Good afternoon.

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, Andrew Cotona, and David Duncan.

Legal Counsel for the Board today is Chris Steinmetz.

Staff members present from the Division of Planning are Eddie Onea, current planning administrator, Bryce Patz, current planning manager, Robert Uhlenhaik, senior planner, Noah Stern, senior planner, Michael Weigel, senior planner, Marty Weestie, Senior Board Specialist, and Secretary to the Board.

The board has copies of the zoning ordinances that will 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.

Petitioner 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 administrator's comments regarding the petition.

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

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

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 the subject property at least 23 days prior to the hearing, the board may continue the petition.

Anyone at this hearing who thinks 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 to 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.

As you can see, there are three board members present today.

It does require three votes to take action on any request.

So any split vote would be automatically continued to the February 3rd, 2026 hearing.

Board, you've been provided meetings for the meeting minutes for our December 2nd, 2025 hearing.

If there are no deletions or additions, I'll take a motion for their approval.

Duncan so moved.

And a second.

All right.

Motion and a second.

Call for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Katona.

Nelson votes yes.

All right.

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

Thank you.

All right.

Seeing no one, before we hear special requests, I will ask for a waiver of our rules of procedure to allow the board to vote for all 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, vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Catona.

Catona, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

All right.

At this time we will consider special requests and continuances.

Thank you and good afternoon.

Uh Chairman Nelson, members of the board, Joe Calderan, 11 South Meridian here in Indianapolis.

Call your attention to case 2025 DV1060.

It's uh commonly addressed at 5101 East Thompson.

There's two parts to my special request.

The first being a waiver of notice for both the mailing and the sign posting.

Uh we did receive an uh kind of a uh late uh notice from staff to get notices out.

We were able to do that within a day, uh, and we would request a five-day waiver of notice.

We sent notices out on the 18th of December, which is uh 18 days prior to today, and then we posted the sign on Saturday the 20th.

So that would be um a little less than that, 16 days.

Um given that we've received the information so late and we still require still meet the state uh statutory requirements, and there's no remonstrance.

We hope you can approve that request.

All right, is there anyone in the audience with interest specifically opposition to the five-day waiver request for petition 2025 D V1060?

All right, seeing none, um staff, are we comfortable with this waiver request?

Thank you, Chairperson Nelson.

Yes, staff has no objection to the request.

All right, board, we have a five-day waiver request for the mailing and sign notice for petition 2025 DV1060.

Is there a motion for approval?

Duncan so moved.

And a second.

Catona seconded.

All right, call for a vote.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Catona?

Catona, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Thank you so much.

Uh my second request uh pertains to uh the same matter.

And uh we have been able to reach agreement with staff in terms of a um revised sign for one of the proposed signs in this matter.

Uh I think Robert can um explain that to you.

But uh given that we have reached agreement with staff and there's no known remonstrance.

Um we would respectfully request that this case be placed on the expedited docket.

All right, thank you.

Is there anyone in the audience with any opposition to this petition that would object to it being placed on the expedited docket?

All right, seeing no one um staff.

Um I guess Robert, could you explain kind of your thought on that and then if you're comfortable moving it to expedited?

Thank you, Chairperson Nelson.

Uh the original request was for three pylon signs, two of those being on the Emerson frontage.

The petitioner has and staff has agreed to reduce sign number three, which is the second sign on the Emerson frontage to an 8.5 foot monument sign.

Uh with the being the third sign on the Emerson frontage, the second sign still being a pylon sign.

Um staff has agreeing to this amended request and wanted to read it into the record.

Um and the the separation would be the same if you might may uh indulge me.

I'll just go ahead and read the whole amended request.

Absolutely, thank you.

Um the variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning subdivision ordinance to provide for two new freestanding signs along Emerson Avenue frontage, resulting in three freestanding signs along the Emerson Avenue frontage where only two are permitted, with one of the new signs being a pylon sign located 210 feet of the of the existing pylon sign, and the other new sign being an 8.5 foot tall monument sign located 284 feet from the proposed pylon sign where 300 foot separation is required for both signs, all signs.

With this amended staff does change their uh recommendation to approval um and has no objection to this amended request and nor to moving this to the expedited portion of the docket.

Great, thank you.

Uh board, we have a request with no known remonstrance to move the petition 2025 DV1060 to the expedited docket.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

And a second.

Catona seconded.

All right, call for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Catona.

Katona, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

I'm Jason Wolf with Wolf Design.

Um this is regarding case 2025 UV1026.

And this is one of the cases to be withdrawn.

Um, but we also just wanted to ask the board to allow the fees that were paid on that rezoning or on the original variance filing to be um moved to the new rezoning filing.

All right, the board will acknowledge the withdrawal for this petition.

Um I will ask, is there anyone in the audience with interest in this petition 2025 UV 1026?

Okay.

Um staff, are we comfortable um allowing this payment to be repurposed for the rezoning petition?

Yeah, uh, thank you, Treperson Nelson, members of the board.

Uh given a derb switching petition types from a use variance to a rezoning per staff's recommendation.

We wouldn't have an objection with the fees already paid toward a use variance being applied toward the applicable fees for the rezoning.

All right.

Board, we have a request to allow the uh payment to be repurposed to allow for the rezoning fees.

Um for petition 2025 UV1026.

Is there a motion?

Uh just one point of order.

Can can you please state your address for the record?

Oh, yes, it's 1617 North Cardinal Avenue, Indianapolis.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Duncan, so moved.

Is there a second?

Catona seconded.

All right.

Motion and a second, call for a vote.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Katona.

Katona, yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

Chairman Nelson, members of the board, good afternoon.

John Greg with Ice Miller.

Um American Square, Indianapolis, Indiana, on behalf of petitioner regarding case two zero two five DV1052.

We are um requesting a continuance.

Um notified staff beforehand that we would be requesting a continuance to finalize a landscaping plan for staff's review and then determination if additional variance requests will be needed.

And is this continuance to the February 3rd hearing?

All right.

Anyone in the audience with interest?

Um specifically the continuance request for petition 2025 DV1052.

All right, seeing no one staff, are we comfortable with this request?

Uh thank you, Chairperson Nelson.

Members of the board staff will not have an objection to the continuance request, and that would be without new notice unless the provided landscape plan indicates additional variances of development standards that might be required.

All right, thank you.

Um board, we have a request to continue the 2025 DV1052 petition to the February 3rd hearing.

That is without additional notice unless required.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

A second.

Catona seconded.

All right, call for a vote.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Katona?

Katona, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Chairperson Nelson, members of the board staff will draw your attention.

Uh excuse me.

To the first special request petition 2025 DV1059, located at 5217 Broadway Street.

A registered neighborhood organization has filed an automatic continuance.

This just would require the board's acknowledgement.

So acknowledged.

Steph will also draw your attention to petition number four, 2025 UV1-023 located at 5237 commerce circle.

Um this petition needs to be continued to um provide additional time to amend amend the petition and provide new notice if needed.

Uh this would require a motion by the board.

This would be a continuance for cause.

And that is to the February 3rd hearing.

Correct.

Okay, perfect.

Anyone in the audience with interest in petition 2025 UV1023?

All right.

Uh board staff made the uh request to continue this petition 2025 UV1023 to the February 3rd hearing.

That is with notice if needed.

Um is there any motion?

Duncan so move.

Second.

Katona seconded.

All right, call for a vote.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Katona?

Katoni, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

Steph will also draw your attention to the next petition number five, 2025 UV1024, located at 2170 East 75th Street.

An additional variance was determined to be needed for this petition.

So therefore, this petition will need to be continued in order to be amended or provide new notice.

This is uh will require a motion by the board.

All right, anyone in the audience with interest in petition 2025 UV 1024.

Okay.

Board staff has requested a continuance for this petition 2025 UV 1024 to the February 3rd hearing.

Um that would be with amended notice.

Um is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

Second.

All right, call for a vote.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Katona Catone, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

Staff will also draw your attention to petition number six, 2025 UV 1025, located at 35315 points road.

This petition will also need to be continued.

Um notice has not been provided for this petition yet.

Therefore, um it'll need to be continued so that new notice can be provided with appropriate information.

Uh the staff will be happy to answer any questions on this.

Um in the audience with interest in 2025 UV 1025.

Uh board, were there any questions on this?

Okay.

So board, we have a request to continue uh petition 2025 UV 1025 to the February 3rd hearing to allow for uh notice to be submitted.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

And a second.

Catona seconded.

Call for a vote.

Uh Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Katona.

Catone, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Uh thank you, Chairperson Nelson, members of the board, staff would draw your attention to item number two on the agenda 2025 DV1062 at 9110 can wood drive.

Um, a timely automatic continuance request was filed by a registered neighborhood organization continuing this petition to your February 3rd, 2026 hearing date.

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

So acknowledged.

Thank you very much.

Uh staff would also draw your attention to item number three on the agenda 2025 DV1063 amended at 6690 Jackson Street.

Uh this petition will need to be continued to your February 3rd, 2026 hearing date as well.

Um staff discovered the need for an additional variance to be added to the requests, and additionally, um the legal notice was not sent and mailed for this project until this morning.

So the continuance would require, I guess, new notice as filed, and um this would be a four cause continuance request made on the petitioner's behalf by staff.

All right, thank you.

Anyone in the audience with interest in 2025 DV1063.

All right, board, we have a continuance request to the February 3rd hearing for petition 2025 DV1063.

Um with notice for the um the amendment.

So is there is there a motion to continue that petition?

Duncan so moved.

And a second.

Catona seconded.

All right, call for a vote.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes, Catona.

Catone, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Right.

Thank you.

Uh staff would draw your attention to item number nine on the agenda.

Uh this is 2025 DV1061 at 9000 Shetland Lane.

Uh, we also received an automatic continuance in a timely fashion from registered neighborhood organization for this petition.

Uh that wasn't received until the agenda had already been published, unfortunately, but the automatic continuance was received um uh before of a deadline of five days business days prior to the hearing.

Um, therefore, um this would be required your acknowledgement, and it will be docket for the February 3rd hearing date as well.

Just to clarify for me, uh you said number nine 2025 DV1061.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Um so acknowledged.

Thank you.

Um additionally, um, similar situation for item number 10 on the agenda 2025 DV1064 at 3155 Arbor Street.

A timely automatic continuance request was received last Wednesday morning by a registered neighborhood group.

Uh, the agenda had been published on Tuesday evening, but the automatic continuance was still received prior to the filing deadline.

So uh that will be continued to the February 3rd hearing date per the board's acknowledgement as well.

So acknowledged.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairperson Nelson.

Members of the board staff would draw your attention to the second item under special requests 2025 UV 1019 at 3040 South Kirchovald Drive.

The petitioner has indicated that they wish to withdraw this petition, and that would merely require the board's acknowledgement.

So acknowledged.

Thank you.

Any other special requests or continuances at this time.

All right, hearing none, uh, we can move to the expedited docket.

These are petitions to be expedited.

Case number two zero two five-dv one-zero six zero amended.

Property address five one zero one East Thompson Road.

Franklin Township, Council District Number 24, zoned C4.

The petitioner is BT Indianapolis LLC, represented by Joseph Calderan.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for two new freestanding signs along Emerson Avenue frontage, resulting in three freestanding signs along the Ever Emerson Avenue frontage, two permitted.

With one of the new signs being a pylon sign located within 210 feet of the existing pylon sign, and the other new sign being an eight and a half foot tall monument sign located 284 feet from the proposed pylon sign, 300 feet of separation required.

And case number 2025-UV3-031, property address 4240 Bluff Road.

Perry Township, Council District No.

22, zoned SU7.

The petitioners are Otis James and Tanya Hames, represented by David Gilman.

Variants of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a three-unit apartment, not permitted.

Is there anyone here in attendance that has any opposition to these petitions?

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

All right, thank you.

Board, uh, please go ahead and cast your vote for these two items on the expedited docket using the ballots in your folders.

Thank you.

On case two zero two five-dv1-060, Andrew Cotona votes yes, Peter Nelson votes yes, and David Duncan votes yes.

That variance is granted.

And on case two zero two five-UV three-zero three one, Andrew Catona votes yes, Peter Nelson votes yes, and David Duncan votes yes.

That variance is granted.

All right, we can go ahead and proceed to call the first case.

The first and only case.

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

I do.

Good afternoon, Chairman Nelson and members of the board for the record, Tim Oakes, attorney at Icemeller with offices at one American Square, suite 2900, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46282-0200 here this afternoon on behalf of 77 Venture Inc., the petitioner in this matter.

There's a handout that just got circulated to you that has uh two aerials in a site plan that I will be referring to during this brief presentation.

I think it'll be brief because I think the staff report for this matter was very well done and very succinct.

Um it kind of hit uh what was necessary, but I I do want to take just a few minutes to point out a few things.

Um first, if you look at the first aerial in the handout that you were given, um, it shows where this site is, which is northwest of the uh intersection of Michigan Road and 86th Street.

This is one of the densest commercial areas in the entire city.

It's close to 86th and uh Michigan Road, both of which are primary arterials.

And while the use is not at issue, I think it's worth noting how appropriate this use is for the area.

There's simply no issues with respect to compatibility of the use uh with any surrounding properties.

It's all commercial in the area.

Um this isn't gonna get any any surrounding neighbors um at least immediate neighbors excited.

Um if you go to the second uh aerial, this is a close-up of the actual site.

This site was the subject of a recent plat approval by the plat committee creating this lot.

This is part of the existing parking lot for a larger commercial center.

This will be located just north of the stake and shake if you're familiar with the area and just south of the White Castle.

Um I think it's important to note that as part of this project there will be no new curb cuts and no new curb cuts requested.

Um access to this site will be from existing curb cuts into the commercial center.

So traffic patterns, existing traffic patterns will remain as they as they are.

Moreover, a truly significant percentage of customers for a coffee shop are impulse buys, our customers who already have occasion to be using 86th Street or Michigan Road.

Um we believe therefore that the use will not introduce an appreciable amount of new traffic that would have any material impact to the volume of traffic on Michigan Road or 86th Street.

Simply put, most customers will be in the area because they are going somewhere else that requires them to be on 86th in Michigan Road, and they're going to duck into uh a seven brew coffee because they'd like a coffee uh because they might be feeling a little tired at that point.

Um so finally I wanted to note that, and if you look at the the site plan, um seven brew, if you've ever if you haven't been to one yet, they're somewhat new to our market, um, utilizes a system that is similar to uh I'm gonna compare it to Chick-fil-A, which a lot of people are familiar with.

Um, which where the employees take orders standing next to the cars instead of speaking into a speaker all the time, and where your order is brought out to you to your car while you're in line, it isn't always handed out through a drive-thru window like you have at a McDonald's.

Um I think that's significant because it allows for a much more efficient delivery of product that eliminates the need for stacking.

You go to McDonald's and you order some strange, you know, big Mac that that is deviates from the standard formula, and they say please pull ahead and we'll bring your order out to you.

That doesn't happen here.

They first of all, they're not prepping food like that.

This is a coffee shop.

Second, they bring it to you as soon as it's ready, and you can pull out of the line and leave.

There is no need whatsoever for that stacking space.

Um, and I note as does staff if you look at this site plan that if there were some strange, unusual reason where someone needed to pull forward.

There are four spots that face Michigan Road, where if you just you know pulled forward and turned to the left a little bit, then you nose right into those.

And if for some reason you get your coffee and you spilled a little bit, or whatever reason, those spaces would be available if needed.

Adding, first of all, we don't think there's room, but adding a stacking space after the last service unit is would do nothing except cause more congestions and and more problems.

So finally, uh again, I want to acknowledge the staff report which is in favor of this and thank them uh for their efforts here.

Um just a brief reminder what we're asking for, which is a single development standards variance for eliminating one stacking space after the drive-thru unit.

That that's it.

So with that, we'd be happy to answer any questions, and we appreciate a favorable recommendation.

Thank you.

All right, board.

Any questions for the petitioner?

I have one question on the site plan that you provided.

Um there's some shaded parking that looks like it's south of the property line.

Is that for this location for or is that the adjacent property owner's parking?

Um it's actually both.

Which is to say there's a a master declaration for the commercial center that has cross-parking easements.

Okay, got it.

And so even though they're not on this property, they they would be able to use those spaces.

All right, thank you.

All right.

Was there just to make sure was there anyone else speaking in support of this petition?

All right, then we can move to remonstrance.

Um, you'll have up to 15 minutes for your for your comments.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chairman Nelson and members of the board.

I'm Susan Blair, president of the Pike Township Residents Association, and we're commonly referred to as PTRA, post office box 4045, zip is 46240.

At PTRA's December 10th meeting, the board of directors voted to oppose this petition.

PTRA understands why there is a need to request a variance or a deviation from the ordinance, for the site is simply too small for a restaurant with a drive-thru component.

In PTRA's exhibits are photos of the site.

The first photo is an aerial view showing the ingress and egress from Michigan Road.

As the petitioners representative indicated, this is an integrated center originally built as a Kmart store and ancillary uses, but it is currently comprised of a stake and shake to the immediate south, a White Castle to the immediate north, and the integrated center to the west currently has a hardware store, a furniture store, a fitness center, a family game store, and a paint studio.

Photo number two.

Upon entering the center from Michigan Road, if the customer is traveling to stake and shake, they turn to the left at the end of the median.

Stake and shake has a drive-thru on the south side of the building with the pickup window on the building's east side.

Photo number three shows the route a customer will travel to reach stake and shake, either dining in or going to the drive-thru.

Should this proposed development come to fruition?

Currently, stake and shake customers turn to the immediate left at the end of the median to either park or go to the drive-thru.

This is referenced by the arrows painted on the asphalt indicated in photo number four.

In the next exhibit, page five, the proposed site plan, it does appear there may be sufficient space for stake and shake customers to continue traveling this same direction.

However, vehicles from the proposed development will be exiting the drive-thru lane, and there is a pedestrian crosswalk and parking spaces, creating a safety concern.

The next page, according to the provided site plan, is approximately 20 feet of maneuverability from the proposed site's drive-through curb to the existing integrated center separation island.

Customers entering from Michigan Road, either traveling to stake and shake or the integrated center will need to maneuver around the proposed development through this 20 foot area.

The same is true of those who are exiting.

PTRA is concerned that 20 feet of space isn't adequate for two vehicles to pass, especially with the size of some vehicles today, i.e.

pickup trucks, SUVs, etc.

The next photo shows the current open space available.

To customers.

The next photo is of the integrated center separation.

Landscaped islands.

Originally, P PTRA thought the petitioner could discuss the possibility of moving the two islands to the west, providing more space between the curbs.

Doing so would eliminate some parking spaces for the center.

However, after visiting the site, which is the last photo, it's apparent current parking is maximized primarily by patrons of the very popular fitness center.

So much so that a vehicle is parked, which is to the right side in the photo, on the outside of the islands, because the lot by the fitness center is full.

PTRA understands a plat was approved to provide development of what was once overflow parking.

However, PTRA believes another use without a drive-thru will provide better access and maneuverability than the proposed one.

For these reasons, PTRA requests your vote of denial, and I'm gladly attempt to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you.

Board, any questions at this time for remonstrance?

All right.

Hearing none, let's please go to staff comments.

Sure.

Uh thank you very much, Chairperson Nelson, and members of the board for your time.

Thank you to both the petitioner and for Monstrator for their comments as well.

Our staff is recommending approval of this minor variance related to the drive-thru layout of the site.

As mentioned, this is a commercial property that is currently paved but not developed.

It's currently accessory paved parking areas for the commercial center on adjacent properties, Michigan Street and City East, and it's near the 86th Street intersection to the south.

This variance request is related to a quick service drive-thru coffee business to be placed on that outlaw that has recently been platted.

That outlaw was approved by the Platte Committee last year, but has not yet been formally recorded.

That process is ongoing.

The lot that was created does meet ordinance standards for minimum square footage as well as frontage.

It also leaves a 20-foot access aisle to the west, which does meet ordnance minimums for private drives.

As mentioned, there are restaurants also to the north end to the south, as well as the multi-tenant commercial building to the west.

This variance is seeking relief from only one ordinance standard on the requirements that exist for the number of drive-through spaces both in the queue before a service window, as well as a rule for two stacking spaces to be placed either at or after the final portion of the service unit.

So the first space farewhen when you're pulling up to the window that counts as one space, then there'd be required to be one space after that, essentially.

That's why the variance would be required since it extends past there into the front yard.

Our staff didn't directly receive elevations or a landscape plan along with our review of this.

It does appear that they've applied for their ILP with the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services, which has largely been approved, with the only hold remaining being this stacking space variance needed.

So it sounds like the plan meets ordinance standards otherwise.

The findings of facts submitted by the applicant indicate that it would be uncommon for their vehicles to queue pass the service unit given the nature of their business model and the number of stacking spaces before the window is also in excess of ordinance requirements where four would be required if they have more than four spaces beforehand as a for potential compensation.

Additionally, staff did note that the front yard parking area that exists to the east of the proposed building could function as a proxy second stacking space and the uncommon instance that they pull forward might be needed for some reason, which might approximate ordinance intent even if not fully meeting it per the strict definition of a stacking space.

It appears that the opposition for from PTRA here appears to be related to the busy nature of the broader corridor and placement near that entry point onto Michigan and then the rear access and proximity to stake and shake strife roo as well.

Staff notes that there is the one in and one out median in that pull-in point off of Michigan, which might help with some form of traffic calming.

There aren't ordinance rules about the proximity from of the drive-thru units to we for that access point or do other drive-through units within our ordinance.

That also doesn't appear that any of the proposed stacking spaces would be within interior access aisles, either to the west of the parcel or where they'd be pulling out to exit afterwards.

Um if there would be space for the petitioner and remonstrator to sort of negotiate and find a layout that would be mutually agreeable, that could be optimal.

Staff's recommendation is predominantly focused, though, on the minor nature of the variance before the board today is just for that one stacking space past the window.

Um based on that, we do recommend approval and are happy to answer questions that you might have.

I just have one question.

Um seems to make sense for this user's business model and their business plan, but what happens with the next generation user?

Um, if they seven years, ten years, twelve years down the road are no longer operating in this building, and it gets taken over by a different fast food vendor with a different operation or different business model.

How will this variance relate to that second gen user?

Yeah, that's that's an interesting question.

I guess I would say uh this particular business model has very low likelihood of needing um excuse me, needing cars to pull up past the service used into park.

I suppose in instances where this or a future tenant might require that, there are V4 spaces provided to the east of the building still on the petitioner's property near where that crosswalk is, and in the instance where a poll four might be required, those spaces could be utilized to prevent them from you know blocking space for traffic leaving from the south there or um from blocking space for uh other patrons trying to leave the drive-thru.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Hearing none, we can go back to the petitioner.

You'll have your five minutes up to five minutes for your rebuttal comments and closing statements.

Thank you.

Um I heard PTRA's objections.

Um what immediately came to my mind is they don't really have a problem with the particular development standards variants being requested.

What they have a problem with is the UDO.

I I heard the site's too small, 20-foot wide uh aisles are too too too narrow.

Those are all allowed by ordinance by the UDO.

That's not the decision that's before the board.

The decision is just about the one stacking space after the last drive-thru service unit.

That's it.

Um, all of the other concerns that PTRA has uh suggested aren't are not really relevant to to the decision before you.

Um now having said that, I do very much appreciate the comment about well, what happens if somebody else comes in that has a different business model?

Are we gonna inherit a problem with this issue?

And in response to that, what um I would suggest is we're willing to do a commitment that would uh uh limit that would require that this variance apply only to uh drive-thru coffee shops, so that if uh a fast food restaurant tried to use the site in the future, the this would not apply.

I don't think it would be appropriate in those circumstances, so we are willing to offer that commitment up to address that concern, which I think is pretty legitimate one.

Thank you.

So, with that, um, I think we meet the requirements uh for the development standard variants, and we again uh request approval and we'll be happy to answer any other questions.

All right, hearing no questions.

Um let's go back to opposition again up to five minutes for your rebuttal and closing comments.

Thank you, Chairman Nelson.

Finding a fact number three.

Even mentions that this is an MPhill site.

And PTRA believes the plat was proposed and created and ultimately approved to provide for this user, this end user.

Had PTRA been aware of that, we probably would have objected to the PLAT.

I'm not sure why stake and shake is in here personally.

I think they ought to be concerned about this.

Again, on the photo that I shows the orientation or the route.

So they'll come in off Michigan Road, they'll have to go all the way down here.

They'll have to turn to the south, then they'll have to turn to the east, then they'll go to the south again.

This is where stake and shake's order window is and then they'll come around the building.

That's where their pickup window is.

And then to exit, they're going to have to do the same.

They're going to have to go down this way, go around this way, and go out.

Or they'll have to go straight, go through the integrated center, and go to the south and go out on 86th Street.

Well, I recognize PTRA recognizes that the variance request is for two stacking spaces.

After reviewing the site, to recognize that this is just a bad bad use.

Board, any final questions before we cast our ballots.

All right, I do want to recognize that there was a commitment made to allow the variants only so long as the use of the property remains that of a drive-through coffee shop.

So do consider that commitment as you cast your ballot for petition 2025 DV1054.

On case 2025-DV1-054, David Duncan votes yes.

Peter Nelson votes yes, and Andrew Catona votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Thank you.

All right.

Do we have any additional business to come before the board today?

All right, board stick around, couple findings of fact to be signed.

Otherwise, this hearing is adjourned.