Chris is here.

I can read the spiel.

I'll start as soon as it turns one.

Yep, here we go.

Yeah, I'll wait for that.

Call to order.

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

I am Craig Von Dalen, Chairperson of Division II.

The board the other board members present today are Tom Barnes, Patrice Duckett Brown, and James Duke.

Legal Counsel for the Board today is Chris Steinmetz.

Staff members present today for the division of planning are Bryce Patz, current planning administrator, Robert Eulenh, senior planner, Michael Weigel, senior planner, Josh Levesque, 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 proceedings of this hearing are governed by the board's rule of 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 are 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 a 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.

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

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

Prior to the establishment of the authorized improvements.

The written request must be filed within five days of the board's decision and must include the person's full name and correct mailing address and a reference to the board's petition number.

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

Please be advised that contacting members of the board regarding a matter pending before the board outside of 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.

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 April 14th, 2026 hearing.

Board members, you've been provided meeting minutes for our February 10th, 2026 meeting.

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

Do I hear a motion?

Duke moved.

Second.

Second.

I'll call the roll.

Patrice Ducket Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

Duke, yes.

Barnes is easier.

Barnes, yes, thank you.

Sorry about that.

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

None being heard.

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 adopt their findings of fact without any additional testimony from the individual petitioners.

Do I hear a motion?

Duke so move.

Do I hear a second?

Barnes second.

Call the roll.

Patrice Ducad Brown.

Doug Brown, yes.

Duke, yes.

Barnes.

Barnes, yes.

And I'm also yes.

Well, consider special requests and continuances at this time.

You bet.

Good afternoon, members of the board for the record.

Uh Tim Oakes, attorney in Iceman with offices at one American Square, suite 2900, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46282-0200.

I'm here.

AJB.

I'm here on behalf of the petitioner in 2025 D V 1052 at 4105 West 93rd Street.

Um we have reached agreement and have the support of the Pike Township Residence Association.

We've reached agreement on commitments with adjoining property owners.

The commitments have been sent to staff.

We're not aware of anybody in the audience that is in opposition.

We have staff support, so we respectfully request that this be moved to the expedited agenda.

Thank you, Mr.

Oaks.

Is there anyone in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 DV1-052 amended with an address of 4105 West 93rd Street?

No one has an interest.

Go to staff comments.

Yep.

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

Staff is recommending approval of this request as well as a letter submitted by PTRA.

We received two letters of opposition, one from a neighbor to the east who uh later changed their position to one of support or of non-objection after some commitments were put in place.

Uh the second um did not um change their position, but it doesn't appear that they are in attendance this afternoon, either if that letter is within your file, and we uh we wouldn't object to it being moved to the expedited docket.

All right.

I'll entertain a motion to move petition number 2025 DB 1-052 to our expedited document.

I hear a motion.

I hear a second.

Barnes second.

Thank you.

I'll call the roll.

Duck it.

Ducky Brown, yes.

Duke.

Duke, yes.

Barnes is yes.

And I'm also yes, thank you.

Sorry, my brain is not functioning properly.

Right.

Good afternoon, uh, Chairman uh von Dalen, members of the board, Joe Calderon 11 South Meridian here in Indianapolis.

I have two requests uh on your agenda this afternoon.

The first uh is the uh case first on your docket today under special request, and that's 2026 AP2 001 1505 East 86th Street.

I had emailed uh staff um a couple of weeks ago uh that we would be withdrawing this petition, so I believe it just needs your acknowledgement.

Acknowledged.

Second item uh for your consideration is the last case on your agenda today, uh, and that is 2026 UV 2003 5675 Michigan Road.

Uh I represent the petitioner in this matter, and I had reached out uh after having no response to my mail notice uh to some of the uh neighborhood groups in the area on Sunday, received confirmation uh via email yesterday.

Uh Crooked Creek Alert through Joanna Franklin asked uh that my client consider a continuance request uh of this matter uh in order to uh be able to meet with them.

Uh I contact contact my client.

We agreed and we agreed that this would be a joint request to continue this matter to April 14th without additional notice.

Very well.

Is there anyone in the audience with an interest in petition number 2026 UV 2-03 with an address of 5675 Michigan Road?

Is that the auto zone?

Correct.

Please please step forward, approach the mic, state your name and address.

And remember we are only discussing the continuance.

Oh, not concerned.

Uh yeah.

Right now we're only discussing their request for a continuance, which is a joint request between the uh petitioner and the um the I guess it was a neighborhood association.

Perfect report.

Yeah.

So your name and address please.

Your name your name and address is Richard Turney, 1851 West 57th Street.

I live directly behind the proposed autos.

Okay, sir.

We're only discussing the continuance.

They're asking for continuance.

We're not discussing the case.

Oh, okay.

Do you have an objection to it being continued to our next hearing?

No, okay, very good.

Thank you.

Go to counts from staff.

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

Uh staff was copied on that correspondence between the petitioner and the representative from Crooked Creek Alert.

Uh we wouldn't have objection to it being moved to the April hearing date.

Thank you.

Then I'll entertain a motion to continue petition number 2026 UV two-003 to our April 14th hearing without additional notice.

Do I hear a motion?

Duke so move.

Second.

Barnes second.

Thank you.

I'll call the roll.

Barnes.

Yes.

Ducett Brown.

Ducket Brown, yes.

Duke.

Yes.

And I am also a yes.

Thank you so much.

Oh, you he I think he wants to talk to you.

We're we're done with that case.

Sorry, sir.

Nothing else from the audience.

We'll go ahead and cut for uh um special customs staff.

Is your mic working, Robert?

Okay, just we'll have to just listen intently.

You want to go to another mic?

Okay.

Thanks, Robert.

Okay.

Well, we're three days away from March 13th, so I'll begin at or March 15th for that matter.

Um staff will draw your attention to item number three, please.

This is petition number 2026 DV2001, located at 1781 Sloan Avenue.

Okay, hold on.

What which let's go back here.

Oh item three.

Okay, sorry, go ahead.

Well, you okay.

Uh on behalf of the petitioner, staff is requesting uh three-day waiver of the legal notice of the required legal notice.

Uh this is due to result of petitioner not having staff in the office on Friday and also the subsequent Monday being a holiday where no mail was available.

Okay.

Um staff has no objection to granting this three-day waiver and can have um can answer any questions the board may have.

Very well.

Any questions?

Yep.

All right.

Then I will is there any in the audience anyone in the audience who has an interest in petition number 2026 DV2-001 with an address of 1781 Sloane Avenue.

Please come forward.

State your name and the address for the record, and I'm only going to ask if you have an objection to this three-day waiver.

Is that all?

We're talking about extending it.

Yep.

Okay.

Name and address, please.

Um, first of all, thank you for letting me be here, and thank you for your service.

And my name's Julia Streer, and I live at 1826 South De Quincy Street, 46203, and no, I don't have any objections about it being made.

Thank you, Mr.

All right.

Then I will uh I will uh entertain a motion to grant a three-day waiver of the notice requirements to petition number 2026 DV2-001.

Do I hear a motion?

Duke, so moved.

And a second.

Barnes second.

I'll call the roll Barnes.

Yes.

Ducett Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

Duke, yes.

And I'm also a yes.

Uh thank you.

Uh Chairperson Dalen members of the board.

I I have a few.

I draw your attention to the second item under the special request spank on the first page of the agenda at 1927 North Capitol Avenue.

Uh a petitioner indicated to us by writing if they'll be seeking an alternate site for the proposed use and that therefore this petition would no longer be needed.

Others seeking have that petition withdrawn, which would merely require the board's acknowledgement.

Acknowledged.

Thank you.

I would also draw your attention to 8841 Zionsville Road.

That's 2026 UV 2004 of the third item and the special requests bank on the first page of the agenda.

Staff determined that the proposed use would be allowed as an accessory function of the existing legal use of the site.

Therefore, this petition uh could also be withdrawn per repetition request, merely requiring your acknowledgement.

Acknowledged.

Thank you.

But I would finally draw your attention to item number one on the agenda.

That's 2026 DB2003 at 6801 Stanley Road.

Um on staff's advice, um, the petitioner has filed a companion plat petition along with this case as well as um an additional variance petition beyond this one, um obviating the need for this variance of development standards.

It'll be heard as a combination petition instead at the eighth um at an April hearing date of the hearing examiner.

Therefore, this petition could be withdrawn once again, requiring your acknowledgement.

Acknowledged.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Weasley.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Weidel.

That's all.

All right.

There are no other requests or comments.

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

These are petitions to be expedited.

Case number 2025-DV1-052 amended property address 4105 West 93rd Street, Pike Township, Council District No.

Zoned I2 slash MU1.

The petitioner is V465 LLC, represented by John B.

Gregg.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the development of a warehouse exceeding one double loaded row of parking in front of a building, not permitted.

And the removal of heritage trees without prior authorization, not permitted.

This petition is subject to four commitments.

Wait, before we do that, I'm going to double check.

Is there anyone in the audience that is has an interest in this petition?

2026 DV2-001.

Uh I'm sorry.

It's the yeah.

DV1-052 4105 West 93rd Street.

No one being seen with going and cast our ballots.

On case 2025-DV1-052 amended, Patrice Stuckett Brown votes yes.

James Duke votes yes.

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

The variance is granted subject to the four commitments.

Thank you.

All right.

We can go ahead and move on to the regular docket.

Mr.

Secretary.

These are petitions for public hearing.

Case number 2026-DV2-001 amended.

Property address 1781 Sloan Avenue, Center Township, Council District No.

19, zoned D2.

The petitioner is Victory College Prep Incorporated, represented by Andrew Horton.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for an accessory parking area with a 15-foot front yard setback from both Sloane Avenue and Iowa Street and a 10-foot front yard setback from De Quincy Street, 25-foot front setback required, subject to the submitted site plan.

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

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you will give us the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

I do uh Bob Ross 415, Mass Av, uh Indianapolis, Indiana, 46204.

Um yes, so this is uh a variance for the 15 foot setbacks instead of 25 foot uh for the parking lot.

Um if you scroll down, there is a graphic of the parking lot.

Um Victory College Prep is uh directly west of this property um and they're looking for more parking for the school zone.

Uh this will alleviate staff parking that's parked there now, move them to the east, and then help uh alleviate the buses off of Sloan Avenue.

Um so uh just granting that that set back for this this use.

Any questions?

Uh that's your presentation.

All right, is there any questions for the for the uh presenter from members of the board?

I'm sorry.

Any questions from members of the board?

All right, is there anyone else within any interest in petition number 2026 DV2-001 with an address of 1781 Sloan Avenue that would like to talk in remonstrance?

None being seen.

And if you're done, you do you is this case?

Please come forward, state your name and address.

I'm sorry, I should have known that.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure.

Ms.

Strear?

Yeah, that's all right.

Now we're on to the case.

Excuse me.

Uh I do need to swear you in before you speak.

Okay.

So please raise your hand.

Thank you.

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

Say I do.

I do.

Assuming that the petitioner is you're done with your presentation and there's no one else that wants to speak in in uh support, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Then we've got a support back.

We got another one.

Are you in support or in the okay?

Mr.

If you don't mind, would you just take a seat for just a second?

Sure.

Sorry, we we're gonna go together too.

I mean, she's another neighbor.

Another neighbor, okay.

Okay.

If you don't mind, we're gonna go through and and have the people that are in favor of it speak first, and I would have hoped that they would have done that and come up earlier, but let's get this thing here.

Please come forward, sir.

Tell us your name and address.

I am going to have to swear you in as well.

You're gonna have to be sworn in.

Run it back again.

Thank you.

Please raise your right hand.

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

Say I do.

I do.

All right.

Your name and address, please.

I'm Pastor Steve Daly, a pastor of the Mount Calgary Evangelistic Center, which is at 1840 Sloane Avenue.

We're neighbors to the school adjacent.

Excellent.

We've uh been a supporter for the growth of the community and a supporter of the school.

They're doing a great job, but they have a parking issue.

And we've tried to help them with our parking as well, but they're wanting to expand.

They they have to do this.

And so I uh hope that the progress, especially for all these kids and the people they're helping, the families.

It's a beautiful place.

A lot of children run that ground, a lot of staff.

They need parking, and I'm here to support that.

Thank you very much.

Thanks, sir.

All right, I'm gonna check one more time.

Is there anyone else that wants to speak in support of the petition?

None being said.

We will exhaust their time.

And Ms.

Streer, you may come back up because we're on to the remonstrance.

You have 15 minutes unless there's someone else that wants to speak beside you in opposition to the petition.

Okay, again, my name's Julia Streer, and I um my property borders uh the entire the my entire property borders the park the parking lot that they're thinking about bringing up here, and I'm all for people being able to park, and especially children.

I have a special place in my heart for children and for teachers since two of my sisters are teachers.

And however, I've already encountered problems with this parking lot situation with my property.

They have totally ruined my fence that runs along in their attempts to clear away the trees.

And um, I tried to cooperate with them because at one point they took they asked me permission to go in my privacy fence so that they could better get to the trees on their property.

Well, they ruined the corner of my fence, my privacy fence completely.

And I have pictures of before and after, and also different phases of when they were doing it.

And um, so I thought it's not my responsibility to fix something that they broke.

All I wanted my fence is not new.

I'm I know about that, but was very secure because I have two dogs, and I cannot let them out in the back because there's um giant entryways now in my privacy fence in the back.

And the front fence is also destroyed.

It's not secure.

And so I thought, well, I'm just gonna take this upon myself to work with the school.

And so I went over there and I talked to a gentleman that apparently is some sort of property manager.

Um his name is Mike, I think Lehard.

And um at first he sounded very uh cooperative to look at my situation, and um I went over there and met him, and then we went to my property, and uh that day his whole attitude changed towards me.

He said he would give me a three hundred dollar check, and we'll be even.

So, and I also, by the way, after they had done this work in my backyard, which is again they had to get to the fence line to get the trees because the trees on the other people's property had grown so big that it was right up against my fence.

They I also had to pay $350 out of my pocket to because I have a landscape person that does my you know yard and what have you, and I had to pay him that before he could even mow the backyard.

So I'm already out of $350, which I didn't even mention to him.

And um the front, like I said, the front uh fences, it's a chain-length fence, and it's uh it's on the front, and then you know, the like this is the parking lot, and this is the fence that borders it.

The front part is a chain length fence, and the back part is a privacy fence, which I have securely fenced in with privacy fencing.

I've lived there since 1987, so I know when I've had to repair the fence.

So I know it's not a brand new fence, and that's not what I'm asking for.

All I was asking for is if he could repair it so that I may have a secure fence in the areas where he they broke it, and he said uh, like I said, he said it'd give me $300, and I said that's not that's not uh acceptable.

And he said, Well, you can do it the hard way.

You could get me some estimates, and it'll probably take uh several months before we can even come up with if we're going to accept it or not, your estimates.

And I said, Okay, and uh, so anyway, we also have a situation number two, besides my other friend, she can tell her saga with her broken fence and her broken mailbox, and my other friend who is not here today, um, who's also borders this property, um, they broke their fence and they also broke their dog has a a big cage run, and one of their big machines broke it.

And uh so far, they verbally told them, Well, we're gonna give you a new fence, and we're gonna give you money so you can get a new run for your for your dog.

And uh, but like I said, when I talk to them, I'm not getting any cooperation, or let's put it this way, unreasonable cooperation, you know, at the least.

So that's why I'm against it because I feel like um we're going to have to be giving up a lot of our privacy, because you know, I'm used to having a nice quiet neighborhood, and now we're gonna have a parking lot there, and um again though, I'm good about that because of, but I don't want like if one of these cars damages my fence again in the future, are they gonna do the same thing and say, hey, that's not my problem, you know, and uh so that's why it is um turned me down, you know, my my thoughts about it.

Uh we also have uh people that drive uh little motorcycles that are not legal all around the street, and also in the new property, they come there and they're not even from our neighborhood, and it's a disturbance in the evening when you're trying to relax after because I still work even though I'm 72 years old, and um I like to have my evenings where it's quiet, you know.

I'm uh I'm a nurse, and so I work very hard, and I just want to relax when I come home.

And um, and also those little vehicles that have kids running around that are not of age to drive these vehicles, they might get hurt too on the fence.

Then who's going to be reliable uh responsible for that?

So anyway, bottom line, I think it's a um I want to work with my neighbors just like anybody else would want to work with their neighbors, and I just want to be fair, and I want them to be fair to me.

And so that's why I have objections.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr.

What was your address again?

I'm sorry, I can't.

I'm sorry.

You're 1826?

Okay.

Yeah, 1826 South De Quincy Street.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Are there any questions?

Uh was there anyone else that wanted to speak?

Okay, please come forward.

You're gonna have to be sworn in, and we'll have you state your name and address for the record.

Hi, my name is just a moment.

I need to swear you in.

Please raise your right hand.

Thank you.

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

Say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

My name is SEMA.

I am from 1746 Salon Avenue.

Right next to the school.

I just want to understand how they're gonna take situation off the storm water.

When they are building up the parking lot.

So you just want to.

Okay.

Have an understanding of how they're gonna handle stormwater?

Yes.

Okay.

Very good.

Because if they are gonna just reduce whatever variance was in the past, how it's gonna affect.

I'm unable to understand reading all those papers.

If they can explain, that will help me understand.

Thank you, ma'am.

All right.

And for my fence and the trees of whatever the situation is with the school, they are ready to take care of that stuff.

So I should be good on that part.

Okay.

Thank you.

So wait a minute, they're taking care of your fence issue.

Uh today I talked to Mike.

Yeah.

This morning.

And he said within a couple of weeks they are going to take care of those trees which they have chopped down halfway.

Okay.

So they're gonna just remove the trees along my fence line and take care of that stuff.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay.

No one else?

Are we getting okay?

Cool.

All right, we'll go as long as there's no questions, we'll go ahead and move on to comments from staff.

Thank you, Chairperson Valdale and members of the board.

The proposed parking area is an accessory use to the SU2 zoned elementary school across the street, which is on the west side of Sloan Avenue.

The request would be for reduced setbacks on three frontages, as this slot is a through lot and has three frontages, one being on Sloan Avenue to the west, uh I believe Iowa to the north.

And De Quincy to the east.

Um the original request was for 10-foot front setbacks.

Uh staff requested those setbacks be increased to 15 feet.

The petitioner was in agreement with the understanding that the frontage on de Quincy could be reduced from 15 feet to 10 feet, and that is what the amended request is.

Um addition to that, um the frontage on De Quincy, the petitioner agreed not to put a curb cut so that traffic could not go out on De Quincy.

Um as Salone and Iowa are um larger streets, and de Quincy has a smaller right-of-way.

Uh de Quincy also has a fair amount of um housing, not necessarily facing the parking lot, but housing that accesses it as well.

Residential uses.

Typically, the um setbacks are related, um, are intended to provide adequate separation and ventilation between structures and use areas as well as provide for a continuous pattern of development throughout the block.

They are not requesting a reduced setback along the south side yard.

They will have to be required to meet that setback.

Um this is only for the frontages on Sloane, Iowa, and de Quincy.

Um since it is a through lot, uh staff feels that there's difficulty in meeting some of the setbacks.

Um as such uh does not uh find uh does not object to the request as submitted and finds it to be a minor deviation from the request.

Um staff is recommending approval, however, as indicated in the request, uh, would be subject to the site plan that does show no curb cut on De Quincy.

Comprehensive plan recommendations for suburban neighborhood, which does allow for elementary uses and their related accessory uses as neighborhood serving servicing institutions in the area.

Um again, as we as indicated, staff would find this to be a minor deviation and does recommend approval and could be answer any questions the board may have.

Thank you, Mr.

Ullenha.

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

None being seen.

Uh Mr.

Petitioner, you have five minutes of rebuttal.

Indianapolis, Indiana, 46204.

Um so to answer one of the questions that were stated before the drainage part of it, uh they're regrading the site to slope everything west towards the ditch off of Sloan and regrading that ditch to help drain that better and redoing some of the culverts that are under those drives right now.

So the idea right now is just a residential house.

Um regrading that whole lot will help some of the drainage and then pushing everything to that ditch will also help.

Uh everything with the drainage will meet the city requirements, uh, even though this is under an acre does not require a DNR permit anymore.

Uh IOP will be uh received or is actually submitted at this time.

Uh and then as for the fence um on both sides, uh talking with the schools.

I'm not part of the schools, um, talking with them.

It sounds like that they have offered to replace the fence on the south side.

Uh they asked that they they get a quote and they would reimburse for it if there was a preferred vendor.

If that's not the case, they will go and get fencing and get a quote and get that done themselves.

Um they they will work with the neighborhood and and get those done.

So they they have no problem replacing the fence.

So are you committing to replacing the fence along the south property line?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other key you can make go on?

Um I don't think so.

Again, this is for just the setbacks.

So I think that's that's it.

All right.

Any questions for the petitioner from members of the board?

No.

Nope.

All right.

Remonstrators, you have five minutes.

If you're sat are you satisfied, or do you have any other anything else you want to say?

Uh you have to come forward, Mr.

Sorry.

I just basically have trouble hearing everything said.

So did I hear that he would work with me to get the fence replaced?

They committed that they would replace the fence, and that is now a commitment that they've added to the order to their uh to their petition.

Great.

Um I have my estimates now.

I'd like to you can do that outside of the meeting, that's fine if you want to.

Is that what how it works?

Okay, with them.

Yep.

I don't know their names or anything.

So anyway, I'll find out.

All right.

I just wanted to know the process.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate your time.

No problem.

We can catch.

Oh, and by the way, on the drainage, it sounds like they've they've got a plan for that too as well.

All right.

We can go ahead and cast our ballots.

On case 2026-DV2-001 amended.

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

The variance is granted subject to the agreed upon commitments.

Thank you, Mr.

Secretary.

You want to call the next case.

Why didn't they meet within before?

Case number 2026-DV2-004, property address 5935, West 86th Street.

Pike Township, Council District No.

Zoned C4.

The petitioner is standard traders point LLC represented by Mark Bastin.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the location of a monument sign, being the third freestanding sign along the West 86th frontage, maximum two freestanding signs per frontage.

And with a separation of 130 and 140 feet from other primary freestanding signs.

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

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you will give us the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

Please come forward and say your name and address for the record.

My name is Mark Baston, and I live in 11 Grassy Way Court, Whitelin, Indiana, 46184.

And I do have some additional documentation that I prepared today that I had submitted after the finding or the staff report.

Sure.

You want to he have five or four copies?

Yes.

Okay.

You'll give them to us.

Thank you.

Okay.

So in representing our client, we're seeking to add this monument sign.

And I understand the perimeters of the property and in the zoning.

The consideration that we're looking for is the fact that in the prior location and moving to this new location, we're the client is losing quite a bit in visibility, whereas every other business in this type in the corridor there has more than ample visibility and signage allowance.

And with the addition of the tenant panel sign, obviously that's a consideration, but because the building is set back so far from the front of the property and coming from the east to the west, we see two hotels sitting right up on the edge of the street.

There is very limited visibility for the building signage to create an additional effect to you know promote the business in the same way that they've had for many years in the prior location that they're getting ready to move from to this new location.

And so by adding the monument sign, it creates the opportunity for them to maintain that consistency that they've had for so long.

And it's not even larger or as large as they've had with their current pylon sign that is out on uh the street.

So in doing so, um having that opportunity creates some visibility that's greater than what the uh corridor allows.

And if you look at the photos that I've provided in my packet, um, in addition to what was shown in the uh staff report, you can see how the buildings stand out in front.

There's a stoplight to the east of the hotels, um, you know, and there's a very large uh sign for uh the in town suites hotel there, but in the tree structure, so there's a lot of of visibility issues coming into that next intersection beyond that light, and there's a turn lane there that turns back south on, I believe, Northwest Boulevard.

And so the other consideration is public safety in allowing people to transition to the left lane to transition into that turn lane to facilitate you know safe travels for everyone.

Um the other idea is is that with this sign and their intended uh late night drive-through hours, it's going to create more visibility for that as well, also coming from 465 from the west to the east.

So in looking at these photos, you can tell if I were to have that monument sign out there, it's going to be much easier recognizable, provide more safety for the corridor, and not limit uh my client in uh having that ample amount of signage to promote the business and uh again uh provide opportunity.

So in looking at these uh photos that I provided, um, you can also see that the tenant panel sign tends to get lost in that whole corridor.

Um so even though this tenant uh uh panel sign is there, it's certainly not um as visible as this monument side would be on the ground level where people in automobiles would be fixating their eyes to it.

It's much harder to distinguish in a tenant panel sign what is there.

And that tenant panel sign is providing markers for the whole complex.

As you can see, there's multiple tenants there.

And although Taco Bell would be one, um, by providing this monument sign, it's giving the opportunity for just greater visibility and recognition uh in all of those things that I've stated.

Um the uh I think the the key part is is the fact that the building sits over back, and the staff report stated with the signs on the building, there was plenty of signage there to um uh you know that was provided.

It's just that it sits so far back, it's very limiting.

So, you know, in request, we'd like to uh have the opportunity for this uh sign.

And in fact, if um this was not in an integrated center, this signage would be something that would be permissible based on size and structure.

So we just like to uh you know make our case in in getting this accomplished without uh any harm.

Thank you, Mr.

Beston.

Have you have you concluded your presentation?

Yes.

Okay.

Um are there any questions for members of the board for the petitioner?

Oh, we got one.

Mr.

Barnes has a question, and then I have a question.

Go ahead.

Was the tenant sign there and you knew that's where you had to go when you purchased the land?

Of course it was there.

Now, what they knew when they purchased is not knowledge that I have because I'm the uh sign installation company that's providing the permits for the signage.

So I can't speak on their behalf as far as what they know is there.

But they knew coming in from day one that they would want to request the additional signage and largely in part to the uh you know the uh how the building is fixed on the property.

Okay.

Mr.

York, please leave that slide up for just a second.

The your the sign that is circled in to the left on this slide, is that the integrated center sign?

Yeah, that's the tenant panel sign, yes.

And then the other sign that's circled on the to the right, that's the sign for the hotel.

That's the Fairfield Hotel, yes.

Okay.

Um the only other question I have is actually for staff and and Mr.

We Weigel, you might be able to answer this.

Is the hotel part of the integrated center?

Yes, uh, the integrated center would be narrowly defined as the subject parcel as well as the one other parcel to the east, given the shared parking facilities.

There's a lot of other signs on the frontage, but the integrated center as defined by ordinance would be narrowly just those two parcels.

But it doesn't include does not include the hotel to the to the it does include the hotel.

Yes, three signs total, two parcels.

However, the hotel does have its own ground sign.

Yeah, the Fairfield has its own ground monument sign there.

Okay, thank you very much.

All right.

Um is there anyone else in the audience that has an interest in petition number 2026 DV2-004 with an address of 5935 West 86th Street?

None being seen, and with the petitioner concluding his remarks, we'll go ahead and comments for the staff to comments for the staff.

Absolutely.

Uh, thank you very much, Chairperson von Dalen and members of the board for your time for volunteering to be here.

Thank you to the petitioner as well for their presentation.

Uh staff is recommending denial of this petition to allow for a third primary freestanding sign along within disintegrated center within the context of a corridor with an existing high volume of signs.

Uh variants have been requested for that as well as for a proximity to existing signs.

Just a small point of clarification, even if this parcel were not integrated, a variance would still be required given its proximity to the existing multi-tenant pylon sign.

Um just for some broad context of the ordinance streets, uh, these large shopping centers or areas with shared drive parking access as integrated centers with shared frontage requiring separation of signage along those shared frontages to prevent overinstallation and unattractive visual clutter of you know multiple signs, just scores of them along the road per interpretation of the ordinance as was asked previously.

Uh per interpretation of the ordinance, as was asked previously, this would be a two parcel integrated center of the subject site, and then the parcel to the east containing the fairfield hotel.

Um the subject property currently has the multi-tenant pylon sign, which was about 130 feet away to the west, and there's the fair field sign, which is about 140 feet away to the east.

Um it's not citable per the ordinance definition of integrated center, but staff would note that there are various additional signs, both to the west of this property, that is one for the fueling station, as well as to the east, uh the in-suite hotel and then several fast food signs as well between the portions of the site, or but between the interstate to the west and Zionsville to the east.

There appear to be eight signs in total.

Uh each of those eight signs adds to the visual density and intensity of the corridor.

Approval of this variance would be the third overall within a range of 270 feet, which is a fairly dense proliferation of signage.

Uh these rules are in place to prevent visual clutter and distraction and you know from scores of free standing signs while also allowing businesses the ability to advertise themselves.

Um this sort of scenario is specifically what ordinance rules are designed to avoid you know multiple discrete signs along frontages.

Um typically an alternative view would be one sign that's a bit larger with the ability for multiple businesses and multiple tenants to advertise upon it.

We are sympathetic to businesses wanting to advertise, but we feel that that would be an appropriate alternative to allow for that business advertising to happen.

Um the pylon sign about 130 feet to the west is 168 square feet in size.

Uh there are 18 total tenant parcels.

Uh multiple of those appear to be unoccupied, including the uh the very top panel that was visible within the third photo of site um within the exhibits of staff's report.

Um pre before this site was um per purchased for redevelopment as a taco belt was utilized by a bank.

Um the bank previously using this site did not have their own freestanding monument sign, but instead did use that top tenant space on the multi-tenant pylon sign, and that is what you know the dozen 15 or so other tenants on that sign have also chosen to do.

Um a common argument against doing this is that you know, potentially the property owner might not have rights to that sign since it's not on their physical property, or it might be so far away from that multi-tenant sign, there might be some confusion created.

Uh staff doesn't feel that Eve would be the case here.

The sign is directly on their property in close proximity to the existing building.

Feels like a relatively straightforward solution on our end.

Uh we would note that the property is also zoned C4, which allows for a wide variety of legal signage, such as illuminated wall signs.

Options also exist for online advertising, listing within Google maps, et cetera.

Um permits for illuminated wall signage were and drive-thru signs were approved late last year.

Uh that the extent of the practical difficulty might exist from the building being slightly recessed compared to the hotel to the east.

Uh staff feels this could be mitigated by using the pylon sign as the previous bank tenant had done.

Um overall, staff doesn't feel there's a great risk of the site being unable to be identified given the existing sign infits already there.

Um, ultimately, uh we feel that um at the addition of a another sign along this somewhat congested corridor of signs would not be contextually appropriate and runs directly counter to ordinance guidance.

Um previous bank uses also a traffic generating use with a drive-through uh no primary freeze any sign was sought in that instance, and we feel that's fairly similar contextually.

So given that context and the existence of alternate um options, we don't feel that an additional sign here would be minimal relief for what difficulty might exist.

Uh for those reasons we recommend denial.

I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you, Mr.

Weigel.

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

Um I do I have a question.

I just want some clarification.

So you said there are only two parcels that are part of the integrated center.

Right.

The larger commercial corridor, you know, is substantially larger, but per ordinance definition of integrated center, it's just the subject parcel with the vacated bank building and the parcel directly to the east of the fairfield end.

Then why are there so many other businesses advertised on this giant pylon that's on the corner there?

Is that not they're not also part of the integrated?

I guess they're not they're not along the 86 frontage specifically.

I believe the majority are those are for businesses to the south as you're moving along the road.

But they're not part, they're not from a deed standpoint part of the integrated center.

I I I I don't believe so, right?

They're not part of the shared frontage of the integrated center, then might be a way to put it.

Yeah.

All right, thank you.

Um you're gonna get five minutes of rebuttal, but I have a question real quick.

Do you have rights to any of this places on this pylon sign that is part of the that's at the corner of the tall pylon sign on the corner?

They do have approval to use the tenant panel uh location that the owner of the sign would designate, yes.

That they would design d designate or I mean are they gonna and this is a big deal.

Are they getting the top blank panel where the bank advertised, or are they going to be relegated to one of the smaller panels?

Um that has to be determined, so I would need to confirm that.

But that's the intent.

I'm sorry.

It would be good for us to know that right now.

Yeah.

Um so you don't have any you can't give us any you just know you're gonna be able to do that.

That would be our that would be our feedback.

They would be wanting the largest um possible uh tenant panel that would be available in the tenant panel sign, yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Go ahead and with your rebuttal.

Okay.

So um I guess one question I had was is um with Fairfield Inn there is in town suites also part of the integrated center, even though it's the next parcel east.

Right.

I think the determination that we had used was based off the ordinance definition for integrated center.

So because of the weight at the driveway and the shared parking facilities are set up, the end town would be part of an integrated center with some other properties a bit further to the east where I think it's 85th or 84th Street leaves back around to the south.

They have a different they have different access to the site than these two parcels here.

Okay.

Uh uh I just wanted to question since that was another property that's sitting out on the frontage road so close that's obstructing view of our uh client's building, and the fact that the amount of signage on in town suites is massive in uh uh wall sign and that uh uh pylon sign that has the uh you know the digital pricer on it for the hotel stay.

Um so I just was wanted to make sure I didn't really know that moving into this uh and questioning that.

So it's probably something I should have asked prior, but I wanted to be certain that that wasn't included in the integrated center.

Um as for the other properties that have tenant panels on the tenant panel sign.

Um I'm familiar with that whole process.

It's often uh that there'll be a very large park, whether it's an industrial park or whatever it's called, you know, similar properties like Park 100 and all that, and they have multiple tenant panel signs where they'll have um a marker in that for uh that purpose to give somebody some indication that they're on site and that they can uh find that location.

But for our client, it's just uh, you know, as I said, um having that uh ground sign is more significant than what will be placed in a tenant panel, and that's why they've requested that.

And it's you know, obviously a national brand, but and just trying to maintain the integrity of what they've held in the prior property um adjacent uh that they're moving from into this property, and that's the purpose of the variance in their wish to obtain that.

Do you understand my concern?

Um having one of the smaller panels on that pylon sign is a very different thing than if they get the very largest panel at the very top of the pylon sign.

I understand.

And not knowing which one they're going to get makes it very difficult for me to make a decision in this.

I understand.

And I'm speaking on line of sight when you're in vehicles, which is this is not you know a corridor where there's a lot of foot traffic.

So when you're in vehicles, you've got that sign up there, yes, but it's not as legible and easy to see as a monument would be in coming up to that intersection and making decisions to um you know exit into the turn lane.

And overall, just having that opportunity to have a more recognizable sign as opposed to what what the limitations are in length and height.

I understand, but the pylon sign is the same length as the the ground sign that you're asking for, or very similar in length.

As far as size, you mean?

Yes, size.

Um it's it's a little shorter.

I know the that's long in uh being a rectangular shape for the tenant panel sign, but um when you look at the image there, um that just far more recognizable than what we'll be able to do on a tenant panel.

And that's the reason for the request.

Oh, I'm uh so that's uh what is that six feet long by five feet tall?

Yes.

Um ten feet long.

How how long is the pylon sign that the with the multi-tenant on it?

Um I do not have exact dimensions on that.

I know it's slightly longer than that.

Um if we were to use the top portion of it, but it's not quite as tall, I think.

Yeah, sorry to cut it.

Yeah, but uh the pylon sign is eight feet based on the sign permit from 2002.

Okay.

This adjacent pylon, the taco bell sign that's on page 48 of our hand that's not the same site.

Is that a site they're moving from?

Correct.

There's current well, I I'm not sure if that was for me or for a petition, but that's yeah.

So that that one.

That's going away.

That's going away, yes.

Okay.

And that's the compromise we were hoping for is to see, you know, we're coming down with that, and I don't know what they're going to do with that property if they're developing it into something else.

But uh for us and and what we're representing, we just want to, you know, maintain some type of uh consistency in uh what they've had for so many years by having that additional monument.

So how about the if I it could we get a commitment that if we grant this variance, you will not put a giant Taco Bell sign at the very top of this pylon sign too?

Um I'm I'm sure that if we got the monument sign, that would be uh uh worthwhile for them to do that, yes.

To to make that commitment?

Yeah, because the biggest concern I have is you're gonna end up with a giant Taco Bell sign at the top of this monument or this uh um pylon sign and uh a monument sign as well.

Mind you, th this hasn't been discussed with them, but yeah, I mean that could be a commitment that we could make uh in concession of getting the monument sign is to not be on the tenant panel sign.

I'm a little concerned that you don't know that.

I I wouldn't I would think that they would be more f up forthright about whether they have the rights to that because in my opinion also the top of that um giant pylon sign is very good visibil visibility for a business like that.

And why wouldn't they just utilize that existing sign?

And if but if they don't I I think it's it would be best if we knew if they had the right to use, if they don't have the right to use it, then I could see with their point complaint if it's just they have discussed it, so they do have a right to use.

So they have a right to use that.

Yes.

Okay, that's all I need to know.

Thank you.

Yeah.

All right.

Any other questions?

You want to continue on with your rebuttal?

Um just that in looking at this, um, you know, their hopes was to have uh that additional sign as significant ground signage because of the loss of their pylon sign, and I understand the tenant panel sign, which is uh uh at a higher elevation will be visible, excuse me, visible to um people.

It's just that um the effort was to create something that was a little more recognizable and and without any uh confusion um in what they're seeing.

But um I understand uh what you're stating and I wish I had a response to tell you that you know their commitment to not do the tenant panel if we got the ground sign um and and that very well could be, I would have to um you know confer with them and and and make that determination you may ask for a continuance.

Um maybe that's what I should do.

Um I've not been in this position before, but uh maybe if I ask for in a continu continuance, then that would give me a chance to discuss uh that option and and we can come to immediate conclusion on what they'd like to do.

I can't offer my advice, but I can tell you you can ask for a continuance.

I understand.

Well then I I think I'd like to ask for one.

All right.

Um staff any objection to continuance to our next hearing without additional notice?

Uh staff wouldn't be opposed if that's what the board thinks is best.

I'll entertain a motion to continue petition number 2026 DV2-004 to our next hearing and uh on April 14th without additional notice to I hear a motion um that gets moved forward.

So moved?

So moved, yes.

And a second second.

I'll call the roll duckett brown.

Barnes.

Yes.

And I'm also a yes.

We're going to continue to the next area.

I would suggest you get that answer.

I will.

And thank you so much for all of your information and and time today.

Thank you.

Mr.

Secretary, is there any other business coming before the board?

Findings of effect?

All right, then we are adjourned.