All right, good afternoon.

I'm going to call this meeting to order.

This is a public hearing of the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, Division 1.

I am Peter Nelson, Chairperson of Division 1.

Other board members present today are Jennifer Witt, Andrew Cotona, and David Duncan.

Legal Counsel for the Board today is Chris Steinmetz.

Staff members present today from the Division of Planning are Eddie O'Neill, current planning administrator.

Bryce Patz, current planning manager, Robert Ulenhaig, Senior Planner, Noah Stern, Senior Planner, Michael Weigel, senior planner, and Marty Weistie, Senior Board Specialist and Secretary to the Board.

The board has copies of the zoning ordinances that'll be incorporated by reference into the record of each case heard today.

The proceedings of this hearing are governed by the board's rules of procedure.

The expedited cases will be heard immediately after all requests for continuances or withdrawals.

As each non-expedited case is called, petitioners and remonstrators interested in that particular case will please stand.

Those who intend to testify will please remain standing and be sworn.

Petitioners should be on your left and remonstrators on your right as you face the board.

Those who testify will state their name and address for the record before beginning to testify.

Petitioners and persons appearing in support of the case being heard shall have a maximum of 15 minutes for the presentation of evidence, statements and arguments in support of the petition.

Remonstrators and persons appearing in opposition to the petition shall have a maximum of 15 minutes for the presentation of evidence statements and arguments in opposition to the petition.

Staff will then present the administrators' comments regarding the petition.

The petitioner will then be allowed a five minutes for rebuttal and summation of the case.

Rebuttal must be limited to the subject matter of the initial presentation.

Remonstrators will then be allowed five minutes for rebuttal of the petitioner's rebuttal evidence and a brief closing statement.

No further evidence statements or arguments will be heard unless it is at the discretion of the board.

Please limit your testimony and evidence to matters covered in the statutory requirements, which must be met in order for the board to grant a variance.

If the petitioners have failed to comply with all notice requirements as stipulated by the board's rules of procedure, including posting of the notice sign on subject property at least 23 days prior to the hearing, the board may continue the petition.

Anyone at this hearing who thanks complete and proper notice has not been given and would like the petition continued due to lack of proper notice must bring this matter to the board's attention at the beginning of the hearing.

The board may impose various conditions or commitments as amendments before reaching a decision on certain petitions.

The installation of landscaping and screening, the paving of parking area, and the dedication of rights away are examples.

These conditions and commitments are an integral part of the board's decision and must be met for a granted variance to be valid.

Compliance with conditions imposed by the board must be proved by an affidavit of compliance submitted by the petitioner within 30 days of completion.

Unless otherwise specified, an improvement location permit must be obtained prior to the establishment of the authorized improvements.

Failure to comply with any conditions or commitments of a variance grant is a violation enforceable by the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services.

A person may file a written request or receive notice of the filing of a petition for judicial review of a decision of the board.

The written request must be filed within five days of the board's decision and must include the person's full name and correct mailing address and a reference to the board's petition number.

Forms are available and may be obtained from the board secretary.

Please be advised that contacting members of the board regarding a matter pending before the board outside of this public hearing process is prohibited.

Please be courteous and orderly at all times, and please be sure all cell phone ringers are turned off.

I will note today there are four members present.

It requires three votes to take action on any request.

So we will take this into consideration when hearing requests for continuance.

If your petition does receive an indecisive vote or a two-two vote, your position will be automatically continued to the January 6, 2026 hearing.

Board members, you have been provided minutes for the November 4th meeting.

If there are no deletions, excuse me, no deletions or additions, I will take a motion for their approval.

Cotona so moved.

Is there a second?

All right, calling for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Catona.

Catona, yes.

Wit.

Wit, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

All right.

Is there anyone in the audience who has any questions about our procedures?

All right, seeing none, before we hear special requests, I will ask for a waiver of our rules of procedure to allow the board to vote for all of the expedited petitions and adopt their findings of fact without any additional testimony from the individual petitioners.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

And a second.

Catona seconded.

All right, call for a vote.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Katona?

Katoni, yes.

WIT?

WIT, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

All right.

At this time we will consider uh special requests and continuances.

Good afternoon.

Justin King.

Address is 2722 Manker Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46203.

Here before you regarding petition 2025 UV1022.

Address is 4502 East Michigan Street.

This is the uh last item on your agenda today.

Uh we have two requests for this uh petition.

The first one being is we need to ask for a five-day waiver of the sign and legal notice requirement.

Um we got those out as soon as we were able to and got the sign posted as soon as we were able to all right.

Is there anyone in the audience with interest specifically in the five-day waiver request for petition 2025 UV1022 at 4502 East Michigan Street?

All right, seeing none staff, are we comfortable with the five-day waiver request?

Thank you, Chair.

Nelson, members of the board.

Yes, staff has no objection to this request for a five-day waiver.

All right, thank you.

All right, board, we have a request for a five-day waiver for the um notice posting for petition 2025 UV1022.

Um is there a motion to approve?

Duncan so moved.

Second.

Wit second.

All right, call for a vote.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Katona.

Katona, yes.

Wit.

Wit, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

Then once again, Justin King and address 2722 Manker Street.

Here before you again on uh 2025 UV1022.

We are asking that this petition be uh continued and transferred to the board uh two hearing on December 9th, 2025.

We are scheduled to appear before the uh neighborhood group that's associated with this address, uh present our petition.

And so uh that meeting is to be held this Thursday, and so we're asking for a one-week continuance and transfer to board two on December 9th, and that uh continuance and transfer would be without additional notice.

All right, um, so I will ask again anyone in the audience with interest, specifically in opposition to this transfer request for petition 2025 UV 1022.

Seeing no one staff, are we comfortable with this request?

Yes, thank you, Chairperson Nelson members of the board.

So there's no objection to this request to continue and transfer the board to the December 9th BZA2 hearing.

Awesome, thank you.

All right, board, we have a request to continue and transfer petition 2025 UV 1022 to the December 9th hearing of Division 2.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

And a second Catona seconded.

All right, call for a vote, Duncan.

Duncan, yes, Catona?

Catone, yes.

Wit.

Wit, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

I'm Jennifer Milliken from Ice Miller here on item number 12, 2025 DV1058.

Seeing as we have a positive staff recommendation, if there's no remonstrator in the audience, we'd like to request that to be moved to an expedited agenda.

All right, is there anyone in the audience um here today in opposition of petition 2025 DV1058?

That it is that is at 5554 North Delaware Street.

Appears no remonstrance is present.

Um staff, are we comfortable with moving this to the expedited docket since you are recommending approval?

Thank you, Chairperson Nelson.

Members of the board staff had received two emails expressing some level of opposition to the petition.

However, you are correct, we do recommend approval and given that those remonstrators are not here today.

Staff would not object to the petition being moved to the expedited docket.

All right, thank you.

And I will note the board uh was able to view those notices of remonstrance and those letters.

So board, we do have a request to move petition 2025 DV1058 to the expedited docket.

Is there a motion?

Catona, so moved.

A second.

Wit, second.

All right, call for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Katona.

Catona, yes.

WIT.

WIT, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um thank you, Chairperson.

Nelson members of the board.

There's a no more special requests from the audience, so staff would draw your attention to item number one on the agenda 2025 D V1052 at 4105 West 93rd Street.

An automatic continuance request request was filed in a timely fashion by a registered neighborhood organization.

Um, moving this to your January 6, 2025 hearing date.

Uh, this would merely require for board's acknowledgement.

So acknowledged.

Thank you.

And similarly, I'd draw your attention to item number two.

Really quickly, that is the January 6, 2026 hearing date.

So it is.

Yeah.

Where does the time go?

Yes.

Uh similarly, item number two on your agenda.

2025 DV1054 to 8752, Michigan.

Also received a timely automatic continuance request from a registered neighborhood group, which moves this to your January 6, 2026 hearing date, merely requiring your acknowledgement.

So acknowledged.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairperson Nelson, members of the board, staff would draw your attention to item number three, 2025 UV 1019 at 3040 South Kirchhof Drive.

This petition is required to be continued due to insufficient notice on the petitioners uh part.

Um if you would look at the one page report of that petition on page seven of your agenda.

Uh this is the third time that this is to be continued due to insufficient notice, and so staff would just note that this is the last uh continuance that staff would be supportive of, and that if uh the required mail notice as well as the notarized affidavit confirming as such have not been completed at next month's hearing.

Staff would recommend that this case be dismissed.

Um so again, uh this is to be continued to the January 6, 2026 hearing with the notice.

Okay, thank you.

Is there anyone in the audience with interest in petition 2025 UV1019?

Okay.

Um board, we have a request to move petition 2025 UV1019.

Continue that to the January 6th hearing.

Um is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

Second.

Wit second.

All right, call for a vote, Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Catona?

Catona, yes.

Wit.

Wit, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other special requests or continuances at this time.

All right.

Hearing none, um, I believe we can move to the expedited docket.

These are petitions to be expedited.

Case number two zero two five-d v 1-053, property address 2716 North Tacoma Avenue, amended.

Center Township, Council District number eight, zoned SU1.

The petitioner is Los Pentecostales de Indianapolis Incorporated, represented by Aaron Hunt uh Aaron Hurt.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a building addition and parking lot configuration, resulting in three single load rows of parking within the front yard of 27th Street, and two rows of parking within the front yard of Tacoma Avenue, limited to one single loaded row within a front yard.

Deficient transparency, compliance required.

Case number 2025-DV1-055 amended.

Property address 1919, South Girls School Road.

Wayne Township, Council District Number 17, zoned I3.

The petitioner is Aeroden Real Estate LLC, represented by Charlie Maddox.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a building and parking expansion, resulting in a ten foot rear yard setback, thirty feet required.

A dumpster with a zero foot north side yard setback and within the front yard of Girls School Road.

And a loading area within the front yard, not permitted.

With eighty-four parking spaces provided, 103 vehicle spaces required.

Case number two zero two five-d v one-zero five six.

Property address two eight two two East Washington Street.

The petitioner is Indianapolis Marion County Public Library, represented by Russell Brown and Joseph Cisco Cicos.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of concrete stairs encroaching within the right of way of East Washington Street, not permitted.

Case number two zero two five-d v one-zero five seven property address ten South Mickley Avenue.

Wayne Township, Council District Number Sixteen, Zoned C four slash CS.

The petitioner is Dave and Sons Properties LLC, represented by Mark Baston.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the location of a pylon sign, being the third freestanding sign along the Rockville Road frontage.

Maximum two freestanding signs per frontage.

Case number two zero two five-d v one-zero five eight.

Property address five five five four North Delaware Street.

Washington Township, Council District number seven, zoned D4, MSPC.

The petitioners are Jeffrey and Lavone Frank, represented by Jennifer Milliken.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for exterior improvements, resulting in an open space of 62% and a sixteen point nine seven foot front yard setback from Delaware Street.

65% open space and 20-foot front yard setback required.

Case number two zero two five-UV one-zero two one.

Property address six zero two South Emerson Avenue.

Center Township, Council District Number 14, Zoned D5.

The petitioner is Wayne Burial Vault Company Incorporated, represented by Mindy Westrick Brown.

Variants of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for commercial outdoor storage within side and rear transitional yards without screening.

Not permitted, screening required.

And deficient landscaping and open space.

Landscaping 60% open space required.

Is there anyone in attendance today in opposition to any of these petitions?

Chairperson, that's the end of your expedited docket.

2025 DV1055.

All right, thank you, Jennifer.

So board member Witt will be abstaining from that petition.

Otherwise, board, please cast your ballots for all of the expediting cases.

On case two zero two five dash DV one dash zero five three.

Peter Nelson votes yes.

David Duncan votes yes, Andrew Catona votes yes, and Jennifer Whitt votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case two zero two five dash DV one dash zero five five.

Jennifer Witt abstained.

Peter Nelson votes yes.

David Duncan votes yes, and Andrew Catona votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case two zero two five dash DV one dash zero five six, Peter Nelson votes yes.

David Duncan votes yes, Andrew Cotona votes yes, and Jennifer Witt votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case two zero two five-d V one dash zero five seven, Peter Nelson votes yes, David Duncan votes yes, Andrew Cotona votes yes, and Jennifer Witt votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case two zero two five dash DV one dash zero five eight, Peter Nelson votes yes.

David Duncan votes yes, Jennifer Witt votes yes, and Andrew Catona votes yes.

That variance is granted.

And on case two zero two five dash UV one dash zero two one.

Peter Nelson votes yes, David Duncan votes yes, Andrew Catona votes yes, and Jennifer Witt votes yes.

That variance is granted.

All right, anybody just here for an expedited case?

You can feel free to head out if you'd like.

Case number two zero two five dash DV one-zero five zero amended property address eight eight eight eight Keystone Avenue.

Washington Township, Council District Number Four, Zoned C four.

The petitioner is Mass Mutual, represented by Tyler Oaks.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the installation of a fifth skyline sign on a facade, being the sixth on a building, one skyline sign per elevation, maximum of four permitted per building.

Will those who plan to speak on this petition, please raise the right hand to be sworn in.

Perfect.

Good afternoon.

For the record, Tyler Oaks with Bose McKinney and Evans office address at one one one Monument Circle Suite 2700, Indianapolis, Indiana, four six two zero four.

Here today on behalf of petitioner, who's also the tenant in this building, which is Mass Mutual.

Mass Mutual does life insurance.

Just a little bit of background on them.

We're here today requesting a variance of development standards to allow for a fifth skyline sign on the facade, and as staff has pointed out, it would be the sixth on the building.

A little bit of background.

This is at 888 Keystone Crossing.

It's a pretty unique building in that it, if you look at kind of the outline of it, it doesn't have sides, it's a curved face on the northwest side, and then kind of a straight back on the southeast side.

Building was constructed in 1988.

It has about 18 stories, and it's a roughly 229 feet tall.

Currently sits at the corner of 90th and Keystone Crossing.

On the building itself, there are currently six signs that exist.

Five of those, as we pointed out, are skyline.

One is considered a wall sign and does not fit into that category.

All of them are located on that northwest curved facade facing 90th and Keystone.

The only exception is there is one on the southeast portion facing that way.

We are here today, and it's the first page of that packet I handed you, but we're here today requesting that we can get approval for this sign.

The sign is about 63 square foot in size.

It sits right at about 30 feet above base level, which is why we're here.

The ordinance describes a skyline sign as anything that uh exceeds 20 26 feet above base elevation.

This one's 30.

So we're talking about a four-foot difference.

Um, you can see from the pictures that staff has provided and kind of the sign rendering that we've given as well.

Um, this would be slotted right in between right in between two already existing signs.

Uh kind of keeps the aesthetic where you have those three all in line right there.

Um, and again, it's just unfortunate that this is a four-foot difference, um, which is the reason we have to ask for the variance here today in the first part, or in the first place, excuse me.

The sign regulation standards that are located in the ordinance really emphasize the intent to promote quality sign display, and they want in they want to integrate it into these developments.

Um we would hope that you would agree and find that this does that.

We think it's placed in a spot where it keeps that aesthetic with all of them in line.

We think it's integrated with the building well with the two signs that are already existing, and it doesn't look out of place.

I know that's obviously a concern that we have to regulate when we look at signage, um, and that's no different here.

The regulations also tell us how much signage you're allowed to have on a building.

Now, this one's a little bit tough because that facade is curved.

Um, and so if you do a rough measure of the length of the width on that side, it's probably right around 200-ish with a 229 height building.

Um, you can do 20% of that if that's considered to be the front side of the building.

And so when that comes out, you get roughly 9,000 square footage of signage that would be permitted on the building, and that's for all signs that are included.

Currently, the signage that's on there comes nowhere near that.

You have the two signs that are shown in the rendering that we've included, which is that wren and that Ambrose, and then there's three additional signs on that facade, and those are located on the uh fifth page that I've given you.

It shows that top view where you can see three different skyline signs that are at the very very top of that building.

So there is a very big gap in between the three signs that you see in the rendering and where those three signs are at the top of the building.

Um technically, by ordinance, they're all considered skyline signs, but I think you you would hopefully agree that they're pretty different in terms of a who they're appealing to and what their intent is.

So with the sign approval, um, as stated before, Mass Mutual does life insurance.

This is a client-driven business.

There are people that are going to be attending the offices.

Um, and so this is intended sure as advertising, but also to let people know where they are and what they exist.

It is from a traffic standpoint, and I've included a couple different uh visuals for you to look at to kind of see um where it would go and what the views are from each part of the road.

You'll see I have a southbound uh going where you can you know see right there where it would be.

If you're heading south on Keystone Crossing, there's no monument sign that tells you where they would be.

There's nothing, and so that would be the only signage that gives you any indication that they're existing in that building.

The same could be said if you're coming um westbound as well from 90th Street.

If you're in that turn lane, that would be the only indication you'd be able to see it.

The only signage that currently exists as staff pointed out is there is a freestanding monument style sign that is located on the property.

It's the last page of the handout I gave you.

I think it's pretty hard to see, and you can only see it if you're heading northbound on Keystone at or Keystone Crossing.

So I you know, I do think that there is certainly a traffic benefit of having that sign.

It should help people who are confused in that area.

It's extremely commercial.

This isn't out of place for that area.

Um, and so we would we would hope that you would agree that it it certainly fits in with that area.

I know staff had had a couple concerns regarding its facing towards I-65.

I'm included some photos from the building that you can see located from I-465.

We certainly would would disagree with that assertion.

We don't believe this was intended to appeal to any of the drivers on 465.

The sign would not be visible from 465.

This is purely for drivers that are in that local vicinity as well as walkers.

You have a really nice view of that sign from the sidewalk, and then any local car driving in that area would be able to see it.

It is really intended for those nearby.

Um kind of to conclude, just a couple other things.

Going through the factors, um, we don't believe this to be injuries, you know, it's not gonna hurt the the public from a standpoint of we think it's helping traffic, it's gonna help safety.

People are gonna be able to see where the building is located.

Um it's certainly not out of character for the neighborhood, it's not going to impact any other properties.

There are other tenants in this building, obviously, that have signs up there.

This is pretty standard, and again, if this could have been four feet lower, we're not even here.

And I think that kind of brings up an issue when you know this building was constructed in 1988.

It's a pretty unique building, I think, as a lifelong Indian Indianapolis resident.

Um, I I think it's a pretty unique and and well-known building.

Um, but it creates difficulties because of a how it's shaped, having that curved facade on the front, and then two, um, I'm not sure skyline signs were well thought out in 1988 when this building was constructed.

You would have liked to, in hindsight, taken out that window pane that's directly under it, which I bet is probably right around four feet, and slide that down.

That's obviously not the case because of the transparency on the base floor in that building itself.

Uh, we have practical difficulties that exist that just wouldn't allow it to happen.

Placement of that sign anywhere else is gonna look, I think, really bad.

Um, aesthetically it would not be pleasing, and we understand that that's part of the ordinance and what they want to strive for is that integration aspect.

So with those factors in mind, and with all that, um, we would respectfully ask that you approve this variance.

Um, happy to answer any questions.

Yeah, hi.

Um it looks like just based on the last slide that you've got here, looks like there's roughly call it 15 tenants in the building existing.

Uh, you know, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's just you know, it is kind of tough to see that, but it looks like there's about 15 tenants.

So I guess what stops one of them from coming and saying, you know, we want to continue to add a sign to each level here, and then second part of the question would be you mentioned the four feet um as being the delta, but was there any consideration in moving it to the left of what looks like to be Ren?

I mean, it doesn't look like visually or aesthetically that that would be you know terrible.

I I don't I I would disagree, I think, if if someone said that looks terrible.

I think just because the Ren sign's there, I mean, was there any consideration to that?

Um, but those are my I guess those would be my two questions.

I'll answer the second one first.

Um I can't speak to if there's if there was consideration or not.

I know that my client had met with building ownership, and they felt um they brought in a signed company to evaluate everything, and they felt it was in the best aesthetic view to have them all in line like that.

Um obviously, if they thought, hey, we should just put it there, we wouldn't have been here in the first place.

But I think they really wanted to emphasize, you know, especially with the amount of signs that are in the area, that it looks really cohesive and it line it falls in line like that.

To your first question, um, there are I believe 15 sounds about right.

There's 18 floors, so you figure it's probably you know within that area.

Um so this would be the seventh sign on the building.

Um what stops them from keep going up?

The board does.

Um this doesn't set precedent, and obviously, you know, it's gonna come in front of you if they came forward, but I think the building uh manager understands going forward that this was already kind of a this was a stretch as is.

Um, and I think when you factor in that this is getting slotted in between the two and it's not going up any higher.

Um, it helps to one preserve that cohesiveness that we talked about, but I think it is a uh signal to the building manager that hey, this isn't gonna fly going forward, and we understand that you know Mass Mutual is the newest tenant in there.

Um it helps to one preserve that cohesiveness that we talked about, but I think it is uh uh signal to the building manager that hey, this isn't gonna fly going forward, and we understand that you know Mass Mutual is the newest tenant in there, the other ones are all established, so I think they understand that you know this isn't gonna fly going forward.

Thanks.

Any other questions from the board right now?

All right, hearing none.

Um I didn't see anybody stand, but is there anybody here in opposition to this petition 2025 DV1050?

All right, just wanted to make sure.

Um then we will go to staff comments, please.

Thank you, Chairperson Nelson, members of the Chair Person Catona.

I will also address the 26 foot height, um, which is the requirement for anything above to be a skyline.

Anything below is considered a wall sign.

This sign's proposed just four feet taller at 30 feet being the skyline.

As you indicated, it could also be moved lower and adjacent to uh I believe that's Ren, um, this lower sign uh to the left, and it would not need a variance, it would be considered a wall sign as long as it met the 20 percent.

If this is considered uh front facade.

If it's not if it's considered a side or rear facade, um then it would be 15 and 20 and 10 percent total signage um concurrently.

Uh so it's just a minor deviation to go four feet up, it's a minor deviation to go four feet down too, but then you're also zoning compliant, and you don't need the ordinance.

So I'm not sure um for the argument for the 30 feet.

Um the standards for the sign ordinance were developed to uh restrict the proliferation of signs.

This is the first building I've seen that actually has six signs on it, five skyline signs.

And the reason why they are on is the majority of them, if not all, have existed prior to the zoning sign ordinance update in 2019.

So they would be considered legally non-conforming as they are as long as they're not removed, they can continue to remain.

Once they are removed or changed for a different tenant, which I believe is the case as in this regard, as there is a previous sign in the same location prior to 2019, or has been vacated since 2019, then it has to be legally conforming.

And that's true with any law.

As we make laws as a society, we we're considered to be compliant with those signs going forward.

We we don't get a pass to say, well, I want to only um adhere to the previous sign before because that was more beneficial for me.

And in this case, that was more beneficial because it allows more signs.

Unfortunately, we have to be compliant with the ordinance as we go forward.

And in this case, with the 2019 sign ordinance revision, it only allows a limited number of skyline signs.

Um therefore I don't think there is any practical difficulty in them complying with it.

The sign can be moved.

I would also point out that the petitioner indicated the ground wayfinding sign as shown on the last slide submitted page 19 is northbound from Keystone Avenue, which is the primary entrance into this integrated center business center with the with the proposed building sign being around the corner of the building as you see it.

However, what they are not showing is at the under other end of this block, there's also another wayfinding sign to direct uh drivers at eye level into this uh to f to locate business on this um building.

The wayfinding sign in the slide uh submitted has pretty much every tenant indicated on the right sign, which would serve the purpose of putting additional signage on um would alleviate the need for putting additional signage on the buildings.

The sign the wayfinding sign at the north is similar to the one in the right-of-way, which just has uh addresses.

Um the petitioner indicator they didn't want to move it because it's an aesthetic issue.

Well, if it's an aesthetic issue, then it's not a wayfinding issue, and therefore that uh negates their definition for it being needed for people to find it because they don't want to locate it where at a more eye level where people could see the sign, they want to keep it as proposed for aesthetic reasons.

Um as such, the the original findings there were amended findings submitted just late this morning indicated it was needed to find the building.

Um however it does face north toward the interstate.

The and as I indicated before, the primary entrance is to the south of this building from 82nd Street, um, going north on Keith Stone Avenue.

Once people are already into in the integrated business center, they may be using cross streets to go left and right, east and west, excuse me.

But then again, they have the ground level integrated signage to locate this the building as well.

Uh we also are a modernized society.

We have GPS wayfinding uh internal issues in our vehicles.

Uh we also have internet information and ability to contact an office for directions prior to uh getting to the uh office, therefore the re this in staff's opinion, this request is prior prior primarily situated as an advertising issue, and we try to eliminate that uh which was the purpose we're amending the sign ordinance because they were we were getting too many skyline signs, as in this case, there were five on this building.

And this would be the fifth one replacing a previous fifth one for that reason.

Step loss there is no practical difficulty as proper signage could be provided without um the requested variants and does recommend denial of the petition.

Be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Board, any questions for staff.

I guess I have one question uh and it's about the ordinance.

But if if so it I just want to make sure I understand if this is below 26 feet, it's not a skyline sign, it's a wall sign.

How many wall signs would be permitted on the would have to adhere to the again, depending if it's considered uh the petition indicated 20% being a front facade.

Let I'll I'll go with that.

So the total signage would have to fall within that 20%, which as is indicated, they're allowed 9,000 square feet, so it would fit into that.

There would be no limitation on the height below the 26 feet, other than meeting the 20% facade coverage of total signage.

But if this is so I mean, looking at it, if this is a projecting sign, because it's more than 18 inches, projects 18 inches away from the exterior wall, I think the ordinance says there's only one projecting wall sign allowed per per building.

I'm not aware of projecting being a part of the request.

Um this looked like a flush wall sign to me.

Okay.

Uh if it is projecting, that could require another variance, but I don't believe that's part of this request, regardless if it's skyline or a wall sign.

All right, thank you.

Any other questions for staff at this point?

All right, hearing none, um, we will go back to the petitioner for your rebuttal and closing comments.

Um you can have up to five minutes for that.

Again, for the record, good afternoon, Tyler Oakes.

Uh on behalf of petitioner.

Um, a couple things.

I think it's a bit interesting that we have a restriction from a skyline sign a skyline sign standpoint.

We're allowed one per elevation.

Um, but we have this restriction.

If we move the sign over, it's gonna be on you know, level, we'd have the more than one elevation.

I understand it would be a wall sign, but to me, I still think it is an aesthetic issue, but at the same time it becomes a safety issue because I think if you've got them three in line on that far right side of the building, given where the curvature of the building exists and where the sidewalk is, it's gonna be most visible for people to naturally look to where those right now to, but where those three signs are as opposed to that other one.

Additionally, if you look at that last page that I submitted on the board itself, I drove it.

It's hard to see.

If you were looking for it, and I understand I I use GPS too, but if you were looking for it, it's extremely hard to see.

And the beauty of this site is there is a second entrance on the backside.

If you were to drive by that and miss it, which I'm sure people do, you can you would see the mass mutual sign right on the building as you drove by.

You're turning right on to 90th and you're popping right back in that sidewalk.

On the other side, there is that sign on 90th that staff uh pointed out, uh, but that sign simply just says 888.

And I would hope people would know that.

But I've gone to large commercial buildings before, and sometimes it's hard to know what you know which is in which building.

Um it can be a little bit confusing of an area just because there's so many conver commercial buildings located in that area.

Um I know staff mentioned that this is already a lot of signage on the building.

Uh I can't speak to that.

I've looked at other buildings and it seems to be on par.

I will say that this is a 350,000 square foot building with 18 stories and 230 feet in height.

This is not a small building.

The way that the ordinance is written, a 10,000 square foot building is allowed to have the same amount of skyline signs as this one would be able to have.

Um that seems, I mean, I guess that's an issue of policy and can be talked about later, but to me, that does not seem comparable.

Um it seems like that standard, and that's the kind of the whole point of variances is that they can be adjusted.

Um, like I said, just to reiterate those three signs at the very top, to me, clearly are intended to be seen from I 465, and they are.

But if you look at the the submissions that we put in there, this sign is not going to be seen from I-465.

You're gonna have to be on 90th or Keystone at the crossing to see it.

Sure, there's advertising involved, but we really do think A it's about the safety for people to be able to see driving in that area.

There are, as staff pointed out, a lot of east and west turns there.

Um it's a little bit of a confusing area if you've driven it.

Um, and then B, we really, you know, as stated would hang our hat that this is the best um aesthetically pleasing point, and that is what it the sign regulation specifically talk about is having an integrated sign that is aesthetically pleasing for the site.

And so we think this does that in the best way possible.

We would hope that you would agree in in that regard, and if we wanted this to be, you know, uh seen from I-465, we would have put it, tried to put it up a lot higher than what it is now.

So you know, I'm not saying it won't go there, but um to reiterate just in summation, we think this is about eye finding as well as being aesthetic.

It can be both, they're not mutually exclusive.

We think this would be an improvement for traffic and safety for a business that is very heavy on clients visiting the actual space.

Um it's a three hundred three hundred and fifty thousand square foot building with five signs.

This isn't outside the realm of normalcy for a building of that size, specifically if you look around downtown Indianapolis.

Um and so with all that being said, um, and again, I would if it's four feet lower, we can have unlimited.

We're not pushing for that.

We want it to be something that's responsibly planned and done.

So, with that being said, again, we respectfully would request approval of this variance.

Thank you.

All right, thanks.

Board, any final questions before we cast our ballots?

All right, hearing none, please, board cast your ballot for petition 2025 DV1050.

On case 2025-DV1-050, Jennifer Witt votes yes.

Andrew Catona votes no.

Peter Nelson votes yes, and David Duncan votes yes.

The variance is granted case number 2025-UV1-014A property address 6805 Rockville Road, Wayne Township, Council District Number 16, zoned D2.

The petitioner is Marguerito Mendoza Galindo, represented by Tasha Roberts.

Variants of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for outdoor and indoor storage of lawn care equipment, machinery, and materials.

Not permitted.

Will those who plan to speak on this petition, please raise their right hand to be sworn in.

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give is the truth and nothing but the truth?

Yes.

Good afternoon again.

Tasha Roberts of 118 North Delaware with me is Margarito Galindo Mendoza.

Last month I met with two people of the Rockville HOA, which are to my right, to address any concerns that they had and to reiterate that Mr.

Galindo has no intent whatsoever to use the property for commercial contractor use.

We provided the remonstrators as well as the city an amended plan of operation and requests for specific use.

We note that the amended plan was included in the staff report, but the request for specific use was inadvertently left out, so I've asked Marty to present those to you all.

The request for specific use provides a commitment that Margarita will only store the equipment and materials, and when I say materials, I mean firewood, as outlined in the amended plan of operation for his family's personal use, care and enjoyment of the property.

Any variants per the request for specific use would terminate upon sale of the property.

This is the second time we've been here on this issue, and honestly, we don't know what else we can say or do to show that Mr.

Galindo has absolutely no intention to use this property for commercial contractor use.

He testified a couple months ago that that was his intention.

I mean, the only thing I can think of is if he signs the commitment in blood or takes a polygraph test.

Because as I've said, I met with the remonstrators last month to show open disclosure and what the intent was.

With that, I'm gonna have a supporter stand up and speak.

Good afternoon.

I'm Dana Wright, and I live right by this property.

And I know.

Sorry, could you state the address for the record?

6805.

Is that right?

6805.

Or my address.

Yes.

6814 Walton Street.

Thank you.

Um I sold him this property.

And when I sold this property to him, I specifically said, I do not want your lawn care business in my backyard.

He understood.

He brought a lot of equipment in to redo this property.

It took a lot of his lawnscaping trucks days to get this property cleaned up, of which the state came through and made a mess in the ditch again, and we can't get that cleaned up.

We've tried and tried.

And possibly a snowblade, because he has to get that truck out to get to the work, like today, get the people out to the trucks that are at the storage unit where all his trucks are kept and get them out on the road to make it safe for us.

And which a lot of times he's plowing some of our streets for free because he is that neighbor.

It really feels kind of like a witch hunt, and I'm getting tired of it.

And it and I would support these women a hundred percent.

If he starts parking that stuff there, I'm gonna be down his throat, and I'm gonna be here fighting against him because I don't believe that we want companies like that in our neighborhood.

But do I care if he parks one of his trucks with his sign on it?

No.

Do I go through the neighborhood and find a food truck that's bold and bright parked in a driveway?

Yeah.

Do I drive through the neighborhood and see uh seven untagged um licensed vehicles?

Yes.

Do I want them gone?

Yes.

Do I do something about it?

Yes.

I make a plan, I call the mayor's action center, and I complain.

I don't do this.

This is just not I I talk to him all the time, and I tell him, I'm telling you, if you do this, I'm gonna be partners with them.

So I'm absolutely sure he's not gonna do anything like that.

And if there's any questions you have for me, feel free to ask because I have a very good relationship with him.

And with that, does anyone have any questions for us?

Okay, thank you.

All right, with that, um, unless board there are any questions.

Feel free to jump in.

But um, we can move to um remonstrance.

Anyone in opposition uh may have the floor uh total of 15 minutes for your comments.

Karen Farmer.

Um 6520 Rockville Road.

I'm the president of the neighborhood association, RHGA.

Our registered name is Rockville Road, High School Road, Girls School Road, Neighborhood Association.

RHGA was organized in 1973, and it's been an active association since its beginning.

Through the years, this community has created a viable, well-maintained neighborhood.

Our variance petition that is within our neighborhood boundaries to safeguard our neighborhood against it being unstable by undesirable petitions.

Several commercial businesses have tried to move in and change this area to a commercial zone.

We have successfully opposed those petitions to protect the character of our neighborhood and to protect our home values and to protect the safety of our families.

RHGA reminds our homeowners to follow the city ordinances according to what is allowed on homeowners' property and what is not allowed.

Today the petitioner has submitted an amended plan of operation to their petition of the request for storage of indoor and outdoor lawn equipment, materials, and machinery.

A list of 12 items has been submitted.

Our concern today is with item number 12, a commercial 14-foot trailer, which is not allowed on a D2 parcel.

Mr.

Glindo owns Glindo Brothers Landscaping, and according to his website, he's been in operation for 18 years, has many employees.

He has many trucks with his landscaping name on the side of them, and I often see them on the roads.

I think his business is successful.

Mr.

Glindo has rented storage space for his trucks and trailers.

About a mile away, as we heard, this was reported at our hearing last month, and he says he does not keep them at 6805 Rockville Road.

However, today's amended request asked for a variance for a 14-foot trailer to remain on the property.

The model of the trailer listed has a gross vehicle weight ranging typically from 6,000 pounds to 9,000 pounds.

If you look at the pictures submitted by the petitioner last month, the backyard is not going to be a space for pulling a trailer around in the backyard for personal use.

A 14-foot trailer is a commercial trailer and it's not allowed to be kept on a D2 parcel.

In fact, an enclosed or open 12-foot trailer holding landscaping material also is considered commercial.

Last month we were told that the trailer is there because the lawnmower is stored or kept on it.

Mr.

Galindo bought the property at 6805 in 2023.

And in 2024, Mr.

Glindo built a very large pool barn with a 2,000 square foot floor space with two oversized overhead doors and one standard sized door, which would be more than adequate for storing the lawnmower.

Looking at items 1 through 10 on the amended plan of operation that the family has listed for their personal use.

In fact, the address is very close to Mr.

Glindo.

The address is 6805 Jackson Street, two blocks south from 6805 Rockville Road.

The request on that petition was to legally establish the parking of a commercial vehicle, not permitted.

The commercial vehicle in question was a tow truck.

The homeowner owned his own tow truck and was employed by a towing company.

The company had space for the employee to park his truck at the owner's site, approximately a mile and a half from the homeowner's residence, and he could drive to the employer's lot when he got a call.

However, the homeowner preferred to keep his truck in his driveway.

He deemed it a hardship to come to his place of employment to pick up his truck.

And so he hired a lawyer and he asked for a variance.

What was revealed at the hearing was that the employer's lot was all was a very reasonable distance away.

And instead of it being a hardship, it was more about a matter of convenience.

The petition was denied rightfully so, according to the ordinance for what is permitted on one's property in a residential neighborhood.

Now I compare this to Mr.

Glindo keeping his 14-foot trailer on his property.

It seems to be a matter of convenience and not a hardship.

How many other people seeking variances would like to be approved because it was just more convenient?

Mr.

Galindo rental storage space is nearby.

His trailer could be stored on a commercial lot or building or at the rental space.

Mr.

Galindo has city code does not allow a commercial trailer to be kept on a residential lot.

City ordinances provide for the stability and the safety of our neighborhoods, and they are worth upholding.

And we are asking for the denial of this petition.

Today we are asking that city ordinances be upheld regarding today's petition.

I believe we can at this point go to staff comments.

Robert, you can scoot over one.

Thank you.

I was hoping they'd have that microphone fixed after several months, but thank you.

Petitioner Nelson Chairperson Nelson, members of the board.

Um petition as indicated the petitioner has updated the site of the plan of operation in order to limit amount of the outdoor storage and indoor storage of long care equipment, machinery, and materials, as indicated in the plan of operation.

With this, I would suggest the board amends the petition request to provide for fairness of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for commercial equipment if that is what it is, as as indicated in the amended plan of operation.

The original request is is very wide ranging, and I think with this amendment, uh majority of the original request is not applicable if the variance is granted.

Um as there is no more outdoor material storage.

Umited and long care equipment is indicated as the specific language we could debate later or uh work on later, but uh just wanted to point that out for um consideration.

Uh staff does continue to recommend denial of this amended request as listed on the plan of operation.

There appears to be a lot of personal home-based tools.

However, the item number 11, the trailer being 14 feet is considered a commercial vehicle, therefore this becomes a commercial operation.

If that trailer is used, regardless of size or length to move any of that equipment off-site, then it becomes a commercial use as well.

Um if any of that equipment is used for um the petitioner's company at other areas by moving that um that that definition uh fits the commercial definition of a commercial vehicle.

Again, that is regardless of size.

The fact that the trailer itself is over 12 feet makes it a commercial vehicle, even if it doesn't re um carry landscaping equipment on there.

The um so therefore there is no indication uh that uh the need of the commercial vehicle is for personal use in the plan of operation, therefore staff assumes or is led to believe that this will be continued to be used for commercial uses rather than personal uses, even though some of the equipment would be um personal in nature or personal size for a home typical homeowner.

Uh reiterating the fact that there is no limitation that the truck and trailer and equipment can come and go every day to off-site, which facilitates and continues the use of a commercial operation out of this property, which is on D2 for residential purposes, it could continue to be used for residential purposes without any practical difficulty.

Umil to the size of other nearby properties, and they are available to follow the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance that restricts the use of their properties to residential uses only.

Therefore, staff believes that comprehensive plan should not be disregarded, nor the clearly residential nature of the surrounding area.

Staff believes that this amended plan of operation does lessen the original request.

However, it still is a commercial use in staff's opinion, with the equipment being able to come and go every day on that trailer, and therefore staff does recommend denial of this request.

I have a couple questions, Robert, um, for staff.

Uh so do we know the gross vehicle weight rating of the trailer?

I'm sorry, do we know what the gross vehicle weight rating?

Do we know?

I do not know the vehicle weight if that's what you're asking.

No, there is uh there a specific weight determination does make a uh vehicle um commercial as well.

Simple internet research for the F-250 truck, uh, I believe they weigh around 8,000 pounds, if that's what you're asking about.

A commercial vehicle by definition is 10,000 pounds or more, and there are exceptions of that applied to trailers that are not weight-based.

Yeah.

Um I guess I the remote amended plan of operations specifically limits this for their personal use at the site.

And I understand the point about if the trailers used to carry this lawn equipment off-site, I think for commercial uses.

Like for instance, if if it's a commercial trailer because it's longer than 14 foot, and they're using it to haul this equipment from the residence to like a lake house to mow the lawn in the lakehouse and then back to their residence.

I don't view that as commercial use.

But if they're moving it for business purposes, then that it I think that is a commercial use.

But the the question I have is their whole plan of operation specifies that items one through twelve are for their personal use at the site.

So with that qualification, as long as the petitioner amends their petition to incorporate this amended plan of operation, does that address the concern about about whether this is being used for or being the variance requested if granted would allow commercial uses?

Unfortunately, it does not.

I think because it opens the door for joining properties to do something similar, it's a matter of enforce uh enforcement being able to be enforced as well, which would be difficult.

Uh if they weren't do using it for personal use, who's going to say until somebody turns them in and then we're back here again, which is similar to what happened to where we are now.

Um, because there were other trailers on site for the original violation, those have been removed.

So the intent originally was there.

I'm not saying that's a reason for denial because it has been removed and and updated, but this just does set precedent for adjoining properties, additional properties, um, or for when there is a lack of enforcement that um the trailer could be used for commercial uses, which is why staff continues to recommend denial.

Okay.

And then my next question, my last question is a little bit technical, but looking at the ordinance specifically section six B3, it it talks about storing a commercial vehicles in dwelling districts.

And it says no commercial vehicle or trailer shall be parked stored, maintained, or kept on any property in a dwelling district unless, and it's got three exceptions.

One, the vehicle has a gross vehicle rating of 10,000 pounds or less, or the vehicle is parked stored or maintained or kept within a garage or carport and is not categorized as a commercial vehicle by item two in the definition of a commercial vehicle and the trailer isn't that item two, or the vehicle is parked stored on a site where active legal construction, I there's no construction we're talking about.

So I think if if the petitioner can satisfy that the trailer has a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less, or that it's being parked inside a garage and it's not a box truck, I think they can they probably satisfy that requirement.

I would probably disagree on the face of it because there's been no indication that they're storing it in a carport or the garage.

It's the request is specifically outdoors.

Part of the request is for outdoors.

If they're outdoors and it's less than 10,000 pounds, doesn't that ordinance permit this the storage if they are able to meet that exception, then they don't need the variance.

But in regards for requesting the variance, uh which allows something more than that exception in my mind or in staff's mind, which is why we continue to recommend denial.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff at this time?

All right, we'll go back to the petitioner.

You will have up to five minutes for your rebuttal and closing comments.

Thank you.

The trailer weighs less than 4,000 pounds and it is stored in the pole barn.

So everything that's on this amended plan is in the pole barn.

And when if it comes out, it's for use on the personal property.

That's it.

Thank you.

I I do have one clarify clarifying request.

Um so staff asked that we make sure that the amended request for specific use and the amended plan of operation that those be incorporated into the petition as an amended request.

And we do that.

Are you okay?

Yeah.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

And then we can go back to remonstrance.

Um again, up to five minutes for your rebuttal and closing comments.

I think the question comes down to it's personal use and it's only on the property.

Now, to move that trailer, you've got to hook it up to the truck.

He's on a half-acre lot, he's got gardens, he's got a fire pit.

What are you doing draw dragging a 14 foot trailer around a half acre lot to what?

I don't know.

For fun, I don't know what.

But that goes back to it's a commercial vehicle because it's 14 feet or more.

Doesn't matter about the weight.

It's 14 feet or more, so it's designated a commercial vehicle.

A per commercial vehicle is only allowed to be in places where the classification allows for them to be parked, uh, like a C5.

So I see no point of having a commercial vehicle on if they keep it in the barn, or they need to take it to the lake house.

It's not allowed in a D2 residential area, and I do ask you to deny it because we're on a slippery slope if we start allowing every little nuance to grant um approvals on a petitions that are real the city code that wants to keep our neighborhood stable.

They want to keep our neighborhoods healthy, they want to keep them growing with families, and we don't need it.

Thank you.

All right, board, any final questions for anyone?

All right.

I will note that the per the petitioner, the request um is being amended to include the amended plan of operation and the request for specific use as submitted.

Um Chris, jump in if there's anything else I need to indicate on that.

But considering that board, please cast your ballot for petition 2025 UV1014A.

On case 2025-UV1-014A, Jennifer Witt votes yes.

Peter Nelson votes yes, and David Duncan votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Case number two zero two five-UV1-015 amended property address 488 South Rochester Avenue.

Wayne Township, Council District No.

TOD.

The petitioners are Candy Salazar and Leonore Medina, represented by Candy Salazar.

Variants of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the conversion of an entire garage and proposed addition into a second uh second primary dwelling, not permitted, with a zero-foot rear yard setback, a one-foot south side yard setback, and a sixteen point seven five-foot tall building height.

Five-foot rear yard setback and five-foot side yard setback required.

Second primary dwelling cannot be taller than the first primary dwelling.

Will those who plan to speak on this petition, please raise the right hand to be sworn in.

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give is the truth and nothing but the truth?

Um I'm sorry, I'm just not really um used to this.

This is my first time, but um I don't really have anything else to add besides what was on the forms.

We are um could you please uh state your name and address for the record?

Sorry, um my name is Candy Salazar, and the address is 488 South Rochester.

Thank you.

My name is Candy Salazar, and the address um is 488 South Rochester Avenue.

Is that your personal address?

Uh no.

We need your personal address, please.

Thank you.

6674 Stanhope Way, Indianapolis, Indiana 46254.

Thanks.

And uh this was um the petition.

What we're trying to do is create um make a detached garage into a small studio apartment, a living quarters.

And um I guess the what we're asking for is to allow us to build all the way to the property line almost on the back, and to allow us to um have the structure to be taller than the primary structure, but it's still under the 20 feet um height limit.

That's I guess any questions?

I don't know.

Yeah, is this meant to be uh rented out to a tenant?

Is this family?

It started as uh our own family, but um our plans have changed, so now we would like it to become um my mom's retirement income board.

Any other questions for the petitioner?

Yeah, so the garage is existing, it that's not part of the the request, it's just the addition, correct?

Um the garage, the detached garage is what we are trying to become, make it into this the apartment.

So while we add in is uh a space in the back to make it bigger and like a little uh second storage area, yeah, like a little loft for storage.

But was the garage there when you bought the property pre-existing okay?

So you've converted a garage into kind of a a mini home in the back.

Okay.

And has the work already occurred, or are you requesting prior to the work taking place?

We started work on it.

Um the person that was helping us build said that you know things were gonna be okay.

And then um we had the CD stop the work to get the permits going.

So is anybody living there currently?

Okay.

Are there any other homes with like carriage houses in your neighborhood or there is one more that has um I believe the address is 495 South Rochester Avenue?

Okay that also has a secondary structural garage.

Um we don't know if somebody lives there or not, but it definitely has the tall uh it's also tall.

Okay.

Is that 495?

Yep, I found it.

Thank you.

And it looks like that's attached to their house, but yeah.

Like a breezeway or something.

Yeah.

They did a second story on a garage, so but it's attached to the home.

So it's a little different.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, board.

Any other questions for the petitioner at this time?

No.

Okay.

Uh doesn't appear to be, but is there anyone here in opposition to this petition today?

Okay.

Then let's go to staff comments.

Thank you, Chairperson Nelson.

Members of the board.

To be clear, this is not a secondary dwelling unit because of the size.

This is defined as a second primary dwelling on the site.

If the original garage itself was converted into a carriage house by definition and met the secondary dwelling unit standards, then we would be talking about something different, but we're not.

Um a second primary dwelling due to the large size of the combined primary existing garage and addition, and no longer is capable of being a secondary dwelling unit.

In addition, there's no uh secondary dwelling unit would require the property owner to live on site.

There's been no mention that is the intent other than to rent a family members.

Um again, the property owner would be required to live on site for a secondary dwelling unit.

Therefore, by all purposes, the intent of this is to make it a second unit there thereby doubling the intensity of our density of the subject site.

Um which would be twice as much than any surrounding properties as secondary dwelling units, um, would also do that uh as long as they are following the development standards or use specific standards of that, but those are also limited in size, specifically to 720 square feet maximum.

Whereas in this case, I believe the proposed unit is about 1200 square feet.

I could be wrong on that.

I don't think I have that indicated in the staff report.

Um the detached garage would have been constructed with different to different building codes than the converted dwelling unit, which was converted presumably without proper permits, as I previously indicated prior to the variance request.

Residential fire codes, approved construction materials, emergency egress, climate control, and insulation ventilation required windows and habitable rooms, floor area provided for sleeping quarters, power supply, and sanitary and cooking facilities must all meet minimum standards before dwelling can be occupied, and there's been no evidence that this has been submitted or that the second dwelling unit compliance with that those requirements of the Health and Hospital Code or the Indiana Building Code for that matter.

Even if they were the staff's opinion that this is still an excessive use of the property, again doubling the density of the site, whereas other surrounding property owners have this have the original density of their properties.

Staff believes that the regulations for the secondary dwelling units located above a garage, as this is in the compact context, should be allowed, whereas they are not providing a garage at all.

They are converting the entirety of the garage into part of the second dwelling unit.

There's no practical difficulty on the site that necessitates this larger secondary second primary dwelling structure than what is allowed by the original standards.

For the variance of development standards for the reduced setbacks, again, the addition was presumably added without permits.

Had they gotten permits, they would have known that they were required to have a five-foot rear setback.

And uh five foot side yard setback as well.

At that point, variances would have been required prior to construction, but but that they did not go that course.

Um in addition, if you go to page 88 on the side view.

That's going to have to be addressed by IPL.

That's not addressed through the variance process.

Um they probably may IPL may require them to demolish that and have a three-foot or five foot separation as a as possible encroachment into their easement area.

Um so that is a concern as well.

Again, this would have had variances been approved permits been applied for, this would have been addressed on the front end instead of uh where we are now on the back end, um, trying to legally establish something that should never have been built as is as such.

Um staff does believe this is all self-imposed.

The request for the square footage and the size of the dwelling unit is excessive in staff's staff's opinion.

Staff does recommend denial as there's no practical difficulty for any of the variances requested as they can uh addressed prior to with appropriate permitting and variances ahead of time.

Staff would be happy to answer any questions.

Stop me if I misheard you early on.

Um but the existing garage, not counting the addition.

If if I heard you correctly, that was non-conforming, it was legally not conforming.

If is that correct?

The side yard setback for the existing garage is would have been legally nonconforming as long as it operated as a garage.

And now that this structure has been built, if the variance request were to be denied, and this addition needs to be torn down.

Does that garage then is there an issue, or does that go back to legally non-conforming there as well?

Um I may not be clear on that.

If they converted back to the garage, uh, since technically has not been used as a dwelling, it might still be able to have that, or if they re-establish the garage use, um, they may still be able to have that legally nonconforming side setback for the garage as a use, since it hasn't technically been used as a residential, they've stopped midway through the construction of it into a residential commitment, or at a minimum, even if it is converted back to the garage, and a variance is needed uh with the understanding if it only used for a garage, staff would more than likely be supported for the side setback just for the garage because no residential use would be in it.

Thank you.

Board, any other questions for staff?

Um, I mean the calculations I'm showing on square footage.

So the existing house, not counting the deck is 720 square feet.

So the house itself is you know, just for a frame of reference, it it's the size of a permitted, you know, non-attached accessory dwelling unit above a garage.

The garage plus the addition, so the garage is 384 square feet, and the addition is 207 square feet, so that's 591 again for frame of reference, both of which are below below the secondary attached uh dwelling to dwelling structure above the garage if it were permitted.

Um I guess one question I wanted to follow up on your point about building codes, fire code, uh the way the original house would have been constructed versus the garage and what that means for converting.

I mean, even if this is granted, they still have to comply with all the building codes, correct?

So like if a separate uh water line, separate sanitary sewer line is required by current code, there's been changes in in the uh building code.

They still need to go comply with that all on their own separately outside of the variance, correct?

Theoretically, yes, uh, as it would uh prior to building the if had they applied for permits prior, yes.

All right.

I I don't have any other questions.

All right, with that we can go back to the petitioner.

Um you can have up to five minutes for your rebuttal and closing statements.

Um I guess um what I would like to add will be um yes, we did um start a disconstruction uh before um getting the permits, but now we are I we feel like we're doing things right.

Um we'd definitely be able to, oh, we'll be willing to um do whatever is required uh by the the city or you know, follow the permits and do uh the step by step we have submitted um the permits uh so far, and um I don't know that's all I have board any final questions for the petitioner or or staff?

I I do.

I mean have have you guys submitted any plans to the city or the state for approval?

Do you have like a design approval that's been or a building permit that's been issued?

Um we did have like the like the floor plans and this uh that that we were required to submit once the city uh told us that we you know we didn't have any permits and that we were supposed to do this uh before.

We to be honest with you, we did not know.

Um we thought this was taken care of by the person that was helping us build.

Yeah.

Um, but umce uh once we were told then this is when we started the floor plans.

And is this why you made the we we do have um I don't I don't have him with me.

I thought you all had it, sorry.

Um but it's uh the sketch of uh you know the added bathroom kitchen and and all this the floor plan.

Yeah, there is a floor plan that was submitted and that we got.

Um I just cannot recall the the name of the permits, but we did submit it for a bunch of them.

Like I know there is you know which one?

Sorry, he's the one that's been doing most of the work.

I'm gonna work retroactively to assist.

Is that okay?

That he Yeah, you can come forward, please speak uh at the mic.

Um and then do state your name and address for the record before Nicholas Garcia.

The address is 6674 Stanhope Way.

I'm the spouse of Candy.

Thank you.

Um I think what she's trying to say is to answer your question, there are there are permits uh that have been submitted, requested, they are on hold until this process is complete as far as the drainage that's already been approved through the the Ben Davis Conservancy, which as the utility for that space.

Thank you.

Anything else from the board?

All right, if not, board go ahead and please cast your ballot for petition 2025 UV 1015 amended.

On case 2025-UV1-015 amended, Jennifer Witt votes no.

Andrew Cotona votes no, Peter Nelson votes no, and David Duncan votes no.

The variance is not granted.

Is there any additional business to come before the board today?

All right, a couple findings of fact.

So board stick around for that.

Otherwise, this hearing is adjourned.