Indianapolis Board of Zoning Appeals Division 2 Meeting – April 14, 2022
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Indianapolis Board of Zoning Appeals Division 2 Meeting – April 14, 2022
The Board of Zoning Appeals Division 2 met on April 14, 2022, at 1:00 PM to consider continuances, withdrawals, and variances on several properties. Chairperson Craig E. Von Dale presided, with board members James Duke, Patrice Duckett Brown, Beth Brandon, and Kurt Farmer in attendance. Staff presented recommendations, and public testimony was heard on two contested petitions. The board voted to deny a variance for a 14-unit apartment building on Elm Street, approved a variance for three skyline signs on an office building on 82nd Street, and approved a five-year use variance for a surface parking lot on Guilford Avenue.
Consent Calendar (Procedural Actions)
- Petition 2022 UV2‑006 (6215 N. Tacoma Ave. / 2620 E. 62nd St.): Continued to the May 17 hearing without notice unless the petition is amended. Motion carried unanimously (5‑0).
- Petition 2022 DV2‑010 (2827 E. 10th St.): Continued and transferred to Board One’s May 10 hearing with additional notice. Motion carried unanimously (5‑0).
- Petition 2021‑DB2‑038 (1042 Woodland Ave.): Withdrawal acknowledged unanimously.
- Petition 2022‑DB2‑005 (1039 Kessler Blvd. E. Dr.): Continued to the May 17 hearing with additional notice (petitioner absent). Motion carried unanimously (5‑0).
- Petition 2022‑DV2‑009 (1635 S. Sherman Dr.): Continued to the May 17 hearing with additional notice. Motion carried unanimously (5‑0).
- Petition 2022‑DB2‑011 (1340 E. 86th St.): Automatic continuance to May 17 by a registered neighborhood organization acknowledged.
- Petition 2022 UV2‑004 (3415 N. Sherman Dr.): Withdrawn; fees transferred to a new rezoning petition. Withdrawal acknowledged and transfer approved unanimously (5‑0).
Public Comments & Testimony
- On Petition 2022 UV2‑002 (Elm Street):
- Jordan Ryan (president, North Square Neighborhood Association) stated the association opposed the development because it did not support the goals of the Equitable Transit‑Oriented Development (ETOD) overlay. She noted that rents would be $1,400‑$1,800/month and that developers were not interested in affordability incentives. She urged the board to set a precedent for development that creates affordable housing.
- Jill Steinhauer (1027 Elm Street co‑owner) expressed concerns about increased traffic, alley flooding, lack of green space, and inadequate communication from the developer. She argued the project was too large for the site.
- On Petition 2022 UV2‑005 (Guilford Avenue):
- Murray Clark (attorney, Faegre Drinker) spoke in support of AudioChuck’s variance, highlighting the company’s community involvement and the innovative, limited nature of the five-year request.
- During continuance discussion on 2022 UV2‑006:
- You Bank Michaell (adjacent property owner) asked for additional notice if the petition is amended; the board acknowledged his concern.
Discussion Items
Petition 2022 UV2‑002 – 1035‑1043 Elm Street (14‑unit apartment building)
Petitioner Hannah Abel and Mark Demerley (agent) presented an amended plan for a three‑story, 14‑unit medium apartment building in the D8 zone. The original variances for front/rear setbacks were eliminated; remaining variances sought were for use (medium apartment instead of small apartment), floor‑area ratio (FAR) of 1.19 (permitted 0.60), and livability space ratio of 0.46 (permitted 0.66). The site is in a TOD overlay. The petitioner argued the project meets TOD objectives, adds density near transit, and provides two‑bedroom units (10 two‑bedroom, 4 one‑bedroom) for families. Staff recommended denial, stating the site is too small for a medium apartment (10,454 sq ft vs. required 12,000 sq ft), the livability space ratio is 30.3% below requirement, and the proposed elevation is out of character with the single‑family neighborhood. The board voted to deny the petition (2 yes – Von Dale, Duke; 3 no – Duckett Brown, Brandon, Farmer). The petition was continued for adoption of findings of fact.
Petition 2022 DB2‑012 – 3755 E. 82nd Street (three skyline signs)
Petitioner Timothy E. Oaks (for Delta Wealth Advisors) requested a variance to allow three skyline signs on the north building elevation (one per facade permitted). The signs would replace signs that had existed for over 20 years. The building is a three‑story office building oriented toward 82nd Street; the petitioner argued that only the north facade is visible from the street and that the east and west facades are not effective for signage due to trees and orientation. The Greater Allisonville Community Council submitted a no‑objection letter. Staff recommended denial, stating that the east and west facades are partially visible and that ground sign alternatives exist, and that allowing three signs could lead to proliferation. The board approved the variance (4 yes – Duke, Duckett Brown, Brandon, Von Dale; 1 no – Farmer).
Petition 2022 UV2‑005 – 6360 Guilford Avenue (surface parking lot)
Petitioner David Gilman (for AudioChuck) requested a five‑year use variance to convert a gravel lot into a surface parking lot with 15 spaces, a 3.5‑foot decorative block wall, electric vehicle charging stations, bike racks, and public seating. The lot would serve AudioChuck’s employees at the nearby G‑Block building. The property is within the new TOD overlay district, which generally prohibits surface parking as a primary use. The petitioner argued the lot incorporates community amenities and is a temporary use while the company plans future mixed‑use development. Staff recommended denial, citing the TOD overlay’s intent to promote walkability and transit use, the availability of transit (0.26 miles to the Red Line bus stop), and the site’s potential for higher‑density development. The board approved the variance (4 yes – Duke, Duckett Brown, Brandon, Von Dale; 1 no – Farmer). The approval included the petitioner’s 10 written commitments, though staff expressed concerns about the enforceability of a five‑year limit.
Key Outcomes
- Petition 2022 UV2‑002 (Elm Street apartment): Denied (2‑3). Continued for adoption of findings of fact.
- Petition 2022 DB2‑012 (82nd Street signs): Approved (4‑1). Variance granted for three skyline signs on the north elevation.
- Petition 2022 UV2‑005 (Guilford Avenue parking lot): Approved (4‑1). Five‑year use variance and associated development standard variances granted, subject to the petitioner’s commitments.
- All continuances and withdrawals were granted as noted in the Consent Calendar.
Meeting Transcript
I am Craig E. Von Dale and acting chairperson. I believe I'm not acting anymore. Is that correct? You are correct. Correct. I am actually chairperson of Division 2. The other board members present are James Duke, Patrice Duckett Brown, Beth Brandon, and Kurt Farmer. Legal Counsel for the Board of Day's Christian that staff members present today in the division of planning are Eddie UN, Principal Planner 2, R. Senior Planner, Arlene or Heta, Senior Planner, Dennis Hill, Associate Planner, and other Stephen Steven Specialist Secretary of the Board. Matt Pleasant is current planning administrator. The board has copied the zoning ordinance 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 exit cases will be heard immediately after all requests for continuances or withdrawals. As each non-exploited cases call petitions or 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 administrator's comments regarding the petition. Remonstrators will then be allowed five minutes for rebuttal of the petitioners, 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 delete your testimony and evidence to the 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 procedures, including posting a note assigned on the subject property at least 23 days prior to the hearing, the board may continue the petition. Any witness 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 the 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 the rights of way are examples. These conditions are commitments or commitments are an integral part of the board's decision. Must be met for a granted variance to be valid. Compliance with conditions imposed by the board must be approved 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 the 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. Forums are available and may be obtained from the board secretary. Please be advised that contacting members of the board regarding the matter pending before the board outside of the public hearing process is prohibited. All voting today will be done by roll call. I will individually read each board member's name and ask them to vote yes or no. Please be courteous and orderly at all times, and please be sure all cell phone ringers are turned off. We have no expedited petitions today, so I'm going to skip that part of the agenda of the agenda. Is that all right? Is there anyone is there anyone in the audience who has any questions about our procedures? If not, we'll consider special requests and continuances at this time. From the audience. Very last petition on your doctor. Property at 6215, Lord Coma, and 2620 62nd Street, representing Dr. Andrew Alexander. Um we had filed a request to continue this petition to your May 17th here.
openpublica.com