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 to my left, Rod Bohannon and Rihanna Bender, and to my right, Brian Hannon and Percy Bland Jr.

Legal Counsel for the board today is Chris Steinmetz.

Staff members present present today from the Division of Planning are Eddie O'Neill, Principal Planning Administration Current Planning Administrator, Brian Patz, current planning manager, Robert Ewlin Haik, Senior Planner, Noah Stern, Senior Planner, Michael Weigel, Senior Planner, Josh Levesque, Senior Planner, and Marty Weiste, Senior Board 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 we heard immediately after all requests for continuances or withdrawals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rebuttal must be limited to the subject matter 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, statement, or arguments will be heard unless it's 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 who thinks complete and proper notice has not been given and would like the petition continue due to lack of proper notice must bring this 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 or examples.

These conditions of 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 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 for the board secretary.

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

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

Board members, um let's see, we do not have minutes.

Okay.

Is there anyone in this audience who has any questions about our procedure before we hear special requests?

Okay.

Good afternoon, members of the board.

Josh Smith with RG Development Offices at 1073 Oliver Avenue.

I'm here on item number six on your agenda.

Uh 2026 DV301, and I would like to request a five-day notice of waiver.

Or waiver of notice.

Okay.

Is there anyone in the audience who is interested in 2026 DV301?

And is against the five-day waiver.

Uh let's hear from staff.

Thank you, Chairperson.

TAF members of the board.

Staff has no objection to this request.

Okay.

So I need a motion.

Hannon's so moved.

I need a second.

We'll hear the second.

I'm gonna poll the board.

O'Hannon.

Yes.

Bender.

Yes.

Hannon.

Yes.

Bland?

Yes.

Taft.

Yes.

A five-day waiver has been granted.

Thank you.

Um if I may I also would like to request a one-month continuance to the March 17th meeting.

Um I'm working with the owner and staff on revising the plans to hopefully reduce the the variance requested.

Okay.

Um again, is there anyone in the audience who has an interest in 2026 DV3001 and is against the five the one month continuance?

Okay, let's hear from staff.

Thank you, Chairperson Taft members of the board.

Excuse me, staff would have no objection to this continuance to the March 17th hearing, and that would be without additional notice.

Okay.

I need a motion.

Bohan is so move.

I need a second.

Hannon second.

I'm gonna pull the board.

Bohannon.

Bohanan, yes.

Tinder.

Yes.

Hannon?

Yes.

Bland.

Yes.

TAP, yes.

2026 DB 3001.

It's been continued to our March 17th hearing.

Thank you.

Chairperson TAF members of the board, staff will draw your attention to item number one, 2025 MO3-003, located at 3030 North Shedland Avenue.

Registered neighborhood organization has found an automatic continuance continuing this petition to the March 17th, 2026 hearing.

This would just require your acknowledgement.

It is acknowledged.

Thank you.

Yep.

Uh thank you, Chairperson staff, members of the board.

Staff would draw your attention to item number two on the agenda 2025 SE 3003 amended at 4555 South Harding Street.

Staff is requesting a continuance from today's hearing to be March 17th, 2026 hearing date.

Um this is to allow the petitioner a bit of additional time to gather relevant information from a state agency as well as to generate some uh visual renderings that our staff had requested in order to help us make uh the most informed recommendation possible.

Uh, the petitioner is aware of staff making this request and did not express opposition.

I don't believe they're in attendance today.

So I will make that request on uh as staff.

All right.

Is there anyone in the audience who's interested in 2025 SE 3003 and is against this continuance?

Okay, I need a motion.

Oh no, so move.

I need a second.

Hannon second.

I'm gonna pull the board, Bohanan.

Bohanan, yes.

Bender?

Yes, Hannon?

Yes, Bland, yes.

TAP, yes.

2025 SE three zero zero three has been continued to our March 17th hearing.

Thank you.

Uh staff would also draw your attention to 2025 M0302 at 2719 North Emerson.

This is item number three on the agenda of the petitioner indicated to us via email earlier today that they were planning to make a continuance request related to this petition.

Um I'm not certain if they're in the audience currently or would be wanting to speak on that.

If the petitioner can come forward, good afternoon.

Um for the record, my name is Nick Hammer.

Uh with um I represent Imagineering Hold Co.

Uh regarding case two zero two five uh MO3-002.

Um I'm respectfully requesting a three-month continuance.

Uh since filing this petition, our operations have continued to grow uh due to increased demand associated with advanced manufacturing and space industry projects.

Uh as that growth has accelerated, it's become clear that our projected outdoor storage needs to uh needs may exceed what we originally anticipated uh when this case was was filed.

Um rather than moving forward with a plan that only addresses immediate needs.

We believe it is more responsible to take a short pause and conduct a more comprehensive evaluation of our long-term um outdoor storage requirements and overall site configuration.

Um this includes reviewing projected storage volumes operational.

So I'm gonna I'm gonna cut you off because this is all very interesting.

Um so my understanding is that staff is you're supporting a continuance and uh we would not have any objections since it sounds like there'd be substantial revisions.

Yeah, and I guess my question is is this a withdrawal or like how many months continue?

No, so I mean originally we requested um you know a year uh but uh ideally three to six months um in order to uh fully investigate everything that we need to do.

Um so do you want to give me a date?

Um if if we can do um May 26 would be the BCA hearing approximately three months from today's hearing.

Is that too soon?

Um I I think we can work within and within the three months um uh with our our work with the Indy economic development team.

Um but we should have at least a plan for this uh this property by then.

Okay.

So you're requesting a continuance until the May 26th hearing.

Correct.

Okay.

And let's hear from staff.

Did you have anything else to say?

Yeah, we would note that in in general we're not supportive of like very long continuance requests where the request would be substantially modified.

Uh we note that um if this were to be granted, uh, we wouldn't oppose to it, but at that May hearing date, the hearing should either the petition should go forward or if the scope is changing dramatically, it should be withdrawn at that point in time.

So we would we wouldn't be supportive of additional continuance beyond May.

Okay.

All right.

So I need a motion.

Bohemia so move.

I need a second.

Hannon second.

I'm gonna pull the board.

O'Hannon.

Bohany, yes.

Fender?

Yes.

Hannon.

Yes.

Land?

Land, yes.

Taft, yes.

So 2025, um M0302 has been continued to our May 26th hearing.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks.

So shall we proceed with the full docket?

These are petitions for public hearing.

Case number two zero two five-dv three-zero one six amended property address two three six zero prospect street, center township, council district number eighteen zoned C4.

The petitioner is Linda Thompson, represented by Justin Kingan and David Cain.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the location of a six-foot tall perimeter chain link fence within the required clear site triangular area.

Maximum three and a half foot tall fence permitted in front yards, chain link not permitted within front yards, encroachment into clear site triangle 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 under penalty of perjury that the testimony you will give us the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

I do.

Good afternoon, Justin Kingan.

Addresses 2722 Manker Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46203.

Uh period before you today regarding petition 2025's DV3016 amended for 2360 Prospect Street.

Uh this subject property is located at the northwest corner of Prospect and Keystone Avenue and has long operated as Bobby's Autos.

It's a family-owned automobile uh repair and sales business.

The site is zone C4, which allows for the auto repair uh side of the business, and a use variance was approved back in 1995 for the um to allow for the auto sales portion of the business.

The variance petition before you today um concerns the perimeter fence that is presently on the site.

The request allows for existing six-foot perimeter chainling fence in the front yard areas and within portions of the uh clear side triangle.

The core reason for this request is safety and security of a highly exposed corner lot.

Uh in the summer of 2023, the site was enclosed with the new fencing that you can see in the staff uh photos of the staff report on the west, east, and south sides.

And there was two vehicular gates that were installed, one on key the Keystone Avenue frontage and the other on the prospect street frontage.

Um this enclosure was not installed to create a privacy wall is installed to address repeated security concerns and nuisance activity on a site that stores vehicles outdoors in a heavily trafficked intersection.

We have filed with the staff the list of all the police runs that have occurred to the site over the past decade from 2016 to 2025.

Um and I brought copies of those with me here today if you anyone cares to see them.

Um there have been over 40 police runs during the past decade, including several burglary-related incidents.

Uh the purpose of the of the fence is to reduce after hours intrusions, cut through activity, and theft risk on a site with outdoor uh inventory.

At the same time, staff's concerns about the clear site triangle are is understood.

The clear side triangle exists to protect visibility for motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists, which is an especially important here given the location of the bike lane that abuts this site.

It runs along the north uh side of Prospect Street right in front of this site.

That is exactly why a chain link fence should be installed at this location rather than a solid fence type.

The request is for a very transparent fence type that still provides meaningful security.

Um thing to add to that this request is also not seeking indefinite approval.

The intent is to solve a short or a immediate concern in the short to midterm.

And that is why uh if this variance is approved, we are willing to submit commitment, a commitment that would only allow for this variance to be approved for five years.

Um we have several other commitments in which we're um willing to have recorded and submit today if this variance were to be approved.

The first one involves the uh relocation of the fence.

Certain fence segments at the corners will be relocated and pulled back as shown on the proposed site plan, which forgive me, I don't have the page that it's on, but the proposed site plan that we have filed along with this petition, uh page 30 of the staff report.

And we are committing to pull back the fence and relocate it to um mirror the site plan by March 15th of 2026.

Finally, in response to the city's notice of violations, which you can see on somewhere in the staff report.

33 of the staff report, several corrective steps have already been taken to um and additional site commitments are being offered.

The banner signs have been removed, the ADA parking space has been added, and we are committing to eliminate the outdoor storage of vehicle parts to stripe the parking spaces with durable four-inch painted lines, to enclose the dumpster properly, and to install landscaping consistent with the 1995 site plan.

I will add to that that that 1995 site plan does have 10 foot wide uh landscape strips along Prospect Street and Keystone Avenue.

There's not enough grass there currently to do to do that.

So if this variance petition is approved, we will also be uh committing to filing a modification of site plan uh petition to allow for the reduction down to I believe it's six feet that of landscape strips that are on both frontages, and so if this variance is approved today, we will be filing that petition shortly thereafter.

So, again, this request today is for the fence to remain at its existing six-foot height because of the documented history reflected and the ongoing safety and security concerns, and the fence is a primary tool for controlling trespassing and protecting the vehicles that are at the site.

At the same time, the proposal acknowledges the purpose of the clear site triangle and offers enforceable steps by a certain end date to reduce encroachment, and we are also committing that this variance would only be good for the next five years.

Um to this point, we have no or not aware of any known remonstrance.

Uh, I'll be happy to answer any questions you all may have.

Are there any questions of the petitioner?

Okay, let's hear from staff.

Absolutely.

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

Uh, thank you to Mr.

Keenan for your comments as well.

Um, staff is recommending denial of these variances to allow for a tall fence in multiple front yards that would create multiple clear site triangle encroachments in an area with multimodal transportation options.

Uh that would be the case for both proposed versions of the fence layout as shown within staff's report.

Uh, the amended version encroaches uh slightly lessened required clear side triangles to the southeast and the northeast.

Uh the southern driveway clear side triangle remain unchanged.

Uh that's within page 32 of the report, as Josh is showing up there on the screen.

Uh this was originally filed by the property owner in 2024 under a different docket number.

Um, it was dismissed for want of prosecution at that point in time.

Um, it was then refiled in early 2025, where it received an indecisive one to two vote in June of 2025 and has been continued several times since then, as the property owner has retained counsel.

Um for site context, um, the petitioner covered it fairly well, but um it's a corner lot at prospect and keystone on the northwest side.

There's an automobile sales operation at the property that was legalized in 1995 by the petition 95-UV3-65, given to C4 districts typically would not allow for auto sales uses by right.

Stranding land uses include residences to the north, the Pleasant Run Greenway to the east, a bike lane to the south, as mentioned, uh, to properties also within close proximity to the Fountain Square commercial area at a primary intersection of that being about a mile to the west of this site, not visible in that photograph.

At the time of the 1995 use variants, there was a wooden privacy fence installed along the northern property line, as well as a shorter chain link fence was placed along the western property line.

Based on site photos accessible from Google, those were removed between 2011 and 2015.

Uh based on the 1995 site plan and the photos that we have.

There has not been a history of front yard fences along the southern or eastern property lines at this site.

That changed.

It sounds like it was summer 2023 based on the applicant's testimony.

New fence was installed along the western, eastern, and southern yards of the property.

The site is now fully enclosed, except for those electronic gates that appear to have the ability to open and close.

The violation case VIO 23-005132 was opened in July of 2023, approximately two and a half years ago.

Various items were sited, including the fence height and material and its encroachment into required clear side triangle areas.

Per BNS inspections, those new areas of fence are six feet in height.

They are constructed from chain link, ones that require front yard fences to be a maximum of three and a half feet in height, and then would disallow chain link for commercial areas.

There's an aesthetic rationale there as well as uh one that's purely functional when I encourage welcoming and pedestrian-friendly storefront areas in along commercial corridors where pedestrian activity might be common, as would be the case for many C4 zone districts, but especially uh for this particular parcel.

Uh staff doesn't feel that the current fence meets that vision, and three different variances would be required.

In addition to the height and materials, defense is located within several required clear side triangle areas.

Uh, the primary one would be the busy intersection of prospect and keystone to the southeast.

There are also applicable standards uh violated for the alley to the north of the site and for the driveway onto prospect from the property itself to the south.

There's a diagram within staff's report that shows that laid out in a little bit more detail.

I think it's been shown on the screen previously.

Um, in addition to that diagram, which was generated by the site inspector, uh, one page down from that, Josh.

Yeah.

Right there.

Yep.

In addition to those diagrams, um, site photographs within staff's report also show how those current visual obstructions appear from the road.

Uh photos seven and eight showed the use from the edges of the roadway where most cars would view the current fence.

It would be pulled back in a bit from that based on the submitted site plan, but seven and the seven photos in the saffreboard give it an approximation of how that might look.

Um staff would note that although a new site plan given does yeah, uh well, they've mentioned they had proposed a commitment about pulling in as well as some of the other ones.

So uh the way the request is written wouldn't tie it to a specific layout, but it sounds like if it were to be approved with that commitment in place, it would.

So I can skip over that small portion.

Uh the full text of violation is also within the exhibits.

It sounds like they've worked to rectify some portions just to be clear.

Approval of the variance today would not allow for anything not related to defense to remain out of compliance of the site.

That would include the items related to the landscaping shown on the 1995 variants.

That older petition from about 30 years ago to allow for car sales here was tied to a specific site and landscaping layout.

So unless the property matches those plans of the use variance would technically not be valid as mentioned.

10-foot landscape strips we required along the frontages as long as the placement as well as the placement of some plantings along the rights of way.

That would need to be resolved regardless of the disposition of the fence violations.

Uh staff does feel that it might be easier to bring the site into landscaping compliance with that 1995 plant if today's fence variants were denied.

Seems that there might be just a bit more room to plant and to maneuver and navigate there.

Um also should be said we would be unlikely to support a modification of that previous petition to allow for landscaping below what was shown by that 1995 plan.

Let's see.

So bench rules within the ordinance are designed fairly to allow for reasonable privacy and security while also ensuring uh visibility, the appearance of open space, and ease of pedestrian access.

Uh findings provided by the applicant don't provide any site-specific practical difficulty to justify a 71% height increase over what would be required with clear site triangle obstructions in place as well.

Uh the placement of a large vehicle inventory here was per the previous variance grant.

It's not a new condition to the site and one that was self-imposed by the applicant's desire to have a use that would not be typically allowed within the zoning district.

Uh staff doesn't feel that it would be appropriate practice to justify a new variance, uh, largely based on a previously sought older variant.

You know, if um if defense were to go against both public safety guidance on visual impediments within the clear site triangle as well as a static guidance from the ordinance in a manner that's not in keeping with site history or with other properties added near this intersection, uh feels that a strong rationale would be need to be present.

Uh we don't feel that such a rationale exists for this case uh a site dysfunction for decades without any sort of similar fence, and staff feels that placement of either compliant shorter fencing or the plantings required by the use variants would be a more appropriate buffer.

Um again, given the commercial corridor in a walkable improving area, both near fountain square, the greenway, and the bike lane.

Uh, we feel that having a fence of this height and level of visual encroachment wouldn't not be appropriate and recommend denial.

Um happy answer questions that you might have.

Are there any questions of staff?

Okay, let's hear from the petitioner.

You have five minutes.

Great, thank you.

Um understand staff's position.

Uh I guess the one uh maybe disagreement I would have with the assertion that there's no um hardship is that maybe you know trespassing and burglaries weren't uh an issue for this site back in when this variance was approved and when the use was established.

Again, we filed uh a copy of all the police runs that have occurred in the past decade, and there's 40 of them.

And I I understand from planning side, you know, fence regulations and uh the rationale behind those, but also as a you know, for a business owner, I guess I question what are they to do to prevent their inventory, which is thereby legal right to be protected.

Um it's a tough position uh for everyone, I guess.

Um so I guess I would say it's the uses has been legally established.

We recognize that there's certain things within the site that need to be you know cleaned up and brought up to snuff, and we're working towards doing that.

Um we feel as though the fence again, um we're committing that this variance be in place for five years.

This isn't in perpetuity, and therefore, as development pushes east in the Fountain Square area, I think it makes um I don't know, just forecasting.

I could see that this use and the type of development that's on the site currently probably don't doesn't fit the character of the neighborhood in maybe 10 to 20 years.

But as we deal with it today, um again, it's it's been a family business that's been there for decades.

We're just trying to protect the inventory on the site that's there by legal right.

Um that's really the only comments I have.

Um we're willing to um as planner Weigel indicated, we're willing to uh file the modification petition that would allow for um the modification of the site plan, or if if that gets denied, we'll have to beef up landscaping to adhere to the 1995 site plan.

Um again, we've we've corrected probably half of the um issues that were cited in the violation letter, and we're working towards an end goal on the remaining half.

So uh those would be my comments.

Are there any questions?

The petitioner.

I do have a quick question, thank you.

Chairperson tacked.

And thank you for the context.

It led right into my question of the other issues that were addressed in this violation.

You said some of them have been addressed.

Could you kind of give us a little bit of information on what we're doing?

Certainly, I mean I can go.

Um, the first one, the banners have been removed.

Um, vehicle tires, brake parts, those are really vehicular parts.

Um those need to be contained, cleaned up.

That's part of the commitments that we're uh working towards.

Uh the clear site triangle fence.

Now, granted, when we relocate the fence, if this variance is approved, it will not fully pull that fence out of the clear side triangle.

You can see the diagram as Planter Weigel pointed out in the staff report.

We feel as though what we're proposing with the relocation is kind of a fair compromise, providing some relief to the clear side triangles, but still, if we were to adhere to the standards, we'd be eating up a good portion of the parking lot.

Um the fence height exceeding 42 inches, that's why we're here today.

Uh we can I don't we have not yet painted the four-inch durable painted lines.

There are lines on the pavement, but I don't think they're too that standard, so that is part of what we need to correct in the short term.

Failure to enclosed dumpster, that's the other thing we've uh committed to.

We have provided the ADA parking space.

And it looks as though the final violation relates to the ninety-five variants.

It kind of has a whole like a holistic summary of all those previous.

Eight violations.

Yep, I got you.

That's good.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

Appreciate it.

Okay.

Um so the petitioners asking to vote on five years.

That's not part of the official request.

So how do we how do we?

Didn't you say you wanted a five-year?

Correct.

We're willing to commit to that, yes.

So I suppose when the motion were made by the board, it would be subject to the proposed commitments from the applicant about the five-year maximum about moving defense in and then the other things that they had mentioned within their proposed commitment sheet.

So just making the motion subject to those commitments since it's not part of the grant of the variance tax itself.

All right.

So we are voting on the request subject to the commitments that he's provided.

And one of those commitments is that it would be no longer than five years.

Is that true?

Correct, but I would like to have him review all the items of commitments that he's.

I've got a printed copies I can hand out to everybody if that would be helpful at all.

Yes.

Okay.

So there's seven here on the list.

The the eighth one uh that would need to be added concerns the uh modification petition that would uh request the reduced landscape strips along Prospect Street and Keystone Avenue.

And so we will update that.

It's submitted updated version of these commitments that includes that seems like that is similar to the six commitment there about installing it compliant with the 95 plan, it seems like.

Yeah, uh, we we can figure out a specific wording if the petition is approved.

Okay.

Okay, so we have the commitments.

Um unless there are any other questions, we'll now vote on 2025 DV3016, um, subject to the commitments the petitioner has provided on case two zero two five-m03.

Uh that's not the correct ballot, Gracy.

Uh, we need DV3016.

One moment, please.

Take two.

On case two zero two five-d v three-zero one six amended, Percy Bland votes no, Brian Hannon votes yes, Joanna Taft votes no, Rihanna Binder votes no, and Rod Bohannan votes yes.

The variance is not granted.

Thank you.

Case number two zero two five-d v three-zero two zero amended property address four one zero two Madison Avenue.

Perry Township, Council District No.

D.

The petitioner is Sanchez Family Incorporated, represented by Kevin Lawrence.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for an eating establishment with a covered porch within the right-of-way of Castle Avenue, not permitted.

Deficient landscaping, reduced off street parking with parking spaces and maneuverability within the right-of-way of Madison Avenue.

15 spaces required.

Parking spaces and maneuverability within street right-of-ways, not permitted.

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

Do we have the PowerPoint?

I didn't resubmit it for this hearing, so it may be.

Yeah, I apologize.

I didn't resubmit it yesterday.

Thank you, Chairperson Taft, members of the board.

My name is Kevin Lawrence with Lewis Wagner and Trimble.

Office at 1411 Roosevelt Avenue, Indianapolis 46201.

I'm here on behalf of the Sanchez Family Inc., uh, the property owners of 4102 Madison Avenue to request a number of uh variances of the development standards.

Um, as they're bringing that up, I don't have hard copies, I apologize.

So I can work through it.

This petition also uh is in response to a violation letter that was received.

A number of the issues have been resolved, uh, particularly there was some outdoor signage that has been removed.

There was a dumpster that had not been enclosed that has since been enclosed.

But through that process, the remaining issues that are now uh that now remain on the property that for which we need variances uh has also evolved and changed.

Uh there primarily the issue was that in this commercial space uh there was deficient parking for the restaurant space.

That has since been effectively resolved.

The Sanchezes do own property at 4132, which is just down the street, and uh the Sanchez family will be building a sidewalk to connect those two.

Therefore, uh there will be connected uh two connected properties and then sufficient parking for that.

Um during that process, however, uh it was also brought up that uh there was not sufficient landscaping in that area, and also that the patio that has been installed that was installed by uh the Sanchez family five years ago or so uh didn't have sufficient setback during the survey work.

We did find that it actually encroaches on the right of way.

Um if you take a look at this property, it it itself for commercial property by virtue of the right an unusually large right-of-way in that area presents significant practical difficulties for the use of this property.

Um, it did actually use to be a business called Amazing Cakes for some time.

It was a commercial property that sat vacant for quite some time until the Sanchez family purchased that property and rehabilitated it.

It's been operating for over five years in that time, uh, since that time.

Um there are just a few pictures of what this building used to look like.

Um this is look from Castle Avenue looking down Madison Avenue to the south.

This is when it uh since it's been Amazing Cakes and prior to the the Sanchez family buying it.

Um and then now I that's a little difficult to see, but hopefully you can see a lot of the rehabilitation work that they've done.

This uh in the middle there is looking at the patio uh that is at issue.

Uh they have put the lands the landscaping was there, there's a patio there just off that little uh the little landscaping area, that small area.

Um I guess uh initially the request was a reduction in required off-street parking that uh effectively is being withdrawn with the understanding that there will be sufficient parking.

Uh the Sanchez family has committed a site plan, uh submitted it, in which they will build a sidewalk between their their connecting properties that will provide for sufficient parking for both.

Um there is also the issue remaining of the reduced setback for the existing patio, which is now effectively morphed into reduced setback, but also encroachment onto the right of way by about, I think our survey showed about two and a half feet into the right-of-way right there.

So those are those are our requests.

Um just a little bit more background, the criteria for a variance request.

It was on the next slide.

Um it's not injurious.

What the requests by the petitioners not injurious public health safety, morals of general welfare.

Uh this site is in a commercial district along Madison Avenue.

It's planned for mixed use activities.

This is actually one of the nicer buildings, landscaping plan, and ultimately this will be the only area right there that has a sidewalk, as a matter of fact.

This is but initially we're not we're not now requesting a reduction in the parking, but the reduced setback for the patio preserves this viable neighborhood restaurant and reinforces economic and social welfare in the area.

There is a law office directly to the north.

They've submitted a letter in support of the Sanchez family and the work that they're trying to do there.

We met with Commissioner Cahill on site who has submitted a letter as well.

And then I also met with the Northwest Perry Neighborhood Association group at their their meeting a couple months ago.

They're not taking a position, but they would be in support of putting a sidewalk in in that area.

No substantially adverse effect on the adjacent use or value.

The surrounding area include commercial uses along Masson Avenue.

There's a tire shop, a law office, all kinds of other businesses.

An active restaurant strengthens the commercial node and supports the sense of community in that area.

An enhanced well-tained maintained exterior and buffered patio improves the streetscape and are net positive for the adjusting adjacent property values.

I think it is important to understand that when we say it the patio encroaches onto the right-of-way.

This is a very unusual right-of-way.

There was a lot of discussion about site triangle, but as you can see on the site plan, it actually cuts down pretty significantly and then also cuts right through the parking lot.

So it is it is an abnormally uh wide uh abnormally wide right-of-way.

Um that I think this encroachment, quote unquote encroachment on the right-of-way by the patio is not what you would normally think of as a as a hazard or uh something that's in the traveling right-of-way.

As you can see on the next slide, criteria three, practical difficulties, should applications.

I just essentially touched on it.

Um a lot of these deal with the parking, which is no longer an issue, but again, there's an unusually a wide adjacent right-of-way, and the original plat actually showed for a five-foot distance from a right-of-making uh very strict front yard setback compliance uh impractical in that area.

There it's you'll see it on later the later one.

Um the Sanchez is actually did install this patio as a uh in order to stay viable in that neighborhood during COVID uh to expand outdoor seating and have that available.

Um so and again, it's been operating for five years there without issue, which creates you know a practical difficulty in having to remove it.

Uh the next slide will show uh the site plan that's been proposed by my client.

As you can see, they are fully committed doing whatever is necessary to make this uh workable.

They are installing the sidewalk there, either uh either so as you can see right where that blue line is.

That that's the proposed sidewalk.

Just to the left of that is the right-of-way line for these parcels.

They're commercial parcels, and it runs, and then you can see it immediately cuts right back out.

So it is unusual, and the right-of-way to the north on the north side of the parcel actually just touches the edge of the patio, and then it cuts and then it ducks right back down, you know, and is is different for for everywhere.

So it is an unusual right-of-way that's caused difficulty for a place, uh, uh a business that's been used as a commercial business for forever.

Um, also they are proposing that landscaping.

Uh, there are some site difficulties.

A lot of this is uh not green, not greenway, it's actually asphalt, hence the request for deficient landscaping.

They have committed to installing landscaping as much as they can possibly get in there, but the site and the um again, because it is right-of-way, those are a lot of those are curb cuts with just a little bit of green space there.

They've committed, obviously, and you've seen the the buffering they've put along the patio there to the north.

Um, they they plan to do a very good job.

Um, so the request for deficient landscaping is is simply just to allow us to put landscaping in there with a recognition that we probably can't get all the way up to the ordinance based on just the amount of pure asphalt right there.

Uh next slide.

So again, this is just a summary.

It's a locally owned business reinvesting in that small commercial site.

They are working to rehab the building to the south.

They're they've committed to put in landscaping, they've committed to building a sidewalk.

They've activated a previously vacant and underutilized structure and created a community gathering place that has the support of neighboring businesses as well as um Commissioner Cahill.

So I would ask that I I believe they should be in the file of those letters in support.

But in our discussion with him, he is he is generally in in support of the Sanchez's business there in the area.

I'm sorry, where are the letters of support?

Are they in the file?

Should be.

I do not at this time, unfortunately, but is it available to be um shown on the screen?

Yeah, I know if you send it to me, I can get it on the flash drive.

Yeah, give us one moment here.

Well, while they're doing that, uh I guess my my time is it'sn't going, but uh I would direct your attention to the to the staff report, the pictures on page 50 and 51, which give you a a very good idea of the the quote unquote encroachment of the uh of the patio into the right-of-way.

Maybe while we're doing that, I have some questions for staff.

So to help me understand, so I'm looking at the uh plan.

So if they took off the porch, would there just be dirt?

Is that the idea?

Or is there asphalt that also needs to go away?

What it?

What if there's there's asphalt in the right-of-way, correct?

Parking?

The violation and the issue they would need a variance for is that the patio itself, the patio structure is located within the right-of-way.

But but isn't there a parking lot in the right-of-way also?

The patio is on the north side of the property.

So the patio is actually the patio is in the right of way of Castle Avenue, not Madison Avenue.

So there's no parking in the right-of-way at all.

But there's no parking in the right-of-way of Castle Avenue.

There was previously parking in the right of way of Madison Avenue.

They have agreed to remove that parking.

And when you say remove parking, you're removing asphalt as well.

Is that true?

I'd lean on the petitioner to say how they're I mean I didn't know what the request was of staff.

The request was that they remove those spaces from the site plan not showing any striping at that location and agreeing to not provide any parking or not allow for any parking within the right-of-way, including maneuverability.

Spaces, striped spaces within the right-of-way of Madison Avenue.

The revised site plan, which is file dated February 4th, 2026, indicates the removal of those spaces from the right-of-way.

So when you say removal spaces, are you talking about asphalt too?

Or are you just talking about the striping?

The striping.

Okay.

Sanchez family.

Okay.

Initially, as we were navigating, where do we come up with parking?

They offered their parking lot through some sort of agreement.

We ended up not needing that because of the solution we've come to now.

Okay.

Anything else from the petitioner?

No, thank you.

Then let's hear from staff.

Thank you, Chairperson Taft, members of the board.

As the petitioner noted, a few of those are to go away.

I'll just quickly address each of those one by one.

So the initial site plan had shown, as I mentioned a minute ago, uh parking spaces as well as maneuverability within the Madison Avenue right-of-way.

Therefore, that variance uh can be removed from the request.

Initial request for reduced parking, reduced off-street parking.

They have since revised their plans to indicate a shared parking arrangement with the nearby property of 4132 Madison Avenue, and on the site plan on the screen that's flipped, but on this north is to the left.

And that indicates an additional 13 spaces to be available for the restaurant use, which would get them over their minimum requirement.

And they are as the petitioner noted calling for a sufficient pedestrian connectivity connection from that from that shared parking to the subject site of 4102.

Staff would note that if and when we back up, the petitioner had indicated that currently 4132 Madison Avenue is presently not being used for any commercial use, and therefore the amount of parking uh shown and proposed in the site plan would exceed the minimum requirements for the current use.

Staff would note that if and when the property owner decides to use 4132 Madison for a commercial use, the amount of off-street parking spaces would need to meet the minimum shared parking ratio requirement for the relevant uses as set by the ordinance in table 744-403-1.

So that all said, they are showing a sufficient amount of shared parking, that variance can be removed as well.

With regards to, and so that leaves landscaping as well as the cover porch located within the right-of-way.

With regards to landscaping of the site, the proposed site plan and landscape plan would be deficient in the street frontage landscaping standards outlined in table 744-505-1 of the zoning ordinance.

Given the uh size of the site, the subject site, as well as the uncharacteristically uh wide right-of-way of Madison Avenue, uh, which as the petitioner noted eats into what would otherwise be their property.

Staff finds there to be a degree of difficulty for the petitioner to be able to provide a compliant amount of frontage landscaping on site.

Likewise, uh the petitioner with the committee petitioner committing to providing sufficient off-street parking, um, part of part of which is on the subject site, the space available for new landscaping is limited.

Despite this, they are calling for additional plantings of shrubs and trees uh in the landscape plan, and so therefore, staff is unopposed to the variance for deficient landscaping on this site.

And then finally, with regards to the covered porch, which is partially in the right-of-way of Castle Avenue.

Uh generally, staff uh does not find the proposal to constitute quality development.

Uh, firstly, the covered porch uh was constructed without obtaining the necessary permits from the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services.

Uh likewise staff finds private property to be located within public rights of way to be port precedent and a potential hazard to members of the public for ease of access and mobility.

To this point, staff would note that there are not currently sidewalks along this portion of Castle Avenue.

However, if in the future DPW decided to provide sidewalks on this along this neighborhood street, the location of that patio could potentially impede or complicate that effort.

Um lastly, addition uh staff does not find there to be any practical difficulty for needing the covered porch within the right-of-way and believes the subject site can be used without the presence of the of the patio within the right-of-way of Castle Avenue.

So, therefore, staff recommends denial of that variance, the porch and the right-of-way.

So, just to summarize, the revised plans only require the two variances.

Staff is unopposed, recommending approval of the deficient landscaping and is recommending denial of the porch within the right-of-way and can't answer any questions you might have.

Are there any questions for a couple questions?

Number one, you indicated there might be sidewalks put in by DPW some kind of future do you know how far in advance we're talking about?

No apologies just to to clarify that point was only um to mention that there currently is not there are not sidewalks along Castle Avenue but was making the point that if DPW decided to put sidewalks at that location the location of the patio within the right of way might complicate that effort um since it's on DPW's land.

My second point being a I guess one that goes what to have some out to a seating somewhere did you recommend any place else on the building site on the site for an outdoor seating I there staff did not recommend any other location for outdoor seating um given that it's not a requirement of an eating establishment we did not feel it was appropriate to uh you know offer that as an alternative since that's not required by the ordinance one question if I may is it correct that Castle Avenue is not a fifth street it goes to Camden and then ends directly on the other side of Camden one second it looks like it intersects with dead ends about yeah it intersects with another neighborhood street but then dead ends to the west of that yes thank you are there any other questions of staff?

Okay let's petitioner you have five minutes thank you uh just to address the removal of parking yet it is again unusual that's their curb cut right there so that's asphalt we wouldn't be able to remove that asphalt because the way we would be able to get access actually what the Sanchez family does they put cones out there to ensure that nobody parks right there or since this has become an issue um I think throughout this whole process nothing has been shown more than the Sanchez family is willing to do whatever is necessary to ensure that this uh is compliant um but also within the bounds of reasonableness I mean it was 2019 they put the patio in and I recognize that but this again in any other corner lot if you look at the actual right of way here you you're a good you know five feet off the street I mean it's just such an unusual parcel and with the proximity to the building to the south if there's no other place to put the the the parking or to put the covered patio um I I think it just the unusually large right of way creates significant practical difficulties for maintaining this as a commercial property not just not just a restaurant amazing cakes was there you know you've seen the pictures where everybody just parks right up against it um you know it's and I the the patio is fully respective of the site triangle I recognize that there is a necessary use for right of way to be that excessive there but again would the the patio has been respective of that um and it's it it quite honestly conforms to what you would see any other in any other restaurant it just happens to be right next to an unusually large right of way um on Castle Avenue okay thank you um do we need to have two different ballots how do we do this if it's if we're voting on landscaping and covered porch it's uh that's certainly an option to to split them and and since staff's giving a split recommendation that would probably be appropriate and uh so have two ballots okay so ballot A would be the landscaping and ballot B would be the okay okay we will now vote

On case two zero two five dash D V three dash zero two zero amended A, this is the landscaping request portion.

Percy Bland votes yes, Brian Hannon votes yes, Joanna Taft votes yes, Ranna Bender votes yes, and Rod Bohannan votes yes.

That variance is granted.

And for the B portion, which is the covered porch request of two zero two five dash D V three dash zero two zero amended, Percy Bland votes yes, Brian Hannon votes yes, Joanna Taft votes yes, Ranna Binder votes yes, and Rod Bohannan votes yes.

That variance is also granted.