I'm Craig von Dalen, Chairperson of Division II.

The other board members present are Patrice Duckett Brown and Tom Barnes.

Legal Counselor Board today is Chris Steinmetz.

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

Jeff York, current planning manager.

Bryce Patz, current planning manager.

Robert Ewenhake, senior planner.

Michael Weigel, senior planner, Noah Stern, senior planner, and Marty Weistie, Senior Board Specialist and SIP and Secretary to the Board.

The Board has copies of the zoning ordinance that we've 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 of 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.

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

A person may file a written request to receive notice of the filing of 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 it 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.

There are three members present today.

It requires three votes to take action on any request.

We will take this into consideration when hearing requests for continuances.

If your petition receives an indecisive vote, your petition will be automatically continued to the October 14th, 2025 hearing.

Board members, you've been provided meeting minutes for the August 12th, 2025 meeting.

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

Do I hear a motion?

Barnes so moved.

Second.

Del get second.

I'll call the roll.

Ducett Brown.

Ducke Brown, yes.

Barnes?

Yes.

And I'm a yes.

If there is anyone in the audience who has any questions about our procedure, or is there anyone in the audience who have any questions about our procedure?

None being said, before we will hear a special request, I'll ask for a waiver of our rules 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.

Do I hear a motion?

So moved, Barnes.

In a second.

Doug Brown, yes.

I'll call the roll.

Ducit Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

Barnes.

Barnes, yes.

And I'm also yes.

Prior to considering special requests and continuances, I will tell tell you that I am will be recusing myself from C.

Petition number 2025 SE two-003 with an address of 21 Virginia Avenue.

If that petitioner is here, they may request a continuance.

We'll move on to special requests and continuances.

Madam, please state your name and address for the record.

I'm Charman Fry.

Address is 2850, Wolfgang Drive, Indianapolis.

And I am here to withdraw a petition.

I'm trying to get the number.

It's 205.

2025 DV2 2022 for 1337 Olive Street.

And you're withdrawing that petition?

Yes.

We acknowledge that withdrawal.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chairman Von Dalen.

Members of the board direct your attention to item number nine on your agenda today.

Sorry, Misha Rabinwich offices at one of the square suite 1800.

Item number nine on your uh agenda, property at 6445 Spring Mill Road.

Uh we had originally filed the petition with uh requesting three variances.

Uh we've been able to make some adjustments to the site plan in order to eliminate one of the variances.

The three variances were for a three-foot um east side yard setback, a twenty-seven point three three-foot aggregate side yard setback and encroachment into a four-foot utility easement.

We're able to move the improvements out of the easement area, which means moving them about a foot uh to the to the west, which eliminates the need for the easement or the variance into the uh encroaching into the easement.

So we're withdrawing that variance.

Um I believe that was the source of the planning staff's objection to the petition.

Um the petition would be amended to be requesting only a variance for a foot uh four-foot east side yard setback and a 28.33 foot aggregate side yard setback.

Um with that request, um, I believe in working with Mr.

Weigel, we've been able to come to an agreement, and we would ask for the matter to be placed on the expedited agenda.

Very well.

Is then anyone else in the audience who has an interest in petition number 2025 DV2-033 with an address of 6445 Spring Mill Road.

None being seen, we'll go to comments for staff.

Sure.

Uh thank you, Jefferson Von Dale and members of the board.

Uh a petitioner's uh clarification on our um communications is accurate.

Uh staff's primary point of objection at Ben B encrochement within the platted easement area.

Um improvement outside of that, we would recommend approval of the variance as just for the four-foot um eastern side yard setback into 28.33 aggregate.

I would emphasize that this wouldn't be recommending approval of the structure remaining as it is in its current form, and it would be contingent on the owner to ensure that um the adjustments are made outside of the eastment uh the city wouldn't be held liable if AES needed access to that easement and issues were to arise, but we recommend approval of the first two variances requested as amended as Mr.

Binwin within which right off.

And these amendments have been added to the record.

Um we don't have a revised site plan as such, but we have the revised language provided by the applicant, yes.

Very well.

Then I'll take entertain a motion to move petition number 2025 DV2-033 to our expedited docket to our hearing motion.

Um Dougett Brown.

So move.

Thank you.

Second.

Barnes second.

And I'll call the roll.

Dug Brown.

Dougett Brown, yes.

Barnes.

Yes.

And I'm also a yes.

Thank you.

Craig, just for the record, can you acknowledge the withdrawal of that?

Oh, yes, and I acknowledge the withdrawal of the of one of the variances, Mr.

Mr.

Rabinowitz.

Yeah.

Sir Matt Ali 1 Virginia Avenue here on behalf of Virginia Street Capitol for case number 2025 SE two zero zero three.

Uh chairman, as to your prior uh notes about recusal and a request for continuance, consulted with staff, and I think we're in agreement to continue this and to uh division three and transfer to division three.

Very well.

What's the what's Mr.

Secretary?

What is the the date of the division three hearing?

Yeah.

The division three hearing this month is September 16th.

Very well.

Um, is there anyone else in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 SE2-003 with an address of 21 Virginia Avenue, 122 and 130 East Maryland Street.

So please come forward and state your name and address for the records.

Good afternoon.

My name is Karin Haley.

I'm the executive director of Indianapolis Cultural Trail.

Our address is 132 West Walnut Street, 46204.

Ms.

Haley, do you have any objection to this continuance and transfer?

Unfortunately, I have to recuse myself from that.

We have no objective.

Thank you, Ms.

Haley.

Um then I will go to comments from staff.

Is this all okay?

Thank you, Chairman Bondalen and members of the board.

Staff has no objection to the continuance and transfer to the September 16th hearing.

Thank you.

I'll entertain a motion to continue and transfer petition number 2025-SE2-003 to the September 16th hearing of Division 3 of our board.

Do I hear a motion?

Dougit Brown, so moved.

Second.

Barnes second.

Call the roll.

Duckett Brown.

Dougie Brown, yes.

Barnes.

Thank you.

And I'm also yes.

Thank you.

Any other special requests from the audience?

Members of staff.

Thank you, Chairferson Bogdal and members of the board.

Staff will draw your attention to the first special request 2025 SC202 located at 8540 and 8520 Michigan Road.

An automatic continuance was filed by a registered neighborhood organization, requiring the board to acknowledge that.

And this would be, excuse me, this would be to the October 14th hearing.

Is that to we acknowledge?

Okay, thank you.

Staff will also draw your attention to item number one, 2025 DV2034.

Located at 5420 Rockhampton Court.

Legal notices were mailed late, therefore this needs to be continued so that the legal notice, the required the provided the required provided legal notice by the petitioner can be met with the new hearing date on October 14th, 2025.

Staff will be happy to answer questions if that was not clear.

I think we got it.

But we all we will be continuing this with notice.

Is that correct?

They've already provided notice.

It just was sufficient and sufficient, so by continuing it, the new notice is still viable.

We're just adding extra time for that to be uh become become legal.

Thank you, Mr.

Eulin Haig.

Is there any else in the audience within interest in petition number 2025 DV2-034 with an address of 5420 Rock Ampton Court?

None being seen, then I'll entertain a motion to continue with out notice to our October 14th hearing petition number 2025 DV2-034.

Do I hear a motion?

So moved.

Second.

Uh Dugit Brown, second.

Thank you.

I'll call the roll.

Ducett Brown.

Duggy Brown, yes.

Barnes.

And I'm also yes.

Thank you, Chairman Mondalen and members of the board.

Staff would draw your attention to item number two, 2025 D V two O two nine at 5907 Birchwood Avenue.

The petitioner is withdrawing the request for the mini barn with a 1.5 foot north side yard setback.

And just and that just leaves the request for the eight-foot rear yard setback.

Very well.

We'll acknowledge the withdrawal and that stays on the expedited docket.

Correct.

All right, thank you.

And staff would also draw your attention to item number five, 2025 DV2032 at 50 at 501 East 75th Street.

The petitioner is withdrawing the 50-foot front yard setback from Central Avenue.

And that just leaves the 33.5 foot front yard setback from 75th Street.

Uh request, and that would also stay on expedited.

All right, we will acknowledge the withdrawal.

Thank you.

Any other anything else from staff?

All right.

These are petitions to be expedited.

Case number two zero two five-d v two-029 property address 5907 Birchwood Avenue.

Washington Township, Council District No.

7, zoned D5.

The petitioners are Drew and Taylor Gaynor, represented by David and Justin Kingham.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a building addition with an eight-foot rear side uh rear yard setback, 20 feet required.

Case number 2025-D V two-030, property address 157 East 61st Street.

Washington Township, Council District No.

7, zoned D3FF.

The petitioner is Julie Mauler.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a building addition, resulting in an 11-foot rear yard setback, 20 feet required.

Case number 2025-DV2-031, property address 55 Williams Creek Boulevard, Town of Meridian Hills.

Washington Township Council District Number 2, zoned DS slash D1R1.

The petitioner is Mary Elizabeth Seeger Revocable Trust, represented by Brian J.

Toy.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a building addition, resulting in a 51-foot front yard setback from Williams Creek Boulevard.

Average setback of the block establishes 67 foot setback as requirement.

The petitioner is BTC Acquisitions LLC, represented by Matthew Payton.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of a single family dwelling with 33.5 foot front yard setback from 75th Street.

Average of the block establishes 84 feet from 75th Street.

Washington Township, Council District Number 2, zoned D2R2.

The petitioners are Patrick and Laura Steele.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of a pool house with a four-foot east side yard setback and 28.33 foot aggregate side yard, 12-foot minimum and 30-foot aggregate side yard setbacks required.

That is the end of the expedited docket.

Thank you, Mr.

Secretary.

We can cast our ballots.

On case 2025-DV2-029, Craig von Dalen votes yes.

Tom Barnes votes yes, and Patrice Ducket Brown votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case 2025-D V two-030, Craig Von Dalen votes yes.

Tom Barnes votes yes, and Patrice Ducket Brown votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case 2025-DV2-031, Craig von Dalen votes yes.

Tom Barnes votes yes, and Patrice Ducket Brown votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case 2025-DV2-032, Craig Von Dalen votes yes.

Tom Barnes votes yes, and Patrice Ducket Brown votes yes.

That variance is granted.

And on case 2025-DV2-033, Craig von Dalen votes yes.

Tom Barnes votes yes, and Patrice Ducket Brown votes yes.

That variance is granted.

Thank you, Mr.

Secretary.

We move on to our regular scheduled docket.

Sir, if you have a question, please come to the podium.

Question, please come forward to the to the podium.

State your name and address for the record.

Hi, my name is Bill Bull.

I live at 6075 Gladden Drive.

Um maybe I don't understand the procedure here, but I wanted to comment on 030.

030.

So number three, 2025 DV2-030.

Typically, if that is on the expedited docket, um, were you going to remonstrate against the the petition?

Yes, I was opposing that.

Had you contacted staff prior to the hearing?

Right.

And I I just got the information on it, and then I thought we would come to the public hearing and discuss it.

Um normally an expedited docket item does not get public discussion.

Um hang on just a second.

Mr.

Steinmetz, how do we handle this?

Let's see.

By the way, Mr.

Steinmetz is the lawyer for the board.

Yeah.

Um, uh it would have been incumbent upon you to notify the board in advance that you were planning on remonstrating.

So these were read into the record as expedited cases, meaning that there's no known remonstrance.

And uh the petitioner is agreeing with any conditions that staff is requesting in the staff report.

So um at this point it's been voted on.

I don't see that we can um backtrack that at this point.

Yeah, and we called these into the record and also um read through them prior to the voting.

Umfortunately, you would have to have come forward prior to us voting on that and and pulled it out of the expedited docket.

So I cannot help you, sir.

My name is Kathy Grattan Court and I live at 6081 Gladden.

I'm adjacent property.

And what we received, it says that we would be given the opportunity to be heard.

It didn't say anything about it being on an expedited docket.

Or were we given the chance to jump in?

And you know, it doesn't say that we had to submit anything prior to this proceeding.

Yeah, that does not change my answer at all.

Yeah, they were clearly read into the record prior to us voting.

Had you had a problem with particular petition, you could have stood and made it known that you were here to remonstrate against that petition.

Well, not knowing procedure.

I mean, it was just reading.

We read we read the case number and the address.

At that point, they would you know stop, pause for a minute and give us a chance to speak.

Unfortunately, there's nothing we can do without someone standing up and saying that there was a problem, and and we had no idea at the time.

Procedure was explained at the beginning of the hearing, and the board asked if there was any questions about procedure.

So if you had a question, that was the time.

Thank you.

All right, we can go on to the rest of our docket.

Thank you.

These are petitions for public hearing.

Case number 2025-dV2-016, property addresses 1507, 1501, and 1533 West New York Street.

Property addresses 1507, 1501, and 1533 West New York Street.

The petitioner is Lervey Loft Town Homes LLC, represented by Adam DeHart.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of a 45-foot-tall four-story four-unit townhome development with 27% living material comprising the front yard, maximum 40-foot-tall three-story building permitted, 50% living material required.

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?

I do afternoon again.

In this matter, I represent the petitioner Lervey Loft Townhomes LLC.

There's a little bit of an interesting backstory here.

David Lervey, the previous owner of this property, was very fond of this area of town.

It's known as Stringtown.

He saw it as a place with lots of character and history that's centrally located near downtown along the White River with tremendous potential.

He's certainly one that recognized the historical significance of the area and sought to recognize it in the work that he did to rehabilitate decaying properties.

Mr.

Lervey passed away earlier this year after a long bout with pancreatic cancer, but before he passed, his longtime friend Steve Bodner, who's also a real estate developer and is here today, took over the development of this particular site, which is on West New York Street just west of the White River.

In your materials at tab eight is a letter from Mr.

Lervey's wife in which he states the Lur or she states that Lervy Townhomes, which is this project we're going to talk about today, represents an opportunity to create thoughtful, well-designed homes that honor the land's legacy while meeting the needs of today's residents.

This project has the potential to bring beauty, life, and vitality to a property that has long waited for its purpose.

In addition to Mrs.

Lervey's letter and your materials at tab six through ten are letters of support from a number of adjacent property owners.

There's also a letter of support from Councillor Kristen Jones, and there's a letter of support from the Stringtown Neighborhood Association.

There are also a couple of uh neighbor residents here that I think if we had time would like to say a few words in support of this project as well.

Um turning to your materials at tab one, just to orient you is an aerial.

You can see that the property is irregularly configured.

It is bounded by White River Parkway to the east, New York Street to the north, an alley, and then some residential properties to the south.

This area to the north has been the subject of some additional multifamily development.

This particular site is already zone D8, which permits uh fairly dense multifamily development.

At tab two, and the materials are some site uh photos.

You can see it's as it currently exists.

Uh it's a vacant gravel lot.

Um, aerial photography suggests that it's been in this condition for over 70 years.

The petitioner is proposing to redevelop the site uh with four high-end townhomes in two separate buildings.

In order to permit the development, there are two development standards uh variances that are required, one for building height and the other for green space, as staff has pointed out.

Um in their staff report uh recommending approval of petition.

These variances are in large part required due to the odd configuration of the site on a quarter lot and also due to the steep grade change that is inherent to the lot.

So moving to tab three, which is the site plan.

There you can see the two townhome buildings separated into four units.

Each of the units has its own dedicated two-carage.

The two buildings are separated by a courtyard, which provides for green space along at the corner of New York and White River Parkway.

At tab four in your materials is the landscape plan.

There you can get a better sense of the green space that's provided for, which is actually a bit rare to have this much green space on a very urban site.

And the petitioner has provided for perimeter landscaping, much more than what is there now, especially on the west side of the development as it's adjacent to a residential home.

And then the landscape plan also calls for the addition of and planting of 31 new trees, which obviously don't currently exist.

At tab five are the building elevations, so you can get a sense of how this project is designed.

And it adds much needed new housing product to the tax rolls.

And the first commitment provides assurance to Mr.

Reagan that the petitioner will make sure that his house is protected from anything that occurs during the construction activities.

Again, staff has indicated their support for the variances.

I think, in large part, due to the unique configuration of the site and the grade change.

As I said earlier, the property is already zoned D8, which provides for fairly dense multifamily development.

Nonetheless, the D8 standards only permit a 40-foot or and three-story height limit.

This project has a maximum height of 42 feet, which is along the back side, and then along the White River White River Parkway side, as you can see from the elevation, which is the last page in tab six.

It's actually stepped back and has really a front elevation along White River Parkway of 32 feet.

So it's it's really not that far, and a lot of the reason for the height is the is the grade change on the site.

We believe in the planning staff seems to agree based upon their staff report that the height is appropriate for the site.

Second variance that we've requested is to permit less than 50% of the uh front yard to be comprised of living living material.

Again, um I reviewed the landscape plan for an urban site.

This site has a lot of uh open uh green space, and so we again agree with staff that that variance is appropriate based upon the configuration uh of the site, and again, through this project, the neighborhood is getting additional landscaping, including the planting of some 31 trees.

Uh we understand that there are some neighbors that have some issues with the petition.

We've worked very hard to listen to them and try to respond to them again.

We've received letters of support, and they're in your materials.

I didn't want to specially thank counselor Kristen Jones.

Um she, as I know, spent a lot of time with neighbors.

We actually met with her and representatives of neighborhood association and other neighbors uh at the site about 10 days or so ago, and she was instrumental in in trying to at least bring some agreement among the parties, and again, her letter of support is in your materials along with the uh support letter from the Stringtown uh neighborhood association.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

I see that we have about five minutes left.

Um I know there are a couple of um adjacent property owners that would like to make a few comments, so with your permission, I would ask them to come up.

That's fine, go ahead.

Afternoon.

I'm KC Cohen, 5958 Libra Road, it's Indianapolis 4628.

Uh I'm particularly struck by the Lervey connection with this project and the suggestion that his name would live on in perpetuity as a part of the neighborhood that he made such a contribution to.

I met David Lervey around 2000 when I started buying properties in this neighborhood.

Uh he and I were competing at the time, but we managed to be friendly and work together to achieve a common goal, which I think you're seeing the culmination of with this presentation today, and that is that a neighborhood that at one time was completely neglected and not a service to our community, has been able to resurrect itself to the place where a project of this nature is the perfect icing on the cake, and the delivery of uh everybody's vision into this this neighborhood with uh a Hallmark property like this.

Um I think Mr.

Lervey probably acquired something in the neighborhood of 25 houses in the neighborhood.

At one point I own 30.

Uh but I successfully ejected three children through college, so now I'm down to 15.

But I'm still a big proponent of the neighborhood.

I believe it has a fantastic future, and it's a great hallmark for our community.

Absolutely support this project wholeheartedly.

Thanks.

Sure.

I I would just like to state just as a community organizer, will we talk about our neighborhoods?

We always talk about the assets.

And so Stringtown is a very um historical neighborhood, and those residents truly love their community, so it's always been thriving.

Okay.

Thank you.

One more.

Good afternoon, Tony Oliver, 7120 Keston Circle, Indianapolis, 46256.

And to the chairman and board and the city officials, thank you so much.

This uh I'm very honored to be there in the neighborhood, been there for all my life.

Uh my wife and I pastor the church there, and the church has been there since 1914.

So I know a lot of history with Stringtown and for this uh with Dave Lervey.

Um, some of you all probably already know this, but the Lervey name is is pretty big here in Indianapolis, Indiana.

They own a lot of real estate, even downtown.

But in saying that, I am and support 100% of this.

This is a gateway to our community.

This the we're not going anywhere as the church.

I believe it's gonna bring life.

Um it's gonna bring not just uh life but also appearance, it's gonna boost the the community and let them know hey, there's someone that does want to invest in our community to make it look even better.

So I'm in total support of this to be done.

So thank you.

Thank you.

That's all we have.

Happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for the um petitioner from members of the board?

I do.

Do you happen to know how tall the apartments that are almost adjacent to where you're trying to build?

Are they the same height that you're building now?

We're not positive, but I believe in driving by there at least four stories.

Correct.

So you'll be the same height.

I think they're probably taller.

They're taller.

45 to 50 feet is is what we understand.

Yeah.

Four stories.

Right.

Four stories there, yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

So the those buildings are taller than the buildings you're trying to do.

Yeah, and and to clarify that the grade change makes it a little bit confusing, but yes, it's four stories from grade.

But if you're looking at it from the river side, it's it's three stories.

Yeah.

Any other questions for the petitioner for members of the board?

Where's the parking?

Was the question where is the parking?

Each of the units has a dedicated two-car garage.

Um I believe he pulling off the alley.

So you have four parking, so eight total parking spots for four total units.

Right.

Okay.

Any other questions?

All right.

We'll go on to the remonstrators period.

You have 15 minutes.

Please come forward, set your name and address for the record.

Hello.

I pardon me.

Richard Dufour.

My address is 1523 West New York Street.

I'm about four four houses down from the lottery to be developed.

I'm going to work backward a little bit in my presentation just to go back to the letters of support that were included in the packet.

There's a letter from her.

She owns the house next to me.

It's a it's a rental home.

My understanding is she lives in Bloomington.

She's the wife of the former business partner of Mr.

Lervey.

So I just wanted to keep that in mind.

She is not a resident, and she just bought the home just a few months ago, as I understand, within 2025.

Also for the letters of support, there's a letter of support from the Stringtown Neighborhood Association leadership.

That will be located at 501 West New York Street.

Nowhere does this say that he is in favor of the variance approval.

And I um I you know I have my questions about that.

Mr.

Reagan was opposed until just the other day, and uh, you know, what he told me was that he was in favor of doing this with the stringtown leadership, which is three people.

Um they're not representing a lot of the neighbors.

The the three people have had a vote on their own, as I understand, to go for this without any sort of meeting or any sort of communication with a larger community.

Um so I wouldn't I want to throw that in there.

I think that's just kind of a almost unilateral decision to support.

It does not represent the the community uh uh at the whole.

I believe Mr.

Reagan decided to go along with this because um he has this pocket park he wants to develop um and the developers are willing to go along and help him out with that, and that that's his passion.

So I want to mention that too, just for consideration.

Um I knew I knew David Lurvey well.

Um I rented from him for 10 years before I was able to buy the house I live in now from him.

So I've lived in Stringtown for 13 years.

Uh I lived at 1448 Salcy Street, directly south of this lot.

Um as a matter of fact, in 2017, a car ran through that lot.

It didn't make the curve in White River Parkway, it ran through that lot through the alley through the overhead door of my garage, pushed my car through the front wall of the garage into the backyard, and actually made contact with my home.

Um that's a home I I rented from David Lurvy.

Um I stayed in Stringtown because I like Stringtown.

Pardon me.

The I came in from I'm from the near east side originally.

My neighbors on either side of me were original Stringtown inhabitants.

Their families owned those homes.

Um they built those homes and passed them down from generation to generation.

Each of those people, the Hatzels to my West and Bucky Kyer to my east, um, both sold their homes, um, one of them to David Lervey because they're in financial trouble and he rented back to them.

Um there's a lot of fond memories here for David.

Dave was Dave was very nice to me, but David's very transactional.

Dave was there for the money.

He did admire Streamtown and he wanted it to be nice.

But um to suggest, I think it suggested somewhere that maybe we could name the alley after David Lurvey.

I don't think would go over great with the community of the hall because a lot of people have a bad taste in their mouth for Mr.

Lurvy, right?

So he was highly transactional guy.

Pardon me, he didn't keep his homes up.

I experienced that.

I was just fortunate enough to hang in there long enough and that he liked me enough to work with me to sell the home I was renting for it from him uh just this past December.

Um so you know, I I'm not trying to malign David Lurvey.

He was he was kind to me, but he was not not a great guy in the neighborhood.

So for us to get very sentimental about what he means to the neighborhood.

Coming from business partners and associates and people who stand to make money off of this just the way he did, that's one thing.

But the people in the neighborhood, many of them didn't really have a great opinion of him.

I want to put that into perspective.

Um for support, um, I want to add, I did come to the last hearing prior to the last hearing.

Um I submitted a letter of remonstrance that should be on the record.

I did submit also just early this morning um another um remonstrance.

This is basically a petition signed by my neighbors that live on the adjacent streets, so New York Street, Salsi Street, um, Keene, just to the west.

Um if I could, I'm not sure how much time I have.

I just want to read that real quick if quick if I could.

And this is 10 minutes left.

Okay, and this addresses this addresses the variances.

That's okay.

I was gonna say, let's get to what you're objecting to.

Yeah.

Um, first off, the variance to go higher, right?

Um 45 feet.

The lot is elevated.

Um the developers have stated this.

Um when I look at the design, the garage, Mr.

Um Dehart had mentioned in a meeting before that that the garage is is underground.

It's submerged maybe three feet.

I can only guess.

The lot itself sits, I I I don't have the equipment to measure this, sits five to six feet above Mr.

Reagan's house, just to the west.

So when you look at the the horizon, you can see it matches up with about the top of his first floor windows.

Right.

So it's already elevated five or six feet.

The homes directly, and we're not talking about the people who live directly behind on Salsi Street.

That's even deeper.

I live there myself behind the wall, the retention wall.

I'm going to estimate that at seven to eight feet taller than those those lots.

So put a they're saying 42 foot building, they're going to get permission to go 45.

So I would say, you know, you know, things expand, right?

With the limit.

If you put a 45 foot building on top of a lot that's already five or six feet taller than Mr.

Reagan or seven feet taller than the folks behind them, in effect, you've got a 50-foot building or more.

Um in my mind, that casts shadows on them.

That's not healthy.

Um, it steals sky.

From my home, four doors down.

When I look over the garage of my next door neighbor, I'm quite confident that what I'm going to see instead of sky there, is I'm going to see the penthouses on the top of this building.

I don't think it's responsible to use that kind of space.

The building was designed to fit in to a space that won't handle it.

And that is part of the issue, issue with the variance request to go from 50% natural material to 27.

That's only 50% of the standard, nowhere near what I would think would be a reasonable tolerance to allow it.

It's just a it's just a matter of trying to fit in a lot of building into a small space to maximize profit without any benefit to the residents in the area.

So let me, if I can just I got plenty of time here.

Um was there was there anyone else who was going to speak in remonstrance or you I'm by myself, and I'm gonna say I'm quite surprised because quite a lot of the neighbor people in the neighborhood are quite concerned about this.

I'm gonna guess that they're just not able to get here on a weekday.

Well, you get the whole time.

Yeah, okay.

Um let me if I can, I'll just since I have time.

Let me re let me read this because I'm speaking extraperinecy today, and I didn't expect that I would have to.

Um we, the residents of Stringtown near West Side of Indianapolis are opposed to granting the variance requested by Lervey Lof's LLC.

We asked the Indianapolis Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals to deny the request to allow a building height of 45 feet or four stories, which exceeds the current limit of three stories, and to deny the request to approve 27% landscape area or living material, reduced from the minimum required of 50% living.

Um I've already stated that with a lot that already sits quite higher, a bit higher than the surrounding homes, the effective height is going to be much higher.

That's what that's what the neighbors are gonna have to look at.

Um my estimation, the additional height to accommodate a view of the city and the park for residents of the proposed structure is only to their benefit.

It's not to the benefit of the people in the neighborhood.

Um and it's to uh to give additional profit to the developer.

So Mr.

Dart had said in an email um basically as a rebuttal to to my last remonstrance that for the viability of the project they need to go four stories.

I I don't buy that.

I think they could, I'm not a business person.

I think they could build at three and they would be perfectly fine.

And the people who live in those places could have their view without taking additional sky and space from the people who live in the neighborhood around them being me as well.

So we ask you to um the board to deny the variance for the height.

The approval of the reduced minimum area of natural material from 50 to 27 percent is neither in the interest of the potential owners, residents of the proposed building, nor the current and future surrounding Streettown residents.

Their proposed 27% living material only meets the requirement by 54%, which is not within a reasonable tolerance of the standard.

It's a symptom of a building designed to fit in a space that is not adequate to support it, and in clear disregard of or to make any attempt to comply with the current regulation.

It clearly does not meet the intent of the regulation for residential living space, and we ask you the board to deny that variance request.

Um I would like to real quick to refer to Mr.

Dehart.

Um the ordinance, the part of the ordinance that addresses that.

Um just give me just a second here.

Um the part of the ordinance, section 740 744-701, um, and also um in the review by Mr.

Stern, um, infill housing guidelines with regard to building height, um, landscaping infill housing guidelines recommends look to surrounding context for appropriate housing sizes.

Um this building is going to be quite starkly taller than the others.

There's not going to be a transition in that height, nor the style from the houses either behind it or to Mr.

Reagan's house or down the street to mine.

Um so I don't feel that that complies with the intent of the ordinance.

Um in that section, it states to use similar forms and masking common building elements, consistent relationships to the streetscape to create compatible compatibility among different building types, and is and importantly to create effective transitions between different scales of buildings.

So this is I I actually tried, I superimposed this building on top of a photo of the lot with Mr.

Reagan's house next to it.

It's going to be, you can do the math.

It's going to be twice as tall as Mr.

Reagan's house.

Um street slopes.

My house is even farther downhill than that.

So it's really gonna be it's not gonna it's not in the intent of the ordinance.

Um again, where multiple frontage types are permitted, the frontages should be similar for all lots on the same block face, or gradually transition to different building placement and frontage types on adjacent lots.

So it doesn't meet the spirit of the ordinance as well.

Um so on those cases on those points.

I ask you to deny the variance.

I think these are smart guys.

Uh they can build a three-story building and they can make it fit in the lot better.

I think they would make their money off of it.

The neighborhood would be okay with that.

We're just asking you to deny the variances.

Thank you, Mr.

DeFor.

Um, as there appear to be no one else in the audience with an interest in this petition, we go to some comments from staff unless are there any questions for the for the remonstrator?

See we've got a comments from staff.

Mr.

Stern.

Thank you, Chairman Von Dalen and members of the board.

Uh as noted in the staff report.

Staff is recommending approval of the petition.

Um D8, located within the regional center, secondary overlay, secondary zoning uh overlay, and has been vacant since the late 1970s, according to aerial imagery that we have available.

Uh the proposal, as we all know at this point, calls for two separate two-family townhome structures for a total of four units on the site.

Um, with regards to the height, the standards limiting height, two forty feet and three stories are in place to maintain appropriate and consistent consistent development pattern, uh limit over development and live limit overshadowing of uh adjacent structures.

Staff uh generally finds the request to be for increased height to be reasonable given the site's location uh on the corner along the White River Parkway Drive and within regional center.

Staff uh believes that the slight increase would create a strong edge at this intersection and along the parkway, which is a primary arterial.

Um further staff believes that it to be a reasonable increase, reasonable increase given the location within regional center and an effort to promote further growth and redevelopment of the central core of our city.

Staff would note that while we are generally supportive of the height increase, staff did have initial concerns about the adjacent property, specifically the one directly to the west, and the potential for proposed development to overshadow that existing residence.

I believe actually a little less than five feet from the west side lot line.

Staff and the petitioner worked together and agreed to move that western structure to the east by a little over a foot, and that is indicated in the revised site plan showing the 6.2 foot setback from the west lot line.

Further, the petitioner did indicate that while the increase the request for increased height is for 45 feet, that the structure itself is to be 42 feet, and the request for 45 is to account for any grade changes, grade change issues that might occur on site.

Given these two points, staff the concerns of staff were were put to ease, and uh we do find the request to be uh reasonable in nature.

Staff would note and emphasize that the request for an increase in height is seen as reasonable first and foremost because of the site's location on the edge of the neighborhood along White River Parkway Drive.

Um, and with similar structures in height being located on this uh arterial.

I was able to confirm that the multifamily structure a few blocks to the north is four four stories when looking from White River Parkway Drive.

That site also slopes down, and when looking from the west is five stories.

However, a similar request for an increase in height in the middle of the neighborhood or at a mid block location would not be seen as appropriate.

Um as once you get further into the neighborhood, the structures are not nearly as tall.

With regards to the variance for reduced living materials in the front yard, the standard requiring at least 50 percent to be comprised of living material is to promote landscaping and natural materials on site and to uh limit hardscaping and enhance aesthetics.

The request for 27% uh living materials stems in large part from practical difficulty due to sloped conditions towards the rear and west side of the site, um, and with the site's uh shape and uh being highly irregular compared to most D8 lots.

Um further staff would note that despite the request for reduced living materials, the submitted landscaping plan, which is in the staff report indicates that uh as the petitioner noted, 31 trees would be placed on site, including four large trees, and staff finds this to be a significant improvement to the site, which has been vacant for over 50 years and currently does not contain any any landscaping uh to any degree.

So, to summarize, given that um staff sees the height as reasonable for the site's context, and that's practical difficulty exists for front yard living materials, and that the proposal represents a substantial improvement, both uh the development itself and the landscaping that is proposed.

Staff is not opposed to the request and can't answer any questions that the board might have.

Thank you, Mr.

Stern.

Are there any questions for staff from members of the board?

Mr.

Barnes.

Again, back to parking.

There's four units in each building.

No, two, two.

Yeah.

Two units four total.

Okay.

Are we going to do any improvements on the alley?

Can you repeat that?

Or is the city going to do any improvements on the alley?

I wouldn't be able to comment on that.

Um, I don't know offhand that'd be a question for DPW ultimately, being public right-of-way.

Any other questions for the staff?

I just want to clarify on the neighborhood uh near west neighborhood land use plan for that area.

They specifically stated that they wanted an 8 to 15 residential unit, or is that just for the area?

The 8 to 15 residential units per acre that is part of the neighborhood plan.

Uh that was what was identified for this site, and I believe much of the surrounding uh blocks as well.

So that would be per acre.

Correct.

Per acre.

Okay.

How many acres is this site?

This site.

Give me one second.

I'm sorry, also isn't um can we confirm that in that near west neighborhood land use plan if they had a um height restriction over that area specifically around the White River.

I will need to check, and that might be a minute, but I can look through that.

Um Mr.

Stern, we can come back to you after the rebuttal period if that's all right.

That yeah, that that'll work fine.

All right.

Petitioner, you get five minutes of rebuttal thank you.

Um I want to make sure that we answered your question regarding parking since uh you'd ask it a couple times, but each of the four units has two dedicated garage parking spaces.

If if they're a guest, then that there is public right of way on New York Street.

Um the alley's narrow, so people would not park back there.

Does that answer your question?

Are you going to make improvements to the alley?

I think that's certainly something that's under consideration.

We did, I mean and they can answer that.

We typically work with DPW on something like that.

And if DPW requires improvements to the alley, then they they have to be made.

Yeah, as a developer, I can say I've made improvements to alleys and then have them removed by DPW.

So that's a difficult situation.

Okay.

I think and we had that conversation.

Um there's an interest in making sure the alley is appropriate for the development, and that needs to be done in conjunction with DPW.

So if that's what the instructions are, then that's what the developer will have to do.

I was just thinking if you're really planning on being good neighbors and the other people.

Right.

It it it's we're in agreement that it is in need of improvement.

Um thank you.

I want to turn to you, uh, Commissioner Duckett uh Brown.

Uh I wanted to make sure that it you understood from our comments that the history of the neighborhood is important and that this neighborhood, in whatever condition it is, is an asset.

I think that was your point.

And hopefully we we made the point, we made that point, but I also wanted you to know that I got involved in this case about two weeks ago.

And the first thing that we did was we reached out to the neighborhood uh leadership as we understood it.

And about five days later, we arranged a meeting with the neighborhood leaders, including Mr.

Staples, Ms.

Morgan, and Mr.

Reagan, who's the immediately adjacent neighbor, and Mr.

DeFor was present as well.

And we walked the property, we listened to the concerns.

Mr.

Reagan clearly had concerns, wanted to make sure that his property was protected, and that's why we offered the commitment, and that's why previous to that we had relocated the building to the east so that there was more of a setback.

Following that meeting, we had communications with Mr.

Staples and Counselor Jones, who was facilitating these uh conversations, and worked very hard to answer their questions to the point where yesterday um after I received Mr.

The letter from Mr.

Staples, which is in your materials and was referenced, I spoke with Mr.

Reagan, Ms.

Morgan, and uh Mr.

Staples on the phone to make sure I understood their position and their position clearly was with the communication that we've had, we do not object to the project.

So that's that was the uh focus of that conversation.

I want to address really the substance of the proposal.

This represents a significant investment in the neighborhood.

I know change is hard, and um we're sensitive to that.

But in order for the neighborhood to progress, at least a reasonable position could be that a two million dollar investment to improve this property really is a benefit to install 31 trees where there are no trees, it's just a gravel lot to install landscaping, and these are nicely uh designed building is a benefit to the neighborhood.

Um with respect to the uh green space uh variance, we are providing all of the required ordinance required landscaping.

The variance is necessitated as staff points out by the fact that the facts that the lot is a corner lot and it's oddly configured.

So no matter how you arrange the buildings on the property, to meet that front yard green space requirement, a variance is going to be required.

Um with respect to the height, obviously that's that's the other issue.

The buildings are designed at 42 feet.

Yes, there's a couple of feet uh of play um in case there's issues with with the grade, but um they are designed to be at 42 feet, and I think your time is up.

Thank you.

We ask that you approve these variances.

All right.

Uh Remonstrator, you have a five-minute rebuttal period.

Um thank you.

First thing I want to mention is uh we've talked about um comparing the height of this building to the height of the Riverview apartments just to the north.

It's not exactly adjacent.

Um it's another block and a half to two block and a half um up the street, so it's not a continuous face with that building.

Um the other thing about that building is um a lot of the a lot of the neighbors don't care for it, um, honestly, but it the the thing about the buildings it's section eight and it provides affordable housing to a lot of people.

I've met a number of people that live there, they're quite nice.

Um the difference with this that comparing that to this building is this is gonna be four units.

Um the last hearing we were at here, uh Mr.

Dehart mentioned to me that these were gonna be seven figure um units, like seven figures is a million dollars.

That's um that's quite a bit different from the river view as far as the cost is um and definitely a difference in the type of people that it brings.

Nothing wrong with people who can afford that coming here.

Um I would have to question though, with that small amount of lot and living right on top of a extremely loud and busy street.

If you've got the money to spend on that, are you gonna stay there?

Um, are people going to end up turning these into sh into short-term rentals or Airbnbs?

Um, what am I missing on?

Yeah, yeah.

We really want to see we we want to be we're not we're not opposed to the building go up, but some people in the neighborhood are very somewhat militant and obstructionist about this.

I'm not that way at all, and I think many of us are not.

Um we we agree and we acknowledge that there needs to be develop in the development in the neighborhood.

Um we just want it to be reasonable.

We don't want to to feel like it's encroaching on space and taking too much of the uh of our sky and light away.

Um and so we want we want to see it be um responsible building, and we are concerned.

I I know Mr.

Stern said that to build a building like this in the middle of the of the neighborhood or block would not be approved, but we do worry about that.

This this could be precedent setting.

Once this goes up, it's a green light for them or other developers to come back and do more.

And we want to be really cautious about about what we allow because we don't want a precedent of not having any stayer control over what kind of residences go into to our neighborhood.

Most people want single family owner-occupied dwellings.

Um, so I'd like for you to take that into consideration.

Mr.

Dufour, I have one are you done?

That I want to interrupt you.

Yeah, I have one question.

Um, is your objection to these variances mainly based upon the height of the building and your concerns there?

Yes, it is the height.

Absolutely.

But I I want to say too that uh, you know, I feel like they're trying to put a squ a square peg and around hole here.

That the design is not meant for that lot.

I've I saw a rendering from uh Mr.

Alexander, the architect early on, Mr.

Levy shared it with me, um, and they had tried to um initially put six units in there at three story six units.

Obviously, that wasn't gonna work.

Thank you for your answer.

Yeah, um, I have a question for the petitioner.

Um quick.

Um did the the developer designer I mean we're asking for a request in the the height on this, and it mainly seems to be to accommodate a rooftop uh um patio and and I think it's called an upper lounge area.

Um we present and and approve these uh variances in a case of hardship or for some reason it keeps them from developing the property.

Did the developer consider potentially instead of doing that just having a stair access to the roof and having a rooftop deck without the the lounge area?

What's that?

Primarily do that one way to roof.

Yeah, you can you comment on that?

Also, they could have mirrored the plans and put the stairs to the center of the proper the buildings instead of on the outside of the buildings, which would also mitigate the concern about the heights.

Yeah, I may have the petitioner comment on the other.

You may just need to come forward, say his name for the address as long as it's warrant.

I I you know 30,000 foot view is they needed the additional floor area to to make the project viable, but okay.

Name and address for the record?

Austin Bodner 6157 Ross Lanav, Indianapolis.

Um primarily for what the condos here on floor space too, relatively narrow, needed uh taller story just to accommodate living area, as well as um anticipating walk-ups are for this location, wanting to have elevators, um, so people want to have to go upstairs, make it a little easier to traverse and utilize all the living space in the townhomes.

Was the main reason for four stories?

Okay, so the it's really but it's accommodating a lounge that's on the the roof of the the the building.

It's accommodating the living space for the total floor area as well as making it efficient for elevators to use the um just to get rid of the hassle of stairs for the type of product we're trying to put in here.

Okay.

Thank you for your answer.

Are there any other questions or anything for the staff, petitioners, or remonstrance from members of the board, then we can cast our ballots?

On case 2025-DV2-016, Patrice Duckett Brown votes no, Craig Von Dalen votes yes, and Tom Barnes votes yes.

The vote is indecisive.

The petition will be continued to the October 14th, 2025 hearing.

Thank you.

That brings us to the end of our docket, and I will ask Mr.

Weestie, is there any other business today?

Findings affect, and we are going to go ahead and execute those and we'll move on.

In that case, we are adjourned.