Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.03.24 BZA Agenda Packet 1 | Page City of South Bend BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AGENDA Monday, June 3, 2024 - 4:00 p.m. County-City Building Fourth-Floor Council Chambers www.tinyurl.com/sbbza PUBLIC HEARING: 1.Location:1345 MICHIGAN ST BZA#0261-24 Owner:SHERMAN PARTNERS SB, LLC Requested Action: Variance(s): 1)from the maximum stories for a Detached House building type of 2.5 to 3 2)to allow an accessory structure in the corner yard 3)to allow a 12' fence/wall in the corner yard Zoning: UF Urban Neighborhood Flex 2.Location: 300 S ST. LOUIS BLVD (vacant lot) BZA#0260-24 Owner: RIVER WALK LLC Requested Action: Variance(s): 1)from the maximum building setback in the front yard of 15' to 30’ for units 1-10 2)to allow the main entrance of units 2-5 and 9 to not be located on the primary street 3)from the maximum building length of a Townhome building type in a U3 district of168’ to 185' 4)from the maximum height of 3’ for a solid wall in the front yard to 8’ Zoning: U3 Urban Neighborhood 3 3.Location: 326 and 322 BENDIX DR BZA#0263-24 Owner: JOVANNI C ROMERO VALAZQUEZ Requested Action: Variance(s): 1) from the maximum 3' solid fence in a front/corner yard to 6' Zoning: U1 Urban Neighborhood 1 4.Location: 211 N. WALNUT ST BZA#0265-24 Owner: ALECSANDER WOODSON Requested Action: Variance(s): 1)to allow two accessory structures without a primary Zoning: U1 Urban Neighborhood 1 City of South Bend BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 2 | Page 5.Location:723 HAWBAKER ST BZA#0266-24 Owner:WALKING WITH JESUS MINISTRIES Requested Action: Variance(s): 1)from the minimum rear yard setback of 25' to 5'2)from the maximum lot coverage of 40% to 62% 3) from the maximum height for a detached house building type of 35' to 55' Zoning: S1 Suburban Neighborhood 1 6.Location: 2125 BERKLEY PL BZA#0267-24 Owner: VICKIE LYNN SLEEVI Requested Action: Variance(s): 1)from the required corner yard setback of 10' to 0' Zoning: U1 Urban Neighborhood 1 7.Location: 17020 JACKSON ROAD BZA#0268-24 Owner: NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY LLC Requested Action: Variance(s): 1)from the allowed 1 curb cut to 2 2)from the minimum 15’ depth for a Type 3 buffer to 9’ on the west, south, and east property lines Zoning: S1 Suburban Neighborhood 1 ITEMS NOT REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING: 1.Findings of Fact May 6, 2024 2.Minutes May 6, 2024 3.Other Business 4.Adjournment NOTICE FOR HEARING AND SIGHT 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 6 Staff Report – BZA#0261-24 June 3, 2024 Property Information Location: 1345 MICHIGAN ST Owner: SHERMAN PARTNERS SB, LLC Project Summary 7 residential homes with garages and a common driveway and one accessory dwelling unit. Requested Action Variance(s): 1) from the maximum stories for a Detached House building type of 2.5 to 3 2)to allow an accessory structure in the corner yard 3)to allow a 12' fence/wall in the corner yard Site Location Staff Recommendation Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, Staff recommends the Board approve the variances as presented, with a 6' wall of the same material as the house and ADU. Staff Report – BZA#0261-24 June 3, 2024 SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 6 Proposed Site Plan Staff Report – BZA#0261-24 June 3, 2024 SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 3 of 6 Proposed Site Plan Staff Report – BZA#0261-24 June 3, 2024 SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 4 of 6 Proposed Site Plan Staff Report – BZA#0261-24 June 3, 2024 SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 5 of 6 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 general welfare of the community. While the maximum height of a detached house is 2.5 stories, the proposed 3 story height is appropriate. Buildings are permitted by right up to a height of 4 stories and 55' in the UF zoning district and allowing for a 3 story detached house would be more contextually appropriate. The accessory dwelling unit in the corner yard has a frontage type and sidewalk connection onto Angela Boulevard, functioning like a primary building that appropriately addresses the 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 The use and value of the adjacent properties should not be adversely affected. The variances will allow for development that meets the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, is more sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood than building types allowed by right on a UF zoned parcel, and introduces eight new residential units on a currently vacant parcel. (3)The strict application of the terms of this Chapter would result in practical difficulties in the use of the property A strict application of the ordinance would not permit the buildings to exceed 2.5 stories because they are detached houses, although another building type in a UF zoned district would be permitted to reach 4 stories and 55' in height. This is a nuance in the ordinance that the Zoning Department is looking to revise. A strict application on the accessory structure in the corner yard would limit the ability of the accessory dwelling unit to address Angela Boulevard like a primary building with a small front setback, frontage type, and walkway connection. (4)The variance granted is the minimum necessary The variances granted are the minimum necessary. The variance from 2.5 to 3 stories for a detached house allows for a more contextually sensitive development. The variance for an accessory structure in the corner yard allows the development to address both Angela Boulevard and Michigan Street. (5)The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of the property The requested variances allow for a development that meets the intent of the ordinance. The hardship is caused by a nuance in the ordinance that Zoning Staff is looking to revise, since other building types in the UF zoning district are permitted to reach 4 stories, and the maximum height for any building type in a UF zoned district is 55'. Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s) Staff Report – BZA#0261-24 June 3, 2024 SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 6 of 6 Analysis: The variances will allow for eight new residential units that are contextually appropriate in scale and effectively address a highly trafficked thoroughfare. While the maximum height of a detached house is 2.5 stories, the proposed 3 story height is appropriate, as buildings are permitted up to a height of 4 stories in the UF zoning district and the maximum height for any building type in UF is 55'. The accessory dwelling unit in the corner yard addresses Angela Boulevard in the same way a primary building would, with a frontage type and sidewalk connection facing north towards the street. Staff Recommendation: Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, Staff recommends the Board approve the variances as presented. Analysis & Recommendation SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 4 Staff Report – BZA#0260-24 June 3, 2024 Property Information Location: 300 S ST. LOUIS BLVD (vacant lot) Owner: RIVER WALK LLC Project Summary Townhome development of approximately 13 homes. Requested Action Variance(s): 1) from the maximum building setback in the front yard of 15' to 30’ for units 1-10 2) to allow the main entrance of units 2-5 and 9 to not be located on the primary street 3) from the maximum building length of a Townhome building type in a U3 district of 168’ to 185' 4) from the maximum height of 3' for a solid wall in the front yard to 8' Site Location Staff Recommendation Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, Staff recommends the Board approve variance 1 as presented and deny variances 2, 3, and 4 as presented. Staff Report – BZA#0260-24 June 3, 2024 SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 4 Proposed Site Plan Staff Report – BZA#0260-24 June 3, 2024 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 approval of the variance 1 should not be injurious to the general welfare of the community. The larger setbacks accommodate the steep grade of the site along the street and provide sufficient space for stairs descending from the properties to Northside Boulevard. Variances 2, 3, and 4 may be injurious to the general welfare. Without a frontage or main entrance facing the street, access to the units is limited to the rear of the property through the parking area, and the parcels don't address Northside Boulevard. Expanding the maximum length of the townhouses creates a building massing that is inappropriate in scale for the U3 zoned parcel. A solid retaining wall taller than 3' creates and uncomfortable walking environment for pedestrians along Northside Boulevard and does 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 use and value of the adjacent properties should not be adversely affected by the larger setback, which accommodates unique topographic challenges. The use and value of the adjacent properties may be adversely affected a greater building massing along Northside Boulevard than is appropriate for a U3 zoned parcel and a retaining wall taller than 3' that diminishes the pedestrian experience. (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 may result in practical difficulties on the setback variance, because the standard setback would require that units be built directly on a steep grade. The strict application of the ordinance would not result in practical difficulties for units facing the street, the building length, or the height of the retaining walls. With an adequate setback, stairs could connect frontages to Northside Boulevard and a design could be achieved with townhouse length not exceeding 168'. If retaining walls were necessary, they could be built in a terraced design to limit the height of any individual wall to less than 3'. (4)The variance granted is the minimum necessary Variance 1 is the minimum necessary to allow for construction on a topographically challenging site. Variances 2, 3, and 4 are not the minimum necessary, as a design could be achieved to develop the parcel without the variances while still accommodating the uniquecharacter of the site. (5)The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of the property Variance 1 does not correct a hardship caused by a current owner, as the topographical challenge of a steep grade along the street is inherent to the site. Variances 2, 3, and 4 reflect the design plans for the site, which could be modified to accommodate the topography of the site and the unique shape of the parcel. Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s) Staff Report – BZA#0260-24 June 3, 2024 SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 4 of 4 Analysis: The proposed development is located on a complex parcel with a unique shape and steep slopes along Northside Boulevard and Saint Peter Street. The variance from the maximum setback accommodates for the topographical challenges. The proposed plans could be modified to accommodate for the unique site, while not requiring variances for main entrance on a primary street, building length, and the height of a wall in the front yard. Staff Recommendation: Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, Staff recommends the Board approve variance 1 as presented and deny variances 2, 3, and 4 as presented. Analysis & Recommendation SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 3 Staff Report – BZA#0263-24 June 3, 2024 Property Information Location: 326 and 322 BENDIX DR Owner: JOVANNI C ROMERO VALAZQUEZ Project Summary Installation of a privacy fence in the front yard. Requested Action Variance(s): 1) from the maximum 3' solid fence in a front/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 requested. Staff Report – BZA#0263-24 June 3, 2024 SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 3 Proposed Site Plan Staff Report – BZA#0263-24 June 3, 2024 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 Allowing a 6' solid fence in an established front yard could be injurious to the general welfare of community because it would be out of character with the area and 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 use and value of the area adjacent to the property could be affected in an adverse manner if the variance was granted. Approving a solid fence that is located in a front yard would be out of character for the area and contrary to the intent of the ordinance. (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 could still be secured with a 3' solid fence or 4' 50% open fence at the property line. It was suggested to the petitioner to move the fence in line with the house or reduce the height in the front yard to 3'. (4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary Since there is no practical difficulty to overcome, the variance requested is not the minimum necessary. The petitioner could install a 3' solid fence or a 4' fence, 50% open at the property line or a 6' solid fence in the established rear yard. (5) The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of the property There is no hardship on the property. The fence was not built per the permit issued by the Building Department. The petitioner was made aware of the regulations on fence height in the front yard. Analysis: There are no practical difficulties for the petitioner which would necessitate a 6' fence in this location. The fence is not consistent with the intent of the Ordinance. There is nothing preventing the fence from being installed in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, the Staff recommends the Board deny the variance as requested. Analysis & Recommendation Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s) SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 3 Staff Report – BZA#0265-24 June 3, 2024 Property Information Location: 211 N. WALNUT ST Owner: ALECSANDER WOODSON Project Summary Shed and fence currently built on property. Will be converted into a tiny house over time. Requested Action Variance(s): 1) to allow two accessory structures without a primary Site Location Staff Recommendation Based on the information available prior to the public hearing, the Staff recommends the variance be granted as presented conditional to the property owner seeking new home permits by 6/3/26 and beginning construction by 6/3/27. Staff Report – BZA#0265-24 June 3, 2024 SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 3 Proposed Site Plan Staff Report – BZA#0265-24 June 3, 2024 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 variance should not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. The variance will allow the existing structures to remain on the condition that the existing structure is converted into a habitable and zoning compliant dwelling unit or a primary structure is built on the property within the conditional timeframe. (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 variances will allow for the existing structures to remain as new housing is introduced into the neighborhood. (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 require that the structures be removed from the site until a primary structure was built. The petitioner intends to convert the existing building into a primary structure, making removal counterproductive. (4)The variance granted is the minimum necessary The variance granted is the minimum necessary. It will allow the existing structures to remain while a primary structure is created on the parcel. (5)The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of the property The variances granted do correct a hardship caused by the owner of the property in building accessory structures on a vacant parcel without permits. The conditions attached to approval require that the owner follow all appropriate steps within a specified timeline to create a legal primary structure on the parcel. Analysis: Granting the variance will allow for the existing structures to remain on the property as the accessory building is converted into a habitable primary structure. Staff Recommendation: Based on the information available prior to the public hearing, the Staff recommends the variance be granted as presented conditional to the property owner seeking new home permits by 6/3/26 and beginning construction by 6/3/27. Analysis & Recommendation Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s) SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 5 Staff Report – BZA#0266-24 June 3, 2024 Property Information Location: 723 HAWBAKER ST Owner: WALKING WITH JESUS MINISTRIES Project Summary Construction of a large home addition. Requested Action Variance(s): 1) from the minimum rear yard setback of 25' to 5' 2) from the maximum lot coverage of 40% to 62% 3) from the maximum height for a detached house building type of 35' to 55' Site Location Staff Recommendation Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, the staff recommends the Board deny all three variances as presented. Staff Report – BZA#0266-24 June 3, 2024 SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 5 Proposed Site Plan Staff Report – BZA#0266-24 June 3, 2024 SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 3 of 5 Proposed Site Plan Staff Report – BZA#0266-24 June 3, 2024 SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 4 of 5 Proposed Site Plan Staff Report – BZA#0266-24 June 3, 2024 SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 5 of 5 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 may be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community as the home would be out of character of the neighborhood 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 use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance may be substantially impacted by the requested variances. Approving a large home addition would create a scenario that would be out of character for the area and contrary to the intent of the ordinance. (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 terms of this Chapter would not result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. The property is sufficiently large enough to accommodate the construction of a large home addition in compliance with the ordinance. (4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary The variances requested are not the minimum necessary as there are no practical difficulties to overcome. The petitioner has options for a large home addition that would conform to the required setbacks, height, and lot coverage for the zoning district. (5) The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of the property The hardship is created by the petitioner in their desire for a large home addition that does not comply with the ordinance in size, height, and lot coverage. There are no hardships or practical difficulties associated with the property that would necessitate such relief. Analysis: There are no practical difficulties or unique characteristics that warrant the request for the variances. A large home addition could be built that conforms to the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, the staff recommends the Board deny all three variances as presented. Analysis & Recommendation Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s) SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 3 Staff Report – BZA#0267-24 June 3, 2024 Property Information Location: 2125 BERKLEY PL Owner: VICKIE LYNN SLEEVI Project Summary Covered stoop in the corner yard. Requested Action Variance(s): 1) from the required corner yard setback of 10' to 0' Site Location Staff Recommendation Based on the information available prior to the public hearing, the staff recommends the Board approve the variance as requested. Staff Report – BZA#0267-24 June 3, 2024 SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 3 Proposed Site Plan Staff Report – BZA#0267-24 June 3, 2024 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 should not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community as the stoop provides a safe, covered entry into the house. (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 included in the variance should not be affected in an substantially adverse manner as the stoop has had an awning for many years. The new covering with posts is open and does not pose a visibility issue. The posts provide support for the roof covering and also complements the aesthetics of the front and back porches recently installed to replace the metal awnings. (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 may result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. Without a proper cover to the side entry to the home, it could become ice covered and hazardous during inclement weather posing a safety issue. The new roof structure replaces a metal awning of similar size and encroaches no further into the setback. (4)The variance granted is the minimum necessary The request is the minimum necessary to provide a covered entry into the side entrance. The house has a setback of approximately 5' and any upgrades or improvements to the side entry would require a variance. (5)The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of the property Had the house been built with a 10' corner yard setback, the covered stoop would be an allowed encroachment. Analysis: Granting the variance will allow the covered stoop which addresses the side entrance while also providing an updated look to the home. The request is consistent with the character of the area and meets the intent of the Ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Based on the information available prior to the public hearing, the staff recommends the Board approve the variance as requested. Analysis & Recommendation Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s) SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 4 Staff Report – BZA#0268-24 June 3, 2024 Property Information Location: 17020 JACKSON ROAD Owner: NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY LLC Project Summary Installation of a gas substation facility. Requested Action Variance(s): 1) from the allowed 1 curb cut to 2 2) from the minimum 15' depth for a Type 3 buffer to 9' on the west, south and east property lines Site Location Staff Recommendation Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, the staff recommends the Board deny the variances as presented. Staff Report – BZA#0268-24 June 3, 2024 SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 4 Proposed Site Plan Staff Report – BZA#0268-24 June 3, 2024 SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 3 of 4 Proposed Site Plan Staff Report – BZA#0268-24 June 3, 2024 SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 4 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 approval may be injurious to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Curb cuts are limited on each frontage to minimize the number of traffic conflict points and the amount of paving on a site. Landscape buffers are required to minimize the external impact of a utility service on adjacent properties. (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 adjacent properties may be affected in an adverse manner. Allowing for a second curb cut would increase the number of traffic conflict points, increase the amount of impervious surface on the site, and contradict the standards of the Board of Public Works. A reduction in the width of the landscape buffers between this utility service site and abutting properties could have an adverse impact on the adjacent S1 Suburban Neighborhood 1 zoned parcels. (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. A vehicle could maneuver through the site with a single curb cut and the increased setback to allow for adequate landscape buffering. (4)The variance granted is the minimum necessary The variances granted would not be the minimum necessary. Appropriate servicing and vehicle maneuvering could be accomplished on the site without the need for variances to increase the number of curb cuts or reduce the landscape buffering. (5)The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of the property The variances requested correct a hardship caused by the current owner. The proposed plans are not yet built and could be modified for full use of the site while building to the City zoning standards. Analysis: Appropriate servicing and vehicle maneuvering could be accomplished on the site without the need for variances to increase the number of curb cuts or reduce the landscape buffering. Staff Recommendation: Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, the staff recommends the Board deny the variances as presented. Analysis & Recommendation Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s)