Call to order.

Hello, everyone.

Thank you.

So public hearing of the Metropolitan Board of Zoning to Appeals, Division 2.

I am Craig Von Dalen, Chairperson to Division 2.

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

Legal Counsel for the Board today is Chris Steinmetz.

Staff members present today for the division of planning are Bryce Patz, current planning administrator.

Michael Weigel, Principal Planner 1.

Robert Eulenh, Senior Planner, Josh Laveck, Senior Planner, Marty Weiste, 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 rules 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 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 summation of the case.

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

Remonstrators will then be allowed five minutes for rebuttal at the petitioner's rebuttal evidence and a brief closing statement.

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

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

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

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

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

The installation of landscaping and screening, the paving of a parking area, the dedication of right-of-ways are examples.

These conditions and commitments are an integral part of the board's decision and must be met for the granted variants to be valid.

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

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

Failure to comply with any conditions or commitments on of a variance grant is a violation enforceable by the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services.

A person may file a written request to receive notice of the filing of a petition for judicial review of a decision of the board.

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

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

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

Please be courteous and orderly at all times.

And please be sure all cell phone ringers are turned off.

There are four members present today.

It requires three votes to take action on any request.

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

If your petition receives an indecisive vote, your petition will be automatically continued to the May 19th, 2026 hearing.

Board members, you have been provided with minutes for our March 10th, 2026 meeting.

Have we got those in the packet?

Got it?

Okay, very good.

For the March 10th, 2026 meeting.

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

Do I hear a motion?

Duke so moved.

And a second.

Ducky Brown, second.

Thank you.

I'll call the roll Ducket Brown.

Duckett Brown, yes.

Duke Duke, yes.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

And I am a yes.

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

Before we hear special requests, I'll ask for a waiver of our rules of procedures 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 moved.

And a second.

Brandon, second.

I will call the roll.

Ducett Brown.

Ducett Brown, yes.

Duke.

Duke, yes.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

And I'm also yes.

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

Good afternoon.

Justin King and address 618 East Market Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46202.

Here before you on the first item on your agenda, uh 2025 DV2035 amended.

Address being 5100 Knowlton Road.

We're seeking a one-month continuance to your May 19th docket.

Um the variance request is changed from our initial filing.

Um we've had to update the notice and the requests, and this continuance would allow us to send out those notices.

Uh happy to answer any questions you may have.

So this is with additional correct.

Yeah.

It's because of the new notice.

All right.

Uh is there anyone in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 BB two-035 amended with an address of 5100 Dolton Road?

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

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

Uh staff is not opposed at a continuance request, which would be needed for a petition to be heard given the amended notice was provided based on uh staff's additional review of the plans.

Uh we're aware of remonstrance about the case, but it appears they are not here today, and I believe at least some of them are aware of the continuance and didn't express opposition.

Thank you, Mr.

Wyle.

In that case, I will entertain a motion to continue to our May 19, 2026 hearing petition number 2025 DB two-035 with additional notice.

Do I hear a motion?

Brandon, so moved.

Second.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'll call the ground the rolled Doug Brown.

Doug Brown, yes.

Duke.

Duke, yes.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

And I'm also yes.

Thank you.

Any others from the audience?

All right, staff.

Yes.

Thank you, Chairperson Vaughn Dalen.

Members of the board, staff would draw your attention to um item number two.

Uh this will also require a continuance due to an error in uh noticing.

Um so this would it's actually a two-part request.

This would um originally require uh a continuance to the May 19th uh meeting.

However, we are um also working with the petitioner to uh seek a transfer to the uh PZA1 May 12th meeting okay.

Is there any audience with an interest in petition number 2026 DV2-009 with an address of 5360 Central Avenue?

No one being seen, uh we appreciate the the request, and I will entertain a motion to both uh continue and transfer petition number 2026 DV2-009 to Division 1's May 12th hearing.

Is that with or without notice?

This is with new notice.

With new notice.

Do I hear a motion?

Brandon, so moved.

And a second.

Duke second.

Thank you.

I'll call the roll, Ducett Brown.

Dugg Brown, yes.

Duke.

Duke, yes.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

And I'm also yes.

Thank you, sir.

No others.

All right.

Is there no more special requests?

We can go ahead and proceed to the expedited docket.

Mr.

Weestie.

These are petitions to be expedited.

Case number 2026-m02-001 property address 6417 Carrollton Avenue, Washington Township, Council District No.

7, zoned MU1 FF.

The petitioner is Kickshaw Tattoo LLC, represented by Patrick Rooney, requesting modification of commitments 1, 2, and 3 related to 87-UV2-85 to permit a tattoo parlor as described in the plan of operation.

Commitment 1 permitted only for the preparation and delivery of cakes and desserts.

To provide for standard deliveries by USPS, FedEx, UPS, and Amazon, with standard deliveries of supplies and inventory and no more than two vehicles at a time.

Commitment to permitted deliveries with a station wagon and van with no more than two vehicles at any time.

To provide for up to ten part-time employees with said employees working on alternate days with a maximum of five employees on any given day.

Commitment three limited the number of employees to the owner and two full-time employees with occasional seasonal part-time employees.

And to provide for a tattoo parlor, not permitted, with a 3.75-foot south side yard setback and a three-foot rear setback.

Minimum 10 foot side and rear setbacks required.

Case number two zero two six-d v two-zero zero five, property address one three one six East Minnesota Street.

Center Township, Council District No.

TOD.

The petitioners are Jaime Cruz and Victor Manuel Rodas Navarro, represented by Samuel Salazar.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to construct a single family detached dwelling with side setbacks of three feet, minimum five feet required.

Case number two zero two six-d v two-008 property addresses two four zero five, two four zero seven, and two four zero nine, Massachusetts Avenue.

Center Township, Council District No.

D eight.

The petitioner is Braun Investments LLC, represented by Joseph Cauldron, requesting variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of a commercial building without exclusive access from an improved alley required.

And case number 2026-DV2-012 property address 239 East Caven Street.

Center Township, Council District No.

18, zoned D5.

The petitioner is Cohen Property Group LLC, represented by Mark Crouch, requesting variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a multi-house, excuse me, multi-unit house with a 32-foot wide lot, 35-foot wide lot required for multi-unit dwellings.

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

Chairperson Daly and that's the end of the expedited docket.

Very well, none being seen, we'll go ahead and cast our ballots.

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

That variance is granted.

On case 2026-D V two-005, Craig Von Dalen votes yes, Beth Brandon votes yes, James Duke votes yes, and Patrice Stuck at Brown votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case two zero two six-d v two-008, Craig Von Dalen votes yes, Beth Brandon votes yes, James Duke votes yes, and Patrice Duckett Brown votes yes.

That variance is granted.

And on case two zero two six-d v two-zero one two, Craig Von Dalen votes yes, Beth Brandon votes yes, James Duke votes yes, and Patrice Stuckett Brown votes yes.

That variance is granted.

Case number two zero two six-d v two-zero zero four property address five nine three five West 86th Street.

Pike Township, Council District No.

The petitioner is Standard Traders Point LLC, represented by Mark Baston, requesting 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, 300 foot separation required.

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

Say I do.

I do.

Petitioner, please come forward and present your case.

My name is Mark Baston, and I'm with Midwest Maintenance and Construction.

And I live in Whiteland at 11 Grass Away Court.

And I'm here to represent our client today in regards to the monument sign request to see us get the monument sign over what was discussed in prior meeting in seeking that.

Simple reason that it's not uh owned by our client, and they would like to have their own equitable equitable signage in place there as a marker for this uh very active uh drive-through business.

And so uh in having discussion with our client, um there's no desire to utilize the tenant panel sign given that situation that it is not uh uh in their ownership, and that the monument sign would be uh an adequate uh piece of signage to promote the business and create visibility for access through the corridor and down Northwest Boulevard to access the uh said business.

So given the things that we discussed before about the hotels being uh right up on the street and the lack of visibility of the building signage, it's just felt that this uh cabinet with the logo is a far greater representation for them you know, given that they're moving uh from the prior location to this new location.

So uh you know it's uh very much desired that they have this monument sign in that place.

And uh I think uh the fact that the integrated center has two properties, uh one sign that belongs to the hotel, uh, which is truly a very small monument sign, uh, and then the tenant panel signage that is on the corner of Northwest Boulevard and 86th Street.

Um there's I think that tenant panel sign represents more of the commercial complex south of this property than it does the other.

And for whatever reason that the bank didn't uh pursue this before is is up to them.

I think the access and the volume differences between the two is probably significant in why Taco Bell wants their monument sign in this in place of the tenant panel sign usage.

So we'd very much like to uh see this uh approved and we've presented to you the uh layout of the monument sign and the appearance of it and the location desired to create that uh visibility and also safety factors that fall into play.

All right, are you done with your presentation?

Uh yeah, I think so.

All right.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak in in uh support of this this uh variance?

All right.

Then are there any questions for the board for the petitioner?

Okay, I have one.

So does Taco Bell, your client, have any rights to the empty panel that is on the sign directly to the I guess it's to the east or west of the property, the integrated center sign?

They have negotiated the ability to be part of that sign, yes.

So they have the right to use that sign?

They do.

What size is the panel that they are allotted on that sign?

Um it's the one that's blank that's in the photos.

That was discussed uh in since our last meeting, and we've gone over that with them, but their desire is to focus on the phone.

I didn't ask you about what's the size of that panel on the pylon sign.

It's like 34 inches visual opening on that top panel versus our Okay, how how wide is it?

Um it's approximately 10 feet in width.

Okay.

So the orientation of it is going to be a lot different than what's desired on our monument sign.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you for answering my answer my question.

If you're concluded your uh presentation, then we can go on to the remonstrance.

Okay.

Is that right?

Okay, thank you.

Remonstrator.

Good afternoon, Chairman Vendellen and members of the board.

Susan Blair, president of the Pike Township Residence Association.

We're commonly referred to as PTRA.

Address is post office box 40458 zip 46240.

At PTRA's April 8th meeting, PTRA's board of directors, after review and discussion, voted unanimously to oppose this petition.

The objection is based on a lack of need and size of sign of the sign proposed.

And PTRA's handout are photos of the existing building with modifications underway.

Transitioning from a bank to a fast food restaurant, Taco Bell specifically.

Three sides of the building, north, west, and south, have wall signage, providing visibility.

Photo one is north facing West 86th Street.

Photo 2 is West, facing Northwest Boulevard, and I-465.

Photo 3 facing south toward a local business and ortho Indy hospital.

In addition to the wall signage, Taco Bell has informational signage on I 465 prior to the West 86th Street exits.

As the staff report indicated, this property is part of an integrated center with an integrated center sign located on the southeast corner of Northwest Boulevard and West 86th Street.

With available panels, it's PTRA's belief that additional Taco Bell signage can be located on this sign.

In addition, PTRA is concerned about the size of the proposed sign at 10 feet by 10 feet, much larger than the adjacent fair field and sign, which is in photo number four of PTRA's exhibit.

PTRA's board believes the Taco Bell sign with its proposed lot placement and size will block the view of the fairfield end sign when navigating from the west where I-465 exits are.

Should this sign be approved, fair fill in may likely petition for a larger sign themselves.

The purpose of integrated center signs is to avoid visual clutter and sign proliferation.

With the integrated center sign located on the same parcel, PTRA fills adding the additional sign isn't warranted, and will contribute to sign proliferation.

With that, PTRA respectfully request your denial of this petition, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for the remonstrator?

No questions.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak in remonstrance?

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

Absolutely.

Thank you very much, uh, Chairman Von Dalen and to the board for your time.

Uh thank you to the petitioner and uh Susan from PTRA as well for those comments.

Uh this is our second time discussing this case, so I'll abbreviate my presentation compared to the previous.

Uh staff continues to recommend denial of the petition to allow for a third primary freestanding sign along this narrow shared integrated frontage and along a larger commercial corridor with a high proliferation of signage.

In total, there's eight total signs between the highway and Sinesville Road.

This would constitute the ninth overall.

Uh the specific subject sign will be placed 140 feet from a fair field end sign to the east on the adjacent parcel, and then 130 feet from a multi-tenant pylon sign on the subject parcel just to the west.

Those two parcels would comprise the integrated center, resulting in three signs within a space of 300 feet.

Rip in a space of 270 feet, even excuse me.

Excuse me.

Ordinance rules about signage allow for businesses to advertise while also limiting discrete individual free standing signs bunched up together, both for safety and for aesthetic reasons.

I'd emphasize it as precisely as the scenario contemplated by the ordinance when this rule was written.

Staff and note of multiple alternates exist to allow for effective advertising while signage as what's allowed within the C4 district and what has purpose been already been installed on the building.

Advertising through online channels for Google Maps listings could also be an option, but most relevant would be the multi-tenant pylon sign on the subject site.

Based on the permit that was issued in 2002, it looks like that topmost tenant panel has an area of 24 square feet.

That's the 24 square foot one that's currently unoccupied and had been utilized by the previous bank tenant that had been within this building.

Staff isn't aware of a reason why the proposed Senate couldn't utilize that space of a preferred photograph with within the staff reports exhibits uh per emails from the applicant sent in June.

Uh they were aware that use of tenant panels would be possible and confirmed that they would have rights to the topmost tenant panel regardless of the result of today's hearing.

Uh petitioner's argument does it seems to be primarily focused on the fact that the monument sign would be larger if an attendant space on the pylon sign.

Uh staff notes that the widths would be somewhat comparable, 10 foot versus 8 foot.

Um utilizing the existing pylon would be allowed without the need for relief via an ordinance by a petition from ordinance rules.

And a pylon tenant space is elevated much higher than the lower ground sign, which might allow for greater visibility if that's a concern.

Um additionally, um, in early April we received an email from Susan Blair to PTRA indicating their opposition, and she also has testified here this afternoon.

Uh the presence of those alternate options means that the burden of site-specific practical difficulty wouldn't be met.

Uh the reason disparance of saw would be petitioners' desire for a slightly larger sign.

Uh staff feels that the current ordinance rules on sign proliferation and busy commercial corridors are worth defending, especially when a viable alternate solution for using the tenant panel exists, which would give a smaller size but a taller height, a similar location, and then meet ordinance rules.

That was the option that the previous bank tenant that the site had used.

That's also a traffic generating use that also had a drive-thru.

Uh that scenario didn't result in the placement of three separate signs along the same frontage within 270 feet of each other.

One ordinance typically contemplates one sign per 300 feet for these commercial commercial areas.

Uh for that reason we recommend denial and hope that the one will be open to utilizing the tenant panel instead.

Happy to answer questions that you might have.

Thank you, Mr.

Weestiers or Mr.

Weigel.

Is there any are there any questions for staff from members of the board?

No questions.

All right, we can move on to the rebuttal period.

Mr.

Petitioner, you have five minutes of rebuttal.

A couple of questions I had was also in reference to the integrated center.

Um it appears there's just the two parcels that's part of that integrated center.

And I wasn't really uh certain what clearly defined it as an integrated center, but in doing so, it obviously uh includes um the tenant panel sign as the second sign with uh the fair field in sign.

And although the um visibility issues that were brought up are apparent, there's also the um idea that um with all the other businesses in the corridor that are present, they have uh their own uh free standing sign in place, and that was uh another consideration for us to request this today, and just having that um monument sign in place for that.

As far as um anything else, um you know, we're again just seeking the opportunity to have uh something equitable with Taco Bell in place for the type of business that it is.

So I don't have anything more to add to that.

Um if there's any questions anyone has um, I I mean I'm gonna ask an obvious question.

The signage that you're going to get on the pylon sign that is on your property will be probably 20 feet higher than the signage that you're requesting.

Which why do you feel that it is not as visually obvious as the sign that you're requesting?

There is an obvious visual presentation there, but when you've got multiple tenant panels, it is not the first thing you look at necessarily, even with the larger size in the panel.

With the monument sign, it's in the eye sight of people driving the corridor just as much as it is up higher, and given the location of it, then it gives us a little bit more presentation of the layout of the logo, and so that's really the reason why they wanted to have the monument sign in place as opposed to being on the tenant panel, um, just for uh a greater visual than what's present.

Um being up high is not always um good depending on the distance that you're driving when you're driving down an interstate.

Those signs are high for a reason, so the visibility is there.

For this, it's it's a lot, there's a lot going on in the corridor.

Okay, I have a problem with that, because I granted seven years ago with the BZA, Taco Bell on 86th Street in Nora, a variance to put in a pylon sign instead of a ground sign because they claimed that it was better visibility.

So which is it?

Well, I'm not familiar with that, sir.

Okay, thank you.

That's the end of my questions.

Any other questions for the petitioner?

All right.

We can go on to the rebuttal for the for the um remonstrance.

Thank you.

I won't take up much of your time.

I only have one thing to add.

Um Mr.

Bastion indicated that there are individual residents, particularly residents, I'm sorry, businesses, on the south side of 86th Street in this area that all have their own individual signs.

Well, originally when those businesses were constructed, there were no accesses off of 86th Street.

You had to go all the way to Zinesville Road, turn south, and then take an access road back behind the buildings to come back to them.

Well, when I was taking the photos yesterday, I took the time to look, and virtually all of those businesses along there now have access off 86th Street.

So previously those signs were needed because of the configuration of access, but now they're really not needed, but they're there.

Um but that doesn't give a reason for Taco Bell to have this 10 by 10 foot sign.

Thank you so much.

And again, we request your denial.

Thank you.

If everybody's done, we can go ahead and cast our ballots.

On case 2026-DV2-004, Patrice Duckett Brown votes no, James Duke votes no, Craig Von Dalen votes no, and Beth Brandon votes no.

The variance is not granted.

Thank you all.

Case number 2026-UV2-003 property address 5675 Michigan Road.

Wayne uh excuse me, Washington Township, Council District No.

Zoned C3FWFF slash D2FF.

The petitioner is 5675 Michigan Road LLC, represented by Joseph D.

Cauldron, requesting a variance of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the operation of an automobile parts and supply store utilizing the existing structure and parking facilities.

Not permitted.

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

I do.

Steve watches that thing.

Thank you, and good afternoon, uh Chairman Vondela and members of the board.

Uh Joe Calderan, 11 South Meridian here in Indianapolis.

With me today is Steve Canada.

The owner, who's out of state, landlord uh is 5675 Michigan LLC.

Um we are proposing a good thing, we think, and we'll get through it.

Each of you should have a hard copy of my PowerPoint on the screen.

Do we not have are you just gonna click when I so it's okay?

We'll just I'll just do it the old fashioned way and have her click through.

This is a former Walgreens uh location that's been vacant for at least a couple of years now, located uh just to the north of the intersection of Kessler and Michigan Road, and it's uh sits on the east side.

The site is zone C3.

Um Auto Zone uh is proposing just to reoccupy the building and operate it as an auto zone retail store uh in typical uh fashion that most of you are likely familiar with.

So we go to the first uh the next uh that slide is fine.

This kind of gives you an aerial view.

You can see that running along Michigan Road, it's uh largely commercial, although there is some residential to the north and particularly to the east of this location.

Um to the south of Kessler Boulevard, there's been a long existing shell station, then there's a McDonald's, and uh that is part of a more recent development anchored by a Walmart um neighborhood grocery market uh to the east uh and south of the site to the immediate south of our site.

There's a small integrated center with a Starbucks.

But for many years, this quadrant in and around the intersection has been commercial, and the zoning, in fact, is commercial C3.

So C three is a commercial category.

Go ahead.

This is uh a copy of the survey uh that shows the existing building placement.

It's kind of an oddly shaped parcel that flags uh to Kessler.

It's merely a shared entryway, but it's owned in fee uh by the owner of this property.

The Wall Green store has about 15,000 square feet.

It sat there for uh many many years.

And uh we're not anticipating making any changes to either the parking lot or the building.

We're just going in to Occupy.

So here's the crux of the of what we're asking.

Next slide, please.

Autozone, even though you and I can go in and buy anything from air fresheners to batteries to different types of accessories and parts at retail.

It falls in the zoning ordinance definition of quote automobile, motorcycle, and light vehicle service or repair.

And within that definition, there's a phrase that says, including parts and supply stores.

So based on the city's interpretation, this use, even though it's a really a retail use, is captured in the definition of automobile vehicle service or repair, which includes body shops, oil changes, all kinds of things like that.

We don't do any of that at AutoZone.

We sell at retail, they help diagnose folks that might have an issue, but they don't do auto repair.

There's no service base, they don't do any of the things that are commonly thought of when you read the definition of automobile service or repair.

This defined use requires C4, which is the next commercial category, up.

C4 also has much more intense uses like nightclub, indoor entertainment, things of that nature.

So fundamentally, we think that this use fits better, frankly, with C3 than it does C4.

And we're willing to bet on our ability to operate more like a C3 use than a C4 use.

In your hand, you have uh commitments that address what sometimes people get nervous about a use like this coming into town, and that's well, what about auto repair in the parking lot and things of that nature?

Well, we put in uh restrictions that have uh we believe earn the neighborhood support for not really being a repair facility.

We have one more commitment that we promised a neighbor that I will get to later.

So at its heart, we believe our use functions much more like a C3 use versus a C4 use.

Next slide.

Next one.

I think we're a little bit ahead of ourselves.

Um there.

That's the actual definition in the ordinance of auto automobile, motorcycle, light service, and repair.

And as you can see, there's a whole bunch of things that frankly are much more intense than what we are proposing here.

Next slide.

This again just kind of recaps the uh our reasoning for doing a variance versus uh the C4 rezoning option, and we think maintaining the integrity of the existing zoning pattern should prevail.

Next slide.

This is the zoning map.

You can see the the uh shaded parcel highlighted uh as well as the other uses that are in play in this general quarter.

And then the next slide, please.

One of the things that we think that helps make the case for a variance of C3 is that within our plan of operation, there are two things that are very important to uh remember.

Uh we're not open past 10 on any day of the week, and even so that's only three days of the week.

Some of the other uses operate at much later hours uh at night.

Uh we have about seven to ten employees on site at any given time, and then by commitment, we're not doing any auto service or repair.

Next slide.

Uh the two commitments that we have uh written uh relate to not permitting any on-site auto service or repair uh by employees that does not preclude, however, somebody coming in and they need a diagnostic test, all that's kind of computer driven uh or battery test.

Uh and then if there is a scenario where somebody does need to say buy a battery, as Steve mentioned to me, they're not going to give an older person a battery and say, hey, go put it in, we'll help you install that.

But there's no activity in the commitment that would involve the exchange or use of automotive fluids.

Uh we recognize that this is a site that uh would not uh support that.

We're not interested in creating any environmental issues whatsoever.

So we put that in commitment one.

The second part of the commitments says that we will post signs in conspicuous places that will alert that customers, visitors cannot use the parking lot for repair type of activity.

There's one other commitment uh that we will add uh to the two before you, and that is a commitment involving Mr.

Turney, who is an adjoiner to the east and north, and that is we will replace the existing uh aluminum fence with a six-foot solid uh fence that wraps around the property along the east and wrapping around uh the north side of the property to provide security and some visual screening.

Um I'll let Steve or Mr.

Turney confirm whether I got that right or not.

We talked about that out in the hallway.

Next slide.

Uh we have engaged with our north with our adjoiner, Mr.

Turney, to discuss the security fencing.

We'll put in the commitment.

We have been in correspondence with Crooked Creek Alert and Crooked Creek Land Use Committee.

We did get an email from the Crooked Creek Land Use Committee through Carrie Manders that they had no objection to the proposed use.

Next slide.

The staff report.

While thorough, uh we believe that there are three main reasons why staff is saying we recommend denial.

One that there are other uses permitted under C3 that the subject property could be used for.

Two, that there is a likelihood of on-site auto repair, and three, that this is in a floodway, floodway fringe area.

Here's our response to each of those.

We believe that the fact that there are C3 uses available does not go far enough in the inquiry as to whether a variance is justified.

First of all, we've got two plus years of vacancy.

Secondly, the sites already improved with the big building.

So that limits the number of uses that you can make with uh the existing building.

And thirdly, because there have been a change in regulations, uh, particularly in the uh flood control ordinance as well as a string protection corridor.

You really have to stick with using the existing building because it's essentially a non-conforming use, non-conforming building.

Two, we put forth our commitments which address the repair issue.

Uh we think which will allow that use to be uh compatible with nearby residential.

Um other thing to take in mind.

Um in the staff report, C3 does allow drive-through use.

In fact, Walgreens had a drive-through uh pharmacy, which isn't quite like McDonald's, nevertheless.

Dry-through uses next to residential can be as or more intense uh than particularly the use that we're proposing today.

And then third, any business is gonna have to reconcile and uh deal with the floodway floodplain issue, uh, which essentially means that you're stuck reusing the building as is.

Most importantly, this use as proposed is not prohibited as a restricted or prohibited use in the flood control ordinance.

So just to sum up, last slide.

We think it's good policy for the city to encourage and reuse existing vacant buildings.

In fact, there is uh in some cases allowance for use of buildings that can up zone if there's a five-year vacancy.

Uh we've put forth a plan of operation and commitments that can assure this board that we will uh operate much more like a C3 retail use, and that we really fit it better than the definition of automobile service and repair.

And then the following facts.

This is not a high traffic use, there's no impact uh to the public health safety and welfare by reason of that.

This use will be substantially similar using the same building.

We're making no further encroachments towards adjacent uses or the floodplain, uh, thus not creating an adverse impact to our adjoiners.

Thirdly, we believe that the change in regulations that requires reuse of the existing building creates a unique and peculiar condition of the subject property.

Fourth, we believe that this use has more common elements with C3 versus C4.

Therefore, we think the ordinance definition is overbroad by putting this in the same category as body shops and creates a hardship for this particular use.

And finally, the proposed use with its hours and low impact is compatible with the community commercial recommendation of the comprehensive plan.

Happy to answer any questions the board may have at this time.

Thank you, Mr.

Calderon.

Are there any questions for the petitioner?

Yes.

Okay.

Go ahead, Mr.

Deep.

So regarding your commitments, yes.

Um I was reading the first one there about confirms no repair, that type of thing.

So in your definition of repair, um, oftentimes you'll see um customers of sites like AutoZone will take the time to replenish their oil, other fluids and that type of thing while on the parking lot.

So, in your definition of that, is that inclusive or exclusive of what your commitment is?

That is not allowed.

Okay.

Furthermore, commitment number two recognizes the fact that people do things that they're not supposed to do, so we will have conspicuous signage to remind them and with staffing on site that should help really mitigate any concerns about customers taking advantage.

So we will have conspicuous signage to remind them and with staffing on site that should help really mitigate any concerns about customers taking advantage.

So it's not allowed, and we'll post signage to further discourage that kind of activity.

So you're going to actively police that situation.

Yes.

Come forward, state your name and address for the record.

My name is Steve Canada, 140167 Grisham Drive, Carmel, 46033.

Okay.

I'm the real estate manager for autosome for this territory.

And no, we don't do that.

You know, I'm it's a you know.

Is it gonna happen?

I'm an auto zone customer, so I know exactly where you're dealing with.

Sometimes, but always laugh and say if somebody comes in and wants break fluid, you might want to have a let them put it in.

But put that in so they can completely understand.

All right.

But it was a matter of fact, we don't we don't uh encourage it, we don't do it ourselves, we don't help them do it.

It can happen, of course, just naturally, but it's not one of our services.

I think we wanted to make sure that you will actively you can put signage up, but if you don't actually discourage people from doing it, they'll ignore the signage.

I just want to make sure you're actively going out and saying, hey, don't do this here.

Unless it's break fluid and it's an emergency.

Yes, we will.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Is your time up?

I have.

I was seeing if there was any further questions.

Board members.

All right.

Uh in that case, we will hear from remonstrance.

She gets 15 minutes, sir.

State your name and address for the record.

All right.

My name is Rick Turney, 1851 West 57th Street, Indianapolis 46228, uh, directly behind the old Walgreens Dollar Tree store, and I welcome Auto Zone's proposal for this.

And I've worked with Steve.

We walked the property, setting up a security fence behind there because there's been so much bad activity through there that I've dealt with 35 years.

And I like his proposal.

And one thing to add as far as people going back in there at the middle of the night was when they usually do that.

If the lights that are there stay on overnight, it really dissuades any of that activity.

Sometimes uh the particular business might turn the lights off, you know, at midnight, and that's when the activity starts happening back there.

So for my end, I you know appreciate their work and what they're gonna do.

And the main thing is that that security fence is maintained.

Very good.

Any questions for the remonstrance?

Did you have anything else you wanted to say?

No.

Any questions for remonstrance?

All right.

None being seen.

We'll go to comments from staff.

Absolutely.

Uh thank you very much, Chairperson Bondalen, members of the board.

Uh, thank you to the petitioner as well for that furrow presentation and to uh to the uh adjoining neighbor for their presence here today as well.

Uh staff is recommending denial of this petition to allow for an auto parts and supply store use in a zone but does not allow for that use by right.

Uh as mentioned, this is an irregularly shaped parcel, 2.26 acres inside.

It size it includes a commercial structure to the north, which has been vacant since approximately 2024.

Uh that formerly housed a pharmacy and before that, I believe it was a dollar store discount uh dollar tree, something of that nature.

Um the parcel also includes parking areas at a southeast closer to that multi-tenant center that has the Starbucks and the cell phone store and such.

Uh the proposed user in this case would be an auto parts store, um auto zone.

Uh that's not a use that's allowed in C-free zoning or within uh the D2 zoning to the southeast.

A portion of the site is zoned, D2, where some of those parking areas are, which that's not a zoning that matches the land use.

Uh granted, this variance of use would allow permission for both those building and parking areas to be utilized uh per the plan of operation.

Uh but the petitioner's arguments touch on the similarity between uh their proposed use and light retail uses that would be allowed within the C free zoning district uh per definition is within chapter 740 of our ordinance.

Uh staff would point out that uh the light retail use definition doesn't explicitly mention auto parts sales, and it does mention 34 other subcategories or types of goods.

Uh we would also note as the petitioner's presentation noted that auto repair is explicitly or vehicle, yeah, um auto sales store is explicitly listed as a portion of a vehicle repair use.

Uh that leads to SAF's interpretation classifying this as an auto repair use.

That's consistent with applications of of that interpretation that we've made in the past as well.

Uh staff also notes a high likelihood of on-site repairs either by customers with purchases or by staff seeking to assist them.

It sounds like the commitments that are proposing might help mitigate that somewhat, but yeah, as mentioned during the questioning, it is really just as good as enforcement would be after the fact, not out of any malice, but just out of, you know, forgetting that something's written down somewhere.

Um there aren't any bay doors that are present on the current building.

Uh staff does still feel this would be an increase in intensity over what uh typical light retail use might be.

Uh C3 doesn't contemplate those sorts of outdoor operations.

In terms of contact from surrounding neighbors, uh, we did have a letter on file from Mr.

Turney of these rendered the northeast.

It sounds he he'd written his opposition at the time.

It sounds like that might have changed based on equipment related to fencing.

Uh we received a letter from the Crooked Creek Alert Group indicating VAR opposition to the petition in an email to staff on March 18th.

I believe that's part of your file.

And then as a petitioner mentioned of the the other crooked creek group with Carrymanders had indicated VAR support for the petition.

Uh the comprehensive plan recommends um C3 uses uh per a neighborhood plan.

I believe it's the Michigan Road Corridor plan.

Uh SAP doesn't feel the proposed use reuse category would be a match for that plan recommendation.

As mentioned, the property is also near the crooked creek to the northwest.

Um the building itself and parking areas were not within the floodway, but they are within the floodway fringe.

That led to an additional point of staff's concern.

Um this use or auto repair uses in general would be allowed within the flood ray fringe.

Uh we would note that a somewhat similar use of truck repair is not allowed within floodway fringe.

Those are larger vehicles, obviously.

And I'm, you know, whatever rules for internal storage would be applicable for those sorts of chemicals would need to be followed in addition to whatever is granted or not granted by the zoning.

Um, hopefully steps would be taken to address that should a petition be approved to you know take care of oil, antifreeze, brake fluid, stuff like that to keep it out of potential floodway areas.

Um ultimately the burden of proof for variance approval is uh what's called an undue hardship.

Essentially, there's a lack of alternate development options that would prevent compliant use of the site.

Uh staff doesn't feel that the findings identify any hardship that would justify grant of a use variance or that alternate C3 compliant uses couldn't be developed within here.

Uh the C3 zoning district allows for 41 different primary use categories.

Um that's those are just the lines on the use table.

Uh many of those, like the light retail use, for example, have multiple subcategories within them.

I guess for staff it's unclear what would prevent utilization of this C3 site for a use that might be more appropriate contextually or be allowed by right, similar to the previous pharmacy or the previous uh discount store.

So might have utilized the site prior.

Uh given that incongruence with uh the ordinance and plan recommendations, out of proximity to the floodway, and that undue hardship, uh, those are the reasons for recommending denial.

Uh should this petition be approved over staff's recommendation, um, having the three commitments discussed by the petitioner related to limitations on the outdoor operation and the fence, having that in place would be preferable to not having them.

Um happy to answer questions that you might have.

All right.

Any questions for staff from members of the board?

Besides me.

All right.

The service station, the Circle K service station that is directly to the south from this property with the fact that there's a Starbucks between them at the intersection of Kessler and Michigan.

Is that the southeast?

Yep.

Yeah.

That what is that property zoned?

Um I'll go ahead and look that up to confirm, right.

You're gonna find it C3.

I think it's likely that it's also zoned C3, but I would like to look that up to confirm before answering.

It looks like that property is zoned C3 as well.

So in the zoning designation C3 for uses, is service station part of them?

Um not under current ordinance.

Um I guess I'm not sure the precise year when that rule changed.

My understanding is that at one point in time, automobile fueling stations weren't allowed C3 use per current ordinance rules.

Uh, it's only C4 and above.

So my guess is that was built before that rule change took place.

So that was grandfathered into this C3 use.

Yeah, be a legally non-conforming use.

Because I mean they do sell engine oil, coolant, brake fluid, and so forth at Circle K.

At least the last time I went in there.

I would I'd say it's somewhat likely that they do.

It looks like that is you know a little bit further away from the creek itself.

My guess is you would be able to buy ancillary auto parts, things and within that store.

Sure.

All right.

That was my question.

Any other questions?

All right, you get a rebuttal period, Mr.

Petitioner, five minutes.

Thank you.

I think what this boils down to is pretty simple.

Does this board believe that a use that will occupy an existing commercial building?

No changes, no changes to the parking lot.

Go in and reuse it, selling goods that are generally cash and carry types of things.

It's not like you're buying huge body parts to install later.

That's not their business.

In fact, light general retail, I believe, even notwithstanding the enumeration of examples, it's generally 75 pounds or less goods.

They classify furniture stores as C4, heavy general retail.

Light general retail is generally thought of as stuff that's 75 pounds or less, which is guess what?

The stuff that AutoZone sells.

So it operates as a light general retail use.

And we will add the further commitment.

We've got one remonstrator present, Mr.

Turney.

Crooked Creek Watch and I agreed to the continuance from last month to this month.

It was joint continuance.

I asked on no less than three separate occasions to meet with them.

Crickets, nothing, no return.

Furthermore, they never sent a copy of their letter of objection to me, so I have no idea what their stated reasons for objection might be.

And I contacted them, as I mentioned, no less than three times, trying to meet.

Much as like we met with Mr.

Turney, who once he was able to walk the site with my client was able to reach an arrangement that would satisfy him as to concerns he had about any impact of the use and activities that take place have taken place behind the building to him.

And then finally, those of you who know Mr.

Manders, who has been a neighborhood advocate, particularly in the Crooked Creek area for many years, does not take this kind of thing lightly.

And upon engaging with him and talking about our no repair commitment, his group was fine.

So we think that all things being equal, going into a vacant building, reusing it, securing the property, outweighs any of the stated concerns from staff.

We do think our findings uh meet the statutory requirement, and we ask that you vote positively for this variance.

And again, Mr.

Canada and I are here to answer any questions if you have any at this time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Colon.

Uh Remonstrance, you get five minutes if you'd like to come up and say anything else, but if you're not, then that's fine.

Go ahead.

I just want to say that I agree with Joe that not having a vacant building is so important to that area that just draws crime in there, even though they've got a fence stop, but that's just temporary.

And second, on the flood, I've been flooded twice there, and their building platform is so far above any of the flooding that I've ever seen there in 35 years.

Thank you, Mr.

Turning.

That's it.

Um I have a question for staff.

The Crooked Creek Watch, are they a registered neighbors association?

I believe that they are.

Uh they were part of the continuance requests that have been made the previous month.

I'm seeing if I can get our map or our list of registered organizations pulled up.

Yes.

Um the letter probably was in your file that was sent by a Joanna Franklin on behalf of Derek Bland's Crooked Creek Alert President.

Crooked Creek Alert was the name, not Crooked Creek Watch.

I'm sorry, I'm searching our database right now.

Is it I'm sorry, Crooked Creek Cleek Alert.

There were three three different neighborhoods referenced within this case.

Yeah.

One of them being Crooked Creek Community, Crooked Creek Alert, and Crooked Creek Watch.

Sure.

I think Crooked Creek Watch was meant to be a reference to Crooked Creek Alert, which for our database is a registered neighborhood organization.

So that's the group that had emailed our staff on uh on March the 18th indicated opposition.

Uh they didn't really expound too much on their rationale for that, but that would be within the file.

Uh the second group referenced would be the Crooked Creek would be the land use committee one with Gary Michael Mander.

So those are the only two uh groups that have reached out to us as a staff.

Okay.

All right.

Are there any other questions for staff remonstrance or here, Chris?

Oh, sorry, Chris.

Before you go to your ballots, I'd just like to confirm the commitments that you're your voting subject to.

That is good question good point.

We do have two commitments, a third commitment.

Mr.

Calderon, can you come up and make sure we can confirm these commitments, please?

Yes, the two written commitments uh relate to the use itself, what can and can't take place, posting of signage, and then the third commitment, which um will be added to uh will be the installation of a six-foot solid uh wood or or composite material fence around the uh rear and side of the property, um, and it would be a minimum six feet tall.

In compliance with the zoning ordinance pertaining fences, not go into the front yard.

Okay.

All right, very good.

Then that being the case, we'll go ahead and cast our ballots.

On case 2026-UV2-003, Patrice Duckett Brown votes yes, James Duke votes yes, Craig Von Dalen votes yes, and Beth Brandon votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you.

Case number two zero two six-dv two-006, property address two three zero five Central Avenue, Center Township, Council District Number 13, zoned D eight.

The petitioners are Becky Drews and Mike Ledbetter, represented by Ari Lupinski, requesting a variance of use, uh, excuse me, a variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a 949 square foot secondary dwelling unit in an existing detached accessory structure, secondary dwelling unit limited to 720 square feet.

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 to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

I do.

Good afternoon.

My name is Ari Lipinski.

I represent Becky Joe Drews and Michael, a Ledbetter, trustees of the trust that owns the property at 2305 Central Avenue in Center Township.

This variance of development standards petition seeks a variance from Section 743-306.

Petitioners are respectfully requesting a variance from the 720 square foot maximum size limitation for a secondary dwelling unit.

Staff has recommended denial, primarily on the grounds that uh quote, no peculiar condition exists on site, end quote, and that this constitute constitutes a quote self-imposed difficulty, end quote, because the unit could be reduced in size.

We believe the record before you demonstrates the opposite.

Compounded by the petitioner's good faith efforts to comply with the city's inspection process.

Denial would impose severe unnecessary hardships on the petitioners, create waste with no benefit to the neighborhood, and run counter to both local precedents and broader state housing policy.

I submitted those via email to my assigned uh planner.

Okay, yes, that's that's exhibit A.

Exhibit A is just a copy of the uh materials that we submitted along with the uh variance petition.

Uh exhibit B is a copy of some photos that were taken.

And uh I intend to go through those photos in a little bit more detail later on in the presentation, uh perhaps on rebuttal.

Um and then exhibit C is a copy of the uh trust documents, just establishing that uh Mr.

Ledbetter and and Ms.

Drews have the authority to um execute on behalf of the trust.

They are the trustees of the trust that owns the property.

The subject property is a.17 acre single acre or single family residential lot is currently approved with a primary single family dwelling, and is a and a detached accessory unit that was originally structured or constructed as a garage.

The second floor of that accessory structure has already been substantially converted into living space, totaling 949 square feet.

Importantly, no exterior changes are proposed.

The building's footprint, roof line, roof line siding, windows, and overall appearance remain exactly as they have existed for years.

Parking and access are also unchanged.

The dedicated driveway provides separate paved parking spaces and a dedicated entrance to the secondary unit on the southwest corner with no impact on street parking or traffic.

This is not new construction.

The physical shell of the accessory building was already in place.

Petitioners began work in good faith.

But it is true that they initially started without a permit.

Once the inspectors became involved, petitioners immediately obtained every permit uh that was requested of them.

They cooperated fully through uh two full rounds of inspections and corrections, even opening and closing walls so that uh the inspectors could verify plumbing.

They worked diligently with the inspectors to bring the matter to a close.

Only after the work was fully completed, did they learn that the structural permit of the structural permit size limitation of 720 square feet?

The unit is now 100% complete, inspected, and ready for occupancy.

The primary reason this variance is necessary is the practical difficulty created by the existing physical configuration of the structure on this specific property.

Staff's conclusion that the proposed secondary dwelling unit could be reduced in size uh and still provide for a secondary dwelling unit, overlooks the reality uh of what the reduction would actually require on the site.

Reducing the living area by 229 square feet uh would not be a simple trim, and I'll have uh Mr.

Ledbetter discuss that in a little more detail later on.

But petitioners would essentially be forced to uh partially demolish and rebuild usable space uh that already exists, and this is the very definition of a practical difficulty that is inherent to the property, not to the owner's personal preferences.

The petitioners did not create the oversized building shell.

They inherited and adapted an existing accessory structure.

The non-permitted conversion occurred in the past, but they are here in good faith to bring bring it into compliance and resolve the pending code enforcement violations.

This is not self-imposed hardship in the legal defense in the legal sense, excuse me.

Variances exist precisely to relieve situations where strict application of the ordinance would require unnecessary destruction or waste on a particular lot, such as the case here.

And I will um I will uh wait for rebuttal to present the rest.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak in support?

I I would like to call Mr.

Ledbetter to come forward, stay his name and address and go ahead and give us presentation.

It's uh Michael Ledbetter, 2305 Central, the owner.

Um the most important thing here is we live in this space.

This is absolutely not a weekend Airbnb situation.

We don't want a party house or something.

This is family friends, uh something like you know that nature.

We again we don't want any negative impact on the neighbors.

I think two our two neighbors immediately to either side of this indicated uh they emailed support.

Um the other issue here is it was absolutely our fault to begin without a permit.

We we hired someone, they ghosted us, someone else came in and said, No, you don't need it, the city won't care.

Well, they did care.

Got the stop work order, but the inspectors came in, we pulled the permits they requested.

I think it was HVAC and plumbing.

We went through two rounds of um again remediation repair.

We were at the 11th hour.

I thought, okay, we're good to go.

This is closed.

They said, Oh, your structural permit is expired.

You need a new one.

Okay.

We applied for the structural permit, and at that point, that's when we the size issue came up.

That's when we first learned about it.

So practically speaking, you know, if I'm working with an empty shell, like the um the staff suggested, absolutely, we could somehow rearrange it, redesign it, cut it 200 feet, but it's already done.

We had the inspections, and we're that's why we're I think it practically it is very much a hardship to ask us to demolish it and then somehow cut out the square footage.

But the biggest thing I wanted this is again not an Airbnb situation.

That's we make sure that was clear.

Thank you, Mr.

Ludminer.

Um, Mr.

Lapinski, you cannot introduce a new information during the rebuttal period if you if that's what you intend to do, you might want to get it out now.

Okay, I don't have any new information.

Then you're gonna cover everything.

I just want to make sure other than the photo.

We didn't go into detail on the photographs, but uh that's for if you have questions on this.

Okay, as long as they support your rebuttal, it's fine.

Okay, thank you all right.

Is there anyone in the audience would like that would like to speak in remonstrance to petition number 2026 DV2-006 with an address of 2305 Central Avenue?

None being seen, we go to staff.

Mr.

Lipinski, can you please provide your address for the record?

Oh, sorry.

How did I miss that?

I'm usually pretty good.

Yes, my address is 951 North Delaware Street, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Thank you.

Robert Thank you, Chairperson Von Dalen members of the board.

The need for variance is due to a conversion of the original built garage along with a non-permit, along with a non-permitted conversion resident for residential purposes.

November 22nd, 2023, petition ILP petition was granted by the Department of Business Neighborhood Services to allow for a new 30 by 33 foot detached garage, with the specifically indicating the upstairs to be unfinished, which is why the permit was uh issued at that point.

On June 7th, 2024, violation 24, um 005376 was issued along with stop order regarding the failure to obtain a heating and cooling permit uh prior to the installation of a furnace and air conditioner on a 30 by 33 foot two-story carriage house that was supposed to be left unfinished behind a two-story single-family residence.

Same uh second violation was issued for the same reason for failure to obtain pump plumbing permit prior to the installation of a new water heater and sewer lines.

March 13th, 2025, a violation was issued on stop work order issued for creating a second floor dwelling unit on a detached garage without first obtaining and posting a structural permit that includes the finish of a structure.

Original permit was for the unfinished garage on the first and second floor.

May 4th, 2025, structural permit uh was applied for to finish the carriage house with the HVAC and plumbing permits were already obtained previously due to those previous violations.

On February 13th, 2026, the variance of use as before us today was applied for.

Secondary units are limited in size in order to keep them as accessory units or uses to the primary dwelling.

When a primary dwelling could be constructed at either a 660 square feet on the on the ground floor for two-story unit or 900 square feet on the ground floor for a single store structure, a secondary dwelling unit that exceeds the 720-foot square foot limitation, tends to take on the appearance and use of a second detached primary dwelling on site, which the ordinance does not permit in this situation or for this site.

As proposed, the 949 square foot secondary dwelling unit would exceed the minimum size for a primary dwelling and would be too intense for the subject site, would block additional sunlight and cast shadows on the adjacent residential structures to the north.

And due to the enlarged size of all due to the large size of the structure.

The larger addition that added area could also make it difficult for public safety emergency responsors to access access between the adjacent dwellings as I believe the structure is built all the way out to the side setbacks for the development for the dwelling district that is in.

The need for the increased structural square footage, excuse me, beyond the maximum allowed 720 square foot is self-imposed, hardship, not a result of the ordinance requirements.

Staff believes there are no limitation on the lot that requires the secondary dwelling unit to be larger than the set than the required 720 square feet.

Any existing work completed without a variance complaint approval is believed to be non-permitted per DMS, DBNS, which is why the variance is required at this point.

Had a per variance been issued prior to the second or third violation, we might not be in this situation, although the the garage would have been built at that point.

Um but less damage could have been or less structural reconstruction could have been um required uh and uh a way of reducing the internal footprint to 720 uh may have been possible at that time.

However, uh construction proceeded as as did the the intent to convert the space into a living unit.

The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance does not constitute a practical difficulty by the property since the site is zone D8, it could be used appropriate accessory garage structures by right, and especially those that are 720 square feet or less.

And though that would be without any variances.

The need for the requested variance for the oversized secondary dwelling unit is self-imposed, could be addressed without a variance by using permitted garage garage structures, even reducing the site of the size of the internal um secondary dwelling unit to the required 720 square footed foot.

Um practical difficulty is self-imposed by the petitioner's desire to choose not to file the ordin follow the ordinance when it was originally constructed and use the site with uh as uh as an enlarged secondary dwelling unit instead.

Staff will be happy to answer any questions you might have.

And with that, staff does recommend denial of the of the request.

Thank you, Mr.

Ewan Hake.

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

Um, is there anything that triggers for the city of like the permit needs to be polled?

Um so when they, for example, they went to go get the permit for the HVAC because we realized in 25 we needed that permit.

Then was there nothing to trigger like that we needed to get a variance at that point.

Is there any trigger point from the city standpoint?

The note the notes in the file for the initial ILP improvement location permit indicated that the the garage was the second floor was to be unfinished.

So that at that point, since they had indicated it would be unfinished, that did not trigger a variance for the secondary dwelling unit because that was not what they were building.

Because that's what it said in 23, right?

In 2023.

Okay.

Correct.

Now, when the when they uh violation started being uh proposed for the issued for the furnace and the plumbing and in March of 13, 2025, um there was a violation for um creating a second floor dwelling unit.

At those points, I'm not sure why permits didn't uh indicate that a variance would have been needed at that point.

Okay.

Uh they may have, I it's just not indicated in the records if they did.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

All right.

I I just wanted to verify that all the other permits are okay and and the structure is sound and all of that, right?

Everything is okay outside of it being too uh too large.

Are we correct in saying that?

So they uh in a sense, yes, they want about it backwards instead of getting the variance for or approval for the secondary dwelling unit first.

They started installing the plumbing and the heating, and at that point they did apply for those permits after those violations were issued, and those violations were subsequently released because of that, but they still needed the variance for the size of the dwelling unit, uh, even with those um which is a separate from those craft uh permits to allow for the improvement location permit for the dwelling unit itself, secondary dwelling to be issued.

They could be you issued tandem, but ultimately the improvement location permit for the secondary dwelling unit has to be approved before anything else can be approved collectively.

Thank you.

Mr.

Lipinski, you have a five-minute rebuttal period.

Just briefly.

Mr.

Ledbetter and Ms.

Drews complied with every request of uh BNS.

They applied for the permit as soon as they discovered that they need needed a permit.

They applied for this variance as soon as they discovered that they needed to obtain a variance to uh to obtain that that structural permit.

So they've applied for this uh last structure structural permit, and there's one condition waiting for that permit to be granted, and that's this variance.

Um this is not a request to ignore the ordinance.

This is a request to apply the variance process as it was intended for, which is for an existing structure on a specific lot where strict compliance would require waste, destruction of inspected work, uh, additional unnecessary construction, and hardship with no corresponding benefit benefit to anyone.

Uh those are the precise situations where variances should be granted.

Uh the petitioners have met all statutory criteria.

The variance is not uh will not have any negative impact on public health, public health, excuse me, of the community, will not have any impact on the safety of the community, uh any negative impact on the general welfare welfare of the community.

Um it will help and will not have any negative or adverse impact on the public or neighbors or uh the use and value of adjacent proper properties.

They've incurred significant expenses and uh just to apply for all these permits and and go throughout this process and complete the work.

They're doing everything they can to complete this work in compliance with the the city and city of Indianapolis, Marion County Municipal Code, and um granting this variance would not be contrary to the purposes of the ordinance or the comprehensive plan.

And the issues arising here do they do arise from conditions that are unique to the property.

We therefore ask the board to grant the requested variants of development standards.

And uh do you have anything that you'd like to add?

You know that yeah, we started without the permit, no no objection there.

But once we learned of the problem, we work with the inspector, they're up there multiple times.

We did the remediation, we actually opened walls, closed walls, and it's a had we known had somebody asked about the variance at that point, we absolutely would have applied for it.

I don't want to get this work done, and now you're stuck in this situation.

So thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

LeBincy.

All right, there is no remonstrance as long as there are no questions from the board, we can go ahead and cast our ballots.

On case 2026-dv2-06, Patrice Stuckett Brown votes yes, James Duke votes yes, Craig Von Dalen votes yes, and Beth Brandon votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Case number two zero two six-dv two-07 property address two two nine McKim Avenue, Center Township, Council District Number 18, zoned D eight.

The petitioner is on a paretia, represented by Samuel Salazar.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of a two and a half story single family dwelling with the top floor having a nine and a half foot exterior wall face, maximum two-foot wall face above floor level permitted.

Those who plan to speak on this petition, please uh you're here for this petition?

Yes, okay, thank you.

Uh please raise your right hand to be sworn in.

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

Thank you.

All right, Mr.

Petitioner, please come forward, state your name and address and present your case.

You have 20 minutes.

Or I'm sorry, 15 minutes.

You get five more after that.

Okay.

Good afternoon, members of the board.

My name is Samuel Salazar.

Um, 1720 Red Bay Drive 46234, representing 2026 DV207 at um 229 McKim Avenue.

Um, the request involves a new construction single family home on a narrow lot that is approximately 30 feet wide.

The proposed design is complies with the 35-foot height limit and um limits the upper level to about uh 52% of the area below it.

The issue before you is the technical roof intersection requirement with the definition of a half story.

Um so while the proposal does not meet that specific geometric condition, um being the requirement that the one wall at least be two feet in height, um the design was developed to meet the intent of the ordinance in terms of scaling, massing and overall um impact.

Um the upper level is intentionally limited in size and located towards the middle of the structure.

This reduces visibility from the public uh right of way and maintains a consistent streetscape character.

Um from the street, the building more easily reads as a two-structure uh building structure rather than um two and a half.

The lot itself presents a constraint due to its width.

At approximately 30 feet wide, the available building envelope is limited, um, which influences how the upper level is designed and positioned rather than expanding the building footprint.

The design keeps the structure more compact and places the upper level in a way that reduces its visual and physical impact.

So the intent of the two-foot knee wall requirement is to preserve light, air, and overall scale uh between dwellings.

In this case, the proposed design achieves that intent by limiting the upper level in both size and placement and by avoiding unnecessary expansion of the mass.

Um while the design does not meet the technical roof intersection condition, it meets all of the requirements to be considered a half story and maintains the intended relationship between neighborhood neighborhooding properties and minimizing overall impact on the site and surrounding areas.

Um before I go on to talk about what staff claims and talk about that, I want to stop for any questions just to make sure in case there's any context involved since I'm done with my context aspect of the presentation.

Sorry, what it what you just said you're but what about the context?

Uh that I was done talking about the context, so before I go on to talk about what staff claims and what we say in response.

Any questions?

Okay.

Um so staff's position that does that there is no practical difficulty as a conforming design can be either achieved within the ordinance by either expanding the building footprint or modifying the roof to meet the half-story requirement.

And staff also emphasizes that the purpose of the two-foot knee wall is to preserve light and air between dwellings, and that the proposed design does not meet that intent.

Um, however, when those options are applied to the specific lot, they do not function reasonably and in fact produce a worse outcome.

So staff's first option given expanding the building footprint to use the allowed lot coverage is not a reasonable solution.

Staff cites an 80% lot coverage possibility.

However, this is only theoretical ceiling for this lot.

Once the setbacks are applied, which is 10 in the front, three on the sides, and 15 on the rear, the actual buildable area for the primary structure is only uh reduced to about 68%.

And on an already small lot, which is 30 feet wide, this can be a difficult task, and more importantly, in regard to this option, um, considering the detached garage, this option would consume what little remains of the rear yard, leaving it no longer reasonably functional.

And for that reason, we claim that this pursuit this option it constitutes a practical difficulty.

For the second option, it is true we agree with staff that the redesigning of the upper level to meet the two-foot knee wall is technically possible.

Um however, this creates significant floor area that is no longer usable and has designed functional height to it.

This does a couple things.

That wasted space on the sides caused by the low roof line would make the already 20-foot wide building even more narrow upstairs, making that bedroom very narrow.

Um tying into the fact that the law is only 30 feet wide.

Further, this wasted space would reduce the livable floor area on that floor.

Given our design is only for a half floor, half of the floor below it, we would have to make this half story much longer laterally to maintain the same livable area.

Aside from the added cost to build this, the same height, maximum height of the building would still be reached, meaning that the strict compliance would force the total volume of the structure to be much more bulky and intrusive.

On top of this, this would make the half story much more immediately visible from the right-of-way since our design in the half story limit it to only the middle section of the building.

The stated purpose of the two-foot knee wall requirement is to preserve light and air between dwellings.

In this case, it would do the opposite, it would increase the building's length on this on that half story while maintaining the same maximum height, resulting in more mass and a greater impact on the proposed design.

So overall, our position is that strict compliance would not only uh unnecessarily increase costs and create an odd narrow space usage in the upstairs bedroom, but more importantly, it would increase the building's impact instead of decreasing it.

And for this reason, we respectfully request the board's approval for the petition.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak in support of petition number 20 uh 2026 DV2-007 with an address of 229 McKim Avenue?

None being seen, we'll go to, unless you're you don't have anything else to say, we'll go to comments from staff.

Or wait, hold on.

Come back up here quite again, real quick.

I was gonna do some math real quick.

Um is anybody else have the on the board have questions from petitioner?

All right.

Did you design this?

Uh my brother and I, yes.

Your brother and I.

The the third floor, um, are you using nine-foot pre-cut studs for that floor instead of eight?

Um I believe we're using ten and cut them to nine.

Okay, so you're not using 104 or 5 inches, you're just using your but the plate height is gonna be nine feet on that third floor.

Roughly, I thought it was gonna be about eight but eight and nine.

Yeah, it looks like it's pretty, it's a little uh that was the math I was trying to do when you walked away and it threw me off a little bit.

Looks like it's a little bit more than nine feet.

Is there a reason you would do that as opposed to I mean you can go down to as far as six foot eight and still achieve a pretty good put roof height on the third floor?

Oh, are you talking about the maximum height inside the the or on the side the side exterior walls?

Yeah, I'm talking about your elevation drawing here that indicates elevations of the different floors from so the floor to floor floor to the plate height for this third floor appears to be just over nine feet.

Right.

Yeah, so it does go over a little bit over nine feet, but that's we just maximizing the space because it's not the the part of the variance is talking about the exterior um wall widths.

So on the alternative would be uh gable that has to be ink sloped very high so that you don't lose uh the space on the side.

Right.

Which would reach the same height.

But you could have done that plate on the third floor and as low as six feet eight inches and been within code as far as head height in the interior.

Is that something you considered?

Uh we we would consider uh making the height lower.

Are you talking about just to confirm exactly what you're saying, the interior the interior ceiling height?

To what to six eight?

Six foot eight.

Um on that wall.

Yeah.

Yeah, we would consider that.

Okay.

All right.

Now we'll go ahead and go ahead and staff comments.

Thank you, Chair President Van Dale and members of the board.

Um the ordinance was amended in May of 2023 to add this portion of the ordinance to it.

So it is fairly new, and I believe this is probably the first time we've had a variance for this specific request.

Um, what that amendment did in 2023 was add a section for walkable neighborhood communities, and that limited the building height in most of the dwelling districts from D5 to D8 to two and a half stories.

Previously, three stories or 35 feet were allowed, but we um found that those tend to be overshadowing shadowing on neighboring uh properties, specifically when they were done uh adjacent to one and a half story cottages or other similar small houses that were built after the turn of the century.

Um so the intent of the half floor is to limit the upper level and to allow sunshine and air and circulation to get down to the lower levels and not uh not affect the adjacent properties as as negatively as a full floor or three-story.

The definition of the house half floor is 50 per is up to 60 percent of the floor area of the floor immediately below being the second floor.

This um request does meet that at 50 percent, so it does meet a part of the definition of a half floor, but part of that definition also requires a knee wall of two feet maximum, which requires a pitched roof, if you will, from that two feet knee wall.

Umas if you have a nine-foot knee wall, then you have a higher side on the top floor, which in a sense is almost making it a full third floor, other than the floor foot area.

It's not a pitched roof anymore.

And this is evident in the elevations of the staff report.

As you can see, it's almost a flat roof, or there's only uh a one-foot deviation from the pitch, in my opinion.

Um again, the intent of the two and a half story with the pitched roof is to protect adjacent dwelling owners.

When we have multiple dwellings that are of this massing with the nine-foot knee wall, uh, whether it's pitched roof or flat roof, uh, again, in staff's opinion, that casts additional shadows, negative um uh impact on adjacent properties, uh, along with air um and uh and sunlight and such.

The findings indicate the taller exterior wall is needed due to a limitation of the 30-foot wide lot.

The lot is wide enough to provide for the minimum ground floor square footage requirement for either a single story dwelling or a two-story dwelling.

There's no requirement that a two and a half story with nine foot knee walls on the top floor is is built on this site.

That is by the petitioner's choice.

Up the street, approximately at 149-201 McKim Avenue.

There are two homes that do meet that were built without variances that do meet this current standard.

Uh I don't think I have pictures of it.

Where they were on this narrow of a lot?

Yes, they were.

They were both on 30 foot wide lots.

Okay.

As is this lot.

Um see.

Um, excuse me.

And both of those do have two and a half story adjacent to that.

There are two other stories that pre uh excuse me, dwellings that do predate the 2023.

They have pitched roofs, but they have a full floor pitched roof on the top.

But again, that predates the or ordinance change.

Um, but the two closest to this dwelling, about four parcels, five parcels to the north, specifically, I believe it's one forty-nine and two oh one are compliant.

I do not have pictures of those in my staff report.

I apologize.

Um to me, that indicates that the sites can be developed uh without variances.

It's just a matter of uh choice by the petitioner to request the taller knee wall on the top floor to add additional um floor space.

If by chance um the other option would be, since they are not covering the required covered lot percentage, they could build a bit larger footprint and they could and subsequently have a larger second floor, which would also allow for a larger top floor with a two and a half foot knee wall per se if additional square footage is needed on that top floor underneath that two-foot knee wall um pitched roof.

Um staff's opinion that the need for the requested variance is self-imposed, could be addressed without a variance by designing appropriate dwelling that fits the ordinance, as others have done on this street.

Any practical difficulty is self-imposed by the petitioner's desire to choose not to follow the ordinance and design the dwelling with a taller roof line instead.

Therefore, staff does recommend denial of the request as filed and will be happy to answer any questions.

In this instance, staff would point out the lot is vacant and the dwelling has not been built yet.

Praise God.

Pardon me?

I said praise God.

All right.

Any questions for staff or members of the board?

Do you know the height of the adjacent dwelling?

Um of this just south of the site.

I'm sorry, repeat that.

Do you know the height of the adjacent property just south of the site?

The red one.

Uh our stuff's in black and white.

Um, uh it's white.

That one, the the white one.

The taller of the two.

Um I do not know the height of that, but I would guess uh that was originally built by my guest, probably nine 1899 or 2000 or what 1910.

Um that does meet the uh the intent of the ordinance by two and a half floors with uh no more than a two-foot knee wall, but that would predate the current ordinance, and as long as it remains, it would be considered legally noncompliant.

Right.

Without any changes.

Any other okay, so I'm gonna have my slew of questions now.

So this is actually a creative approach to two and a half floors, because they did two and a half floors in plan as opposed to height.

But was that the intent intention of the ordinance is to say two and a half floors in plan versus two and a half floors in height?

I did not write that portion of the ordinance, so I can't say what the intent was.

They did allow for 35 feet in height.

So theoretically you could have two and a half stories up to 35 feet if you possibly have possi uh 11 foot store, 11 foot tall ceilings on the first and second foot store floor, excuse me.

Um I can't say that I have an answer for your question specifically, as I was not part of those drafting of that portion of the ordinance.

Is there any compromise that the city would consider can on the the height of that the side wall that creates the the problem with the nine-foot wall?

Because right now it's it's appears to be about nine feet.

If they wanted to stay even within code within the entire space, they could drop that down to six feet eight inches.

But they could also go even a little bit lower if they wanted to, and it might alleviate a design problem in the house because they've got a 1.5 and 12 pitched roof, which is a problem from a from a construction standpoint.

You're referring to a six-foot uh knee wall.

Yeah.

I believe that would be a building code and not the zoning.

I'm sorry, you're right, it's a code violation.

Right.

Umfortunately, they a lot of times or sometimes they do not interact and complement each other.

This may be the case that they don't.

Yeah.

If that's the case, the building code typically defes to the zoning code as zoning approval has to be uh acquired first prior to any building permits being issued.

Um this would also apply as we saw previously for a size of a dwelling unit, for instance.

If they um want to build a small house unrelated to this, um that did not meet the middleman living square foot uh standards for dwelling, they would first have to get a variance of use, even if that didn't meet the building code.

But if so if the if they do provide the six-foot knee wall that the building code provides does allow the zoning code, still does not allow that as a two feet.

But I'm not aware of any compromise in the between the two, if that's what you're asking.

How do you handle dormers in a roof?

Because that changes the like if they decided they were gonna just put a regular gabled roof on the front of this with the at the top of the second floor, and then left this in place as a dormer halfway through the construction.

Would that still be a violation?

I believe it would have to fit the defin there's a definition for dormers, and it would have to fit that.

How that applies specifically, I can't say that I know.

So there is a definition for dormers within the zoning ordinance?

I'm going to guess there is.

Um give me a moment and I'll pull it up and I can confirm that.

I mean, this it would I what I find interesting is the the concept that it is a half a story, it's just a half a story in plan.

I I'll correct myself.

I'm sorry.

No, there is not a definition for dormers.

I do not know how that would be handled in that instance.

Um there's there's really no like uh many of these two and a half store the ha half story on over the second floor, they create the spaces by using dormers.

And the in that case the plate height on a dormer is probably eight feet.

And that would so but would that then be a violation of the would be my understanding though that the dormer would not run this the full length of the side.

Not usually no.

So this one doesn't either.

This is only half of it.

As is limited by the half floor ordinance, correct?

It's tricky.

Yes, it is.

Which is what a good designer does is they get you on like tricky stuff.

To a certain extent.

All right.

I think that's all of my questions.

I've thrown my confusion into the whole mix.

Okay.

Um yeah.

All right.

Petitioner, you get uh five minutes of rebuttal period.

And then I'm gonna ask you a question when you're done with that.

All right.

Sounds good.

Thank you, Staff for your analysis.

I only have a few things to add.

Um staff sided the other two buildings that are on the same lot width that also achieved um their two and a half stories.

I don't know about the other one because I only remember looking at one of them, but the one that I looked at um has that second half story is very limited space.

It's not actually a bedroom.

It's very small, it's only to access a deck that's up there.

Um and our case we need it for a bedroom because we are looking for four bedrooms.

Um our family is pretty large, and our grandpa has to live with us because he has dementia, and we need someone to take care of him.

So we're looking for four bedrooms and the house is already how we designed it, 2,600 square feet of living area, so it's not by no means massive.

Um so that that would be my um congency about that.

And then um the only thing I had to say was the fact that um that I would argue that with what staff says for the reason of the light and air between the dwellings, that our approach being half the area would actually half the area of the floor below below it would actually occupy less volume than the other approach, which would be making a long narrow bedroom and the cross of the entire house, because there's wasted space, so the total volume occupied is more and the same height is maintained.

So from an exterior perspective, I would uh very much um argue that the house would look much more massive from especially from the angles of of the neighboring houses.

Um and which is that is the reason which we respectfully request your approval.

All right, are you done with the remote?

Okay, I've got a question.

So the pitch of this roof on top of this house is uh uh you're indicating at one and a half to twelve.

What type of roofing material were you gonna put on it?

That's a good question.

Um my brother designed that part, um, but we're thinking um we'd need like I'm not sure if we would need double um um just double underlaying and eye shield.

I don't know if that'd be sufficient for that slope.

Um, but potentially we're we wouldn't be looking at metal siding.

So if that's the case, then we'd actually have to lower it a bit um to increase the slope.

Yeah, because if you do so with that slope, and I'm sorry I didn't mention this, I'm an architect.

Oh with that slope, you would yeah, thanks.

Patrice.

With that slope, if you use conventional shingles, water will actually be able to leech back up underneath the shingles and get in the house.

Okay.

So you need to be at a 412 pitch in order to use conventional shingles on that on that roof.

So I have a I have a question actually because uh because I'm designing these and you're an architect.

Um we bought some plans for a house that we previously built a year ago that had 2.75 to 12, and it just said like as long as we use double ice uh ice shield and double underlayment, that'd be sufficient.

Maybe, but you're basically making the shingles that you're using ineffective.

So uh we don't the we have don't have time to go over this and I'd love to teach a class on it, it'd be wonderful.

Um but would you consider lowering the height of that portion of the roof to six feet?

The lower uh yes, yes, in order to first of all to get yourself into a point position where the roof would have adequate slope to be able to drain properly, um, but also it would start to mitigate some of the concerns that I think the city and maybe our board have over the massive nature of the structure.

Yep, that'd be something we do.

Okay, so I'm gonna getting a verbal commitment that if we give you this variance, you're gonna lower the height of the second floors plate for the beginning of that or I'm sorry, the third floor is plate for the beginning of the roof to six feet.

Okay, that's from bottom plate to top plate, correct?

From floor level, finished floor level to top plate.

Got it.

Okay.

Okay, Mr.

Ulenhaik has a problem.

Go ahead, Mr.

Ewan Hake.

What's the issue?

Thank you, Chair Pround Dalen.

Not necessarily a problem, a moment of clarification.

Sure.

So what you have just done is amended the request.

Yes.

So the request will be a variance of development standards to provide for the construction of a two and a half story single family dwelling with the top floor having a six-foot exterior wall face.

Is that correct?

Yes, I mean it could be a commitment, couldn't it?

So they're they're reducing it from nine and a half feet, which was the original request to a six foot where two feet is still required, but uh the amendment that you'll presumably be voting on yes will be for that six foot need.

Is that okay?

That's fine with me.

I just wanted to get it into the record.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Mr.

Steimetz.

All right.

Any other questions for petitioners, members of staff?

Nope.

Then we can go ahead and cast our ballots, assuming I can find the right ballot.

On case 2026-DV2-007.

Patrice Stuck at Brown votes yes.

James Duke votes yes.

Craig von Dalen votes yes, and Beth Brandon votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Subject to the agreed upon commitment.

It's hot in here.

Is there anything we could do?

All right.

Well, go ahead.

Yeah, you you want to call the let the next case, Marty.

I'll get the door.

Case number 2026-D V two-010.

Property address 1346 West 23rd Street.

Center Township, Council District No.

12, zoned D5W5.

The petitioner is Michael Caldwell Jr., represented by Jonathan Howe.

Requesting a variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for one foot side yard setbacks, five-foot side setbacks required.

Well, those who plan to s uh 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 to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

Thank you.

All right.

Petitioner, please come forward, present your give us your name and address and then present your case.

Good morning.

My name is Jonathan Howe, 1431.

Lee Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46221.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jonathan Howe.

I'm here as authorized agent for the property owner, Michael Caldwell for 1346 West 23rd Street.

We are requesting the variance to allow a side yard setback of approximately one to 1.5 feet, where five feet is required.

The need for the variance is due to the existing condition on the property.

The foundation for the addition has already been constructed at this location.

And requiring compliance with the full setback would require complete removal and reconstruction, which is not a practical solution.

While the lot meets minimum with standards, the placement of the existing home and the configuration of the lot significantly limit the functional buildability uh buildable area for an addition.

The addition is located towards the rear of the property and does not significantly impact neighborhood properties.

It does not interfere with light, air, or access in a meaningful way, and we have not received objections from surrounding property owners.

The project has gone through plan review and required fire resistant measures have been incorporated into the design.

The owner is committed to completing the project in full compliance with all applicable building and safety codes.

The intent of the project is to provide additional living space for the homeowner's family and to improve the property, including the addition of a garage to the property to store vehicles that are currently on site.

This request is not enabling new non-compliance, but resolving an existing condition in a way that avoids unnecessary demolition and does not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood.

I also just wanted to clarify a few points from the staff report.

The items that are being referred to as violations were actually identified during the first review cycle of those permits, not from work being done without permits.

We actively engaged with it, and we have been working with the city to address everything as part of that review process.

And I do have document documentation and email correspondence confirming that.

So I just wanted to just clarify those few points.

So we appreciate your guys' time today.

Thank you.

Any other any other people that want to speak in support of the petition?

Um any questions for the petitioner for members of the board.

Um I have a real quick one.

The foundation that you spoke of, was that an existing foundation from a previous structure or a foundation poured for this particular edition?

It was poured via the permits that we put in for this edition.

Yes.

So it was poured specifically for this edition.

Yes, sir.

Very good.

Is there any remonstrance or anybody in in opposition to petition number uh 2026 DV2-010 with an address of 1346 West 23rd Street?

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

Absolutely.

Uh thank you very much, Chair Burson von Dalen members of the board uh for being here and for volunteering.

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

Uh staff is recommending denial of this variance request to allow for a substantial uh reduction of setbacks without practical difficulty present and with uh residential code issues in addition to the zoning nonconformity that's created.

Uh, this is a residentially zoned parcel with a lot width of 40 feet and a lot depth of 248 feet.

Uh well, it is abnormally deep, but it's not narrower than a standard residential lot within D5 zoning.

Uh the original single family residence there with an area of around 900 square feet has been there about 100 years per property card.

It is we considered legally established with a 3.7 foot western setback as well as 12 feet of separation from the eastern property line.

Uh, there also had been a detached garage within the rear yard that was there since the 1950s.

That garage was accessed from a side alley to the west of the subject site.

The property is surrounded by other residential development.

Uh properties to the east seemed to largely have detached garages within rear yards that are then front loaded from driveways sort of coming around the house from the side.

Uh the setbacks and sizes of the primary residences along that corridor are comparable to the previous size of the subject residence before this addition was undertaken.

Um in 2024, uh it appears the work was undertaken without permits in place.

That's per the aerial photograph provided.

Uh the that the detached garage was demolished, and um uh building parts of a substantial residential addition took place within the rear yard.

That addition would include two bedrooms and one bathroom per plans submitted.

Uh, per records available within the city's site, it looks like violations related to the lack of structural permit for the addition and the lack of wrecking permit for the demolition were issued in May of 2025, and it appears that the first application for an improvement location permit and structural permit was made in April 2025 after that point in time.

Um, the addition uh would have a size of about 2700 square feet per submitted plans, which would increase the size of the house about threefold.

Uh the width of the original residence had been around 25 feet.

At its widest point, the width of the addition would be around 38 feet, uh which is a substantial portion of the lot's 50 foot width.

As mentioned, the structural and racking violations were opened in 2025.

There is not a zoning violation open at the site, but if one had been opened by a zoning inspector would likely mention the lack of ILP as well as the encroachment into required side setbacks.

As mentioned, there are also some uh it appeared on staff's visit to be some inoperable vehicles within the rear yard that could potentially be cited as a zoning violation.

This variance wouldn't constitute permission in either way.

Uh variance approval, however, would allow for one foot setbacks on both the western and the eastern side yards, which would be about three and a half to four feet of encroachment into the required yard on each side or around 75 to 80 percent reduction of the ordinance standard.

Um, per plan submitted by the petitioner, 1.2 to 1.5 setback for marked for the west and east, respectively, for the sake of clarity, and to allow for just a small margin of air staff robed up to indicate one foot setbacks on either side, uh, but appeared to match up with um what was present at staff's site visit as well.

Um, in addition to not meeting the ordinance requirement, uh the plans and partial construction done would not meet infill housing guidelines from the city's comprehensive plan.

Uh that guidance indicates that side setbacks should reflect the block's context while allowing room for maintenance and the building size and mashing should be contextual for the block as well.

Uh staff doesn't feel that that would be the case in this instance.

In addition to the property being about three times the size of the original house and typical houses on the block, uh one-foot setbacks appear to be atypical for this portion of 23rd Street.

Um per staff photographs, specifically the sixth photo within our exhibits.

It looks like it's pretty tied up along the eastern fence line there, which might make standard maintenance by a ladder or something like that difficult if not fully inaccessible without utilizing a neighbor's property.

Uh the findings of fact provided the applicants claimed that building code would be met and that lot dimensions uh would not allow for compliant development.

Again, uh full compliance with relevant uh building codes, fire codes, things like that.

Um, hadn't been verified prior to the construction due to the fact that the permits hadn't been pulled.

Um per staff's consultation with DBNS, it looks like there might be issues resulting from a one-foot setback in terms of fire separation or openings and walls within three feet of property lines.

Uh that's per table R3021, parenthesis one of the Indiana residential code.

I think plans that might have been submitted for permits initially might have shown five foot setbacks on each side as opposed to one foot, which might have resulted in some potential holds that could have been included during permitting not being included.

Uh however, I have confirmed that one foot setbacks would require a limit on 25% of wall space being open, as well as requiring fire aided materials.

Um even if this areas were to be approved, that is to say, it's uh very possible that substantial remodeling or rebuild what's already there would be required.

Uh staff would also uh contend that the difficulty at the site is self-imposed by construction done without permits in place as opposed to any conditions specific to the site.

Uh the width of 40 feet is pretty standard for D5 residential development.

That allows for 30 feet of buildable width before encroaching the setback areas, and we'd also know that the lot has 165 feet of buildable depth, given how long it is extending back north to south.

Uh, that doesn't feel there's any reason that a compliant addition or detached structure couldn't be constructed at the site uh with from review in place to confirm compliance with relevant uh plans and or relevant ordinance.

From review in place to confirm compliance with relevant uh plans and or relevant ordinance in general.

So I want to avoid the negative precedents of asking for forgiveness instead of permission.

We think it's an unfortunate situation.

You know, not a mistake done with malice necessarily, but we feel that the cost of the mistake should be borne by the property owner rather than by neighbors who would be impacted by development not meeting the ordinance or plans, and it might not allow for maintenance.

Uh this plus the fact that construction of the site might also run into some residential code issues leads to our denial recommendation.

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

Thank you, Mr.

White.

Are any questions from the board for members of staff?

No.

All right.

You have a five-minute rebuttal period.

I just just like to reiterate some of the points made uh before in regards to the fact that April 15th, 2025, we uh submitted for all of our permits, and as uh part of that permit process.

Um business neighborhood services came out and did a review, and and that's what flagged uh some of these issues that that we're now trying to actively take care of and work with the city to resolve.

That's why we're here today at their direction.

Um they've directed us to take these steps, and so we work to to take these steps to uh because we genuinely do want to make sure that uh we're in code, and that's why that the permits were filed to begin with.

Um the one outstanding was the wrecking permit, which has already been resolved.

That's that's been um submitted and taken care of.

Uh the other outstanding issue was the fire resistance, which uh we submitted plans in regards to fire-rated walls.

Um so that they will meet the uh the requirements, and uh uh uh the the final solution was in regards to the variance because of the foundation um already being poured and and being at the at the state it is.

Um they requested that we we submit a variant, so that's why we're here today.

Again, this is an attempt.

I I'm president of the neighborhood organization in the West Indianapolis neighborhood congress on on the southwest side, and I can just tell you, you know, we always encourage neighbors to stay in communities to invest in communities to be a part of communities and not to move out.

Um that's exactly what Mr.

Caldwell is trying to do.

He's trying to invest into his community and expand his home so it's still livable and also uh create a space where he can work on his vehicles with his kids without them being outside.

Uh we understand that uh some of these steps uh as going through this process, it was a learning experience, and we learned some of the things that we needed to address, um, but we've actively uh ensured that all of those points were addressed, and that's why we're here today to get this variance and ensure that it meets the code for uh the firewalls and um all the uh other items that were listed.

Um so we appreciate your time.

We appreciate you being here with us today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for um for the petitioner?

I have a quick question.

You mentioned during your presentation that you were creating a firewall.

What would it what exactly do you mean by that and what's the detail for that?

I think this makes the city I think.

So it's just the uh rating on a wall is uh it's the 5-8ths uh type X fire code drywall and garage wall ceiling adjacent to living spaces on the interior and the exterior.

Uh doesn't it doesn't dictate whether it's a both?

I'm not sure.

I'm sorry, I'm not an architect.

I apologize.

Okay.

I can't I can't read these drawings, they're too small for that follows up.

We did submit these to the city, also.

Okay.

One thing that I would note, and I apologize for cutting in.

I've pulled up the permit records for the ILP and structural permit from 2025.

It appears the dose have been marked as being largely ready for issue.

However, I do know that the plans submitted for those permits indicated five foot setbacks on each side of the building, which doesn't appear to uh match the one-foot setbacks that exist at the site.

I believe staff had received the five-foot version and then were provided with an updated version showing the smaller one 1.2 to 1.5 foot setbacks on the survey that's within staff's report.

Okay.

Couple more questions for the petitioner.

Other than the foundation, and is any of this house already constructed?

My understanding is the exterior walls are constructed, correct?

Just the exterior walls and the foundation.

Correct.

And was the roof as well, but brought now?

No, it was not yet.

Okay.

So correct.

Yes, the exterior wall and the foundation is currently up.

Another question: this in the foot and a half separation, side separation.

Is that for the wall itself or the eve and soffit of the roof?

That that is for the exterior wall, or is that a foot and a half for the the eve and and soffit of the roof line itself.

Staff might be able to answer that.

Yeah, my understanding is the exterior wall.

Exterior.

Right.

Um, I wouldn't be able to speak for the east side of the building uh when visiting the property for our site visit.

I brought one of those little laser pointer proximity tape measures with me, and it looked like it was from the existing house wall, which had a 3.7 setback to where the wall was judging out there was a separation of approximately two feet.

So the exterior wall would likely be the one point, 1.2, 1.5, whatever it was.

Um well there uh there's an alley adjacent for the property to the west.

Right.

I'm in talking about to the east.

To the east.

Um let's see.

I don't have a precise measure of that on me.

It look I'm pulling up the aerial map there so you can get an approximate measure.

And then I believe uh the photo.

And and this addition is in the backyard, so the house isn't next to it.

Just so it's not immediately adjacent.

Yeah, the addition isn't adjacent to a structure, it's adjacent to the yard.

All right.

Right.

It's somewhat staggered.

Uh, you can see in photo six within staff's report there, sort of giving a perspective view of how close the addition comes to the existing fence line as well as to the house there.

Okay.

Oh, I'll pull up the aerial photo again to sort of show where that house to the east is in relation to the building edition, which you can see is already under construction there.

So it's pretty close.

Yeah.

All right.

I mean it still overlaps by about a couple feet.

Right.

I wasn't able to get back in there given it's private property, but based on photos, I'd agree.

Yeah.

Got it.

All right.

Any other questions?

I I just want to clarify just for um my understanding.

So these houses in this area are all in the same, they have the same square footage for each house hold exactly right?

Like that whole street?

There's probably a little bit of variation.

Uh the house on this site was 900 square feet.

It looks like the ones to the east of it.

If they're larger than that, they're not larger by a substantial margin, just based on what's viewable in the aerial there.

Okay.

So historically they they're all kind of built the same way in that area.

Right.

Yeah, this house was built in uh around 1900 per de property card, and my guess is that would be the case for many neighboring properties as well.

So the front of the building or the front house is 1900, maybe, and then they're doing an expansion attachment.

Yeah, 1900 for the original, the addition back here work began in 2024.

There had been a detached garage built in the 50s, but then it was been demolished shortly before that work began.

Okay.

And I did notice that there were similar uh houses close that were similarly close on Harding and 72nd Street.

There appears to be a double that was uh those transitioned into a single home.

We we see that a lot in my community as well.

Families get bigger and they'll buy doubles and they'll transition them into a single home because they need more space.

Um and there's another property off of uh Bursaw Parkway 1256, it's extremely close to the to the one next to it also.

Um so there does seem to be a history of of uh uh obviously uh uh throughout communities where we're there's a little bit of a variance to the standards that we have now historically.

All right.

Unless there's no other questions, we can go ahead and cast our ballots.

Any other questions?

Nope, we can cast our ballots.

Thank you, sir.

On case two zero two six dash DV two dash zero one zero, Patrice Stuckett Brown votes yes, James Duke votes yes, Craig von Dalen votes no, and Beth Brandon votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Thank you.

Case number two zero two six dash DV2-011 property address two one five East 33rd Street, Center Township, Council District Number 8, zoned D5.

The petitioner is Ricky Woolridge requesting a variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to permit a six-foot fence that is greater than 30 percent opaque in the front yard.

Fence height greater than three and a half feet with opacity greater than 30 percent, not permitted.

And located within the clear site triangle, not permitted.

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

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

Say I do.

Thank you.

Hello.

Ricky Woolridge, I'm at 215 East 33rd Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46205.

Requesting um that you guys grant this uh variance.

Um I grew up in this house, uh, been here for like 48 years.

I purchased it after my um grandmother passed away in 07.

Um the whole time I've been living there, there was a um privacy fence on the east side of my property line.

It ran north and east, about halfway down the block.

Um a neighbor recently moved in, they removed that fence.

Um so I felt like when I put the new fence up, I was kind of keeping it within line of the um historical design that has always been there.

But there are um two fences we're talking about here today.

Uh one is on the east drive, the other's on the west drive.

On the west side of my house, there's a public uh pocket park.

It's mainly used for um neighborhood events, uh a lot of kids and dogs and pets play over there.

So I originally put up the privacy fence on the west driveway for one to give me privacy um for two security reasons.

I had a couple of um kids come into my yard, get on a trampoline when they put that pocket park there.

Um had a couple of vehicles damaged from like just basic lawn care that they were doing over there.

So I put that fence up.

I want to say back in 2021, never had an issue with it or anything.

Um so eventually I plan to close the whole yard in so that my pets can run freely through the yard from the back to the front yard.

Um so what I did is after I got the west side fence up, took me a couple years to get the funds together to go to the uh east side of the driveway.

Once I got that together, I put the fence up running along the east side of the driveway, and it's even with the uh west side driveway.

So now that's gonna allow me to finish my fencing to put a basic uh four-foot fence along the front of it.

I'll have to put two gates in each driveway because it's a wide driveway, then a gate in the middle, and a fence on top of the yard right there.

Um I believe I put I submitted a photo of what it looked like before this.

Yes, that brown fence right there.

I didn't get a picture of how far it goes down the block towards the east, but it goes down where it went down about say at least 50 feet.

And again, that has been in place for the whole 48 years I've been alive up until again, I want to say maybe 2022, 23, so when that neighbor removed it.

So when I put up my new fence, I didn't think it'd be an issue or anything.

I've never had uh complaint from any neighbors or it hasn't caused a problem with me uh getting in or out of the driveway.

Uh I had another neighbor here in support of me today, but they had to leave.

Um that's why I'm um hoping you guys can grant this variance today because for one, the fence is already up.

But two, I need it again for my um my privacy to keep my pets in.

Um, not to mention the neighbor to the uh east of me.

They like to um they like to plant things in a yard that kind of goes against what I have in my yard.

So they'll purposely plant things that uh cause pollen or um dandelions to grow and things like that.

So ever since I put the fence up, I haven't had that problem.

So I'm hoping you all grant that for me so that I can uh continue to to finish my fencing project, close the yard in, and then my kids can run free in the yard, my pets can run free in the yard without the worries of um anybody crossing through or anything like that.

That's um that's all I have on it.

Thank you, Mr.

Wards.

I assume there is no remonstrance because there's literally no one else here.

So we'll go on uh unless there are any questions for for Mr.

Woolworth for members of the board.

The what was your fence in 2019?

In 2019, the front fence or the side fence.

I hadn't had one.

I didn't have one on the uh east side driveway in 2019.

I put the fence up on the west driveway in like 2021.

But in 2019, it wasn't my fence, it's the neighbors' fence, but it's right there on the property line.

That's the brown fence.

We can go back to that there, that one right there.

That's the fence that was in place my whole life.

Oh, it was a six-foot fence.

Yeah, and again, it ran north and east, about at least 50 feet east, which you can see there.

All right.

Any other questions for the petitioner?

All right, then none being seen, we'll go ahead and get uh comments from staff.

Yes.

Thank you, Chairperson Vaughn.

I will just note um I don't know if I met it into the staff report.

We did get a one letter of uh remonstrance from the neighbors uh directly to the east.

Um I did just want to put that on the record.

Um diving diving um into the request here.

Uh the petitioner's request, as we heard, is to permit a six-foot fence in their front yard that is greater than 30% opaque.

Uh you'll notice that while the fence runs perpendicular to the front door of the house, a front yard is considered to be the area in the front of the building uh line there.

If you take a look at exhibit one that has a diagram from the ordinance um explaining that.

Um and then in photo uh uh two uh you'll see uh then that this means that approximately the uh first two or three parcels of the fence are considered to be in the front yard.

Uh the rest would then be in the side or the rear.

Uh the rest of the fence behind the front building line would appear uh to be in compliance.

Staff did indicate to the petitioner that they could remove the first three panels or step them down uh to comply with front yard regulations.

Um while the petitioner indicated that the uh fence height is required uh to contain you know a variety of of uh scenarios, including a large dog.

Staff will note that the rest of the front yard um is not contained, uh especially that uh part there fronting the street.

Um I will note that the uh fence mentioned uh as being there previously uh on the east side appears to have been a legal non-conformity.

Um any fences constructed today would have to follow, of course, the ordinance.

The second issue at hand here is a uh clear sight uh matter.

Um and so a clear site uh triangular area, of course, is an area in which no building structures, landscaping, or other elements may be located within unless otherwise exempted.

Uh, this is intended to prevent potential pedestrian and uh vehicle conflicts.

A solid six-foot tall fence prevents proper view sheds and poses public safety risks.

Um photos five and six, if you'll scroll down.

Umphasize that point, and you'll see there by the signage on that um cautioning uh pedestrians that vehicles uh are um entering and exiting.

Um you'll also see the instructions on calculating clear sight triangles and staff's subsequent calculations in um exhibit two.

Uh if we go back to the uh photo two, you'll notice the photo in the uh the fence in the front yard that had uh pin there previously was a chain link fence that roughly corresponded with the height of the black fence uh to the west.

Um that um while I don't have any measurements on that, um that of course appears to be much smaller than the fence uh current currently in play here.

Um that in staff's analysis shows uh that there are no um site-specific practical difficulties that would prevent a uh uh fence from being constructed at a height um that uh follows the ordinance.

Um and as such, staff will um staff encourages the denial of this uh variance.

Thank you.

Are any questions for staff from members of the board?

All right.

No questions being seen.

We'll go ahead.

Uh Mr.

Woolridge, you have a five-minute rebuttal period to the staff's comments.

Uh just regarding the front fence, uh, I mean the what I'm calling the front fence that runs along the sidewalk there, not on the sides of the front.

Um I can't construct that yet because I don't know how this is going to turn out, because I have to write where those posts are on the east and west driveway, that's where I would mount my gates at, and then I could continue to run a fence along the front.

I have no plans to put a six-foot fence directly in front.

It'll still be actually going to be pretty much just like that black fence is, except for I'm gonna paint it white.

You know what I mean, just to keep it uh in uniform with my house there.

Um again, I know he said that the uh original brown fence that was up there for over four decades uh wasn't in compliance or whatnot, but it's been there my whole life since I grew up.

Um it's never been an issue for me getting out of my driveway or um the passing neighbors or anything like that.

So that's uh that's all I have.

Thank you.

Uh as long as there are no more questions for staff or for the petitioner, we can go ahead and cast our ballots.

My pen has given out I didn't really do anything to it, Marty.

It just on case 2026-DV2-011, Patrice Duckett Brown votes yes, James Duke votes yes, Craig Von Dalen votes no, and Beth Brandon votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Thank you, Mr.

Secretary.

Is there any other business to come before the board?

Thank you.

So we after that are adjourned.