HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.06.21 BZA Agenda Packet
1 | P a g e
City of South Bend
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
AGENDA
Monday, December 6, 2021 - 4:00 p.m.
County-City Building
Fourth-Floor Council Chambers
www.tinyurl.com/sbbza
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Location: 801 EMERSON AVE BZA#0091-21
Owner: ROBERT CHRISTOPHER AND SARAH B PERKINS
Requested Action: Variance(s): 1) from the maximum 3' privacy fence in an established
corner yard to 6'
Zoning: U1 Urban Neighborhood 1
2. Location: 1035 JEFFERSON BLVD BZA#0092-21
Owner: KARL AND MARGARET EDMONSON
Requested Action: Variance(s): 1) To allow an accessory structure on a lot without a primary
structure
Zoning: U1 Urban Neighborhood 1
3. Location: 2046 SOUTH BEND AVE BZA#0093-21
Owner: DEV H12 LLC
Requested Action: Variance(s): 1) From the 5' minimum front sign setback to 0'; and 2) From
the 15' maximum sign height to 19'
Zoning: C Commercial
4. Location: 2730 MISHAWAKA AVE BZA#0094-21
Owner: STOYAN STOYANOV
Requested Action: Variance(s): 1) From the minimum of 1 street tree per 30' on Mishawaka
Ave to none; 2) To allow parking in the established front and corner yard; 3) From the 60%
minimum transparency on the front and 20% minimum transparency on the corner facade to the
existing windows; and 4) From the required parking area screening to none
Special Exception: Minor Vehicle Service
Zoning: NC Neighborhood Center
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Findings of Fact – October 4, 2021
2. Minutes – October 4, 2021
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#0091-21 December 6, 2021
Property Information
Location: 801 EMERSON AVE
Owner: ROBERT CHRISTOPHER AND SARAH B PERKINS
Project Summary
Install a 6 foot privacy fence in the established corner yard
Requested Action
Variance(s): 1) from the maximum 3' privacy fence in an 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#0091-21 December 6, 2021
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 3
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0091-21 December 6, 2021
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 not be injurious to the public health or safety of the
community. However, allowing a fence in an established corner yard 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 use and value of the area adjacent to the property could be affected in an adverse
manner if the variance was granted. Approving a fence that is 6' tall on top of a hill that is
already significantly above grade would create a large enclosed space that would be out of
character for the area and contrary to the intent of the ordinance, having a significant impact
on 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 not result in practical difficulties in
the use of the property. A shorter, code compliant fence can still provide security and
privacy of the property, especially because the site is already significantly elevated from the
public sidewalk. If petitioner does not wish to lower fence, another option is to move the 6'
fence to a code compliant location in line with the house.
(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 utilize a different fence option or install the fence in
compliance with the ordinance and still retain about the same amount of usable yard space.
(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 site is already elevated above the street and a
code compliant fence could provide the security and privacy desired by the applicant. Had
the applicant applied for a fence permit, they would have been made aware of the location
restrictions and applicable ordinance.
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 ordinance. The site is
already elevated above the street and a code compliant fence could provide the security and
privacy desired by the applicant.
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#0092-21 December 6, 2021
Property Information
Location: 1035 JEFFERSON BLVD
Owner: KARL AND MARGARET EDMONSON
Project Summary
The lot has been used as a private "pocket park", available to the neighborhood for children and
adults to gather in. The plan shows for the construction of a privacy fence on the eastern side of the
lots for aesthetics and to further delineate the area as a park.
Requested Action
Variance(s): 1) To allow an accessory structure on a lot without a primary structure
Site Location
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board approve the variance, subject to it being limited to the east property
line and setback a minimum of 25' from the street
Staff Report – BZA#0092-21 December 6, 2021
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 3
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0092-21 December 6, 2021
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 will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of
the community provided the fence is limited to a privacy fence similar to what would be
allowed if a primary building was on the site. The fence proposed will not block access to the
lot or limit visibility of the lot.
(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 requested variance places the fence at a location which
would be allowed if there was a primary use present on the lot.
(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 result in practical difficulties in the use of the
property. The petitioner has acquired several vacant lots and developed them in a manner
to serve as an unofficial park for the neighborhood. Allowing a fence along the eastern
property line helps further define the unofficial park space, while limiting any negative
consequences for surrounding property owners.
(4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary
If the variance is approved subject to being limited to the east property line and setback a
minimum of 25' from the street, it would be the minimum necessary to define the property
while still meeting the intent of the zoning ordinance.
(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 the former or current owner.
The properties were vacant when the current owner acquired them.
Analysis: The petitioner has acquired several vacant lots and developed them in a manner to
serve as an unofficial park for the neighborhood. There is already a privacy fence on the
property to the west in a similar location. By limited the location and setback of the fence, it
creates a clear separation from the adjacent property without completely enclosing the lot.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board approve the variance, subject to it being
limited to the east property line and setback a minimum of 25' from t he street
Analysis & Recommendation
Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s)
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 4
Staff Report – BZA#0093-21 December 6, 2021
Property Information
Location: 2046 SOUTH BEND AVE
Owner: DEV H12 LLC
Project Summary
Legalize a sign installed.
Requested Action
Variance(s): 1) From the 5' minimum front sign setback to 0'
2) From the 15' maximum sign height to 19'
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#0093-21 December 6, 2021
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 4
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0093-21 December 6, 2021
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 of the variance could be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general
welfare of the community. Granting the variance would give an undue advantage to the
property owner which could negatively impact the use of the adjacent properties as well as
setting a precedence for the surrounding area. The site already has restricted visibility due
to the road curve. Further restricting the view will cause cars to have to pull into the
pedestrian area in order to safely exit the site.
(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
Granting the variance would give an undue advantage to the property owner which could
negatively impact the use of the adjacent properties, as well as setting a precedence for the
surrounding area. Other signs in the area are legal non-conforming and will need to be
adapted in the future. They are also predominately pole style signs that allow for adequate
clearance and clear sight area.
(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 not result in practical difficulties in the use of the
property. The use of the property is not related to the size or location of the sign. The sign
was granted a permit in a code compliant location and later changed by the petitioner.
(4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary
The practical difficulties on the site are self created, so the variance is not the minimum
necessary. The petitioner should not be granted a variance for the sign location due to poor
site planning on their part.
(5) The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of
the property
The variance requested is based on the desire of the petitioner, not a practical difficult of the
site. The petitioner made a concious decision to move the sign location and constructed the
sign at a taller height, against prior approved plans for a code compliant sign. The variance
requested is to avoid the cost of relocating the sign and to maintain the height above what is
allowed by code.
Analysis: The petitioner had received permit approval for the construction of a code compliant
sign in a code compliant location. The petitioner intentionally built the sign at a larger height and
in a location that places the sign right against the right-of-way.
Analysis & Recommendation
Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s)
Staff Report – BZA#0093-21 December 6, 2021
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 4 of 4
Granting the variance would give an undue advantage to the property owner, which could
negatively impact the use of the adjacent properties. It would also set a precedence which
would promote the practice of permitting something compliant with the ordinance, but installing
something different than what is appropriate.
Staff Recommendation: Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, the staff
recommends the Board deny the variances as presented.
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 4
Staff Report – BZA#0094-21 December 6, 2021
Property Information
Location: 2730 MISHAWAKA AVE
Owner: STOYAN STOYANOV
Project Summary
The property owner is requesting a special exemption and a variance to allow his renter to obtain
an automotive repair and service license and open a shop in listed property.
Requested Action
Special Exception: Minor Vehicle Service
Variance(s): 1) From the minimum of 1 street tree per 30' on Mishawaka Ave to none
2) To allow parking in the established front and corner yard
3) From the 60% minimum transparency on the front and 20% minimum transparency
on the corner facade to the existing windows
4) From the required parking area screening to none
Site Location
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board send the Special Exception to the Common Council with a favorable
recommendation. Staff recommends the Board deny Variance #1 From the minimum of 1 street
tree per 30' on Mishawaka Ave to none and Variance #4 From the required parking area screening
to none. Staff recommends the Board approve Variance #2 To allow parking in the established
front and corner yard and Variance #3 From the 60% minimum transparency on the front and 20%
minimum transparency on the corner facade to the existing windows, subject to a 5' parking
setback to allow space for the landscaping.
Staff Report – BZA#0094-21 December 6, 2021
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 4
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0094-21 December 6, 2021
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;
The propose use should not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort, community
moral standards, convenience or general welfare. The building was initially constructed for
automotive repair. The zoning ordinance has standards in place to help limit any negative
impacts on surrounding properties or the community at large.
(2) The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or
property values therein;
As the property was initially constructed for the proposed use, approval of the Special
Exception should not injure or adversely affect the use of the 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;
While the Neighborhood Center Zoning District encourages pedestrian orientated
development, the use of Vehicle Service, Minor is an allowed Special Exception in the
district for instances such as this where the original intent of the building was for an
automotive repair shop. Activation of a currently 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.
City Plan (2006) recommends the City "Stimulate the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of
property in the city." (Objective ED1). By approving the
Special Exception the possibility of a vacant property in the city increases.
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 #2 and Variance #3 should not be injurious to the public health, safety,
morals and general welfare of the community. The variances allow for the building and site
to be reused for its original intent. However, proper screening is needed to mitigate the
impact on the general community.
Criteria for Decision Making: Special Exception
Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s)
Staff Report – BZA#0094-21 December 6, 2021
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 4 of 4
(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
With property landscaping and buffering the reduced transparency variance should not
adversely affect the use and value of adjacent properties. The building already has existed
with the current level of transparency. While parking in the established yard is not preferred,
proper buffering will help mitigate the impact on the use and value of adjacent 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 not allow for the property to be used for
vehicle repair as originally built. While vehicle repair is permitted as a special exception,
strict application would require the building to be demolished and relocated. The addition of
landscaping, however, could easily be accomplished.
(4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary
While parking is not required, it is practical for the business to need some off-street parking.
The variances requested for transparency and parking location are the minimum necessary
to operate in a reasonable manner. The 5’ setback requested by staff is the minimum
necessary to allow for the required parking screening and streetscape landscaping required.
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
The zoning regulations mandating minimum transparency levels and prohibiting parking in
the front yard both postdate the construction and placement of the building.
Analysis: While the Neighborhood Center Zoning District encourages pedestrian orientated
development, the use of Vehicle Service, Minor is an allowed Special Exception in the district for
instances such as this where the original intent of the building was for an automotive repair
shop. Activation of a currently vacant building to its original use is consistent with the character
of the district and surrounding area.
Variances which allow for the current configuration of the building to remain as is for the parking
lot and for transparency are reasonable to allow for the reuse of the building as originally
constructed. Variance from the required landscaping are viewed unfavorably as they do not
prohibit the use or the usability of the site. The site contains no practical difficulties for
establishing code compliant landscaping on the site.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board send the Special Exception to the
Common Council with a favorable recommendation.
Staff recommends the Board deny Variance #1 From the minimum of 1 street tree per 30' on
Mishawaka Ave to none and Variance #4 From the required parking area screening to none.
Staff recommends the Board approve Variance #2 To allow parking in the established front and
corner yard and Variance #3 From the 60% minimum transparency on the front and 20%
minimum transparency on the corner facade to the existing windows, subject to a 5' parking
setback to allow space for the landscaping.
Analysis & Recommendation