Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-03-20 BZA Agenda PacketCity of South Bend BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AGENDA Monday, February 3, 2020 - 4:00 p.m. County-City Building Fourth-Floor Council Chambers ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: 1.Adoption of Rules of Procedures (bylaws) 2.Election of Officers PUBLIC HEARING: 1.Location: 1540 HOOVER AVE BZA#01-20 Owner: TIMOTHY WRIGHT & DIANE GLEASON WRIGHT Requested Action: Variance(s): 1) From the 5' minimum side yard setback to 0' Zoning: S1 Suburban Neighborhood 1 2.Location: 4209, 4201, and 4133 S. MAIN ST BZA#02-20 Owner: TRUSTEES OF THE TRUST 1/29/1983 Requested Action: Variance(s): 1) from the maximum building height of 40' to a building height of 48' Zoning: C Commercial. 3.Location: 1939 CHARLES ST BZA#03-20 Owner: FTC PROPERTIES LLC Requested Action: Variance(s): 1)To allow a 1 unit dwelling directly along the street frontage; 2)To allow a Detached House Building Type in the NC district; and 3) From the 12' maximum setback to 36.24' Zoning: NC Neighborhood Center ITEMS NOT REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING: 1.Other Business 2. Adjournment SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 3 Staff Report – BZA#01-20 February 3, 2020 Property Information Location: 1540 HOOVER AVE Owner: TIMOTHY WRIGHT & DIANE GLEASON WRIGHT Project Summary Tear down original garage and replace with new garage. Requested Action Variance(s): 1) From the 5’ minimum side yard setback to 0’ Site Location Recommendation Staff Recommendation: The staff recommends approving the variances, subject to retaining all water run-off onsite, and adoption of the findings of fact, as presented. Staff Report – BZA#01-20 February 3, 2020 SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 3 Proposed Site Plan Staff Report – BZA#01-20 February 3, 2020 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 Because this is a replacement of an existing garage in a near identical location, it should not affect the general welfare of the community. Allowing the setback variance will preserve the historical development pattern of the neighborhood. (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 There is currentl y a structure in the same location. Replacing an older, dilapidated garage with a newer, more attractive structure would not adversely affect the adjacent property. (3) The strict application of the terms of this Chapter would result in practical difficulties in the use of the property Due to the original placement of the house, garage, and driveway a strict adherence to the side setback would force the gage into an impractical location making manuevability of the cars difficult and dangerous. A utility easement and existing utility pole interferre with the ability to move the garage further back to allow for adequate access at a 5’ setback. (4)The variance granted is the minimum necessary The neighborhood had developed with a pattern of detached garages being installed at or near the property line. The physical constraints of the site make a 0’ setbck necessary. (3)The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of the property The garage being replaced was built in 1952 when the house was constructed. Both were permitted at the time. Analysis: Provided the owner can retain the water run-off from the roof, rebuilding the existing garage in the same location as the existing garage should not adversely impact the surrounding properties or the general welfare of the community. Staff Recommendation: The staff recommends approving the variances, subject to retaining all water run-off onsite, and adoption of the findings of fact, as presented. Analysis & Recommendation Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s) SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 3 Staff Report – BZA#02-20 February 3, 2020 Property Information Location: 4201, 4209, 4133 MAIN Owner: TRUSTEES OF THE TRUST 1/29/1983 Project Summary The petitioner desires to construct a new four (4) story hotel located at the northwest corner of Main Street and Lafayette Boulevard. Requested Action Variance(s): 1) From the 40' maximum building height to 48' Site Location Recommendation Staff Recommendation: The staff recommends approval of the variance and adoption of the findings of fact, as presented. Staff Report – BZA#02-20 February 3, 2020 SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 3 Staff Report – BZA#02-20 February 3, 2020 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 Due to the location of the building on the site, the increased height requested would not be injurious to the public health, safety, moral and general welfare of the community. All state and local building code requirements will be met and the setback of the property to keep it located away from nearby intersections will not create vehicular sight issues. (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 building is setback a significant distance from the residential property to the north and all required buffering is being install, the impact that the increased height may have on adjacent properties is minimized. (3) The strict application of the terms of this Chapter would result in practical difficulties in the use of the property Under the previous zoning, the height of the building would have been permitted. Strict application of the new zoning ordinance would prohibit development of the site for the intended use. (4)The variance granted is the minimum necessary The variance granted is the minimum necessary to build a fourth story on the property. The request for a maximum height of 48’ allows a forth story to be added to the hotel while limiting any further height increase. (5)The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of the property The variance does not correct a hardship caused by a former or current owner of the property. Before the adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance on January 1st 2020 this property was zoned CB Community Business District which had a maximum height of 50’. If that zoning was currently in place the variance would not have been necessary. Analysis: Under the previous zoning ordinance, the height of the building would have been permitted. If that zoning was currently in place the variance would not have been necessary. Approving the variance should not adversely impact the surrounding properties or the general welfare of the community. Staff Recommendation: The staff recommends approval of the variance and adoption of the findings of fact, as presented. Analysis & Recommendation Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s) SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 3 Staff Report – BZA#03-20 February 3, 2020 Property Information Location: 1939 CHARLES ST Owner: FTC PROPERTIES LLC Project Summary Allow for a structure to be used as a one unit dwelling. Requested Action Variance(s): 1) To allow a 1 unit dwelling directly along the street frontage; 2) To allow a Detached House Building Type in the NC district; and 3) From the 12' maximum setback to 36.24' Site Location Recommendation Staff Recommendation: The staff recommends approving the variances and adoption of the findings of fact, as presented. Staff Report – BZA#03-20 February 3, 2020 SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 3 Staff Report – BZA#03-20 February 3, 2020 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 structure was initially built as a single-family home. Due to the low intensity of the use and the fact that it is an existing structure, use of the property as a one-unit dwelling should not be injurious to the public health or welfare. (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 majority of the property surround this site are owned by the petitioner. The adjacent property to the east and the properties across Charles Street are currently being used as a one- unit dwelling. The proposed use should not impact the use or 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 Strict application of the ordinance would not allow the property owner to use the building as it was initially constructed, nor allow the property to be used in a similar manner of the adjacent properties. While the house technically faces a street, this lot is only a portion of a larger development with non-residential uses along the primary frontage. (4)The variance granted is the minimum necessary The variance request is the minimum available to allow the site to be used as a one-unit dwelling. (5)The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of the property While the residential use of the property was temporarily abandoned by the current owner, the structure remained. Allowing for the property to be used as originally built will allow for better utilization of the site and help maintain the character of the area. Analysis: Allowing for the property to be used as originally built will allow for better utilization of the site and should not adversely impact the surrounding properties or the general welfare of the community. Staff Recommendation: The staff recommends approving the variances and adoption of the findings of fact, as presented. Analysis & Recommendation Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s)