I'm going to call this meeting to order.

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

I'm Joanna Taft, Chairperson of Division III.

The other board members present today are Rod Bohannon, Percy Bland Jr., Brian Hannon, and Rihanna Binder.

Legal counsel for the board today is Chris Steinmetz.

Staff members present today from the Division of Planning are Eddie O'Neilla, current planning administrator, Robert Ulanha, Senior Planner, Michael Weigel, Senior Planner, Noah Stern, Senior Planner, and Marty Weistee, 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 seated, standing and be sworn.

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

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

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

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

Staff will then present the administrator's comments regarding the petition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The installation of landscaping screening, the paving of parking area, and the dedication of rights away 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 approved by the by an affidavit of compliance submitted by the petitioner within 30 days of completion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Board members, you've been provided meeting minutes for our September 15th, 2025 meeting.

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

Any motion.

Bohan is so moved.

I need a second.

I'll pull the board.

Yes.

Bland.

Yes.

Bohannon.

Yes.

Binder.

Yes.

Taft.

Yes.

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

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.

Bohan is so moved.

I need a second.

Hannon's second.

I'm going to now poll the board.

Hannon.

Yes.

Bland.

Bland, yes.

Bohannon.

Yes.

Binder.

Yes.

Taft.

We will consider special requests and continuances at this time.

Our reading in order.

Good afternoon, Chairman Taft, members of the board.

My name is David Gilman.

My address is 211 South Ritter Avenue Suite H.

I represent the ninth petition on your agenda today.

2025 D V three zero two eight with the address of 1305 Lichtenberg Road.

We have um submitted uh an amended site plan to the staff.

Staff is in agreement, I think is recommending approval.

We have no known remonstrators.

We have uh neighborhood support, and we would ask that you would uh allow us to move this uh petition to your expedite to docket.

Is there anyone in the audience who is interested in 2025 DV3028 and is against continuance?

I'm sorry, it's got against the expedited.

Okay, let's hear from staff.

Three trippers and TAF members.

The board staff is recommending approval and is not um aware of any remonstrance, so we have no objection to moving this to the expedited.

Okay.

Um so I need a motion.

Blance I'll move.

Need a second.

Bohan is second.

I'll pull the board poll the board.

Hannon.

Yes.

Land?

Yes.

Bohannon?

Yes.

Binder, yes.

Taft, yes.

Um 2025 DV3 028 has been moved to our expedite case.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Justin Kingan, address 618 East Market Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202 here before you today regarding petition 2025 DV3029, which is the second item on your agenda.

We're requesting a one-month continuance during your November 25th hearing.

Um, this will we're making changes to the site plan as well as doing a little bit more research on the site itself.

This one month continuance will allow us to do so.

We don't believe that we'll be needing to send out any additional notice as our previous request will not change.

Um be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Okay, is there anyone in the audience who has interested in 2025 DV3029?

And is against continuous.

All right, let's let's hear from staff.

Thank you, Chairperson Taft, members of the board.

Staff has no objection to the continuance request, and that would be without new notice unless uh any revisions require it.

Okay.

I don't have our calendar in in my folder.

Is the 25th?

Is that correct?

Thanks giving.

Because of the holiday.

Okay, so great.

Okay, that's good for my calendar, right?

I need to know that.

Okay, um, I need a motion.

Oh Han is so move.

I need a second.

Hannon second.

I'm gonna pull the board.

Hannon.

Yes, land, land, yes, bohannon.

Yes, bender, yes, Taft, yes.

Uh 2025 D V three zero two nine has been continued to our November 25th hearing.

Great, thank you.

And then once again, Justin King and address 618 East Market Street.

Um, here before you regarding petition 2025 D V three zero one six, which is your the eighth um item on your agenda.

We are requesting a two-month continuance for this uh petition.

We understand it's been continued a few different times.

Uh one for an end of or twice, I'm sorry, for an indecisive vote uh once by the petitioner himself, um, so that he can retain legal counsel.

We've been involved with it for a month now.

Um we are making changes to the site plan that is on file.

We believe we'll be um amending our variance request, and therefore new notice would be needed needed to be sent out so that two months continuance would allow for those things to occur.

We also need to meet with the neighborhood organization that's um affected by this petition.

Uh so again, two-month continuance to your December 16th hearing dates.

That would be with additional notice and uh happy to answer any questions you may have.

Is there anyone in the audience who is interested in 2025 DB 3016 and is against the continuance?

Okay, let's hear from staff.

Sure.

Uh thank you, Chapperson Taft members of the board.

Uh for clarity, the first continuance petition was from an indecisive vote that happened in June of this year.

Uh, since then the applicant made a continuance request from July to September due to them being out of town, uh, September to October in order to retain legal counsel, and then this would be the uh third continuance request made going from October to December.

It would be the third overall continuance request made and would result in a period of six full months since the petition has last been discussed.

Uh the new info has not yet been provided.

It sounds like it relates to a potential desire to redevelop the site in the future for mixed use development and potential for a commitment limiting the grant of the variance to two years.

Uh staff have been unaware that there is uh contemplation of amending the variance potentially for a blower height or something else of that regard.

Um the proposed commitment of admin be two years or a change in land use wouldn't impact staff's recommendation on the petition is currently proposed.

Um we'd recommend denial of defense regardless of auto sales per divariance or if it is mixed use in the future, and also if it was temporary or permanent.

Um staff would be ready to proceed today, but would leave it up to the board's discretion.

Okay.

Um so we need a motion.

Bohan and so move.

Is there a second?

Hannon second.

I'm gonna pull the board, Hannon.

Yes.

Bohannon.

Bohan, yes.

Bender, yes.

Taft, yes.

2025 D V three zero one six has been continued to our December 16th hearing.

Great, thank you.

With notice chairperson taft members of the board.

Staff will draw your attention to item number three, petition 2025 DV3028.

Located at 12 55 Roosevelt Road.

Petitioner has indicated that they plan to refile this petition as a rezoning petition.

Um that needs to that should be done prior to dismissing or withdrawing this petition uh to staff's knowledge that has not been done or was just recently done, um, but not at time of publication, therefore this staff is requesting this petition be continued one month to the November 25th, 2025 hearing to allow the time for the petitioner to refile that.

If it is not refiled at that time, then staff will highly recommend this petition be withdrawn.

Thank you.

Is there anyone in the audience who has an interest in 2025 UV 3028 and is against the continuance?

Um I need a motion.

Well, Hannah so move.

I need a second.

Hannon second.

I'm gonna pull the board, Hannon?

Yes, Bland, yes.

Bohannon?

Yes.

Binder, yes, Taft, yes.

2025 UV 3028 has been continued to our um November hearing.

Thank you, Chairperson Taft, members of the board.

Uh uh staff would draw your attention to item number five on the agenda 2025 UV three zero two nine at 5950 South Belmont.

Um staff is recommending approval and this is on the expedited portion of your docket.

However, um the affidavit of notice submitted indicates that a two-day waiver of notice requirements would be needed.

Um given that the primary reason for this need was delay in staff provision of notice materials.

We would have no objection to the waiver, but it would need to be formally requested.

Okay.

Is there anyone or are you presenting on this?

Yeah, uh me Sha Rabinoway's here on behalf of the petitioner.

Thank you, Michael, for the reminder.

One Indiana Square Suite 1800.

We did receive the notice late, so we're asking for a two-day waiver of the um of notice period.

Okay.

Is there anyone in the audience who's interested in 2025 UV 3029 and is against the two-day waiver?

Okay, I need a motion.

I need a second.

Bohan is second.

I'm gonna pull the board.

Hannon.

Yes.

Bohannon?

Bohanon, yes.

Bender?

Yes.

Taft, yes.

2025 UV 3029 has been continued to, I'm sorry, has received the two-day waiver and is on next.

Yes.

Uh staff would also draw your attention to item number 12 on the agenda at 455 for all's court.

Um, this is part of the full docket.

It also requires a small waiver of notice requirements of three days.

Um staff would have no objection to that waiver request, but it would need to be formally made of the board.

Um, and for similar reasons, delay in provision of notice materials.

Okay.

Is there anyone in the audience who's interested in 2025 DV3032 and is against a three-day waiver?

Um I need a motion.

Hannon so moved.

I need a second.

Bohan and second.

I'm gonna pull the board.

Hannon.

Yes.

Bohannon.

Bohanon, yes.

Binder, yes.

Taft, yes.

Uh 2025 DV3032 has been granted a three-day waiver.

All right, and last one, I apologize.

Staff would draw your attention to item number 13 on the agenda 2025 D V three zero three three.

Uh, this petition is said for full hearing, but it would require a four-day waiver of the notice requirements.

Staff has no objection to that request given the circumstances, but it would need to be formally approved by the board as well.

Okay.

Is there anyone in the audience who's interested in 2025 D V three zero three three and is against a four-day waiver?

I need a motion.

Hannon so moved.

I need a second.

Bohan and second.

I'm gonna pull the board.

Hannon.

Yes.

Bland?

Yes.

Bohannon.

Bohanon, yes.

Bender, yes.

Taft.

2025 D V three zero three three has been granted a four-day waiver.

Thank you, Chairperson Taft.

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

2025 D V 3020 amended at 4102 Madison Avenue.

A timely automatic continuance has been filed by a registered neighborhood organization continuing this to the November 25th hearing.

And that would just require the board's acknowledgement.

It is acknowledged.

Thank you.

And staff would also draw your attention to item number four.

Staff would just like to note a small change in the request.

This is on the expedited docket.

With the revised site plan showing compliance with sidewalk installation, that portion of the request is to be removed.

And then secondly the construction of a freestanding building with a two-foot front yard setback is to be revised to say 25 feet per the revised site plan.

So to just recap the request should read variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning subdivision ordinance provide for the construction of a freestanding building with a 25-foot front yard setback from Kitley Avenue, 60 feet required without required landscaping.

And then lastly staff would just note that the approval recommendation for the deficient landscaping is subject to the uh filed uh the submitted landscape plan uh which is in the staff report.

Okay.

And I just acknowledge that, or you just what is my response?

Uh yes, to acknowledge the withdrawal of the sidewalk installation request and the revision to 25 feet setback.

It is acknowledged.

Thank you.

And then lastly, uh staff would draw your attention to item number seven, 2025 SE2003 uh at 21 Virginia Avenue.

Staff had previously uh received um remonstration emails on this case.

Staff is recommending approval, so would just ask that the board poll the audience to see if there is any uh remonstration present.

Are there any remonstrators here for 2025 SE203?

I don't know.

Am I a remonstrator?

Are you against it or are you or add some additional context first?

Well it was not moving back for that.

So we wouldn't expedite or is the petitioner here?

Do they want to go out and talk?

Petitioner is I guess are you able to speak to what I brought me in right?

Okay, ma'am.

Why don't you please come up to the microphone and we can have a discussion?

Sorry for any confusion.

Hi everybody, I'm Karin Haley.

I'm the executive director of the Indianapolis Cultural Trail.

Um the cultural trail creates, inspires, and sustains connections and cultural experiences that are accessible to all, and is both a 501c3 nonprofit and a world or class internationally recognized linear park, the Indianapolis Cultural Trail, a legacy of G.

So wait a minute.

We're not what are we doing now?

Am I on the wrong?

I thought I hold on a second.

Uh no, I I guess are you were you wanting to add commitment language or I wanted to I think affirm our commitment language that's in there and then make sure that all of our commitment language is in there?

Okay.

So I have that.

I just wanted to introduce myself as to who I was and why we were here.

Is that different than what's in the staff report?

It's a little bit extra.

Okay, then I can't yeah, I offer that now or no, we will need to remove it from well.

I don't want to get we're not gonna send it to the expedited if she still has uh questions.

Yeah, this will need to have this will need to have a hearing so that she can incorporate her comments and request that the board vote based on the comments that she is proposing in addition to staffs.

We're not opposed to the special exceptions.

We just wanted to add a few extra words to the conditions, I guess.

So Madam Chair Barking.

As a point of clarity, the request from staff is not to move this to the expedited docket, or is the request to move it to expedite it?

Uh well, it was initially to see if there was any remonstrators present.

It sounds like you're not a remonstrator, but you're wanting to revise the commitment language.

Correct, with some very small tweaks.

So it seems like we either need to hear the case and have that have the petitioner agree to that when we hear it, or can the petitioner and can they go talk and are is staff okay with that and then they stay on expedited.

It's very minor.

And come back in real fast and tell us.

On case two zero two five-d v three-zero two five.

Brian Hannon votes yes.

Rod Bill Hannan votes yes.

Joanna Taft votes yes.

Rihanna Bender votes yes, and Percy Bland votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case two zero two five-UV three- sorry, two zero two five-dv three-zero two eight.

Brian Hannon votes yes.

Rod Bohannon votes yes.

Joanna Taft votes yes.

Rihanna Bender votes yes, and Percy Bland votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case two zero two five-UV three-zero two nine, Brian Hannon votes yes, Rod Bill Hannan votes yes, Joanna Taft votes yes, Rihanna Bender votes yes, and Percy Bland votes yes.

That variance is granted.

And on case two zero two five-UV three-zero three zero, Brian Hannon votes yes, Rod Bohannon votes yes.

Joanna Taft votes yes, Rihanna Bender votes yes, and Percy Bland votes yes.

That variance is granted.

Um so should we proceed with the full docket and see what I say we just begin with case number ten, and if they can work issues out on case seven, then we can read that into the record as an addendum to expedite it later after that case.

The petitioner is net lease properties, represented by Timothy Oaks and Jennifer Milliken, Ice Miller LLP.

And a parking area containing ten vehicle spaces, maximum five spaces permitted.

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, uh members of the board for the record, Tim Oaks, attorney at Iceman with offices at one American Square, suite 2900, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46282-0200.

And you're going to be receiving a little booklet that's being passed out now that I'm going to be referring to with respect to this site.

And they are out up against Washington Street.

And so you have all of these outlots in this area.

And it's an eyesore, it's dilapidated, there are transients that are trespassing and not guests that are living here.

It's been vacant for this long because of the difficulties associated with frankly with developing it.

What's we're proposing here is a new seven brew coffee shop that would involve the demolition of that building, the investment over $2 million of improvements in a new source of employment.

And we're down to two.

That's not minimum, that's maximum.

The reason we need that is one five is not enough.

Our largest shift of employees can sometimes have five or six people, then we wouldn't have room for any customers.

Or we recognize the blue line comes right along Washington Street here.

There's a transit stop that's located fairly close to this site.

That there could be people that are coming from even further east that use this site to drop off and pick up people that are using the blue line.

And so we want to make sure that there's adequate parking that's available for everyone that wants to use that.

It's a very small increase.

And while we appreciate some of the standards that are required in the transit overlay district, which is over 40 miles, and you have property on both sides, there are times when it doesn't fit that it creates a practical difficulty, and and this is we believe one of those times.

Staff has determined that not all of the frontage of the building is included.

The building is actually the main building where we have the employees and they're operating, and then the part that's a little skinnier to the west is a uh mostly a cooler.

Uh they're attached by a corridor that has an awning over the top.

It's been designed to look like one building.

So if you turn to tab two elevations, um, and you'll be able to see the front and the back of the building.

And the first one is is the front facing Washington Street, and as you look at it, it's should look like one building, and we think it is one building.

Um we still don't even get anywhere near close to the required 160 foot width, uh, but instead of 17 percent, it actually bumps up to over 34 percent of the requirement, which we think um uh is the is the best that we can do uh in this particular site, um despite what the actual numbers might show.

Um a couple of things.

Um why can't we just build a building that's 160 feet wide on this site?

Um there's a couple of reasons.

One, again, this is an outlaw that was designed back when this was in its heyday, a heavy, heavy, heavy retail area.

It's 1.1 acres.

If we build a building that's 160 feet wide across the entire width of this property, and you make it deep enough to house reasonable uses.

Most uses aren't like a coffee store like this that can be very small with a small footprint.

Most uses permitted in the C4 district require substantially more space.

And so if you have a hundred and sixty foot wide, you have to have it deep enough to be usable space.

The amount of property that would remain after you made a building that wide that it was of reasonable depth doesn't allow for adequate parking for that user, and and particularly if it's multiple users, that's why this property is still vacant after a number of years.

Um, in a building that wide, if it's not a single user, it's going to be a multi-tenant user, and no one in the market these days is willing to do speculative retail uses.

They're just not.

And so until you get a single user that's able to use this site, it will sit vacant in the Hardy store will continue to remain a nuisance and a problem in an eyesore for the area.

I also think it's uh maybe even more important to note that we did meet with a number of the folks in the area and the stakeholders.

And if you uh turn to tab four, um you'll see that there's a letter of support from uh councillor Michael Paul Hart, who is the city council member for this district.

You'll see a letter of support from the Warren Township Development Association, which is in favor of this project, and then you'll see uh an email from Linda Reich, um, who's the wife of the former Indianapolis Colts coach.

They they own the building directly north of this property, adjacent and north of it.

They operate um uh a nonprofit foundation uh called Not Today that uh benefits uh sexually uh abused children.

Uh and they are also in support of redevelopment of this property.

So the people that live out here, people that call this home, the representative for this area are in support um of this project.

Finally, we have uh it's not like we've completely ignored the fact that the blue line is here.

We've done exactly the opposite.

Um if you go uh you can look at the elevation uh or the site plan.

First, we did we have included a pedestrian or walk-up window to go get coffee.

So if somebody is uh at the transit stop and they want coffee, they they can walk up to a window, the window slide open, and you can order your coffee.

We think that's a great idea.

Two, there's outdoor seating in front of the the building that people could use again.

Um, and it's uh landscaped above and beyond the standard package for seven brew coffees because we want it to be a welcoming, a welcoming and attractive environment.

And so we we we actually like the the blue line being there, and we think it uh complements that blue line uh significantly.

So uh again, um uh we respectfully ask for uh favorable vote and would be happy to answer any questions that the board might have.

Are there any questions to the petitioner?

Are there any remonstrators present?

Let's hear from staff.

Absolutely.

Uh thank you very much to the board for their time and thank you to the petitioner for their comments as well.

Um staff is recommending denial of the requested variances to allow for a large deviation in front building light requirements and to exceed the maximum parking allowed at this TOD site.

Uh as mentioned, uh properties at the intersection of Washington Street to the south and Washington Point to the west.

Uh, there's a vacant structure, but it was formerly a quick service fast food restaurant closed in 2022 approximately per Google Street photography.

Um it's near the current uh busy Indigo 87 line to the south.

It also is about 395 feet away from the uh proposed Walmart blue line stop to the east and then other blue line stops um coming afterwards to the west.

Um given that proximity, it falls within the city's TOD transit-oriented development secondary zoning layer, which introduces additional regulations on development patterns to encourage walkability.

Uh, this is an exciting project, um, been in the works for a decade plus, it has staff's full support.

Uh benefits of DOD style development and use restrictions include uh reduced vehicle miles traveled with positive benefits for both um traffic flow and climate goals, uh more transit ridership, which gives citizens transportation flexibility and then having coordinated and uh pedestrian-friendly development helps fervor those goals.

Um, approval of this petition would allow for a building of a new drive-through coffee shop um per V-Site Plan in V exhibits.

Um the price size of the primary building would be 510 square feet, uh not inclusive of the cooler to the west.

Um it would include that walk-in cooler connected by a wall and canopy.

There'll be a walk-up patio to the southeast of the building as mentioned by the petitioner.

There'll be an accessory parking lot with 10 spaces.

There'll be a sidewalk addition made along the western Washington Point frontage, and there would be two uh drive-through lanes containing 21 uh spaces that are explicitly marked on the site plan, 21 stacking spaces.

Uh two variances would be required to allow for this design.

Uh, one is based on TOD rules and one is from our standard ordinance.

Uh so the front building line requirement first.

Uh the TOD contemplates buildings that are wide and close to primary frontages to allow for pedestrian activation.

Uh, proposed structure meets the setback portion of that.

It's up relatively close to the front property line, but the required front building line width would be 80%, and the proposed primary structure here is only 17%.

Uh it's not compliant and it's not particularly close to compliance either.

Uh the original notice and site plan to mention the 34.4 indicating the continuous front building line between good building and the cooler.

Uh staff would consider VC to be two separate structures and not one building.

Uh Mr.

Oaks explained that fairly well already.

But um, page 125 shows that site detail, sort of where the separation occurs.

Uh the second variance would be for the number of parking spaces.

Uh, the minimum and maximum parking figures are based on the square footage of buildings by our ordinance.

So uh for restaurants, the maximum allowed is one space per 100 square foot of a building.

So a building that's only 510 square feet would be allowed a maximum of five spaces overall.

I've noted the off vehicle spaces proposed, which is 10 would exceed that by 100%, it'd be a doubling, and that uh that only includes the surface lot and not all of the drive-through spaces either.

Um if those were included, it'd be 31 parking and stacking spaces, which would be around six times the max contemplated, which is a relatively large gap caused by the small size of the proposed structure.

Uh the original application would also mention some variances related to TOD design standards for areas near Washington Point to the west.

Uh, those wouldn't be applicable based on language on corner buildings from within the TOD section of our ordinance, um, primarily focused on the southern frontage.

Um the site is zoned C4.

Um, it's recommended that the community commercial typology by the pattern book.

Um, staff's recommendation is also informed both by the formally adopted blue line and TOD strategic plan as well as the TOD design guidelines.

Um, those plans recommend this site for a mix of retail, entertainment, office, and residential uses, designed in a way to minimize the impact of personal vehicles and to allow for choices of multimodal transport.

Uh surface parking is discouraged, but small amounts are acceptable when in the rear and accessed by alleys.

In this case, it would be within access by a private drive, which is similar.

It also talks about the creation of street walls hugging the corridor being a design priority, you know, narrow and consistent setbacks creating a walkable and articulated environment resulting in traffic calming.

Um longer term goal, that's a long-term goal for areas near BRT stations.

It's sort of an iterative one piece at a time type process.

That's obviously not what this corridor looks like right now.

Um the findings of fact from the applicant there.

When on this and mentions the context of this larger area is suburban, that's not particularly walkable, and the compliance with due ordinance would necessitate a larger building that they do not feel that they need.

Um staff and you know, the neighboring context and potentially buildings that are legally non-conforming in terms of the front building line would not in and of themselves constitute a site-specific practical difficulty, which would be the typical burden of proof for grant of a variance.

Um, any new development on this quarter would have similar standards applied.

It doesn't appear to the property directly to very east.

Um, I don't know if they quite meet 80%.

I we measured it around 72%, which is you know wider than the 17% that's even proposed today.

Um it appears that a overall significant motivating factor for a building this small is to maximize the amount of surface parking and paved drive-thru area at the site.

Uh the building is 510 square feet, as mentioned.

Um measured approximate area of all parking and drive-thru areas is around 13,800 square feet.

Uh the accessory drive-through use is allowed per DOD, but the building is a very small size of the parking and drive-thru areas and seems a little out of proportion given the prepared goals of the TOD overlay as expressed within the strategic and comprehensive plans.

Um, we're not requesting drive uh variances related to the drive-thru, but staff feels that the size and scope of it is leading to the need for the non-drive-thru related variances.

Um again, uh staff doesn't feel that practical difficulty exists requiring the site to be developed with a building that has only 34 feet in width.

Uh the C4 zoning district allows for a wide variety of uses, inclusive of coffee sales and other types of retailer restaurant functions.

Uh staff disagrees that beverage service would require this type of site layout to function, and if it does, then potentially it wouldn't be an appropriate use for being placed right on a TOD corridor.

Uh this is a stance that's shared by the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization.

It's a regional organization for transportation planning.

I've been working on TOD type stuff within our community extensively.

Um, and the research indicates consumer preference for transit access and walkable mixed use in general, and also that this specific area is optimal for TOD style development based on a variety of factors.

Um, employment density, proximity to retail and to jobs, uh, the average income, the rent and home values in the area, things of this nature.

Um their letter emphasizes the opportunity cost of developing prime TOD areas in this manner.

Uh the vast majority of the county is not within the TOD secondary district.

It's just those areas within a thousand feet of existing or proposed stations.

So there's a sense of opportunity cost for jeopardizing the potential of that area with development that doesn't meet the ordinance or plan ideas.

Staff does note that there are support letters from the WTDA, the counselor, and from others within the file as well.

We respect those stances, but ultimately we agree with the assessment that was given by the MPO.

We're aware of surrounding context here, but context do rarely change overnight, but often it's a year's alone and iterative stepwise process.

It can only take hold if new amendments to the ordinance and new plan guidance is reinforced by permit review and by decisions made from variances.

Staff would recommend denial of these variances.

Are there any questions of staff?

Okay, petitioner, you have five minutes.

Thank you.

Um there's a statement which is entirely correct that the design standards in the transit over overlaid district are intended to make create walkability, you know, make pedestrian friendly, make it very walkable.

Um if you look at the aerial map that was in the booklet, and just look at all of that, and then if you could go back to the site plan, please.

Whoever changed that.

Thank you.

And compare, there's a sidewalk that runs along Washington Street that's just south of that the landscaping that you see on the frontage of this site.

And I suggest to you that this property is with the possible exception of the Life Center and the and the that's affiliated with the cemetery, but is far, far more walkable and more pleasant for people to walk in front of than anything else that's out here.

Um and so we we don't think it's inconsistent at all with uh the attributes that the the overlay district is is trying to achieve.

Um we have again designed it so that it takes into consideration um the fact that the that there's a nearby transit station.

That's one of the reasons for um the parking area, and we could go down to eight.

Um, but we're concerned that you know we don't want to have to kick people out of the parking lot that are just perhaps waiting there.

Um so that's why we've gone to ten.

We have the walk-up, what can be more pedestrian friendly than having a walk-up pedestrian window on the front of the building with outdoor seating for those folks.

So we we do we do think it is uh consistent.

The practical difficulty is real.

I understand what staff is saying, but the the proof uh lies in the fact that this site has been vacant for years.

Um if it were really that ready, if it were such a great site, it would have been developed.

There are practical difficulties associated with trying to put a hundred and sixty-foot-wide building on this site.

Um that's why it hasn't happened.

Uh and practical experience is a great indicator in terms of practical difficulties, and we think that certainly exists here.

Umly I would suggest that the stakeholders, uh, the Warren Township Development Association, the next door neighbor, the counselor in whose district this lies, they should be paid attention to and not simply dismissed.

Um they're the folks that have the most to benefit from this.

They're the ones that have to live with the hardy, the vacant store if it's not approved.

Uh, and they want it.

Um, and I think that's important.

So, with that again, I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have.

Are there any questions?

Really quick question, thank you.

Um, Madam Chair.

Is there internal dining?

I'm sorry, is there internal dining within the facility or only the outside?

Only the outside.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Okay, unless there are any other questions.

We'll now vote on two 2025 DB 3031.

On case 2025-DV3-031 amended.

Percy Bland votes yes, Brian Hannon votes yes, Joanna Taft votes yes, Rihanna Binder votes no, and Rod Bohannan votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Thank you.

Um we ready to hear item number seven.

At least to hear from the petitioner about what they were able to resolve in the hallway.

Good afternoon.

Uh Kyle Russeteras with Denton's 10 West Market Street representing the petitioner.

Uh we had a healthy discussion about revisiting some language around the commitments.

I think at this point it's best that the petitioner make its presentation this evening or this afternoon, and uh we the board here, the petition, and um representatives from the cultural trail can speak during the public comment, and I can um inform the board of certain positions that the petitioner will take with respect to the the commitments if that's okay with the board this this afternoon.

So we would be hearing that now.

Is that correct?

If that's agreeable.

Case number two zero two five-se two-zero zero three property addresses twenty-one Virginia Avenue, one twenty-two and one thirty East Maryland Street.

Center Township, Council District Number 18, zoned CBD 1 R C T O D.

The petitioner is Virginia Street Capital LLC, represented by Brian Schubert.

Special exception of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for one a parking garage within the CBD one district, special exception required, and two, vehicular access for the parking garage from two streets within the CBD one district, special exception required.

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

Yes, that's you.

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

Yes.

I'm excited to be here this afternoon to present the special exception petition for the redevelopment of 21 Virginia Avenue on behalf of my client, the petitioner of Virginia Street Capital LC.

This petition under case number 2025, SE 2003, requests a special exception to provide for an 11-story mixed-use parking garage, retail and residential unit structure in the CBD 1 district.

Joining me this afternoon are members of the development team, contractor team, the sponsors of the project, as well as the architecture firm DKGR, who will present more information on the architectural features of the project uh later during this presentation.

To begin, the project presents an exceptional opportunity to enhance the downtown environment in this highly walkable area right alongside the cultural trail by providing off-street parking to residents, residents and local businesses, street level retail spaces, and much needed residential units within the downtown core.

This project will improve the daily lives of existing residents whilst while helping alleviate the parking constraints that local businesses experience in this area.

Thirteen letters of support have been submitted showing the excitement and anticipation that this project has generated.

Support has been expressed from well-known restaurants, including O'Reilly's Prime 47, Coach's Tavern, Chronic Coffee, multiple small and large businesses, Keystone Group, Downtown Indy Inc., uh, the future Kimton Hotel, Castor Easton, and in fact, two state representatives, Blake Johnson, Johnson, and Justin Moed.

The project will include removal of an existing surface parking lot and demolition of a current office building.

In their place will be an 11-story structure with an additional subterranean level contain containing 290 parking spaces, plus three van spaces for loading, and 90 residential units and multiple retail storefronts.

The remaining upper five levels will house the residential units.

Connected to the subterranean level will be a pedestrian tunnel that connects 21 Virginia to one Virginia.

This subterranean tunnel will provide an additional method for businesses in the surrounding area to safely and conveniently access the parking that this project will provide.

And additionally, the this much needed additive structure to the downtown area will be built directly alongside the popular cultural trail, as I said, and within just 250 feet of the downtown transit center.

We'd like to thank staff for their invaluable collaboration and feedback throughout this process.

We feel like the changes that have been implemented over the last month since the original staff staff report have addressed all of the initial comments and concerns.

We certainly appreciate the thorough staff report before you today, noting as much and offering support of the petition.

As discussed in the staff report, the revised site plan is far more in line with the goals of the CBD 1 district with Miles Square and the regional center secondary zoning district.

And some of those revisions I'll highlight now, reducing the vehicle access to a single point on Maryland instead of the initial initial uh presentation being along Virginia Ave and Maryland Street.

And this will certainly help with the overall safety, walkability, and bike bike ability along the cultural trail.

The access along Maryland Street will be using the existing curb cut.

The intention was to use the existing curb cut on Virginia Avenue as well, but we we've reduced that petition to just be along Maryland Street.

An additional residential floor.

We've added increasing the residential units from 78 units to 90 units.

The overall parking spots have been reduced from 306 to just slightly lower at 290, with the included emphasis on the new parking garage serving existing office retail and residential users adjacent to the subject site.

As you can see in this staff report, the reduction in total parking has been to help that percentage relationship between parking and residential and retail uses.

And the new plan includes the demo demolition, as I said, of the existing office building, abutting the existing uh surface parking lot.

As reflected in the findings of FACT, the need for parking is often, of course, in the eye of beholder, but safe and ample parking is now not often available in the area due to population growth, amenity growth, a large parking garage, sideline parking was torn down in 2019 to make way for the bicentennial plaza.

That garage served one Virginia, 21 Virginia, 42 Virginia, 47 South Penn, 107 South Penn, and 147 South Delaware, and many of the other local buildings and businesses, including, of course, Gambridge Fieldhouse.

That demolition has certainly exacerbated the lack of parking in the area.

And of course, we have new demand with the fever training facility construction that just began.

The upcoming conversion of the former Angie's List building to 180 new residential apartments, including the construction of the new Kimpton Hotel, Hotel Indy, and 167 room, Tempo Hotel at Maryland and Pennsylvania, the Drury Hotel at the former Martins and IBJ headquarters.

Uniquely situated, this site is right on the border of CBD 2, where this use would actually be allowed without a special exception.

And conversely, the recent uh the recent conversion of the ATT building on North Peridian has had direct sites to and from Monument Circle, and it was permitted to add uh parking itself.

This site, as I've highlighted, is uniquely in proximity to Gainbridge Field House, and as a result, it has certain roadblocks and traffic patterns that are accompanying the site that often prohibit or otherwise inhibit or hinder access to the parking garage.

The proposed garage will replace long-time surface parking lots and bring a mixed use development to the area that of course will pay property taxes, house individuals that will be residences paying their fair share of taxes, frequenting local uh businesses, restaurants, and bar establishments.

It's also a critical need to bring highly sought-after new businesses to the CBD and this area specifically, users that are top targets of groups like Visit Indy, Downtown Indy, and other such organizations.

I'll take a moment and uh allow the architecture firm DKGR to uh speak on the aesthetics of the building and a few of the the benefits of this structure, but I will note that this project is going uh before regional center later this month on on uh excuse me, later this week on Thursday, and many of these topics will be addressed uh then after uh Jerome speaks.

I'll uh close out our initial presentation with comments about the findings of fact and commitments.

Jerome Daxavich, Director of Design, DKGR Architects, 10 West Market Street.

Um much has already been talked about uh the kind of the programmatic elements, um, height, floor levels in this.

I'll talk a little bit about kind of the articulation, how this kind of sits on a very tricky triangular site that we're trying to navigate with with access there.

But uh material-wise, we've got basically two primary masonry brick um on our materials on our facade with two accent colors for each of those.

We've spent a lot of time working on uh masonry articulation, getting a nice level of detail through there, um, looking at both the majestic building, uh, one Virginia, other other buildings there to make sure that it works really contextually, um, both kind of you know, modern uh with modern takes, but also looking with some of those historic references there.

We spent a lot of time articulating that corner, the very prominent um kind of triangular corner there with uh different screening materials, different um metal panel, and a level of kind of cornice articulation uh there.

On that upper the seventh floor there, we've got a roof deck there that will serve as a uh tenant amenity area on the other side that you're seeing there on the screen there, which is the cultural trail.

We've spent a lot of time pulling the building back there to really have a nice um pedestrian experience there, having allowing those retail tenants there to have a little bit of presence there, but really working on making that a nice pedestrian area all the way all the way around that.

Thank you, Jerome.

Um I'd like to uh incorporate in into my testimony the uh approved findings of fact, uh, excuse me, the the vetted findings of fact by by staff as presented to the petitioner and incorporate those findings uh uh by record here.

Um I I would also like to address the commitments that were uh brought up uh before this hearing and um and note though that they are included in the staff report.

The petitioner would ask that the uh first uh commitment, which is um highlighting the architectural treatments and artistic street screening in areas of the facade where the garage would be visible be made a condition of approval rather than a commitment and modified to read that as determined by the regional center approval process.

Uh we have already captured screening on the plans that will be considered by the regional uh center later uh later this week, as uh as I noted earlier.

And then the second commitment uh really were commitments prompted by uh comments from the uh Indianapolis Cultural Trail uh entity here.

The all every single one of the commitments from a two-foot setback to a pedestrian entrance to the real estate to the um retail space along Maryland Street and continuing on.

All of those have been addressed, uh, and we would we would ask that those all be uh in the purview of the regional center uh process.

Um we have already incorporated those into the design that will be will be considered.

I want to highlight the one um area that we would ask be incorporated into a commitment, and that would be any rebuilding of any portion of the cultural trail would be coordinated with the Indianapolis cultural trail entity and shall follow the cultural trail standards applicable to this block of the cultural trail.

Any plaza construction shall be coordinated with the Indianapolis cultural trail entity and be uh uh subject to the commitments for this block.

Uh we actually find that the following commitment that was listed there about specifies specifying what construction items would be coordinated would actually be too limiting to the commitment.

So we would propose that that be removed from the commitments, and we just make sure that the commitment is narrowly focused to coordination with the cultural trail and any repairs or building of the construction plaza be coordinated based off of the standards uh established by the cultural trail entity along the cultural trail.

Um the final commitment listed would be uh there be a minimum of eight feet of width for pedestrian use be retained during construction.

Again, sort of an eliminating confusion, conflict, multiple layers of restriction here.

We would ask for removal of that commitment, or I should say not adoption of commitment by the BZA here, because we really really find that to be a permitting concern that would be addressed through DPW.

We we find that that's already an existing process here and coordination through DPW of uh times during construction, limited as they may be that may impact the cultural trail, be coordinated uh through that process rather than a commitment uh layer on top that we may have to coordinate either through staff or or uh you know uh timing for bid, if you will, here to come back for the BZA.

So uh long way of saying here and and happy to answer questions there, but the sentence that starts uh the or the clause that starts at the end of the commitment section, there shall uh any rebuilding of any portion and continuing there for to highlight the coordination efforts.

That's something that the petitioner would be agreeable to to committing to.

So I want to be respectful of your time and the time allotted for from for me today.

In conclusion, we believe that the application meets all the findings of facts, provides a significant community need without harming the urban integrity of the neighborhood.

Keep in mind that this building will need to go through that regional center of review and approval, and can be seen and we believe that this has been meticulously designed and that our uh plans reflect the confines of this already oddly shaped and sized lot.

We respectfully request approval of this special exception.

Happy to answer any questions, and really I just want to close uh and ask for any members of the audience who are in support of this project uh to please stand and and show your support uh by by your attendance this afternoon and and thank you for your your time and attention this evening, uh excuse me, this afternoon, and uh and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any questions to the petitioner?

Um the remonstrator or they I don't know if that's what you are interested party.

Would you like to speak?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um again, Karin Haley with the Indianapolis Cultural Trail.

Uh the Cultural Trail supports what is written in the staff report as it is listed and as it is um what the conditions are.

I'm not sure if I'm right using the right language here, but the conditions provided in the staff report.

Um, we would ask that those remain as a I guess a condition of this approval of these special exceptions.

Remain as is thank you.

Uh let's hear from staff.

Thank you, uh, Chairperson Taft, members of the board.

Um staff is recommending approval of the request.

Uh as the petitioner noted.

Um the revised proposed site plan and floor plans indicate a removal of the curb cut from vehicular access from Virginia Avenue.

So staff would just stress that that portion of the request is now for vehicular access from one street uh being Maryland Street within the CBD one district as opposed to the original two.

Um additionally, the revised floor plans indicate an additional floor residential uses, now bringing that total to five floors, and the total of residential units from 78 to 90.

Uh the revised floor plans also indicate a reduction of the proposed number of parking spaces from 306 to 290 plus three uh van spaces on the ground floor.

Uh the proposal calls for the demolition of the existing office building and now is to provide for an 11-story structure with an additional subterranean level.

Uh six levels, including the subterranean level would be solely used for vehicular parking.

The ground floor would contain four retail spaces, and the top five stories would be residential units.

Uh these changes will result in the proposed floor area dedicated to vehicle parking being reduced from just over 70% of the proposed building's total floor area to approximately 59% of the total floor area.

Uh with these revisions to the request, staff finds the proposal to be far more in line with the goals of the CBD 1 district, miles square and the regional center overlay.

With the proposal will no longer call for vehicular access from Virginia Avenue, and thus will result in the removal of the current curb cut, which which uh is existing that crosses over the cultural trail and that elimination of this conflict point with pedestrians and cyclists alike will improve safety and walkability along the heavily used walk bike path further, with the proposal now calling for just one point of vehicular access to the site being from Maryland Street.

Additionally, with the addition of a fifth floor of residential units and a modest reduction in the number of proposed vehicular spaces, uh staff finds the proposed use to be more appropriate and productive for the site's context and does more to achieve a quality pedestrian environment.

Uh while the speci special exception is still needed, the revised proposal represents a substantial improvement from the original plans and would provide much needed residential units in the downtown core within close proximity to various amenities further with the proposed parking garage to serve not only the proposed residential and commercial space but also the existing office retail and residential uses adjacent to the subject site.

Staff finds the special that special exception request uh to be reasonable as well.

Um staff finally staff finds the revised proposal to be broadly in accordance with the goals of miles square and C BD one, which was created in 1964.

Uh due to the mixed use component beyond just the parking garage use, the high amount of residential units proposed, and due to the garage being to serve the uses adjacent to the property as well.

Um staff would note that this approval recommendation is not an indication that staff would necessarily be supportive of other special exception requests for parking garages as a primary use in the CBD one district, especially proposals that are seen by staff to request an excessive amount of parking in relation to the uses that would be served.

And then finally, staff would just emphasize that uh this will be going to regional center hearing examiner later this week.

Um proposed development within the regional center is required to obtain design review approval through the submittal of uh regional center approval petition.

Um this has been uh this is considered a high impact project uh due to its scale and scope, uh which requires a public hearing review and recommendation by the hearing examiner.

Um so that's all to say staff would just emphasize the the design and facade treatment and materials that you see in the renderings in the staff report uh are subject to the outcomes of the regional center hearing examiner and may change.

So what you see in the report is not necessarily the final design of the structure.

Um and with that can answer any questions the board might have uh Noah, can you just briefly detail your understanding of the commitments and whether or not and certainly the petitioner I'll invite him when he does his uh rebuttal to also further detail this, but your understanding of commitments today versus what the petition has requested?

So if I uh understood and heard correctly from the petitioner's testimony, the petitioners requesting that the uh commitment one as as indicated in the report would be a condition of approval, and uh I might need you to reiterate or restate the uh revisions to commitment two if you're able, just so I think we might all we we could all use that.

Yeah, absolutely.

So uh you're correct uh conversion of the first bullet point from a condition, excuse me, from a commitment to a condition.

Um and and I would ask that the condition uh also include uh a clause of as determined by the regional center hearing examiner.

The revision to the second commitment, uh the the best um way for me to review this if is if you turn um to the second page of the staff report, the fourth at the end of the fourth line, you'll see uh the word any.

So any rebuilding.

We are just asking for the commitment to start there.

Any rebuilding of any portion of the cultural trail shall be coordinated with the Indianapolis Cultural Trail and shall follow the cultural trail standards.

I'd ask that we add applicable to this block.

That was a uh revision that I I found appropriate following our uh conversation with the representative from the Indianapolis Cultural Trail, and then the second commitment being uh just a continuation there, any plaza construction shall be coordinated with the Indianapolis cultural trail, period.

Just those two commitments, the remainder of that bullet, if you will, be deleted.

So the petitioner is just asking for one condition and two commitments.

Does that answer your question?

Uh yes, I believe so.

Yeah, I think so.

Okay.

So I think because we've had a interested party slash remonstrator.

Um I think first we need to hear that staff who is recommending approval is is I think we need to hear what if they're fine with those commitments and the condition.

And then I think we need to.

I don't think I understood why the remonstrator or the party was did not want them to change.

But is that would you like me to speak on that or would you prefer um the representative too?

I can certainly give my perspective of the conversation.

Unfortunately, you'll both get your five minutes.

Sure, sure.

Um, but I let me hear from staff, and I'm a I'm a little bit um sometimes these wrenches being thrown in in the middle of the hearing is um it's complicated.

And whether I don't know whether sorry, but uh are you able to repeat that real quick?

So what what are your thoughts on those?

Oh, yeah, uh thank you.

Apologies.

Um I think staff is supportive of the change to commitment one to becoming condition of the petition of the of approval.

Staff uh is recommending approval as stated for commitment number two and would not like to see any alterations uh compared to what is written in the report currently.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, so let's show you have five minutes.

I'll focus my comments on the on the on this commitment as I feel as though our initial presentation uh covered uh the elements you should consider in in reviewing the uh special exception requests.

We were informed uh during the hearing or uh that the Indianapolis Cultural Trail had uh a desire to modify the proposed commitments.

Uh we were informed uh as we had a sidebar conversation that the Indianapolis Cultural Trail had reached out to uh the property owner um and uh by two emails and had not received a response, had in fact received an out of office uh that that landowner, uh the Virginia Street Capitol LC petitioner travels uh and and has been away from uh the matter.

I did confirm that other representatives of the petitioner, as well as the um submitting petitioner uh Brian Schubert of DKGR, uh colleagues with Jerome, who you heard earlier had not heard prior to today of uh the Indianapolis Cultural Trail's desire to modify uh modify the proposed uh commitments.

We had coordinated and communicated with them some months ago, um particularly given the location of the site, the adjacency next to the cultural trail uh would would remind all those considering respectfully the board and staff that the initial proposal included using the current curb cut uh on Virginia Avenue.

We've removed that from the petition uh despite uh our uh petitioners' interest and and sort of uh uh desire for access along Virginia Avenue in support of the continued use of the cultural trail.

Um ultimately the revisions of our designs as submitted to the hearing examiner have addressed the commitments uh as they are presented by the board.

We want to allow the flexibility uh of the hearing examiner again later this week to interpret um and view the plans as presented and uh not have to return to this board for a modification of those commitments in the event that the hearing examiner feels as though the design elements of of the proposal are better adjusted or suited otherwise.

So um sort of an ask and answered uh perspective um for most of the commitments up to the two that I uh suggested remain as commitments.

The next uh commitment, there shall be coordination with the Indianapolis trail cultural trail during construction with the petitioner responsible for repairing and restoring damage, including lighting and landscaping.

I we want to object to that commitment for two reasons.

One, we think the prior commitment already addresses it, that we will rebuild any portion of the cultural trail with coordination.

So I think it's duplicative in that respect.

And second, the provision about including landscaping, lighting and landscaping, we think that that's too limited.

We think that, and we else in fact the Indianapolis Cultural Trail advised of that today.

There could be benches, there could be subterranean elements, there could be planter boxes.

There could be just a variety of items that we wouldn't want to limit it just to that just to that list there to be fully transparent.

The Indianapolis Cultural Trail asked to uh have that be including without limitation.

Again, I just don't want to limit it to the version of the commitment and have to come back to the BZA for asking for revisions or otherwise.

So we feel as though the rebuilding with coordination based on standards of this block would be would be satisfactory.

And then as I said during my initial presentation, the the final commitment there being about a minimum of eight feet of width for pedestrian use.

The reality of a construction downtown, we may not be able to every single day of construction be able to afford an eight-foot uh wide pedestrian use path.

We think that there's already a process and uh for that through another um Indianapolis department.

We think it's better served but through that process.

Certainly there's been um comments and collaboration um from the developer in seeking as minimal use as possible of the cultural trail, as you probably all have walked this path.

There's uh pedestrian as well as um a bike trail as well as planter boxes.

Admittedly, this area of the cultural trail has not been, I think, uh held to the standard as other areas of the cultural trail.

This project looks to enhance this area of the trail, and we just don't want to be confined by a commitment that would um you know better be served by review by the hearing examiner and better be served by collaboration by the entity affected and the developer itself.

So um I thank you for the opportunity to respond to some of those comments.

Um hopefully we've resolved it from the petitioner's perspective, but happy to answer questions.

Okay, let's hear from the um remonstrator interested party.

Um hello again.

Uh the reason we support the staff recommendations for these special exceptions as they're written, um, I think if we're only specifically, if I'm following just talking about the second one, if that's if that's correct.

Um we have development happening all over the Indianapolis Cultural Trail every single day.

Um the petitioner mentioned just a few of the projects that are currently happening in the downtown core.

The cultural trail is a 10-mile linear park, and we have learned over the past decade the um implications to the actual trail and the people who use the trail that happen as a result, unintended result of some of the development that takes place.

So the reason why we support um what has been written in the staff comments are simply to in ensure that the cultural trail remains accessible during construction and that there is um I think uh a very high level of coordination within the design of how the the driveway is removed to make sure that it is designed in a way that is inherence to our standards and that that is put back in place, and that the developer is also responsible for any damage that happens during the construction process as well.

The cultural trail is a lot more than just the pavers and the lights and the plantings that you see as the potential mentioned.

There is underground support structures that go and support all of that.

It is essentially everything you see and experience from the curb line to the building face in this particular block.

Um and each block of the cultural trail is unique, each development along the cultural trail is unique.

And at the root of what we're trying to achieve is that the trail continues to remain a destination and a place for development and a place for our community to walk and bike safely in the downtown.

And and we think that the staff comments support that effort, both during construction, during the design phase, as well as during um uh the restoration that will happen when the building is complete.

Um so that's where our comments are coming from.

Um the reason we reached out to the particular individual that that that was mentioned is he reached out to us and we were continuing that dialogue um with the person that had reached out to us to make contact.

So thank you.

Okay.

So we have a situation where staff has recommended uh commitments you don't like them.

Um do you want us to um when we vote on this petition?

I don't know.

I don't know how people will vote.

Um how how do you what commitments do you want us to vote on?

Are there um if I if I can afford a response question as opposed to an answer, are there questions uh from any of the board members about the revised uh commitments here or any of the the points that I've raised or uh the interested party has raised the question?

Yeah, I'd I'd like to make sure I fully understand this, and I thank you for explaining this a couple of times, but there seem to be three changes you're requesting to commitment number two.

One is specifying that any reconstruction would follow the standards for that block for Maryland or for Virginia, yes.

Okay.

Number two would be removing the coordination in that in removing lighting and landscaping, because in your words that's too limiting.

Correct.

Yes, that that's the same.

And number three is removing the commitment for maintaining an eight-foot um pedestrian use during construction.

So those are the three changes you're seeking to commitment number two.

I I would say if I could add a fourth, that everything before any rebuilding be removed.

Which uh I don't speak for staff, but I assume that that that is perhaps their reason for not supporting the request because that's certainly a a departure from their recommended commitments, but again, we feel as though those are better addressed through the regional center hearing examiner process rather than as a zoning commitment.

If I may um uh I think uh a good deal of the issue might just be that you know there's regional center that's gonna follow this and is subject to change.

So I I think staff would maybe offer up an amendment to that commitment to both petitioner and the board that just states um you know unless otherwise determined or modified by the regional center here and examiner, so that that way it leaves it up to some wiggle room as the petitioner was kind of alluding to and potentially worried about the staff, thank you for that um suggestion, and it's certainly something that uh we would be agreeable to.

So uh to to answer um member Hannan's question, may I just summarize revisions to the commitments again in light of that?

So um the first revision would be to um specify that the rebuilding shall follow the standards for this block.

We remove the commitment that is we shall qu um uh that there shall be a minimum of eight feet width for pedestrian use during construction.

We remove the the clause including lighting and landscaping.

And we add subject to any hearing examiner revisions with respect to design staff if I summarize that in an acceptable fashion.

I I think that might have been misunderstood.

Uh I was offering up the option to add that statement of unless otherwise modified or or added by the regional center here and examiner to the original language of commitment to um not as uh a revision, not as the revised proposal statement by the petitioner, but as the original language states so if I could it sounds like that there is now a discrepancy between what uh you are requesting and what staff is recommending.

And I guess to Chair Burstat's original question, how would you like us to vote on this?

I don't know if you want to add clarity to that.

Right.

I mean, we can continue this, or we can because we're spending a little bit too much time, you know, on the details here, um, or we can vote on it as staff has the commitments that staff has proposed.

What would or we can vote on it with your commitments?

Respecting your time, five seconds, if you don't mind, please.

If staff is agreeable to the revised commitment, that includes um, unless otherwise amended by the hearing examiner, the petitioner is agreeable to to that.

So again, if staff can uh still support the project with their one uh hearing examiner revision to the commitments that the petitioner is willing to withdraw its other requests and ask that the board vote on the slightly amended uh commitment.

So just for me to understand, we're going with staff's recommendation for commitments, which is adding that the language that one sentence to the beginning of what is printed here.

Is that correct?

Yeah, I believe commitment one is now a condition.

A condition and commitment two states at the end uh unless otherwise altered or modified by regional center hearing examiner.

Thank you for indulging the conversation and the petitioner agrees.

Okay.

So unless there are any other questions, and I don't think the remonstrator interested party needs to speak again.

Okay.

So unless there are any questions, we'll now vote on 2025 SE two zero zero three.

With those uh with the condition and the commitments as staff um modified with the final sentence.

On case two zero two five-se two-zero zero three, Percy Bland votes yes, Brian Hannon votes yes, Joanna Taft votes yes, Rihanna Bender votes yes, and Rod Bohannan votes yes.

The variance is granted subject to the agreed upon conditions and commitments.

Thank you.

Um I say we should power through.

Okay, so okay.

Yep, let's power through.

Case number two zero two five-UV three-026, property address two nine zero one North Post Road, Warren Township, Council District number 15, zoned SU1 slash D7 slash D4.

The petitioner is Calvary Temple Assembly of God, represented by David Gilman.

Variance of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the outdoor storage of modular homes with temporary perimeter fencing of the proposed outdoor storage area, not permitted.

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 actually thought you guys might take a break after that.

No breaks.

Thank you.

Uh again for the record.

My name is David Gilman.

My office address is two one-one South Ritter Avenue suite H four six two one nine.

Um I represent um the petitioner with property at two nine oh one North Post Road.

And I have with me Ryan Scott, who is the president of Volumod.

I have with me Pastor Elizabeth Rigney of Caring Place.

And I have with me Gary Redman of the Warren Township Development Association.

And I am going to share some of my first 15 minutes with them so that they can offer comments of their support for our petition.

If you turn to the first tab slide or tab 1A, this property is 16 acres, located at the southeast corner of 30th and North Post Road.

We did hear a petition in front of this board for the Helix Development Group that occupies now the small office space on the same parcel.

We had mentioned at that time that we would return and ask for a use variance.

Volume mod has a modular home factory directly across the street.

They utilize a large parking area that was not being used by caring place.

Those are Google shots that actually are from 2024.

So you're actually going to see what it will look like if they are approved to use this site.

They are not being stored there today, and we have never had a violation for when they were there in 24, so we're not here asking for a variance as a result of code enforcement action.

So tab 1B.

As I mentioned, Volumod across the street builds modular units.

And Volume Od has been at this location for three years.

They've made an incredible impact on our East Side community.

And I have Mr.

Scott here, and I hope that he's able to share some of the history and their accomplishments and the impact that they've had at this location and the importance of having this site available to them in the event that they have a large order and then they need to store units in excess of what they can on site.

So this brings us to June of 2024.

Like I said, this site was used for three months.

It worked out well.

It allowed us production line to continue to operate at capacity, and the units were shipped on time and within the proposed budget.

Tab 1C.

This is a slide which is a snapshot of what the units look like when they were stored on the site in June of 2024.

It takes multiple of these units to construct a duplex, a triplex, a multifamily home.

So that's why there are so many of these units because they do stack them or they attach them side by side.

And it's adjacent to a large woodland area that's actually owned by Caring Place.

And a tree line, a heavy tree line along the south line that separates this proposed storage area from the Freeman Apartments.

Renewing properties just acquired Freeman Apartments and invested $5 million in that apartment complex and completely renovated the insides and a lot of the exterior features.

So the reason I mention that is they have a vested interest in this entire area and uh and a desire to keep improving the east side.

In this aerial, you'll notice I have noted along 30th Street, which is over to the left, slides 11 and 12, and I will show you later how we plan to improve the street view with the landscape plantings.

There's also a separate entrance that will be used to deliver the units, so there's no conflict of traffic with the regular church membership or activities.

Slide 2A.

The slide has a lot of information.

The proposed storage areas depicted on the site plan.

Again, it's in an area where the parking has not been used by caring place for several years.

The original site plan in development had enough parking for a congregation of 2,500 members.

That's over 650 parking spaces.

There's been a substantial reduction in carrying place membership, and they no longer need this area of the parking.

They still would have, if the storage area were approved, 320 parking spaces to comfortably park their congregation, which I believe is the uh the membership is around 600, but I will uh defer that to Pastor Rigney when she can talk a little bit more about the membership and their lease agreement or arrangements with Volume OD.

Tab 2B.

Um around the entire storage area, we will have an entire area screen with the mesh fencing.

This missed fencing will completely screen the majority of these units from visibility.

Tab 2C.

This slide is a picture of the storage area.

Again, you see to the east the heavy woods, and to the south, the heavy tree line between the site and the Freeman apartments.

The site is all paved and it has security pole lights to aid in the security of this area.

3A.

3A is a view of the separation of the storage units from the Freeman apartments.

The apartments are only two stories, and the tree line is above that second level.

Again, there is a typical industrial transition yard that's already in place of 105 feet between the nearest part of any storage area and the Freeman property line.

Again, I've noted slides 9 and 10.

3B.

This slide shows you the tree line along that common property line.

For a scale of reference, that fence is six feet in height, and the tree line is well above that fence line and will completely screen the visibility of the storage units.

This slide is just to show you that that tree line extends the entire common property of where the units would be stored, and it also shows you the perspective of the tree line and those second story units that would be abutting it.

Slide 4A.

This is a slide I mentioned earlier.

This is the existing view along 30th Street when the storage units were or the modulars were actually being stored on site.

When we went to the Warren Township Development Association, they had asked us to provide additional landscape plannings that would help build the maturity of this landscape area and better screen the units from the street view.

Again, these units would have a new screened mesh fence, and the petitioner has agreed to add the landscape plannings to fill the gaps and open areas.

So on tab 4B, this is an illustration of what those landscape, the additional landscape would look like.

We think it'll complement the street view and provide the necessary cover for many years to come.

We would agree that the trees will be planted immediately upon the granite of a variance to get them established as soon as possible.

Tab 5A.

So we've agreed to a number of commitments.

We have in your packet a plan of operation.

That plan of operation will commit the petitioner on the day-to-day activities that they will need to follow.

And again, the plan is only asking for three months per calendar year to be able to store the units.

That number would be enough time to allow volumod to take orders for large development requests and if needed, store these units and then have enough time to get them to the site ready to set for the community that they're developing.

The other commitment is to agree to an additional landscape plannings on East 30th.

And again, the commitment only modular homes are being asked to be stored and screened on this site.

No other product would be or operations would be conducted on this site.

Tab 5B, we have several letters in your packet of support.

Councillor Rena Allen has written a detailed letter of support.

She's been involved with this project for quite some time.

Councillor President Bob Osley has also offered his opinion and letter of support for this variance request.

Again, we have Warren Township Development Association here to speak in favor of this request.

And I'd like to go ahead and introduce Ryan Scott.

So Ryan can tell you a little bit about Volumod, their production and what they've done in the last three years, and then we'll get into allowing Pastor Wigney to share her thoughts, and then Gary Redman to speak on behalf of Warren Township.

Good afternoon.

My name is Ryan Scott.

I uh have the pleasure of serving as the president of Volumod for the last three plus years.

We specifically chose the location at 30th and post on the Far East side, not only to try to address the housing problem that exists nationwide, but also to give back to the community.

We employ people from the area.

We also have a second chance program, which to us means people that have been incarcerated or are recovering from addiction.

We allot 25% of our employment for recovery or for second chance program.

When I arrived there a little over three years ago, we were just getting the building remodeled that had sat vacant for many many years, and we had about 25 employees on staff.

Today we have about 115 employees on staff, and we are currently at about 25% of our production capacity, so we have a lot more opportunity for growth.

The nature of what we do is build multifamily buildings in a modular fashion.

It's not what you might be used to where there's single family products going down the road that cause your irritation driving down the interstate.

These are modules that are designed to be stacked side by side and on top of each other.

We've completed a subdivision project uh down south on county line.

Uh we won uh near Cumberland, uh near here at 14th and MLK, which is a uh three-story apartment complex, which consisted of 88 modules in itself.

So therein is where our problem starts to lie when it comes to parking.

When we have larger projects like the one on MLK, um they they have no use for the very first module we built until the very last module was built.

They need all of them at once to be able to assemble the building.

And so when we have large projects or we have multiple projects that maybe the site's not quite ready, we tend to build up a number of units in storage.

And so while we do have a fairly decent capacity within our own facility, yeah, as Dave mentioned in to in June of 24, we had the need for overflow.

And so that's when I had the pleasure of meeting Pastor Elizabeth.

Um, and not only did uh the church and and Volumod partner on the parking, uh they also provide pastoral services, daycare for employees, and also allow right away for our people coming from the apartments to work.

So it's been a very good relationship for both parties, I believe, and I'll let her speak for her part, but um if we are not uh able to have the parking available to us, then that shuts down our production.

That uh puts our employment um for our people at risk.

So uh we've tried multiple times that we we addressed the issue back in 2004 in many, many different ways, and uh it wasn't until we just finally looked up across the street and went over to shake hands and meet our neighbor did the problem get solved, but it wasn't an easy problem to solve.

We we were getting door after door shut in our face because these are large units and they need space to occupy.

Um we do the best to to take care of and serve the community in terms of what we do, but also in how we do it, so we would make sure the screening is in place, the uh the amino uh additional landscaping and so on and so forth.

Thank you.

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

The volumide address is 3039 North Post Road.

Thank you.

I'm gonna allocate some of my five-minute rebuttal for the others to speak if that's okay because I believe we're out of our first 15 minutes.

I'm fine with that.

Thank you.

Hello, everybody, good afternoon.

I'm Elizabeth Rigney, and I my office resides at 2901 North Post Road.

Um I am here on behalf of Volumod just to say um you heard from Ryan, I love what they do.

I love what they do.

I love how they are helping the community.

And so our meeting, um, I don't believe is by chance at all.

It has been a partnership, and it has been a way that we can help the east side of Indy in even greater measure.

Um of the benefits of being able to do this is not just to help them, it would also help us as a church.

Um we as a church do not have the membership that we used to have.

We do not have the need for the large space on the parking lot that we um used to utilize, but um they would be able to then lease this, and that would be a huge benefit for the church.

So that's helping us, but they continue to do work to help the east side of Indy.

And I've actually been able to go into Volume Odd to speak to people, and just as he said, we get to pastor their people, and we get to know them, and they're not just people that work there, they're our community, and they're there at Freeman Apartments.

Some of them live right there at the apartments, and so I believe that this would be beneficial, not just for the church, not just for Volume Odd, but for the East Side of Indy as they continue to do the works that they do to help the people.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name's Gary Redman.

I reside at 1031 Schmidt Road 46239.

I'm here representing the Warren Township Development Association.

Uh I'd like to note that our our board has uh voted unanimously unanimously to support this petition.

I'd like to point out that the approval of this would create a revenue stream from an unused parking lot to the church.

And as noted, uh there will be no if for approval, there will be no shutdowns in productivity, and employees will continue to get their paychecks.

A parking lot becomes on you becomes useful and the church increases their income and the neighborhood and church congregation is enriched.

The continued working together for the uh betterment of all is a positive uh action and uh result of uh working together.

We seek uh your support for this petition.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, are there any remonstrators present?

Let's hear from staff.

Thank you, Chairperson Taft, members of the board.

Uh, as noted in the report, staff is recommending denial of the petition, uh, which would allow for outdoor storage of modular homes with temporary perimeter fencing of the outdoor storage area on site, which is zoned.

SU1 uh primarily contains small portions of D4 and D7.

Um ninety-eight, ninety-nine percent of the site is SU1, which is reserved for religious uses.

Uh the site is approximately 16.21 acres and is uh improved with a church and the associated parking lot.

Um according to the plan of operation, the uh petitioners requesting up to 100 modular homes to be stored on the uh eastern parking lot.

And the plan of operation also indicates that uh these modular homes would be for, as they also mentioned in the report, for volume odd, uh not in association with the church.

Um and their offices are on the north side of uh East 30th Street.

Uh just to define religious uses as per the zoning ordinance uh is quote uh land use and all related buildings and structures devoted primarily to the purpose of divine worship, together with reasonably related accessory uses included but not limiting to educational, instructional, social and residential activities, end quote.

Uh outdoor storage and in particular heavy outdoor storage of materials is not permitted in any residential district nor the SU1 district, uh, which again is reserved for religious uses.

This is um pleased to preserve quality aesthetics to protect sensitive land uses and protected districts from uh more intense uses and to limit the intermixing of incompatible land uses.

Uh staff generally finds their quest to be out of line with typical uses and aesthetics of the SC1 district, which again is is uh churches, temples and the like uh for divine worship.

Staff is concerned about the impact that this would have on the subject site, which itself is a protected district and is incompatible with outdoor storage uses.

Staff believes that the storage of large modular homes would significantly alter the character of the property and does believe this represents a detrimental precedent for the SU1 district on this site, as well as just broadly speaking around the county.

As we know, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of uh religious sites uh in the city.

Uh special use districts have been in place since 1966 and are uh were created to contemplate specific land uses that are highly individualized and require more specific standards and review regarding the scope and scale of their existence.

Uh intense outdoor storage in SU1 districts is really without precedent in Marion County and is not contemplated by the SU1 district.

Um and again, incompatible with typical features of uh religious land uses.

Finally, staff uh does not find that the findings of fact meet the burden of proof.

Um does not believe that there to be any hardship on the owner for needing the requested variants.

Um the fact that this uh third party business on the other side of 30th Street has does not have enough room for their own materials is not uh hardship on the owner or petitioner of this property, and um likewise believes that the associated parking lot could be used for permitted accessory uses uh and therefore does not believe the findings to be met and uh recommends denial of the petition and can't answer any questions the board may have there any questions of staff here from the petitioner.

I'll give you a few minutes.

Yes, I I was watching, I don't have much time, but I won't take much time.

Um we do respect the staff.

Um this is unusual uh request, but there is certainly is a hardship.

Um the owner has property that they can't use.

They have three acres of parking area that they they don't intend to use, they can't use it, they can't automatically grow their membership.

They can't automatically just build accessory uses on it, they really have no need for it, but they do have a proposal that would benefit them as if they could use it, and that's to allow and be neighborly and have um temporary storage, three months out of any calendar year.

This is not going to be something that is going to be um impactful in a negative way on traffic or the neighborhood.

These are units that are stored, they're they're shrink wrapped, there's a fencing around it, maybe an occasional security guard patrolling the area, there's no employees.

Um we think that the hardship uh factors uh in the our findings have been met.

Um, and that's exactly um what uh Pastor Elizabeth was alluding to.

Their membership has grown significantly.

This parking lot is massive.

It's screened by heavy tree cover on three of the four sides.

It's got a separate private entrance, it's already has a uh heavy industrial 105-foot separation between the residential uses to the east, um, sorry, to the south.

Um it's just a great community relationship to take something that somebody has to offer and benefit from it that both companies can share in.

They've both been very giving to our east side community as far as economic investment, employment, and uh and caring for those people who others may turn their back on.

Um, these are very compelling reasons why we hope that the board would consider granting us this variance.

The day-to-day operations, the three-month duration is all controlled by a plan of operation, which we would commit to, the site plan we would commit to, the landscape plan we would commit to, and we think we've got enough securities in place that this would not be uh a negative uh impact on uh the grant of this variance, and and we hope that you would uh you would uh support us in that endeavor.

Thank you.

Are there any questions of the petitioner?

Okay, then we will now vote on 2025 UV 3026.

On case 2025-UV3-026, Percy Bland votes yes, Ryan Hannon votes yes, Joanna Taft votes yes, Ryan Abender votes yes, and Rodbo Hannon votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Thank you.

Case number 2025-DV3-032 amended property address 455 Rawls Court.

Warren Township Council District No.

20, zoned I2.

The petitioner is Watson Properties LLC, represented by David Gilman.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a building addition and parking lot expansion, resulting in a building height of 29 feet, maximum 22 feet permitted, a 40-foot front transitional yard, 100 feet required, 30 vehicle parking spaces, minimum 49 spaces required, and zero bicycle parking spaces, three 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?

Thank you again for the record.

My name is David Gilman.

My address is 211 South Ritter Avenue, suite H 46219.

I have with me Chris Jolka, who is the vice president of operations for Coded Metal Group.

He is also the branch general manager, and he is also one of the employee owners of this business.

Again, I also have Gary Redman with the Warren Township Development Association to speak in support of the variants or to answer questions.

If you'll go to the first slide, um slide one A is the area showing the proposed expansion highlighted or outlined in yellow.

This is about 139 feet away from the building toward Rawls Avenue and about 120 feet in length.

As shown, we're asking that the board reduce the required transition yard from 100 feet to 40 feet.

Sli.

Slide 1B is a different perspective of the aerial view.

It's from the front yard of the existing business.

And only the second row or about four trees would be required to be removed.

There are 10 trees that would remain in place.

And that was installed up by our client.

And as you can see, they keep their property in immaculate condition.

2A.

2A is the entrance to the existing building.

This slide is important to show which part of the building will be kept at its current setback.

The expansion area is designed for material deliveries and storage only.

Mr.

Redmond was in attendance, and maybe I would add more insight from a community stakeholders' perspective on the proposed expansion and the encroachment into the transition yard setback.

2B.

2B is the site plan with the existing condition and proposed expansion.

The site plan shows a landscape plan that does exceed the required transitional yard and those trees to be preserved along Rolls Avenue and now Rawls Court.

There are two practical difficulties we think that would prevent this site from being able to expand and stay behind the hundred foot transition line.

One, as shown earlier, the existence of the business entrance has a finished lobby and business office on the first and second level and meeting rooms at the west end of the building.

Secondly, as shown on this site plan in red, there's a large fire suppression water line that runs across the existing parking lot and connects into the building that would have to be relocated.

2C.

2C is a perspective of what the building and the expansion would look like from Rawls Avenue.

We have the existing elevation to the to the left, I'm sorry, showing the one in two level offices.

And then the new expansion area is a little bit darker that would come out toward Rawls Avenue.

In our meetings with the Warren Township Development Association, they asked us to make improvements to the architectural design of the new facade.

We added 10 large windows, and the entire base of that expansion would have the same masonry treatment as the existing building.

2D.

2D is the view of the existing building and the expansion area as it faces west.

Again, to the left, the light color is the existing building.

To the right is the new that has the two overhead doors.

Staff has offered to reduce the transition from 100 feet to 70 feet.

We went back to the architect and we went to the contractor to see how this might impact our proposed expansion.

Each of these doors would be required to have about 30 feet on each side so that the loading docks can load and unload the semis with the new material from both sides.

With the 30 feet removed, we would eliminate one of our overhead doors and the ability to load from both sides.

So it would have a drastic impact.

The other thing that it would do, even as much is eliminate 11 of our 30 parking spaces that we propose.

We are already below the minimum requirement of 49.

There are 24 spaces there presently.

Chris has informed me that they would be expected to hire four to five new employees, so we would have 30 proposed.

If the 30-foot setback, 70-foot setback were in place, we would only be able to have 19 parking spaces, which is even lower than what we would have now, and 11 shy of what we would need with the expansion.

So unfortunately, that 70-foot transition yard is simply doesn't work for the building or for the business.

3B is a street view at the entrance, looking right at the tree line.

So these trees were planted by the owners back in 2008, and as I mentioned, their property is very well maintained.

3B.

3B is a perspective or rendering, and it's almost exact replica of the trees that are out there, their species, their size, and their spacing.

And then in addition, we would be adding evergreen trees between the maples and then a lot of, I think there are like 51 shrubs that would be added at the base of these trees.

So this is the view that you would see from Rolls Avenue with the existing tree line, not something that would be planted, but what's already there, and then the backdrop is the building as it would be constructed on Rawls.

4A.

4A is a slide that shows you which properties are mostly impacted should the variance be granted.

So immediately to the east of our property is an existing farmhouse that's been abandoned, and that farmhouse and all the area around it is zoned I-4 heavy industrial.

It's our understanding that that property will probably be assembled with the rest of the land and developed at some future date.

So we don't believe there's a residential impact with our expansion area.

As you see, our neighbor to the west on the other side of Ross Court is the gymnastics building.

And then a little bit further west is the Warren Township maintenance facility.

They're both developed way closer to Rawls Avenue than my petitioners or my clients' business.

So we're making the point by this illustration that the expansion will not set an unsightly precedent along this segment of Rawls Avenue.

If you see the residential uses, I've identified as one through six on Rawls Avenue on the south side.

The ones that are mostly impacted, five and six, they have setbacks of 585 feet and 485 feet.

These are DA lots, so it's very unlikely that they'll be subdivided and developed.

And again, the house adjacent to us is abandoned in zoned I-4.

But my client Chris went door to door to all six of these homes.

Tab 4B.

As a result of his door-to-door meetings, four in Blue Stars have sent an email, a collective email supporting the variants and the expansion.

And then two in yellow, we're either unopposed or just not interested.

We do have that support email included in tab 5.

So Tab 5A, we agreed to some written commitments.

One that the variants will be subject to and in substantial compliance with our site plan and landscape plan dated 1013.

We agree because the landscaping is a key element of screening this expansion area and encroachment into the transition, that the owner will always maintain landscape plannings in good condition.

Any dead, damaged or diseased tree or shrub will be replaced immediately.

And then finally, the variants will be subject to substantial compliance with the billing elevations again dated 1013.

Tab 5B.

This is another case where we have uh overwhelming community support.

Um, Mr.

Redman will talk about the Warren Township Development Association involvement.

Again, those neighbors on Rawls Avenue either support or don't oppose.

We do have another business on Rawls Court that submitted a letter of support and sees our client or this particular business as a champion to the entrance into that industrial park and how well they've maintained their property and the investment that they're having into our community.

And then very importantly, Counselor Hart, I'm sorry, Counselor Michael Paul Hart played an important role to establish this entire area as the South Post Road Allocation TIFF district.

And it's types of business expansions and investments that we're presenting today that provide revenue directly to that TIFF.

And that TIFF money then is then allocated to projects that we need so desperately on the east side.

So at this time I'd like, I do have time this time, thank you.

Um I'm gonna have Gary come up first and talk about the Warren Township support letter, and then we'll give the rest of the time to Chris so he can talk about his business.

Thank you.

My name's Gary Redman.

I reside at 1031 Schmidt Road 46239.

Um here representing the Warren Township Development Association.

Uh like to start off by saying that this uh petitioner has been most accommodating throughout this process.

Uh we had requested that the he stake out the property uh where the new addition would be.

Uh in doing so, uh, myself and President uh Ron Phillips went out and reviewed uh where it was staked out and everything, and uh talked to uh management there.

Uh they were very accommodating.

We we toured the business and we uh from the indications from the stakes that we uh uh were able to uh go ahead and uh uh accept and approve this uh petition.

In doing so, uh we like to say that uh we're glad to we have uh successful businesses in our township, and we'd like to keep those businesses there and keep them uh happy and expanding uh their workforce if possible.

Um we're very glad that this company is has been successful and expanding the space helps keep their employees in our areas and their paychecks and the economic development within our community itself.

Uh we hope you approve this petition.

We thank you.

Thank you.

Chris Jolka, 8006 Meridian Hills Lane, Indianapolis 246, 240.

I'll do a quick introduction of coded metals group.

Coded metals group's name is a bit deceiving.

Truly, we're uh simply a distributed distributor of painted sheet metal.

This particular material uh is finished off site at our vendors.

There are no chemicals, it's strictly their our byproduct at most would be recycled sheet metal.

Um we've had uh tremendous growth from the moment I found uh this property in 2007, built and then expanded, and then with this plan in mind, uh I'm committed to this particular parcel and committed to the neighborhood.

Um I think it's important to underline or underscore with David's um comments is that uh the support, the blue star that resides at 9347 Rawls Avenue on tab 4B.

Um they have a vested interest.

They actually went around in support of this project based on the neighbor that we've been over the years.

Um I stand here committed to that.

Our growth is a result of um I'm on the operations side of the business.

I'm pulling some additional processing and distribution from other Midwest markets into our location.

We have the right workforce, we have the right growth with this particular proposed variance.

Uh, we'd have the right footprint.

David mentioned something that's important.

We're trying to get overhead access to this building to pull these trucks off the street into our facility to offload.

Um, it's being better, it's more neighborly of us.

Um, it's more efficient for us.

So, my hope is that uh the views that you see of where the trees are, and the and thank you.

Um that's an important point as well.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Are there any remonstrators present?

Let's hear from staff.

Of course.

Uh thank you very much, uh, Chairperson Taft and the board for your time.

Uh, thank you to the petitioner and the community rep for their comments.

Uh staff's offering the split recommendation here.

We are supportive of the uh minor variance for building height and for a parking reduction for a business unlikely to be a large uh traffic generator, but we are recommending denial of the uh substantial deviation from the front setback requirement.

Uh, what's proposed here would be a 60% reduction of the standard.

Uh staff could meet from halfway and support a 30% reduction for a front setback of 70 feet, but field rand addition slicing the requirement by over half would constitute an overdevelopment of the site.

I just for background beyond what was provided by the applicant of the site was developed with an industrial structure.

It was built in 2007.

There was a smaller building addition of about 10,000 square feet built onto the eastern portion without the need for variances in 2016, which results in the building's current size of about 32,400 square feet.

Uh, this addition would be 16,700 square feet onto the southeast of the site, being around a 50% increase in the building square footage as well as uh new parking areas we added on to the southwest of the site.

Um, as mentioned into that uh distribution facility for a sheet metal contractor, um loading comes from the west currently, and then there's uh seven parking facilities.

Um the site is zoned I2, and there's uh plan recommendations of light industrial, and it's also within the industrial reserve overlay of a use fair matches that guidance except for its proximity to residential zoning to the south.

Uh surrounding land use is our gymnastics facility to the west, um, residential zoning development to the south, and other light industrial uses to the north at a property to the east is zoned I4, but contains several structures that appear they may have been residential in nature at one time, and they'd be around 100 feet from the proposed edition if this were to be approved under showing the eight photo of staff's report.

It's unclear if they're occupied or not.

Uh petitioners exhibits indicated abandoned farm, sounds like.

Uh so free variances would be required here, each relating to the structure size in the context of its parcel and neighbors.

Uh the setback has mentioned 100 feet from Rawls Avenue to the south for net right-of-way is needed.

They're proposing only 40 feet.

The building height of the I2 district requires 22 feet for buildings that are right along required buffered yards.

This one would encroach 60 feet into that yard and continue to be building height of 29 feet of the existing structure.

If it weren't near residential zone, they could be up to 50 feet in height, but since it's that close, 22 foot is the requirements.

And then also for the parking.

Manufacturing uses require a parking level of one space per 1,000 square feet.

And that'd be similar for distribution as well.

I think I miswrote that.

The initial notice mailed also had listed um information about deficient buffer landscaping and sidewalk additions.

Umdated plans to us indicating placement of sidewalk and with some additional landscape detail.

I know it's passed our new information deadline, and it did not include green factor checklist information.

Um those two variants is removed from the text to the grant, and that would be verified in full during permitting what they propose looks roughly compliant.

Um applicant info and findings, the addition of this size would be needed to allow for an internal assembly line, and residences to the south are set far back from the road.

Staff also notes that 25 feet of right-of-way has already been taken compared to the property to the east.

Voter building to the west across the street does appear to meet its setback with that similar right-of-way widening haven't already happened.

Um staff doesn't feel the practical difficulty has been presented to justify this level of expansion of the site.

Um approval as is might constitute an overdevelopment of the site, just in terms of the ratio of paved area to landscaping, and that it might sort of get a negative precedent going forward.

Uh feels that would noted there would still have 80 feet of room to expand to the south without the need for any variances at all, and that this expansion 180 feet in the direction of homes to the south may not be appropriate.

As a point of compromise, uh staff had indicated that the applicant that support could be offered for a 70-foot front setback.

That's half of the deviation from the requirement they had requested, which would allow for you know more green space at the site and addressing staff concerns about retention or the green factor score.

We also allow for 110 linear feet of new buildable area to the south while better approximating uh the ordinance.

I was also could reduce or remove secondary variances related to the parking by taking that step.

Um, the 40-foot setback requested is a substantial reduction.

Uh, we feel that this in addition to the other variances would be too intense for the size of the site and uh recommend denial for that reason.

We'll be happy to answer questions that you have.

Are there any questions of staff?

Okay, petitioner, you have five minutes.

Sorry, I'll complete my statement and then yield to David.

My my comment about uh where the building and proposed expansion resides, as you can see, there's quite a ratio of of um let's say turf on our property and the adjacent properties.

Uh the fact that we've designed this to be behind the tree line for from an elevation perspective to the neighbors.

Um, we actually truth be told waited for this project while the um elderly woman to the east.

Um that property is I think been converted such.

So we're we're we've uh taken into account those around us, and we're hopeful that um we don't lose the overhead uh door to the south that limits some of our ability to run our business.

And I I think the message that that I hear when I've met with Chris, this is a second expansion.

This is the final expansion that they're going to need to be able to stay at this facility for the long term.

Um I'm just excited that it's employee-owned or and and they want to they want to stay here and they want to continue to invest.

Um we're all grateful, those of us who live in Warren Township that that we have businesses like this.

Chris has been a champion.

He he went door to door, he did everything, and it's not just for the variants, he's been doing this to be a good neighbor.

Um the staff, but we thank them, they're supporting our height.

Um, we want to keep that uniform 29 feet from the existing building all the way out.

Manufacturing facilities not only have floor uh equipment, but they have ceiling needs and a uniform ceiling height is very important.

Um, with the 70-foot uh offer from staff, we simply just can't give up the parking.

Um, and again, from uh Chris's standpoint, he doesn't want to have to come back again.

He would like for this to be their final expansion that's going to satisfy the needs of the business for for a long, long time.

We think there are plenty of safeguards in place so that this doesn't have any impact on setting a precedent because if you look on the overhead, there are properties and parking areas much closer to Rawls, and certainly the residential properties across the street.

They voice their opinion.

They support it or they don't object, in addition to the fact that they're so off far off the road.

We don't think that the grant of this variance by this board would have any negative impact on any resident um in this community, nor would it set a precedent that would be detrimental to continuing uh new development on Rawls Avenue.

I'd happy to answer questions that board members would have of me or or Chris.

Are there any questions of the petitioner?

Thank you so much.

Okay, we'll now vote on 2025 DV3033.

That's 2025 D V three zero three two.

Thank you.

On case 2025-Dv3-032 amended, Percy Bland votes yes, Brian Hannon votes yes, Joanna Taft votes yes, Ryanna Bender votes yes, and Rodville Hannon votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Thank you.

Case number 2025-DV3-033 amended property address 7857 East 88th Street.

Lawrence Township Council District No.

Zoned I2.

The petitioner is Yanjing Leo, represented by Roger Upchurch.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a building expansion, resulting in an resulting in a 38-foot rear transitional yard setback, 50 feet required without installation of the required frontage sidewalk.

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

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

Hi, my name is Ya Ching.

Uh we uh I'm here for 7857 East 88th Street.

We are trying to build um uh extension of the warehouse because we are doing cabinets and flooring business, and uh we want to do the setback for 38 instead of 50 because it's a big area on the back, and uh um uh it's plenty of the room.

Um we we also would like to do uh no front side walk if it's possible.

Thank you.

If you have any questions, sorry it's the first time here.

That's right.

Are there any questions of the petitioner?

I don't see any remonstrators present.

Let's hear from staff.

Of course.

Uh thank you to the board for their time and to the petitioner for being here today and for their comments.

Um staff is making a split recommendation here.

How we find the minor rear setback variants would be supportable.

Uh, at one point during the review period, the applicant had indicated openness to the installation of that required sidewalk along the 88th Street frontage per ordinance rules.

There's a version of that uh site plan within your staff report.

Um, however, they ultimately elected to pursue a second variance to construct the building edition without the placement of that sidewalk, and staff would not be supportive of that second variance.

Uh for context, this is currently a 5,290 square foot office and industrial building.

Under our accessory and parking accessory parking and loaded in areas to the east of the structure.

The previous user was a handicapped therapy center.

I was recently purchased for the use of a cabinet and flooring store.

Um, this is an office industrial area.

Uh surrounding uses include a roofing contractor to the north, um, the offices for a food broker to the east, a physical therapy clinic to the west, and then uh sports fields to the south associated with a church use, I believe.

And there's substantial buffering that exists along that southern buffer, uh, which is part of what makes the rear setback variant supportable.

I reposing a substantial build in addition to the existing sites, adding to the west and to the south per the site plan within being uh within staff's report.

Uh the western expansion results in a compliant 30-foot side setback, the rear setback would be 38 feet from the southern property line, the building would be 40 and then 38 for just the parking and uh and the dumpster and encroaching a little bit closer there.

Um they originally had submitted plans showing uh setback closer to 30 feet, uh pitching was open to revisions there, uh, given that that would be a more dramatic expansion of that there would be close proximity to power lines.

Um staff is in support there.

I won't take up too much of the board's time on that.

The focus would be on the sidewalk portion of this request.

Uh for situations where a site is being developed or redeveloped or expanded, um, and there are required sidewalks along frontages that don't already exist.

Um that developers would be responsible for the addition of five linear feet per 100 square foot of building addition.

Uh in this case it's a substantial building addition.

Uh 7,824 square feet, which is over 100% of the current building size, just require sidewalk to be placed along the 88 street frontage in full.

Uh the applicant um and for representative had indicated to us that the primary reason they don't want to do this installation uh beyond financial concerns is that the surrounding properties don't have sidewalk installed.

And that is true.

Uh staff would note that for areas developed under previous ordinances and with less concern given for walkability.

Um that's just context when they were developed, but there are new rules in place now.

Um there are limited feasible options to build out sidewalk networks in these sorts of areas that have already been developed up.

So when properties are redeveloped is kind of one of our best good chances to do so.

Um the Vision Zero framework uh recently adopted by the city emphasizes reduced car injury and debt and added pedestrian access as a city priority wrapped up within that framework.

And part of that is expanding access to sidewalks for businesses.

Uh Safa noted this isn't like a traditional heavy industrially zoned park, but an office industrial complex.

The businesses are a little bit more public facing and potential for walkability might be higher than it would for a standard industrial park.

Uh placing one small strip of sidewalk in front of this business obviously won't create that fine-grained of walkability overnight.

It is a stepwise process that's partially dependent on either neighboring properties doing additions or redevelopments or the city stepping in to fill in those gaps.

Um in many cases that DPW funding can be a bit tight in the latter regard, but the more existing sidewalk that gets placed by redevelopments like this, uh the easier it is to build out that future sidewalk network.

Uh staff would encourage the board to think of us less as a sidewalk to nowhere, so much as a sidewalk to the future.

Uh this is a common part of the redevelopment process.

I might be anecdotal, but I would note that the previous petition that we just heard on Rawls Avenue did have some missing sidewalk, and per the addition, they added that sidewalk in along the seven portion.

Uh to conclude, uh, the setback variance is minor and supportable, uh, but staff didn't note any practical difficulty related to the site to prevent placement of the required sidewalk.

Uh we feel the walkability is a substantial public benefit, and that the expansion of walkable spaces is dependent on votes like this to uphold ordinance rules designed to build it out.

Uh for that reason we recommend denial of the sidewalk variants, but approval of the setback variants.

I'm happy to answer any questions that the board might have, and would note that the ability to split this boat into two portions would exist if the board so chose.

I'm usually a big fan of sidewalks.

However, um, it's a flooring store, and I can't imagine people walking to a flooring store.

Right.

I mean I can I'm thinking about what are the types of businesses in that area and are they the types of businesses that people walk to?

I'm just curious.

Right.

I I I suppose it wouldn't be particularly likely that a client would walk in and leave with flooring in their hands.

I suppose this would be fair to say, but it's possible that it could have meetings to you know discuss the property.

It's possible that they in at some point in the future they might need access to additional businesses along 88 street for businesses maybe not even related to these specific site.

It's um in addition to access to the flooring store.

I think is can be seen as part of building out a larger sidewalk network servicing all of the office industrial uses along 88.

Madam Chair.

Yes, question.

So I I hear you understand you want expansion of possibility of future sidewalks.

So have you interviewed all of the business on the present side to figure out if their proposal to expanded business within yeah, was expansion to a sidewalk, or you or is the information showing that the next person may give up maybe 10 years from now, 15 years from now.

So you only have a 50-foot sidewalk in front of this building and no others.

Right.

Well, in the immediate future, um, the 50-foot sidewalk would be in front of just this building with no efforts.

I guess it would be dependent on either uh the city being able to come in and place right-of-way sidewalks or development in the future, but in terms of a specific timetable on when neighboring sites might choose to expand.

to expand the business within gives expansion to a sidewalk or you or is the information showing that the next person may give up maybe 10 years from now for 10 years and now so you only have a 50 foot sidewalk in front of this building and no others right well in the immediate future um the 50 foot sidewalk would be in front of Justice building with no effort I guess it would be dependent on Everb uh the city being able to come in and place right of way sidewalks or development in the future but in terms of a specific timetable on when neighboring sites might choose to expand um I I don't have any information in that regard I mean I mean I'm kind of visualizing only this property with 50 foot of sidewalk and nobody else and what that would look like in terms of appearance okay there are any other questions we'll now vote on I'm sorry oh I'm sorry you have five more minutes I'm sorry come on up is there anything else you'd like to say as you guys know there's no sidewalk around that neighbor and uh we do have a little sidewalk to my store if the people want to and it's gonna be weird if we have a sidewalk and is they are asking for a six teeth six feet of sidewalk that will be all my front yard of the uh grass so I think the grass is better right now in this neighbor for this community like uh commercial area so I'll hopefully we can do that thank you thank you all right we'll now vote on are we doing two ballots so the the first ballot would be for sorry Marty you're looking at me I think we're doing two ballots and I but and then because we'll separate the sidewalk from the if there's a design oh okay how about this do you all want to vote at on one ballot or do you want two ballots?

If we do one ballot is everybody good with that okay all right we're doing one ballot on case two zero two five-dv three-zero three three amended Percy Bland votes yes Brian Hannon votes yes Joanna Taft votes yes Rihanna Bender votes yes and Rod Bohannon votes yes the variance is granted is there any other matter to come before the board thank you so much we are now adjourned