation
Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, the Staff recommends the Board
deny the variance as presented.
Staff Report – BZA#0173-23 March 6, 2023
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 3
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0173-23 March 6, 2023
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 approval of this variance may be injurious to the public health or safety of the
community. Allowing a fence at this height could be injurious to the community because it
will be out of character and will not meet the intent of the Ordinance.
(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 fence is out of character with the area, which could have an impact on the
value of surrounding properties. A fence is excess of 6’ is not appropriate for a residential
area.The location on the side lot line would have a significant impact on the adjacent
property.
(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 terms of this Chapter would not result in practical difficulties in
the use of the property. The property can still be secured with a code compliant fence. A
neighbor dispute is not a practical difficulty.
(4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary
The variance asked for is not the minimum necessary to have the desired effect of privacy in
a rear yard. A 6' privacy fence would provide the privacy. Landscaping could be used to
enhance the privacy if needed.
(5) The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of
the property
If a permit was requested before the fence was installed, the property owner would have
been aware of the development standards. There is no hardship on the property. The desire
for the taller fence is self created.
Analysis: There are no practical difficulties for the petitioner which would necessitate a 7'-6"
fence in this location. The proposed fence is not consistent with the intent of the ordinances or
the character of the area. If a fence permit was sought before the construction of the new fence,
the applicant would have been aware of the zoning regulation.
Staff Recommendation: Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, the
Staff recommends the Board deny the variance as presented.
Analysis & Recommendation
Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s)
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 3
Staff Report – BZA#0174-23 March 6, 2023
Property Information
Location: 825 POTTER POINT DRIVE
Owner: MICHAEL D & TERESA L HARDY
Project Summary
An addition to the existing garage
Requested Action
Variance(s): 1) from the maximum 1383.3 sq. ft. for an accessory structure to 3120 sq. ft
2) from the maximum 4 car capacity for all garages and carports to 5
Site Location
Staff Recommendation
Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, the Staff recommends the Board
approve the variances, as presented.
Staff Report – BZA#0174-23 March 6, 2023
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 3
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0174-23 March 6, 2023
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 approval of the variances should not be injurious to the public health, safety and
general welfare of the community. The property is a large parcel isolated between a
suburban development and the US-31 Highway.
(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 structures are setback from the public street, so the use and value of the adjacent area
should not be affected in an adverse manner. Due to the large lot size and the rear property
line fronting a US highway their should be minimal 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
The strict application of the terms of this chapter would result in a practical difficulty in the
use of the property. The property is significantly larger than a typical City property. The
Ordinance does not anticipate lots of this size.
(4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary
The variance granted is the minimum necessary to allow for expansion of a garage on the
lot. The lot could be subdivided in the future and meet the intentions of the ordinance.
(5) The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of
the property
The location of the rerouted US highway lead to the creation of a lot that has a rural size and
character. The location of the highway and resulting lot are not created by the current or
former owner.
Analysis: The 12 acre parcel is bound by a suburban residential development and US-31
Highway. The size of the property warrants consideration and relief from the strict application of
the Ordinance.
Staff Recommendation: Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, the
Staff recommends the Board approve the variances, as presented.
Analysis & Recommendation
Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s)
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 3
Staff Report – BZA#0176-23 March 6, 2023
Property Information
Location: 2101 MORRIS ST
Owner: RYAN & STEPHANIE DEBAILLIE
Project Summary
Build a privacy fence.
Requested Action
Variance(s): 1) from the 3' maximum fence height in the established corner yard to 6'
Site Location
Staff Recommendation
Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, the staff recommends the Board
deny the variance as presented.
Staff Report – BZA#0176-23 March 6, 2023
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 3
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0176-23 March 6, 2023
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
Approval of the fence would be injurious to the public health, safety, and morals of the
community. The establishment of a privacy fence in close proximity to the sidewalk
negatively impacts the general welfare of the community by adversely impacting the
pedestrian experience.
(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
Placing the 6' closed fence in close proximity to the sidewalk creates an unpleasant
experience for pedestrians along Jacob Street. Allowing a privacy fence in an established
corner yard may also adversely impact the value of adjacent properties within the same
block and adversely impact the character of the neighborhood as a whole.
(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 not result in practical difficulties in the use of
the property. Placing the fence in the allowed location would not limit the use of the
backyard.
(4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary
The variance proposed is not the minimum necessary to utilize the property to its fullest
extent. The same security and privacy can be achieved by placing the privacy fence in its
allowed location. The primary building is relatively close to the property line. A code
compliant location would not impact the use of the yard.
(5) The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of
the property
The variance is being requested in order to correct a hardship caused by the current owner.
The fence was installed without the appropriate permit. If a permit was requested before the
fence was installed, the property owner would have been aware of the development
standards.
Analysis: There are no practical difficulties for the petitioner which would necessitate a 6' fence
in this location. The proposed fence is not consistent with the intent of the ordinances. If a
Building permit was sought before the construction of the new fence, the applicant would have
been aware of the zoning regulation.
Staff Recommendation: Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, the staff
recommends the Board deny 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#0169-23 March 6, 2023
Property Information
Location: 2621 MISHAWAKA AVE
Owner: JJB HOMES LLC
Project Summary
Establish a restaurant
Requested Action
Special Exception: Restaurant
Variance(s): 1) from the required 1 streetscape tree for every 30' of street frontage to none
2) from the required 1 shrub for every 5' of facade foundation landscaping 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 the variances as presented.
Staff Report – BZA#0169-23 March 6, 2023
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 4
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0169-23 March 6, 2023
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 is appropriate for the location and should not be injurious to 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;
The proposed use would be in a building that was previously a veterinary clinic along a
commercial corridor, so it should not adversely impact the use or value of adjacent
properties. Reinvesting in the existing building should improve the site.
(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 site is located along a commercial corridor with a mix of commercial and residential
uses. The proposed use is consistent with the character of the UF Urban Flex District and
the Mishawaka Ave Corridor.
(4) The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan.
City Plan (2006) (Objective ED2) recommends the city "Retain existing businesses and
recruit new ones to the city." Allowing a restaurant use on this site will help recruit a new
business to the city in an appropriately located area.
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 approval should not be injurious to the public health, safety or general welfare of the
community. The area was developed in an Urban manner pushing the buildings closer to the
property line. Installation of the code compliant landscaping may reduce the sidewalk to a
width that is not ADA compliant.
(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 should not be affected in a substantially adverse
manner, The site has existed without foundation landscaping or streetscape trees since it
was constructed. There will be no change that would affect the use or value of adjacent
properties.
Criteria for Decision Making: Special Exception
Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s)
Staff Report – BZA#0169-23 March 6, 2023
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 4 of 4
(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 terms of this Chapter would result in practical difficulties in the
use of the property because the building was developed on the property line and there is no
established tree lawn so the building would have to be demolished and relocated on the
property.
(4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary
The variance requested is the minimum necessary because there is no space between the
building and ROW line to install landscaping safely.
(5) The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of
the property
The variance granted does not correct a hardship caused by a former or current owner
because the ROW lines are not determined by the property owners.
Analysis: The site had been used as a veterinary clinic for many years. Allowing the use to be
reestablish on the commercial corridor will allow a vacant building to be rehabilitated into an
active business. The area was developed in an Urban manner pushing the buildings closer to
the property line, installation of code compliant landscaping reduces ADA compliance and
safety of pedestrian traffic.
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 variances as
presented.
Analysis & Recommendation