Okay.

Okay.

I'll be a little bit more quiet.

Call to order.

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

I'm Craig Von Dalen, Chairperson of Division Two.

The other board members present are Patrice Ducket Brown, James Duke, Beth Brandon, and Tom Barnes.

Legal Counsel for the Board today is Chris Steinmetz, staff members present today from the division and planning or Eddie O'Neill, current planning administrator, Bryce Patts, current planning manager, Robert Eulen Hake, senior planner, Michael Weigel, senior planner, Noah Stern, senior planner, and Mari Weiste, senior board sec specialist and secretary to the board.

The board has copies of zoning ordinance that will be incorporated by reference into the record of each case heard today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Staff will then present the administrator's comments regarding the petition.

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

The installation of landscaping and the screening, the paving of parking area, and the dedication of rights of way 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 the 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 five members present today.

It requires three votes to take action on any requests.

We will take this into consideration when hearing requests for continuances, which we probably won't hear because we've got five members.

If your petition receives an indecisive vote, your petition will be automatically continued to the November 18th, 2025 hearing.

Board members, you have been provided meeting minutes for our September 9th, 2025 meeting.

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

Do I hear a motion?

Brandon, so moved.

And a second.

Duke, second.

I'll ask for the vote.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

Barnes.

Yes.

Duke, yes.

Ducket Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

And I'm also yes.

So they're approved.

If there's anyone in the audience who has any questions of our procedures, none being seen.

Well, before we hear special requests, I'll ask for a waiver of our rules of procedure to allow the board to vote for all expedited petitions and adopt their findings at fact without any additional testimony from the addition individual petitioners.

Do I hear a motion?

Brandon, so moved.

And a second.

Duke second.

And I'll call the roll.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

Barnes.

Yes.

Duke.

Duke, yes.

Ducett Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

And I'm also a yes.

All right.

At this point, we'll consider special requests and continuances.

Please come forward, set your name and address.

Yes, sir.

Good afternoon.

My name is Brent Bennett.

Um SSPO box 155, Fisher's Indiana, 46038.

Bringing your attention to case 11 on your docket.

It's 2025 DV2040.

We are asking for a waiver of four days of notice on the legal notice and sign placement.

Is there a reason for the request?

Did you receive that?

Staff told me they'd be in favor of it.

Well, we we got the notice like on Friday at 345, and we couldn't even pick up the sign until the next Monday.

Okay.

So is there anyone else in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 DV2-040 with an address of 6115 North Park Avenue?

Your clients are you have oh, you're his client.

Okay.

All right.

With no one being seen, we'll go ahead and get comments from staff.

Staff.

Thank you, Chairman Mondale and members of the board.

Staff has no objection to the four-day waiver.

Staff was late, getting those notice materials to the petition.

Very well.

That being heard, since that's the case, I'll entertain a motion to grant a four-day waiver of notice petition number 2025 DV2-040.

Do I hear a motion?

Brandon so moved.

Second.

Brandon.

Okay, I'll take the second from Brandon.

I got the first from Duke.

Good.

I'll call the roll.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

Barnes.

Orange is yes.

Duke.

Duke.

Yes.

Ducky Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

And I'm also yes.

Got the Raver.

Good afternoon, Chairman Von Dalen, members of the board, Misha Rabinowich with offices at one Indiana Square, Suite 1800.

Uh direct your attention to item number nine, which is for property located 1507 and other addresses West New York Street.

As you recall, well, at least at least three of you recall from her from the last hearing.

We resulted in an indecisive uh vote in the petition that was presented to you at that time.

We were requesting two variances, one for a height and one for living material in the front yard.

Um a couple of neighbors appeared at that um hearing to remonstrate primarily based upon the height of the structure.

I think it was actually Commissioner Von Dalen suggested that uh we might consider eliminating the fourth floor condition space, which would reduce the height of the building to satisfy the neighbor's concerns.

The architect went back and did that.

We have reduced the height of the buildings to eliminate that fourth floor to bring the height below the uh current zoning uh height limitation of 40 feet, and so our request here is just to withdraw uh that request as it's no longer needed.

So that would just leave us with one variance.

Acknowledged.

Thank you.

Hello, Carla Romero, 332 North Elder Avenue, Stringtown Now Association.

I have just a very brief question for Noah Stern and the board members.

One of our neighbors and part of our neighborhood association wrote a letter of remonstration.

Um and she had it printed out and gave it to Noah Stern for handed out.

I just want to make sure that you all have a copy of that.

Mr.

Stern.

Uh yes, I am in receipt of the remonstrance.

Did you get the copies, the paper copies that were delivered this morning?

Uh I believe so, and I may have left them up at my office desk, but I I do have those.

And uh I can go back up if needed.

But this will be heard in full.

Okay.

I just I wanted to make sure that that was already addressed and set forth.

So once you have those, do I need to read it or is it enough to just ensure that you all have a when we get to the case, you have the opportunity to testify and remonstrance you'll give the given 15 minutes at which time you can decide whether or not you want to read a letter or whatever you want to do for your remonstration.

Thank you all.

Welcome.

Good afternoon.

Justin King and addresses 618 East Market Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202 here before you today regarding item number two on your agenda 2025 DV2035.

We're requesting a one-month continuance of this case.

We've met with some concerned uh neighbors within the last weeks.

We'd like to further those discussions.

We also need to add, it's been brought to our attention by staff that we need to add one variance to our request and therefore need to send out new legal notice, and this one-month continuance would allow us to do so.

So uh be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Um is there any else in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 DV2-035 with an address of 5100 Knowlton Road?

Um none being seen.

Uh you said with additional notice, correct?

Because we have to add a another variance to our request, it's gonna require a new notice.

All right, and then I believe our hearing is on November 12th.

November 18th.

Oh, that's right.

Okay, November 18th.

Okay, thank you, guys.

Uh, we'll go to comments from staff.

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

Staff has no objection to the continuance request, and that would be with new notice.

Very well.

Okay, then I'll entertain a motion to continue with additional notice to our November 18th hearing, petition number 2025 DB2-035.

Do I hear a motion?

Brandon so moved.

And a second.

Duke second.

I'll call the roll, Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

Barnes.

Barnes, yes.

Duke.

Duke, yes.

Ducky Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

And I'm also a yes.

Great, thank you.

Hello, my name is Walter Racinos, and I'm with uh 65 East Regent Street.

2025 DV2037.

Requesting for uh a waiver for the four-day um wasn't able to mail um the notices on time due to receiving the forms a little late.

And the staff has approved uh of the waiver.

Um thank you.

Yeah.

Um is there any else you can stay for just a second.

Is there anyone else in the audience that has an interest in petition number 2025 DB 2-037 amended at 65 East Regent Street?

None being seen, we'll go to commissar staff.

Yes, uh, thank you, Chairperson von Dalen members of the board.

Uh given that the primary reason for this waiver request is uh staff's own delay and provision of notice materials.

We would have no objection.

I wouldn't know we were contacted around 11 a.m.

this morning by someone with an interest in the case of what does not appear that they are in attendance this afternoon.

Uh we have no objection.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Rosino.

So just again, we'll take a I'll call a roll or hang on.

I'll understand a motion to give a four-day waiver of notice to petition number 2025 DB two-037.

Do I hear a motion?

Brandon, so moved.

And a second.

Duke, so call the roll.

Brandon Brandon, yes.

Barnes Duke.

Duke, yes.

Duck it brown.

Dougie Brown, yes.

I'm also yes.

You got your waiver.

Thank you.

Oh, thank you.

Um, I was gonna say I was contacted by the president, and I explained to her um everything, and she's okay with that.

She says she if she has a question, she'll come here.

Okay, excellent.

Thanks for the additional information.

All right, any other special requests from the audience?

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

Um, hello, my name is Diego Duarte.

I'm here on address 2405 West 61 First Street.

Um, with the case number 2025 UV 2011.

Um I came here for the petition to allow a ship and container in the backyard.

Yeah.

And did you have any requests, special requests?

Because we'll hear your case in the regular docket when we get to that part of it.

So are you you're just here to to for your case itself?

Yeah.

All right, you you're fine, just hang out.

You're the last case on our docket, you're gonna be here for a little bit.

All right, thanks.

All right, staff.

Thanks, John.

Thank you, Chairperson Von Dalen, members of the board staff or draw your attention to item number three, petition 2025 DV2038 located at 854 North Gladstone Avenue.

The petitioner has submitted a revised site plan.

Excuse me, real quick.

That's 2025 DV2039.

I stand corrected, yes, DB2039.

Thank you, Marty.

Thank you, board chair.

Board Secretary.

Located at 854 North Gladst Gladstone Avenue.

The petitioner has submitted a revised updated site plan, which requires them to add additional variances.

So therefore, this petition will need to be continued with notice to allow time to amend the request to provide those new amended notice.

This will be to the November 18th holiday.

Excuse me, November 18th hearing.

Staff has no objection to this request.

All right.

Is anyone in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 DV2-039 with an address of 854 North Gladstone Avenue?

None being seen, I'll entertain a motion to continue with notice.

Petition number 2025 DV2-039 to our November 18th hearing.

Do I hear a motion?

Brandon, so moved.

And a second.

Brandon, yes.

Barnes, yes.

Duke.

Duke, yes.

Ducket Brown.

Dougie Brown, yes.

And I'm also yes.

Thank you.

Staff will also draw your attention to item number six.

Petition number 2025 DV2-034, located at 5420, Rockhampton Court.

This petition was continued by staff last month to today's hearing due to a 12-day deficient notice.

Staff has no objection to that since the petition was continued to allow additional time for any remonstrance if there was any.

Okay.

Is there any audience with an interest in petition number 2025 D V two-034 with an address of 5420 Raw Captain Court?

None being seen.

Brandon so moved.

Second.

Brandon, yes.

Barnes Barnes, yes.

Duke Duke, yes.

Ducket Brown.

Ducket Brown, yes.

And I'm also yes.

Waiver granted.

Sure.

Uh thank you, Chair Burst and Von Dalen.

Members of the board staff would draw your attention to the special request item at the very top of your agenda above item number one.

Uh 2025 D V two zero three eight at 151 South Arsenal Avenue.

The petitioner was able to revise their plans in a way where they could develop a site without the need for any variances, and therefore um have provided written indication to us that they wish to have this request withdrawn.

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

Acknowledged.

Thank you.

And staff would also draw your attention to item number four on the agenda.

Uh 2025 UV2013 at 148 West 38 Street.

Um, a timely automatic continuance was filed by a registered neighborhood organization uh continuing this petition to your November 18th hearing date.

Uh, this also merely requires your acknowledgement.

Acknowledged.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairperson Von Dalen.

Members of the board, staff would draw your attention.

Item number one, 2025 SE two oh oh four at 6358 North College Avenue.

Um a timely automatic continuance was filed by a registered neighborhood organization.

Uh continuing this to the November 18th hearing separately.

Staff has determined that an additional variance is needed for this request and therefore would require new notice.

Okay, so I've got a timely and I've got a request or an additional variance.

We can acknowledge the timely.

Do we need a vote on the additional variance?

Uh counselor.

Yeah.

What there was a timely automatic continuance, but also another variance is needed.

So they need to renounce.

Right.

Right.

So yeah, acknowledge that, and then it's be incumbent upon the petitioner to get the appropriate notice out.

Yep.

Okay, so I acknowledge the the timely notice of uh continuance and then it will be incumbent upon the petitioner to notify to re-notify those in the surrounding properties of the additional variants.

Correct.

Thank you.

All right, I believe that that is the end of our special request portion.

We will go ahead and move on to our expedited docket.

Mr.

Secretary, you can go ahead and read those off.

These are petitions to be expedited.

Case number two zero two five-se two-zero zero two property addresses eight five four zero and eight five two zero Michigan Road.

Pike Township, Council District No.

Zoned C4.

The petitioner is BFC Property Group LLC, represented by Jennifer Milliken.

Special exception of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the operation of a flooring commercial contractor.

Case number 2025-DV2-034 property address 5420 Rockhampton Court.

Pike Township, Council District No.

Zoned I4.

The petitioner is Christopher Thomas.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of a freestanding accessory building with a 10-foot west side yard set and 15-foot rear side yard setback.

30-foot side and rear yard setbacks required.

Case number 2025-DV2-036.

Property address 5458 East 82nd Street.

Washington Township, Council District Number 3, Zoned C4.

The petitioner is KRG Castleton Crossing LLC, represented by Lisa Rains.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the installation of a third drive-thru sign, one sign permitted per lane.

Property address 65 East Regent Street.

And resulting in an open space of 57%, 60% required.

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

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

Thank you, Mr.

Secretary.

Board members, we can cast our ballots, on case 2025-SE2-002.

Patrice Ducket Brown votes yes.

James Duke votes yes.

Craig von Dalen votes yes.

Tom Barnes votes yes, and Beth Brandon votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case 2025-DV2-034, Patrice Ducket Brown votes yes.

James Duke votes yes.

Craig von Dalen votes yes.

Tom Barnes votes yes, and Beth Brandon votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case 2025-D V two-036, Patrice Stuckett Brown votes yes, James Duke votes yes, Craig Von Dalen votes yes, Tom Barnes votes yes, and Beth Brandon votes yes.

That variance is granted.

And on case 2025-DV2-037 amended, Patrice Duckett Brown votes yes.

James Duke votes yes.

Craig von Dalen votes yes.

Tom Barnes votes yes, and Beth Brandon votes yes.

That variance is granted.

Thank you, Mr.

Secretary.

We move on to our regular scheduled docket.

Case number 2025-DV2-016 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 or three-story?

That got withdrawn.

That first variance got withdrawn.

Oh, okay.

So the request is only for uh 27% living material.

Gotcha.

So the full request is variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction provide for a townhome development consisting of 27% living material comprising the front yard.

50% living material required.

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

Yeah, please come forward if you plan on speaking or stand and raise your right hand.

That's fine.

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

I do.

Good afternoon, uh Commissioners.

Again, uh Misha Rubinowich, an attorney with offices at one Indiana Square, suite 1800.

Uh again, I represent the petitioner in this uh case, Lervey Town Home Development.

Again, uh we presented this case to uh the board last month, which resulted in indecisive vote in response to uh concerns that were then raised by neighbors.

We made some adjustments to the elevation to bring the height of this proposed town home uh building development down, eliminating the need for uh that variance, which I thought was uh really the main concern with the development.

So the only remaining uh variance that we're requesting uh as Marty mentioned is for reduced plant material in the front yard.

Um in addition to the support of the planning staff, which uh had supported the project as designed previously and continues to support the project.

Uh we've also provided letters from the Stringtown Neighborhood Association and letters from various neighbors that are in your materials at tab six through ten, um, which also includes a stand by Mr.

Rubinowitz.

We don't have the materials just a second.

Oh thank you.

All right, you can go ahead.

Yeah, I was uh those letters also include the letter of support from City Councillor Kristen Jones, and I know Councillor Jones was planning to be here today.

She may still uh she may still join us, but just to ref refresh some of your recollection, uh looking at the materials at tab one is an aerial view of the site.

Um it's uh a corner lot, it's irregularly shaped, it's at the corner of New York Street and White River Parkway.

Uh according to aerial photography, it's been vacant for over uh 70 years.

Uh the property is currently zoned.

D eight and the uh development that we're proposing to you meets all of the D8 development standards except for the living material in the front yard.

Uh at tab two in the materials are some site photos.

There you can um see that.

It's it's basically just a then a gravel lot for as long as um as long as we can tell, and then there's some subsequent uh photos there.

For those of you that weren't present for the last hearing, uh, behind tab three is a is a site plan.

Uh the petitioner is proposing to redevelop this vacant site with a two-building four town home uh unit development.

I want again I want to emphasize that it meets the uh D8 development standards for density and everything else except for the front yard uh living material.

Um as staff points out with respect to this uh front yard living material variants, uh and this is a quote from their staff report.

The request for 27% living materials in the front yard stems from practical difficulty related to the site's existing conditions and shape with the site containing an irregular angled shape and with significant grade changes toward the rear of the site.

The ability to provide sufficient landscaping in the front yard is impeded.

I did want to point out as I did last month, and behind tab four is a landscape plan, um which includes the petitioner's commitment to provide significant landscaping, including an additional 31 trees, and as you can see from the site photos that I showed you earlier, that's much more landscaping than is currently on the site.

Um let's see, behind tab five are the building elevations, and again um we have removed that full uh four story condition space, so that's there's some outdoor space up there.

Um, but it meets the ordinance standards for um building height.

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

Um the buildings are accessed uh off of the alley.

The building materials, and there's some um it's clear in the in the elevations that are subsequent to the first couple of pages.

The the building materials are a high end, primarily uh brick masonry with expansive windows and some uh painted uh fiber cement board detailing.

We hope that you'll agree that the uh development is much more attractive than the vacant gravel lot that has been there for so many years.

I wanted to emphasize that we have tried to work extremely closely with the neighbors.

Um as I mentioned last time we worked with the immediately adjacent neighbor to the west, Paul Reagan, and in response to some concerns he raised, we actually adjusted the location of the buildings a bit to provide him some additional setback area.

We've committed to uh working with him to protect his home uh during the construction process, and again, most significantly we've agreed to reduce the height of the building so that it meets the developments, the D8 development standard.

Um I'd hope that we can satisfy the concerns of all neighbors.

I understand that perhaps we haven't because there are some here today, but I again want to mention the letters of support that are in your materials.

Um I especially like to thank our city councilor Kristen Jones, who um again I she intended to try to be here, but I would direct your attention to her letter of support as in real materials at tab nine.

So with that, uh just to summarize again.

The only variants we're requesting is the front yard living material.

It's a relatively minor uh variance, at least in our opinion, for what the community is getting, which is a very um nice improvement to a long vacant property.

So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Very well.

Any questions for the petitioner for members of the board?

I just have one question.

So when you change the um the four levels or three level, you went back to the neighborhood association, so they're aware of the change.

Okay.

Yes, I well.

I emailed the changes to the neighborhood association.

Um the response I got well, is there anything else you need from us?

And I said no.

And then I also emailed the information to Mr.

DeFor, who is here today and and asked whether he had any issues.

And um, I think he said he didn't at this time.

I asked him if he was gonna be here, and I learned when I walked in that he's here.

So unless there's uh any other questions, which there don't appear to be.

Uh, you want to yield the rest of your time?

Yes, thanks.

Very well, then we'll call the remonstrators.

Please come forward and testify.

You have 15 minutes.

As you come forward, please state your name and address for the record.

Hi, I'm Richard Dufor.

My address is 1523 West New York Street.

Okay.

Um, so I was at the last hearing for this.

Um I'm glad that the developer has decided to drop the request for the variance for the height.

Um, that was was indeed important.

Um I'm here today.

I'm also kind of representing my neighbors.

The last time I came, I brought a petition signed by 10 neighbors who live in on adjacent streets.

And the petition was to deny both both variances.

So I'm here today to ask for denial of the variance for the living material space.

Um the developers, thank you, the developers um booklet here.

Um in tab four.

I'm sorry, right at the front.

I'm lost.

Just hold here with me for a moment.

Um you can see at the table of contents in the front, there's a um a rendering of the building.

Um, quite a lot of that rendering, if that's how it's going to be built, is is a lot of hardscape.

Um, so I don't understand with you know that it's necessary to have that much hardscape in there when they're already um herding for space.

So um as designed, the request the living material area only meets the ordinance by 54 percent.

All right, so when I look at that, I could be wrong.

73 percent of the surface area is gonna be roof or some kind of hardscape or the driveway.

Um I think if you look at tab four, you can see how much of the lot is going to be drive in order to accommodate four residences.

Um frankly, I think that as I stated last time I was here, um the developer has you know all the right in the world to maximize profit, but they're trying to squeeze a structure into a space that's just not gonna accept it.

If I was gonna do root cause analysis, I would say the root cause for the request is blatantly designing a building that's just not gonna fit in the space.

Therefore, we're here to ask for they're here to ask for that variance.

Um I don't see that it was really um in good faith to design a building that large, it's already going to outsize uh the other homes in the area.

Um, and it's not gonna be to the advantage of of the neighbors.

Another important item I want to bring up is that this lot is elevated from the rest of the block quite a bit.

Um for me, my home is on New York Street.

I live at a on a low point in the street, so I have a I have a sewer opening in front of my house when it storms, all the water runs in pools in front of my home.

A big concern of mine is now we're gonna have as I calculate 73% of this lot is gonna be either roof or hardscape that water has to run off of.

I don't I don't know where it's gonna go, but I don't want it to pool at my house.

And I don't know if that's in the plan.

When I look in the alley, I don't see any sort of like sewer openings, but where this driveway opens up to the alley, and mind you it's elevated, it's all gonna end up down by my house and the other houses around me.

And that's a real concern for many reasons.

And that's that's all I have today.

I'll yield the rest of my time.

Thank you, sir.

Anyone else would like to speak in in remonstrance to the petition, please come forward, state your name and address for the record and start your testimony.

Hello again, Carla Romero, 332 North Elder Avenue.

I am a neighbor um of Stringtown, and I brought the letter from another neighbor, Jesse Baum, which you each have a copy of.

I don't know that you've had a chance to look through it.

Um, but I'll just give you a quick summary.

I won't read word for word because it's kind of lengthy.

Um Jesse Baum is stating that, and I wholeheartedly agree, and actually, let me just before I read the letter.

Um they receive letters from the neighborhood association and other neighbors.

I want to make the observation that the neighborhood association is run by non-neighors, and that's a huge concern for us.

The leadership changed in the last couple of months, so I think that's reflected here.

Um excuse me.

Um the building really what it's doing, it's really harming the overall like historical um and affordable, you know, structure of what it is today.

Um, it is really just out of step of what neighbors need and want.

Um, one of the big things that we observed from the plans was that there would be a requirement to work on the alley that they mentioned as well, and that cost would be put on the city, right?

They as they mentioned.

Um, we have alleys all throughout Stringtown that are in such disrepair, to the point where one of our neighbors had to fill in an alley with gravel themselves so that kids could play there and not we called it the New York Street um pond.

I don't know if they have heard of it or anyone else.

Um, but it was finally filled in, so those kids wouldn't have to keep playing around this quote unquote pond.

So it's very concerning to us neighbors who actually live there to think again.

I won't get into the technical stuff that Richard covered, it's not really our side of things.

Um, but you know, to see how we as neighbors are not being uh taken seriously when we use Request Indy when we use these resources that we're told to use, um, and you know, somebody comes along with a lot more money, and and you know, rightfully so, you know, an investment that seems like it's gonna bring progress and such, but progress for who is what we're thinking.

It's not gonna be for stringtown neighbors.

Um, and we're not going anywhere.

So that's a big part of that.

Um there's also a very dire public health crisis in our community that is not being addressed, and if we put another large apartment building like this, it's just gonna exacerbate it.

Um, and I'll make reference to the Mare Indy article that came out a month and a half ago that discusses the near west and west side just air quality concerns, and those are directly in our neighborhood.

Um again, more things that are ignored, but we need to address these things before we continue to develop on top of the issues, is how we feel.

Umpounding these air quality concerns is the fact that on this corner there was a gas station from the 1930s to the 1970s.

Um I'm not sure that this has been addressed at all in the papers.

I didn't see anything, but we let me read this because I I don't I don't know this exactly.

Jesse says before any development can be considered, we urge the board to require a comprehensive phase two environmental size site assessment to be completed and made public, ensuring all contamination is fully remediated before construction begins.

Again, just another one of those concerns that are top of mind.

This is not just coming from Jesse and myself, these are several neighbors.

We've spoken to Richard, and just to re-emphasize the Stringtown neighborhood association is one neighborhood association.

We represent Stringtown now.

We created this association as a response to what's happening with the non-neighbors in the other association.

So just to add that for these reasons and others that are in the letter, um, we strongly urge the board to deny the requested variances and reject this proposal.

Thank you all so much for your time.

I yield my time.

Thanks.

Um, any questions for the remonstrators from members of the board?

We have no questions.

All right.

Um we'll go ahead to comments from staff.

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

Um as the petitioner noted, they have removed the for the fourth floor of the proposed structures and have reduced the height to 40 feet, as we've heard at this point.

Um that variance is no longer needed.

The only variance that they are seeking today is the reduced living materials in the front yard.

Um also, as the petitioner noted, this site uh has been vacant since our aerial injuries uh noting 1970s.

Um zone D8, located within the regional center, secondary zoning district, and um proposal calls for four units in total on site.

Staff generally finds the lot to be abnormal for typical D eight shape and size.

Usually that's a rectangular lot.

Staff does find that one, they do have practical petitioner does have practical difficulty for meeting the 50% mark for living materials in the front yard due to the site's shape and topography change towards the rear of the site.

And also staff would note generally the standard requiring 50% living material in the front yard is there to promote landscaping beautification, enhance aesthetics of our city's neighborhoods.

Staff generally finds that the proposal meets the spirit of those standards as uh the submitted landscape plan is showing approximately 31 trees to be planted as well as four large trees.

Um staff would note that currently there are no fit there is no finished landscaping on site and has been vacant for uh about 50 years.

And so therefore, given the degree of practical difficulty as well as the improvement that staff finds this proposal to represent, uh staff is unopposed to the request uh for the reduced living materials and can answer any questions that the board may have.

Alright, any questions for staff members of the board?

Yes.

Um this petition that we're looking at right now is purely for the percentage of living material for the front yard.

What is the front yardage qualified as in the property of this shape?

You mean based on what they're proposing?

Oh well, I mean how it's written is comprising the front yard.

So that would be any space in front of the front building line.

In front of the building line itself.

And then how does that differ from the percentage of green space required on the property for development?

So this is the overall open space requirement.

That's just uh any space that's not structure, so that would include any rear or side yards as well as any front yards.

And so, and this might be a question for uh for someone else, but what is the amount of open space on this property as the site plan shows?

That's a very like detective question there, but would love to have that percentage.

I might need a few moments to calculate, or if the petitioner knows offhand, but I can try to pin down a number for you.

We can come back to you, Mr.

Stern.

I've got a question too, but I think I can uh Mr.

O'Neill might be able to answer it.

Um the green portion of the site that is not in the right-of-way, but between the curb of the street, the side and the sidewalk, and then the sidewalk and the right-of-way, is that included in calculating this uh the this uh livable or green space?

Mr.

O'Neill.

So you're talking about green space that's in the right-of-way but outside of the property line?

Correct.

Uh that would not be taken into calculation because that's not always guaranteed to be there, so we go based off what we're doing.

Just on the site.

Okay, yes, uh, strictly on site, um, but just to clarify something that's kind of a frequent misunderstanding with the ordinance, the open space is not a green space calculation, it is merely lot area versus structures that either have a building or have structures greater than 18 inches.

Okay, so it doesn't require that the green space, but the open space is permeable land.

Correct.

Okay.

Um the landscaping elements are gonna be the minimum requirement within the front yard as well as your street frontage trees that are required one per 35 feet of front.

Thank you for that clarification.

Um the continuing on with my question, it appears as though the assuming this is oriented north, the easternmost building in the site is set almost directly on the right-of-way, so it would would would that mean that it doesn't really even have a front yard?

So it would would would that mean that it doesn't really even have a front yard?

Beyond that, the other building is within probably eight or nine feet of the front, the right of way.

So I'm trying to decide like how do you determine how much front yard there is to get 50% of it.

And this is an awkward site, by the way.

I love the any triangular site is always a pain in the butt, I know.

So pretty much the entirety of what's going to be considered the frontage is that negligible space that's along the western building as well as what wraps around that elbow leading into the other building.

Looks like it would roughly follow what that line with the squares.

Um okay.

And then set intervals are.

And you're still not able to get to 50%.

It seems like there's there's very little front yard to deal with, first of all.

And it's like how do you even get with having to have entrances to the the structures themselves?

I'm not even sure how you get to how do you got to the calculation for that matter?

I mean, we're not talking about a lot of space here.

And then do you did you take into consideration the side yards?

Because the side yards seem to be pretty pretty open.

When you say take into consideration side yards, yeah, the spaces between the buildings, the two buildings, and then the space directly to the south of the of the building on the east side of the site.

That was is that considered part of the front yard as well.

By definition, no, since that'd be beyond the front building line of the two the two structures.

Okay.

So when we're talking about 27 percent versus 50 percent, we're how many square feet are we short in this case.

Uh apologies we're checking one or two things.

Okay.

So in terms of the figure approximation, the actual filing was specifically listed for 27 percent.

So we would defer to uh the applicant on how they got to that figure, but on top of you know streetscape allowing for landscaping to offset urban heat island effect, another element that we do factor into our recommendation, not necessarily what we notice at is how much of the property does have landscaping on it, and also what is the proximity to kind of public recreational facilities and in the area, and and staff would just note that this is directly across the street from the central right river trail, uh, which runs parallel to the White River along its western bank.

Thank you, Mr.

O'Neill.

All right.

Let's move on to uh rebuttal period.

Petitioner, you have five minutes of rebuttal.

Thank you.

And I wish I had the exact calculations that you've requested off the top of my head, but I I don't unfortunately, but I guess uh just to make a few comments on that.

So I think Eddie did kind of clarify that the calculation does not include that significant green space that is the south uh eastern end of the um of the site.

And so um I believe that the 27% calculation would have been just the area that fronts uh York Street and not the area that fronts uh White River.

So as an overall proposition, there is a significant amount of green space on the site.

There was a comment from Mr.

DeFour about what's shown in the rendering, the hardscape.

Um that's a good point.

Um the hardscape's not shown on the landscape plan, but that's something that developers certainly should take into account and try to increase the amount of permeable um permeable surface.

So that point is is well taken.

Um Mr.

DeFor also mentioned um concerns regarding drainage as as y'all know the project will have to go through the Department of Neighborhood and Building uh Business and Neighborhood Services drainage review, and we'll have to be able to accommodate any um additional drainage, and we'll have updated drainage, um, likely more improved than or better than what's um currently there.

There was a comment about the alley.

Uh we do recognize the alley is in poor condition and may well need to be improved.

That would be a conversation between uh the Department of Public Works and the developer.

Um if that is required, that's what they'll that is what they'll have to do.

Um there were comments about the environmental conditions on the site.

I mean uh they have to go through the the process of uh investigating um that in order to finance the project.

That's that's uh an absolute requirement.

So that will occur.

I did want to comment on on what was said about the Stringtown Neighborhood Association because it is important to me that that we have worked very hard to communicate with those neighbors that are uh impacted, and it was our understanding that the neighborhood association leadership who we did meet with on site um and talked through the development um was uh supportive of the project, and there was reference to those leaders not being residents of the neighborhood.

I just wanted to point out um tab 10 is the letter from the neighborhood association.

The vice president of that organization is Paul Reagan.

Mr.

Reagan uh his house is immediately to the west at 1509.

If you look at the aerial, his property is adjacent.

We met with him on site, spoke with him about it.

Um so he is a resident of the neighborhood.

I understand he also owns another property on York Street.

Um I understand that um uh Samantha her last name is Samantha Samantha Morgan, who's the treasurer, she also uh is the owner of property at 346 North Elder, which is also in the Stringtown neighborhood, and um uh Frank Staples who uh does consider himself the Stringtown Neighborhood Association historian, at least for my conversations, um, is the owner of property at 348 North Elder in Stringtown.

So we we really did our best to try to communicate, make concessions based upon the concerns that we were hearing most significantly by reducing the building height.

Um we certainly will work on a landscape plan that incorporates as much green space as possible and permeable um surface.

Uh again, uh we think this is a relatively small request.

We recognize that every request in a neighborhood like this is important, not trying to minimize that um, but it's a significant development that petitioner would like to bring to the neighborhood, and with that I'm happy to answer any further questions.

Very well, any other questions for the petitioner?

Go ahead, Mr.

Mr.

Burns.

The courtyard in between the two.

Is that going to be hardscaped like it says it shows in the picture?

Or like it is in paddle.

Well, yeah, and as I mentioned in the in the in the the rendering is one thing, but the the landscape plan uh doesn't show it as hardscape, um, it shows it it shows it as green space.

And I the comment was very well noted and and understanding that there's an interest in trying to create as much permeable green space as possible.

Uh, that is something the developer can certainly uh work on okay, Mr.

Rabina.

Which does that mean that they're going to go with the landscaping plan or with the rendering in ISU?

The landscape plan.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for the petitioner?

No, all right.

I'm sorry, I just wanted to clarify.

So Mr.

Reagan lives at his facility at his home in rents or owns another property by him.

Yeah, two properties.

Ms.

Morgan owns property, but doesn't live within Stringtown.

My understanding is she's a resident at 346 North Elder, which is in Stringtown.

So she resides inside Stringtown.

And then Frank, Mr.

Staples resides in Frankenstein.

My understanding is Frank Staples is an owner of property in Stringtown.

I do not know whether he resides there.

Okay.

All right.

We'll go to you.

You have any time left?

If not.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, all right.

Uh remonstrators, you have five minutes of rebuttal.

Thank you so much.

Um, I just wanted to make a statement regarding the residency of the leadership.

Um, actually, I was the secretary up until apparently Paul Reagan is now.

I was not aware of that.

Um, in fact, Paul Reagan has voted against every single development initiative in the last three months since I've known him, so there's been a very interesting shift there.

Um, Frank Staples lives in Morgan County.

He doesn't live in Marion County.

I don't even think he's a homeowner there.

I think that's something that he tells people.

I just want to make sure that's clarified for everyone.

He does not speak on behalf of the neighbors.

He is not a neighbor, he has never lived in Stringtown.

His sister, I guess, is in the Stringtown Association.

Um, that's Samantha, that is his sister.

I believe she does live there.

So I just wanted to make that statement because I didn't want it to seem like I was just making a blanket statement.

Those are the clarifications.

But again, the president does not live in Stringtown.

I have verified you know, proof of that.

So thank you so much.

Um by the way, I don't believe the other side said that the president lived in Stringtown.

I think they said he owns property in Stringtown.

Oh, can I clarify something then?

As far as I know, he also doesn't own property.

In fact, I checked this prior to this, and not even having to do with this.

His mother owns property.

I believe that's a property his mother owns.

Can you repeat that number?

What was it?

Do you have the property?

Number that he owns 348 North Elder.

Yeah, uh that is his mother's house.

Thank you.

Okay.

Sure.

And I just wanted to add to that conversation.

I had mentioned this in the previous hearing, but um, since it seems that we're taking putting me, perhaps putting some weight in the letters um of support in the packet.

Um, just to remind you, there's a couple of new people here.

Um, people who weren't on the board here last time.

Um, but you'll see that um there's a letter from a Carol Shank.

She is an investor only.

Her husband, her husband was a long-time business partner of Mr.

Lervey.

Um, she does not live in the neighborhood, she just owns an investment property.

There's a letter from a Mr.

Casey Cohen who stated when he was here last time owns 15 properties in the neighborhood.

He does not live in the neighborhood.

Um, as well, I'm overlooking somebody here.

Um, but I just want you to know that if they're putting weight into their um into their support, they are actually not residents of the neighborhood.

They're speaking on behalf of whatever profit they can make off of increasing property values here from this development.

Okay, any questions for the remonstrators from the members of the board.

Uh any any further questions at all?

Staff did want to clarify the the packet that the petitioner handed out, had two commitments on the back page.

The petitioner want those tied to and recorded to the petition.

Yeah, apologies.

We're meant to reference those.

There are two commitments.

One is that the petitioner shall make all reasonable efforts to prevent construction activities from directly impacting the adjacent property.

That's Mr.

Reagan's property.

That was result of our conversation with him.

And then the second one is that we'll work with the neighborhood association in connection with efforts to reclaim a historic alley.

That was the result of meeting out there, and and they asked for our assistance on that.

And so we'd ask that your uh should you well that your vote be conditioned on including those two commitments.

Very well.

Commitments are noted and added to the record.

Um I have a one quick question for staff.

Is the Stringtown Neighborhood Association a registered neighborhood association in Marion County, Indiana?

One second.

I I can tell you that they were on the list of organizations to receive notice.

Okay.

Um, if that answers the question, and I'm working to verify that.

And if they did receive notice, no, then oh, I thought you said no.

Mr.

Onea.

In the specific stringtown neighborhood in in question, can I just get clarity on that?

Yeah.

I mean, is that the registered neighborhood association for Stringtown?

So the Stringtown Neighborhood Association is a registered neighborhood organization with the city of Indianapolis, yes.

Are there any other neighborhood associations registered with the city of Indianapolis?

Uh there for Stringtown now.

For Stringtown now, yeah.

And that's its name, Stringtown Now.

I believe now you may come forward.

Sorry, I can't.

I can only come.

I'm I'm very like I thought I was being told to come forward.

I apologize.

Yes, it is registered.

I just wanted to confirm now.

Stringtown now is registered.

Very well, thank you.

Thank you.

I don't see any other registered neighborhood organizations, at least not on the surrounding property on our list with the name Stringtown in it.

So correct.

They may have registered with the city between the time after it had filed and now, but at the time of application, there was not a string town now neighborhood organization.

Ms.

Romero, please come forward.

Did you just recently register?

Is that why we're not able to find it?

It was about two months ago.

Okay, so you probably registered just after they had filed, so you weren't on there to getcha.

Okay.

It's Mr.

Romero, by the way.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, your first name was Carla.

I I is that what you said when you came forward?

Okay, sorry about that.

Um any other questions?

And cast our ballots.

On case 2025-DV2-016, Patrice Ducket Brown votes no.

James Duke votes yes, Craig Von Dalen votes yes, Tom Barnes votes yes, and Beth Brandon votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Thank you, and call the next case.

Case number two zero two five-dv2-028 property address 415 South Oxford Street.

Center Township Council District Number 18, zoned D5.

The petitioner, petitioners, plural, are Bob and Cindy Grigsby represented by Mark and Kim Crouch.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a detached garage addition with a one and a half foot north side yard setback.

Five feet required.

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

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

We do.

Okay, ready.

Here today representing the Grigsby's on their residence uh rental property at the currently at 415 South Oxford Street.

During the attempted sale of their property, uh they had notice that during the construction, uh the contractor did not obtain a building or permit for the garage structure.

Uh they had renovated the entire house and added the addition when this came to their attention, uh not from any violation on their own.

They contacted us about acquiring and going through the process of obtaining a building permit for them, which we did.

Uh that during that process, the city uh decided that it does not meet the current uh side yard setback.

Um so we applied for the the variance to try to correct the situation.

Um it is currently it measures by photograph.

We don't have a survey, but the improvements of the existing garage that they added on to has been there before probably the zoning ordinance.

That I had at three foot.

When we take the measurement of the garage that was constructed, it comes to approximately one foot five.

The physical measurement is uh 22 inches, so we didn't seek to we're not seeking to improve it or extend it, uh basically to retain it.

Uh so I left that in the petition as the 1.5 inches.

But if you were to go out there and measure, it's it's 22 inches.

Um I have just gotten back from vacation.

Uh apologies uh to my clients, but I had they had received through a continuance uh letters of support from the neighbor uh that's mostly affected by this variance to the north, which I have to do to give to the record today.

Um I have a letter of uh support from the neighbor to the south and a neighbor across the street.

Additionally, they had reached out to uh the city county uh council woman Christian uh Jones.

Uh she we signed in for her today at her request, but she hasn't been able to make it due to her schedule.

Uh she had indicated that she would be here to speak in support, but I don't want to speak for her on that.

Uh I the clients reached out to her directly.

You could uh possibly inquire of them as to that conversation.

But she had indicated to them that she would be here today for the previous case and this one uh for her support.

Um staff I recommended denial for this.

We weren't able to get them, they don't want to support something that appeared to be a blatant disrespect.

But my clients thought that they hired, thought that they were protected.

The house went through inspections, the city inspector was there for all those, but somehow the the building permit for the garage never got uh obtained.

So if they could I interrupt you real quick.

So they managed to get inspections from the city of Indianapolis, but there was never a building permit filed for the so okay.

Go go on.

I'm the same.

And in 2022, it was a little bit of an issue with inspectors not showing up or being short, and with not having a permit for a garage, it could have been the situation would have just been a slab.

Wouldn't it be I'm gonna interrupt you again?

Sorry, Mr.

Crouch.

So were these electrical and plumbing inspections that require a different permit than a general structural permit?

So they received, or were they getting putting in foundation and then also structural um framing and inspections?

So the the house went through all of those inspections, all of the subcontractor inspections, and and that was during the process of the garage being constructed, which was uh because of needing more space on the site for the construction vehicles.

It hadn't been constructed other than the slab.

Okay.

So it could have been that they just oversight on the slab, but the owners thought that they were doing the right thing.

They have a permit for the house that went through all the inspections that was closed out.

They hired us to do drawings once they realized there was an issue to try to correct the situation.

I think staff reasonably that they're not supporting it because they don't want to feel like they're setting a precedent to support somebody doing something that you know is against the rules.

Had they known that they needed the variants, I think they would have came forward, we would have we would have made a case.

The heart and and pro possibly you guys would have agreed to it.

The the hardship for the area is parking.

This is a two-car structure that was added.

The existing car garage is kind of more of a a potter shed or a small garage, not really suitable for a car.

It's uh block, so it's a significant structure.

So adding this addition, which is framed, uh give them a two-car functional two-car garage for a total of three three cars parking for the space, which is more than required uh for the area, and I think it's a uh a nice feature for the area.

And the comments from the neighbors, they're appreciating that their property values were increased in the quality of the construction that they were happy with.

We've had no complaints from the city.

I had warned them that once we filed for the building permit, they would probably jump on the bandwagon and start issuing violations, but they haven't decided to do that, which is fantastic.

Usually they're they're quick to make a few bucks on that.

So we're asking for you guys to approve this.

Um I want to leave them time to for their testimony.

If Kristen would show up, that would be fantastic.

I don't know of any other remonstrators uh other than staff.

Um the neighbor to the north, they do have some issues with the some of the conditions of the property and their use is superior to ours.

And then additionally, I like to state that we're not seeking any other open space requirement.

Staff made comments about we're overdeveloping it, which we we are closer to the side yard at that point.

The existing garage is at three, it's existing and grandfathered.

So it's actually below that five foot, which in my opinion is excessive in a downtown situation, but that's another another story.

But I'd be happy to answer any questions, and if they'd like to speak, I'm happy to let them say what they may, or you can ask any questions of us all.

Okay, Mr.

Crunch.

I believe you got some time left if they'd like to say anything.

I thank you guys very much.

Everybody's name and address for the record.

Oh, sorry, Robert Grigsby address is 1106 Ban Avenue.

Everybody who speaks before before me sounds so official.

I I don't have that vocabulary, so I just kind of want to speak to you from my heart.

Um, my wife and I, we fell in love with the near east side, uh, especially when the community just center was coming.

We thought we won't be a part of this.

So we found this location, it was infested.

They had to have people come clean it out.

We decided to buy it and clean it up, make it our home.

Uh so we hired a general contractor and we went through the whole process.

We got permits on everything, drainage permit, electric permit, plumbing permit, HVAC permit, structure permit.

He was just going through the whole process, doing a great job.

So there's a level of trust with him.

We originally put in a permit request for a carriage house, and we realized our funds were not there.

Uh so we asked him to rechange that and submit for just a basic garage.

He said, Done.

Uh so we are under the impression that that was done because he had done everything else.

They actually put in the footers and poured the concrete, and the contractor came back and said, Hey, we are short, we're too close to the fence line.

So we actually paid additional funds to have them break up that concrete.

I had photos on my phone.

The footers that originally put there are outside the garage wall.

We were trying everything we could to stay off our our neighbors' line.

So we actually, like I said, had that concrete poured up, pulled pulled up, redug the uh footers.

So we we were trying to follow everything to the nth degree.

Um we decided to sell the house after a couple years.

We we still love the house, love the neighborhood.

My wife is a registered licensed broker, and she listed the house uh as a um what's it called when you have to give the information the declosure this disclosures?

Uh she said yeah, we're up to code 100%.

So we got an offer on the house and we started getting closer to uh inspections and was brought to our attention, was not up to code.

We said no big deal, we'll get that fixed.

So we actually brought it to the city's attention.

Uh we were not trying to hide anything.

We thought this is gonna be a piece of cake.

Uh so we brought it to your attention.

We just wanted to fix it and put these people in the home.

We found out it was going to drag on rather than make the buyers drag on.

We decided, hey, let's just let them out of this contract and and let's just get this resolved.

So I really want the board to understand we're we're not trying to be fishy.

We love the neighborhood, love the house.

We've done everything we can up to this point to do everything properly.

Um we did get letters from neighbors on either side and across the street, and like uh Mark mentioned, the one on the north side is the most affected.

She gave the most heartfelt letters, probably three paragraphs.

She absolutely loves the house.

She's been there since 2018, is thrilled with what we've done with the house.

So they're the ones most closely affected.

Um, and lastly, like you mentioned, reiterating Christian Jones did.

We spoke to her for about 20 minutes on the phone, she was completely in support, said she would be here, asked me to sign her in because she was gonna be late.

Um so I'm not sure why she's not here.

Um and then the last thing, it just to make sure we're clear on this.

Uh at the time we were building this, my understanding per our contractor is the setback had to be three feet.

Uh, we we thought we were all in there, at least I that was my understanding.

I wasn't out there with the tape measurized pan and got to do this.

I understand since then the code has changed to five feet.

Well, obviously, we're hoping to be grandfathered in.

All that said, we are literally per the old code, 12 and a half inches off.

12 and a half inches.

And we're gonna have to, if if what they want us to do, we're gonna have to tear this wall down on this garage, and for the second time, tear up the concrete.

I own a small business, it's just the two of us, we're not investors.

This comes out of our pocket, and it's a huge hit.

And I know that's not a reason to waive the rules as it were, but basically we're just throwing ourselves at your mercy and saying we we've tried everything to do everything properly, and we just hope you'll hear it our way.

Thank you, sir.

All right.

Any is there anyone else with in are your time up?

You're good.

I'm good unless you have something for me.

I love I love talking.

We have any we have any questions for the petitioner?

None.

All right.

Uh is there anyone else in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 DV2-028 with an address of 415 South Oxford Street?

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

Stern.

Thank you.

Uh Chairman Von Dale and members of the board.

Uh as noted in the report, staff is recommending denial of the request for 1.5 foot side setback side yard setback.

Um five is the requirement.

Uh subject site zone D5 single family residence uh is is in existence on the site.

Um as we know, the structure was billed without obtaining the required permits.

Um since then they have applied for those permits.

Uh those permit numbers are in the staff report.

Uh at which point DBNS Department of Business and Neighborhood Services indicated that their building needs variances, uh, that is why they are here.

Um to to put it simply, staff is not going to recommend approval of structures that did not obtain proper permits and need variances.

Uh staff does not find it to be good building practice, nor to be good precedent on our end to recommend approval.

Um also would note that part of that is if they go through the process in the correct order, uh the permit office would flag their proposal and tell them to revise, and there's a good chance that they wouldn't have needed to come here in the first place.

Um if this petitioner or other petitioners go through the process correctly, a lot of these situations are very much avoidable.

Um beyond that, the the site is of sufficient lot width and lot area, so there's not really practical difficulty in terms of granting of needing the variance.

Um vehicular space per site is per site is required.

Um, so it's not some a situation where they're needing to do something that's required by ordinance and can't do it, they're adding beyond what is required.

Uh, and so that said, staff doesn't find there to be practical difficulty, nor to be good precedent to recommend approval of structures that have not received permits and can't answer any questions the board might have.

Very well.

Any questions from the board for the member of staff?

Okay, I have one.

It seems like the crux of the biscuit on this whole thing is the permit.

Uh petitioner claims they they did file for permits.

Evidently, their the structural permit was not obtained or not clear, and then they did have inspections during the construction.

Could you find any evidence that there were permits filed for during the initial construction of the garage?

Uh well, I don't know exactly when those permits were opened, but they currently have they don't have a status of approved or issued that's currently open or under review.

So they even if they had applied for a permit, they weren't issued it.

Right, but I mean perhaps there was a clerical mistake and they did apply for a permit in 2022, and for some reason we don't have a record of that.

I assume you asked the petitioner whether or not they could provide some sort of documentation to that effect, correct?

I don't have indication of 2022 filings.

Um I could take a look, but I would need to check see what that makes a big difference on this whole argument.

I'm looking at the uh permit history for this site in a seller, and it's showing that they initially went for a structural permit in April, specifically April 12th of 2022, at which point it was held for lack of compliance with several uh building code issues as well as not seeking an improvement location permit, uh, but that an improvement location permit was filed for the property for a garage adventure a garage edition on May 10th of 2022, um, which was held put on hold for several reasons.

Um but the key note that staff would make here is that both of these permit application dates uh would have been after the uh November 2021 date that the walkable neighborhood district standards uh would have gone into effect.

Okay, but there does do appear to have been an attempt in 2022 to file for and receive a structural permit and an improvement location permit for this garage, and but it was never released.

It was never released, and it looks like the building was already under construction once uh before the holds were placed.

And the ILP in 2022 makes note of side setbacks not being met, and that was in the top.

And that was in the 2022 iteration.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh any other questions for staff?

All right.

You get your rebuttal period.

What I got one.

Okay, wait, we got one for the petitioner, so I will do that.

And then we'll start your rebuttal period.

Go ahead, Mr.

Barnes.

On the side of your garage that was there before.

You had one and a half feet before the garage wall to the neighbor.

It looks like from the earth that you've just given that land to the neighbor.

I mean he he has a garden there or something.

There's a photo that shows that back corner.

It looks like they have some type of a greenhouse that they built over, but the fence was never moved.

The fence comes in to the garage.

Yeah, and well, actually, it measures at the garage that at the back wall of that garage on that right side of that photo that's up now on the screen, 22 inches.

Oh okay.

But the math comes out to one and a half feet.

So I went with the math versus the physical because sometimes homeowner puts up a fence that's not necessarily the property line.

Right, but the piece of fence beside the garage there denies you access area and the neighbors taking care of it.

Correct.

So you won't mind.

No, no, I'm okay.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Uh that little let's call it a two-foot fence on the side of the garage there, that is just keeping people from the alley coming down our side of the garage.

That's actually our property.

Okay.

Right.

So we we did not secede any property, we did not take any of their property line.

Um, like I said, you you know, downtown nearest side, we have a lot of alley people.

Uh and so we just wanted to kind of keep our our neighborhood safe there.

Can I just kind of get a clarification on your question regarding our permit request?

Uh we'll we'll cut yeah, go ahead.

I'll grant it.

No, that's okay.

Yeah, no, I and just my and again, this is my understanding.

We we paid a general contractor, we're paying him tons of money.

I'm not involved in this stuff.

Um the reason we found out that there was a problem is when we got this house under contract a few months ago.

The people who were gonna buy it decided to check out that they're from out of state, they want to make sure everything is done properly, and they found out on their system our still open structure request from 2022, and they said, Hey, do you know you're still got this open permit sitting out here?

No, we had no clue.

And that's how it was brought to our attention.

All right.

Well, I got you there.

Do you have any records printouts of the permit from the original construction or anything from that that indicates that you're not?

I I don't.

My wife usually keeps that, but I will tell you this.

I know that they have it because the people who are gonna buy the house, they actually went to their website and pulled off our original structural plans for the carriage house and emailed.

I understand that, but that's part of the application process.

What I'm looking for is you had mentioned you had posted permits on your property during the construction period.

Yes, sir.

Do you have any copies of those?

Because when you receive a posted permit, that indicates at least to you that you probably have received a permit.

But do you have any of those documents?

In regards specifically to the garage or to any of them, even for the house electrical department.

Just the garage.

Do we still have those?

Yeah, okay.

I apologize.

I I don't know that we do.

Thank you.

That answers my question.

Mr.

Uh, you have five minutes of rebuttal.

So in my opinion, uh if I can throw it in there, I think what happened.

You get five minutes of rebuttal, so go for it.

Don't introduce any new evidence.

Uh okay.

I think some of the issue with the carriage house was there's some what high tension wires or wires that go to the house, and that would have required an additional setback of seven to ten feet from power and light.

And I think my gut feeling is what happened as he moved forward and then realized, oh my goodness, we can't get this, and that's and then they got left in the middle, and he kind of disappeared.

So I don't feel like they did anything nefarious to try to get this garage built.

Um that's one point.

And then the other one with staff's comments about being able to reconstruct it.

You could reconstruct it, it would be a five-foot side yard at this point.

Uh or uh, but it would we would lose that additional car parking.

That's a 16-foot overhead door.

It has about a foot and a half on both sides.

There wouldn't be enough room to readjust that door and have the six inches we required on the inside to have that happen.

So it would reduce a parking space at a significant cost.

Uh the and then so I think that would be a hardship.

Uh maybe not because of uh they don't deserve one, but we I think that is a definitely a hardship on them to have to go to an additional expense.

Who we're harming on the on this is the neighbor to the north potentially, or fire access.

We do have the three foot on the other side for access, so I I don't think that's an issue.

And I think the neighborhood in general would appreciate the the three cars parking versus what would now be a two-car parking and a and a side yard.

But we meet the green space or the open space, so we're not affecting any type of a drainage situation.

Um I have in the past gotten variances for detached garages down to zero in Fountain Square.

So I know it's not normal to come in after the fact, but because they weren't professionals, they should have known the law.

They felt like the contractor had done it.

There's a little bit of discrepancy because most people didn't expect there to be two permits.

It's usually a permit.

City started charging for two permits a few years back for additional revenues, which I understand that, but so there's a little miscommunication or misunderstanding there.

So what we're asking for is it to not be expanded.

They're not looking for that, they're not looking for to get away with anything.

They just want to keep the improvements that are are there that are fantastic.

Uh open up the permit, add them to the tax role for the citizen uh and move forward.

Uh with that, we'd happy to answer any questions, and we would we pray for your support.

I have uh one additional question.

Is the contractor that built this project still in business and licensed as a licensed contractor in Marion County, Indianapolis, Indiana?

I believe he is, but he's not working any longer.

His entire crew is gone and he's not still a contractor, a licensed and insured in bonded contract.

I haven't spoken to him, sir, and probably about about this in about three years, two years.

Um my understanding through the grapevine is it's under his father's name now.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Any other questions of petitioner member staff?

All right, we guess our ballots.

On case 2025-DV2-028.

Beth Brandon votes yes, Tom Barnes votes no.

Craig Von Dalen votes yes, James Duke votes yes, and Patrice Duckett Brown votes yes.

Variance is granted.

Thank you.

Appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Case number 2025-DV2-040 property address 6115 North Park Avenue, Washington Township, Council District Number 7, zoned D4 TOD.

The petitioners are John and Kelly Deal, represented by Brent Bennett.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of an attached garage with a zero-foot north side yard setback, five feet required.

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

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

I do.

My name is Brent Bennett.

Uh mailing address of PO box 155, Fisher's Indiana.

I'm with ASAP.

I'm here representing John and Kelly Deal on their property.

Uh they are doing it the right way.

No hammers or shovels have been started on this project yet.

Uh what we're doing here is it's a little bit of a different thing.

This isn't a developer, this isn't someone trying to move on.

He's lived here in this house for 14 years.

He's trying to make this house fit his family.

So he's trying to do an addition.

Uh if you look at the house on the side of the house, there's a garage.

That garage is basically within a foot of the setback of the house right now.

That footer for that house, that garage wouldn't be able to hold what we're trying to build.

So we're going to tear down that garage to rebuild what we want to build.

And that's putting in a better footer, and there'll be an upstairs portion of that in the back.

Also, there'll be a garage in the back making a street access from the back alley.

And therefore, the he's wanting to keep the drive on the garage on the front just for the access of that.

Uh, I don't think he actually parks a car in there at the current size of it.

I don't think you could get a car into it, but it's more of a lawnmower's bicycles on the kids' stuff with the sidewalk with this driveway to the sidewalk and whatnot.

Him and his wife currently are parking on the street, so this would have them moving around to the back and parking in the back of the property.

So we're asking for a zero setback on this just because it's what is existing.

The house was originally built, I think, in 35.

I believe the garage addition may be somewhere in the 80s.

So stuff's been here for a bit.

And uh basically we're just asking for that setback to make this what they're wanting to build.

And I will ask uh John Nickwappen.

He can tell you more what he's wanting to do with it, what he's wanting to build.

Good name and address through record, please.

Hi, my name's John Deal, 6115 North Park Avenue.

Um, my wife Kelly Deal is the other property owner on it.

We've lived there for 14 years.

We bought a place back in 2011.

Um since then, we've had two kids.

The house currently is a two-bedroom, one bath.

Um, and we've looked at lots of other houses in the area to hopefully get to a four-bedroom house.

And in Broadway, it's it's pretty expensive.

So hence we are now doing the remodel route.

Um we have an existing detached garage that I I think I sent Marty a picture of and Noah picture of the at least the side of it, which which I think is the gist of where we started.

So we originally started with our neighbors um stating that we're gonna do the remodel, the neighbors specifically to the north, which is Jim and Carol.

I think you guys have also got a letter of support for those guys.

If you don't, I've got copies of it here.

Okay, do you?

I I we'll get to staff and we'll ask them.

Staff, do you have letters of support from the neighbor on this project?

Uh I am in receipt of those.

I don't have printouts of those.

But sorry, there are letters of support.

All right, the petitioner has them.

Um if you have five copies, you can distribute it to them to us, but give them to the secretary, he'll handle them.

Gotcha.

It's an existing block garage.

Yeah, I should I wait.

Yeah.

Um so we're talking with them and saying, hey, we'd like to replace this.

Um we'd like to put hardy board siding here and windows, and they said that sounds great.

Um that's essentially the gist of what we've got.

We'd the original thought was to put I don't know if you kind of can look at Google Earth, the garage, the detached garage in our house, the the wall adjoining essentially, if we were going out the back of the house where we're planning on going, creates a watershed issue with the garage.

So the shed roof was gonna was our first thought.

So take the keep the existing garage and put a shed roof all the way up, which would now add a whole bunch more asphalt or shingles and have them still be looking at a block garage.

So that's when our contractor came up with the idea of saying, hey, let's put a gabled roof out that side.

Um it'll be much better look, and also keep the kind of broad ripple style of the house.

So I I think in the plan set, the front of the house sort of shows our two existing dormers, and then that third dormer, that's that's a new piece that would be on top of the garage if that makes sense.

Got it.

Yeah.

So we're we're we're really are trying our best to let's say keep the look at Broad Ripple, but just make it a couple extra bedrooms to sustain our family.

And I've got a three-year-old and a one-year-old, if that matters at all.

It's definitely May.

May matter.

Um questions for the petitioner from members of the board.

All right.

Uh, is there anyone else in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 DV2-040 with an address of 6115 North Park Avenue?

None being seen.

We'll get a comments from staff.

Thank you yes.

Uh, thank you, Chairman Von Dalen, members of the board.

Um, as noted in the report, staff is recommending denial of the petition.

Uh staff is grateful that the petitioner is going through the process in the correct order uh this time around.

Um that said, um, staff is recommending denial and is concerned about uh the proposal as it currently stands.

Uh the subject site zone D4.

Uh the single family residence and the detached garage that are there currently were constructed uh in approximately 1935 according to the property card.

The uh primary residence is currently located approximately 12 feet from the north property line, while the detached garage is approximately zero feet.

It's it's on the property line essentially.

Um that zero foot side yard setback is legally non-conforming as it was built prior to the relevant standards.

The residence also contains a one vehicle garage that is attached to the primary residence and is accessed via accessed via the rear alley.

The property is approximately 51.5 feet in width, which is 8.5 feet less than the D4 standard to 60 feet.

Additionally, staff would note that while structures with legally not legally non-conforming setbacks can exist in in their non-conforming matter.

New construction such as this is required to meet current standards.

That's why they're here for the variance.

Staff is uh pretty concerned by this proposal as it relates to the adjacent property to the north.

Uh per the submitted elevations, this proposal calls for a two-story addition to that zero foot setback, um, which would be both taller and longer than the current structure is now.

And uh staff would uh draw your attention to the site photos in the staff report.

I believe those are on page 91.

Um just for more context and a better understanding of what's being proposed.

Uh there you can see the current detached garage uh sitting behind the primary residence and the residence to the north, which is the left of the photo.

The addition to this primary residence would sit at approximately that same uh wall, the the left wall of the detached garage in the photo, and would be almost as tall as the primary structure is now.

It would it would be a little shorter, but it would be adding uh both height and length to that structure essentially, um, which is on the property line.

So that is what's being proposed and would be almost as tall as the houses currently.

Uh so staff does believe that this would severely overwhelm and overshadow the adjacent property to the north.

Um staff finds that building the primary residence up to the side property line to be inappropriate, uh, especially for this area being D4, where essentially all of the homes are detached and by definition have side setbacks away from the side property lines.

Uh staff does not believe that this proposal is uh consistent with the infill housing guidelines.

And uh while staff does note that this lot is slightly deficient in lot width, as mentioned previously.

Staff does not find there there to be sufficient practical difficulty that warrants constructing an addition to the primary building up against the side property line as is proposed here.

Um the findings sort of indicate that the detached garage containing that zero foot side yard setback is that that staff does not find that to be practical difficulty for this new construction.

Um also would note that this does not allow the petitioner to build the primary structure with that same setback.

That's why they need this variance.

Umise staff does not believe that the deficiency precludes the petitioner from constructing an addition that is in compliance with the ordinance and believes that that is possible and therefore does not believe that the grant of this variance to be necessary, and uh does not find that the findings are sufficiently met, and therefore staff does recommend denial and does suggest that the petitioner revise the proposed plans to allow for an addition that does meet uh current side setback standards and and can't answer any question the board might have.

Thank you, Mr.

Stern.

Any questions for staff from members of the board?

It doesn't look like there are any, although everybody's looking at the plans pretty thoroughly.

That's good.

All right.

Move on to the uh rebuttal period for the petitioner.

You have five minutes of rebuttal from the staff's argument against opposing your or opposing your uh variants.

Okay.

Okay.

Um it might be difficult to see from that picture, but the garage what I would say south wall and my house north wall are aligned.

That that that's my construction, or that's what our contractor said that's the construction issue is um is building an addition onto the back of the house isn't possible with the garage sitting where it's at.

Um from the inflow or excuse me, the infill rules.

I apologize.

We don't plan on going further into the property line.

Meaning, isn't we're not going any further from where the garage is at?

So so I don't I don't I'm not changing any access to the backyard.

If anything, I'm hopefully I'm helping it because I'm adding a driveway and the back.

Um, and from the height requirement, they're 100% right.

It is going to be taller.

Actually, it's gonna be the height of the second story, which was a discussion that we had with that north neighbor, and said, hey, FYI, this is a big chunk of roof now that goes up to the shed.

What are your thoughts and ideas?

And they were for the gable side, so I don't know if that's pros or cons.

Okay.

Got it.

Anything else?

Uh do you have a question?

Go ahead.

Um, so the length of wall that would be at the zero foot setback is the same length of wall that you have at present time with your garage.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

So you're not increasing that at all.

I'm not increasing that no, we don't go any further past the garage.

All right.

Existing garage.

Go ahead, Ms.

Barnes.

The overhang on the side of the garage.

Is that over the neighbor's property?

Um it's not really an overhang.

We don't if you look at the garage really closely, the the overhang is essentially the gutter.

I have to get on the neighbor's property to clean out our gutter, if that makes sense.

There's not an um I'm a commercial button.

Yeah, but I think Mr.

Barnes' question might be on the new cons.

Are you talking about on the new construction?

Okay, on the new construction, you're flying the Eve out, looks like about eight inches.

Is that over the property line or is that where the property line will be?

That is where the property line I'm pretty positive it'll be.

Okay.

We didn't get survey from what our discussions is with a couple different neighbors.

We've had lots of talks about the group and the facts.

Is that retaining wall on the north side?

The project the one between us and Jim is technically our property.

Um, and that retaining wall then goes if you were gonna follow that all the way to the alley, it could go on the other side of our existing garage.

Yeah, because we talked about replacement of that retaining wall in Jim's.

I would just suggest if you get this variance, which is still up in the air, that you not have that eve or that gable end overhang or the lookouts are exceed or go past the property line.

That makes sense.

Is that a commitment then?

What's that?

Would that be a commitment?

No, you just can't do that.

Oh, okay.

Gotcha, gotcha.

I'm just operating on like you don't want to do that.

All right.

You're getting your commitment if you get the variance.

By a true measurement, the health the garage wall is somewhere like a foot off the line, and like the the driveway.

So you're gonna be about a foot off.

So there's a foot play there, but we asked for zero setback just because I think plus eight inches, we're not far.

Yeah, I think that if you asked Mr.

O'Neill now that they would measure that from any extension of the property versus the foundation.

So staff would like to clarify.

Go ahead, Mr.

The I guess clarify the proposal.

The the site plan, which in the staff reports on page 85 notes the existing garage at using those dashed lines.

Uh that that's lighter thickness, and the proposed addition using the dark thick black lines, if I'm understanding that correctly, and that is showing that as being longer than the existing garage.

Is that not correct?

Sorry.

We the the dashed line in the back, that little section there is actually the overhang.

So to make hopefully to make the house more aesthetically pleasing, the back of it has got, and I don't know if you can on the other what it's like, yeah.

Back of the house look, there's like a little bit of a shed roof that kind of breaks open that bigger side.

I would have even probably put it on the north side, but same issues that you guys are saying.

I don't want to overhang into Jim and Carroll's property.

Now the front portion of it where that that's kind of a larger chunk there from the dashed line to the front of the garage.

There's an existing wall there.

I agree it's not our garage, but we'd like to take the wall down to to keeping more or less the same look.

Does that answer your question?

Or does it not answer?

I believe what he's saying is the solid lines are roof line, the dashed lines are foundation lines.

Yeah, correct.

Got it.

I stand as the interpreter.

Any other questions for the petitioner?

You're done with your uh rebuttal period?

Uh yes, I got it.

All right, the wing cast our ballots.

On case 2025-DV2-040.

Patrice Stuck at Brown votes yes.

James Duke votes yes.

Craig Von Dalen votes yes.

Tom Barnes votes yes, and Beth Brandon votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Crazy.

Thank you for your time.

Next case.

Case number two zero two five-UV two-012.

Property address 2405 West 61st Street.

Washington Township, Council District Number 2, zoned D2.

The petitioner is Valdemar Dwart.

Variants of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the location of a commercial vehicle being a commercial shipping container, not permitted.

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

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

I do.

I need your name and address.

Okay.

Um just for the record, go ahead.

Oh, yeah.

Uh my name is Diego Duarte.

I'm representing case 2405 West 6161st Street.

Okay.

That's your address.

That's the address of the property.

Okay.

Technically, we need your address.

Yeah, go ahead.

So 5015, Manning Road, um 4628, Indian Punish, Indiana.

Excellent.

Thank you, sir.

So first I'd like to start off with a little apology for all this process for the container.

Since at first we didn't really much know about this since we've seen other um other people in the same residency have shipping containers, and we thought about it is a good idea.

Um our main purpose and use for the shipping container is like um for an additional storage.

Since we have um it's kind of a little rough over there on our property since there's like big trees, a lot of many big trees that are over there, and pose a great risk to fall if we propose to build like a shed or something more like that.

Um this we haven't really thought about a B being super permanent, uh more like a temporary, since once we get like good to be able to build a shed, we could transfer into that.

Um but I mean overall the appearance and the condition of the shipping container is been well thought.

We made sure it's not like much visible from the street, so like doesn't obstruct anything, it's not an ISO.

Um we painted it to match like the aesthetics of the house, everything has been done from when we first got it to like match the vibe of it.

Um in addition, we talked to the house uh west of our property.

Um he also supported in this use for the shipping container since we uh said in this can it's close to his property, probably the closest to his property.

We share the driveway with him too from the entrance from our house, his house, same driveway all the way down.

Um, yeah, it's well maintained, remodeled.

No, it does like it doesn't like block anything for like public use, for example, hydrant or like views from the rear property in the rear.

So like they see the same thing too.

Um yeah, we've never had a cons a complaint or a concern regarding the shipping container specific.

Um yeah, I mean, I would like to start off on the beginning.

We we first bought this house, it was like 2019.

Um it had like major issues, it's like super it was one of the worst houses on the whole community since it was like had an issue of something that burned down inside the house.

But then we bought it, we started remodeling.

I have a here posted I'd like to share with you guys.

Sure.

Yeah, you can handle the secretary, we'll pass them around.

Thank you.

So here what you're seeing on the papers I just handed out is we have many before and after pictures from the property that we first bought.

Uh we can see um our main whole reason for this property was to improve the look of it, give it a more like home feeling, because we saw an opportunity in this, we might as well take it.

Um but the specific we have a shipping container was mostly the trees over there.

It's a little risky.

We've had issues in the past before with them falling hurting um affecting like harming our property.

We talked to the neighbor, which is like the owner, it's on his property, the trees.

We ended up taking one down, but other than that, he wasn't really much interested in the rest, taking them down because too much money, too much time, too much work, and we ended up on a shipping container to fix this issue, well, at least temporary until we could find a solution.

But I mean, but I mean, other than that, yeah, we have taken well good care of it, so it's like not proposing any harmful or like it doesn't stand out way too much for like a person driving by walking by, and I mean other than that, we've had permission from the from the address right next to ours.

So we everything was worked out together, they helped us bring in the container too.

So, and I mean, other than that, we put everything on supporting base, so like everything's well planned and everything.

But I mean other than that, I think that'd be it.

All right, uh hang on, we may have some questions.

Yeah, any questions?

The property here with the mural on it, is this the actual thing?

No, there's a property.

That's just uh another property with the container.

Around the corner from you?

Yeah, yeah.

It's like super close.

There's multiple properties, not just one, but most of the properties with containers in there too.

But I mean, there's nothing too like that messes up the house too much.

It's like black and white.

We on the outer side around it, we also covered it, so like you can't see any under it, so it doesn't look bad.

Um, but I mean, other than that, we matched the colors and all that.

Okay, no visible damage or nothing.

Just to clarify, the shipping container that we're discussing is correct.

Yes, correct.

Thank you.

Now, you also had mentioned you just you only need it for a period of time before you can find something else to replace it.

Is that correct?

Uh yes, we were thinking about that.

Um, since you know um, we wanted to make it permanent there, but if like we come to a point where that's not possible, we could in the future.

What is a period of time that would work for you to use it as if you wanted to have it just there temporarily?

Um for us, I think about five years, four or five years would be reasonable since we're having issues, and I mean are you are you one of the owners of the property or are you just helping them?

I mean, I'm basically uh he my father he put me as like in the will for the you did share in your dad's property.

Yeah, it's my father's property, but he's I have signature that he authorized me to come speak to you.

Okay, excellent.

Good work.

All right.

Um other questions for the petitioner.

Is there anyone else in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 UV 2-012 with an address of 2405 West 61st Street?

If so, please come forward.

I know I don't see any remonstrance, so we'll go ahead and go to comments from staff.

Mr.

Ullenhake, you're our last planner standing or sitting.

Not the first time I've heard that.

Um, Chair President Vodale and members of the board.

The proposed commercial vehicle is a portable shipping container as has been explained to you, and it's not intended in the BD used as permanent storage building, at least not in residential districts.

Shipping containers by definition or commercial vehicles tend to introduce commercial uses such as contractors into a residential district or others that need uh similar type storage.

Um commercial vehicles or shipping containers are located appropriately on zone commercial or industrial properties, they require transitional yards from protected districts, specifically residential districts in this case.

In this instance, the proposed use is not required to provide that buffer as it is on a dwelling district, a D2 district, which does not have transitional yard requirements from the adjacent dwelling districts as well.

Um the site provides in staff's opinion, the site provides insufficient separation, buffering and screening of the surrounding dwellings in this entirely residential area.

Um additional storage could be provided through a permanent accessory structure that is built, has a building form similar to residential structures, and meets the zoning ordinance without the need for a use variance.

I'm concerned about the trees, yes, but they did place the structure as close to the neighboring tall trees as possible instead of the middle of the yard, which would be further away from the tall trees and collapsing on their structure.

Um therefore uh non-metal structure could be built in the middle of the yard behind the gazebo, um, which is further away from the tall trees, or a brick structure could be built.

And as you see the gazebo on the after picture, um that's a fairly clear area in the middle of the backyard.

I did not get a picture of that in the staff report.

Uh cinder block brick structure, which is fairly secure, could also be built as permitted and would be secure enough, similar and and provide similar security, as would a garage for that matter uh could be built to provide the security.

This structure was placed on site without a permit.

Uh therefore, had a permit been obtained, they would have known ahead of time before placing it on site that a variance was also required.

Um rectifying af mistakes after is not commonly something commonly common that staff supports, as general knowledge knows that any structure over 120 square feet taller than 17 inches typically would does require a permit.

Um the larger lot size does not should not discourage, should not allow for disregard of the comprehensive plan recommendation, which is suburban neighborhood uses, primarily residential uses, nor the clearly residential nature of the surrounding area.

When staff did the site visit, I didn't see any uh shipping containers in adjoining property.

The 5943 Cooper Road is approximately, in my opinion, about a mile away, um, or at least a half a mile as the bird fly as the crow flies.

I did just check on the zoning.

Uh that is a violation shipping container as well, as they do not have any variances for that shipping container in a DA district.

So therefore, because somebody else is in violation, we should not permit a second person to be in violation.

That'd be similar if you were driving 65 and a 55 mile per hour zoning speed limit.

I should be allowed to drive 65 as well and not get a ticket.

So if it's the same analogy, in my opinion.

Staff does have concerns if this is approved, then it you know it opens the door for other residential structures to bring these shipping containers, commercial structures into the neighborhood as well, and leading into a commercial creep, if you will.

There's no practical difficulty in providing a regular storage facility for this site that is zoning compliant.

The fact that they prefer to use a shipping container instead is their choice and self-imposed.

Nothing on the lot prevents them from providing adequate secure storage that could withstand tree branches or possibly theft.

As I indicated, cinder block or other commercially constructed buildings could be made to withstand those possibilities.

Therefore, staff does recommend denial of this and be happy to answer any questions the board will likely have.

Alright, any questions for staff member of the board?

I don't know if you can answer this, but would the new trend of the shipping containers coming?

Is there a requirement of the parson shipping to make sure that there are variances made to bring them onto properties?

I the requirement to what I didn't hear the last part.

When they're bringing the shipping containers that are coming from the docks or wherever, is there a requirement of those sellers to make sure that there's a uh variance or something before it goes on on residential property?

Ultimately, that responsibility falls on the property owner.

It's just like a fence company can build an eight-foot fence in a residential, and they're not required, they don't get cited for being in violation over the six-foot fence.

So it's uh for the purpose of the ordinance that the ultimate responsibility is a property owner.

So it's another it's another fence company issue.

And then how long I agree with you and wish that might have been the case, but how long has this um the variance expectations for the shipping containers been in effect?

Like when did this start?

I know because this is a new thing, so I'm just asking.

So homeowners actively wanting to place shipping containers as consistently as they have been is a fairly new trend.

However, the prohibition of commercial vehicles goes back at least to the mid-70s.

So this is not indie rezone specific.

This has been around a while.

So it's underneath commercial vehicles, the shipping containers are considered commercial vehicles.

Correct, yes.

Okay.

Okay, you get you good?

Okay.

Um first of all, I want to go on record that I do not like shipping containers.

I want that to be clear.

As an architect, I find them to be shipping containers.

Yeah.

Um, but however, on this particular property, how long could let's say they needed a temporary storage solution, like uh a pod or something like this.

How long could you have something like that on a property before it becomes a zoning?

For moving companies, I believe there's a 30-day limit for anything temporary.

Okay.

The petitioners indicated that this is a matter of them not being able to afford to immediately build a structure and it suggested that potentially they would they would uh accept a limitation on the on this variance of a period of time.

Is that something the staff would take into consideration?

Well, staff would not support a limitation, but that's for the board to decide if they want to impose that as a commitment.

Okay, very good.

All right.

Um other questions.

All right.

You have five minutes of rebuttal.

So I understand he was talking about the um it would cause like more of um a commercial use for it.

Uh the only use we have it for is that we're currently storing like personal items, for example, lawnmowers, for example, stores and stuff like that, since we are allowed into like building new things, stuff like that.

Um I mean, yeah, other than that, he also said about the other property is a bit quite far away, but there's also other properties on the same thing.

I understand that um just they do it, doesn't mean we can do it too, but we we didn't look much into that because it's like we didn't think there was gonna be a big problem.

Um especially after how it looks on the property, it's not much of a like doesn't make you look bad on the property.

I mean, a few years ago it was pretty bad property, but now we made it like one of the most we had many compliments about the un outstanding glow-ups that we made on the property, and um we've never had any concern or anyone talk against the container and and against they said they like it, how loose it we actually had our neighbor who was who lives like on the west side of our property, like right next to us.

He was gonna come in today, but um he had uh an emergency too, but he was gonna talk uh like in support of it too, since he's the one that helped us get in it there.

Like we had the idea from two.

Um from the process, we've never had the when we were sold the shipping container, they never told us that we need a variance or something, no permit.

In addition, we tried to get a permit for here.

Um when the inspector went to our property, go check it out, the property.

Um they told us that we for like the first fine for it, and then we talked to him about it.

He said we could get a permit for it.

Um we were looking through that, trying to get the permit out, but we never really found on a permit to get a shipping container on it.

So they ended up recommending us to take uh the variance, and that's how we ended on the variance.

But I mean, other than that, it's not too much.

I mean, yes, we'd appreciate the time if you guys could help us.

I mean, like help us with the time so we could get on our fee stable and then build it.

Um the further match it, but I mean, other than the shipping container, we could modernize it to make it look like a house, put wall sightings on it.

Um I mean, yeah, that it's gonna take quite a bottom to move, but I mean if you can't um that I think that'll be it.

I think that uh a commitment of it would only be there for a certain period of times might help you in getting I'm not guaranteeing you would get the variance, but I think a time commit would probably be valuable.

Um is that something that you would be agreeable to?

The type of commitment?

Yeah, yes, we could come to an agreement.

Okay.

Um is two years an acceptable period of time.

If you can I think that'll be in the I think that uh a commitment of it would only be there for a certain period of times might help you and get I'm not guaranteeing you would get the variance but I think a time commitment would probably be valuable um is that something that you would be agreeable to the type commitment yeah yes we could come to an agreement okay um is two years an acceptable period of time um I don't think two years is exactly a good amount of time since we're having issues especially with um society how it's been so you you mentioned five is there a shorter period of time that you would be willing to commit to think about four or five four four let's say four okay so if you were to be granted this variance you would commit that after a four year period of time you would remove the structure the the uh chimpanze container and get the proper permits necessary to build a structure to replace its function yes we could and you're willing to that is your commitment okay you get that on the record all right um any other questions for the petitioner member from the staff of staff from the um for this particular petition no questions all right before we vote I will what want to say this you're obviously a younger gentleman you did a great job frankly you presented your case effectively you apologized for your violation which I think was a uh a plaudible um and the work that you've done on this property between you and your father is also amazing and good work and I just want to compliment you I don't know how this is gonna turn out how this vote is gonna turn out I never know but uh regardless your presentation was good and effective and uh and the work you've done was amazing so thank you thank you yeah you do not like shipping containers and I do not like shipping containers I'm gonna put that on the record right now I don't like them they're not bad I'm an architect they are they're shipping containers all right you cast our ballots there's a snow whatever I mean if you know how to design it you can make it fit in every careful we already voted yeah I already voted carefully no you're killing me Patrice on case two zero two five dash UV two dash zero one two Patrice Duckett Brown votes yes James Duke votes yes Craig von Dalen votes yes Tom Barnes votes yes and Beth Brandon votes yes the variance is granted subject to the commitment uh agreed upon thank you everybody uh um that is I believe the end of our docket what's that I don't was anybody else did were you guys okay you stayed for the entire hearing we're just here to watch all right um then if that's the case do we have any other additional business today Mr.

Secretary got some findings all right we'll take care of those and we're adjourned