HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.01.24 BZA Agenda Packet
1 | Page
City of South Bend
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
AGENDA
Monday, July 1, 2024 - 4:00 p.m.
County-City Building
Fourth-Floor Council Chambers
www.tinyurl.com/sbbza
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Location: 1615 COLFAX AVE BZA#0270-24
Owner: JEFFREY P AND HALRUN LUPPES
Requested Action:
Variance(s):
1) to allow the unfinished side of a fence to face outward from the property
Zoning: S1 Suburban Neighborhood 1
2. Location: 6480 ADAMS RD BZA#0272-24
Owner: INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY
Requested Action:
Variance(s):
1) to allow a fence constructed of barbed wire
Zoning: I Industrial
3. Location: 4202 WASHINGTON ST BZA#0273-24
Owner: JAIME BAUTISTA PLATA
Requested Action:
Variance(s):
1) from the minimum side-yard setback of 5' to 2' for the existing house and constructed
porch
Zoning: U1 Urban Neighborhood 1
4. Location: 1830 LEER ST BZA#0271-24
Owner: KATIKI S LIPSCOMB
Requested Action:
Special Exception: a Restaurant
Zoning: UF Urban Neighborhood Flex
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Findings of Fact – June 3, 2024
2. Minutes – June 3, 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 3
Staff Report – BZA#0270-24 July 1, 2024
Property Information
Location: 1615 COLFAX AVE
Owner: JEFFREY P AND HALRUN LUPPES
Project Summary
To install a privacy fence at the back of the property, along the alley, with the smooth side facing
into the yard and not facing the alley.
Requested Action
Variance(s): 1) to allow the unfinished side of a fence to face outward from the property
Site Location
______________________________________________________________________________
Staff Recommendation
Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the Board deny the
variance as presented.
Staff Report – BZA#0270-24 July 1, 2024
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 3
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0270-24 July 1, 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 the privacy fence to be erected with the non-finished side facing the alley could be
injurious to the general welfare of the community because it would 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 as the inward facing finished side 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 the Chapter would not result in practical difficulties in
the use of the property. A fence with a shadow box design or a double-sided design could
be erected that would allow a finished side to face both the alley and inward to the property.
(4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary
Since there is no practical difficulty to overcome, the variance request is not the minimum
necessary. The petitioner could erect an alternative fence design, such as a shadow box
fence or double-sided design, that would conform to the ordinance while also providing a
finished side to face inward to the property.
(5) The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of
the property
The hardship is self-created by the petitioner in their desire for a fence with the finished side
facing inward.
Analysis: There are no practical difficulties or unique characteristics that warrant the request for
the variance. An alternative fence design, such as a shadow box fence or double-sided fence,
could be installed that would conform to the ordinance while also providing a finished side to
face inward to the property.
Staff Recommendation: Based on the information provided prior to the public hearing, 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#0272-24 July 1, 2024
Property Information
Location: 6480 ADAMS RD
Owner: INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY
Project Summary
A request for barbed wire fencing surrounding an Indiana Michigan Power Company Service Center
that provides office space, truck parking and repair, and material storage.
Requested Action
Variance(s): 1) to allow a fence constructed of barbed wire
Site Location
Staff Recommendation
Based on the information available prior to the public hearing, the Staff recommends the Board
deny the variance.
Staff Report – BZA#0272-24 July 1, 2024
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 3
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0272-24 July 1, 2024
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 3of 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 variance for the barbed wire fence could be injurious to the morals and general welfare
of the community because it is out of character for the area and would set a negative
precedent for the community.
(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
Utilizing a barbed wire fence could adversely affect the use and value of the properties in
the area.
(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 result in practical difficulties in the use of the
property. Constructing a fence without barbed wire would still allow for full use of the
property.
(4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary
The variance granted would not be the minimum necessary. A security fence could be
constructed without barbed wire.
(5) The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of
the property
The desire for barbed wire is self-created, as a security fence could be constructed around
the site without the use of barbed wire.
Analysis: Barbed wire is reserved for specific uses in the City, including utility sites such as
electrical substations. While a security fence is permitted surrounding this property and meets
the intent of the ordinance, allowing barbed wire on top of the fence is not appropriate for a
service center.
Staff Recommendation: Based on the information available prior to the public hearing, the
Staff recommends the Board deny the variance.
Analysis & Recommendation
Criteria for Decision Making: Variance(s)
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 1 of 3
Staff Report – BZA#0273-24 July 1, 2024
Property Information
Location: 4202 WASHINGTON ST
Owner: JAIME BAUTISTA PLATA
Project Summary
Building a porch onto an existing house
Requested Action
Variance(s): 1) from the minimum side-yard setback of 5' to 2' for the existing house and
constructed porch
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#0273-24 July 1, 2024
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 3
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0273-24 July 1, 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 new porch 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 a substantially adverse manner as the new porch is an improvement to their
property and represents an investment in the neighborhood. Additionally, the fence will not
encroach any further into the front setback and should not impact the neighboring
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 may result in practical difficulties in the use
of the property. Due to the original placement of the house when built, a strict adherence to
the side setback would not allow for the full front porch.
(4) The variance granted is the minimum necessary
The variance granted is the minimum necessary. The new porch is just matching the
existing setback of the home.
(5) The variance does not correct a hardship cause by a former or current owner of
the property
Built in 1950 with the current setbacks, the owner did not build the house and is making the
best of the what they’ve been given. Any improvements to the home would have required a
variance due to the nonconforming side setbacks.
Analysis: Granting the variance will allow the new enlarged porch to remain with a 2' side
setback. 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 3
Staff Report – BZA#0271-24 July 1, 2024
Property Information
Location: 1830 LEER ST
Owner: KATIKI S LIPSCOMB
Project Summary
Establish a neighborhood sandwich shop.
Requested Action
Special Exception: a Restaurant
Site Location
_______________________________________________________________________________
Staff Recommendation
Based on information available prior to the public hearing, the Staff recommends the Plan
Commission send the Special Exception to the Common Council with a favorable
recommendation.
Staff Report – BZA#0271-24 July 1, 2024
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 2 of 3
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Report – BZA#0271-24 July 1, 2024
SOUTH BEND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Page 3 of 3
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, comfort, community
moral standards, convenience or general welfare as any proposed restaurant will meet all
applicable building and fire safety codes.
(2) The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or
property values therein;
The proposed use should not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or
property values. The building was designed and has historically been utilized as a corner
retail/service space. The introduction of a restaurant will activate the building and enhance
the neighborhood by offering a new local amenity.
(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 parcel is located on a small commercial node in a compact neighborhood, three blocks
east of the Miami Street corridor. The proposed use as a small scale restaurant is consistent
with the surrounding traditional neighborhood development pattern and will serve to
enhance the area.
(4) The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan.
The proposed use is consistent with City Plan (2006), Objective LU2.1: Encourage
developers to use planned unit and traditional neighborhood development models to
promote land use compatibility in future developments. The parcel fronts a small commercial
node that serves the community in a traditional neighborhood development pattern.
Analysis: The building was designed and has historically been utilized as a corner retail/service
space. Introducing a small-scale restaurant will activate the building and enhance the
neighborhood by offering a new local amenity.
Staff Recommendation: Based on information available prior to the public hearing, the Staff
recommends the Plan Commission send the Special Exception to the Common Council with a
favorable recommendation.
Analysis & Recommendation
Criteria for Decision Making: Special Exception