Called order.

This is a public hearing of the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, Division 2.

I'm Craig Von Dalen, Chairperson of Division 2.

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

Legal Council for the Board today is Chris Steinmutz.

Staff members present today from the Division of Planning are Bryce Patts, current planning manager.

Robert Ewanhake, senior planner.

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

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

The preceding the proceedings of this hearing are governed by the board's rules of procedure, and the expedited cases will be heard immediately after all requests for continuances or withdrawals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statements and arguments in opposition to the petition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The board may continue the petition.

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

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

The installation of landscaping and screening, the paving and 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 the granted variance to be valid.

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

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

Failure to comply with any conditions or commitments of a variance granted 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 the 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.

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

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

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

There are four members present today.

It requires three votes to take action on any request.

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

If your petition receives an indecisive vote, your petition will be automatically continued to the December 16th, 2025 hearing.

Board members, you've been provided meeting minutes for our October 14th, 2025 meeting.

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

Do I hear a motion?

Duke, so move.

Second.

Ducett Brown, second.

Call the roll.

Barnes.

Barnes, yes.

Ducket Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

Duke.

And I'm also yes.

They are approved.

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

None being seen.

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 of fact without any additional testimony from the individual petitioners.

Do I hear a motion?

Duke, so move.

Second.

Ducett Brown, second.

I'll call the roll.

Barnes.

Barnes, yes.

Ducett Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

Duke.

Duke, yes.

And I am also a yes.

Oh.

We'll check on that.

We're going to check on the date.

When is the date of our next hearing, Mr.

Secretary?

December 9th.

Okay.

I apologize when I said December 16th.

Automatic continuances will be due to the December 9th hearing.

We'll consider special requests and continuances at this time.

Good afternoon, members of the board.

My name is Adam Mears.

I'm an attorney with Gratison Design Build.

Here on behalf of case number 2025 DB2044.

It's on the expedited hearing list.

Here to request a three-day waiver of notice.

I believe the day that I received word that the notices were available and the sign were available, that was the actual day that notices were supposed to go out.

So hustled to get them out within the next couple days.

So again, we'd ask for that three-day waiver of notice, please.

Very well.

Is there anyone else in attendance with an interest in petition number 2025 DV2-044 with an address of 170 East 71st Street in the town of Meridian Hills?

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

Sure.

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

Uh the applicant is correct in very characterization of the reason for the delay.

Staff would also note that notices were provided on a Friday making the weekend, have a little bit of added difficulty there.

Uh given the primary reason for the waiver is our own delay and provision of those materials.

We have no objection to the waiver request.

Four days.

Uh three, I believe, but yes.

Three, okay.

All right, I'll entertain a motion to grant a three-day waiver of notice to petition number 2025 DB 2-044.

Do I hear a motion?

Duke, so move.

Second.

Ducky Brown, second.

I call the role of Barnes.

Barnes, yes.

Ducky Brown.

Dougie Brown, yes.

Duke.

Duke, yes.

I'm also yes, you're great.

Thank you.

Waivers ran.

Good afternoon, members of the board.

My name is Josh Smith with RG Development.

Office is at 1073 Oliver Avenue.

I'm here on agenda item number 12, 2025 DV2039-854 Gladstone Avenue.

Um we have come to an agreement with one of the neighboring homeowners.

I was initially remonstrating against the how the the project.

Um so we would like to add um a set of commitments to the project.

Uh very well.

We just didn't have enough time with all the notice to get those in before the agenda.

Okay.

Um we probably should wait until your case is actually heard to do that.

I'll check with with uh yeah.

We uh uh are you also going to ask that it be expedited?

Yes, sir.

Uh okay.

Um is that all right?

Yeah, let's have him go ahead and read how many commitments are there?

Uh two commitments.

Go ahead.

Very very short, less less than 500 words.

500 words is a lot of words, but okay.

All right, we'll go ahead and read the commitments, then we'll talk to staff and see if there's anyone else in the tendency that has an interest in the case.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Uh commitment number one is the owner agrees to have gutters on the north side of the house connect to underground discharge pipes that will divert the water to a point 15 feet south of the north property line.

Commendment number two, the owner agrees to hire an Indiana registered land surveyor to survey the property at 854 North Gladstone Avenue.

If any portions of the fence or sidewalk are not within the property, they will be relocated at the owner's expense.

Okay, very well.

Is there any and then you're gonna request and to be moved to the expedited docket?

Yes, sir.

If nobody else is here to there's a gentleman standing behind you that I think may have an interest.

Is there anyone else in the audience that has an interest in the petition number 2025 DB two-039 with an address of 854 North Gladstone Avenue?

No, okay, wrong case.

Go ahead.

Staff.

So what's your opinion on this?

Uh these commitments and going to the expedited docket.

Mr.

Ullenha.

Thank you, Chairperson Von Dalen.

Uh staff is aware of these commitments.

I have no objection to them.

However, since staff did not request them, they cannot be included in the staff report, which is why it was not expedited up front.

The petitioner had uh is requesting to expedite the petition subject to these two new additional commitments.

Therefore, when it is approved, it'll be subject to them, which and staff has no objection.

Staff is recommending approval, therefore we have no objection to moving this to the expedited, nor is staff aware of any other objection.

Very well, thank you, Mr.

Ullenhaik.

Then I will entertain a motion to move petition number 2025 DB2-039 to our expedited docket.

Do I hear a motion?

Duke, so move.

Second.

Dougie Brown, second.

I'll call the roll.

Barnes.

Barnes, yes.

I'm also yes, you're expedited.

Okay.

Thank you.

Do I do I need to give a copy of these to Marty?

Yep.

Yes, I believe you do.

Thank you, Mr.

Smith.

Come forward special request.

Good afternoon, members of the board.

My name is Arnoldo Gonzalez.

Uh my address is 332 North Equit Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana.

I'm here in behalf of um.

And I keep uh I am asking an extension waiver of notice because these uh email OS uh mail it uh after the post mark deadline.

Yeah, and how many days?

Uh well um how many days I I don't know how many days after the deadline did you post notice?

Uh per the appetite what the the made it was and uh Friday and the day was uh sorry so three or four days yes uh per the affidavit submitted by the applicant uh they would need a five-day waiver notice requirements.

Thank you, Mr.

Gonzalez.

Thank you.

Um is there anyone else in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 UV two-015 amended with an address of 2049 East Michigan Street?

None being similar to comments from staff.

Uh thank you, Chairperson von Dalen members of the board.

Um given a similar set of circumstances to that previous waiver request.

Uh staff has no objection to the five-day waiver of notice requirements.

Very well, thank you.

Um then I will entertain a motion to grant a five-day waiver of notice to petition number 2025 UV two-015.

Do I hear a motion?

Duke, so move.

And a second.

Uh Dougie Brown, second.

Call the role of Barnes.

Barnes, yes.

Duckett Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

Duke.

Duke, yes.

All right.

And I'm also yes.

Waiver is granted.

And also I'm cute um for on behalf of Tomasa Yadira Torres on the uh code is 2025 DB2043.

And um we are collecting important documents for and this uh ECU and uh respectfully we um as to you a continuance for the next hearing that date.

Uh okay, so you want to continue that one to the November 9th hearing?

Yes.

Um do you know is that with or without additional notice.

Oh uh be without additional notice unless amendments are received requiring them.

Okay.

Is there anyone else in the audience that has an inch interest in petition number 2025 DV2-043 with an address of 4360 Kessler Boulevard North Drive amended?

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

Ms.

Regal.

Uh thank you, Chair Person von Dalen, members of the board.

Um staff has no objection to the request of continuance to December 9th.

I believe the petitioner was exploring options to hire some sort of additional representation and continue discussion of a petition with neighbors.

Uh staff is aware of opposition to the petition from neighbors, but uh none but objected to the continuance, and it seems like we did a good enough job getting the word out, but today's petition would be continued.

Very well, thank you.

Name to your vote December 9th.

Now I don't know why you guys were laughing over there because it's well past November 9th.

All right, I will entertain a put uh a uh um motion to continue petition number 25 2025 DV2-043 to our December 9th hearing without additional notice.

Do I hear a motion?

Duke, so moved.

Second, Doctor Brown, second.

Um I'll call Roe Barnes.

Barnes is yes, Ducket Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

Duke, yes.

And I'm also a yes.

Let's continue.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Gonzalez.

Good afternoon.

Trippers of all day, and members of the board, Justin King and address is 618 East Market Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202.

Here before you today regarding uh item number three on your agenda petition 2025 DV2035, address being 5100 Knowlton Road.

Uh we are requesting a continuance of this case.

It is noted in the staff report that we're continue requesting continuance to the December 9th um hearing.

We're actually going to be requesting a continuance to the January two uh 2026 hearing.

Uh that would allow for after several discussions with staff, it's been determined that um an additional petition as well as survey work needs to be done on this uh property, and we think we might be able to actually get it to a point where we don't need any variances and thus would be able to withdraw this particular petition.

Uh so therefore continuing it out two months would allow us to do so.

And this would be without any additional uh notice.

Okay, so we're looking at I believe January 13th is our hearing date.

Thanks here.

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

Um not being seen, I'll go to comments from staff.

Thank you, Chairman Vondale and members of the board.

Uh staff does not have any objection to the two-month continuance request.

Um believe that would be January 13th.

Uh that would be without additional notice unless otherwise needed.

Very well.

Then I will entertain a motion to continue petition number 2025 DB2-035 to our January 13th regularly scheduled hearing without additional notice.

Do I hear a motion?

Duke so move.

Second.

Doug Brown, second.

We'll call the roll Barnes.

Barnes is yes.

Ducky Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

Duke.

Duke, yes.

And I'm also yes.

Thank you.

I believe we've uh exhausted members of the audience with special requests.

Go ahead and staff.

Thank you, Chairperson Von Dale and members of the board.

Staff will draw your attention to petition number six, twenty twenty-five UV two zero one four located at 15 and 19 Iowa Street.

Uh the petitioner is requesting this petition be continued for cause uh so that they can amend the petition, and that would be to the December 9th with notice, new notice.

Staff has no objection to this.

Very well.

Is there anyone in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 UV2-014 with an address of 15 and 19 Iowa Street?

None being seen, then I'll entertain a motion to continue with additional notice to our January 9th hearing.

Petitioner number 2025 UV two-014.

Do I hear a motion?

Correction.

This is December 8th, December 9th.

I'm sorry, correct.

Yeah, we'll be continuing.

Okay, dates are going to be a problem today for some reason.

We're going to continue to our December 9th hearing with additional notice.

Petition number 2025 UV 2-014.

Do I hear a motion?

Duke, so move.

The second.

Call the roll.

Barnes.

Yes.

Doug Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

Duke.

Duke, yes.

I'm also yes.

Thank you.

Staff will draw your attention to the next petition number seven, 2025 UV2016.

So credited at 2201 East 30th Street.

Both the petitioner and neighborhood representatives have contacted staff and are in agreement to a two-month continuance on this petition to January 13th.

That would for now that would be without notice unless needed if the petition is amended.

Staff has no objection to this request.

Very well.

Is there anyone in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 UV 2-016 with an address of 2201 East 30th Street?

Seeing none, then I will entertain a motion to continue without additional notice to our January 13th hearing.

Petition number 2025 UV 2-016.

Do I hear a motion?

Duke so move.

And a second.

Second Ducky Brown second.

Thank you.

And I'll call the roll Barnes.

Barnes, yes.

Ducket Brown.

Dougie Brown, yes.

Duke.

Duke Yes.

And I'm also yes.

Thank you.

Staff will draw your attention to petition number eight, 2025, D V two zero four two, located at 10 South West Street under the expedited petitions.

Staff did provide the legal notices late to this petitioner.

Therefore, uh five-day waiver of notice for the mailed notice and a nine-day waiver of notice for the signed posting will be required.

Staff has no objection to these requests.

Okay, that's a little more complicated.

Um is there anyone in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 DV2-042 with an address of 10 South West Street?

Please come forward.

Say your name and address for the record, sir.

Todd Wall Smith, uh 3175 East, 200 South, Knox, Indiana, 46534.

Owner of landmark sign group.

You're the petitioner.

And yes, uh, we used uh a permit expeditor to file the petition for us, but yes.

They were less than expeditious.

All right.

Yes, not a problem.

Uh we will I will entertain a motion to grant a five-day waiver of written notice and a nine-day waiver for the signed notice on petition number 2025 DV2-042.

Do I hear a motion?

Do so move.

And a second.

Ducky Brown, second.

I'll call the roll, Barnes.

Barnes, yes.

Ducky Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

Duke.

Duke, yes.

And I'm also yes.

You good.

So yeah, we're gonna still hear that case.

Uh I'm sorry, I I did not hear you well.

We can we're still gonna hear your case on the expedited docket.

So don't leave.

Yeah, don't leave.

Okay.

Thank you, Chiperson Van Dale and staff.

We'll draw your attention to petition number 13.

The last petition, 2025 D V two zero four one, located at 1867 street.

I believe the petitioner may be here or should be here.

However, I don't believe staff or the office ever received an affidavit of notice, and without that, this petition cannot be heard, heard, excuse me, unless the petitioner could provide that on site.

Therefore, this petition will need to be continued one month to the December 9th hearing.

With or without additional notice?

Without additional notice.

Possibly a waiver at that time.

We'll deal with that.

Let's call on this one.

Is there anyone in the audience that has an interest in petition number 2025 DV2-041 with an address of 1867 Street?

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

You just made it.

Name and address.

Elliot Gibson, 1867, Singleton Street.

Very well.

We are trying to decide whether or not we should grant you a continuance because they have not received your affidavit for your notice requirements.

I understand.

Are those the letters that I sent out?

No.

You once you sent those out, you have to then fill out an affidavit that you did so and then turn it into the Department of Medical and Development.

Have you done that?

I have not.

All right.

I'm going to let you talk to staff about that later, but for now we're going to go ahead and grant you a 30-day extent or continuance to our next hearing on December 9th without additional notice.

Okay.

All right.

I'll retain a motion to continue to our December December 9th hearing without additional notice, petition number 2025, DV2-041.

Do I hear a motion?

Duke, so move.

Second.

Ducky Brown, second.

Call the role, Barnes.

Barnes is yes.

Ducad Brown.

Ducket Brown, yes.

Duke.

Duke, yes.

And I'm also a yes.

Thank you.

As soon as the hearing is over, you might want to talk to staff about making sure you get that affidavit in so you can be heard next month.

I appreciate you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Thank you, Chairperson Vondale and members of the board.

Staff would draw your attention to item number two on the docket 2025 SE2005 at 5167 North College.

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

Therefore, this petition will be automatically continued to the December 9th hearing date, and this merely requires the board's acknowledgement.

Acknowledged.

Thank you very much.

2025 UV2013 at 148 West 38.

Automatic continuance was received in a timely fashion by the petitioner for this petition continued automatically to the December 9th, 2025 hearing.

Once again, merely requiring your acknowledgement.

Acknowledged.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairperson Von Dillon, members of the board, staff will draw your attention to number one on the agenda 2025 SC2004 amended at 6358 North College Avenue.

The petitioner and staff have agreed to a continuance to the December 9th hearing.

And so staff on behalf of the petitioners making that request, and that would be without additional notice.

That was December 9th.

Correct.

Is there anyone in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 SE2-004 with an address of 6358 North College Avenue?

If so, please come forward.

None being seen, then I will entertain a motion to continue to our December 9th hearing without additional notice.

Petition number 2025 SE2-004.

Do I hear a motion?

Duke, so move.

And a second.

Thank you.

Called Roll Barnes.

Barnes, yes.

Duckett Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

Duke.

Duke, yes.

And I'm also a yes.

Thank you, Mr.

Mr.

Sir.

Thank you.

Is that the end of our special requests?

All right.

If that is the case, then our Mr.

Secretary, you can go ahead and proceed with the expedited docket.

Remember, we had one case added to that docket.

These are petitions to be expedited.

Case number 2025-DV2-039 amended property address 854 North Gladstone Avenue.

Center Township Council District Number 13, zoned D5.

The petitioner is Yuri Guzman, represented by Josh Smith.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a building addition with a three and a half foot north side yard setback and a four and a half foot south side setback.

Five feet side setbacks required.

Case number two zero two five-d v two-42 property address 10 South West Street.

The petitioner's convention headquarters hotels LLC represented by Linus Yerkus.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the installation of an 11-foot-tall 121 square foot pylon sign with a five-foot setback from West Street.

Maximum height of eight feet tall, 36 square feet permitted, and 10 foot setback required.

Case number 2025-DV two-044, property address 170 East 71st Street, Town of Meridian Hills.

Washington Township, Council District No.

2, zoned D1.

The petitioners are Jay and Karen Wirtz, represented by Adam Mears.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of an attached garage with a one and a half foot west side yard setback, 15 feet required.

And case number 2025-UV2-015 amended property address 2049 East Michigan Street.

The petitioners are Francisco Nanez Jr.

and Romina Gabriela Bellez, represented by our excuse me, Arnoldo Gonzalez.

Variants of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for an existing duplex not permitted, including a front porch and building addition with a 2.7 foot front yard setback, 12 feet required.

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

Chairperson, that is the end of your expedited docket.

Thank you.

Seeing no opposition, we'll go ahead and cast our ballots.

James Duke votes yes, and Patrice Duckett Brown votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case 2025-d V two-044, Tom Barnes votes yes, Craig von Dalen votes yes, James Duke votes yes, and Patrice Stuckett Brown votes yes, that variance is granted.

And on case two zero two five-UV two-015 amended, Tom Barnes votes yes, Craig von Dalen votes yes, James Duke votes yes, and Patrice Duckett Brown votes yes, that variance is granted.

Thank you, Mr.

Secretary.

We'll move on to our regular docket.

These are petitions for public hearing.

Case number two zero two five-dv one-zero five one, property address five three four five west eighty first street.

Pike Township, Council District No.

The petitioner is KR100 LP, represented by Joseph D.

Cauldron.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a parking and building expansion, resulting in two double-loaded rows of parking in front of a building.

Only one double loaded row of parking permitted in industrial districts.

And a non-compliant green factor score, compliance 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.

Thank you and good afternoon.

Uh Chairperson Von Dalen, members of the board.

Joe Calderan, 11 South Meridian here in Indianapolis.

With me today is Mr.

Jason Bricker with Kirby Risk Corporation.

Um their entity KR 100 is the petitioner.

Uh Kirby Risk recently purchased uh in the summer of 2024 5345 West 81st Street, uh, much of which had been improved and used by others uh prior to their acquisition.

Um Kirby Risk had choices about staying in Marion County and Pike Township where it already has presence at 52nd Street and out of Park Fletcher, and they decided to stay here and expand in Pike Township.

Uh this played out very well, and each of you have a letter from Pike Township Residents Association in your exhibit book, which I will walk you through.

And that's kind of the backdrop for the what's triggering the variances.

If you turn to tab one in the exhibit book, you will see the uh subject property uh thumbtacked, and you'll see a large uh over 100,000 square foot building uh to the south that's been in existence for a long time.

As many of you know, Park 100 started developing uh 50 plus years ago, and there's very few undeveloped parcels left.

However, this particular parcel had a north portion that's about three and a half acres that had never been developed.

And KR 100 purchased that.

Uh you'll note that our our planner had pointed out that that parcel had trees on it as recently as 22 23.

Um those trees were gone by the time that uh Kirby Risp uh purchased the property in August of uh 2024.

So what we're basically seeking to do today is uh with your permission and in certain variances be in a position to uh expand in the future the facility to the north on that north parcel and in the near term kind of rework some of the parking on that north parcel.

Uh you can see in tab two uh all of this subject property and all the uh area around it is zoned industrial.

There's no residences that are impacted uh by uh the uh request made today.

In fact, you can see in the outline on the zoning map and flipping back to the aerial, that there is uh a number of industrial buildings that do have parking in front of the buildings.

Uh of course, most of that was developed before the 2016 uh zoning ordinance that put restrictions.

So getting to the heart of the matter, if you turn to tab three, you will see uh kind of in the darker highlighted areas uh parking uh areas that are proposed.

I want you to focus if you can on the two that are on the north side of the building uh which are not in place today.

There is parking and loading uh to the west side of the existing building, as to the east.

Uh there was uh underground attention put in uh to facilitate um additional future expansion, including the parking.

But if you see those two uh new darker highlighted parking areas, you can see that that is the subject of a variance, and you can kind of see the outline of an additional uh parking area for for the future that would go in conjunction with the building expansion to the north of that.

Uh that in combination uh together triggers the first variance uh variance which uh restricts the number of double road parking in front of a building.

We couldn't really place it anywhere else because as you can see, the buildings been there and there's no room uh on the south.

Staff is in agreement with that uh particular variance, so I won't belabor that point.

What I do want to spend a few moments on, if you'll turn to tab four, and that's the landscaping plan that is proposed.

This landscaping plan is pretty robust.

It's got over a hundred trees, 45 large shrubs, uh, open areas uh as well.

You can see that all the landscaping is proposed on that north parcel, if you will, the three and a half acre parcel, because there's no room to put anything anywhere else.

It's all improved everywhere else.

What's triggering the variance is not the landscaping on this north parcel, but the fact is the green factor was computed on the entire over 10 acre parcel.

Doesn't make a lot of practical sense, but nevertheless, we did ask to have a determination whether the green factor should apply to that three and a half acre parcel, and we were advised that they could not, so we filed the variance.

You can see the score for the green factor for the entire 10 acres on the second page of the landscaping plan, and it is a.149.

We needed a 0.22 to meet the green factor.

So other alternative means of reaching green factor architectural measures you could take.

This building's been in existence, and while they did do a new roof, it can't support solar panels because it's of the existing construction can't support it.

Now, the good news is, and if you look at the commitment that we provided, and this was part of our Pike Township presentation, if we do the building expansion to the north, we will make sure the construction can in fact hold solar panels, and uh Kirby at risk is a um green company, if you will, they're very much into sustainability, and we put into a commitment that we would put new panels on the expanded building, which if we could have done that to now, and if we were building that building now, it might have improved our green factor score.

So that's the other that's the variance.

Now, if you look at tabs five, you can see, and you probably looked at your staff report, uh, kind of the existing landscape uh which is all grass, you can see that uh some of the neighboring properties do have trees, but a hundred and one trees is going to be well in excess of any of our neighbors.

And finally, if you turn to tab six, if you just isolated the proposed landscaping improvements to the three and a half acres, our score is 0.42, double almost the requirement for redevelopment, and certainly even if you isolated the three and a half acres as new development, far in excess of the 0.30.

So, what we're really asking the board to consider is our argument that the practical way to look at the green factor is to isolate that three and a half acres that was undeveloped, that's being developed, and that's being landscaped with significant landscaping as you consider uh whether or not to approve.

If you do that, you're gonna get again significantly more landscaping than our neighbors, and if you isolated the green factor score to just that three and a half acres, it would be more than sufficient.

Um final thing we want to say, and this came in this morning, so we put it at the back of the exhibit book is the support letter from the Pike Township Residents Association.

We presented this case to them last Wednesday night.

They voted unanimously to support this, subject to the commitment.

We were happy to provide that.

We know of no other remonstrators, and we certainly hope that uh you can see uh your way to approving the two variances that are on the table for uh this project today.

Mr.

Bricker is happy to answer any questions you may have uh regarding the operation and their plans.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Caldron.

Any questions from members of the board for Mr.

Bricker?

I have one question.

Um, according to the plans, the this whole north parcel that's not going to be paid for parking, appears to be I get are you I assume you're planting grass there and then you're going to maintain it?

There already is uh grass there, and that's where we will put uh significant trees and and shrub plantings.

If you turn to tab four, I believe is the landscaping place.

Right.

So you're gonna but according to your calculations for the green factor, you don't get any credit at all for for having that whole area before.

We do get credit, it's just not enough.

Oh because if you compare if you add up all that we're doing or all that is there today on the entire 10 acres, because that building and the other existing improvements is such the lion share and was developed prior to the green factor being in place, we just can't get to a green factor score uh that meets the point two two.

So even with the 101 uh trees, the 45 shrubs in the open, undisturbed area of grass, that still knocks us out of the box uh in terms of the green factor score as applied to the entire 10-acre parcel.

So there is there any way through plantings that you can get to the green factor score that you need to, or are you almost required to do some kind of a green?

We would essentially be unable to expand in the future.

Oh that's the problem.

If you look at tab three, you can see the proposed building expansion to the north and parking to the north of that.

That is kind of the point is that we bought this property with the idea that yeah, we can use it today, but it also, because there's an undeveloped portion, would allow us to build in the future, which sort of like Pike Township thinks it's a good idea to have employment in an industrial park.

So very good, thank you.

Um as there appears to be no remonstrance.

I don't have any other questions.

Um we go ahead and go to comments from staff, Mr.

Mr.

Wrigley.

Absolutely.

Uh thank you very much, Chair Berson Bondale and members of the board for your time and for your uh volunteering to be here.

Uh thank you to the petitioner for their comments as well.

Um staff is offering a split recommendation on this petition.

Uh, we do recommend approval of the minor variants related to the parking rows, but denial of the variance related to the deviation from green factor standards.

Um just to give some context on the site, the petitioner did a good job, but it is an industrial parcel within the park 100 industrial park within Pike Township on the northwest side.

Uh, it's currently improved with an industrial structure to that multiple previous tuners, users have to propose or current is for distribution and warehousing of electrical products.

Uh the current building is 125,000 square feet approximately and is placed on the rear half of the lot with parking and loading areas to the west and the east of the site.

Uh the front half was previously developed with a thick area of trees that was removed from the site uh at some point within the past few years.

Uh that's visible within the aerial photograph within staff's report from 2023 as well as in photos 11 and 12 of your staff report.

I left it over some fairly extensive clearing that took place here.

That's possible that heritage trees were within that area, but uh staff is unable to verify this.

Uh the applicant is seeking a two-phase development of the site as described.

The first phase would be just parking additions along the northwest side and the front of the current building.

And the second phase would involve a building addition of around 72 point or seven 72,800 square feet, which would be an approximately 58% increase in the building size, not including accessory parking or loading areas.

Um each of those new phases would result in there being two double-loaded rows of parking in the front yard.

Um those rows aren't necessarily adjacent to each other within the first phase or concurrent stacked on top of each other within the second phase.

Uh the intent of this rule per ordinance is to prevent the appearance of like large oceans of parking within building front yards.

Think about like you know, strep mall type centers.

Um it doesn't appear that this rule is violated here, so that feels it's a minor deviation from the ordinance standard and intent and recommends approval.

Uh the second variance would be a larger deviation of the ordinance standards and would relate to the site's green factor.

Uh green factor requirements are part of our landscape ordinance introduced with Indy rezone in 2016.

Uh, they're designed to ensure that uh new and redeveloped sites are more sustainable, use resilient native plantings and allow for flexibility in the type and placement of plantings, in addition to typical or landscape requirements for things like frontage and parking interior areas.

Uh that scores determined both by the number and type of plantings and then also by the ratio of green space on the site to paved or developed area.

So building parking design is a large factor in the calculation of that score.

Uh the green factor checklist that was provided to us by the applicant for review prior to today's hearing shows that score of 0.149, uh, which is a deviation from the requirement of 0.22 to at about 70% of that currently uh the 0.22 score is in and of itself a reduction from the 0.3 score would be required for new development.

So the ordinance already does bake in a greater level of flexibility for redeveloped sites such as this.

Um the plan as proposed does not meet IPR of those.

Um the tab six plan with the 0.42 green factor score was not provided to staff prior to today's hearing.

As such, we've not had a chance to review it for accuracy.

I'm not entirely clear if it's meant to represent the green, the landscape score for the phase one or phase two of development.

It's possible that knowing that a portion of the site wouldn't meet the green factor may have impacted our recommendation as well.

It was not something that was provided to us prior to today's hearing, so I lacked the ability to comment on that too much further, unfortunately.

The findings from the applicant indicate that their options for landscaping are limited by the size of the future edition and would result in more landscaping than neighboring sites, which is the second part of that is true.

Staff would note that the size of the addition is within be control of the petitioner, and the size of the proposed edition is substantial.

We would be able to there's nothing about the site itself that requires an addition of that size that wouldn't allow for landscape compliance or being close to compliance with the ordinance.

It would be uh the difficulty would be self-imposed as opposed to being a site-specific practical difficulty, which is uh the burden of proof for variances of development standards.

Uh we would also note that the proposed layout would be a substantial reduction compared to the level of landscaping that was at this site just a few years ago with that sort of small urban forest area that had been removed, and that might be another point of comparison beyond just neighboring sites.

Um staff also knows that the trees that are proposed along the northern frontage are bunched fairly close together.

It's unclear if they would have adequate spacing to allow for each tree to develop in a healthy manner.

Um given the lack of difficulty at the site to justify an appropriate recommendation of approval, that seems like the primary um impetus is the size of proposed addition and parking areas.

Uh staff recommends denial and feels that alternate site design could potentially allow for the standard to be met or approximated pre-reduction and building size or parking area.

It appears that at about 145% of the required parking.

Uh we do recommend denial.

As mentioned, there was a proposed commitment from PTRA that was submitted earlier today.

Um if this were to be approved over our recommendation, um, staff feels that would be appropriate to include.

So with that, I'm happy to answer questions that you might have.

Questions from staff from members of the board.

I have numerous questions.

Um first of all, the the vacant site or the part of the site to the north of the property that you described as uh I think uh a green area.

When the uh park 100 was originally platted, was that dedicated as some sort of a drainage or green area, or was it also always intended to be expansion space for the facility that's on the site already?

That is an excellent question.

Um it's been several decades, I think, since it was originally platted.

Um my family is from Pike Township.

My parents live around here, and I I think it's been industrial since before I was born, but I would I would need to verify that on the original plat.

I I'm not certain.

Yeah, because it's a if it's always been intended to be um a site for expansion of the facility that's already there, and trees grew up on the property prior to that happening.

I'm not sure that it was a pocket park or any kind of or like dedicated for any sort of park use.

I'm not certain of the answer to that question.

I know that there was a variance approved by a previous tenant in 2022 for development of the site, and I think that's around when the trees may have been removed.

Okay.

Mr.

Calderon might be able to shed some light on that.

Yes, um a lot of gray hairs, a lot of experience with park 100.

Yeah, you yeah, you've been around for a while, I guess.

Uh actually uh that north site did have trees as recent as 2022-2023.

However, uh it was always zoned and never coveted to be uh urban forest or park or open space or anything like that.

And park 100 has uh declaration of covenants uh that do require um approvals for any plans.

But uh a sister board authorized that uh three and a half acres to be used for a trailer storage area.

There's trailer storage next door and caddy corner at that time.

There was a um RFP or um and the developer had proposed a trailer storage area for that entire three and a half acres.

So it was never gonna remain treed.

Okay.

So it was just a casual concept that it had trees growing on it that didn't.

It was it was untreated, and over the 50 years or so had grown into and there was a lot of scrub, but there were probably some decent ones there too.

But uh that would at all had kind of occurred naturally since the origins of Park 100.

Thank you, Mr.

Color.

Okay, go back to questions for staff.

Um give me some ideas of things that they could do on this site so they could improve the parking, but also um stay in compliance with the green regulations.

Well, um I suppose one factor mentioned within staff's report and testimony is the amount of parking spaces on the site per the use and square footage, they'd be required um 134 parking spaces and um per account phase two would have at least 196, uh potentially a reduction in the overall parking at the site could be one way to increase that score and bring it closer to the 0.22.

Um there are some allowances for things like white roofs, solar panels, things like that.

It sounds like they may have explored a bit of that with PTRA in their previous meeting.

I thought that might be more feasible for the northern half of the building than the south, but um overall I suppose just the the overall size of development might be an obstacle there um to reaching a point at or near the 0.22 compliance.

So the only way they could do that is by reducing the amount of parking, but they need the parking for the employment that they have in the building.

Right.

It it's kind of a question of being a ratio of you know green space undeveloped to the impervious area.

So beyond the addition of more plantings, which would be one option, um, having that ratio be in more of a balance would be the alternate.

So so yeah, let me I'm gonna rephrase the question and hopefully get a more clear answer.

So the ways that they could come in compliance with the requirements are one to reduce the amount of parking that they're adding.

Is that correct?

That would be a method to do so, sure.

Yeah.

Or two, increasing the amount of plantings that they're doing on the site.

Yes, beyond exercising other options in here, a primary calculator of the score is the number of plantings within the landscaped areas.

Okay.

Did the city, I mean, they've provided us with a new calculation based upon when they do the addition and also adding on solar panels to the roof of the building that appears to be well in compliance, in fact, more than almost double what the compliance factor would be.

Did the city city take that into consideration when they considered the variance?

Um I mean, I believe they've committed to that as well when they do the addition.

Did they take that into consideration when they the green factor checklist showing VO.42 um as the planner assigned, this was the first I was seeing of it when this packet book was mailed to us digitally about an hour before today's hearing.

If those discussions happen with someone else at the city, I they didn't come up during our internal discussions.

So I I'm unable to verify the accuracy of the point four two or how it may or may not have impacted staff's recommendation.

Okay.

I'm just trying to, this is the first experience I've had with these green factor calculations.

And we're talking about this is this property is currently zoned industrial pro um.

Let's see, what is it?

I thought I three, I believe.

I three.

Um and also if you look at the aerial photograph, if if I'm looking for green space, um there isn't very much.

Um in fact, like the entire site to the to the west of this site is completely paved and used for track or trailer storage.

Um I'm just trying to get wrapped my head around, I mean, I get the and and I understand the green requirements, but it seems like they're almost having difficulty hitting those green requirements with what I would consider to be a relatively minor expansion of parking on a very large site, um, and also the installation of quite a bit of landscaping, regardless, and maintain maintaining most of the site is is probably mowed lawn, which is uh almost a rare occasion in this particular part of town.

Um it just seems like these are kind of like uh difficult standards to reach on an industrial site.

Sure.

Yeah, and I I I do agree that uh the current green factor standard surrounding sites would be unlikely to meet uh they were developed well before the green factor checklist is something that would have existed within the ordinance.

So I guess one thing that I would also note is potentially the use of permeable pavers within the building or structural category somewhere here, and that could potentially be an option to increase the score a little bit as well.

But yeah, um on the whole it um of the original question you asked, I'm so sorry.

Well, I mean i i the real question is is uh I mean keeping in mind that this is an industrial site, um, and but the staff has recommended that the the this variance be be denied.

Did you work with the with the petitioner in any way to try and get past the denial requirement?

To try and like find a point of approximation.

Right, yeah.

Um I mean it seems like they're doing quite a bit to try and come in compliance, but we're still getting a recommendation of denial for this particular variance.

Sure.

Uh we had had brief discussions related to the amount of double loaded parking, and I believe that there was a shift backwards from that, which did increase the score from I think it was 0.139 to the point 149 that's shown before you right now.

Um I was not part of extend extensive discussions beyond that point, though.

Okay.

I I guess as a board member, I want to take the staff's recommendation of denial seriously.

But at the same time, if I can't see a way or a path for a petitioner to get to a point where they could where they could come in compliance with the zoning ordinance, which this appears to be a very difficult situation.

I'm I'm wondering whether or not the staff should rethink the concept of recommending denial.

Um it it seems to me like they're trying to provide enough parking for their employees.

They know how many employees they have.

They know how much parking they need also to service their particular business, and they're not even coming, you know, even despite all the plantings that they're doing on these landscaping plants and maintaining a very large green space in front of the property, there's they're not even close to coming in compliance with the green requirements.

Um so it's like hard for me to uh it just seems it odd that the staff wouldn't work with them to try and come up with some kind of a solution.

And it does seem like the petitioner has, but we're still getting a recommendation of denial in this particular case.

Sure.

Well, I I suppose uh potential options for ordinance compliance could be, you know, I could remain legally nonconforming or the potential size of the addition and or parking could be amended to approximate it more closely.

Uh a note about you know continuing ongoing discussion with it with petitioners to try and find points of compromise and commonality is a point well taken, to be sure.

Is it legally nonconforming?

Well, I I guess I'm not certain what the current green factor to say would be without the proposed plantings or additions.

My guess is that it would be legally nonconforming.

So why do they need a variance?

Well, a pretty proposed additional they're only adding parking.

Uh well, the parking addition would require compliance for portions related to that.

I I suppose I suppose a point of clarification as to whether this would be a variance strictly for phase one or for the second phase could could be helpful.

Mr.

Caldron, are you this is this variance for the second phase too?

It does.

It includes both.

We wanted to get it knocked, we wanted to have a clear path to do a building expansion in the next few years.

That has been our understanding as well.

Okay, yeah.

Did you consider bringing in these green factor calculations for the new expansion since it's one accessible with the requirements?

We did.

Uh the history of this with respect to the green factor goes back to the summer before we filed the variance petition, and we sent a 0.30 green factor sheet to um one of the other planners.

Um, and that was based upon the building expansion, but it was all based on just the three and a half acres that was being developed.

Staff came back and said, oh no, you have to do the green factor based on the entire 10 acres.

And that's really the rub.

We can't meet the green factor.

We can't even contribute to the tree fund to bring our score up to meet the green factor on the 10 acres, because it's all most of it's been developed with building and parking, right?

And the simple way to look at it is yeah, developing the 3.5 acres, we meet green factor, but they apply it to the entire 10 acres, and that's the practical difficulty.

And when that's a pre-existing condition on the site.

But the green factor applies they allow for a.22 score for uh redevelopment activity or expansions and things like that.

So I can't even count that, which seems a little bit at odds with the whole point of you know, wanting to expand your business, and the you know when we were corresponding with with Michael, to be fair, he he did say, hey, you've got uh too much of your parking in the 80-foot setback of 80 uh 1st street, and we said, you know what, you're right.

So we pulled that back and we added uh some more uh open space along that north end.

So we did comply.

He said at the in the same breath, but we're gonna die uh recommend denial on the green factor.

And I replied back and I said, you know, if you look at this as a 3.5-acre development expansion, we're so far ahead of the green factor score that that's if you can look at it that way, we're good.

And we just didn't have any additional correspondence.

It doesn't make so you're recommending approval for the expansion of the parking, but then using the concept of reducing the parking to try and get to a point where you would recommend approval for the green factor.

That doesn't make any sense.

Why would you recommend denial on the green factor when it's virtually impossible for them to comply?

Well, the approval recommendation on the parking isn't necessarily related to the number of parking spaces proposed.

It's just about that specific two double-loaded row orientation, which is sort of an awkwardly written rule given you know, sort of the placements of them parallel to each other.

Um I guess uh a reduction in parking removed entirely from the front yard could remove the need for that and also contribute to green factor.

Um trying to write my head around a question, so I I guess two recommendations seem at odds or yeah, it seems like they're at odds, but it also seems like if you just consider developing the pro the front site, Mr.

Colderon is has um stated that uh they would be well within the green factor, but you're using the entire site to justify a um a denial or a recommendation for denial for the development of the only what appears to be probably a little more than two thirds one-third of the site.

Um, why wouldn't you just use the the site that they're actually developing or or modifying to come up with the green factor calculation?

Uh my understanding of our the way our ordinance is framed uh within uh it's table 7445021, that's sort of the way our landscape exceptions are written when there's an addition of a certain size that requires full site compliance versus compliance with just a portion of the site when it's an addition of over 125%, I believe.

Um I wasn't part of the initial conversations about that interpretation last year, but it does seem consistent with how we've interpreted ordinance in other instances.

Mr.

Barnes has a question.

Do you have a green site calculation after the building's built?

Uh we do four that we tendered um in the summer, but it just relates to the 3.5, and it is a score of.

What about when you're done with the construction for the building?

That and that is that, and it doesn't even include solar panels.

Okay.

So it would be the point.

See, we've got a petitioner that has committed to has provided commitments that once they develop the site will bring it bring it well within compliance, and that they're asking for this this entitlement so that they can eventually do this addition, which will then bring it well within compliance, and we're getting a recommendation of denial.

And I did I I don't understand why that's the case.

This is a very, it seems like a very um complicated rule that they're trying to satisfy, but at the same time, you're recommending denial and then also but recommending approval for the parking and then using the amount of parking spot as a reason to recommend denial.

Do you do you understand how that can is problematic from a logic standpoint?

Sure.

I would note um as the writer to report, I had not been aware of the point 3009 of just that portion of the site.

It's possible that that had been part of our internal discussions, it may have impacted our recommendation.

Okay, Mr.

Barnes has another question.

Could you make that a commitment that you're going to do development?

Because from their standpoint.

Oh, on the 3.5 acres that once if you look at it on that site, yet that it would comply with the green factor?

Absolutely.

Because it does.

Yeah, they already did.

Okay.

It but we can submit another score sheet after we're, you know, once we pull a permit for the new building expansion.

Absolutely.

All right.

Um, I mean, I take these recommendations very seriously.

I want them to be have a logical basis for them as well.

And this one seems like I can't trying to figure it out, and it's it's complicated one thing.

The requirements are very complicated.

Second, it's an industrial site, it's an I3 use on an aerial photograph that shows almost no green space anywhere.

And I just want to have some understanding of why a recommendation of denial came down.

And I I just that's important to us as a board, so we can make informed decisions.

All right, I'm gonna move on.

We're gonna go to the rebuttal period.

You got five minutes minutes, Mr.

Yeah, we've spent a lot of time already discussing, but the whole point of the exercise today is to convince the board that the green factor score as applied to the entire site creates a practical difficulty.

Plant more trees and shrubs than any of our neighbors have in Park 100.

And give you a company that's committed to growing in Pike Township and Marion County, which was fully supported by the community.

To sacrifice building square footage, which is equates to employees and commerce and everything else out of out of park 100 in order to hit a green factor score as applied to the entire 10 acres, just doesn't meet the common sense test.

So we trust and while we wish we were on expedited, uh we think the project deserves to be.

Thank you for your consideration, and Michael, thank you for your work on it as well.

We appreciate it.

Um just real quick, Kirby Risk, we're in our hundredth year.

We're an Indiana company.

We have locations throughout the state, 37 in the state of Indiana.

We also have locations in Illinois and Ohio.

This is our central distribution center that serves that whole branch network.

We'll have about a hundred employees working at the site.

Phase one is to add the employee parking.

We'll have LED lighting in the parking.

I believe there's a city bus stop at the corner of 81st Street, um, and we will have our parking.

I think having that area lighted will be helpful.

I believe there was a significant crime that occurred there recently.

Uh we cooperated with the authorities, provided uh video surveillance um uh in that regard and helped our neighbors.

Um I I we want to keep our employees, we want to invest several million dollars in this facility.

The inside of the facility looks brand new.

Everything we've put in is energy star rated and energy efficient, HVAC systems, windows, transformers, LED lighting.

The inside looks brand new and the outside looks significantly better than when we purchased it.

We appreciate your consideration and and we really do want to continue to grow and invest in Indianapolis and uh in the state of Indiana.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, sir.

Are there any other questions for members of the staff or for the petitioner?

All right, then we cast our ballots.

On case 2025-DV1-051, Patrice Duckett Brown votes yes.

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

The variance is granted.

All right, thank you.

Um do we have any other or I believe we're at the end of our uh our docket, is that correct?

All right, do we have any additional business today?

All right, we're gonna adopt some findings of fact, and then we are going to be adjourned.

Thank you very much.