Okay, good afternoon.

I'm going to call the meeting to order.

This is a public hearing of the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, Division 3.

I am Brian Hannon, Acting Chairperson of Division III.

The other board members present today are Rihanna Bender, Rod Bohannon, Percy Bland Jr.

and David Duncan.

Legal counsel for the board today is Chris Steinmetz.

Staff members present today from the Division of Planning are Eddie O'Neill.

Current planning administrator, Robin Ulanke, senior planner, Michael Weigel, senior planner, Noah Stern, senior planner, and Marty Weistie, specialist and secretary to the board.

The board has copies of the zoning ordinances 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 the left and remonstrators remonstrators on the 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 of 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 of rebuttal and submation of the case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The installation of landscaping and screening, the paving of parking areas, and the dedication of rights of way are examples.

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

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

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

Failure to comply with any condition or commitments of a variance grant is a violation enforceable by the Department of Bureau 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 is prohibited.

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

We do have five members of the board present today.

It requires three votes to take action on any request.

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

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

Now, board members have been provided with meeting minutes from our July 15th, 2025 meeting.

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

Bohannon so move bland second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Uh I will now call the roll.

Bender?

Yes.

Bland, yes.

Bohannon.

Bohannan, yes.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

And Hannon is a yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

We have approved the minutes.

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

Okay.

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

I will take a motion.

Bo Hannon so move.

Bland second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

I will call for a vote now.

Bind uh Bender?

Yes.

Bland?

Yes.

Bohannon?

Yes.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

And Hannon is yes.

Okay.

We will now consider special requests and continuances at this time.

If anyone in the audience has a special request or continuance, you may come forward.

Good afternoon, members of the board.

My name is David Gilman.

My address is 211 South Ritter Avenue Suite H Indianapolis 46219.

My petition is the second petition on your docket with the address at 980 South Kitley Avenue.

We are still working with the staff on a site plan, um, hoping to resolve some issues.

Um we would ask that you would grant us um probably one last continuance to your 916 hearing date without notice.

Okay, uh anyone else who has a comment on that?

Uh hear from staff.

Thank you, members of the board, uh acting chairman Hannon and members of the board.

Um staff has no objection to this continuance and is working with the petitioner on a few items on this case and is unopposed to the continuance to 916.

Okay, thank you.

Uh we'll take a vote on continuance.

Okay, I'll take a motion uh for a continuance on case number two zero two five D V three-025 at 980 South Kitley Avenue.

Bo Hannon so move.

Duncan second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

I'll call the roll bender.

Yes.

Bland, yes.

Bohannon?

Bohanon, yes.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

And Hannon is yes.

Okay, two zero two five D V three zero two five has been continued to September 16th.

Thank you.

Other requests.

Good afternoon, Pat Rooney, Office at 1638 Shelby Street, suite 101 here on behalf of Post Holdings LLC with respect to uh petition 2020 V 2025 D V three zero two three, and we would just like to request it continues to the September 16th hearing as we attempt to um work out additional issues with staff okay thank you just to confirm this is 2025 D V three-023 at North Post Road?

Yes.

Okay.

Um comments from the staff?

Thank you, Chairperson Hannon and members of the board.

Staff does not object to this request, however, this being the second request from the petitioner.

This will be the last request that staff will support going forward for this petition.

Thank you.

Okay, anyone else in the audience with an interest in 2025 DV3-023?

Okay, I will uh hear a motion.

Bland so moved.

Bo Hannon second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to continue this case.

I will call the roll bender.

Yes.

Bland?

Yes.

Bohannon?

Yes.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Hannon is yes.

Thank you.

2025-DV3-023 has been continued to the September 16th hearing.

Thank you.

Any other special requests?

Okay, staff.

Any requests.

Thank you, Chairman Hannon and members of the board.

Staff would draw your attention to item number one, 2025 DV 3020 at 4102 Madison Avenue.

This petition is needing new notice as it has been determined that additional variances are to be requested for this petition, and therefore is needing to be continued to the September 16th hearing, and that again would be with new notice.

Okay.

I'll entertain a motion for case number one, which is I think we should probably pull the audience and see if anybody thank you.

Anyone in the audience with an interest in 2025-DV3-020 at 4102 Madison Avenue.

Okay, see none, I'll entertain a motion to continue.

Bo Hannon move.

Duncan, second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

I'll call the roll.

Bender.

Yes.

Bland?

Bland, yes.

Bohannon.

Bohannan, yes.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Hannon is yes.

Uh 2025 DV3-020 has been continued to the September 16th hearing.

Thank you.

And staff would draw your attention to item number four, 2025 UV 3023 at 125 South Bonar Avenue.

Uh this petition is required to this petition is required to be continued to the September 16th hearing as uh mailed notice is not gone out yet.

Thank you.

And council, we also need to vote on that.

Yeah, check the crowd or the uh audience.

Anyone with an interest in 2025-UV3-023 at 125 South Bonar Avenue.

Okay, see none.

I will entertain a motion to continue that case.

Duncan so moved.

Oh hand is second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

I'll call the roll binder.

Yes.

Bland?

Yes.

Bohannon.

Bohanon, yes.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Hannon is a yes.

2025-UV3-023 has been continued to the 916 hearing.

Thank you.

And lastly, for me, I would draw your attention to item number 15, 2025 UV 3021 at 4038 and 4040 Otterbine Avenue.

The petitioner filed a timely automatic continuance for this petition after the staff report was published, so that is not noted, but uh is in the file, and that would just require the board's acknowledgement.

Thank you.

That is acknowledged.

Thank you, Acting Chair Hannon.

Staff would draw your attention to the third item on your agenda.

Uh staff received uh the filing of an automatic continuance by an automatic uh an automatic continuance by a redish neighborhood organization after the publication of the report, and that would merely require the board's acknowledgement.

Thank you.

That's for item number three.

Is that right?

Correct, yes.

Okay, thank you.

That's so acknowledged.

Anything else from staff?

Okay.

These are petitions to be expedited.

Case number two zero two five-se three-zero zero one property address 420 North Gailston Avenue.

Warren Township, Council District Number 14, zoned D3 FWF.

The petitioner is Eduardo Vasquez.

Special exception of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the location of a manufactured home.

Okay, thank you.

We will go ahead and have the board uh cast their ballot at this time for the expedited case.

On case two zero two five-se three-zero zero one, Rod Bohannon votes yes.

Percy Bland votes yes, Brian Hannon votes yes, Ryanna Bender votes yes, and David Duncan votes yes.

The variance is granted.

That's it.

Okay, we're ready for the regular docket, but uh was there anything that you needed to share with the board request?

Uh no, sorry, I'm just muted as well.

Okay, all right, very good.

Um with that, I think uh Marty, we can proceed to the uh regular docking.

These are petitions for public hearing.

Case number two zero two five-m02-001 property address 5510 Millersville Road, Washington Township, Council District Number 3, zoned C4.

The petitioner is R Michael Thomas, represented by Ted W.

Knowing.

Modification of commitments related to 2021-DV2-019 and 2023-MO2-001, which provided for the location of a temporary modular building with a three-foot south side transitional setback, which expired two years from the date of their approval, being May 11th, 2021 and May 11th, 2025, respectively.

The request is to extend this expiration date to May 11th, 2027.

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

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

Thank you.

Uh board members.

Ted Nolteen, 11 Monument Circle, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46204.

I'm here on behalf of Dr.

Michael Thomas and NOAA's Animal Hospital.

We are requesting a two-year extension of the commitments entered into last May 2023.

Well, you all probably familiar with NOAAs.

It's a family owned and operated group in Citrale, Indiana.

It's been here since 1982.

The Millersville location, which is the subject of this petition, was the original Central Animal Hospital and now offers a fully staffed 24 hour emergency services.

Unfortunately, Dr.

Thomas could not be here today because he's suffering from a broken leg.

The parcel directly to the south that borders this modular unit is also owned by Dr.

Thomas and has no residence.

So the plan has been and still is to petition for a rezone of this D3 parcel, combine it with the existing animal hospital parcel, and add a 10 to 20,000 square foot building to provide emergency services, training of doctors, and you know other ancillary services.

There's been a number of issues with engineering firms that have come up in the last year.

He recently had to fire them and hire a new one.

We've engaged an architect.

We're working through stormwater and sewer issues.

All that to say the plan isn't just to keep here, keep coming here and requesting extensions for for these commitments.

There is a legitimate plan in place to petition for a rezone to make this a permanent addition.

So we are here to request an additional two-year extension or until we are able to get the petition for rezone filed.

I do want to note a few findings the staff made that should be addressed.

Although COVID was initially the reason for the expansion, the findings of fact is submitted are still valid.

They don't mention COVID.

Next, the staff concluded in his report that NOAAS can just reduce intake to meet the capacity of the building or redirect its patients to the seven other sites across central Indiana.

While that sounds great in theory, it does not in practice.

The Mr.

Doc will testify.

Um the capacity is not there right now for the need.

No one has ever made any issues of it.

In fact, unless unless one of the neighbors was actually a patient of the hospital, they they wouldn't know it's there.

So I'm going to turn it over to Tom Dock, who has more information than me, but thank you for your consideration of this petition.

Thank you, voter members.

My name is Tom Dock.

I'm Director of Communications for NOAA's Animal Hospitals.

I've worked with Dr.

Thomas for almost 40 years now.

Um our temporary building that we have back there is essential for our day-to-day operations.

Right now, looking back at a trailing 12 months, we had over 15,000 patients that we saw during that time, which averages out to be about 42 patients a day.

Now, some people may say, well, that's your general practice, that's part of the grooming.

Seventy percent of our business is urgent and emergent care.

And it's in an area where the next closest emergency hospital is actually located in Hamilton County.

So you'd be taking the client outside of Marion County outside of the Indianapolis proper.

So this building is important for us to be able to house the animals that need less urgent care so that the urgent patients can be in our ICU.

I think it's also important to recognize, as was mentioned earlier, that there were a lot of pets that were purchased and bought and obtained during COVID, and those pets are still there, but people are now experiencing a lot of issues with cost of care.

And Dr.

Thomas's mission has always been to keep pets with their family whenever possible.

We don't want to overwhelm the shelter rescue system, and that's what we're seeing right now.

I think all of you have been experiencing the headlines from IECS and see the headlines about cost of care.

Most pet owners, in fact, 50% of pet owners cannot take a veterinary bill that's more than $500.

And it's Dr.

Thomas's dream to continue to train veterinarians so that we do not have to send them out to a specialist for certain procedures.

And this building allows us to do that not only with isolation areas to keep contagious diseases like canine parvovirus in place, but also to train new doctors in low-cost surgery so that clients don't have to spend $9,000, $10,000 to fix their cat's broken leg when we can do it for two to three thousand dollars.

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

Any questions from the board.

Okay, thank you.

Um we will hear from remonstrators.

Anyone in the audience who has uh an interest in this case.

Okay, let's hear from staff.

Thank you, Chairperson Hannon, members of the board.

This is the third two-year request for this temporary building from the petitioner.

Um, as indicated in the staff report, it was under uh the first request was in 2019 during the at the beginning of COVID.

Um, and then the second request, excuse me, I believe first request was 2021 during the throes of COVID.

The second request was in 2023 after that two-year extension ended.

And now here we are again, 2025, asking for a third six-year toll for a total of six years.

Two thousand twenty-three staff did indicate after two of these extensions that that would be the last one they would support.

Hence, staff is recommending denial of this one under the auspices that uh would believe that four years would be adequate to plan an expansion and a new development.

The continuation of this is an overdevelopment of the site in staff's opinion, let alone it is still a temporary building.

The delay in upgrading their facility also is the delay in addressing other zoning violations.

The house to the south is, I believe, used to as their business office for their multiple locations.

However, it is a zoned residentially, and I do not believe it has a variance for that office use that I've been able to find.

Upon staff's visit, there's also been an unenclosed dumpster in the front yard, which is a violation, and also there's various illegal signages.

These are all put on hold as a result of this uh petition until this is resolved in staff's opinion.

Therefore, moving forward and having this continued again another two years, puts this development on hold and the the ability of the petitioner to rectify these other violations.

Um staff feels that again six years would be suitable to address the needs.

Uh the original intent was for uh customer separation from employees due to COVID restrictions.

Those restrictions related to individuals have been lifted in the past two years.

Therefore, um the staff does not see the need for the continuation of those restrictions or for this to allow for that separation as such when staff visited the site, he was able to uh go into the front office and uh talk to the staff uh as normal.

Whereas before, customers and staff were required to wait outside in their vehicles, which is no longer the case.

The additional influx of animals as uh staff agrees is a result of COVID, people wanting additional pets to keep them entertained while they were stuck at home.

However, this and this business does have seven other animal hospital locations.

In addition, it also has four other emergency care surgery locations centers.

Therefore, staff would believe the influx of these animals could be spread out efficiently from these other sites and not located just specifically to this site, which puts a burden on this site and subsequently puts a burden on surrounding property owners due to the influx of this increase, which is above and beyond uh what the zoning allows for uh by including that additional temporary building another two years.

As such, as we indicated two years ago, staff would does not support another's continuance.

It does recommend denial of this.

And I believe uh other than extending this for two years, the petitioner did not indicate anything that would keep him from coming back in two years and requesting this again.

Staff will be happy to answer any questions the board may have any questions from the board.

I have one.

So you mentioned that there are other uh code enforcement issues that are separate and apart from the zoning of this temporary structure.

Did I hear you say that granting this additional two-year extension would prevent the enforcement of those other issues, those those other zoning violations?

Uh typically when there is an open petition variance petition on a property code enforcement will wait until that is closed.

Um granted, yes, those other violations are not necessarily related to this request as it's related to the um uh temporary structure, but those violations have been going on for two to four years since this has been initiated and granted.

So it's my assumption that the code enforcement is delaying those violen of those violations as such.

I could be wrong in that regard, but they were there two years ago, uh, previous request, and they were there when uh I initiated a site visit for this request as well.

Okay.

That's surprising.

I would I would expect that once we render a decision whether to approve or deny this, that would clear the way for any other code enforcement issues to proceed, but I just wanted to make sure I understood that correctly.

Uh I would expect that as well, but uh unfortunately that has not been the case for the last two years.

Okay.

Thank you.

Other questions?

Okay.

Petitioners, you uh have five minutes to rebut and close.

First, I'll address the um ongoing code violations.

It's the first we've heard of them.

Uh I don't know why notices haven't been sent or why we weren't put a put on notice of that, but um I will say that the what is being characterized as an office building is not an office building.

Um it's only being used for storage right now.

I believe people are parking in front of it.

We can parse whether or not that is a uh you know a violation of the D3 as it exists, but until we got the staff report, I was um this first we've heard of this.

I think the petitioner is fine with a period of less than two years.

I I don't want to make it seem like we are going to keep coming back every two years and asking for this.

Um I think a year was is probably sufficient if you guys are able to split the baby a bit, but we do need some time to finally finalize these plans.

Um, you think that you just wanted to address a couple things as far as um yes, we do have a family of animal hospitals across central Indiana.

As I said, we've been here 42 years now.

Only two of those hospitals are urgent emergency centers.

So I think the staff had mentioned four, only two other ones are 24-hour facilities.

So that does limit where we can send people.

And as far as the other hospitals, yes, the general practices can often take uh there's six general practices, they can often take patients, but their appointment schedules are booked out quite a bit.

And uh as Ted said also that building to the south is not used for offices.

The offices are all upstairs in the current building where the hospital is.

So the numbers that you referenced earlier in your original presentation are are those from this site, or is that all of the across the the portfolio locations you have?

Those numbers are just from this site.

The 15,000, I think I said over the trailing 12 months and roughly 42 a day.

Yes, sir.

And so it seems like six years, five four years is more than enough time to decide whether or not there's sufficient you know numbers to to make the business case for whether or not to expand in this location or find a new location that that better suits all of your needs.

Help us understand like what's been the impediment, what what do you need to overcome in order to finalize those plans?

Sure.

I may turn this back to Ted in just a second, but my great understanding here is that we've run into quite a bit of issues with the civil engineering firm that we are first dealing with.

They have been terminated, and we do have a new firm that we have been working with, I believe, just over this past week.

And I think the um we were talking about the sewage and I don't understand a lot of this, but the sewage tie-in, the wastewater stormwater tie-in has has been an impediment.

There's been some obstacles evidently that have been thrown up there, all of which Dr.

Thomas is very, very willing to work on.

He's got several plan A, plan B, plan C type things to address those two.

And just one final question.

Uh does Dr.

Thomas or an affiliate entity own this site, or is it a site that he leases?

This particular site?

Yeah.

He owns all this property.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, any other questions?

Yeah, really quick, and I appreciate the questions.

Thank you, Chairman and board.

To that same point and to your proposal of lowering this to a year, and again, we I don't know how people would vote, but what would the board expect in a year that has not been produced in the last cycle of two years in the last two two two-year cycles?

We will we would um initiate a petition for a rezone.

We would combine the parcels.

Um understanding that's a different process that goes to the full council since it is a rezone.

Um, but that would enable us to be able to build this building without violating the traditional setbacks of the of the ordinance at this at that time.

So just basically a rezone.

Which we think we we think the comprehensive plan supports.

I mean the comprehensive plan shows this is village mixed use.

Uh it's a the surrounding uses are all commercial.

So we don't think there's good we're hoping there's not a big impediment to a rezone.

Um just getting all the ducks in a row with engineering and he mentioned stormwater and sewage briefly.

There was an issue with tying into the sewer system because the um adjacent strep mall owns it and they couldn't get a hold of the owners who I believe are out of state.

So that's it's just been been a headache.

Um this question may be rhetorical, but I'm curious if you would like to comment on it why up to this point and even at today's hearing, were there no plans or any type of documentation from the conversations that are happening with civil engineers?

Is there any specific reason why none of that evidence was submitted?

Well, it was because they fired the last group, and I have a project program summary put together by BD architecture um from April that kind of goes through basically the wish list of this center and what it looks like.

If you would like to see that, I am happy to present it and let you consider it as as evidence.

Thank you.

Okay, so I just uh I want to be clear.

Um the petition before us is for a two-year extension.

Um are you maintaining the requests for two years, or is that uh council that be discretion of the board?

Well, I'm kind of leaving it to the discretion of the board.

I'm keeping with the two-year asked, but as I said, the petitioner is willing to go to a year.

Um, you know, I'm kind of was interested in the board's input on this on this matter if it's something that they would consider.

But we would not be opposed to a year.

Can you um explain process?

Well I guess it would be um kind of a modified motion saying, you know, I'm um move that um we vote on this petition as a one-year extension as opposed to the requested two-year, either approve or deny that motion, then cast the balance on whatever the outcome, you know, based on the outcome of that vote.

Okay, any other uh otherwise you just move forward with the two-year request.

Okay.

Any other discussion for the board or any motions related to that?

I mean, the only consideration I have is uh when can we expect to have your more substantive rezoning petition on file?

And if we're gonna approve something, I think I'd like to tie it to like that parameter of when you're gonna when you think you'll have that on file, so that we're we're just not talking about this two years from now or a year from now or whatever we that's a little hard to say.

It's got why I kind of wanted a year but uh buffer time to be able to do it.

Um I mean I could I could say that within from six months to today, we'll file a uh rezone petition.

Okay, are you willing to make that a commitment?

Yeah, we can do that.

Okay.

Okay, so um I think board council, you can can you please clarify the commitment that was requested.

Uh the commitment, I I I think we're we're considering either a two-year or one-year term, depending on what the motion is that the board passes, but whatever it is, it's subject to the commitment that a more substantive zoning petition, whether it be rezoning or variance or whatever staff and the petitioner determined to be adequate, is on file within six months from the date of the grant hereof.

Okay, any comments, additional comments from staff?

Okay.

So council, will we need to hear a formal motion for that?

To amend it to a one-year, would that would require to one year with a commitment to um submit a formal rezoned petition within six months?

Or variance variants, variance.

Okay.

Um can we consider that a formal motion?

If someone so moves, okay.

Duncan moves.

Okay.

Okay, we're going to uh this will be a vote on um amending the petition, and then we will take a vote on the amended petition.

So we have a motion and a second.

Um let me call the role bender.

Yes.

Yes.

Bohannan.

Yes.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Hannon is a yes.

So now, board, we can move to uh your ballot, which will be voting on the amended um petition that we just approved.

On case 2025-m02-001 amended to a one-year extension and requiring a rezoned petition within six months of approval.

Rod Bohannon votes yes, Percy Bland votes no.

Brian Hannon votes yes, Rihanna Binder votes yes, and David Duncan votes yes.

The variance is granted, subject to those commitments.

Thank you.

North Emerson Avenue.

What uh Warren Township, Council District No.

F.

The petitioner is Pridgin Property Holdings LLC S, represented by Joseph D.

Cauldron.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to allow for a waiver of the requirement to install pedestrian connectivity between a freestanding building and the existing sidewalk network along the right-of-way of Emerson Avenue required.

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

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give is the truth enough about the truth?

I do.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, uh members of the board, Joe Calder and 11 South Meridian, Indianapolis, uh 46204.

Each of you should have an exhibit book and or you will have shortly, and a letter uh from the Warren Township Development Association uh expressing its support.

A couple of things, just cleanup items.

One, the petitioners is actually Robert Haynes Co., which is the business that operates on the subject property 2747 North Emerson.

Pridgin property holdings is the landowner.

It's a related, it's a related transaction.

So they're essentially one and the same, but Robert Haynes Co.

is the company that operates on the subject property.

If you'll turn to tab one in your exhibit book, you can see an aerial photo pinned with the subject property.

To your left, running north-south is Emerson.

This site is a little bit south of 30th Street, north of I-70, and it is on the east side of the street.

It has been around for uh quite a number of years, and what's triggering this variance is something that we should all be grateful for, and that is the fact that the petitioner is actually proposing to do an expansion on the site, which is in uh certainly keeping with their long history in Indianapolis being a family-owned company.

Um earlier in the year, uh the petitioner filed for an improvement location permit and was flagged for not meeting the sidewalk connection standard.

So that's why we're filing the variance.

Now that you're oriented to the site, please turn to tab five, and you will see the highlighted portion of the ordinance that's triggering all this.

And this is something that I'm sure Robert will tell you as well, and is the belief system, and not necessarily a bad one for the city to encourage uh pedestrian connectivity from perimeter sidewalks on public roads into sites.

There's two things that are very important for you as a board to note.

If you read the highlighted portion, you can see that the walkway system is required to quote functionally connect all of the buildings main front main front entrances with the sidewalk located in the public right-of-way of each of the freestanding lot or integrated centers, eligible public streets.

Guess what?

There's no sidewalk on Emerson.

None.

Staff points out that well, there's a project that's going to implement one, but the ordinance standard is sidewalk.

There is no sidewalk.

It's silly that we can't get a permit and have to seek a variance for something that really is not required under the existing requirement of the ordinance.

Two, even if there was a sidewalk, this is not the type of business that the ordinance truly contemplates being pedestrian connected to public sidewalks.

This is not a retail or public invite type of business.

This is a commercial contractor.

They provide concrete solutions, waterproofing, things like that.

It's an industrial use.

Thirdly, there's practical reasons, and if you all will turn to tab three, you'll find a series of street photos, uh, starting with the business to the south of the subject property, and looking north in the uh foreground.

And what you can see is no sidewalk on Emerson, and a drainage ditch.

Turn to the next page, you see the drainage ditch continuing to the subject property, which is just to the right of the construction vehicle that's shown in the photo.

The third picture is rather telling.

This is the entry drive.

You can see drainage ditch running down the right side, or what would be the south side of the driveway, as well as the north side.

And you can see kind of where the right-of-way line exists.

Again, no sidewalk on Emerson, no practical way or smart way to even create a pedestrian walkway, even if you wanted to, due to the presence of the grade change and the existing drainage ditch.

You can see that again on the next uh or fourth uh picture with the grade change and the drainage ditch uh to the uh east of uh and to the north of the existing driveway, and then the final photo looks back to the south, and you can kind of see these physical impediments uh to creating what uh is desired by uh staff and uh uh the department of neighborhood uh and development services.

Tab four is the site plan that uh has been created for uh this project.

You can see that uh there are a series of buildings, most are not in existence.

There's two in existence, and then one additional warehouse that's proposed kind of in that north uh east corner of the property.

That's triggered that.

There are three future variances or three future warehouses, I'm sorry, that are proposed.

Don't we want to encourage this kind of development in Warren Township?

Do we not want to say, yes, this is what we want, and not hold up a business that wants to expand and invest by picking an ordinance that doesn't even apply and say, Oh, you have to create something uh to get people to walk in along your driveway to your existing buildings.

That just doesn't pass the uh common sense test.

We are, and this is the second part of the equation that's not the subject of the variants.

We are willing to encourage and provide uh identifiable walkways within the buildings for employees to go between existing and future buildings.

Again, we will comply with that.

That makes sense.

Employees might be on site, they might go from the main office to a warehouse building to check on an order, what have you.

That makes sense.

It makes zero sense to require a walkway from nothing on Emerson into an industrial facility that has zero need and zero interface with the general public.

We hope you agree.

Uh, we presented this to Warren Township Development Association a couple weeks ago.

They voted to support.

We appreciate that.

We've had notice out, zero complaints from the public, zero questions again.

Step back, you look at the big picture, you look at the ordinance language, and I hope that you agree with me that it makes zero sense to force a walkway along a driveway, traverses a drainage ditch, a grade change, no sidewalk from Emerson, to a business that does not interface or encourage the general public for visiting purposes.

Happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

Any questions for the petitioner?

Okay, any remonstrators present.

Okay, let's hear from staff.

Thank you, Chair President Handlin, members of the board.

Purpose of the pedestrian connectivity is to provide a safe route to the buildings existing and proposed from the public right of way without having to use a driveway, which is a mean means for vehicle access.

Mr.

Cauldron is right.

The ordinance does say to the sidewalk.

So if that's the case, then let's just go ahead and dismiss this petition.

But we can't, otherwise, Mr.

Calderon would have already done that because he would not be able to get his permits without this variance.

So therefore, the ordinance is in effect, even if it does say to the existing sidewalk where no sidewalk exists.

So let's get beyond that and say the need for the pedestrian connectivity is to provide pedestrian connectivity to the site from the public right-of-way, even if a sidewalk does not exist.

If this variance is granted, it's granted for the life and stays with the property, even after sidewalks are installed on Emerson Avenue, which is proposed by DPW on project ST26501 as indicated in my staff report.

They are planning on rehabbing the pavement on Emerson Avenue between 21st and 30th Street, which includes this block.

I believe this is the 2700 block where the subject site is located.

This project has plans for the installation of sidewalks along this portion of Emerson at that time of that road reconfiguration.

As a result of a road diet, which uh if you're not familiar with the road diet where there are five lanes, they will reduce it down to three lanes and use the existing two unused lanes as to put um where to put the sidewalk so they do not have to acquire new right-of-way.

They use the existing right-of-way.

This portion of uh Emerson is not heavily traveled, which is the need, which is why they're allowed to uh give a road diet there.

This has happened on other roads uh uh as well throughout the city and has worked successfully.

The um the required pedestrian as per the ordinance would uh would connect uh to those planned sidewalks, allowing for further safe passage for pedestrians.

Mr.

Cauldron has focused on the fact that only customers would be there are no customers.

This is not a retail organization.

Well, that's true.

Retail customers will not be visiting this site.

However, employee, there's no nothing that keeps employees from using public transit or using bicycles or walking to the site if they live in the neighborhood.

They will need pedestrian connectivity from the public right-of-way to the office and buildings, as will possibly um uh the uh the wholesale customers who might come via bicycle or foot.

Petitioners' findings of fact indicate that pedestrian connectivity from the right-of-way does not benefit the community and only enhances risk inherent to commingling pedestrian traffic and industrial traffic.

Staff disagrees that there is a practical difficulty preventing the installation of any pedestrian connectivity.

This is a matter of not wanting to spend the money to do so, where every other industrial development in the city has been able to provide and comply with this ordinance.

The existing driveway, as you saw in staff photos and photos provided by Mr.

Cauldron, can be widened to create an adjacent five-foot walking path.

It could be asphalt, it does not have to be concrete, it just has to be a hard surface.

That driveway can be widened along the side to provide provide an adjacent walking path, allowing employees, uh customers or whoever may have a need to visit the site, a safe pedestrian connectivity from the street to the building.

Staff agrees there are risk in commingling pedestrian traffic and industrial traffic, which is the reasoning for the whole ordinance in the first place, and the requirement for that.

We don't want pedestrians and industrial traffic to co-mingle.

If you give if you don't provide the rock the walkway, that's not going to keep pedestrians from coming in and walking up the driveway and commingling with the traffic.

So the ordinance requires the walkway for that purpose.

There's nothing preventing employees to use a mass transit system or a ride share program that lets them out on Emerson Avenue.

This is not an employee, to my knowledge, it's not an employment condition for individuals who work at these warehouses or proposed warehouses, which will increase traffic and employees on site as well.

There are proposing three new warehouses.

Therefore, um they will people that do use those services will result will need uh safely walk to the interior existing and proposed warehouses.

Again, as I indicated before, to allow this waiver, it stays with the land and it will not be required even when sidewalks are installed in the future, as DPW is proposing.

Um for that reason there is no practical difficulty with the subject site to install a pedestrian connectivity other than the positioners desired and not do so as a result of their intention that there's not enough traffic to do so.

Uh to this, staff disagrees, and for this reason, staff is recommending denial of this petition.

And we'll be happy to answer any questions.

Questions for staff?

Yes, please.

Uh, do you have a timeline on public works project ST26501?

Yes, I believe it was supposed to occur this year, but it was not funded.

Uh it's dated in 26, so I believe that's to be next year, 2026.

Possibly may extend it to 2027.

And is there a guarantee of funding in 26 or 27?

Um I've not been updated on that, so I don't know if that funding has been guaranteed yet.

I don't think they've obtained it yet.

Other questions.

Is the requirement for the installation of the sidewalks on Emerson or just the connectivity internal to the site to where the sidewalks will eventually be located?

Just the connectivity from the right-of-way to, and in this instance, to that front parking lot.

Um the connectivity between the buildings will be required when the buildings are constructed.

That's not required at this point or part of this ordinance.

So it's basically that first curve along the driveway up and from Emerson to the parking lot.

It does not require the installation of sidewalks on Emerson.

Okay, but did you just say that when the buildings are permitted, they that may be a trigger to require sidewalks along Emerson?

Let me rephrase that.

I meant between buildings.

Between buildings.

So when the building when they obtain permits for those new newly constructed buildings, they will have to show pedestrian connectivity between buildings at that time, which he's already agreed to.

Yeah.

I I misspoke if I indicated Emerson for those new buildings.

Okay.

And I I I think this kind that kind of answered my second question, but I I seem to recall there being some form of payment and lieu program that the city had where if there weren't sidewalks that you were connecting to in the area.

That does not apply in this situation, that's for sidewalks along the frontage.

Yeah.

And to be fair, um we typically do not encourage, so if they were required to put sidewalks on Emerson, that payment would be in lieu of those sidewalks.

That funding does not go to my knowledge, and as I've been told, that funding does not actually go into a dedicated sidewalk fund, it goes into the general fund.

So it just pays for existing sidewalks, it does not pay for new sidewalks other than what is proposed.

So thank you.

Other questions for staff?

Yes.

I'm sorry, repeat that again.

If I understand petitioners' argument correctly, it's that having a sidewalk onto the site invites public traffic onto a site not intended for the public that was only intended for contractors and other parties that's possible, but the driveway already does that.

There's no no, to my knowledge, there is no no trespassing sign on the site when I visited the site.

Um with any commercial or industrial entity that have customers wholesale or retail, not just retail, but wholesale also.

There is an inherent invitation to come to the site to do business.

Not necessarily to come to the site to loiter or do anything other than business, and therefore for those reasons, public safety can be called and they can be escorted out.

Uh that's also what a no-trespassing sign other than for official business uh does or provides as well.

Um everybody has sidewalks on their sites, not everybody, not every sidewalk invites uh the public to the site.

Yes, it could do that.

But a simple revenue of that is putting up a sign for uh no trespassing other than um customers and or uh employees.

Okay, petitioner, you have five minutes.

Thank you.

Eighty-five years.

Robert Haynes company recently celebrated 85 years in business.

They've been at this site for a very, very long time.

Countless generations of employees.

And here we have planning staff saying, well, we know how to operate your business better than you do.

Your employees want to bike and walk to work.

There has been no need for that.

It's a contracting company.

So that argument just holds no water and is just another example of the city applying a one-size fits-all rule for a business that it doesn't fit at all.

And it's not a matter of money, it's a matter of being practical about what is actually happening here and what you don't want to create.

There actually is a neighborhood behind and to the east of this business.

You do not want to invite and create some sort of new pedestrian invitation for anybody to go from Emerson back to that neighborhood.

Period.

That makes zero sense.

There is no need for this sidewalk today.

Period.

Just heard a case before mine about plans that hadn't come to fruition.

We don't know when the plans for the sidewalk on Emerson are going to happen.

They're going to have a heck of a time because you do have great issues, as exemplified in the photos and three.

And furthermore, it's not true that all of the other industrial businesses and industrial parks have connectivity from a public street via pedestrian walkway system to the building.

If you look at the first picture in tab three.

That's an industrial business just to the south.

There's nothing there.

It's just not true.

Even the BP.

Two uh lots down has no walkway from Emerson into the store.

It's just not true that all the other one, all the other commercial industrial businesses do that.

I might ask, it's not as simple as just saying, well, just expand the width of the driveway.

If you look at the pictures I showed you in tab three, the last two in particular, you can see there's existing drainage ditch that runs on either side of those.

It's not as simple as just, well, just spend more money, re-engineer the site, and create a wider driveway for that purpose.

That's that's what variances are for is to deal with these real life practical problems.

That's why Warren Township supported this petition.

That's why there's nobody here complaining.

It just makes no sense.

And with that, I'll happy to answer any final questions the board has.

Appreciate your vote today.

Thank you.

Questions for the petitioner.

Yeah.

Um, is the redevelopment of the site receiving the benefit of any public incentives?

No.

Okay.

Other questions.

Uh I'll ask.

It's been mentioned this sidewalk project the city has planned, and I'll note even Warren Township's letter indicates there may be some sensibility to a commitment to install a walking path once the city has created a sidewalk there.

What are your feelings about a commitment to to do that once a sidewalk is?

Um I don't my client said he would consider it.

I think it makes more sense to bank on the fact that if there's the future warehouses and they have to get ILPs.

Uh if there's a sidewalk in place at that time, then we either have to do it at that time or seek another variance, which probably wouldn't go very well, go over very well with this board if there's a sidewalk there.

So I think for purposes of this variance since it applies to a permit application that was for the one known expanded building, uh, or not expand new warehouse building of 15,000 square feet.

I don't think there's a commitment needed because if there would be any future sidewalk, then the event that there would be a future warehouse shown on the site plan constructed, it's gonna trigger the same thing.

That would be my personal preference and the one that makes the most sense.

Okay, any other questions?

Okay.

Uh, we will go ahead and proceed on a vote on this case.

On petition two zero two five-dv three-zero two four, Rod Bohannon votes yes, Percy Bland votes yes, Brian Hannon votes no, Rayanna Binder votes yes, and David Duncan votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Thank you very much for your time.

Case number two zero two five-dv three-zero two six property address 95 South Midhoffer Road, Warren Township, Council District No.

TOD.

The petitioner is Indiana Federal Credit Union, represented by Misha Rabinowich.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for site improvements resulting in a south transitional yard setback ranging from 0.5 feet to 11 feet, 20 feet required.

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

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

I do.

Sure.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

My name is Misha Rabinowich, an attorney with offices at one Indiana Square, suite 1800.

Also here with me today on behalf of the petitioner, Indiana Members Credit Union is its general counsel, Tom Weltman, and then two representatives from the architectural firm studio Axis, Drew White and Kristen Stout.

Indiana members, the petitioner is an Indianapolis-based credit union that has been in business since 1956, almost 70 years.

Indiana members opened this branch in Warren Township at 95 South Midhoefer in 1992.

This Warren Township branch is one of the busiest locations out of the 31 locations that Indiana members operates.

Needless to say, this branch is important to Indiana members, and perhaps more importantly, it's important to the surrounding community.

It's a good problem to have, but the business has grown to a point where they needed to think about creating more usable space for their customers to transact business and to remain functional for today's banking needs, and really to be a full service financial institution that their customers in this area desire.

In its current configure configuration, due to a limited number of teller desks and loan officer desks, often customers have long wait times.

So Indiana members engage studio access architecture to undertake a thorough investigation of how the existing branch location could be expanded on the existing site.

And turning to the materials that I've handed to you, behind tab one is an aerial.

As you can see from the aerial, the lot is reasonably narrow.

With the existing branch building located in the middle of the parcel.

The property is bounded by a large industrial building to the west and some uh retail buildings to the north that are that are front uh Washington Street, and then to the south of this parcel is the Pennsyl Trail, which on a relative basis is a new introduction to the area, and then to the south of the parcel is property that is uh also zone commercial.

Turning to tab two in the materials are some site photos to kind of orient you to what we're talking about here.

The first photograph is a front on uh elevation of the front of the existing building.

You see the parking area that's to the south, and then to the next um photograph kind of zeroing in the area that's at the south part of the property.

You can see the parking, and then you see a grassy area, and then you see a fence, which is essentially on the property line, and then to the south of the fence, you see a 15 to 20 foot landscape buffer, and then you see the Pencey trail.

Um turning to the next photograph in the materials.

That's a shot from Midhoffer looking sort of northeast towards the building.

You see the trail, and you see the uh landscape buffer area, and then you can kind of see the fence there.

The point I wanted to make here by showing this series of photos is that nothing that we're proposing here today will interfere at all with that 15 to 20 foot buffer area that's to the north of the trail, and that's to the south of the fence.

That's not being touched at all.

That's um uh right away, public right-of-that's not owned by Indiana members.

Uh in performing the design study that Studio Access did, there were a number of issues to consider as they thought about how most efficiently they could add on to the existing building at this location.

As I said, it's a relatively narrow lot.

If you go back to the aerial, you can see that's a tad one.

You can see there's an existing parking area that's a considerable distance from the front door.

With a financial institution, the the safety concerns are a little bit different.

This parking is is as I said, a considerable distance from the front door, and you really can't have customers that are walking that far to the front door.

Most of these customers are doing bank transactions, either they're carrying money into the into the facility or they're withdrawing money.

Um that sort of thing.

So that's a safety consideration in terms of where to locate customer parking.

If you'll turn to tab three is the proposed site plan.

So after reviewing a number of iterations of how to add on to the building, was determined that the most efficient way to do this would be two small additions.

One is on the west side of the building or the front side of the building.

It's about 889 square feet.

And then on the south side of the building, there's another addition of about the same size in total, uh 889 square feet that wraps around the back, bringing total addition of about 1,700 square feet.

The additions there are shown in in yellow in case that wasn't clear.

At tab four is an internal site plan.

What they're able to, or a floor plan, what they're able to do with this addition is add a couple of more, uh, a couple of additional loan officer desks, an 88 teller workstation, just make the whole building more functional for their needs.

In order to accommodate these additions, it was necessary to shift the drive lane, turning back to the site plan that's at tab three, shift the drive lane to the south and some of the parking to the south.

Again, it's north of the trail and the trail buffer, and we'll not interfere with that at all.

If I could direct your attention to at tab three, the only additional pavement that will be added, you can see is in the hashed area that's at the bottom of the parking area.

Um that is all that we're asking for relief from.

And the issue is that when the Pencey Trail was installed, well, prior to its installation, there was no transitional yard, zero zero setback required.

With the installation of the Pencey Trail, now the ordinance requires a 20-foot transitional yard setback.

It's important to notice you can see there's portions of the parking that already encroach into this transitional yard.

We're adding a little bit more, in our opinion, not significant, but that is the variance that we are requesting.

In addition to making the improvements to the building, we've done a couple of things to try to accommodate any concerns there may be about the location of the parking vis-a-vis the trail.

You can see from the site plan at tab three that we're proposing to install an additional line of uh landscaping that doesn't currently exist to provide some additional screening, and then in response to some of staff's comments, we had removed uh five parking spaces that were at the east end of the lot, and you can see that we have added some additional uh landscaping in that area.

We come here today with the support of the Warren Township Development Association.

Um their letter of support is in your materials at tab six, and there are representatives here from the development association that I think want to make some comments in support of the petition as well.

And then there's also a letter of support from City County Council Michael Paul Hart, who's offered his support, he couldn't be here today, uh, but wanted to make sure his support was confirmed by letter.

The crux of staff's concerns seem to be based on the premise that all of the parking along the south property line could be eliminated to accommodate the setback, and you would still have sufficient parking under the ordinance.

We respectfully disagree.

As I mentioned earlier, this is a busy location.

It's one of one of their highest performing locations, and it's it's not just the amount of the parking, but it's the location and convenience of the parking.

To give it an idea of how busy they are, on average, they handle 430 transactions a day, and during peak hours, it goes up to 730 transactions.

I'm not saying that's that many cars that are coming in and out, but it's a it's a busy, it's a busy productive location.

Um the employees can park in the back.

There are eight or ten employees that are on staff at any one time, but you as I said earlier, really can't have the customers who are making bank transactions walking to and from the bank with um sometimes cash, sometimes certified checks, what have you.

Um it's it's just a real safety uh issue.

The one other um comment I wanted to make on the parking, you got to consider the location.

This is not an urban location where you have street parking or some adjacent retail center where people can park.

It's somewhat isolated.

Um, this is the only place for um people to park.

Just to summarize, we have a chance here with approval of just what we think is a pretty slight deviation from the ordinance.

Uh requiring a little bit of additional uh paved area within the setback, which of all that we're requesting to keep a flouring business in Washington Township, or sorry, Warren Township that we think is badly needed.

There's no negative impact on the trail improvements.

In fact, we're offering additional butter, a buffer and a and a much uh improved landscaping buffer.

Um again, we presented this to the Warren Township Development Association, and the support was unanimous as well from Councillor Michael Paul Hart.

With that, I think I'll turn it over to representative of Warren Township who wants to make a few comments.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, members of the board, thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Gary Blackwell, 2432 South Ritter.

I'm a member of the Warren Township uh development association, and on behalf of our president uh Ron Phillips, who submitted the letter, I just want to uh for sake of time emphasize the last part of his letter.

The setback for Indiana members credit union will not impede nor distract from the natural aesthetics along this section of the Pennsyl Trail.

And I can attest to that as a trail user, um, as any of you have ever been on the trail in many places.

You see the back of warehouses, their storage, shopping carts, and this sort of thing, and that the bank is uh more or less a stakeholder of the trail.

It's and the vegetation is enough there that you really don't see it, and yet they're going to improve on what's already there.

Thank you.

And then we have a representative of uh one of the adjacent uh homeowners associations that's here to say a few comments.

Good afternoon, thank you.

Uh, my name is Gary Redman.

I'm president of uh Spring of the Hamptons Homeowners Association, just uh down the road on uh prospect.

Uh we've had some concerns from our residents about the uh it's a high traffic area and the concern about the uh safety and the high visibility of people coming and going across the street uh from the trail along with there is a lot of traffic uh north and east and west going across the uh mid-offer there.

Uh we are in support of this due to the safety and high visibility of the area that we feel like it is needed and wanted.

Uh again, we are support of this variance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We're happy to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions of the petitioner?

I just had one.

Um in Councillor Hart's letter, there was a mention of a turnstile at the entry to the to the bank branch.

Did that get addressed in the architectural plans?

We we had some communication with counselor heart on that.

I um first we find it unrelated to sort of the the variance request.

Um certainly sensitive to the issues that he raised, and he did raise that at the meeting that we were at.

Um I think it's the bank's position that can speak to this, that it's that security um precaution is needed.

I think they did have an incident there at some point in the not too distant past, and uh we know Mr.

Councillor Hart's concern, but but we also have to look out for the safety of the members and the uh employees.

Thank you.

Other questions.

Okay, thank you.

Any remonstrators present all right?

Seeing none, let's hear from staff.

Thank you, Vice Chair Hannon and members of the board.

Uh staff is recommending denial of the filed request.

Um in part to a few reasons.

Um first and foremost, staff believes that the request drives out uh basically staff doesn't believe that there's a sufficient practical difficulty to warrant a favorable staff recommendation in support of this.

Staff would acknowledge that this request is driven in part by uh a few factors, number one being the completion of the Pennsyl Trail, uh which is one of uh Marion County's more prominent chairs, with the others being of course the Monon and the recently completed, well, recently largely completed nickel plate trail.

Uh with that being said, there has been interest amongst both DMD and DPW, uh, particularly when those trails overlay with the TOD overlay uh to preserve the any required setbacks or transitional yards that would otherwise be required as we navigate how to uh activate and program those going forward.

Um, but it is also in part uh driven by the angled nature of the southern lot line.

Uh kind of going back to the practical difficulty argument is that staff believes that there could have been alternative uh site plans um prepared that could have had uh building additions that could have been located in a manner that would not have resulted in the further encroachment or uh at least relocating some of the proposed bases as additions to the rear lot to the east of the site.

Um the site is overzoned as as a C4 site.

This is a uh uh a bank which is in our general office land use category category uh which would otherwise be permitted in C1.

The C1 district does have a reduced setback of 15 feet for which the proposed site plan uh would not even meet that.

Um if in conjunction with the angled lot line, staff would have been you know more reasonable if we could have been able to locate the spaces that most encroach within the transitional yard being at half a foot to the rear of the lot or the eastern portion, so that we could have either gotten to 15 feet, however, given that it wouldn't have been able to meet even that transitional yard.

Uh staff just did not feel that there was sufficient compelling reason to warrant a favorable recommendation.

Um, staff would conclude its presentation and take any questions or comments that the board may have.

Thank you.

Questions for staff.

Okay, petitioner, you have five minutes.

Sure, thank you.

Um we're in a hundred percent agreement with staff and with parks and others who believe that it's critically important to preserve uh the view and uh use of trails like the Pennsey Trail.

I mean, it's a great addition to the neighborhood.

I think we wish that people would use it more.

Um, but it is.

But the plan that we've we've put forth to you does not interfere with the use of the trail or the buffer.

There's a 15 to 20 foot buffer on the south side of the fence, and then on the Indiana members side, we're proposing additional landscape screaming screening, which will actually improve the view for trail users, and it'll it improve um the view line uh for people from the trail.

With respect to the practical difficulty, I would just direct your attention back to if you look at the aerial, the narrow nature of this lot, and the idea that this financial institution has certain restraints in terms of where people can park uh safely and still use uh the bank services.

So that's an that's a that's another practical difficulty.

The other thing is the existing building has a vault that is secured by a concrete foundation and and cannot be moved.

It's located in the middle to the rear of the building.

So, in terms of how you can add on to the existing structure, that severely uh impacts that going long and narrow back into the to the rear part of the lot is just not functional because then you've got you got teller location, then you've got bank vault, and then you've got offices in the rear.

It just it didn't work.

I know that Studio Access looked at it and it didn't work.

So I guess just quickly in summary.

Indiana members here is proposing to invest 2.5 million dollars to enhance this property and keep a much needed business in Warren Township.

I think the Warren Township folks are in agreement, and we're hopeful that as a city that is something that we would support in and and what we are asking for, we think is a relatively small deviation from the ordinance that will keep this business here and really improve the area.

We hope for your um positive uh vote today.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Uh any other questions?

Yes.

Okay, yeah, you have time.

Go ahead.

I'd just like to reemphasize that you know the whole purpose of the trail is for that experience of being out exercising, uh taking in the aesthetics.

Um this is one property where you you won't lose any of that based on something on the other side of the uh the the landscape there.

It's one of the more the uh pleasing parts of the trail to walk by.

You wouldn't notice a car that's parked any closer than as I said, some of the other businesses that are that are out there, and so the bank does a good job of of uh being a trail-friendly business, and uh so this will not interfere with the aesthetics or the experience of the use of that trail.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, let's uh proceed to the ballot.

On case 2025-DV3-026, Rod Bohannon votes yes, Percy Bland votes yes, Brian Hannon votes yes, Rihanna Bender votes no, and David Duncan votes yes.

Variance is granted.

Uh whoever's device that is, thank you.

Case number two zero two five-UV three-zero zero six property address two three zero eight Shelby Street, Center Township, Council District Number 19, zoned C3 TOD.

The petitioner is Walter Racinos.

Variance of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for outdoor recreation and entertainment, not permitted on a proposed deck with a two and a half foot setback from Shelby Street, a 3.7 foot setback from Hervey Street, and encroaching within the clear sight triangle of their intersection.

10 foot front yard setbacks required, encroachment of clear sight triangles not permitted.

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

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

Yes.

Thank you, board, for uh the opportunity that you give me to be here.

I'm here before you against all the excuse me, please.

Could you please state your name and your address?

Sure.

My name is Walter Rosinos, 2308 Shelby Street.

I'm the owner of that property.

Um again, I'm here against the support of the staff, the city, and against the support of the HOA.

Um I am here to give you guys a little brief story of how and why the petition had to be um applied.

I built a deck that's about um two and a half feet from the sidewalk, about two feet.

I do have some pictures that I brought with me that I like to show them to you guys.

Okay, we'll have to keep these after the hearing.

Sure, that's fine.

And this picture shows the proximity of all the businesses that are around me.

And some of these um are businesses that are permanent structures, meaning the actual buildings are right next to the sidewalk.

My deck is a floating deck, it is a deck that's not um uh there are no actual holes on the on the ground itself, it's floating on on concrete piers.

And so if you know, if there ever was a need that the city needed this to be removed, it would be very easy to remove.

Um so I I also it adds to the I, in my view, to the beauty of the building and the area.

Um, you know, across the street from me, there is uh Garfield Brewery who also has a similar business.

My um office there used to be rented for a construction office.

I bought that building in 2014.

Uh it used to be a realtor's office.

This there was a sign there in the front way back for the realtor company.

Um I then applied for a permit and I put our name there of the construction company.

Ever since I moved or bought that property, I have always felt only invited by uh certain neighbors, not immediate neighbors behind me or around me, but uh at least two guys that have always picked on me.

Um they are here today, at least one of them is.

Uh I was told I didn't need it one because the deck is below 18 inches, so I went ahead and built it anyways.

Um I moved my sign to please some labors, even though my sign was permitted.

I moved it to the back of the building, and then I built the deck because I have plans of adding a second story, which I have applied for permits with the city for the second phase.

We are waiting on the engineers and the architects to get this resolved.

And in that petition that I'm here today, I have included phase two, just in case my um retaining wall um ends up being uh a part of the city where they come and tell me, well, you need another variance.

So this is my second time I'm here.

I paid over four thousand dollars to the city for a second variance regarding this case.

And um, even though I may be at a loss today, I would like to you know make the statement clear.

Um these guys uh that picked on me all the time.

I'm frankly I'm upset with these folks.

I've caught some of them, at least one guy taking pictures on my property.

I've seen them on camera all the time.

Some of the people that are here today, I have seen them across the street taking pictures from my building.

And it gives me this feeling that someone's always just picking on me.

I come to this building every day in the morning.

I buy houses, I remodel them, and I rent them.

I've applied permit with the board of health for an application for a restaurant, and I need the deck so I can put these dining tables there and have the restaurant.

Originally the kitchen was going to be built where I'm not sure if you can see there on that door.

I went ahead and built a door there for a carry out.

Since our petition, we have included the entire floor to be converted into a dining area.

And it's the reason why we want to have an exterior dining area and an interior dining area.

And so if the petition doesn't go through today, I'm okay with it.

Frankly, at this point, I'm okay with it.

I mean, I will forget the dream of having a restaurant there.

What made this case worse is that while I kept waiting on this petition and these permits, I had to lease a portion of the building to a massage parlor, and those people uh Chinese people, and they end up being you know, more like a prostitution type of business.

I've signed a lease with them for one year.

Um the same neighbors who are always picking on me, um, thought that I didn't care.

I didn't want to do nothing about it.

Um I suggested to have the right property, um, you know, the right authorities investigate the case.

But I had to wait until the lease.

I discussed it with the tenant on three occasions.

Uh they changed the girl that was there doing the massages.

But how could I be inside the place just looking at what they were doing?

You know, so uh the uh place got raided last week, and the business, their business is now closed, that unit is secure, they have yet to come get their stuff.

Uh this month is paid for.

And I'm you know, I learned my lesson as far as renting to uh massage parlor goes.

But um the fact that I have never with the exception of the president of the HOA who has been very nice to me, the rest of the board have been I have never met them, they have never introduced themselves to me.

Um they are actually, I believe, in my view, part of the problem because they give room to conspiracies about what Walter does in that building or you know what who I rent to and all of that.

And so I have, as you can see, if it comes to the um question, why do I need the deck?

I need the deck because I need the dining tables, and it's a small deck.

I mean it's a big deck, but it's a small deck for a restaurant, right?

And so um why do I need in the petition the entertainment part which they have questioned me about?

I need that so I can do the same thing that the brewery does, which invite local artists, local bands, you know, that play guitar or whatever occasionally to come there and do those things there too, you know.

But you know, I don't, you know, I don't remember ever seeing my neighbor across the street.

I get along with him that owns the brewery.

I I don't remember him ever having a variance on his property.

So it could be that he never applied for one, but he's hosting events there occasionally.

No one is against it.

I'm not against it.

I don't have any immediate problems with my neighbors around me.

So that's um where I stand today.

Um really I'm really upset with the HOA, to be honest.

I'm very upset with them because of not with um you know Richard, who is the president because he has been friendly, but against he's only the president, and I feel like I've been picked on, and they're holding this against me so that they can go fully against me.

As far as the city goes, um, you know, I've applied for many variances on other properties before, and you know, I understand that the city has their rules, and you know, most of their time is a default setting where they always deny the petition.

So um I'm here to clarify clarify whatever needs to be clarified.

Um I'm here to answer your questions as well, and just let me know.

Thank you.

Any questions for the petitioner?

Okay, any remonstrators present?

Okay, please come forward when you come forward.

If you intend to speak, please state your name and address for the record.

And as a group, you will have 15 minutes.

Go ahead.

Hi, my name is Beth Brandon.

My address is 949 Hervey Street.

Um, and I am here as a citizen and resident of Hervey Street.

Um, just a few things to address.

As a resident, I am raising two very young children on this block.

We walk by this property multiple times a day.

My concern is twofold as this is to keep two pieces to the variance.

One of them being the overdevelopment of this property.

This lot is about a tenth of an acre, I think one or 0.13.

It's a very small lot size, which is why it is zoned the way it is.

So developing it to have entertainment use could be anything, right?

If we grant the variants, then it could be restaurant, it could be a single guy out there with a guitar, which would be cool, but it could also be a party deck.

And that is not something that would be a good use for this property.

It would be an overdevelopment of the site, as well as there's not enough parking adequate way to get around or to move.

The other aspect of that with this deck is being in the clear sight triangle.

With the clear sight triangle, this these two streets, Hervey Street and Shelby, Shelby is extremely busy.

It is very hard to see, and it is a very unsafe intersection.

We have had a lot of problems at this intersection anyways.

Adding this is another burden, an undue burden that we do not need unnecessary.

Uh so that is a very large concern.

I believe that the site plan that you have or that was submitted is incorrect on the um lineage for that.

Yes, for the um clear sight triangle.

So, what is there versus what is needed there?

I believe that um the original one proposed that was submitted is a little bit off on the footage, but I will let staff speak to that directly.

Um other things to address.

You know, this is a national historic district.

Um, so we take things that happen around here pretty seriously from our registered neighborhood organization.

This use of variants is not for a restaurant specifically, and I think that that's one of the things that we want to be mindful of is are we looking at a variance of use that is going to be?

I'm sorry, if you could just make sure your cell phones are muted, please.

A variance of use for the property as it is designed, or variance of use that will go above and beyond for an overdevelopment.

There are several neighbors here.

I do not want to take all of your time, so I will let them speak as well.

Hi, uh, my name's Ed Barry.

I live at 958 East Bradbury Avenue.

Uh and that is in uh that's about 150 yards from this place.

Uh I'm a lifelong resident in the neighborhood.

Um, as Beth said, uh, what I want to bring up, this is a historic district.

Um, it's not an HP IHPC district, uh, but the Garfield Drive Historic District uh was recognized by the Indiana Indiana Department of Natural Resources and the National Park Service as of 1922.

It's one of the city's newest historic districts, and uh, you know, being a lifelong resident neighborhood, I don't see some of the things that they're proposing here as being in uh context with the historic nature of the neighborhood.

And that's all I got to say.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Ed Mahern.

I wanted to thank the board zoning board for their work to give up an afternoon a month for a year is a lot to ask for you to hear these complicated cases.

I also want to thank the staff, which I have a pretty good feel for, in that for three years, I was the president of the Metropolitan Development Commission.

Work with the staff regularly.

They're always prepared and they're always professional.

I agree with the staff findings.

I want to bring up one other point.

Right immediately behind this property is a residential area for two blocks up to the park.

The first property behind this petitioner's property has a newborn baby that's less than three months.

The unit next to that has a newborn baby less than six months.

Across from that is a family with has a baby who's less than a year.

These are three properties within 75 yards of this property.

A deck with entertainment may just not fit in.

What's best for the neighbors?

Thank you for your time and your service.

Mr.

Mayhern, could you please state your address for the record, please?

1039 Tabor.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Uh excuse me.

Whoever's phone that is, could you please silence it?

Oh, mine's mine's silenced.

I'm just gonna read from it.

So thank you.

Thanks.

Um hello, uh, Richard Whitney, uh 1020 East Bradbury.

I'm also the president of the neighbors association.

Um we do not have a an HOA, it's just a neighborhood association.

Um, if I could just uh read a statement here.

Um we understand that our position, our mission is to advocate for residents and businesses in the area, and we've added we have advocated for the building owner to allow uh for a variance last year, and um we do not want to stand in the way of progress or allow only what some people would consider to be progress.

Um we our slogan is Garfield Park welcomes all, right?

However, um our board voted last month five to two against this variance.

Um, and so you've heard from neighbors who some have some serious some long-term issues with the way this building's been utilized, um, and it's been under direct control of the building owner.

Um so even with the the this unfortunate raid and this uh the prostitution that we are alleged prostitution that was happening.

Um I had warned Walter, and he and I have a good working relationship.

I had provided information uh a few times, and we had conversations and text exchanges, and uh we had hoped that it would be taken care of before uh before the police would get involved in and everything, but I understand the the the aspect of having a lease and some of those legalities.

Um but um I've seen slow progress with this building, and um I'm I'm for progress in our neighborhood.

Um we've we understand the plan for the improvements.

Um there's you know we're a divided house on whether those fit into the historic aspect of the neighborhood or not.

Um and but um some neighborhood and some neighbors actually did become advocates of the long term plan once Walter attended a meeting, shared his plans, talked with people, and started building a bit of a relationship.

Um I you know, personally, I I think a restaurant would be good here.

Um my board does not, however, I want to be really clear on that.

Um I think it comes down to a matter of trust after you know so many years.

Um Walter, I'm sorry that you feel like people are picking on you.

Um I I I feel like it's a lack of trust in a relationship, but I think we can work on that also over time.

I know that doesn't help here, but um so we are uh we're not remonstrating because we don't want a business and we don't want a restaurant there.

It's it's just due, like I said, to a lack of trust.

We don't know what may happen there with that entertainment and activities.

Um we would like to take Walter on his word that it is food and you know, small uh entertainment groups, just like at the brewery.

Um, but uh we also look forward to building a more sustainable relationship with Walter, and um so the only other thing I would suggest as far as line of sight in these photos, and maybe most of the photos that you have, they don't show all the cars that park on Shelby Street on the west side of Shelby.

There are public parking spots right next or right in front of his building, right in front of the brewery, and that has a tendency to block line of sight, also.

I don't know what to do because I also am here to advocate for more public parking and and more areas to park as well.

But ultimately, um our board voted five to two, mostly because we're not sure what's gonna happen, um, especially after trying to work with Walter on the issue of the business that was there, and um not getting a lot of progress until unfortunately the police were involved.

Thank you very much for your time.

Okay, uh, let's hear from staff.

Thank you, Acting Chairperson Hannon and members of the board.

Uh, as noted in the staff report, staff is recommending denial of the petition as a whole.

The subject site is a corner lot and is zoned C3, also in the TOD overlay.

Uh currently has a single-story commercial building, and as we know, recently had a deck added into the front yard of both Hervey and Shelby Street.

The uh request for outdoor recreation and entertainment use.

Um I have put the full definition in my staff report.

I won't read the whole thing here, but just so the board members are aware of what that is officially defined as.

That is uh in the report on page 67.

Outdoor rec and entertainment uses are limited to C5 and C7 zoning districts, uh, generally due to heightened intensity that often comes with live entertainment performances, larger crowds and events occurring outside that might uh induce music or noise or things of that nature uh from the events.

Further, these uses are reserved for C5 and C7 due to the increased amount of space that outdoor recreation and entertainment typically requires to accommodate crowds and venues.

Uh with this site being C3, um, which is characterized as neighborhood commercial.

Um C3 lots are typically smaller in neighborhood scale and are usually not large enough to accommodate such events.

With this lot being zoned, uh, with this lot being 0.13 acres in size, staff does not find the proposed use to be appropriate and to be into too intense for the site.

Um to clarify some points made by uh the petitioner and the remonstrators.

The food piece of this, the restaurant piece of this is permitted in C3.

Um they would still be required to meet uh development standards and parking requirements also be a part of that.

That restaurant is permitted in C3.

Uh the petitioners uh request indicated they are seeking the outdoor recreation and entertainment piece.

Um that is what is triggering the use variance, and that is what is not permitted in C3 and reserved for C5, C7.

With regards to the deck itself and the variance for development standards for the front yard setbacks and the clear side triangle encroachment.

The clear side triangle exhibit is on page 72.

And that would be with Hervey Street being a local street, Shelby Street being a secondary arterial, measuring from the intersection of the center lines, 120 feet north along Shelby and 75 feet west along Hervey is what creates that clear site triangle.

And you can see that the intersection or the triangle itself goes about 28 feet from the corner of the lot inward on the south lot line.

That is where encroachment begins.

Staff does not believe that the site plan is is fully accurate with regards to the location of where the deck is.

Staff would note that there's not an exception in the ordinance for partially transparent fences, as this is for encroaching into the clear side triangle, and does find that the posts and railing that the deck contains does uh partially block view of uh the clear side triangle of Shelby and Hervey Street.

Um further staff does not believe that any unnecessary obstructions should not be located within the clear side triangle to ensure maximum visibility of our roadways of our rights of way.

Uh therefore staff is opposed to the variances for reduced front yard setbacks and encroachment in the clear side triangle and recommends denial of those requests as well as the variance of use and can't answer any questions that the board might have questions for staff.

Yes.

So the staff as I read it seemed to be a conflict in terms of what is the the site plan.

So my question becomes did you walk through the site with the petition to understand terms of how far he may need to remove his proposed deck?

So you have a clear site plan.

I I understood some of that.

Could you repeat that?

Yeah, that would be if we put it see to be a conflict to understand the clear site plan.

So here that at least what I'm reading.

Did the staff walk through with petitioner with the proposed plan to see where he would be legal legally beat with the clear site plan if we to move part of his deck?

Okay.

Yeah, so uh I staff conducted the site visit um individually.

I I was not there with the petitioner.

Um I guess just a point of clarification.

The the deck was constructed and then applied for the variance.

Um, and that was one of the requests that they had was the the request on the petition was for the outdoor rack and entertainment and for the encroachment of the clear side triangle.

So that being the request, uh it was indicated that uh staff was unsure that the site plan was accurate.

Um there weren't any changes to the site plan after that was indicated to the petitioner.

Um regardless, the deck would almost entirely have to be removed to be outside of the clear side triangle.

There'd be uh a few feet from the present structure that uh an addition could be located, but by and large, almost in the entire front yard is within the clear side triangle.

So I have a follow-up question just to clarify.

If we approve this today, we'd be approving any conflict with the clear side triangle that exists with the deck in its current configuration.

Correct, it'd be approving the deck as it's currently built being within the clear side triangle.

Okay.

Um was there a plan of operations or any form of zoning commitment submitted with the petition?

There was not any plan of operation or proposed commitments.

Thank you.

Other questions?

Okay.

Petitioner, you have five minutes to um rebut and to close.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um regarding the post and the site that's blocking the site.

Uh my deck doesn't really block the traffic view.

Um the part the cars are a park on the streets are the ones actually blocking the view.

Because that property used to have bushes, and those bushes have been there for over 20 years.

And the bushes used to cover the site view when making that turn on especially on lower vehicles.

No one ever said anything to me about those bushes.

And they stood there forever before I even purchased the property.

Now the problem arose arises here when makes matters worse.

I moved the sign from the front to the back.

I had a permitted sign.

And again, picking neighbors, they called the city on me.

Um and the inspector met with me and said, Well, you don't have a permit for the sign.

I said, I do.

Yeah, but that was in the front.

So I didn't know I had to get another permit to move the sign behind the building.

And so the sign now became to where I couldn't get the permit for the sign because now he obviously inspected the deck and he said, Well, your deck is okay, it's just that it needs to be back 10 feet.

And so I said, if I move it back 10 feet, I won't have a deck for for the purpose that I wanted because it is a small front yard, as Noah said.

Um, and so um regarding the parking.

Yes, I I do have room for parking.

Um I believe that Indianapolis is growing, and I believe that we need to think in the future and stop holding um businesses just because they don't have a huge parking lot.

Um I get along well with my neighbor, and my intention is to buy more real estate around me.

Um, however, he's not ready to sell yet, but he has he has promised me that when he does sell, he will let me be the one.

So I have intentions to buy across the street again with that owner.

I met with him a few months back, but he's not quite ready to sell yet.

And so, you know, can we can talk about parking all we want right now, but we don't know what the future is gonna be.

There isn't enough parking here in Indianapolis, right downtown.

Eventually, as the city grows, more parking will open.

Parking lots will become you know, parking.

I mean, there is an empty lot right um one business away from me who I try to buy.

Unfortunately, I'm not ready to sell.

You know, I mean, there are many other empty places that can be uh become future parking places in the future.

Um so you know about three to four weeks ago.

Here here's here's where it gets tricky.

I had um I wasn't at the location, but I was called.

My my mother happened to be dropping uh some things there for me, and uh, you know, here comes this guy.

Um, supposedly a fire inspector, and this is the kind of the things that I am that get me upset.

Um opens the door down in the basement where the um you know this business used to be, and no knock, none nothing, and pretends to be a fire inspector.

I had passed my fire inspection, they're due every year, and so I said, Hold on a moment, let me come there.

I was nearby, I came there, and um I he was very nervous and wanted to leave fast, and I believe that this was all uh fake, wasn't a fire inspector.

I asked for his number, he supervised the number.

I was given two numbers.

He didn't leave me no flyer and nothing.

I kept asking for stuff.

I I went to the fire department on Garfield Street on Garfield Park.

There's a fire station there.

I went there and I said, Did you all came to inspect my my location?

He said, No, we don't do that.

You got to call this number.

Who they gave me the main line.

I called them guys, and they said, No, we you're not due for an inspection yet.

Then who is the people?

Who is the person sending some guy just to snoop around and walks into the building looking all over inside your time?

Okay.

Thank you, remonstrators.

Yeah, five minutes.

All right.

To focus on the pieces that have been brought up, um, you know, because we're not here to discuss parking and things like that.

That's would be a separate issue entirely.

When we're talking about the clear site triangle and we're thinking about this deck, and you know, it is partially, you can see through it a little bit.

Um, but when you start putting tables and chairs and you start putting lots of people on it, and you start having a you know hustle and bustle and a lot of other things happening on this deck, then you do lose further the clear site triangle.

Um I think a better choice to avoid the overdevelopment of this site would be to apply for permits for events instead of of variants that last with the property for all eternity, right?

So, what happens when this owner is no longer the owner, or when if a restaurant doesn't work out and we want to try it in for business, this variance is over development, whereas we have other ways as a city that we can do this.

Um board, your job is to prove the findings of fact, and when we're looking at those, we're looking looking for you know, making sure that this is not self-imposed, which I would say hindering the operations of business, that would be self-imposed.

There are other ways to have a business to have a restaurant on this property without needing these variances.

Um thinking about you know, this deck proposes no uh risk to pedestrians because it was built at ground level.

It is not at ground level because it is an elevated deck, not huge, but it is an elevated deck, and it is going to have um you know things around it, posts and polls and people on it.

So again, are we able to support the full findings of facts?

So I believe that there's a better choice, a better way to avoid overdevelopment of this site and still have usage of this property.

Okay, um board, any questions for the petitioner or remonstrator before we vote?

Yes, yep, thank you, board chairperson.

I do have a quick question of the remark I mean of the petitioner.

Um just for the sake of you know putting it out there.

I do want to uh we do feel, I do feel for you, and I understand how I could feel um to have a dream and want to develop in an area and have these type of situations occur.

Uh, it is great to see the neighborhood association president uh being very communicative and trying to support you, and I'm glad that he is doing that in that regard.

My question though is right now there's a variance of use as well as development standards.

I know you expressed that the dream kind of is to have a restaurant out there with small events, and that's the purpose of the deck.

Um as of now, if I'm not mistaken, if this is to be denied, the petitioner will be required to remove that deck.

Is that correct?

Yeah, he'll have to move it out of the clear sight triangle.

Okay.

So it in your mind, is there any use for the deck still existing there if you are aren't able to use the space for as an entertainment and sports facility?

At this point, I'm very upset with the neighborhood, and I have told them that if I don't get my dream, the deck will be removed, and I would put whatever fencing that I don't go against the city there.

Um I have a um seven guys that work for me, and it's very easy for me to remove that deck and build a fence just to prove a point that I'm no longer willing to be messed around with.

Um, people walking into my business and sending fake firefighters um in there.

Um it's that's that's my answer to you, sir.

Yes, sir.

I appreciate that.

Thank you, sir.

I actually have a follow-up.

You know, to further those that the comments, and I guess I asked a line of questioning to the staff, but typically when petitioners come in with this type of proposed use and they have a vision for a development of a site, they come in with the plan of operations and a more specific proposed use of this is what the restaurant's going to be, and these are the hours of operations, and if we have events, this is the time the times that they'll occur.

And there's kind of a more holistic plan that goes with that vision.

Can I answer a question?

Yes.

So the way we need to look at this is not the kitchen or the restaurant itself, but the deck.

Okay, if nothing else, let's proceed to the ballot.

On case two zero two five-UV three-zero zero six, Rod Bohannon votes no, Percy Bland votes no, Brian Hannon votes no, Rihanna Binder votes no, and David Duncan votes no.

The variance is not granted.

Yeah, we're um the board needs just to take a quick five-minute uh recess um to handle a couple of things, and um we'll be back.

So that's plan for three twenty.

I can go any word in that part.

I do, and uh sixty all the time.

Yeah, like this turn for each other.

Yeah, I know.

Well, I continue one very early.

Oh, sorry.

Okay.

And then wind them off.

It's that puzzle that needs to happen.

Okay, apologies for the delay here, but we're going to come back from recess and uh resume with the next case on the docket.

Marty.

Case number two zero two five-UV three- zero one two amended property addresses two three one nine, two three two two seven and two three three one North Gale Street, Center Township, Council District No.

Eight zoned D five slash C five.

The petitioner is ICNA Relief USA Programs Incorporated, represented by David Gilman.

Variants of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a transitional living quarters use.

The subject sites located on the east side of North Gale Street, just north of Roosevelt Avenue.

The site consists of 0.45 acres and is split zoned D5 to the north, C5 to the south.

This zoning actually splits the house, the duplex right down the middle, with the south half being zone commercial, the north half of the structure, and the property being zoned residential.

The existing improvements consist of a 2500 square foot duplex with a detached storage building.

The surrounding zoning and is a SU2 to the west or the Laurel Montessori School.

To the east is C5 in Industrial that are vacant parcels to the south is C5 Automotive Repair.

To the north is D5 single family.

The next page on three.

This is an aerial view looking northeast from Roosevelt Avenue.

This shows the proximity of our use that we'll have to the local school system that supports our proposed use.

We feel it's a great transition between the commercial to our south and single family further to our north.

Slide five.

Slide five is a view of the existing duplex looking south along Gell Street.

This house was built as a duplex in about 1930.

The site has an existing sidewalk system that provides connectivity from the building and the parking to Gell Street.

We have 180 feet of street frontage on Gell Street that provides plenty of additional on street parking if needed.

Slide six.

What this view gives you is the gravel area that is currently the parking for the duplex.

We propose to pave and stripe that for our two parking spaces that are on site and permitted by the zoning ordinance.

Slide number seven.

Slide seven, that's the site plan that we've submitted to our file.

It's been revised several times to accommodate the staff's initial concern of having too much on-site parking.

We had a parking area, and I think the staff report has the before and after what we originally submitted to what we currently have agreed to.

But we're only proposing to use the existing building and footprint as you see it today, and the existing parking as you see it today.

Everything else will virtually remain unchanged, other than again having that parking lot paved.

So the proposed site plan is our commitment to operate the existing site as you see it in its existing condition.

Page number eight.

This is our findings of fact.

We do feel we have a hardship.

We have a site that is zoned.

It actually splits the structure down the middle, it splits the property with two different zoning classes.

The existing use as a duplex was legally established by ordinance because it was built in 1930, but then it was again established by variance to its setbacks and to allow the duplex in the commercial portion of the property.

So our hardship is any reuse or proposed use of this building other than a duplex would require us to have a variance or rezone the property.

The transitional living quarters is our proposed use.

That use is permitted in D6 or higher intensity multifamily type zonings, D7, D8.

We did uh propose to rezone the property.

Um that was not supported by the staff.

We had already committed to the variants, so we decided just to go ahead and move forward with the variants.

But again, no matter what we do, we certainly will need this board's approval or the zoning board's approval.

The transitional living quarters, you'll hear in the staff report or from the staff's presentation that you can do that in a duplex.

You can provide housing for homeless women and their children in any residential structure.

But that's not our purpose, our intent for INCA relief.

They do multiple programs to help these types of families.

They have a headquarters on East 42nd Street that these fine folks will talk to you about in a little bit.

They do more than just provide housing for homeless women and their children.

They provide other services and programs.

But in order to do that, to take a building and to market that to staff that building and to solicit donations from their not-for-profit, it needs to be legit.

It can't be something that just operates as a residential structure because, well, it's allowed sort of under the radar.

And we will propose a very rigorous day-to-day operations.

They have uh pre-screening for all the tenants.

They have very strict rules and a contract that the um the uh housing guest and their families will have to abide by.

Again, they'll explain that to you.

But those are the reasons that we need this variance.

We need that transitional living quarters zoning designation so that we can then um fund this site and provide the resources that we need to provide the um community services that are demanded in this area.

So we feel that our variance is justified in the fact that this is a use that is needed in this area.

This is a use that um does not take away the character of any residential um part of the neighborhood, the house location, the parking location, the materials on the structure is in keeping with other residential properties.

We um have overwhelming support from the community.

So currently there's a letter in your packet that is from the Muslim Community Association, Indianapolis Muslim Community Association sanctioning their support.

We have a letter from the school um saying that they are in full support.

We have a letter from Councillor Bob Osley pledging his support.

We have um Vern Compton, Vernon Compton was here just earlier today, but the meeting went on too long and he couldn't uh stay with us.

He is the president of the Brightwood Concerned Citizens, which is the active neighborhood group.

He um has sent me an email saying that uh he votes for our support for this variance as well.

And he was copied with Ron Gibson and Ron Gibson said um that he also um offer his support.

Now I do have um the neighborhood association and counselor Gibson support by my email on my phone, and it's not part of your handout.

But again, we have overwhelming community support because the bottom line is this is providing a service that is absolutely needed in this community, and um we have a plan of operation that we've submitted that basically outlines um what they do, how the site's gonna be operated.

We have a professional staff that will help these families get the support and the services they need throughout our Indiana State and Indianapolis government programs.

Um I don't think there's any downside to this use at this property.

Um we um we did make a lot of revisions to the site plan to sort of tone it down so it would fit in and stay just like it is.

Um unfortunately we just couldn't get the staff to support it.

Um and we hope that you will see that this is um a great program and a needed service.

With my last five minutes, I'd like to have Shereen come up and she'll tell you a little bit about the program and the other people here that might be able to answer other questions.

Good afternoon.

I'm Shirin Kanakri.

Um I am the architect on charge for this project.

Um to be honest with you, for ECNA Relief, when I visit the site and the start meet uh the group who is on charge of running that site.

Let me introduce them before I move forward on my uh talk.

So I have Dr.

Mohammed Mountas Khan, he's the ECNA relief, and he's the area manager of the state of Indiana.

And I have uh Miss Naila Kohan, she's the case manager actually to the transitional home who's sitting there.

So um I want to say about Echna Relief Transitional House, it's a program that is Tumberry House uh program, and it's not a shelter at all.

And they have a whole staff of people who can support these women and kids who are joining that house.

Um so the kind of support that they offering, it's more about to make them stand on their feet and to move forward on their life.

And they have I uh was on uh talk with Sister Naila and they have SOBs.

I will let her talk in a second about them.

They are around 12 pages.

These people get interviewed first, they get scanned uh about what they need, and then they sign all these SCOBs to make sure they are we are maintaining a healthy stay for them on site that house, plus they get all that kind of service of mental health uh counseling.

But the plan is they have a monthly plan and they need to obtain uh job search, uh, look for language improvement, get license, all of these things.

So we are preparing them to move there forward.

So they can stay up to six months, and then after six months, they get re-evaluated.

And then if they uh find a job, they are ready to move.

They are uh vacant from the house, and then if not, we start update that month by month for them up to one year.

After one year, we couldn't accommodate, keep them on the house because we need to offer our service for other people who are looking for.

So with all this being said, uh this place needs to be officially called transitional home because they are receiving fund from other resources, uh support from other organizations, foundations, keeping it as residential.

I don't think they will obtain the goal that they are looking for.

Uh, they need to be people who are working there.

Uh so it's kind of needs some support, and this is why we are looking for that transitional home name.

I wanna uh let Mohammed talk a little bit about ICNA relief and uh introduce that.

Thank you.

Ma'am.

If you could could we please have her state her address for the record my record?

Uh yes, if you could come to the microphone.

I just need your address.

12701 Broncos Drive Fishers, Indiana.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Mohammed Mamtas, and I am PAD in microbiology and public health.

Currently, I working with the Knorrelief as an area manager of Indiana.

I would like to give you a brief brief introduction about the Echnorelief USA program.

It is initial organization working around the United States, and we have the several program, including the transition home for women and kids who are the homeless or living in the streets.

So at the same time, we have different programs as well, like the back to schools.

Currently, we have distributed uh in so Indianapolis, more than 400 back packs to support the kids to go to the school and the family services.

We have do workshop conferences, how we can strengthen the family and healthy community as well.

Disaster relief is one of our programs at the same time, then health services as well.

So one of the very comprehensive programs, we have 27 women and transition homes around the United States.

So it is the first transition home in Indianapolis that we are going to uh have in the 2319 in Gall Street.

So our comprehensive program is just to provide the sports, the women and children so who are very vulnerable when they are living in the streets so that they can have they can navigate in their lives.

So we provide them the career counseling, how to navigate for their career.

We provide them the mental health counseling.

We have a very comprehensive programs uh uh and we have the professors who are heading this mental health uh counseling programs.

So we this program is actually a whole program is actually used with the support of our community who fund how us like the IMCA, the Master Mask al-Momanin, that is very near the identified the place and the support us to start here at the same time the Al Huda Mask and the Fisher.

They are also very supported, uh supported to us that we have to start this program here, the specifically women and transitions homes.

Our main office is in the 42nd Street West and 11 and interfaith building.

So but our transition home is here.

So that is the brief introduction.

If you have any questions, you do ask.

Sir, if you could, I'd like to get your address on the record too, please.

Yeah, I I used to live in a one five three zero, Cherry Blas from East Drive Fishers.

That is my residential address.

Thank you.

Thank you to petitioners.

Any remonstrators present?

Okay.

Uh okay, no, I see no remonstrators.

Let's hear from staff.

Sure.

All right.

Uh thank you, Acting Chairperson.

Uh, thank you, members of the board.

I'd like to thank the petitioner for their comments and this organization for the work that they do as well.

Um, staff is recommending denial of this specific variance request uh since the proposed use would be prohibited within both of the site zoning districts.

Uh the site could legally function with the two family use that would allow for the residence of women and children as described within the submitted plan of operation.

And uh due to staff concerns about future expansion onto the two undeveloped parcels to the north that are also owned by the applicant and part of the legal description that was submitted along with this request.

As a subject site is three parcels in total.

The majority of the overall lot is zoned D5 for medium density residential, typically single and two family residences.

A portion of the southernmost parcel is zoned C5 for commercial use.

Um as the petitioner mentioned, it's currently approved with a duplex structure built around 1930.

There's multiple exterior stairs for building access.

Uh variance was approved in 2009 to establish that duplex and its accessory building partially within C5.

So the existing duplex is a legal use for the full site in its current state.

Um this petition would seek to allow for a transitional living quarters use.

Uh, this use would be distinct from both the daily emergency shelter use um as well as from a group home use.

Um it's not contemplated for long-term living would allow for lodging for up to two years per the ordinance of a user would be the ICNA relief USA organization that we just heard a little bit about.

Uh for clarity, this would be classified uh not as a religious use, but as a higher intensity residential use given how it's defined by our ordinance.

Um both D5 and C5 disallow that zoning.

Um I understand that is that typically these sorts of uh transitional quarter type uses are larger than just two units.

Um, an earlier version of the site plan submitted uh did show a larger parking facilities proposed on the lot.

Uh, there were 10 spaces that were initially requested.

Um that's viewable within the exhibits of your staff report.

Uh, this would have required several development standards variances related to setbacks, um, front yard encroachment, as well as the number of parking spaces, which is limited to a maximum of two spaces per three units.

Um they've amended that down to just the two spaces that currently exist at the site, one of which being ADA, so that amount of parking would comply.

They also added bike parking per staff request, which we appreciate.

Uh to be clear, um, expansion of the parking would not be allowed if this variance were granted.

Um of operation indicates that um this would be housed within the existing duplex.

There would be occasional visits from counselors or support personnel, but no full-time staff residing at the facility.

Um granted, this variance would also not be an exception, exemption from any other applicable state rules or guidelines on the operation of a transitional living quarters use.

Uh given their ownership of two parcels to the north and the fact that the originally proposed site plan showed placement of 10 vehicle parking spaces in addition to whatever might exist for off-street parking.

Uh staff's concern here is that variance approval could lead to additional uh requests for permits or zoning requests for expansion of this multifamily use fervor to the north in the future onto the two undeveloped parcels that are um jointly owned.

Um if those requests were made in the future, it would increase the intensity of the use in a way to be out of character with um closer single and dual family residence residential uses to the north.

Um expansion of the use in NH would also place stress on via regular southeastern entry point of the site, sort of an odd uh curved angle of access from both the alley and from Roosevelt.

Uh staff would want to limit congestion and vehicle access fare as much as possible.

Um, we don't necessarily think that undue hardship requiring grant of a use variance has been established by a petitioner in this regard.

Um if they were seeking to have two dwelling units for women and children to live in for the shorter medium term with visits from support staff about something that would already be allowed by right at the current site without the need for any petition relief.

Um if this petition were to be denied, there wouldn't be anything stopping the owner from utilizing the site for the activities described within their plan of operation.

Um the variance would also limit to just the two dwelling units that currently exist at the site, which might help with some of the staff's concerns about expansion to the north, sort of less of a foot in the door, so to speak, to attempt to justify future expansion requests.

Uh the applicant had indicated um the need for supproof related to state funding in some capacity.

Um it's not immediately clear to staff how this petition would play in that necessarily.

It's possible that that's some context they might be able to provide within for rebuttal period.

Um for those reasons uh that's why our staff is recommending denial, and I am happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you.

Questions for staff.

So I I what I'm hearing is that you don't believe that the variance for transitional living quarters is necessary because they can do everything that they've included in their plan of operations as of right.

Right.

Yeah, it would be a burden of undue hardship not established.

What is what is there in the proposed use as transitional living quarters that would be allowed that's not covered in their plan of operations?

That is, I guess, the source of concern.

I suppose typically larger facilities of operation and/or um support staff living on within the residence full-time.

I guess those might be two hallmarks more characteristic of a typical transitional quarters use that's a little bit larger in size than the two units proposed.

So I I guess the the reason I'm asking, you know, try to think creatively, are there ways that we can address the concern via zoning commitments that would give them what they need to establish their use and their funding require satisfy their funding requirements, but also not overburden the site in in violation of your concern.

Sure.

Well, um, staff wouldn't be able to change our recommendation here in the room because we don't feel the undue hardship standard for a use variance has been met.

Um if a petitioner were open to it, it's possible that the approval could be contingent on the submitted site plan so that any or site plan and plan of operation, I suppose, so that any addition beyond just the two units and the two parking spaces require an additional approval.

However, staff does also have concern that yeah, maybe we'll point back to the previous variance approval to try and use that as justification for that further expansion.

So we just sort of want to avoid that slippery slope, so to speak, but potentially having to tie to the site plan or plan of operation could be an option there if that's something to which the petitioner was open.

Thank you.

Yeah, go ahead.

Yep.

Great questions, thank you.

Um we didn't have an opportunity to question the petitioners, so if you don't mind, I want to ask a couple of quick questions to the petitioners.

Uh I think I heard you mentioned that there were uh about 27 um people currently using this transitional housing around the nation.

I think that was.

Is that correct?

Yep, you can come to the podium.

No.

Could you clarify that point and um I'll follow up with questions after that?

I mentioned that we are the national organization and we have 27 transition home around the United States.

It does not mean that 27 people are living here.

So the one 27 is here.

Okay, and that is this duplex that we're talking about right now.

Okay, so you don't have any other transitional houses in Indiana right now that you're standing.

This is the first one.

What do we have in Michigan, in Chicago, in New York, in Atlanta, in uh Texas, and in California as well.

So around the United States, we have the 27.

Okay, and are those transitional housing based on the way that they're zoned, do they display signage kind of?

Yeah.

Can you kind of walk me through the operation a little bit?

Yeah, we are working from the decades on uh on this, but we started program here in Indiana first time.

Okay.

And then you say you have a headquarters on, I think 46th Street somewhere.

It is the Indiana office that were a headquarters in New York.

I see.

Very good.

Indiana office, the IMD being working as an area manager of all in the Indiana states.

So Indiana office in the 42nd Street 1100, uh, that uh that is the Indiana office, not the headquarter of whole organization.

I understood.

And if you don't mind, do you know offhand how that area is zoned where your headquarters is currently located, the Indiana headquarters?

Uh that is an office.

Yeah, okay.

So it is office is branded, is there signage?

Is that I'm just gonna do that.

Yeah, that is the A canal leaf office and the interfaith building.

Okay, very good.

That's what I'm trying to understand.

Excellent.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um other questions for staff.

Okay, then petitioner has five minutes.

I think it's important to understand that when they approach me of wanting to operate a transitional living quarters, we have that provision as a use in our ordinance.

It requires it to be in a D6, D7 or D8 or D8 zoning class.

They need a variance or they need to rezone.

Um I cannot tell them to operate under the radar in any single family house or any duplex, and then go online and promote it as one of your living quarters for your your women and children that need housing.

Um they want the designation.

They have these other places located throughout the United States as permitted uses as transitional living quarters.

We, if we do get the variants, we certainly are entitled to a six square foot sign, which we will place on the wall of the building.

So everybody knows this is first Indiana's first INCU relief program house for women and children.

We hope to open up many more in other locations.

Um the the site plan that we submitted includes all of our property.

There's no um that we do have some vacant lots, but if we want to do anything else other than this one um transition house, we have to come back and ask this board for any approvals.

So we did that on purpose because staff was concerned about the opportunity to grow this and it become, I guess, out of control, which I'm not sure how that would be, but we certainly that's not our intent.

Our intent is to allow these people to get the home or this not-for-profit that they've purchased and allow it to be used under the rules and the volunteers that are committed to this program.

Be able to come freely and comfortably in and out of this home without any worry of maybe getting a violation or or getting um in trouble for it.

The um and again, the designation that you are a legally permitted transitional living quarters is important for volunteers and for donations through their national and growing Indiana and Indianapolis location.

We did have 10 parking spaces.

Um I did explain to my client that road street parking directly in front of your lots counts toward parking.

So we we opted that we really don't need any parking because we have nine spaces available to us in front of our lots.

They're not going to be used by other neighborhood area residents because there's residential is further north.

We have the school across the street that has all their parking they need, and then we got the commercial repair shop down south of us.

They have frontage, but they don't need any parking.

So it's not like our spaces on Girl Street or being needed or used or taken away from any residential.

Um they're just underutilized, and and when we discovered that, and then I explained that to my clients are like really we really don't need any parking, and it saves them a lot of money.

So I think the only thing you'll see is a six square foot sign with their brand on that building and this house being used legally and being able to get it staffed and get it funded.

Um you have anything else I've missed.

Um we do have um the area, the house case worker that can talk to you about any day-to-day activity that might go on if you have questions, but I'm gonna open it up to the board members or staff if they have anything that they want to ask any one of us.

Uh counselor, would you be agreeable to making a commitment with this um request to operate according to the operational plan that was submitted to the board and also the site plan as well?

Yes, yeah, that's absolutely our intent by giving those to you in advance.

And we've shared those with all of our neighborhood friends and all of our counselor um support, so everybody's all on the same page with that.

Thank you.

Other questions?

Okay, seeing none, um, let's go ahead and vote on this petition.

And that vote would be subject to the stated commitment, right?

Correct, thank you.

Yes.

On case 2025-UV3-012 amended, Rod Bohannon votes yes, Percy Bland votes yes, Brian Hannon votes yes, Rihanna Binder votes yes, and David Duncan votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Thank you very much.

Case number 2025-UV3-016 property address 1659 East Sumner Avenue, Perry Township, Council District No.

23, zoned D5.

The petitioner is Cronus LLC, represented by Eric Donovan.

Variance of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a 1,414 square foot second primary building, not permitted, with a four-foot east side yard setback, seven feet required.

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

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

Good afternoon, members of the board, Mr.

Chairman.

My name is Aaron Donovan, and my address is 1659 East Sumner Avenue.

Before setback safety or character, I'd like to bring a little bit of an awareness around some statements that we find are inaccurate within the staff report.

As the reason being that we are worried they will mislead the board's decision.

If those frame the decision, the process may not be fair.

A small example of this is the report says that we were continued due to insufficient notice.

As you can see in this next slide, in reality, we were waiting on staff direction after they emailed us about ownership paperwork.

They requested that our registered agent notarize a consent form.

In this next slide, you see that we responded with questions about this.

And in the slide following that, three days later, we followed up again without response.

We followed up repeatedly through both phone calls and email, but received no response and were informed that Mr.

Eddie Hunia was otherwise occupied and we were reassigned mainstream.

We didn't withhold notice or failure to meet the deadline.

This may seem like a small nuance, but there are several similar things within this report that we believe may harm the character of the petitioners and undermine the request.

We respectfully ask that the board evaluate this case on facts and evidence alone and not on the opinions.

Sorry, I'm nervous, or emotional framing contained in the report.

The report says there is no hardship for the setback, but we relied in good faith on the city's own published zoning table, as you can see in the next slide.

This table showed D5 side setbacks are blank, the natural assumption being that no requirement was applied.

The next slide also confirms the same standard.

Notice how the D5 setback for this slide, side yard is also blank.

Staff later admitted that others had used this table and been confused by it, and that there was a different chart elsewhere with conflicting information.

It is not necessarily fair to punish a petitioner for following the city's own official chart when the city itself published confusing information.

After the violation, we contacted permitting, as you can see in this next slide.

City staff in that office told us in writing, right now you do not meet the five-foot setback as attached in the chart in the next slide.

This highlights on the chart were done by Nikki Grof's G in the permitting office.

It's on the next slide, please.

Notice how she highlights the five-foot required setback.

In this next slide, we see that even she noted that the parcels could reasonably be reviewed as separate lots, and this was confirmed by her supervisor, a man named Mr.

Majid.

Based on that guidance, we filed this petition requesting a 10-inch variance, not a 2-foot-10-inch variance.

It matters because we believe it makes our violation look much more deliberate and enlarged than a mere 10 inches.

In the report before you, it frames everything as a 10-foot three-foot variance.

Just yesterday, Desiree from the planning office informed us that the parcels are considered separate and joined under one address.

10 inches is a minimal technical adjustment adjustment, not a significant encroachment, and should not be inflated as such, especially considering the city's charts showing no required setbacks.

As you may have noticed, the report never brings any safety concerns about the placement of the setback for very one very important reason.

As you can see from this next slide, the east wall is the only wall which is the setback required, uh, which sits in the previous structure's wall location.

The city approved and tolerated the setback for generations, and it never posed a problem.

Emergency access and separation are exactly the same as before.

Um, but the deteriorated structure which was in place has been replaced by a modern and safe dwelling in the same exact setback on the east wall.

We were told by Michael Wagel in the zoning code that the zoning code itself allows a non-conforming wall to be extended up to 50% without a variance.

That rule likely exists because the city recognizes that if a wall has stood in the same location for decades without far harm, extending it does not create a new danger.

In our case, the wall extends just over five feet beyond the 50% allowance, but as you can see in this next slide, the east wall faces nearly 20 feet of open land and not a neighbor's yard or property line.

There is no issue with emergency vehicle accessing, as you can see on the slides here.

The actual constraint on the emergency access is the narrow alley fence in the and the utility pole entry in the back, not the 19 feet and two inches between the properties.

Once beyond that opening, there is ample clearance and the placement is safe and consistent with code and harms nobody.

There is one technical clarification in the report that we would like to address in our next point, although maybe small.

The report mentions that the land next to the house is an alley.

As you can see in this slide, the word easement was first appeared in the city's own violation notice, which was later closed as inaccurate.

We repeated the term in good faith because the prior owner and neighbors also used it.

There was no intent to mislead anybody who was reading our report.

In practice, this strip does not function as an alley, it is fenced, and it is not publicly maintained and dead ends into a creek.

Whether labeled an alley or easement, it is open land and not a neighbor's yard.

We already maintain this land at our own expense and will continue to do so.

Again, these points may seem small, but when added up, the report starts to develop a portrayal of the petitioners that we find inaccurate and unflattering.

And we can see this happen again in our next key point about character.

The report stated that this proposal is, quote, entirely out of character.

That sweeps a bit too broadly in our opinion, as you can see in this next slide, with the blueprints of the project.

The east side setback is exactly where it has always been.

For this property, moving the wall to meet a seven-foot setback would break its long established character.

The report has wrongly bundled size concerns with the issues that would be judged separately and not lumped together because of dislike of the entire proposal.

Furthermore, if you take a look at this next slide, which shows that several structures in the immediate neighborhood already sit directly on, near, or even over their setbacks.

Each arrow here indicates a specifically tight setback, and as you can see on the far left of this image, one structure is grossly over the setback line.

So saying that it is out of character of the area is certainly not true.

In fact, according to our block alone, it seems that nonconforming setbacks are frequently occurring character trait.

Granting a 10-inch side yard adjustment would not create any new precedent.

It would simply align with what is already common and accepted in this D5 district, which it which admittedly does have very tight lots and old structures.

Another case of mislabeling does come into our next key fact as well, which is the use of the term poor building practice.

Poor building practice traditionally means unsafe or defective construction.

As you can see in this next slide, our plans are architecturally strong.

Also, no inspector ever cited unsafe work, bad materials, or issued safety-based stop work order.

The only issue was permitting, which is a paperwork lapse and not a construction defect.

We are not diminishing this issue of permitting and permissions.

We accept full responsibility for not pulling permits before starting, and we are sad about that.

It was an honest mistake by inexperienced petitioners, not a disregard for safety.

We have already paid significant fines and fees for this mistake, which are the lawful punishment for the mistakes that we made.

And when cited, we stopped work immediately and have left the site untouched completely for nearly a year.

It will be a full year in October.

As you can see in this next slide, there is a small representation of all permits this project has already closed.

There we go.

Since we were cited, we have pulled every permit needed so far.

You can see in this email with our permitting contract that all permits, and we can go to the next, there we go, are pulled and approved except for the ones requiring this variance first for approval.

We have complied fully with every rule and instruction since citation and will continue to do so until the project reaches fruition.

The variance process is not meant to be a second punishment for a mistake.

The purpose is to determine whether a true hardship exists and justifies relief and consideration.

If the outcome were to simply penalize us again for something we'd already been fined for and paid our dues, then this process would not be about zoning fairness, but about punishment, and that is not why we are here today, nor why the process was established.

We humbly request approval for the 10-inch variants on the side on the setback of the East Side Yard located at 1659 East Sumner.

Now will we now we will discuss the variance of use.

The report changes its definition whether it is denied when it helps the denial of their petition, which is understandable based on staff's objectives.

On setbacks, the report treats the property as two parcels and applies a seven-foot standard.

But when arguing over development, the report shrinks the site down to one parcel and boxes it in on the site plan to make it appear cramped.

By doing so, they're disregarding the key fact that there is a second parcel.

We can go to the next slide to see this.

So this is the slide in question where it looks like we are only dealing with the eastern parcel, but it is actually in fact, go to the next slide, please.

Both parcels that are being discussed.

Furthermore, the report contradicts the description of the unit itself.

In one part, the petition would allow for a 1400 square foot second primary building.

Where elsewhere it frames the structure as larger than permitted for a 720 square foot second dairy dwelling unit.

That is two different categories being applied to the same building, depending on which label seems to appear to make it sound worse against us.

For us as petitioners, this is confusing and feels a bit unfair.

If the report can change the frame at will, two bar parcels versus one parcel primary versus secondary dwelling, then there is no consistent logic or standard that this petition will be judged upon.

As you can see, uh the size is not the discussion that we have before you today.

As you can see from the following five slides, there are several properties in the area uh with large secondary structures.

Some of them have structures that are larger than 900 square feet, including an 1104 square foot as well as a 1,334 square foot.

Um both of these are within one block from our location.

Several times the report discusses a secondary dwelling unit and sites 700 or 900 square foot limits, which we understand.

The size caps for SDUs will not be applying in this case, and we ask that the board kindly disregard that those.

The report's repeated reference to size may be misleading in your decision because size is not the consideration we are here for today with the lens and the scope of the petition for use variants, which would permit us to add a secondary primary dwelling only.

The report addresses the true the report.

Uh so here is actually what the property looks like on the western parcel.

And as you can see from this slide that we're currently viewing, the report never addresses the true hardship on this property.

We understand their point of view, but we are not dealing with a normal D5 lot.

We are actually dealing with a peculiar and unique circumstance that causes hardship to the property owners.

For con for the fact is we control two legally platted parcels.

The city's storm sewer creates a massive slope in the western yard, and that creates a creek, which you can see in this next slide with the elevations maps.

That creek cuts through both properties, rendering one of them practically useless, and taking a chunk out of the back portion of the other.

This fact has permanently destroyed the western parcels buildable utility.

A normal unencumbered D5 property would allow you to build a primary dwelling and an accessory building on each parcel.

If we go to the next slide, we will see this in action.

On the right, you see a primary dwelling and a secondary uh accessory unit for each of those parcels, which are the same size as our parcel on the left.

Um, if we you divide it in half, I should say.

So to achieve even half the buildings that would be our legal right for two parcels, we shifted the second primary dwelling to the east parcel.

To call this over development is understandable, but we find it unjust when legally and logically our two parcels should support more, not less.

Technically, it would be able to support four pro four structures, if not for the city's infrastructure.

There are several lots in the area that have developed far more of their total land mass than our property in total.

And so the term overdevelopment does not appear to be logic logical or a logical classification of the two properties over which two parcels with no accessory structures exist.

Neighboring D5 parcels are unencumbered.

They each can host a primary dwelling and accessory structure as the ordinance intends.

That makes our hardship fundamentally different.

Strict application here is not a question of fairness or equal enforcement.

We are not comparing apples to apples in our case.

Okay, we'll go to our next argument now.

A core fact here is that the primary house was built nearly a half of or nearly a full century ago, and it physically straddles both the east and west parcels.

That means neither parcel will ever be fully independent.

The house sits partly on each one.

Because of that condition, any way we build the second home results in two dwellings on one parcel.

Even if we had chosen to build on the west wall, which is not possible in our case, instead of the east.

I'm sorry, I said well, I meant parcel.

There still would have been two primary homes sitting on the west parcel in that case.

For this, no variance likely would have been required.

So I am not sure if there exists a true difference if we utilize the both I'm sorry, if we utilize both properties on the eastern parcel instead, especially considering it was not possible to build on the west, and that it is the city's choice to take our private land for their public infrastructure, which we tend to your time is up.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions for the petitioner.

Okay, let's hear from staff.

Are uh any remonstrators present?

Okay, see none that's here from staff.

Thank you, uh person Hannan and members of the board.

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

Um I guess I I want to just make clear uh based on what the petitioner stated that there is not an intent to misinform or uh treat the petitioners unfairly, and if that appears to have been the case, I apologize.

That is not the intent of the report or our review.

The intent of the report and review is to provide the board with all of the accurate information to make a wise decision.

Um that said, the petition would allow for uh 1,400 square foot uh second primary building on the site as well as the four-foot east side yard setback.

Um the accessory structure in question was built without the issuance of the required permits and subsequently received violations for the ongoing work, uh, those violation numbers are there.

Um with this proposed structure being over 900 square feet and being used residentially, staff classifies this as a second primary building and not an accessory, uh thus triggering the variance of use as opposed to a variance of development standards.

Uh staff sees additional residential structures that are over 900 square feet uh to be primary as they are no longer uh clearly subordinate in size or use.

Um the 900 square foot mark is kind of the the line we set for being either a variance of development standards if it's less than that variance variance of use if it's above that.

Um the secondary dwelling units are permitted on uh residential lots, they are limited to 720 square feet.

Uh what's proposed is about double of that amount.

Uh this standard is in place to limit over development, maintain consistent building form and characteristics.

Um staff does find this proposal to be out of character and to constitute over development of the site.

Uh staff is not aware of um second residential structures that are uh larger than 720 square feet uh in the area.

Um likewise just to address some of the uh concerns or or confusions that there might be on this uh site.

Um it is two parcels.

Uh we have considered it to be one lot.

Um the definition of a lot and parcel vary, but um, in general, if uh a lot uh is if multiple parcels are used by the same individual or um in the same manner, they and have similar access, they could be classified as one lot.

Um primary structure is permitted per lot.

Uh that's pretty plain and clear in the ordinance.

Um regardless of if there was one parcel or two parcels, what they're proposing is not permitted via the ordinance.

Um additionally, with regards to the stream that is located on site, uh staff does not find that to be uh a hardship for developing because again, regardless of if the creek is there or not, what they're proposing is not permitted.

Um with regards to the reduced setbacks, uh there is the one-time expansion of a legally established non-conforming setback, which this uh setback appears to be legally nonconforming.

However, that exception does not apply if the um building that is proposed is a non-permitted use.

So if they were using their structure, uh their accessory structure for a shed or um having uh an accessory uh residential unit that is 720 square feet or less, that exception would apply.

But since what they are proposing is a second primary structure, which is not permitted, that exception um is not at play uh in this scenario.

So ultimately, staff does not find there to be any hardship uh on this location given that it's been used residentially with the existing primary structure that's up front along Sumner, can be continued to be used in that manner.

Um again, secondary dwelling units are permitted at 720 square feet or less.

Uh that has been the case since Indy Rezone.

Uh staff uh urges the petitioner to simply revise the plans to show a secondary structure that's 720 square feet or less.

Uh and they would likely not need the variances that are being requested today.

So given that, um, staff does not find there to be hardship and does urge the petitioner to alter their plans to show compliance and and can answer any questions that the board might have.

Questions for staff.

Yeah, I I have a question or maybe a novel thought, but I mean, right now it's two lots or two parcels, one lot, depending on how the city views it, but the separations north to south, and because both buildings are on one of those parcels is creating an issue.

What what happened if the subdivision line was changed so that it runs east-west instead of north-south, so that then you've got a primary structure on each parcel.

You're saying if well, and I guess in that case, there wouldn't be frontage for that lot, it'd be two alleys.

Um in that scenario, the structure would not meet the setbacks still.

It'd be a setback issue, but not and there'd be no frontage.

And no sorry, didn't mean to interrupt.

What did you say?

They said it would be it would be a setback issue, not a use issue, right?

Uh development standard.

Potentially, it all I think it ultimately also depends on the the rest of the nature of the the uses on site, because again, it's the ordinance states one primary structure per lot.

Um so if both are owned by the same individual have the same access and appear as one, staff would probably still consider that to be one lot.

If the accesses are different, um used between different individuals, uh staff would be more likely to consider that multiple lots.

All right, thank you.

Other questions?

Okay, petitioner, you have five minutes to uh for rebuttal and close.

Um I believe that the rest of my presentation actually addresses the hardship issues that were questioned.

May I continue?

Sure.

Is that Chris?

Does this constitute um presenting new uh new arguments?

Uh it sounds like it's going to, but I can uh we leave that to the discretion of the board.

Unless there are objections from the board, I think that's fine.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate that.

Um we'll start with fact six, please, then the core fact is that this house is straddling both properties.

Uh this is not a situation that we created, nor did we put the original house across the parcels.

It has existed for almost a hundred years with the city's acceptance.

Let's go to fact seven now.

As you can see in this slide, staff suggest our petition would create an undesired precedent, but that is not supported by the facts here.

Just directly north of us, the city itself has a zoning change that has nearly turned a D5 acre into a C3 commercial parcel.

This is directly north of our property.

If an entire residential block may be converted to commercial property with massive building structures and huge parking lots, then uh our request seems very minuscule compared to that.

Also in the same neighborhood, if you go to the next slide, there is a residential property that already has two large principal structures on it.

The condition has existed without harm to health safety character or value.

Our request is in line with that.

You can go to the next slide as well.

The report calls our project overdevelopment when this property, for example, sits on an even smaller lot than ours and holds almost one and a half times the structural uh amount with a second dwelling of 1300 square feet, which is around 40% more structural square footage than our project is requesting.

It also holds a third utility shed.

Because of this, granting our petition does not open the floodgates to some never-ending granted phenomenon.

This is a response to unique facts.

Let's go to those unique facts now in slide eight or fact eight.

For the report to say there is no hardship, which was the question brought before the staff here, completely ignores the fact that no other D5 property in our neighborhood faces the same constraints imposed by the city's storm sewer.

You can see the line that is the only diagonal line passing directly through our property, and almost all of the other parcels have storm sewers running along streets, alleys, or parcel edges.

Ours is different.

It cuts directly across the western parcel, consuming nearly half the land of that parcel and spilling into the east as well.

Let's go to the next fact.

This is also true on a larger scale.

If we look, the entire neighborhood has it's clear that the city intentionally tries to prevent slicing private land in half for storm sewers.

Ours is different.

It cuts directly through our land.

Again, nobody would argue that a random precedent is being set here.

There is also neighborhood support for this petition.

If you go to the next slide, just over the weekend, we surveyed households in the immediate neighborhood regarding our variance request.

The response was overwhelmingly positive.

In fact, we collected support of 54 of our neighbors, and nobody expressed opposition to the project.

The majority of households were simply unavailable or did not answer the door.

All of this demonstrates that the people most directly affected by our project and the surrounding neighbors do not see it as harmful.

We are not trying to prevent circum we are not trying to circumvent any kind of processing, and we are also open to the idea of splitting the parcels laterally instead of horizontally.

As you see in the next three slides, the rear house is visually subordinate to the front house.

Next slide, please.

Because it is tucked behind the primary structure.

Next slide, please.

The roof line is lower than the front house, and the design is simpler without the architectural complexity that gives the main house its dominant form.

We are willing to commit to limiting architectural enhancements to the rear home as to not overshadow the primary.

As you can see from our next slide, we pay taxes on two parcels for 1659 East Sumner every single year.

To deny this petition says that we must continue to pay those taxes, but that we may not establish any means to generate revenue on those lands to support the payment of such taxes.

In the next slide, you will also see correspondence with a city official when they came to discuss the permits and warned us that some of the debris and don't carried from the storm drain and not thrown by the inhabitants of the home needed to be cleaned or the property owners would be subject to fines.

Denying the variance that we must continue to maintain the city's sewer at our own cost or else risk fines and penalties.

This is clear hardship and not self-created.

It is shocking that the report said that there is no unique hardship found, and we understand their point of view if they're limiting it to the one parcel.

However, we are not in our argument.

We're asking you to consider both.

The staff report omits the central hardship that we are presenting to you today, and the only way to realize fair and economic use of both parcels is exactly what we propose, which is one house per parceled property in total.

And that is the ordinary exception for an unusual D5 plated lot.

So we have inherited a particular question.

Your time is up.

Thank you so much for your consideration.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

Okay, then uh I think we're ready to proceed to the bell.

On case two zero two five-UV three-06, Rob Bohannan votes yes.

Percy Bland votes yes, Brian Hannon votes yes, Rihanna Bender votes yes, and David Duncan votes no.

The variance is granted.

Marty, can you read that case number again?

I think you got that case number incorrect.

2025 dash UV3-016.

Okay, sorry.

Okay.

Case number 2025-UV3-020 amended property address 3615 South Rural Street.

Perry Township, Council District Number 19, zoned DA.

The petitioner is Lopez Rentals LLC represented by Maurice R.

Scott.

Variants of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for operation of an event center, not permitted, without bicycle parking, minimum of 10% of required vehicle parking spaces required, with gravel parking areas, hard surfacing required, containing 114 vehicle spaces, maximum 100 spaces permitted for proposed capacity, and a 10 foot rear yard setback, 75 foot setback required, with individual parking stalls containing 162 square feet, 180 square feet required.

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

Do you swear or affirm?

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

Yes.

Okay.

Good afternoon, board.

Maurice Scott, 612 East Market Street Indianapolis, Indiana, 462 here, 46202 here for Lopez Rentals for 3615 South Rural Street.

And to the left or to the right, depending on which direction you're going, you see a big barn, and that barn says hotel tango, or which we all know because they were here a couple years ago, was used for storage and distribution for whiskey.

Now my clients have brought that property, and the storage and distribution of whiskey is no longer needed in those in those barns.

Also, it's a big farm, and as you know, a lot of people uh like that.

And so that will be a beautiful space for people to have their weddings, and not just weddings, but uh an event space where people can have uh meetings, um, you know, birthday parties and and things of that nature.

Uh currently uh based upon our research, there's nothing in that area that will support the for the community to be out uh for those type of events, especially uh not in the a farming uh area with that type of aesthetics.

Um so it will be less intrusive on the neighborhood than what was going on previously.

Uh as you know, uh big trucks was used to uh go down the street, what would mess up the streets and now it will just be cars coming on.

And we're not saying that people will be in that space all day, every day uh for weddings and events.

This will be something that will be used as needed.

Uh there are plenty of uh places in this city, uh, but not in that in that area uh where weddings uh take place.

Uh now to the petition, uh I'm not quite sure where they got 114 uh spaces from.

Uh when I emailed them and told them uh we talked about the 100 spaces for the capacity.

Um so it would be the 100 spaces as opposed to 114 uh spaces.

Uh this area is secure.

There are two spaces, so when the spaces are not being used, uh there are two gates to entrances where people could come in, and both entrances would be locked.

Uh as far as noise, uh noise would not be an issue.

Uh the area is located actually right next to uh 65.

Uh so that's a noise issue uh all in itself.

Uh however, we've submitted a plan of operation uh for the hours, and the 12 o'clock is not when the cutoff is where people would still be there and they say, Hey, you have to leave.

That is the cutoff time where cleanup has occurred, lights are off, uh the gates are locked, uh, where there's nobody on the property.

Uh and so uh noise would not be an issue.

Uh in fact, there's a big barrier between from the location of the property all the way to uh where the houses are that's behind behind behind the fence.

Uh so that would not be an issue.

Uh I think they missed uh mentioned dust as an issue.

Uh as we stated, we don't think that this will be uh any bigger of an issue that was already taking place due to uh who was already coming in uh with the trucks uh that was already the the same dust and dirt and the same gravel uh on the lot is is still there, and so we don't think that any of this will be an issue or cause any undue harm or uh put burning on on the community.

Um like to ask Mr.

Lopez to come up.

Good afternoon, members of the board.

Uh my name is Ricardo Lopez Jr.

Address 4852 Corden Land in Napolis, Giana.

Speaking from my father, Carl Lopez Senior, owner of Lopez Rentals.

So we purchased this property with a vision of transforming it into an event center.

Land itself, this is a beautiful setting with more than five acres, two big large barns that create a unique atmosphere.

Even before my brother's wedding, our family had often gathered here because of the open space and the way the property is centrally located in Indianapolis.

My brother's wedding only confirmed what we had already believed.

There's a special place with potential to bring joy not to our family but to others as well.

We see it as a place where people can gather, celebrate, and create lasting memories.

Um currently right now he my brother is living there ever since he got married, which was like a month ago.

Um something to uh take in consideration as well, which he had mentioned.

The properties set back to the end of the road, which is somewhat hidden, which is naturally helps the disturbance and limits distributions.

In addition to the surrounding provided um the natural buffers to the east is the church with a large um large soccer field.

To the north, there's like a um like a hill that separates from the neighbors to the west is a commercial building, and to the south runs interstate 65.

So altogether this makes the setting especially well suited for an event center since gatherings would contain would be contained and should shielded from nearby residents.

Sorry, family came um to United States many years ago with the hope of building a better life through hard work construction.

God has blessed us, and now we want to give back an investor is not just a project, but a way for us to provide a safe, well-managed space for projective occasion, and what we believe will be a blessing to families and communities around us.

We hope that you will see our dedication to doing this the right way, both with the success of the set uh of the center and the benefit of the community.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh any questions for petitioner.

I do.

Um I just have a couple questions on the site plan.

I mean, it seems like you guys have a lot of land, right?

There's a lot of open space on this, which is part of what makes it so desirable for these types of events and a setting for a wedding kind of gives it more of a countryside feel as opposed to when you're really in the in the city.

But it it seems like it would be you know fairly easy to address some of these some of these issues, like as far as the size of the parking stalls, maybe mitigating the setback a little bit more right right now.

It's at 10 foot instead of 75 foot.

I just wonder why why isn't like explain that the consideration on that as to why you're not just addressing it via revisions of the site plan now in advance.

Oh well.

The communication with uh DMD was not the best.

Uh I mean, we initially uh sent everything to them last year, and we should have been in front of them last year.

Documents was lost, uh, things were found.

You know, well, we need we need this, we need that.

We gave it to them in person, and the next day, hey, we don't have this and say, hey, we just got this, we we gave it to you, and you know, as the previous uh person said, you know, uh not to throw any of their people under the bus, but they say, hey, uh, I forgot what names she said, but he's very busy, and that's what we continue to learn.

We're busy, we're we're going through transition, we have new people, uh, and so I just I I'm just received this over the weekend.

So uh there's there's not and I see I think the same thing, these are very minimal things uh that can be taken care of.

I mean, if if they would have and we're gonna say, hey, you have to put in a bike rack, that's simple.

Uh so most of the things in here are are simple, uh things that could be taken care of.

Uh and these aren't things that we are over there.

No, we're not doing that.

And so that that's why I put it right.

Hey, I don't know where the 114 got, you know, was from because in the email I say, hey, we can do a 100, because initially I think we had 150.

Uh they say, hey, it's two for one.

And so we say, okay, well, we can do the 100.

Uh, we just want to comply uh with what the statute says, as well as you know, the fire department when they come in and do what they have to do.

So these issues are are very minimal.

Uh, and so we would we would put things in place, uh commitments in place to comply uh with with these recommendations.

Thank you.

Okay, that's here from staff.

Or wait, I'm sorry, um, any remonstrators present.

Good afternoon.

My name is Timothy Brock.

I'm at 3515 South Rural.

I'm right in front of the farm.

You passed my house to get up there to comment on some things that he just testified to.

Um Hotel Tango Old and Farm, they didn't distribute, they didn't store.

That was what they said they was going to do.

They never did.

They basically dumped their mash, dumped other stuff that they weren't using at their locations, uh bales of hay, infested with rats, and there wasn't a lot of trucks in and out, is basically the biggest truck we ever seen was a one-ton, and a lot of times that was a U-Haul truck that they rented to bring stuff in to dump that basically the neighbors couldn't see coming in.

Um I know this because I tore the property.

I've lived here ever since I was born.

Um, so there wasn't a lot of traffic.

They turned the house and they really did a good job inside the house.

It was Airbnb.

They had parties, police officers up there, guns being shot.

So that's a history of a lot of traffic and all that, which is not true off there.

I witnessed it.

Um looks like as far as the dust and all that, you're going to be putting in a lot of gravel, a big area for a lot of parking is going to be a lot of cars.

This is a dead end and backside of a neighborhood.

Uh there's no separation from pedestrians.

It's just a two-lane road put in in the early 50s, late 40s.

Um, a lot of the neighborhood people, as a matter of fact, there's a family, toast their children in a wagon, three infants up and down every day.

You have older generations in there walking for exercise after dinner.

You have uh kids riding their little dirt bikes.

Not supposed to, but I did the same thing when I was that age.

Right, their four-wheelers, it's a little neighborhood, and I feel that all this traffic is going to create a safety safety issue with everyday normal life going in.

They did have a wedding there last month.

I was cleaning the house, I was in the living room.

I was like, whoa, they're having a party up there.

Wish I was invited, you know.

Heard a little bit, but that's their property.

They can do what they want up there.

They sound like they had a good time.

And um, they do have a buffer around it, hotel tangle, put it in.

Bunch of dump trucks coming in, bringing all the dirt in.

I stopped one one day.

I was like, hey, where's this dirt coming from?

Guy told me he's like, I can't tell you, but only thing I'm glad it's not in my backyard.

Well, my brother works for a Walter filtration system.

I'm on a well, checks it all the time.

I just had to put a $15,000 filtration system in because I now have toxic water.

Wonder where that came from.

So I'm worried about the parking lot, winter time.

You might have salt stuff and cars going to drain.

How are they going to snow removal if they have this many cars?

You got ladies coming in in their nice shoes, gentlemen coming in their nice shoes dressed up.

You're gonna have to have some kind of snow removal.

How's that gonna happen on gravel driveway?

Um Hotel Tango took over, they gutted a lot of the uh structural uh beams and stuff inside the old barn, which would be a concern to me as it's safe.

Have you guys had it checked?

There's a lot of structural beams that was removed because they were at first going to store bourbon in there, is what I was told.

That never happened.

Uh we have a union hall across the street, which again they were gonna do this and that, and that never happened.

They have several union meetings a month.

Um, and when they have their union meetings, when the union meetings are over, 9, 9 30.

They fly down the street.

Um I have a 93-year-old lady I keep an eye on across the street.

I keep trying to talk her into when you mow your grass, don't come out in the street and turn around.

She's been doing it for 60 years.

She's hard headed.

What's gonna happen when we have a hundred or some cars coming down the street and she don't realize it?

She's not used to that.

So I just think it's a bad idea.

I love having them as neighbors, a little wave of the senior audio passes, but I just don't think it's a good idea.

It's a lot of traffic going in back of a neighborhood.

We're not one or two streets off Keystone or off Troy.

They're all gonna come right by my house.

So there's a union meeting, it's additional.

It's gonna get pretty congested out there.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, any other remonstrators?

Any questions for remonstrators?

Okay, to staff.

For sure.

Uh thank you to the acting chair and members of the board.

I'd like to thank the petitioner for their presentation and uh congratulate Mr.

Lopez's brother on his recent wedding.

I'd also like to thank the remonstrator for sticking around with us for this long as we come up on the 5 p.m.

hour.

Uh staff is recommending denial of this proposal for a commercial use would be this heavy of a traffic generator within a residential context and for which multiple variances of development standards would be required.

Um, I personally don't have much info on what the status of communications was prior to the petition formerly being docketed.

That would have been with a different member of staff.

I can confirm in response to your question, Mr.

Duncan, that um the leak initial legal notice was sent in late June to the petitioner, so that's the amount of time they would have had to have known about uh the number and breadth uh variances that would be required related to this site.

Uh the property is 4.81 acres approximately.

Um, it's currently built with a primary dwelling unit and several accessory structures and barns, one of which does have that painted 600 square foot sign on the roof that was previously utilized by Hotel Tango Distillery, which is functioning as a bed and breakfast that had some storage of whiskey barrels as well, or at least that's what it was approved for.

Uh that previous commercial use is discontinued.

Uh, the site appears to be solely used for residential functions at the moment.

Uh, it's mentioned there's homes to the north, a labor union hall to the west, uh, the interstate runs to the south-southwest of the property, and there's uh undeveloped land to the east owned by the church that I believe is used for sport fields.

Uh the event center is proposed for the site, it would be primarily weddings, but also birthdays, corporate gatherings, and meetings per the file plan of operation to accommodate this use.

New parking areas would be added, which had not been part of the previous user.

Um staff had counted 104 gravel spaces as well as 10 ADA spaces on the site plan most recently submitted.

It's possible that I miscounted the number of stalls there, and if so, I apologize.

Um noted that multiple variances would be needed here.

There is obviously the use component.

Um event centers are a use that's um contemplated for C4 commercial zonings and up.

I'm not typically contemplated for residential settings, as mentioned for gravel paving of parking areas.

Uh I totally contemplated for single family uses, which would have a few cars at most, uh typically not up to 100 or more.

There's also that proximity to the rear yard setback to the east, a 75-foot requirement being reduced down to 10.

Um, the initial site plan did have parking much closer to the homes to the north, but that was reduced by staff request, which we certainly appreciate.

Uh but yeah, the max parking for event centers and districts that do contemplate them is one space per two seats and max capacity.

They'd indicated a max capacity of 200 within emails sent to staff.

So it'd be 114 spaces would exceed 100 spaces would come right up on it.

Um, if this were to be approved, I suppose they could amend the plan to show fewer parking spaces.

Uh the original site plan submitted indicated that gravel parking spaces would all have dimensions slightly smaller than minimum required, so that's why that language is in there.

It's not entirely clear to staff how permanent parking stalls would be marked on a gravel parking lot, though.

Site zoned DA for agricultural uses and related structures, a secondary provision thereof is for a state-style residential development on large lots.

Event centers over places of assembly are not a contemplated use for the DA zoning.

However, for that typology, assembly uses are only considered acceptable in instances when they are along arterial streets where pedestrian access exists where it is isolated from highways near transit and harmony with surrounding land uses with parking areas screened.

It seems like this site meets a couple of those, but there are some that are also unmet.

If a site is only accessible by at least one local street, but more likely two.

As mentioned, there would be sound, potential dust and drainage concerns from the gravel parking area, and then the road impacts from heavily trafficked events.

Potential impacts on site and drainage retention and potentially ADA accessibility for much larger events with high demand for spaces.

We were contacted by a neighbor who lives to the north at 2905 Sumner.

They had concerns about site drainage.

They were unable to attend today.

And you heard from a demonstrator who also lives nearby as well on rural.

They have concerns echoing those brought up by staff as well as some structural concerns about the barn, which would be beyond the scope of today's hearing.

But required findings a fact for use variances or undue hardship preventing a feasible alternate use of the site.

Staff doesn't feel that this burden of proof has been met.

For those reasons, we are recommending denial, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you.

Questions for staff.

Okay.

Petitioner, you have five minutes for rebuttal and close.

Thank you.

I think some of those concerns can be addressed.

One, low to play as rentals is in the construction business.

And so when it comes to even though it is outside of scope, there will be the ones who will be fixing the barns.

They're licensed contractors and do a lot of uh residential and commercial real estate uh in the in the city.

Um, um we don't think uh based upon what the remonstrators say there will be any rodent issues.

Uh there will be no dumping of mesh or or anything else.

I mean, this will actually be uh something that'll be good for uh the community as stated in the plan.

There will be uh an operations manager, somebody who was on staff, someone who uh basically all the needs of the facility will be taken care of.

So after events, trash will be taken out, the area will be clean and be ready for uh business uh on the next day.

Uh when it comes down to uh the traffic issue.

In a perfect world, there will be a wedding every day.

Uh but that's not the case.

Uh there will not be 200 people, uh hundred cars coming down uh the street every day.

Uh and so we don't believe that traffic would be uh an issue uh you know for for this.

I mean, there will be people who will use this facility, uh, but this will not be an everyday uh everyday use uh for this area.

As I said, there's a buffer around and people are flying down the street.

I mean, those aren't people that is connected with low payers rentals or with 3615 right now.

As you stated, they're at the uh dead end of the street.

Uh, and so no one really comes down unless you're a walker, but cars cannot, they can come down, but they're not going inside unless the the gates are open, which the gates are locked.

Uh and when they initially tried to come through, they couldn't, and so they had to call us and say, hey, we're here uh to take to take those photos.

So all safety precautions uh have been taken uh by low payers rentals, and so we're just asking that uh the use can be used uh for an event space uh because now you know, like I say, there's a property uh house there uh, but we want it to be complete where everybody can use for uh weddings or uh just an event space in general.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions?

Okay, remonstrators, you have five minutes.

Okay, for the amount of traffic, you really don't know how it's gonna be there, who's gonna show up, when it's leased, when it's rented, and all that.

Um the property, as you uh questioned earlier.

The property does look huge in person, it doesn't, it's not that big.

It is a good size lot.

I am just to the left upper corner there.

There is a burn runs back there.

Um just at that corner there, you can see where the the burn is and the burn.

Burma, I'm sorry, uh it's grown up.

Well, let's say there's no noise.

I the other night or week ago, two weeks ago, they had their dump trailer out there dumping something.

Heard it perfectly in my living room, which is on the opposite side of the house.

Uh, if you're gonna have a parking lot that size, is there gonna be parking lot lighting so people can see coming and going from the parking lot to the to the barn or the tent, like they had up a couple weeks ago.

Um, they put a light up on the barn maybe a month or so ago, which is on the opposite side of the whole property from me.

I walk in the kitchen any time when it's dark outside, and it almost blinds me.

It's like, whoa, hey, he put a light up.

Wow.

Too bad he didn't put a shield or something around, so it lights down and not rectifies out all the way over across the property.

Uh, if you go back to that very first picture right there, okay, the line to the far right property line, that right there.

You take that line all the way to the street, which is Sumner, that right there where his arrow is, when we have a good decent size rain, that floods.

They're from the from the street there to the corner up there, the far right north corner there.

It's a closed culvert from there to there.

It's not broke.

It's just the water flow from from my house down Sumner, it's a pretty good drop.

So all that water goes there, and it's supposed to go.

There's a closed culvert from that right top corner, closed coffee, closed culvert, so about halfway down that goes to open ditch.

And it goes so far across this property to a closed ditch, and it drains over there in the interstate.

Um that ditch when Hotel Tango bought the place, they emptied out the barn, threw a bunch of stuff in there, it backs it up, which didn't really cause much more of a flooding issue because it wasn't very big, it's grown up over the years.

But where you see East Sumner up there, I have a friend that lives on the other side of Sumner there.

On a good decent rain, it goes all the way up to his house to his front door, about two inches from this front door.

So if they're gonna put all this gravel in and all that, that's gonna add drainage to that water standing.

I mean, it really gets deep out there and big.

Um the soccer field, they brought a bunch of dirt and built the soccer field up so it pushes more back onto their side.

So that's gonna take up a lot of area that they're planning on.

I guess they're planning on using all that area for the parking, the gravel lot.

And I'm not sure where the 10-foot yard setback is.

Can you somebody tell me where that's at?

Because if that's along the north side property line, it basically puts cars 16 feet from my bedroom window.

Yeah, it'd be along the eastern property line at the rear yards there.

That's correct.

What's the setback on the north property line?

Um they had initially requested a variance in that regard.

Um it looks like it would be more substantial from the parking area.

Let me see if my notes specifically contain that one second.

One second.

Yeah.

It would be um within setback requirements per district at minimum.

So yeah, if they start right there in that top left corner there and start putting gravel in, you're basically putting cars up against my house from my bedroom windows, about 1620 feet.

Midnight, I'm gonna hear it.

As far as the noise from the interstate, yeah, we hear the noise from the interstate, but nine nine o'clock at night, traffic slows down, especially uh people leaving downtown going home from work, it quiets down.

Midnight, you don't hear much.

11 o'clock during the week, you don't hear much.

You'll hear a semi every once in a while loud exhaust.

Blah, blah, blah, blah.

But there's a lot here.

They've they've only owned it for a year.

There's a lot there they still have to learn about.

This property has its own characteristics, especially with the flooding issue.

Thank you.

And there will be an issue when the school buses come through.

Do you have something during the day, morning and not uh four o'clock in the evening?

You have all this traffic, school buses, children getting off school buses.

There's gonna be issues there, especially on from my house there and all the way down.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

Okay.

Uh let's proceed to the ballot.

On case 2025-UV3-020 amended, Rod Bohannon votes yes, Percy Bland votes no.

Brian Hannon votes no.

Rihanna Binder votes no, and David Duncan votes yes.

The variance is not granted.

Case number 2025-DV3-027 property address 3303 South State Street.

Perry Township, Council District number 19, zoned D4.

The petitioner is GoPro Investments LLC, represented by David E.

Deering.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a 65-foot wide gravel parking area within the front yard for the parking of three recreational vehicles, parking areas limited to 30 foot width in front yards, maximum two recreational vehicles permitted, hard surfacing required, and a six-foot tall fence within the front yard, maximum three and a half foot tall fence permitted in front yards.

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

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

I did.

Can you pass them out?

Okay.

All right.

Um, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board, I'm David E.

Deering.

My office is at 921 East 86th Street, Sweet 203 in Indianapolis.

I'm here representing GoPro investments.

Um with regard to uh we're seeking variances of development standards with regard to the property that GoPro owns at 3303 South State Avenue.

Uh initially we were seeking uh several variances, but my clients have uh worked uh very hard, extensively reside revised their plans to try to meet the staff's objections.

Uh initially we were seeking a variance to allow the parking of three recreational vehicles in front of the property in contrast to the limit of two that's imposed by the ordinance.

We're withdrawing that aspect of the petition, and uh we will have no more than two recreational vehicles present at any uh given time.

Uh we're also seeking a variance from the uh on on the limit of a the width of a parking area, it's 30 feet.

Uh we were asking for 65 feet.

Uh we've submitted a revised site plan though that cuts the parking area down to the um required maximum.

I mean, uh cuts it down to the maximum of 30 feet.

So that should resolve that as so we were withdrawing that aspect of the of the petition.

Uh staff initially said that we uh needed a variance because the parking service is gravel.

However, this is a single family home, so under the ordinance, gravel surfaces allowed for parking.

So that should resolve that issue.

Uh the staff pointed out that one there are two fences here.

One leg of one of the fences was three and a half feet into the right of way, staff found.

So my clients have committed to cutting that leg back so that it's no longer in the right of way, and that's reflected on the revised site plan that we've submitted.

Um, what's left?

Well, there are two fences for which we're seeking variances.

One fence goes around the home that's uh in the front of the home, the fence is four feet high, six inches above the limit set by the ordinance.

Uh the other fence is six is six feet high, it's farther out in the front yard.

Uh if you look at page 133 of the staff report, uh you see the fence around the house sits way way back from the street.

Uh from the street, you really can't tell if it's three and a half or or four feet.

Um, but those extra six inches are important to the occupants of this home because it helps to ensure that their Bernice Mountain dog doesn't jump the fence and and get out.

Uh the six-foot fence is farther out in the yard.

Uh, that's the one that's where it's part of it's being cut back so it's no longer uh no longer in the right of way.

Uh obviously, with neither fence, is there any concern about the clear site triangle, so there's no safety issue here with either fence.

Both fences are needed here due to the property's unique location.

If you look at the handout I gave, you see the property is very, very close to I-65.

There are thousands of cars that pass this point every day, tens of thousands a month, probably hundreds of thousands every year, all day, every day.

Generates a tremendous amount of noise and dust, particularly the many 18 wheelers that roll that roll by.

The both fences, in particular, the six-foot fence, at least in part, shield the property and its occupants from the noise and the dust and the air pollutants that are generated by I-60 by the vehicles on I-65.

Uh, gives the occupants some relief from the stress and physical harm caused by those conditions.

Now, if I if it if I-65 weren't bad enough, there's also a concrete company located right down the street from this property.

If you look at the handout, in the lower right hand corner, it says we uh printed concrete company.

All those lots that are numbered 3304 are occupied by a concrete company.

It runs trucks in and out of there right up um South State Avenue past my client's property from as early as seven in the morning to as late as 10 at night.

Generates considerable amount of dust and um and noise, particularly dust since it's a concrete operation.

The fence is pr also served to protect the property and its occupants from the noise and dust generated by the concrete truck, concrete company and its trucks.

So the fences are not injurious to the public health and welfare, but in fact, they are acting they actively protect the public health and welfare.

The staff uh says that the fences are inconsistent with the pedestrian-friendly streetscape.

Well, this area is not suitable in the first place for pedestrian traffic.

If you look at the handout, you see that uh State Avenue curves right by my client's property, goes to the right, and then a little short distance away, it did ends right at the concrete company.

Uh again, all those lots, 3304, that's all concrete company.

So aside from the from inhaling the dust in the um in the pollution from I-65, uh, there's no reason why any pedestrian would want to use this area to uh to walk.

Uh the strict application of the zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulties in the use of this property uh for residential purposes because it would prevent the owners from taking reasonable steps to mitigate the noise and dust generated by I-65 and by the concrete company's vehicles.

So I asked you to incorporate our findings of fact into the record and grant these variances.

Now, one of my clients or both of them may want to say something about the work they put into this property.

Hi, thank you all for staying so late.

Um, my name's Melissa Yoberto.

I am co-owner of GoPro Investments.

Um I live at 6638 Cordova Drive, uh, Indianapolis, Indiana.

We purchased this property.

Um it was in very dire straits when we purchased the property.

Um we just we're a small family owned company.

We're just trying to purchase small family homes that we can make suitable and uh affordable living for face, you know, small single single families.

Um rents outrageous anymore to get a decent home.

People are paying almost $2,000 a month.

We are trying to convert these homes to where they're affordable for small families.

Uh that's what we did with this home.

That's that's all we tried to do was just improve the home, um, improve the way it looked in the neighborhood, uh, the family that was going to be living in the home so that it's more suitable for the other neighbors.

We don't have tenants that constantly transfer out.

We have the same tenant that's been in it for three years.

They're very quiet, single family.

Um like my attorney said, they have a Burmese mountain dog, pretty big dog.

Um it does need its its space.

Uh the fence also helps them because their bedroom window is at the very front of the home.

So any time those dump trucks, cement trucks are coming through, they're hearing it.

It it it is loud.

I know a fence doesn't seem like much, but you stand on one side of the fence versus the other side of the fence.

You can't hear a conversation.

Um that that was that was the whole purpose was just to give them a little bit of peaceful living and a nice home to live in.

As a matter of fact, our daughter with her family lives in this home.

And we just wanted it to be safe for them.

And that's why we did the improvements that we thought we were doing with the place.

We in no way intended to do anything in violation, and we're happy to make it as as needed to meet everybody's needs and to meet all standards.

Okay.

Thank you.

Questions for the petitioner.

Okay.

Uh any remonstrators present?

Okay, let's hear from staff.

Sure.

Uh thank you, Acting Chair Hannon, and thank you to V board.

I'd like to thank you, petitioner, for their comments as well.

Um, although we had been in discussion about the extent of variances required for the past couple days of this most updated site plan which received by our offices today at about 11 a.m.

So if some of my comments seem a little scattered, or if I'm saying, oh, that's not applicable anymore, that would be why.

Um recommended the IL of the variances that um have been requested here.

Uh, sounds like I would now be a fence height of four feet within the front yard.

It sounds like they're going to reduce the number of our recreational vehicles within the um parked on site to be compliant.

Um they mentioned it'll also be cutting back the width of the gravel parking area to a compliant 30 feet.

Um staff would note that a variance related to the gravel parking would be needed if and only if um that front yard gravel parking area would involve the parking of um recreational vehicles per use specific standards within the ordinance from chapter 743 associated with the accessory use of recreational vehicle parking.

Um any RVs that are parked within the front yard must be on um you know paved surfaces, not on gravel.

So if that is to be the intent, and that varies we need to stay within the blurred, but it sounds like otherwise this might be able to be cut down to just the fence height and then the um the parking as well.

Uh the current fence says it's constituted is within public right-of-way, but uh the petitioners indicated um by that site plan, they would be moving it out of that area as well.

Uh for context, it's a residential parcel, uh single family home and garage.

They're built into 50s.

Um that's why no variance is needed for the garage being in front of the house's front building line there.

Uh residential use is surrounded otherwise, it's only accessible by local street.

Under site 65 is at a southwest on the other side of State Avenue.

Um, in late 2023 or early 2024, um, that's when the gravel parking area on the site was expanded, and the front yard fence that currently is six feet in height was added.

On a violation case, VIO 25-001550 was opened in April of 2025 by anonymous neighbor complaint about the fence height specifically.

Um the inspector of the site side of the property for parking at recreational vehicles and width of the parking area at the site.

Those were the two violations opened.

Um photograph three within staff's report shows the vehicles that were on the site at the time of their visit um in April, and then photo four shows the measure of the parking width area.

And then photo four shows the measure of the parking width area.

Well, it sounds like that's going to be cut back.

As the third photo shows if you're looking at it, there is one sort of what we think of as an RV that's a full-size camper.

Uh the other two vehicles there are uh trailers per the applicant, uh, the panel truck and trailer shown in that third photograph there.

Uh per the inspector who opened a violation, they don't meet the weight of commercial vehicles and the indication provided by the by who was on site at the time is that they were for personal use, uh specifically for the removal of tree limbs and for the storage of cosplay equipment.

Um there's no longer a variance being requested for this, of course.

Um staff would note that um granted this variance would not, or grant of any variants, not explicitly enumerating that would not allow for either occupancy of the RV or for any commercial uses involved with the site.

There have been some commercial violations at this site in the past in 2023 and 2020.

Um granted this variance, but votes could still be citable if they still existed at the sideable.

It sounds like they are not part of today's request.

Uh, just variance would be for the front yard fence being four feet in height.

Um that's any portion of fence beyond the western front building line established by the house.

Um free 3.5 feet would be required given the current opacity of the wooden fence.

Uh no longer requesting a variance for the parking width or for the RVs.

Gravel parking area would still need to be included.

Um, and obviously the fence would need to be moved out of public right-of-way as well.

I didn't need to be shifted over at least 3.5 feet in addition to having the height removed.

Again, wouldn't allow for commercial use of the site or occupancy of the RV.

Um site zone D4 for low to medium intensity residential uses.

Um the infill housing guidelines discourage privacy fences within front yards for all residential designations.

Um ornamental fences are preferred to allow for walkable uh pedestrian-friendly streetscapes.

This is something that's echoed by the ordinance.

Uh the information provided by the plan of operation and findings was somewhat limited.

A lot of it was about um or it wasn't on the parking of the vehicles, which I guess is now no longer relevant.

Uh, they indicated that the need for defense was based on interstate proximity, um, the current occupants dog and the need for site security.

Um staff would note that legal options would might exist to buffer the property from road noise.

Uh, the addition of landscaping could accomplish that and improve the quality of the streetscape, which lacks much uh green area here.

Uh dispense area also is not enclosed, which seems to uh might somewhat limit the amount of security or uh protection from the dog being provided.

Um let's see, I can skip that.

Talked a bit about the fence already.

Gravel rules on gravel parking exist to avoid negative externalities of dust, mud, or negative drainage impacts, RVs um and other residential type trailer vehicles accessing the site uh without clarity on how frequently they'd be ingressing or egressing could have an impact on local streets, and we think that um having that areas paved would be more appropriate to allow for harmonious development and for protection of locals local streets.

Um for those reasons staff recommends denial of the reduced variants.

We appreciate our willingness to have some of those withdrawn, but still they're not unable to offer support for what remains.

Um moving parts there, so happy to answer questions as as they come up.

Thank you.

Questions for staff.

I have a longer now and everything.

Okay.

Uh well, we'll get clarification on that before we uh vote.

Um petitioner, you have five minutes for rebuttal and a close.

I have a question for counsel.

I mean, don't we need to acknowledge the withdrawal of the portions of the petition that are being withdrawn?

Yeah, I think it'd be prudent at some point to do that.

Uh perhaps before vote.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I think before we vote, we will need clarification on uh what exactly is uh being what's in the final position.

Okay, uh just a couple of points.

Uh those earlier violations relating to commercial vehicles.

That was before my clients owned the property.

So they had they had nothing to do with those.

The uh ornamental fence would be pointless here.

Again, there's really nobody to see it.

Uh State Avenue, as I pointed out, dead ends shortly after he passes my client's property.

This isn't an area this this is not an area where people go out for afternoon or evening strolls it's just not conducive for that because of the concrete company uh and because of I-65.

So uh thank you.

That's all I have.

Unless you have questions.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Okay.

Um I think the board will just make sure we were aware of what we're voting on in all.

If if it impacts um the board's vote, I'll staff would note that a bit there is a concrete business to the southeast that's not operating legally.

Uh, they had submitted a use variant um to one of the boards last year and had it withdrawn.

And had it withdrawn.

So just if that if that provides any helpful context, uh I'd make it different.

They are operating.

I saw them operate when I was out there.

Right.

If they are, it's not legally.

Yeah.

Right.

They've not re received a variance for the that uh use, but um okay.

I'm just want to acknowledge that you've withdrawn the request for the 65-foot wide gravel parking area.

Correct.

You've re withdrawn the request for three recreational vehicles at any one time limited to the 30-foot width in the front yards.

Correct.

And uh can we just can we receive clarification on the hard surface parking that's currently gravel?

Yes.

My understanding is that if recreational vehicles are to be parked in that area within the front yard, the variants would need to stay under request.

Okay, and then so we'd have that, and then we'd have the six-foot-tall fence.

Correct.

Right there.

So it sounds like some portions are going to be reduced to four, and some would be staying at six.

Would the wording of the variance be six-foot fence in the front yard throughout?

Or I guess just maybe clarifying which portions of the fence will be at which height could be helpful.

There are two there are two fences.

Let me clarify that.

One fence goes around the house.

Uh it's a four-sided fence, except that where the garage interrupts it.

The second fence sits further out toward this towards the street.

That's a six-foot fence.

So we're not planning to cut down either of those.

We're cutting the six-foot fence back lengthwise so that it's out of the right-of-way.

Okay.

Okay.

So there would be six-foot fence still within the front yard.

So yes.

Okay.

And then you're still asking to be able to store two recreational vehicles on gravel in the front yard.

I'm not sure what provision of the ordinance staff is referring to referring to that requires of a paved surface for recreational vehicles.

Um, but they're getting rid of the recreational vehicles anyway.

Oh.

Well, if all three are being removed, then the need for gravel parking variants wouldn't be required.

I am pulling up the specific language now, just as it pleases the board.

Uh, this comes from 743-306.

A dot a dot two.

Sorry, that's a long citation.

But I it says, and I quote, no part of any such vehicle, in this case being recreational vehicle, shall be parked outside in the front yard, other than on the hard surfaced area of the driveway or interior access drive.

Uh staff's interpretation of that language would be that uh parking of rec front yard recreational vehicles on the gravel services would not be allowed by ordinance.

Okay, sorry, I understand that.

Okay, so are you so we're we're not seeking a variance of the requirement for paved parking for recreational vehicles because they're getting rid of the recreational vehicles.

Okay.

So um, my understanding just leaves the fences.

Okay.

Okay.

So I think we need to acknowledge the withdrawal of the right.

Yeah.

Okay.

So acknowledged, and that and we will just be voting on a variance um for the fence height in the front yard.

Yes.

Okay.

Is that uh everyone good?

Okay.

Uh we'll proceed to voting.

On case 2025-DV3-027, Rod Bohannon votes yes, Percy Bland votes yes, Brian Hannon votes yes, Rihanna Binder votes yes, and David Duncan votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Thank you.

Case number two zero two five-UV three-022 property address six five two zero east eighty-second street.

Lawrence Township, Council District Number 4, Zoned C3.

The petitioner is CIL Castleton LLC, represented by Patrick Rooney.

Thank you.

Variance of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the installation of a 30-foot-tall illuminated pole sign.

Pull signs and internal illumination not permitted, being the seventh freestanding sign along East 82nd Street within 116 and 273 feet of other freestanding signs.

Maximum of two signs permitted per frontage per lot, 300 foot separation required.

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

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

I do.

Good afternoon.

My name is Pat Rooney with an office at 1638 Shelby Street, suite 101 on behalf of CIL Castleton LC with regards to case number 2025 UV 3022 for the property at 6520 East 82nd Street.

We are requesting approval of the variants for use and development standards for the illuminated pole sign.

But please note that is further described in staff's report and as shown in the packets.

Petitioners merely requesting an additional sign panel on the existing pole sign.

This is a small strip center with six tenants, and the petitioner's business is tucked back from the road and obscured by the building and the existing pole sign.

The poll sign was originally approved and designed with lighting.

The lighting is not currently operational, but petitioner will repair the lighting by just replacing the existing bulbs when it adds the sign panel so the sign will be bat backlit.

But none of the existing panels will change, and the petitioner's panel and the existing panels will be static, non-EVMS.

Uh petitioner representative Taabed will now speak towards the issues created by the lack of the sign panel and the need for the sign panel.

Hello, my name is Taha.

Address is 13431, All American Road, Fisher's Indiana 46037.

So essentially we have multiple customers coming in or calling daily.

Where are you guys?

We can't find you.

Even they can't find us.

We've had packages get lost.

I had a delivery last month for $3,000 completely get lost.

Thankfully, it was found.

But the issue is that people are just driving by, missing out on potential business, plus just not being able to establish ourselves within the community and get to know everybody that's there and just place a name for ourselves.

And essentially that's the gist of it.

Just to help us establish ourselves and be known that we're there for retail and get people to know us.

There are no remonstrators.

Staff cites the existing signage along 82nd Street as a reason to deny the petition.

However, the additional signage creates the need for the variance, and it is patently unfair to allow all the other retail businesses adequate signage by means of pull signs for their individual businesses and prohibit petitioner from merely adding one panel to an existing poll sign.

Staff also cites two other tenants in the subject property not having panels on the sign.

However, these tenants are a salon and an attorney office, not traditional retail businesses like the tenants, and these tenants are not tucked behind the poll sign and the building, so their businesses are more visible from the road.

Petitioners proposal will have negligible change on the total amount of signage on 82nd Street, but it will have a tremendous impact on the petitioner's business.

For all these reasons, um we respectfully request approval of this petition, and I will save the rest for rebuttal.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions for the petitioner?

Okay, any remonstrators present.

Okay, let's hear from staff.

Sure.

Uh thanks once again uh to acting chair and to the board.

Uh thank I'd like to thank the petitioner for their presentation and for sticking around so long.

Um staff is recommending denial of this petition that would result in the expansion of a non-conforming sign with a lack of identifiable practical difficulty that's being placed along a quarter of it.

Um as mentioned, this site is improved with a commercial multi-tenant structure.

Uh, this petition is being sought by a smoke shop user if it recently occupied the tenant space service to the west of the building.

Uh, they received a permit for a roof integral building sign in 2024.

Uh, this property is also improved with a multi-tenant sign if it's utilized by some tenants within the complex, uh, donut shop, cell phone store, and car rental, but uh not by two others of law firm beauty salon as mentioned by the petitioner.

Uh this is along the 82nd Street corridor.

It's a large multi-tenant integrated center where space from center unroads at a west to Craig Street to the east would be a shared frontage with a maximum number of signs permitted, uh including this sign seven total exists.

Others and exhibit that NOAA has pulled up right there, showing the diagram of the separation.

Um, if any of those signs were to seek expansion of their square footage, they would also be subject to the need for a variance.

Um were legalized by variants.

Uh the Fizzoli's sign was legalized in 1997, O'Reilly's in 1999.

Uh, some of which may have existed before our rules existed in their current state.

Uh this petition um wouldn't remove or fully replaced the existing sign, and apologies there was any confusion about that, but it would expand it by a new tenant panel per V elevation that was circulated.

Uh, since this would be an expansion of a legally non-conforming sign, uh full compliance with current ordinance standards would be required, and that's why there is mention of you know pole sign illumination within C3.

Um, those rules didn't exist at the time of installation, but they now do exist.

Uh there's also rules about the number of signs along shared frontages and the proximity of primary free sending sign stuff or ones that is a a little more of more concern to staff here.

As mentioned, there's six other signs along this approximately one thousand linear foot stretch of the closest signs are 273 linear feet away to the east and then 116 feet away to the less to the west.

Um the max contemplated for shared front is two signs with 300 foot separation of this current commercial center does not really come close to meeting that.

Um billboard signs, um, off-premises advertising wouldn't count toward that seven sign total, but uh staff would know that there is an off-premise sign approximately 70 feet to the northwest.

If that counted, this would be eight.

Uh, this is an area that's congested with signage by any objective measure.

Uh staff would also note that some temporary signs have been placed by the tenant.

Um there is an air dancer as well as um some banner signage and and freestanding ones that were noticed within Google Street View.

It doesn't appear that those were permitted.

Uh, Vesparians wouldn't approve them.

It would just be 4V poll sign.

Uh, those would be potentially subject to violation if they remained at the site.

Uh as property zoned C3, Complane recommends it for community commercial, low medium intensity commercial retail type uses um as the surrounding context shows.

Um it's not a plan that's formally adopted by the city, but staff would note that the uh Castleton strategic revitalization plan approved in 2020, uh which was and developed by the surrounding neighborhood, uh, noted the specifically sign clutter along this specific corridor, uh, which are called a chaotic streetscape.

Uh that plan recommends consolidating signage and limiting it to buildings as well as to uh multi-tenant monument signs, and that um existing poll and billboard signs could be retired as redevelopment occurs.

Again, that's not formally adopted, but just to sort of give some broader context.

Um findings from the applicant indicate that a new panel edition would be required to allow for their business to advertise and then an economic hardship would result since other tenants are able to advertise on the multi-tenant sign and they cannot.

Um as mentioned within the report and by the petitioner, there are at least two businesses within this center that also don't currently have tenant panel spaces.

It seems that options could exist to either modify the existing tenant sign to allow for more panels without a square footage increase, or to proceed with other legal means of advertising.

Either the approved roof integral sign um of a reform non-signed forms of advertising and the like.

Uh we were contacted by the BIN for redevelopment and growth uh group about this petition.

Um I don't believe they formed a formal petition.

They're not in opposition to it, at least I think they're just asking questions about how it was noticed.

Um yeah, and the expansion of the sign would forfeit the legally non-conforming status, and given the level of sign congestion already, staff doesn't feel that additional proliferation along this corridor would be appropriate.

And that's why we're recommending denial.

Um happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you.

Questions for staff okay.

Petitioner, you have five minutes.

I'll keep this briefer than that.

Uh it's been a long afternoon, but uh would just say when staff has talked about the potential of other tenants reducing their sign panels so that petitioner could fit in the existing structure.

That is impossible due to both the cost and the necessary third-party approvals, which petitioner would be unable to obtain.

And this shouldn't be necessary because even after the proposed panel is added, the poll sign will still meet all the height and size requirements and will still be elevated enough to avoid issues or obstructed views.

Um I would just like to reiterate that petitioner is just seeking to add a single panel to an existing sign poll.

But for changes to the zoning ordinance over the years, the sign has the 30 plus years of sign has been on the subject property.

A variance would not be necessary.

But because even with the additional sign panel, the sign meets the size requirements and the sign has always been backlit and it just needs new light bulbs or ballastes.

Granting this petitioner will merely provide a single sign panel to a retail business to avoid confusion to customers and the loss of business.

So we just respectfully request that this petition is approved.

Thank you.

Questions?

Yeah, really quick question or clarity.

Is any of any other panels on this sign currently lit up?

Do they like?

They are not currently.

They have been for years, but the bulbs are just dead.

And so when they um if we get approval and we add this sign panel, they're gonna replace those bulbs at the same time.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Okay, thanks.

Let's uh proceed to vote.

On case 2025-UV3-022, Rob Bohannan votes yes, Percy Bland votes no, Brian Hannon votes yes, Rihanna Binder votes yes, and David Duncan votes no.

The variance is granted.

Thank you.

Case number two zero two five-UV3-024 property address 10859 East Washington Street, Warren Township, Council District number 20, zoned C4 TOD.

The petitioner is East Washington Real Estate LLC, represented by Andy Metzel.

Variants of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the operation of a furniture warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution facility, not permitted, and a chain link fence with a height of six feet within the front and side yards, maximum fence height of three and a half feet permitted within front yards, chain link fencing disallowed within front yards, and coding required in side yards.

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

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

I do.

Thank you.

Well, last but not least, right?

Thank you so much for your patience.

We've been uh holding up the back of the the auditorium this evening.

Um my name is Andy Metzel.

I'm an attorney at the Taft Law Firm 1 Indiana Square Suite 3500, 46204.

It is my pleasure to be the last item on your docket this evening and to talk with you on behalf of East Washington Real Estate LLC.

Um it is an affiliated entity with University Loft Company, so you've each been provided with a booklet of materials.

You'll see the university loft logo there, and that's what uh that is for.

Um, and I wanted to explain to you that uh first and foremost, university loft will be the owner and the operator at this location.

So it will not be a leased property.

They will be operating at this location and investing significantly should they be approved this evening.

Um the property is located at 10895 East Washington.

Again, University Loft Company to give you some background.

I have some very important people with me this evening.

Um, Mr.

Jeff Carlson is the president of University Loft, Mr.

Spencer King is also the vice president of finance.

Um they're here to answer any questions that I'm not able to about operations or otherwise.

Uh, this is a significant investment to try to bring University Loft back into Marion County.

Uh for those of you who are not familiar with this company, its owner was a cathedral high school grad, and he designed his first loft furniture in his dorm room in 1984-ish.

Um he has turned it into a burgeoning company.

They do business with now more than 1,200 universities and colleges around the country.

Uh, they have significant operations in Tennessee and also in Indiana currently, but they're looking to restore their roots back in Marion County and want to return to Washington Township, or excuse me, I said that Warren Township specifically.

Now the use variants, I'll concentrate on that first.

There was a prior use variance granted for this property.

So if you look at your cover, that's the property here located in blue.

To the east is immediately a Walmart Supercenter.

To the west is a self-storage facility, German Church Road.

Also runs, I said the other west, to the east and the self-storage facility.

There is an area map at Tab 2.

If you kindly look at that, it's a little bit easier to see.

You can see that the Penzi Trail, that's been a topic of discussion in today's hearings.

The Penzie Trail runs immediately to the south.

And then there's Washington Street to the north.

This property is buffered by retail outlots that actually are situated between Washington Street and this business.

This building itself was a former Sam's Club.

And so it closed, the Sams Club closed back in 2018.

It is improved with a very large 130, it's called 135,000 square foot building that is a single-story building.

We'll talk a little bit about the details of that building and what makes this site very unique and also very challenging in some ways for other types of operators.

But there you can see in that, you can see the Walmart here to the west.

You can see the self-storage that is immediately to the east, and then there's an IPL utility station that is just across German Church.

So a lot of large big box type operations that are all located situated right in a row there along the trail.

University Loft did provide staff with a plan of operations.

That's in tab three of your materials.

I want to stress that this investment into this property is in the millions of dollars.

The operations to be located there will be completed along with some improvements to the facade, which are desperately needed.

We'll talk about that when you can see some photos of the facade if you're not familiar.

But the plan of operations is almost uh it's in some ways similar to the prior use variants that was granted back in 2020.

That use variance was for a specific user, so it was to allow a playground equipment manufacturer and distributor to be located in this same location.

Clearly, University Loft doesn't manufacture playground equipment, although some college students may treat it differently.

So but the plan of operations is in some ways, as I said, strikingly similar.

There will be no outdoor operations.

This is only indoor warehousing, light assembly, office uses.

And so office is something that is unique because there are no windows at all in this building.

So just by default, there need to be some improvements just to make sure that employees are happy and that they stay, and that they're really creating a sense of place at this location because they're not moving in as a tenant to be a fly by night.

This is a long-term investment into Warren Township, intended to be there for a very long time.

At tab four, I want to focus on the existing conditions of the building and location.

At tab four, you'll see at the top there's a photograph of the former SAMS Club building, and as I mentioned previously, no windows.

There are very few sites that actually don't have windows.

You know, we're talking about prisons and things that are usually less attractive.

Um, while the comprehensive plan and even transportation overlay district would contemplate things like residential or office or entertainment spaces in this particular area, it's really not suitable.

There's only can have so many entertainment spaces.

And quite frankly, for office or residential, this site is just not suitable for either.

It is uh, as I mentioned, there's in the lower picture, there's the Walmart self-storage.

You can see that the property is also built up all the way to the south borderline.

Um, you know, University of Law folks didn't build it, they're just trying to make an adaptive reuse of it.

Another thing within the transportation overlay district is a strict requirement that parking not be located in the front yard.

But guess what?

For any user to use this building, there is no parking in the backyard.

There's nothing for them to use.

You have to, by default, use the parking that's in the front yard.

And so we're trying to make the best most attractive use of that parking in the front yard, and that'll be a little bit different.

I would say a lot different than what's been done previously.

But we definitely want to focus on that when we get to the development standards variants.

The second page in that tab four provides you with some measurements that I think are critical in trying to understand this site in best context.

The building itself is situated almost 500 linear feet back from Washington.

Again, I already mentioned that those retail outlots are occupied by retail buildings, which do provide a lot of screening and buffering so that you don't immediately see the building itself.

But one thing that is incredibly unique about this particular area, that's your bottom picture here.

Beginning at some of these commercial retail outlots, all the way across as you travel this parking lot past the Walmart Super Center, past the former SAMS Club building, past the self-storage, you have an expansive hard surface parking area that you don't find in most places.

In fact, I found it challenging to find one that isn't something like a giant shopping mall.

It's approximately 2,216 linear feet of parking area.

There is very little to no landscaping islands or anything that would interrupt traffic, and I dare I put it in anybody's mind if they haven't thought about it.

Use of this like kind of a drag strip.

So the idea for us to put in the landscaping that is required by the ordinance, which we absolutely will agree with, is something that is not only necessary to protect the business, but it's it's necessary for a lot of operations, and also the development standards variants, which we are requesting for the fenced parking, primarily related to this configuration here, this expansive use of parking and really no interrupters.

So it's allowing all these operations to sort of bleed together.

One of the comments we heard from Warren Township Development Association at the meeting was one of the neighbors saying they couldn't believe how many carts collect on the area properties around the Walmart.

And so we're trying to avoid that from happening by creating more landscaping buffer and also a secured fence area to protect this property and this user as well.

Another photo that I'll show you, which is the next page.

You can see this was actually from the staff report.

I actually took that photograph there.

This is the Walmart Super Center.

Walmart actually has a chain link fence located around its seasonal outdoor operations immediately adjacent to this property.

That fence, as best I can tell, you can see it a little clearer in the in the bottom photo, is about 10 feet.

I haven't measured it myself, but it appears just based on the car height and the height there in that photograph to be about 10 feet.

This is a good time to probably talk about the development standards variants we're seeking.

I will say that the use variants being so similar in some ways to the prior use variants that was granted, it is recommended unanimously by the Warren Township Development Center or Development Association, excuse me.

It is recommended by our council member Michael Paul Hart, who's been very engaged and interested in this project from the outset.

But I want to focus on the development standards variants because that's the one that staff is also recommending denial of.

But University Loft knows and recognizes that it doesn't need that expansive parking area.

They're proposing to reduce the parking in the front yard, and it would be surrounded by the approximately in the area of the green line.

And that would allow parking for approximately 85 employees plus site visitors.

Now they don't have 85 employees every single day, but during really busy seasons when they're gearing up for colleges to start and universities to start, they will have more employees, and they also want the opportunity to grow a little bit and not outgrow the size.

So they are proposing that reduced uh parking area.

And then if you kindly turn to tab seven, what you'll see there is the materials that they're proposing to use, which are superior in quality and appearance, I think, to typical chain link.

The chain link that was installed by the prior user was not even vinyl coated, it was silver, which is also not allowed.

Coated vinyl or vinyl coated chain link is permitted in the front yard in this zoning district.

The front yard would only be three feet in height.

As a reasonable compromise, they are requesting a five-foot fence, so not that six foot tall fence, but a five-foot fence around their parking area made of this type of material.

I believe staff, just as a point of clarification, mentioned in cast iron in their staff report.

And um, I don't even know where you can get cast iron fence nowadays, but but it's lovely, it would cost probably about a million dollars.

Um but but it would be metal quality fence by a professional fence installer.

They would also reduce the number of security gates to two.

There are currently four.

So what we're really talking about is bringing that parking area into something that is very usable, it creates a sense of placemaking, it's safer for employees.

I want to differentiate this site from what is retail, you know.

Retail parking has constant traffic in and out, in and out.

People always with eyes on, watching, seeing who's getting into cars, who's who's doing something they shouldn't be doing.

When you have an employment context where you have people who are hopefully diligently pursuing their job and paying attention and working during the day, and maybe not even coming outside for lunch, who knows what's happening to their vehicles when they're outside.

So we do think that there is a need, we know there's a need to keep parking secure in this site.

We know that we don't want to have campers, trucks, and cars doing takeovers of parking lots during the evening hours.

We think this the fence will help that.

The fence will also serve as a speed calming device and a traffic calming because it will be visible.

You can see it much better than the chain link that's currently there.

Uh we've proposed at tab seven a number of commitments that we're willing to enter into.

I want to note without bouncing all over the place.

We are in agreement with the proposed commitments from staff with regard to the use variants.

No issue there.

But we are agreeing and proposing these commitments that are at tab seven with regard to the development standards to allow us to have this fence.

What we know is that it's going to cost a significant amount of money to reconstruct that facade of the building to make it something appealing and attractive.

We'd like to be able to use that existing chain link fence because it's not just sitting there, it's been installed in the hard surface.

Like to use that just during the course of construction, as soon as construction is over.

But those should give you an idea of the commitments, and we respectfully request your approval.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Questions?

I do have one.

Uh, with respect to the proposed commitments for the fence.

Yes.

Um, would you also consider no pinch points on the spear top on the top of the fencing?

Um, can you clarify what you mean by that?

So it's it's the top of the fence.

Each each little spindle has like a spear on top that makes it look like a minimum maximum security prison.

I don't I don't think that the fence that um they've looked at, and it it's really hard to tell in these photos because they're so far away.

Um let me see if I have a better one in here.

Um I don't believe that there are pinch points at the top of this.

Yeah, and so the the difference is it would just be like a rectangle that's versus into a point.

I don't think that that's what you guys like that.

No, I I uh I know what you're asking for.

Yeah, I mean the black books looks like zero.

Yeah, uh, thank you.

I have one more quick question too.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Um I see that you kind of emphasize this idea toward office space and really place making and making sure it's kind of has that type of facility feel.

Right.

Looking at the plan of operations, I see that bullet point there, 10% of the building use office space, 10% of assembly operations, and then 80% of warehousing operations.

And I imagine that that has to do with delivery, pick off, uh, pickup and drop off and that stores type of thing.

Could you explain kind of what that piece of it looks like?

Is that heavy semi traffic flow?

What just does that 80% operations warehousing intake?

And that's a really good question, and I'm glad you ask it.

As far as the interior space is concerned, there will be storage, and it is furniture.

So some light assembly that's involved with that.

And furniture is not the kind of thing that you can necessarily stack on top of each other before it breaks or gets too high.

So it does require square footage to do that.

So that's the large portion of the building, 80%.

There is a small retail component that would actually invite the public.

There's dedicated parking for that retail that is on the southwest side of the building.

There are 11 independent spaces that would not be secured that allow folks to come and visit.

And the office is approximately 10,000 square feet.

But that's really all they need.

As far as truck traffic and deliveries, I don't think that there's a significant amount of truck traffic that comes in and out on a daily basis.

But you can you want to describe that?

You can come up here and introduce yourself if you want.

So the majority of our business is in the college and university higher education market.

And typically those deliveries and those installations take place between May and August, being when the residence halls and the student departments are more or less emptied out.

So the way we were configuring our business and utilizing the space on East Washington, I would for say in our peak season, uh truckloads that are going to be picking up would be possibly about six, six to eight a day.

More so from June to August.

But on a daily rate on the non summer months, non-core months, probably an activity of maybe two to three trucks a day.

Monday through Friday.

Thank you so appreciate that.

And and one of the things that is interesting about this building is it has uh dock doors only on uh the west side of the building.

Those are just regular uh rolling dock doors, but our delivery dock doors are on the zero.

There are six truck delivery doors.

South east southeast, and then there are regular overhead doors.

I apologize on the west side.

So this isn't configured to be some huge manufacturing facility that has nonstop truck traffic.

It literally is more warehousing and assembly than anything else.

It's just not conducive to that type of user.

Another thing that makes the building challenging to fill.

You know, it's just not suitable for a whole lot of different types of operations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um let's hear from Steph.

Sure.

Uh thank you, Acting Chairperson for the final time.

Uh, thank you to petitioner as well for their testimony.

Uh staff's recommending approval of the use variants within this approximately 135 square foot building, and we are recommending denial of the variants related to placement of the front yard fence.

Uh the site is developed with a large commercial structure, as mentioned.

The current user is a playground equipment wholesaler, which is uh apparently winding down their operations.

Uh the variance that they received um for this site a few years ago was only applicable for that specific type of wholesaler, being the playground equipment per view approval letter.

I was also conditioned on the addition of internal landscaping, uh, which has not as of yet occurred to the site.

So the current user is technically non-compliant in that regard.

Um this site is within V TOD secondary zoning districts because of its proximity to a future blue line stop, uh, BRT stop.

That would be near for Walmart just to the northwest.

Um that overlay has comprehensive plan suggestions and ordinance regulations to allow for pedestrian-oriented development.

Um it's an exciting project with staff's full support.

Uh wholesaling uses or warehousing uses are allowed within heavy commercial and industrial zonings, typically, that would be the RC7 zoning district as well as industrial zones.

Um it's also permitted when vacant more than five years within C5 zoning as well.

So if the building has been vacant for more than five years, it could be utilized for those purposes.

Um this is within C4, it doesn't have that permitted wear vacancy language, and it hasn't been vacant for five years either.

So that's why the variance of use is needed.

Uh TOD areas are typically not compatible with heavy commercial or industrial sites.

Um obviously, this isn't a perfect TOD fit, but it's not a perfect TOD area given the extent of about building size, paving, separation from the frontage, et cetera.

So staff use this as more of a transitional use for the area.

Um per our requested commitment uh for granted that variance would be limited to a specific to this specific tenant.

So any future wholesalers would also need petition approval.

That's something to which they've agreed.

Uh the proposed use would utilize 80% of the structure for warehousing as as um Trevor's or Chairman Bland noted.

Minor accessory uses of assembly offices and about a thousand square feet of retail sales area as well.

Uh staff is supportive of this adaptive reuse based on that commitment limited to the university lofts user and commitments that they would make improvements to the site in two areas.

The first of that would be bicycle parking for the proposed retail area, given this site's TOD context and proximity to the Penzi Trail to the south.

There isn't direct access from the trail to this site, but it runs along the southern portion of the integrated center.

The petitioner also agreed to equipment about the addition of landscaping islands and trees to meet ordnance requirements from 744-505 of our ordinance.

That would be 6% of the vehicle area with landscaped areas and then one tree per 180 square feet of that area.

Some currently exists.

I'm not certain that it meets the 6% threshold, but if it's below 6%, they've agreed to add more.

And staff is appreciative of that.

We support the use variants for those reasons.

However, we do recommend denial of the fence variants.

The previous tenant added this fence to the property.

Chainlink is disallowed within front yards, and it's only allowed if coded with slats or some sort of colored material within side yards.

That work wasn't done by this proposed wholesaler.

Staff would view it as a self-imposed practical difficulty, even if the initial work had been undertaken by the previous tenant, although it is obviously a little unfortunate.