Good afternoon.

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

I am James Duke, Acting Chairperson of Division 2.

The other board members present are Patrice Duckett Brown, Beth Brandon, Tom Barnes, and David Duncan.

Legal counsel for the board today is Chris Steinmetz.

Staff members present from the Division of Planning are Eddie Honey, current planning administrator, Bryce Patts, current planning manager, and senior planners Robert Ulenake, Michael Weigel, and Noah Stern.

We also have Marty Weisty of the Senior Board Specialist and Secretary to the Board with us today.

The Board has copies of the zoning ordinances that will be incorporated by reference in into the record of each case heard today.

The proceedings of this hearing are governed by the Board of Rules Procedure.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Remonstrators will then be allowed five minutes for rebuttal of the petitioner's rebuttal of 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 by 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 of 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 in this meeting who thinks complete and proper notice has not been given and would like the petition continued due to lack of proper notice must bring this matter to the board's attention at the beginning of the hearing.

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

The installation of landscaping and screening, the paving of parking area, and the dedication of rights 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 the 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 the conditions or commitments of a variance grant is at violation is a violation enforceable by the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services.

A person may file a written request to receive notice of the filings of a petition for a 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 as a reference to the board's petition number.

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

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

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

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

December 9th board 2025 meeting.

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

We have a motion.

Can I get a second?

Ducett Brown, second.

All right.

I will now we'll call for the vote.

Doctor Brown.

Duncan Brown, yes.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

Barnes.

Barnes, yes.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

And I am a yes.

All right.

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

If not, before we hear special requests, I will ask for a waiver of our rules of procedure to allow the board to vote for all expedited petitions and petitions and adopt their findings of fact without any additional testimony for individual petitioners.

Can I get a motion?

Brandon, so moved.

Can I get a second?

Dougie Brown, second.

All right.

Now call for the vote.

Dr.

Brown?

Dougie Brown, yes.

Brendan.

Brandon, yes.

Barnes.

Yes.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

And I am a yes.

All right.

We will consider special requests and continuations at this time.

Please come to the mic.

Good afternoon, Justin Kingan, address 2722 Manker Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46203.

Here before you today regarding petition 2025 UV 1022, which is the fifth item on your agenda.

We are requesting a one-month continuance to your uh January 13 2026 hearing.

Um we submitted some excluded uses to staff last week.

We also met with a concerned uh or an interested neighborhood organization last week.

This one month continuance would be to allow those conversations to fully flesh out.

So and that would be without additional notice.

Okay.

Happy to answer any questions you may have.

All right.

Any questions from the board?

All right.

Is there anyone here in the audience uh with an interest in 2025 UV 1-02 at 4502 East Michigan Street?

All right.

Uh we'll have comments from staff.

Thank you, Chairperson Duke, members of the board.

Staff has no objection to this request to continue to the January 13th, 2026 hearing without additional notice.

As this is the second continual request for continuous recalls from the petitioner uh after this continuous staff will not support any further continuances in the future.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Board, any other questions?

All right, we'll call for the vote at this time.

Motion?

Brandon, so moved.

Duncan second.

All right, we have a motion and a second.

Uh we'll now come ask for the final vote.

Dr.

Brown?

Duncan Brown, yes.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

Barnes, yes.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Duke, now I'm a yes as well.

So motion is carried.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Do you need my case number?

Yes.

Uh 205.

DB 2043.

All right.

Um I'm missing a number.

Chris, if you can uh I don't know if I need to uh go back on the other one now, but we need your name and address.

Oh, I'm sorry, my name is Tomasa Yajero Torres.

My address is 4360 Castle Boulevard North Drive.

Okay, thank you.

And what which case number are you speaking of?

Uh to 2025 D V 2043.

Okay.

I have it.

Okay.

So I will like to fully withdraw the petition and bring the fencing at the site with compliance of the right-of-way clear site and the front yards to the height measurements required.

Okay.

You would like to withdraw that.

So at this point, just acknowledgement, right?

Okay.

Is there uh anyone in the audience with an interest in 2025 uh DV?

I'm sorry, UV uh DB2043 at 4360 Kessler Boulevard North Drive.

Okay.

Are you in support or in opposition?

Okay.

Okay.

So we just had to go ahead and hear it.

So they don't have anything.

Okay, all right, cool.

All right.

Well, yeah, she is asking that the case be withdrawn.

So I'm sorry.

I I thought you were asking, were we in opposition to the bearing answers that uh I have no opposition to withdrawal misunderstood the question?

Okay, awesome.

All right, thank you.

I just understood.

Uh but I have to do that.

Please come to the microphone.

Ma'am.

Yeah.

Yes.

Good afternoon.

I'm Gladys Johnson and I live at 3416 Devereaux.

My question is, are you now talking about a fence alone?

I'm removing the removing that.

She's she's withdrawing the whole petition.

I I just want to make sure.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

So uh she's gonna ask been asked to withdraw the whole petition, and so we acknowledge uh that withdrawal petition.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

So what happens now?

She has to apply.

She will comply.

You know, so she's no longer asking for variance or anything like that, so she's gonna go with what has been stated and what the ruling was before.

So she's removing the fence.

She is removing her petition for this case, so it is going away.

So there's nothing else for us to vote on.

I would say if you have any questions of what happens from here on, call the mayor's action center, and they'll be able to get you connected with the individual that can help you out on that question.

Okay.

Excuse me.

Um you all can discuss this afternoon.

My name is Arnoldo Gonzalez.

Um remove the fence, the torque fans right now.

Not right now, but in the time uh, and we put a new one inside the property 42 each high, and maybe some landscape behind the uh fans.

Okay, thank you.

Just important.

So for anyone with any questions, you know, you can talk after the hearing about this, but uh, it is now been withdrawn.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Good afternoon, Joe Smoker with Near East Area Renewal, uh address of 960 North Rural Street here on petition 2025 UV2017.

Um do do a couple of factors we were late on the notice for that, so we're asking for a continuance one month to the January 13th hearing, and we did include letters within our notice indicating that we'd be here requesting that continuance as well.

Um that'd be without additional notice.

Okay, without additional notice.

Uh is there anyone in the audience with uh any interest in 2025 UB217 at 853 North Tacoma Avenue?

Staff.

Thank you, Chairperson Duke, members of the board, staff has no objection to continuing this first request this petition to the January 13th, 2026 hearing, as this is the first request.

Okay.

Um I'll now ask for a vote from the board.

Brandon, so moved.

Dougie Brown second.

All right.

Doug Brown.

Dougie Brown, yes.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

Barnes, yes.

Duke.

And I am a yes.

Granted.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any else in the anyone else in the audience?

All right, staff.

Thank you.

Members of the board staff would draw your attention to item number one on the agenda.

That is 2025 DB2045 at 8083 Georgetown Road.

Um, an automatic continuance was filed by a registered neighborhood organization continuing this petition automatically to your January 13th, 2026 hearing date.

Uh, this will merely require acknowledgement.

Ignore.

Thank you.

Thank you, Acting Chairperson Duke, members of the board, staff would draw your attention to number three on the agenda, 2025 SC2004 amended at 6358 North College Avenue.

The petitioner has provided a um shared parking agreement with the adjacent property, and so therefore the last variants of variants listed uh for the reduced parking can be removed from the request, leaving just the variance of use and special exception.

And seeing that there have not been any uh any remonstrance, this can remain on expedited.

Okay.

Acknowledged.

Well, I'll just make sure there's no one in the audience regarding uh 2025 SC204 uh 6358 North College Avenue.

All right, acknowledged.

Thank you.

Any other staff?

Yes, please.

All right.

Um secretary, we'll now go to expedite.

These are petitions to be expedited.

Case number 2025-se2-004 amended.

Property address 6358 North College Avenue.

Washington Township, Council District No.

T O D F.

The petitioner is Nalja Osman Incorporated, represented by Nicole Anderson.

Special exception of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the operation of a daycare center, subject to the filed plan of operation.

And variance of use to provide for a daycare center within the floodway fringe, not permitted.

Case number 2025-SE2-005, property address 5167, North College Avenue.

Washington Township, Council District No.

7, zoned C3 TOD.

The petitioner is 52 College Avenue LLC, represented by Samuel Lewis.

Special exception of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a tattoo parlor, special exception required.

And variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a tattoo parlor within 40 feet of a protected district.

500 feet required.

Is there anyone today in attendance that is in opposition to any of the petitions I have just read?

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

All right.

We'll now uh call asked for our board members if there are any questions that you all have.

All right.

If you would now vote, that would be great.

Go ahead and cast your ballots.

I think we're done, Mr.

Secretary.

Is that me?

On case two zero two five-se two-zero zero four amended, Beth Brandon votes yes.

Tom Barnes votes yes.

James Duke votes yes.

Patrice Stuckett Brown votes yes, and David Duncan votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case two zero two five-se two-zero zero five, Beth Brandon votes yes.

Tom Barnes votes yes.

James Duke votes yes.

Patrice Stuckett Brown votes yes, and David Duncan votes yes.

That variance is granted.

Thank you, Mr.

Secretary.

For those of you that were here for any of those expedited cases or that has been withdrawn or transferred, uh, you are now free to leave.

All right, Mr.

Secretary, we're ready when you are these are petitions for public hearing.

Case number two zero two five-dv two-zero four one, property address one eight six, six seven Singleton Street, Center Township, Council District number eighteen, zoned D5.

The petitioner is Ajama Gear LLC, represented by Elliot Gibson.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for enclosure of an existing front porch, resulting in the lack of a primary entry feature along the front facade required.

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

Do you swear or affirm that the thank you?

Keep your hand up, please, thank you.

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

Yes.

Thank you.

Can come to the podium.

Please state your name and address.

Elliot Gibson, 18 uh 67, Singleton Street.

Okay.

You have 15 minutes.

But we are looking to move the front door of the property on the enclosed porch to the side of that enclosed porch, because that's where the sidewalks lead up to the porch A.

There's really no access for a front door on the front porch.

There's landscaping in front of it, brick, bush, or shrubs, things of that nature.

So it made more sense to put the door on the side where the steps and sidewalk were.

I'm not sure what if I should say.

This is just your time to uh basically give an explanation of why you're petitioning and but it is.

You know, we took the only um distressed house on the street and and rehabbed it.

And um that's that's it.

I I don't think I have anything else to say.

Okay.

All right.

Um is there anyone else in the audience uh with an interest in 2025 DB 2041 at uh 1867 singleton?

Stafford Thank you, Chair President Duke, members of the board.

Um the site consists of a single family dwelling that was remodeled sometime in 2025.

The remodel work included the enclosure of the front porch.

Um which the original primary entry was on the front facade facing the singleton street with the enclosure of the front porch, the front entry was moved to the north side facade.

Um that movement uh enclosure was done before applying for permits.

Permits were eventually applied for on August 8th, I believe.

Yes.

That would have been after the petition was filed or after violation was indicated.

Uh staff believes that had the permits been filed first, as is typical procedure with any remodel, uh, property change, whether it's an improvement location permit, structural permit, drainage permit.

Um that the petition would have been a notified of the requirement for the front facade and would have been able to pursue the variant, decide if they wanted to pursue the variance at that time.

Um if they would still wanted to remove the move the front facade the excuse me, the front door from the front facade to the north facade, north side facade, or if they wanted to proceed with the variants.

Um but this would have been before any work had been done.

However, since permits weren't since permits weren't applied for, the work was done beforehand, unpermitted.

Uh this site is within the compact context of the county, um, which is more an urban walkable neighborhood.

It also follows under the terrace frontage category for the private frontage design standards.

Um it has a neighborhood where the context of the block established smaller frontages on as a predominant pattern, typically 80-50% or more of the block face or at transitions of adjacent blocks and frontages.

What's that saying is the majority of the street houses dwellings on the on the house on the block are close to the front setbacks, and they have uh front entrances that face the street, as you see in the staff report on the adjacent properties.

Pretty much every single property has that um currently.

Um the original porch did not have a front steps that did have a side loaded steps on the original porch, but those side loaded steps at the time with were not considered the elevation or the front facade entry.

The front facade entry underneath the original open porch was still on the west facade facing the street.

Um the purpose of the enclosure of the of the front porch uh from staff's understanding is basically just to enlarge the indoor living space.

And by that they could have still they could they could have still done that with proper permitting and still left a front door facade by removing some of the front porch railing that would have required some additional work, but um they proceeded to go with the original front steps on the uh side load of the porch as opposed to relocating the front steps to the front facade for the proposed or required front door facade, if that makes sense.

Um findings submitted by the applicant for the petition indicate the current entry configuration, which would have been the original front door facade, limits functional access, I'm not and does not provide a suitable orientation for the primary facade.

Uh staff disagrees as the original primary entry facade has existed as originally built for approximately 109 years since the house was built in 1916, according to assessor's records, and that did not limit functional access or need to be relocated during that time.

Um part of the reason why the ordinance limits the relocation of the door uh away from the front facade is public safety issues when responding public safety comes.

And if you can next page.

Especially if they're coming from the south, which would be from the major arterial uh in this neighborhood of staff remembers correctly.

Um so that limits uh public safety response.

Um having to come and there isn't really a port sidewalk to the um the door and staff if staff remembers right, it was just laid uh river rock and stepping stones from the front sidewalk.

Again, this would have been the original steps to the porch, but if the porch had not been enclosed, public safety would have seen the front entry um within the open air porch as originally developed.

This also limits social interaction with a adjoining neighbors, um, although that's not a part that is a minor reason.

Uh that's not the primary reason.

Um staff does not believe that this does believe that this would be a significant deviation from the ordinance in terms of primary safety and an edfield guidelines, as it does not meet the uh same orientation for front door entry as surrounding property owners, or has this neighborhood has had for a hundred years.

Therefore, staff does recommend denial of the request as filed and could answer any questions the board may have.

Um do we have any questions of staff?

Well, petitioner from the board.

Okay.

Did you get did he get building or permits for electrical and plumbing upgrades?

For what electrical and plumbing upgrades?

Uh I did not research that.

That would have been interior.

Um it's possible those could have been applied before, as they were not variance oriented, but I would guess probably they were not applied for until after um the vi the this variance was applied, but the petitioner could answer that.

Yeah, electrical and plumbing were applied.

Before you finish the work?

Uh yes.

Okay, uh petitioner, you you still have five minutes uh to um answer any of the um applied to anything staff said yeah.

If I can address what he said about public safety, um yeah, if if if police or fire department was ever called to that property, it would be absolutely no problem for them to find that that door on that side.

You know, I think just common sense would say if I don't see it here, I'm sorry.

You know, if I don't see it on the right, if I don't see it in the front, look to the left.

You know, I I think that's just this common sense.

Uh and I think that was the main reason that he uh stated that uh the the petition should not be granted.

Uh as far as the aesthetics, uh you know the house was vacant for for decades it appeared, and uh we made it look totally different.

We made it look a lot better, it added to the neighborhood, it took nothing absolutely nothing away from the neighborhood.

Um so I'm not you know I again I I you know I would like to to uh to be granted that variance uh just based based on the fact that um we took a uh property that was undesirable and made it very desirable and and made the whole neighborhood, the whole street look a lot better.

Okay, another questions?

I do I have uh just two questions.

Um is this a duplex or is it single family?

Single family.

Just one family.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

Um is there so there's this crushed river stone with pavers that leads up to the door in its current configuration.

Is there a path on the I think the north side of the house?

Along the other side of the house?

No, there's an alley.

There's an alley there.

There's an alley on the other side of the house.

But this would be the only path that leads to to either side of the house.

Correct.

All right, straight into the backyard, yes, sir.

Thank you.

All right, no other questions.

Is that that alley like drivable?

Yes, it is.

All right.

Castro ballots at this time.

On case 2025-DV2-041.

David Duncan votes yes.

Patrice Stuckett Brown votes yes.

James Duke votes yes.

Tom Barnes votes no, and Beth Brandon votes no.

The variance is granted.

Thank you very much.

Is there anything else I need to do?

No.

Thank you.

Case number 2025-UV2-013.

Property address 148 West 38th Street.

Washington Township, Council District Number 7, Zoned C4.

The petitioner is Martin Petroleum Incorporated, represented by Jamila Mitz.

Variants of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the operation of an automobile fueling station within 1,555 feet of a transit station, half mile separation required.

And a convenience store with a 1.5 foot eastern transitional yard and a service area with a zero-foot eastern transitional yard, eight-foot transitional yard required with deficient frontage and transitional yard landscaping.

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 it will give is the truth and nothing but the truth?

Yes.

Okay.

Please state your name and address.

Thank you.

Jamila Mintz with In N Out Unlimited, 6919 East 10th Street, Suite E1, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46219.

Okay.

You now have 15 minutes to state your case.

Thank you.

I pre uh six-pump diesel gas station serving as a vital local need by offering diesel fuel for the municipal vehicles, local service fleets, and uh the few residents that could potentially benefit from having the diesel without catering to large commercial trucks.

Uh this ensures you know facility to integrate smoothly with the neighborhood character and also help address the actual demand patterns for the community.

I know that there are plans to redirect some traffic flows on Capitol and to also speak about the I don't have an exact number, but I'd be safe to say over 100,000 vehicles that travel the 38th Street corridor on a daily basis.

Uh we've done several uh reports of research to just vouch that there are no diesel stations within seven miles going to the west and approximately close to eight miles going to the east that actually provide diesel fuel for that particular major thoroughfare uh corridor along 38th Street.

Um by conveniently serving local diesel users, and again, I will state not tractor trailers or large commercial vehicles.

Um the new station helps city services, first responders, utility crews, small businesses, and working residents.

Uh this improves the overall operational efficiency and helps support local economic activity.

Uh the property currently sits as a used tire shop, and it has been uh that particular uh business for several years under a rental agreement with the current tenants, as my clients have always maintained ownership of that tire shop and um in January of 2022, they exited a formal partnership with their previous business partner and took 100% ownership of their current location, which sits at 201 West 38th Street.

Um I will mention that that uh partnership ended, and as my clients took over 100% ownership, it was an immediate um need to redevelop that existing station that was at 201.

And so as soon as they took 100 percent ownership, and might I add the reason for the separation of partnership, the previous other owner did not have interest in redeveloping that property, and they really did not have any interest as far as cleaning up the corner of 38th and Capitol.

Uh and as soon as the owners at Martin Petroleum took 100% ownership, they immediately began plans to redevelop that corner.

And it's always been a long-term plan to redevelop both of their commercial properties that they held ownership for.

Um plans that are set forth with the city.

However, there are no future plans to continue the indigo transit line heading westbound on 38th Street.

Without this project, there is a high risk the property will remain idle and contribute to little to the area's vitality or tax base.

The proposed development offers, you know, specific employment opportunities, tax revenue, and improved site aesthetics.

Um it act it actually will activate unused land and provides uh tangible benefit to the surrounding community.

Uh this development represents responsible land use that serves legitimate community needs while maintaining neighborhood compatibility.

Um I'm happy to answer any questions anyone may have okay.

Uh any questions from the board from the petitioner.

I just want to confirm are are you saying that this will only serve diesel fuel and that there won't be any regular petrol?

That's a great question, and I'm happy that you asked that.

Originally, the plan was to only provide diesel fuel, but however, with the need to um you you cannot, and my client will happily explain the fueling setups, but you cannot have a diesel-only station, so there will be accessibility for regular fuel to be provided as well on site.

Yes.

All right, thank you.

And what's what will be sold at the convenience store?

Are we selling tobacco products?

I love that you asked that question.

And it was mentioned we did initiate uh a uh voluntary list of commitments that the developer would like to propose for this project.

They have agreed to sell absolutely no paraphernalia whatsoever that is conducive to any drug use or anything of such.

And in addition to that, um, because I know staff mentioned there were no formal uh actual architectural plans, um, going back to the drawing table, and we actually attended a couple of neighborhood uh meetings, it was made and brought to our attention that there is a lack of food in the area.

The developer and the owner has agreed to utilize a majority of the space to provide for staple items such as day-to-day needs, eggs, milk, bread, cereals, not necessarily a market per se, but to definitely offer staple items that could be beneficial for those who do not have uh vehicular access to grocery stores that are nearby.

So the uh owner has taken heavy consideration into providing those additional resources as well for those people in the neighborhood.

Thank you.

So again, there will be tobacco being sold.

I understand you said not paraphernalia, but tobacco will be sold.

Tobacco, I I don't think we specify that tobacco won't be used or or sold, but um that is something that we would be considerable to take into consideration if that is something that would not be favorable.

I have one more follow-up question now that I'm giving the plan of operation a closer look.

Um, so it does specify diesel fuel dispensing pumps, so you may want or need to amend that if it's absolutely um, but then also I see in here that there's a vehicle service bay as an as an optional ad.

Is that something that's anticipated?

That will be omitted.

The actual current uh structure will actually be demolished and there will be a rebuild of a uh approximately 2500 square foot service station that will not have a vehicular bay.

Right.

Thank you.

Yes, we will amend that.

Thank you for pointing that out.

What's the hours of service?

That's a great question.

So obviously, based on fuel dispensing uh operations, some fuel dispensing companies require there to be 24-hour operation only for the simple fact that if there is a uh accident or something happens on site, there has to be someone present to uh manage and maintain that.

However, uh my client is uh I'm currently working with them to outline if there can be a cutoff point for uh uh hours of operation uh based on that.

So it's gonna be contingent upon what type of fuel will be uh provided at this particular station.

Thank you.

Any further questions from the board?

All right.

Um at this time um we have uh some time allotted for any remonstrators uh to come uh to speak you have a combined total of 15 minutes as well if there are going to be more than one.

You have a total of 15 minutes.

Please state your name and address it.

Stephanie Patterson, 416 West 38th Street.

Okay.

Um while I think it's nice to have economic viability in our neighborhood, we do not have uh need for another gas or diesel station.

There is a station at 56 in Illinois that serves the um few people in our neighborhood who have diesel state diesel cars.

I believe we have less than six percent of the households in our neighborhood have diesel cars.

Um we also have four gas well, three existing gas stations within 1,500 feet of one another.

Um that to me is quite excessive for a neighborhood.

So I don't think there's an unmet need in having another convenience store or gas station.

Um we have several existing stores that sell shelf goods, so there's no need for that.

Um also um this um supportive economic activities gas stations are traditionally not high head count operations, so I don't know that there would be an increased opportunity for employment either.

Um there is no service gap that we're aware of for this neighborhood, and we do support development in the neighborhood, but in this case, there's no unmet need for a service station or convenience store that we're aware of, and no one in the meetings suggested that that was something that we desired as part of the vision for this neighborhood.

Ideally, um the hours of operation two would not be conducive to a neighborhood.

There is a residential um household right next to it, and 24 hours operations would obviously have an impact on the people who lived in that house.

Um that's all I have.

Uh we are not in support of it.

Hello, my name is Danita Hoskin, and I'm the president of the Crown Hill Neighborhood Association, which is just immediately south of the proposed um gas station.

We do have our address, please.

I'm sorry.

Your address on my address, 3434 North Kenwood Avenue 46208.

And I'm here on behalf of the Crown Hill Neighborhood Association, residents and stakeholders.

And um we do have the current Martin Petroleum gas station, also known as the Shells gas station, in our um exact boundaries of the Crown Hill community.

And we were here um when that gas station was proposed to be demolished and then um a new one erected.

In our conversations when that happened, there were certain um agreements that we all came to, and that was about safety and security, employment of qualified residents in the community to be engaged uh with the neighborhood and in the neighborhood association, uh the site, the aesthetics of the site and no selling of drug paraphernalia.

The aesthetics of the site and no selling of drug paraphernalia.

Some of those demand uh some of those commitments were addressed, and there were others that have not been followed up on.

And so it was very concerning for residents in our community.

In addition to the fact we are concerned about another gas station or uh the diesel station being placed at 148, I believe that's the correct address.

Well, the one across the street, the one we're here in regards to.

Because of the health and environmental issues that it pub that it proposes.

Um we are already plagued in our community with the obesity, the hypertension, the diabetes, and a reduction of our life expectancy by almost 20 years because of the social determinants of health that are plaguing our community.

I, along with many of my colleagues, don't believe that our families should be fed from gas stations and discount stores, because those are typically latent with the items that are in those places are typically laten with salts and sugars, the aid to the uh the social determinants of health that I just mentioned to you.

And so of that reason, Crown Hill Neighborhood Association, and its uh members and stakeholders are not in support of having this new gas station across the street.

We believe that there are other options that can be identified for that space, and we look forward to working with everyone as it relates to that.

I thank you.

Good afternoon.

Uh John Barth, 4832 Graceland Avenue.

I'm the city council member who represents District 7.

Um thanks for having me, allowing me to speak.

Um I'm here to underline and amplify my constituents at the Butler Targeton Neighborhood Association, uh, the adjacent neighborhood, the Crown Hill Neighborhood Association, the Umbrella Organization, Midtown Indy Inc., plus the um uh important uh institution of Butler University, who have all come out strongly against this petition.

And I will tell you this it's rare to have such consistent unanimo unanimity against uh a petition that I've seen.

I've had scores of people reach out to me opposed to this.

I've attended a BTA meeting where I heard and talked to people directly about how much they are opposed to this.

People are opposed to this, they do not want this uh in our district.

Um plus you heard the staff report.

Um to me it's pretty clear this is the wrong project at the wrong place, um, opposed uh by everyone, including me, the city county counselor.

So I would ask say that you uh reject this petition, and if the petitioner would like to come forward again with a different approach, I would suggest that they do that with uh neighborhood uh focused oriented approach to trying to get support.

Thank you.

Uh good afternoon.

My name is David Bacon.

I'm the chief executive officer of the Mapleton Fall Creek Development Corporation.

Our office is located at 3190 Meridian Street, 46208, coming here to uh reflect and amplify uh everything that's been just said before.

Uh those in the Mapleton Falkly community and all the communities that are south of 38th Street are very wary of more gas stations that attract more automobile activity that make it more difficult to uh for kids, children, families to be able to cross 38th Street by putting another gas station one that's almost almost directly across the street from one that already exists, makes it very difficult for kids on bikes to be able to uh move over to go to Tarkington Park to head up to Broad Riple Family Center.

Uh and so they have told me that this is not something that they're in favor of, uh, but I'm here to just uh let the committee know that.

Uh in addition, they're also very concerned about the proliferate proliferation of uh petroleum fuels, uh petroleum uh fumes next to the park, um which has been uh told to me by I think three or four different groups that I've spoken to, including um Crown Hill Neighborhood Association, Middleton Fall Creek Neighborhood Association, um, and those from Watson Park.

Um the the key is that many times the city has allocated resources across the just across 38th Street that our neighborhoods are supposed to use, and if we continue to allow zoning decisions that create more automobile activity, it makes it more difficult for them to access.

And so that is one of the things I wanted to raise to this committee.

Thank you.

My name is Mary Dickin.

My address is 4123 Carolton AV, zip code 46205.

Um, I serve as a board member on the Butler Tarkington Neighborhood Association, and just want to share both at that meeting and I also attended the Crown Hill meeting.

Um the neighbors were overwhelmingly opposed to this project.

I did not hear a single person say anything in support of it.

Um, you've heard many of the reasons, concerns about the environmental impact, concerns about our public safety, concerns about the real economic impact, and is that the most beneficial kind of development to do for our neighborhood.

Um I will share at the Butler Tarkington meeting uh in response to all of the negative feedback.

We directly asked the petitioner if they would consider withdrawing this request and instead work with us to um reimagine what redevelopment could look like so that it was something that was mutually beneficial for all of us at that meeting.

We did receive a verbal commitment to withdraw the petition.

So we were very surprised later to find that this was still on the docket.

Um so that is part of why we're all here today to ask you to honor the wishes of the neighborhood, since that commitment was not honored from that meeting.

Thank you.

No other remonstrators?

Is it for oh no?

Sorry?

Is it for or against?

Is there against okay?

Staff.

Yes.

Uh thank you very much, uh, Akin Chairperson Dugan members of the board for your time and for your volunteering.

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

Um staff is recommending denial of variances to allow for a fueling station counter to comprehensive plan and TOD guidance, as well as variances for deficient setbacks and landscaping at the site when a new building would be constructed.

Uh for site context here to previous use, or I guess it was previous and current use of a tire shop was constructed in 1965 at the site, and that structure still remains in place at the northeast corner of the property.

Uh, very setbacks in front yard parking um close to the intersection there at 38 Van Capital would not conform with current ordinance rules, but are legally established given it was built back in the 60s.

Uh surrounding uses include a liquor store to the south, um, a different tire shop to the west, a fueling station to the southwest, as has been mentioned, um, a restaurant and undeveloped residential parcel to the east, and then a structure to the north that appears to be residential in nature as well.

Uh there is a stop on the indigo red and purple lines at BRT stop about 1,550 linear feet to the east of this site.

That's the 38 from Meridian bus stop right before it sort of moves off to the east there.

Uh the applicant is seeking to demolish this current building, puts up a site which would result in a forfeiture of the legally non-conforming status, and then we construct a new convenience store building of approximately 2,500 square feet.

Similar location to the current structure.

I would also add six fuel pumps into the front yard under a canopy along with underground storage tanks and changes to parking and curb cuts of the site.

Uh development standard variants is being sought are a one and a half foot setback for the building and then a zero foot setback from the eastern property line for the dumpster pad.

Within the compact context, this district would require an eight-foot setback to be placed there.

I'd also be deficient landscaping at the site.

Um the site plan provided doesn't imply the placement of any landscaping.

There'd be requirements both along frontages and along portions of the site that border residential zoning.

That would be to the northeast.

I would note that the house to the north appears to be zoned C3.

If that zoning did match the land use, it would require a 10-foot setback buffer and then placement of either trees and shrubs or some sort of separation by fence or burn.

Uh none of which is shown on plans.

Um variance of use would also be required given that the site is within a half mile of that transit station for the red and purple line.

Um based on that, the use is not permitted at the site.

That's the rule that's been within the city zoning ordinance since 2016, which actually predates the implementation of the TOD secondary zoning district in 2021.

Um the zone, the secondary zoning district is for areas within 1,000 feet of bus stations.

So if this site doesn't fault within that, but it does fall within a half mile of a transit station in general.

So this is the rule that's applicable throughout the county.

Uh most transit stations within Indianapolis are related to the BRT line, so the site does fall within the uh TOD overlay as defined by the pattern book of the comprehensive plan, as well as strategic plans for the red and purple line for transit oriented development.

Staff feels that guidance from those portions of the comprehensive plan is appropriate to consider for the site given its proximity to the BRT lines and the overall low percentage of land within Marion County that is dedicated to be near transit.

The site is zoned C4, that's the base zoning, which allows for fueling stations in cases when more separation from transit might exist, which is not the case here.

However, the comprehensive plan's general recommendation is for the villaged mixed use typology.

That envisions compact and walkable pedestrian-oriented land development.

That's not the case for the proposed use or for the layout.

The comprehensive plan explicitly excludes fueling station uses as recommended land uses within village mixed use areas.

This echoes recommendations from the village mixed use typology.

And again, this layout doesn't necessarily match that.

Both frontages would be dominated by vehicle area and pedestrian access to a convenience store would require crossing over at vehicle area.

Findings from the applicant to mention utilization of a similar setback to the current structure as justification for the variance of development standards being requested.

Staff feels that the legally non-conforming status would be forfeited at the point of the building being willfully demolished.

Full removal would also allow for greater flexibility and site redesign to meet required side buffer yards and to better approximate the recommendations of the village mixed use typology.

And again, we also know that the plan doesn't meet that 10-foot buffer to the North that would be applicable if the zoning matched the land use.

That seems like a primary reason these setback variances are being sought is to facilitate placement of the fuel pumps and the canopy in the front yard as well as bad building in the previous location.

Both of those on this one relatively small lot might constitute over development of the site, and staff feels that utilization of an alternate design without pump canopies could allow for building closer to street frontages with greater pedestrian activation.

Given this lack of site specific practical difficulty, we recommend denial of the variances of development standards.

And then there is also the use component.

Beyond the incongruence with relevant uh comprehensive plan components discussed earlier, uh staff doesn't feel that an undue hardship has been established in this instance.

Uh the C4 zoning district allows for dozens of uses by rights, including convenience store uses that don't involve a fueling station.

Um there isn't uh an inherent characteristic of the site that would prevent an alternate use complying with the ordinance's use table.

Uh we received an opposition letter from the Butler Tarkinson neighborhood organization with regards to this petition.

They are monstrated as well today, but that letter is comprehensive and touches on several areas addressed by staff and several that were not.

I mentioned consistently with planning goals, traffic safety, environmental impact from the tanks, the size and scale of the use, noise and privacy impacts, property values, and then the viability of alternate solutions.

We also received a letter from the city councilor for this district, Councilor Barf, who expressed agreement with that stance and remonstrated today, as well as testimony that you've heard from Mapleton Fall Creek and Crown Hill.

Uh we've also received letters from Butler University and from Midtown Indy earlier this morning.

Uh we did receive commitments from or potential commitments uh last Thursday from the applicant.

Uh, there were six in total provided right around the time of publication of this report.

Um that doesn't impact staff's overall recommendation of it if this is approved over our denial, uh, the board could incorporate those if they saw fit.

Uh, we know that the first commitment references a six-foot landscape buffer between the site and property lines adjacent to residential properties.

Uh, that's not currently shown in the site plan that we have on file, which would require an amendment.

Uh, there was also some mentioned during the petitioner's testimony of having a certain percentage of the site selling stable goods.

Uh I don't believe that was referenced within the operation plan or within the commitments.

So, again, if approved over denial, that's something they may want to add explicitly to the commitment sheet.

Uh, but overall, staff does concur with the Butler Tarkinson neighborhood group that even though there are some auto uses in the area, this is likely to be a more intense traffic generator since there wouldn't be appointments for service required.

Um hours of operation haven't been specified.

Uh, there are some time limits on waste collection within the commitments, but not on the use itself of a potential 24-hour nature of the use could exacerbate the level of impact on pedestrians and residences nearby.

Um given those concerns, uh, the lack of undue hardship preventing alternate use and out of support for comprehensive plan guidance for villaged mixed use typologies in areas near transit-oriented development lines.

Uh, we do recommend denial and are happy to answer questions that you might have.

All right.

Any questions for staff?

All right.

Um at this time we have uh five minutes uh that have been allotted for the petitioner to come back for any rebuttal.

May I ask, I want to ask a question to the two gentlemen in the back that had the question about what remonstrance means.

I just want to make sure the gentleman in the IU hat.

Yes, sir.

Are you here in support of the petition?

I am.

Okay.

And so did you feel like earlier you didn't have a chance to speak because it was only for those in opposition?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

So, Chris, I think we need to give them an opportunity to speak as part of the public hearing before we go back to the back to the rebuttal.

Did do you recall that they use all 15 minutes of their time?

They didn't well, they're in support, not right.

No, I understand the petitioners did not use all their time.

So I yeah, I would say it would be fine to allow him to speak.

I don't know for how long, I don't know how much he has to say, but we'll say up to eight minutes.

Sir, did you stand to be sworn in when we when we uh asked that earlier?

Okay.

Please come to the mic.

State your name and your address.

My name is my name is Keegan Covington, and I live at 3807 Graceland, which is directly across the street from the new station that was just built back in 24.

I live two doors down from where the new station or making plans to be.

Um what I want to say today to everyone here is that the Butler Tarkington neighborhood is Butler and Tarkington.

Butler is a much higher income neighborhood.

Tarkington is a little more lower class neighborhood, but they have one association, and most of the higher class get to speak their voice, but I'm there every day.

Mr.

Zing and his family done a beautiful job with this new gas station.

They have security in place with automatic cameras that go straight to MIPD.

The place looks beautiful.

Now, what's the ISOR is the liquor store.

What's the ISOR is the tire station next to me.

And then he leases to another tire station.

I'm tired of looking at tires.

So if our neighborhood associations are so concerned about what he's doing, he's beautifying that corner.

If they're so concerned about kids and bikes and traffic, well, it's the corner of 38th in Illinois, 38th in Graceland.

That's a high traffic area.

Let's put up some cameras to get these cars slowing down that has torn up the whole Crown Hill Cemetery.

That beautiful median is beat to death.

I think there's some of their focus is in the wrong place.

Now, I live in the area.

I love my area, but I also want to see my area look better.

If they're concerned about food and different things that is such, come out of that MLK Center and get on the corner of 38 from Capitol and get over to that liquor store and reach out to some of these people.

All from counseling, Alpha Room services, volunteer to get some of these people in a better position.

Putting a tire station there is not the problem.

It's the community that needs to come together and help some of these people walking up and down that street that I see every day.

So I don't know how big of a safety thing it is.

I haven't did the research, but what I do know is this family has been there over 30 years, 20 years.

They've made that corner look much better.

They spent a lot of money developing that place.

I go there daily.

And I would like to see something besides tires.

So if the MLK and the Crown Hill are so concerned about some of these things, come out of your offices and come help the people that's on the streets.

Now the 10-point coalition, they meet nightly to walk the neighborhood to do something positive.

I've never seen none of them people out there.

This MLK Center in this Crown Hill.

I don't see those people.

I've been in meetings with them.

I've attended meetings, and it's tough.

They're a tough crowd to please.

And sometimes you have to give a little bit to get a little bit.

Now there may be some things that they ask for, and I'm sure Mr.

Zine and his family could do those things.

But I'm here to support Mr.

Zing, his family.

They're great people.

They have a beautiful station.

They have security set up, they have MIPD cameras.

All of these things they pay for.

These neighborhood associations are not coming out helping paying for any of these stuff.

And they're not doing anything their.

We're not here to represent the tire shop, it's just to the west of Capitol.

We're here to represent the tire shop that currently exists to the east of Capitol.

And I think because we heard the the the concerns of the neighborhood association.

Throughout this time that we filed this petition, we have made so many attempts to come to a meeting of the mines.

They talked about the necessity for us to withdraw.

We didn't need to withdraw.

I exercised the exact same right that they exercised by requesting the continuance.

And by requesting the continuance, that allowed four additional weeks for us to come together.

They declined to do that several times.

I made personal phone calls to just say, let's let's just come together.

No, we don't want to meet with you unless you withdraw.

That does not sound like a group of people who actually want to work together to establish what would be best use of this property.

This these developers, these these business owners are not asking for any money from the community.

And I think that the discussion about food and things like that.

You know, I I think uh uh uh a real compromise here is to provide staple items.

We're not talking chips and cookies, we're talking daily staple items.

And we're more than happy to take into consideration what is a consensus of what does that look like.

This is not a complete ignore.

I mean, I think we were met with opposition before we even had a chance to really say or to ask what do we need to do?

How can we help this community?

And by improving the existing space, would be actual benefit because right now it is looked the exact same way since I grew up, right on the corner that sits right behind that gas, that liquor store.

It looks the exact same way.

So I just ask that it may not be.

Um remonstrators, you have five minutes for a bottle.

Reminders of combined five minutes for everyone.

It's Stephanie Patterson again.

Um I live at 416 West 38th Street, which is less than a thousand feet from the gas station.

Uh I am president of the Butler Tarkington Neighborhood Association, and I walk to church at North United Methodist Church in front of that tire place every Sunday.

And I also um volunteer at Bread and Bowl that serves the people that are unhoused or unable to have meals.

So I serve there on Tuesdays and Thursdays, so I'm well aware of the people in our neighborhood that um are in need of stable food sources and housing.

Uh I know them by name.

And um, by the way, my I am a third generation resident of Butler Tarkington Neighborhood Association.

My aunt has lived in Butler Target for over 67 years.

Um I'm here to say that while the tire station is an ISOR, the Singh family owns the tire station.

So if it's an ISOR, it's simply because of what they've allowed to happen at the existing property.

So you can't really distance yourself from that property if you own it.

I get that getting a new development there would be an improvement.

I agree.

But all development to the detriment of my neighborhood is not going to get my support.

We don't need any more sales of tobacco, alcohol, gas, or convenience store items.

We have three stores already, family dollar to sell staple items, the BP sells staple items, and the existing shell station does.

So there's no need of more convenience store staple items.

We have more than enough.

And we have people who come to our neighborhood association meetings all the time.

They talk to us before they do a project, and generally we support them because they take in consideration what we have to say.

I did not have any meeting requests prior to seeing the ordinance, the um hearing signed, and I invited the developers to our meeting.

It was me reaching out to them.

They did not reach out to us prior to that.

And quite frankly, we were not willing to meet with them again when we saw that they were gonna go forward with a project that we did not support.

There was no reason for us to meet with them if they were going to go forward with something we didn't support.

And we didn't ask them to withdraw.

They offered verbally to withdraw in the meeting.

So when they did not withdraw, it seemed like they were negotiating in bad faith.

And that's just how we felt about it.

However, if they choose to do something different, we're more than happy to get involved in the project before they ask for permits and variances.

Thank you.

Any other remonstrators besides our counselor?

Did you have any other thing?

Okay.

All right.

Board, any final questions?

If not, we will cast our ballots.

On case 2025-UV2-013, David Duncan votes no.

Patrice Duckett Brown votes no.

James Duke votes no.

The variance is not granted.

Excuse me, could you conduct any conversation outside?

We still have some cases to hear.

Thank you.

Sorry about that.

Case number two zero two five-UV two-014 amended property address 15 and 19 Iowa Street, Center Township, Council District number 18, zoned D5.

The petitioner is Shannon Moody, represented by David E.

Deering.

Variance of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the use of two shipping containers as a detached garage.

Commercial vehicles not permitted.

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.

After you state your name and address, you'll have 15 minutes.

Here today representing Shannon Moody.

We are seeking a variance of development standards to allow her to use two former storage containers as structural components of a garage in her backyard.

Now I don't believe that we really need a variance in this instance.

But staff maintains that the storage containers are commercial vehicles, which are not allowed by the ordinance in residential areas.

The dictionary defines vehicle as a device for carrying passengers, goods or equipment.

Roger's the Saurus, as examples of vehicles list conveyance, wagon, cart, carriage, wheelchair, bicycle, truck, motorcycle automobile, and I could go on, but I think you get my point.

Once these objects, the two objects in question, the former storage containers are incorporated into a garage, they will have nothing in common with an automobile, a truck, a motorcycle, uh, or any of the other quote vehicles.

Instead, they'll be the structural components of a garage on Ms.

Shannon's property.

To call these objects commercial vehicles at this point would be like calling the framing of a house a tree.

Yes, it started out as a tree, but once it's a structural component of the house, it's something else entirely.

Its characteristics have been completely changed.

So you could should no more call these commercial vehicles once they're incorporated into the garage than you would call the framing of a house a tree.

Because once they're incorporated into the garage, they will have no commercial function, only a residential function in serving as her garage.

With the emphasis today on affordable housing, we should welcome these sorts of structures.

By using former shipping containers, uh construction time is significantly reduced, the cost of materials is reduced, and Ms.

Smoothie's cost, in fact, will be in approximately $10,000 less than if she were uh than if she had to construct a conventional garage.

Now I understand why why staff and the neighbors would object to a commercial container just sitting in someone's backyard indefinitely, but that's not what we're requesting here.

The containers will be painted and covered by a gable roof so that visually they will resemble any other garage that's in good that's in good condition.

Um I don't know that I got the um the photos.

Oh yes, okay, good.

I got them there in time.

Uh oh no, those those are the staff's photos.

Okay, I have photos of showing examples of what the um garages will look like when they're done.

Two sets.

So as I said, uh they will be the containers will be painted, they'll have a gabled roof, so they will resemble uh the normal garage you would expect to see in a residential area.

In fact, if you drive through the older parts of town through the alleys, a lot of the garages you see are in really decrepit condition.

Uh, the paints peeling, the doors are askew, the roofs starting to cave in.

This garage will be much more durable.

As I said, it's cheaper, the metal's more durable, and it will it's easier to maintain.

So the appearance of this garage is going to be much superior to that of your typical wooden garage as the uh as years go by.

Uh, from an environmental perspective, it makes sense to use storage containers in this manner.

Uh it saves trees, and it also avoids the need, which would eventually arise to chop up the storage container and take up space in a landfill with it.

Uh finally, um, and as I emphasize again, that visually this will look like any other garage, and it will, even as the years go by, its appearance will be superior to those of a conventional garage, again, because the material is more durable.

Along those lines, we met with the old South Side Neighborhood Group last month.

They voted to approve to uh to support this project.

They were to send a letter.

I don't know if I didn't get a copy of it.

Uh I don't know if it got to staff, but they told me they would send it.

And uh if you have any doubts, I have copies of the email from Judith Exit.

Judith Essex, the president of the old South Side Group, stating that they would support the project.

Someone asks that you incorporate our findings of fact into the record and and grant uh grant the variants.

There are any questions, I'll be glad to answer.

Do we have any questions uh of the petitioner from the board?

Yes.

I I do have one question as far as these um building structures.

Seeing this is kind of different for Indiana.

Do you have a developer for this?

Or these are just conceptual ideas?

I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

Do you have a developer to create these garages, or this is just conceptual?

Like are you just examples of what it will look like?

She does have a uh developer or a uh a contractor who's going to build it.

We furnish the diagram, the building diagram to staff, the elevations they have.

So they have examples of doing this in other places, these types of garages?

Yeah, well, that's what the pictures depict.

Okay.

Actual garages.

Yes.

Okay.

They'll be painted, they'll they'll have a roof, and look very nice.

And one other question: how long has the um structures been on the property?

I'm not sure.

How long have you had a year?

A year?

Sorry, last question.

Was there a garage there before?

Yeah.

Well, it's prior to the purchasing it was.

Ma'am, if you're going to testify, you'll have to come up to the podium.

Sorry.

Stick to the neighborhoods.

Shannon Moody, 15 Iowa Street.

Um, when I purchased the house, no, the garage had been demolished previously, like a lot of garages in the neighborhood.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

I do have to fix it.

Any other questions?

For the plaintiff.

Seeing no others in the audience.

Uh staff.

Comments.

Thank you, Chairperson Duke, members of the board.

As these are not permanent structures, shipping containers are considered as commercial vehicles.

Typically, they are placed on trailers and moved about throughout the country or on trains as we've all seen them as such.

Um since defined and classified as commercial vehicles, um, they are not permitted to be used as a permanent storage building or as an accessory building in the dwelling districts.

Um commercial vehicles or shipping containers as a being a commercial structure are located appropriate on appropriately zoned properties.

They require transitional yards to buffer the such an intense use from protected districts, such as residential dwelling districts.

In this instance, the proposed use would not be required to provide such buffer area since the D5 district is intended to be utilized for less intense uses.

So such residential accessory structures and only requires a five-foot side yard transitional, five five-foot side yard setback instead of the typical transitional setback, a commercial use or district would require.

Staff's opinion, uh the site provides insufficient screening to the surrounding dwellings, which staff does find concerning.

Permitted accessory structures are regulated by the commercial building code, uh, where shipping containers are not.

Um the shipping containers will be have a foundation or affix to a foundation or provide um the level that typical accessory structures might be provided as they are uh typically under a um the building code or regulated by the building code.

The shipping containers are proposed to be used in conjunction with the new garage structure as the petitioner shown.

Permanent garage structure could be built provided through the permitted accessory structure that is built, has a building form and meets the zoning ordinance without the need for the use variance.

Reduced costs for shipping containers or the cost of compliance structures is not a practical difficult hardship as opposed by the ordinance, as other property owners are able to be compliant as well without uh having that difficulty.

Um as the previous owner did with the original garages that was permitted on this site.

The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance does not constitute a practical difficulty in staff's opinion as a regular zoning compliant garage structure, accessory structure could be constructed on this without the need for a variance.

Therefore, staff does recommend denial.

Be happy to answer any questions the board may have.

Sorry.

Board questions.

I I have a question.

Um is the ordinance clear that this is a vehicle.

In regards to the definition or in regards to how are you asking the in re I in regards to the definition.

I I'm I'm looking through it myself because I don't know that I've ever seen this addressed this way.

But uh I mean, just thinking through it.

If it's a vehicle, why isn't it considered an inoperable vehicle at this point?

Um, because that would clearly have to be the case, right?

And the mechanism that I think would make it a trailer would be the wheel system that attaches to these connex trailers that then make it able to be transported from location to location, but clearly that's not on it in its current format.

And then I also think that you know, when I look through the ordinance, in my knowledge of the ordinance, there's really nothing in here that deals with storage containers, and I know because I see in the community that they've been used as habitable dwelling structures and other applications, and so I just it it makes me wonder whether or not this is very clear in the ordinance.

Thank you, Board Member Duncan and members of the board.

Um staff's interpretation that this is uh directly regulated by the fourth sub-definition of commercial vehicle being the 12-foot enclosed or enclosed um commercial vehicle storage container definition, um, but that is not new or specific to ND rezone.

That is a part of regulation that was directly carried over from the red commercial ordinance vehicles that existed in place prior to 2016 in the Red Books, if you may recall those.

Um even if these were not to be considered for whatever reason commercial vehicle, even though that would be staff's position and would have to be appealed and heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals and have it be regulated differently.

If that were to require occur, this would be classified most closely as a portable storage unit, which is defined, classified, and listed in the use table.

Uh, that is permitted on a temporary basis in all dwelling in all districts of the zoning ordinance, but even in that case, they're only permitted to be sited on a site for 30 days with a one-time potential extension as granted by the administrator, and but that is more intended for your commercial-oriented ones in the form of like the pods company and what they use in terms of allowing for relocations and temporary storage of debris or just relocating to a new residence itself.

Um, but that has been staff's long-standing interpretation, not just of DMD but also BNS.

So I'm sorry.

I have a follow-up question to that.

I I mean there are applications of these storage containers where at some point they are incorporated as a building material and become indecipherable from any other structure that was built with more traditional building materials.

And so I I don't at some point it converts from just a storage trail or trailer laid on our ground to something that looks more like a garage or a living structure, something that you can't really distinguish between, and that includes putting roofing material siding, foundation, et cetera, into it.

And so I'm again just wondering, it seems like we've got vagueness in the ordinance.

In instances where they're incorporated in a permanent building, so long as they can provide proof that they meet the building code, then that classification as a vehicle gets removed and it's allowed to be permitted both from the permitting department as well as the Department of Metropolitan Development in that fashion.

However, there was nothing in the filing that indicated that that was the pathway that they were going towards or that they had achieved uh that certification.

Just to clarify, so they did not provide the structural um information for the garage before this came for the variants.

I would defer to Robert, but I don't recall saying that upon end take.

Okay.

Mr.

Roberts, they didn't provide the the structural garage information before the variants or with the variants.

Sorry, could you repeat that?

They didn't provide the garage like diagram, construction information, size, all of that before they submitted the variants.

Um not to my knowledge, uh they provided elevations on Friday, and this is the first time I've seen these pictures.

Got it.

And Friday would have been after publication of the staff report.

So had the this been submitted to you guys as a garage, there will be no need for variance.

Is that what I'm hearing?

If they had built a garage stick built per se.

Um with the storage, storage units.

If these containers, I'm sorry.

Repeat the question then.

Had they built the garage with the containers or said we're going to use these containers as material, then there would have not been a need for the variance for the storage units or the commercial vehicles.

That's possible.

Uh as I understand how they are used for dwelling units, the interior of them are used as part of the dwelling unit and not used as building walls per se.

Um, which appears to be the case here with additional storage as such.

Um I'm not per proficient on building code.

So there may be a difference as to what determines, but it would have to be building code compliant at that point.

Um these before there was a desire to build a garage, apparently, these were on site since spring of 2024, so just being on site, they were non-compliant.

Um I don't know how long the plans have been to build the garage, but you would think if the they've been on site since spring of 2024, maybe they would have built it last year in 20 summer of 2024 or summer of 2025 before filing this variance.

But that we're at this point anyway.

Um so I don't know if that answers your question.

Um it's staff if they were able to find a way that the building code or the permitting office would consider this as a built structure using these as components, then no, they would not have needed a variance, in my opinion.

How does the city differentiate between a CONEX carrier like that and say um shelter for uh sales tower site?

Same which kind of shelters?

The shelter that they bring in on the back of the semi is that offering a cell tower site.

Like a carport?

No, like a CONEX trailer where they store all the equipment.

It's the same type of trailer except that it has all of the communications equipment that runs up the signal to the tower and processes all the signals as they come in.

And I think I mean staff can weigh in, but I think the difference is that this is being set in a residential D5 district and those are on a commercial or industrial zoned lot or get a zoning variance.

I'm not sure I have an answer for that, other than uh without knowing the context, um it would be probably considered a different accessory and not necessarily a structure.

I don't know.

I'm not familiar with the specific item you're asking about.

I guess I'm just needing a little um more clarity on what the board will be approving if we were intentionally approving this petition.

Does this give the petitioner opportunity or more time to develop?

Or is there the will the time limit be taken away from this these units to be sitting on the property?

I guess that's my question.

I yeah, I mean I think I have similar questions for the petitioner because again, as they're currently configured, I I think I it weighs in more in favor of staff's position that these are vehicles.

Um and probably inoperable vehicles at that, which is a whole different issue.

But if if they actually have a plan to incorporate these in as building materials into something that can be approved per the building code, state local, then it's a different proposition.

So fighting in a timeline.

I think I need a time.

I will the petitioner still has five minutes to come up to uh speak if they know the questions for the staff.

All right, petitioner.

Uh you have five minutes for your rebuttal.

And then if any uh questions still remain from the board will allow that as well.

Thank you.

Well, we furnished the materials that they asked for.

Um initially I filed the petition thinking there was only one storage container, and the hearing was scheduled, notice went out.

Then I clarified that there were two storage storage containers going being that would be incorporated into the structure of staff said, okay, now you need a new um new public notice because that's different, two is different than one.

So uh it didn't seem to me that that seemed to be a technicality, but anyway, we complied with that.

That's why we're here today, and we're here a month a month or so ago.

At that point, when staff said you need a second public notice, then they asked for the elevations.

And I've got copies of them right here.

I don't have copies for everybody because I assume they were part of it would be part of the record since we furnished them to staff.

Um, but they showed the what will what the finished garage will look like structurally, and the examples that I sent you, no, that's not what's on her property, but that's what it will look like.

Those are examples of what it will look like.

So as far as a setback, Miss Moody owned a side uh two lots adjacent to each other, uh 15 and 19 Iowa.

We merge those two parcels with the assessor, and the structure is going to be located approximately at the former, the middle of the structure will be at approximately the former boundary line between those two properties.

So there's no problem with uh with the setback requirements.

Um we don't need to screen it because again, it's gonna have a very nice appearance.

So there's really no reason to to screen this, like you would want to screen uh a dumpster or something in another in another context.

This is not if you read strictly read the words of the statute, the plain meaning, this is not a vehicle.

Once it's incorporated into the structure, it can't be used to convey anything.

Conveying means carrying something from one point to another.

But once it's once it, and there will be a foundation, by the way.

Once it's on the foundation, incorporated into the garage structure, it will be impossible to use it to convey it to move anything from one place to another.

So it's not a vehicle.

She's not running a business out of it.

It's not commercial.

So just by by the plain meaning of the words in the ordinance, it's not a commercial vehicle.

Uh no, no matter how long staff has been pushing this, its interpretation of this, that doesn't change the plain meaning of the statute.

Especially when the when their interpretation is contrary to the plain meaning mean meaning of the statute.

You'd have to rewrite re rewrite the definition of vehicle and commercial in the statute to comport with with staff's view.

Um as to whether it was ever a anoperable vehicle, I think that's with all due respect, I'd have to say that's beside the point at this time, because it again it's it will no longer be an inoperable vehicle, will not be a vehicle of any type.

And it won't be something that you can operate physically, because again, there'll be a component of the building.

Any other questions?

Have you applied for a building permit?

As a petitioner applied for a building permit?

Do you have any evidence that this complies with the building code and that it can be permitted to be used as uh garage and or accessory dwelling structure?

We we've left that up to her contractor.

Do you have a contractor engaged?

I do please don't do the mic if you can speak.

I do, graden renovation.

Okay.

Um and do you have like formal?

I think you mentioned that there are elevations that were submitted, so a formal plan set that's been submitted to staff.

I do.

I have these copies here.

Okay.

And I think those came out before the staff report was or after the staff report was published, so that's why we haven't had an opportunity to see them.

My question is would you be willing to agree to a commitment to complete the construction, the incorporation of these containers into the construction of the garage in accordance with the plans and any required building code within a time certain, whether that's six months or a year, just some time frame so that we know that we're not approving construction trailers as a garage in their current format, that those will be incorporated as building materials into a garage that complies with all of the building codes.

I would I would.

Okay.

And what is the attended purpose?

I would I would hope it to be a year.

Okay.

So within one year?

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

Could we uh restate those commitments, please?

He's right.

Okay.

I think the commitment is to complete the construction or the incorporation of the construction trailers as building materials into a garage pursuant to the elevations and architectural plans submitted to staff prior to the prior to the hearing date, um, and in compliance with all applicable building codes within one year of the date of the grant of this variance.

Chairperson Duggan, may I suggest a revision?

Absolutely.

The variance grant shall be subject to elevations similar to what has been something to this language, but that they be submitted for admin approval prior to um permits permitting so that the permits office will know what elevations they should look like.

Um permits office is going to have access to this if they're not submitted as a as part of a commitment or as part of a staff review being an administrative approval, if that makes sense.

It does.

So rephrasing that variance grants shall be subject to elevations similar elevations similar to what has been submitted in the the hearing for administrative approval.

Um or same context it was submitted in the hearing.

And for uh prior to issuance of any permits and for construction to be completed within one year of the hearing date if that it was my understanding of your intent.

Yes.

So does the petition understand that and clear on as to what other levels of approval staff is asserting?

I I think it so it's an administrative approval.

The elevations haven't been reviewed by staff yet because they are submitted after the record date for the staff report.

And so we need a mechanism to get whatever the final elevations are that are substantially similar to what's been submitted to staff, reviewed and approved at administrative level by the staff so that those can go in for a building permit.

And I think the point of the administrative approval is so that you don't have to come back to the bone to the to the zoning for another public hearing to get that approval.

But what standards are they using to evaluate the elevations?

I'm not clear on that.

So the purpose of making this subject to administrators' approval would make would be to effectively ensure that what these structures ultimately look like are in substantial compliance with the elevations that were submitted to the board what Friday or today?

Um they wouldn't be weighed against uh specific development standards other than those of the district itself, but it's just a mechanism to make sure that they would read remain residential in in appearance and not just be finished and meet general building code.

I th I think is the ultimate goal here, and that should just be tacked on right before the language that um board member Duncan listed earlier uh in regard to just be coming into conformity with the building code.

Yeah.

Well, will this require another hearing or just a letter or an email from staff saying you're okay?

Well, it it would be a formal admin approval, but I did want to make a note that should one year lapse from the date of approval to date and any conversion not happen or those permits not be secured, the structures would be subject to further enforcement and require effectively either a modification of the grant of approval or a brand new variance.

So the administrative approval of the plans, the elevations would not require an additional public hearing.

And as long as you got that approval, got the building permit, got it constructed in a year, then you're done.

No, we don't have a form like we do for petitions.

You would just submit them directly to me.

Very well.

You agree to that?

Yes.

Yes.

So you understand and you agree if if this is approved, you understand the commitments and agreed to them?

Is that satisfied?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Were you finished with your your comments?

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

No other questions?

Please cast your votes.

On case 2025-UV2-014, David Duncan votes yes.

Patrice Stuckett Brown votes yes.

James Duke votes yes, Tom Barnes votes yes, and Beth Brandon votes yes.

The variance is granted subject to commitments.

All right.

Do we have any other business on today?

We do indeed.

Wait, you say yes?

Yeah.

Okay.

With commitments.

Okay.

Thank you.

At this time, this hearing is adjourned.