Well, yeah, I guess I don't know if you're going to be missed out too.

If you want to.

Okay.

Yeah.

Maybe some new site points.

Well, I don't think that's I'm not sure.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the December third, twenty twenty five meeting of the Metropolitan Development Commission.

We will now come to order as we have a formal quorum.

Please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you.

Members of the Commission.

Last Thursday you were supplied with a copy of the minutes of the November 19, 2025 meeting.

Are there any additions or deletions to those minutes?

Hearing none.

Uh Commissioner Lyle, I'll have you recuse yourself since you missed that meeting.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Uh hearing none.

Commissioner Schumacher, can I get a motion to approve?

So moved.

Commissioner West, can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the roll.

Garver.

Garver, yes.

Hergett.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher.

Schumacher, yes.

West.

West, yes.

Dylan is a yes.

We have seven four.

No against one recusal.

Moving forward.

Are there any continuances, withdrawals or special requests today?

Kathleen.

Thank you, President Dylan.

Members of the commission.

Staff would draw your attention to item number nine.

It is 2025, ZON 111 located at one one two zero seven East Washington Street.

This will need to be continued to the December seventeenth hearing, pending receipt of executed commitments.

Kathleen.

Yes.

And I spoke with him today right before coming down here, and he anticipates those being ready to go to be signed and submitted, and we can go forward on the Would you let him know he gets a demerit for the third time that we're going to do that?

I will.

Thank you.

We have before us 2025 Z O N one one.

We have a request due to lack of commitments to move this to the December 17th meeting.

Commissioner Murphy, can I get a motion to approve?

So moved.

Commissioner Robinson, can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the roll.

Garver.

Garver, yes.

Lyle, yes.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher.

Schumacher, yes.

West.

West, yes.

Dylan is a yes.

Kathleen, please let Mr.

Twee know.

We're moving it to December 17th by vote of eight to zero, and we expect the commitments to be in place, or we're just going to pull it.

I will be I will be happy to do that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other requests, withdrawals?

Continuances.

Seeing uh Nancy, would you read the two petitions into the record?

Policy resolutions.

Thank you, President Dillon and Commissioners.

First, we have 2025 R052.

Authorizes the Department of Metropolitan Development to depose dispose of real property through the vacant to vibrant land bank program.

2025 BB002 authorizes the expenditure of unobligated funds on deposit in the respective allocation funds in the total estimated amount of $38,709, but not to exceed $39,000 to reimburse the bomb bank for prior expenditures incurred by the bomb bank, acting for and on behalf of the city for certain costs and expenses described in exhibit A collectively the prior projects that are related to local public improvements which are physically located in or physically connected to the respective allocation areas pursuant to Section 26B 3G of the Redevelopment Act.

This ends the reading of the resolutions.

Thank you, Nancy.

Members of the Commission.

We've had 2025 R052, 2025 BBO02 read into the record.

Commissioner Hergett, can I get a motion to approve both?

So moved.

Commissioner Lyle, can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the roll.

Garver.

Garver, yes.

Hergett.

Hergitt, yes.

Lyle.

Lyle, yes.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher.

Schumacher, yes.

West.

West, yes.

Dylan is a yes.

Both resolutions passed by an 820 count.

Nancy, let's go to the petitions of no appeal.

Yes.

Thank you again.

President Dillon and Commission.

Petitions of no appeal recommended for approval by the hearing examiner.

2025 APP 010 at 7331 West 34th Street, Wayne Township, Council District 11.

2025 APP 013.

At 5425, Reed Road, Pike Township, Council District 5.

2025 APP 014.

2010 West 86th Street, Washington Township, Council District 1.

2025 MOD 021 at 1010 East 86th Street and 8685 and 8699 North Guildford Avenue Washington Township Council District 2.

2025 ZON 097 at 2705 and 2715 North Post Road Warren Township Council District 15.

2025 ZON 102 amended at 2802 Merchants Drive and 2802 Lafayette Road Wayne Township Council District 11.

2025 ZON 115 700 West 16th Street and 1302 or 1302 Fall Creek Parkway East Drive Center Township Council District 12.

This ends the reading of the no appeals docket recommended for approval.

Thank you, Nancy.

Members of the Commission, we have 2025 APP 010, 2025 APP 013, 2025 APP 014, 2025 MOD 021, 2025 Z O N 097, 2025 ZON 102 as amended, 2025 ZON 111 and 2025 ZON 115.

I'd like to take the eight uh zoning petitions of no appeal together.

Commissioner Schumacher, excuse me.

I apologize.

2025 ZON 111.

Nancy remove that from the list as it was continued.

Got it.

Thank you, Councillor.

Um we now have seven petitions of no appeal.

And Commissioner Schumacher, I'd like to ask for a uh motion to approve all seven.

So moved.

Commissioner West, can I get a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Let me call the roll.

Garver.

Garper, yes.

Her good.

Hurricate, yes.

Lyle, yes.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher.

Schumacher, yes.

West.

West is yes on all except voting no on number eight, which is 2025.

Z O N 102 amended.

2802 Merchants Drive and 2802 Lafayette Road.

Thank you.

Dylan is a yes.

So that brings our count on the seven petitions of no appeal to seven for all the petitions with one no vote on 2025.

Z O N 111.

I'll back that up.

We have eight yes votes for all but 2025 Z O N 102.

Nancy, which is a seven to one.

The rest are eight to zero.

We good.

All right, council, are we good?

Sorry for the confusion.

Moving forward, that brings us to our loan scheduled public hearing.

Nancy, can you read that into the record?

Certainly.

Thank you, President Dillon and Commissioners.

Our petitions for no petitions for public hearing are companion petitions recommended for denial by the hearing examiner.

Appealed was filed by the petitioner.

2025 CPL 825 and 2025 C VR 825.

Um at 7140, and it's 825 amended at 7140 and 7142 East Washington Street.

Excuse me.

Zone Warren Township, Council District 14.

It's zone C4.

And I see here I need to look at just one moment, please.

The petitioner is Fieldstone Financial LLC by Joseph D.

Cauldron.

Requesting approval of a subdivision plat to be known as Wawa Short Ridge Primary Plat, subdividing 9.4 acres into three lots.

Also requesting a variance of development standards of a consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of an automobile fueling station with a parking area behind the front building line encompassing 88.1% of the lot width.

Maximum 40% lot width for parking permitted behind front building line with deficient front first floor transparency of 40 percent is required.

Well all those intending to testify on these petitions this afternoon, either for or against, please stand now to be identified.

Anyone else?

Please raise your right hands.

Do you swear affirm on the penalties of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh hold on, counselor.

We got a little cleanup when we want to do on this.

First of all, members of the commission, so we have one vote on the plat and one vote on the variance, so we'll have two ballots.

Secondly, Eddie, would you want to clean up the record a little bit there?

Thank you, President Gentleman.

I just wanted to prepare an opening statement on this filing.

Um, given uh letters that you have received, particularly from interest parties, as well as articles that have been published around uh the variance of use that was denied by the hearing examiner and the application of the regulations of the zoning ordinance.

Uh first and foremost, I want to state that um the TOD overlay, which was put into effect in 2021, uh specifically limits the number of um automobile pump islands as well as service areas for fueling stations within the overlay to a total of eight.

Uh that is specific to pump islands itself, which are the raised curves on which the pumps actually sit.

It is not specific to the number of hoses or the number of vehicles that may be parked on either side of that raised island.

Um so when a uh a fueling station is proposed at least 601 feet away from a transit station area limited to a total of eight uh pump islands or service areas.

Now the question at hand that is uh kind of come up is well, what is a service area and how does that affect the total number of pumps a fueling station may have?

Now the question at hand that is uh kind of come up is well, what is a service area and how does that affect the total number of pumps a fueling station may have uh a service area, which has been the consistent training interpretation and the intent while we were preparing this overlay when it was being drafted in 2020, would be uh to factor in other automotive uh related uses that are commonly associated with fueling stations.

For example, you may recall that some uh fueling stations have car washes.

So if there was a proposed fueling station within the overlay that did have a car wash, if it was a single bay car wash, that would be one service area, which would detract from that total number of eight, which would mean that they can have that one car wash and a seven, a total of seven uh pump islands.

Um it is also not uncommon for existing uh fueling stations to also have uh repair bays uh attached to it.

We don't really see those as much anymore, but they do exist.

Uh so for example, if they had uh two automotive repair bays or other type of service base associated in accessory capacity of the fueling station, that would mean that they could have those two bays as well as a total of six um pump islands.

Um as uh regional automotive fueling stations from outside of the Midwest or Central Indiana region are now entering the market.

A lot of them do have emphasis on uh food services and sales, and some of them do also have drive-throughs, including uh other wawas, not this Wawa particularly um uh that's being discussed today, but should they have a drive-thru, then that drive-through component would be one service area which would allow them to have a total of seven pump islands.

Uh so I really just wanted to make sure that that was clear and that that uh is the way that the ordinance has been interpreted.

It's the way that we trained on it upon adoption, and that was the intent when we were preparing it uh for approval by this commission and 21 and and council's approval uh and and 21 as well.

And with that, staff would answer any questions that the commission may have related.

So there were no rules changes.

There was no rules changes, it was a clarification, it was not a reinterpretation.

It was a miscount of how we interpreted the pumps.

Yes, uh miscount uh miscommunication, and um I just wanted to get that on a record that way the commission was clear.

And counselor, you agree with his uh we calculation of we appreciate it actually.

Thank you.

Let me walk through the rules of engagement, counselor, if I might may I have a request uh special.

Counselor, sure.

Um we would request a five-minute recess.

We had uh tendered a new site plan yesterday to staff, the intent of which would eliminate um one of the variances in its entirety.

We've been talking with staff this morning, in fact, we prepared some commitments.

I don't know that they've confirmed our calculations yet.

We anticipate a few minutes might allow us to walk in as unified front, hopefully eliminating uh the parking width variants, if you will.

So councilor, I'm gonna kick it off at 125.

So go to the Is that okay?

Thank you.

We'll take a we will take a break until 125.

Thank you.

The hearing is still in order.

Yes.

And we're gonna go from there.

All right.

Members of the commission, if you gotta hit the restroom or do something, we'll we'll go at 125.

I'm sure I have to give it back.

So it's item for five.

So somehow we're going to walk over that video.

Counselor, did you make any progress?

We did, in fact.

Let me get into the rules of engagement.

We can we can announce it.

Let me get in the rules of engagement.

Ladies and gentlemen, we will give the petitioner 15 minutes to make their case.

We have several remonstrators here as a group.

You will get 15 minutes as a whole to make your case.

Next, then we're going to go to staff.

They're going to give us their position.

I'll go back to the petitioner for rebuttal.

And then I'll come back to you, remonstrators, for final rebuttal, and then we will vote on the matter moving forward.

Counselor, you're on a shot clock.

Go.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh members of the Commission, Joe Calder and 11 South Meridian, Indianapolis.

We are pleased that we made progress and can eliminate one of the variances that uh Nancy read into the record, that being parking spaces related to lot width.

Um each of you should have an exhibit book.

If you turn to tab four of your exhibit book, you'll see the latest site plan, which we supplied to staff yesterday, and we just met outside.

Um what we had done was we had eliminated a row of parking along the north property line and uh made it run in a north-south fashion in the middle of the lot to reduce uh parking and lot width.

The area in question then became shortly before this hearing, uh, the five parking spaces that you will see on the left side of your uh exhibit uh just uh north of the green space and to the left or to the west of the building.

You see those five spaces.

Uh by eliminating two of those spaces, uh we meet the uh technical requirement of having no more than 40 percent of parking in a east-west fashion compared to the lot width.

Um you're keeping three, you're getting a lot of the same.

We're keeping three, eliminating two, and what we agreed with staff was that we would tender a new site plan for administrative approval reflecting that.

So those two spaces which uh would be on on the west side will be converted to green space.

Nancy, stop the clock.

Eddie, you're in agreement with what he's saying.

Yes, President Dylan, staff is in agreement.

Staff's in agreement.

We're down to three spaces.

Variances now waived on that matter.

Correct.

On the width of the parking.

Correct, subject to a revised site plan for administrators approved.

So the last variance that is still in play is the transparency.

The glass issue.

Yes.

Okay.

Here we go.

Nancy, back on the clock.

Joe, go.

Thank you.

Do we have the PowerPoint pulled up by any chance?

Pete.

Okay, thank you.

And I'm gonna refer to the exhibit book in large part because it has larger drawings for you to look at.

Um, but what we really want the commission to uh understand is that essentially what we're proposing is an improvement to an existing parking lot out in front of Eastgate Mall.

And you can see that in tab one, larger view as well as that slide on the intersection.

Now, the reason that we're here before you today is not that the property is not zoned properly for this particular use.

It's because that because the blue line is being extended uh down Washington Street.

We are subject to the TOD uh rules.

In addition, uh in the C4 district, there are rules regarding window transparency as well.

So in this case, because the TOD has us shifting the building closer to Washington Street, uh it triggers a four-sided window requirement.

Normally, under the TOD, you would just have facades fronting on the street that request that trigger a variance.

And in C4, normally, if you had a normal commercial setback, you would have just a transparency measured as you move 50 feet from the public entrance.

So this triggers an unusually significant requirement for window transparency.

We understand that, and we've been working with staff to try to reach solutions for a long time on this to a point where what we are proposing is as you can see in tab seven, which shows you all four sides, a combination of transparent windows and what we call spandrel glass, which is gives you a look of providing windows from the street view.

You just when you get up to it, you can't see through.

And if you look at the rear elevation, which fronts Washington Street, we added as a compromise and requests from neighbors to have a public entrance facing Washington Street, because after all, if there is going to be a bus station a thousand feet or so to the east, we wanted to have connectivity and opportunity for people that might want to get a cup of coffee or breakfast to be able to walk in at that side.

So in so doing, we kind of created an additional problem.

But outside of the entrance on Washington Street, you've got kind of back of the house issues from floor plan standpoint, including restrooms.

You can't hardly have transparent uh glass when you have restrooms.

And then if you look at the two sides, we have one side with elevation showing transparent glass, and that would be uh the west, and then the east would have the spandrel glass.

Let me flip to my slide that uh shows the percentage of glazing.

So in this instance, measuring the main entrance, again facing north, and keep in mind the transparency requirement is between three feet and eight feet.

We actually have glass that goes from two feet to eight feet ten inches.

So we've got plenty of transparent glass, but between three and eight feet, we've got 170 square feet or 37 percent, adding the total facade or up to 8 feet 10 inches, that gets us to 65.

And then we've added spandrel glass side uh glass on that.

And if you would consider our compromise as a combined transparent and spandrel glass between three and eight feet, we are at 44.2 percent on that north side.

Continuing on, we do the same thing on the Washington Street entrance.

We do have uh more spandrel glass, but if you can consider a combination of transparent glass and spandrel glass, even between three and eight feet on the Washington Street side, we are at 58.7.

So we've added quite a bit of spandrel glass.

Continuing continuing along the same uh theme, along the west side uh we have 27 percent transparent glass between three and eight feet, 47 percent.

If you consider two feet to eight feet uh ten inches, we've added spandrel glass so that if you consider the combination of those two, we've between eight three and eight feet we're at 41.6, and then on the east side uh we don't have any transparent glass on that side because of the floor plan issues, but if you consider uh the spandrel, we are at 40 percent between three and eight feet.

So what we wanted to emphasize is that we do have uh 40 percent on all sides, three to eight feet.

If you consider the combination of transparent glass and spandrel glass, which gives you the look.

The compromises again that we made in this regard include adding a pedestrian entrance, a public entrance on Washington Street.

So we have two public entrances now.

Secondly, we added an outdoor patio and seating area uh in that uh to the west of the building.

And in fact, uh Des contacted me this morning and he asked that we put in uh a commitment as to the outdoor patio and green space, which we've done.

I've handed you draft commitments for your consideration.

Uh so all we're really down to then is this whole transparent glass, which again, if this was not something where we shifted the building so close to Washington Street, we probably could have made it work.

We just couldn't make it work given the TOD rules that shift it closer, which triggered a four-sided uh window requirement.

And we hope our compromise is appropriate.

I'd like to have Ron uh Phillips from the Warren Township Development Association say a couple of words.

Good afternoon, President and uh Commissioner and good staff.

Ron Phillips, President Warren Township Development Association, 2121, Shen Crest Hill, Indianapolis, 46239.

Um historical corner there.

19 uh 54, they start the Clover Leaf Interstate uh intersection, which was the first in Indianapolis, finished in 1957, and in 1957, uh Eastgate Mall, the first mall in Indianapolis, and all because of the booming east side with the Chrysler and Ford and Western Electric and all of that kind of dried up around in the 1970s.

And so in 1980, the only development at this intersection was Cub Foods, whole new concept, right?

Of wholesale type grocery shopping.

Nothing has happened there except the sea of asphalt.

And luckily, the building is existing, and now a health club, and there's an IU medical clinic there as well.

So this is kind of an isolated little bit of a desolate area, and this beautification of uh uh Phoenix coming out of the asphalt uh adds, I think, to the quality of life for our residents at Warren Township.

Um enhance walkability and biking, and if you look on tab uh five, it shows the landscaping that's gonna happen there and create a lot more shade and a lot more uh uh livability for our our residents.

Not only does uh Wawa is an employee-owned company, but with the quality of life comes the ability for higher education, because Wawa pays for any higher education for any employee, not just management staff.

The manager that I spoke with had earned a bachelor's and now working on her master's degree all on their dime.

So with eight to ten people per shift, this is not a two-people uh gas station behind a bulletproof glass.

They have eight to ten people per shift, one percent out in the exterior just to keep maintaining the cleanliness of the building, the grounds.

Um 30 or maybe 40 jobs for our east side residents, hopefully, to be able to be employed uh with a decent rope with decent wage and the ability to get higher education.

So, on that, we we highly recommend and supported this 100% unanimously, and we hope that uh you support it as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ron.

Thank you, Ron.

I appreciate it.

Um we've spent a lot of time on this uh project and have made a number of plan changes along the way, and we're very proud of the fact and grateful to staff giving us a couple of weeks to work on our latest revised site plan and even up until our little recess a few minutes ago.

So we think we've got a site plan that works for everybody.

We've knocked this down, which is not easy to do with the TOD regulations to one variance on architecture.

Given what's out there today, which is parking, if you really look at the elevations in Tab 7, and you can say to yourself that this is something that we think is an enhancement to this particular stretch of Washington Street.

Cars aren't gonna go away.

This is works with the bus line.

We're adding outdoor seating patio, we're adding a public entrance on Washington Street as well as the north side.

We want to work hand in hand to coincide uh with the blue line.

This does it.

This gives you high quality materials, jobs, assessed value, everything that you could possibly want, and a parking lot that exists today.

Mr.

Schweitzer has owned this property for over 20 years with nothing until Walbaugh and he decided it looked uh for that deal.

There have been temporary produce stands, Christmas tree stands, but nothing that really is permanently supporting the community.

Listen to what Warren Township said.

We think they're spot on.

They know their neighborhood.

We hope that our compromises on the variances make sense to you.

Uh very ends, I should say, on the windows.

Plenty of glass, just not all of it's transparent.

If you consider that we have even a good amount of transparent glass, but it starts at two feet and goes up to eight feet ten inches versus just the measurement of three feet eight inches, we'd be in pretty good shape.

So you also have a plat to look at, which is considerably less controversial, uh splitting 9.4 acres into three lots, A, B, and C, we're adding the plat commitment that I provided to you.

Lot B would be the Wawa lot, if you will.

We're tying lots A, which is the big remainder lot, and B together in the commitment.

Uh with that, happy to answer any questions you may have.

Questions?

Members of the Commission.

I have some.

Yes, Mr.

Murphy.

Commissioner Murphy.

Um Counselor, I realize there might not be an exact answer to this question because part of this is replatting.

Um probably will change the tax parcel, but do you have a approximate idea of what this particular parcel uh pays in taxes, real estate property taxes?

Uh Mr.

Sweitzer might know.

It's all it's all part of a bigger parcel, which has a building.

Uh it's but it's assessed as a vacant lot.

Um it's not a lot, it's not a separate tax parcel yet, is the issue.

Right.

Um Mr.

Sweitzer is the owner, so he may be able to give you an idea, Mr.

Murphy.

Roy Sweitzworth feels to financial.

I'm the owner of the property that we're speaking about.

Um sorry.

Address uh 218 World Away Lay Ranchman, Kentucky.

Have you been duly sworn?

Have I been duly sworn in?

Thank you.

Go.

Uh to the best of my memory, the approximate taxes for both parcels, it's split up right now because this used to be a gas station area uh years ago back in the 50s, uh, I believe is around $37,000 a year.

Okay.

That's close enough.

It sounds about right.

And then do you know approximately what the tax bill will be once uh if this is approved and developed?

I'm sorry, could you ask that?

Do you know approximately what the annual tax will be if this is approved and then developed as proposed?

Uh I do not at this point because it would need to be reappraised uh by tax department to but to give you an example.

Um Wawa spends about seven, eight million dollars on on their projects.

So it's gonna raise the value considerably.

So if the budget for this is approximately seven to eight million, does that sound like uh Pat Moon from Wawa just confirmed that?

Okay, and then at the Marion County um commercial tax rate, that'd be approximately 200,000 a year in property taxes at 3 percent.

Probably around 20,000, wouldn't it?

Yeah, 24,000 additional new value.

Yeah, yeah, quite a bit.

The 37, uh, Mr.

Murphy includes his existing building and all the parking.

This parcel at one point five acres with old paving uh is probably not anything a significant portion of what he's paying on on the building and the pavement together.

So you might double check that.

I think your taxes are gonna be a lot higher than that if if you run some calculations, but we can come back to that and rebuttal.

I'm just looking for a difference.

I'm looking for a difference in the incremental tax increase.

Yeah.

So what the what we're collecting now versus projection of based on the investment budget, but maybe you can noodle that and come back and rebuttal.

The to give you an example, we would our value wouldn't change.

The original tax amount I gave you wouldn't change by adding the Wawa.

It the Wawa taxes would be on top of the 37,000.

Well I understand that.

We'll run some, we'll rerun some numbers when we sit down and get back to you if that's okay.

It's it's the land and improvements.

So your your overall assessment is going to go up considerably.

Yes.

So you might just look at that and come back.

Yes.

Thank you.

Yes.

Additional questions for the petitioner.

Yes.

So Commissioner Garrett.

Hi.

If uh 40% is required transparency, and I understand you've got these glass windows that don't that aren't transparent.

What percentage is transparent?

We have 36.3.3 it depends on the facade for.

Eddie, is it my am I close?

Last check it was in that three and a half-ish range, but I would defer to the petitioner as those elevations have changed since it was initially noticed.

But I'm close.

Yes.

Okay.

Other questions for the petitioner.

Yes.

Has there been has there been much conversation with the city architect on this particular issue of window?

No, this never reached the city architects purview.

Any other questions?

Councilor.

Where's IMPD on this matter since they are adjacent to your facility?

We've been engaged with IMPD.

We've asked them, we've talked to them.

Mr.

Sweitzer can give you a report on that, sir.

I have talked to the IMPD uh next to us and asked for a uh a letter of support of verbal support, but they could not give a letter of support just because the city is uh against it right now.

And that's not really their job, but from talking to the IMPD, they are very excited about it coming in.

But we don't have that verified at this point.

Uh I can't give you any written verification, nor can they make any.

Thank you.

And understood their position.

Counselor.

One of the issues on the overlay is specific to this site.

IMPD pulls in an emergency situation.

They want to be able to see what the heck's going on.

Can they see what the heck's going on?

Oh, they can see uh what's going on very well, um, particularly from the main entrance.

Even with this three and a half or four percent.

Well, we're well if again we're three percent short on that north side.

Three point three point feet.

But we are well over the requirement if you go up a couple you go down one more foot and up a couple more feet.

So, in your professional opinion, they can see come forward in an emergency system.

And that's where the cashier and and all of that stuff would be visible.

That's triggered a lot of the COVID rewrites in 2016, was exactly what you're saying.

IMPD want to respond to a robbery, that's why you have it germane to liquor stores and a few other particular uses.

We gotta see what's going on.

So the side where all of that, the money, the uh cashier and all that, that main public entrance is definitely uh viewable with ease from the IMP.

Final questions for the petitioner this time.

Thank you, Councillor.

Stand by, please.

We'll be back to you.

I I would suggest you get Commissioner Murphy's numbers close as you can get.

Remonstrators, welcome.

Please come forward.

You're on the clock as a whole for 15 minutes.

Flip a coin, who's up?

Please introduce yourself and your address and have you been duly sworn, sir.

Yes.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Uh Taylor Feierstein, Director of Healthy Communities at Health by Design, uh 4573 Winthrop Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46205.

Thank you, Taylor.

Go.

All right.

Uh President Dillon and Commissioners, my name is Taylor Feierstein.

I'm the director of Healthy Communities with Health by Design.

On behalf of our board of directors, staff team and coalition partners, I'm here to support staff's recommendation for denial of the requested variances for the proposed Wawa along East Washington Street.

Health by Design works across sectors and disciplines to ensure communities in Indiana and beyond have neighborhoods, public spaces and infrastructure that support healthy active living.

We advocate for equitable, accessible, safe, and connected transportation options.

Transportation options that serve residents of all ages, abilities, and incomes.

We oppose any variances that would grant approval of this gas station, as this would be incompatible with uh the intent of transit-oriented development best practices.

We are also concerned that current language may be used to allow developers to build twice or more than uh the previous amount of allowable fuel pumps near bus rapid transit corridors without needing a variance.

Uh we must protect our city's 1.2 billion dollar investment in bus rapid transit, and this starts with upholding the intent of our city's TOD ordinance adopted in 2021.

Um there are already at least seven other gas stations within a mile radius of the property uh in allowing this project to move forward, especially with variances to the development standards, uh would bring more vehicle traffic to the bus corridors, which uh mind you will have reduced lanes and areas, uh reduce the economic viability of transit by reducing walkworthy destinations, um, and uh take away more land that could be used for housing uh and continues the proliferation of gas stations and convenience stores in our communities.

Uh we urge you to oppose the requested variances and ensure any new developments meet uh the best, highest and best use uh that TOD standards uh define.

Thank you for your time and consideration, and I also appreciate uh the the petitioners and all the work that they've put in in trying to get this project uh to fruition.

I I know it's a lot of work, it's a lot of uh uh uh barriers to get through, but um we really are feel strongly that uh gas station is not the highest and best use for this location.

Thank you.

Thank you, Taylor.

Other remonstrators.

Please introduce yourself and your address.

Hello, my name is Jacob Morales, J A K O B.

Uh, I'm at 1315 North Colorado Avenue, uh, Indianapolis, Indiana, 462 uh 01.

Um thank you, President Dillon and Commissioners.

Um first I would like to start off with a token of appreciation uh first for staff for clarifying uh the ordinance uh as well as for the petitioners for their continued work on this.

Um I would like to say that you know many of us came uh in opposition to remonstrate at first due to the fuel pump counts, uh, you know, our concerns with uh the amount of fuel pumps going up along TOD.

We want to protect our investment in public transportation and bring more automobile traffic uh onto city-owned roads uh it is contrary to that.

It it is it is not bring the kinds of development that get people to ride the bus, which in turn uh reduces the uh efficacy of transit and increases the reliance on subsidies for our public transportation.

Uh and and based off this, based off of um the many support, uh many emails of um, you know, uh remonstrating this that I've you know been tagged on to city county counselors.

Uh there seems to be strong opposition to the continued proliferation of gas stations in our communities.

Uh, we mentioned 28, uh staff mentioned 28 gas stations within two miles.

Uh so I would like to humbly urge uh this commission to seek a moratorium on gas stations uh moving forward.

Uh we believe that uh, especially along bus rapid transit, but generally these uh kinds of developments are harmful to our communities, they incur an opportunity costs, things that could be housing to address our housing affordability crisis, uh, among other, you know, creating walkworthy destinations for people.

Um so I thank you very much for your time and your consideration of this.

Thank you, Jacob.

Other remonstrators, you're good.

Everybody's good.

Design.

Yeah.

Hi, my name is Des.

I'd like to start off by saying that we did have um five additional emails of remonstrance that were sent in.

They would just send in today, one at 1 p.m.

Just wanted to make sure I uh I mentioned it and I'll put in the file folder for this.

Um with the commitments that are being made on the plat about the parking space and the outdoor, I guess, greenery and shrubbery on that law A area, the non-Wawa area that makes part of that L shape.

Uh, with those commitments, staff will be in support of that plat and would recommend approval.

Uh we spoke about the variances already, so I'll just get to that uh last variance.

The last variance here is regards about transparency and the TOD has a transparency regulation, and so does the C4 regulation, and they both uh hit with this particular project.

And the TOD has a transparency regulation, and so does the C4 regulation, and they both uh hit with this particular project.

Um the problem here right now is essentially the definition of transparency and spandrel glassing glazing does not meet that transparency requirement that's needed.

Um it is not see-through whatsoever, and so it does not meet those counts.

Um by my calculation, the transportation uh the transparent glazing that they would have is about 25 percent in the front, eight for the rear, uh 23 for the left, and about zero for the right.

If you were to include the spandrel glazing and include that as part of make that requirement, it would meet the requirement uh for the transparency at 54 for the front, 42 for the rear, um, and then yeah, 40 for the left and right, or sorry, 31 for the left and then 17 for the right.

Sorry.

Um much of the glazing depicted on the elevation is spendroglazing.

The pen the potential does aim to use the spending glazing.

Yes, help us out and speak into the microphone, please.

Uh sorry.

Uh quite simply, even without the C4 overlay, the front facade still does not meet that transparent glazing requirement for the TOD.

Um he mentioned that they do have some glazing within the two to ten, but the calculations here specifically from the three to eight, as that is the area where a person walking might be able to see through.

Uh this is intended to increase walkability areas, uh, the safety that you feel when you're walking around a mall or in the neighborhoods instead of just having a four-wall facade.

Um if they were to take the front and take the spandrel to the glazing, they would meet the requirements and the requirement at least for the front facade, so they can and show areas where they could meet.

Now we would contend with the glazing where the restrooms are.

Spandrel makes sense there, but in the other locations, uh it does not.

Now I can answer any more questions on there, but at this time they just simply don't meet.

Does that conclude your presentation, Debs?

That'll conclude my presentation.

Questions for staff from members of the commission.

I have a few questions.

Commissioner Murphy.

Can you turn to page 14 of our packet that shows the transparency calculations for the different elevations?

And I'm just curious if any of those have changed based upon updated plans.

Uh yes.

So the right and then the left had been increased.

Uh they had uh increased with the spandrel glazing, but I did not include it in least in this pit uh staff report, as it just did not meet the requirement.

So let me go through those if I may.

So on page 14 front over on the far right, percent provided.

Is that still 25 percent?

Correct.

And then the next, is that still eight percent?

Uh for the transparent glazing, correct.

And then the next 23 percent, is that still accurate?

And then the next zero, is that still accurate?

Okay.

Um, but you are not counting the opaque glazing.

Correct.

It just does it does not meet the criteria of transparency.

And you're not counting the glazing that's what is it below three feet or above eight feet?

Uh that is not included in the calculations.

Um I would have to do a calculation of all the wallet over again with the two to ten to give you an accurate number.

Okay.

And then just trying to understand on a broader perspective about use and the transportation overlay.

Um, if this proposed development did not have gas pumps, it would render it more or less a convenience mark with maybe some elements of a cafe inside.

Would that meet the overlay requirements?

Yes, so this is less about um the use and more about the location of this property and its distance to that frontage.

Uh so this glazing, sorry, uh the transparency in the front facade would be for all buildings.

And you're probably misunderstanding my question.

So this has nothing to do with glazing.

I'm asking about the overall use.

Yeah.

If this proposed development did not have gas pumps, if which would in essence make it just a convenience mart with maybe some elements of a cafe inside.

Would it be an issue having this development within the transportation overlay district?

No.

Um there's no issue with it being a gas station either.

There's no issue with it being a gas station either.

Okay.

This is so it's simply about the glazing.

Correct.

All right.

Thank you.

Additional questions for staff.

Petitioner, you have five minutes for rebuttal.

Then I will come back to remonstrators for your five minutes or above.

And I see to I still don't see a city councilman here, so five minutes.

Thank you.

If you turn again to page seven of your civil and flip open the elevations, you will also see a corresponding floor plan.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the practical difficulty with meeting the transparency on four sides.

We have hold on, counselor, where are you at?

If you turn back to your presentation, tab seven.

Tab seven, not page seven.

Yeah, tab seven.

And just fold out the elevations.

You can see in the right corner a uh floor plan which indicates how the store is laid out and the reason why we can't meet transparency on all four sides in the way.

Now, yesterday I spent time with full-size plans, uh, and we calculated, and this relates back to Des's opinion um report on the front elevation a hundred and seventy square feet of transparent glass within three and eight feet versus a hundred and thirteen or thirty-seven percent, twenty-five feet on the rear or the Washington Street side, transparent between three and eight feet, which is five point four percent, ninety-seven and a half square feet on the left elevation for twenty-three percent.

What more we acknowledge that in those cases were below on the three to eight foot.

Now, again, we've got glass below that and glass above that, that's transparent.

That does help the cause.

The issue, uh the compromise that we propose is for those areas that run into conflict with portions of the store where you just can't realistically have transparent glass, we're proposing spandrel glass.

And if you consider, even with it between the three and eight feet uh limitations, we are well above the 40 percent on all four sides.

And if you further consider that we've added a pedestrian entrance, so that it's two sides now, not just one side, including Washington and an outdoor patio, we are making this we think pedestrian friendly, and we can assure you that the safety aspect for approaching the store from the main public entrance.

If we were just in C4, we would have been met the requirements because it's not nearly as onerous.

It's because we're trying to comply with TOD, pull the building up towards Washington that triggered a four-sided requirement.

Otherwise, it's just street facing and related to the entrance.

So that's really the story that we have to do uh uh with respect to glazing.

As to property taxes that a 7.8 million dollar build, if it was assessed at that, just on the improvements, that would yield at the max uh three percent cap 234,000 per year.

I'll have Pat Moon say a couple things.

Uh 234,000 versus 37,000?

Correct.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Introduce yourself.

Yeah, Patrick Moon, 5929 Broadway Street, Indianapolis.

If you've been duly sworn, sir.

Yes.

Yes.

Please continue.

Uh just got a couple things uh to talk about.

Um the main objection that I've heard has been primarily that we sell fuel.

Uh our history of the company has been on dairy products, uh, hoagies, and coffee to begin with.

We've only started selling gas in the last three years.

So it's kind of a misconception to just group us in as a fuel station only, as a normal convenience store.

We have made-to-order food on the inside, hoagies, uh made order coffee drinks, specialty drinks, and so forth.

So we and then we sell fuel, yeah.

We sell fuel.

That's just something that's come along evolved as our customers asked for it as we went along.

The new thing that's being asked is is EV chargers.

So we're looking at those.

So the our business has changed, but we focus on uh the customers that come in, made to order food, coffee drinks, specialty drinks is the main uh two of the three things that we we focus on fuel is the third.

Um this is a few years old, uh we serve anywhere a company wide 680 million people a year.

So most of them are coming in for the food and the drinks.

Yeah, they're also coming in for fuel while they're there.

But if you take that out of the equation and look at this part of the city, what's there, we meet a need that we think is is highly uh requested.

Thank you.

So you've reached your time.

Yeah.

Do we have any final questions for a petitioner?

Hearing uh remonstrators, you have five minutes on rebuttal.

Taylor, are you coming back or right?

Uh thanks for having me again.

Uh I just want to I I prepared kind of some information here more from uh some past experience and uh previous role that I had with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization.

Um I just felt that sharing this was kind of the most uh apt for the case that we're here today to talk about.

So uh you know, at the IMPO, I I believe in 2019 uh we undertook sort of an analysis of Marion County as a whole, uh all 403 square miles just to see uh kind of what was the land use patterns, uh what were areas that were already kind of walkable, so downtown obviously, um, and then sort of mapping it out with the BRT lines to see uh where those uh kind of biggest uh highest and best use areas are for building transit-oriented development.

Um and through that uh of Marion County's 403 square miles, uh we found that uh there were less than 15 square miles in all of Marion County uh that were within a quarter mile of a bus rapid transit station.

Um, and this excludes the airport, parks, floodways, um, and areas that are already walkable.

Uh so I mentioned downtown Irvington was uh uh another area that was excluded as being already walkable, uh, which is just down the street uh from uh the proposed location.

So I just wanted to share that is just some additional context when you're making your decision today uh that this land is very rare uh in this uh in the state of where we are in Indianapolis and where we're moving forward as a community.

Um and so I just wanted to uh bring that to light here today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Taylor.

Jake, are you coming back?

Uh Jacob Morales, do I have to restate my You're good.

Okay, thank you.

Uh to touch on uh Taylor's point about the value of the land and get back to taxes.

Uh you know, we hired um Urban Three, I believe, in um 20 uh in the late 2020s, uh who did an analysis on uh land value along the blue line, the economics.

And uh one of the one of the questions that they asked us as a city during their presentation of their findings was why are there so many gas stations along our bus routes?

And he he posed a question, he he said really think about you know the kinds of land uses that we're putting along our bus rapid transit.

It's really critical.

And and um thing that was mentioned was the decline of the area, you know, uh malls moving out, and you know, the complete lack of new builds happening.

Uh and something to note as well was the you know reductions in traffic along uh US 40 um Washington Street.

Thank you.

Uh put the clock back on.

Jacob, you're good.

Go.

Thank you.

Okay, so um uh so there's a lot of potential for this land, like Taylor said.

Uh, you know, this much blank slate, parking lots, you know, it it's it's rare and it has uh it's a canvas, it can be many things, many things that the community needs.

Uh and even more so is uh the potential for transformations uh within the road network, you know.

Uh shape it's um shade land is not uh not a highway, you know, and we have that clover leaf there.

So really this uh there can be transformations to the built environment in this way that create more opportunities for healthy development that can connect neighborhoods that are otherwise separated from shade uh by Shayland.

Um so you know, it it's really important to me that this commission really considers the future of um not just you know our development along transit, but just the experience of these communities, especially in transportation impacted neighborhoods where access to vehicles is limited, the impact of increased vehicular traffic along an already constrained bus rapid transit line, uh, and then the wear and tear that will be caused uh by the increase in vehicular traffic, uh, win-weighing decisions on uh the incremental increase in uh property values that are bringing about about brought about by this development um and the potential for higher property taxes to be gleaned from uh more sustainable, uh more healthy developments for the community.

Thank you very much for your time.

Final questions for the remonstrators.

You want Taylor or Jacob?

I'll take Jacob.

Jacob, come on back.

Um, Jacob, do you know how long this has been an empty lot?

Like, is it been and what other proposed things have been?

Like, has anybody wanted to put something else there?

From my understanding, it's been a very long time.

Um, and there have been offers uh made to Mr.

Switzer, but uh Mr.

Swisser has held out until he heard something that was that he believed was a good fit for this property being the Wawa.

May I answer that question?

Um we got the gist.

Thank you.

Final questions for a monstrator.

Commissioner, you want do you want him to answer that?

Are you good?

He's fine.

How long?

25 years.

25 years.

Real vision is answer is 25 years.

Thank you.

Commissioner, you got a question back?

Yes, sir.

Go ahead.

Who do you want?

Taylor or Jacob.

Taylor's fine.

Taylor, come on, get my steps in today.

Uh, just a quick question on the specific items here with regard to how the petitioners have sort of addressed the on-paper black and white sort of discrepancies or disagreements.

Um, not only that have been brought by the remonstration, your group, but also by the city.

Um it seems to be another sticking point with the glazing, particularly, which I would like to see some resolution on.

But to that to my question to you is uh how do you guys how have you guys responded to their willingness to continue to iterate the process um despite overall not wanting it to be there?

Um to see that they're actually a willing party and participating with you guys.

Oh, I think it's excellent that they've put in this much work and that you know they continuously are you know coming back to uh refine and and try to meet the needs that the city has set out.

So I think it's great that they're continuing, and I I love that sort of collaboration, and uh I think having Warren Township here as well today uh is is great to see that coordination happening.

So I would say get rid of the fuels and the the uh gas station piece um and it would be a better product, at least for us that we would we would be willing to support um everything with the development itself, other than the auto centric piece of it, uh we have no objection to.

So you've you found that uh adding so in terms of walkability, which I heard a lot about, uh adding that south facing entrance, does that help in terms of creating an opportunity for foot traffic in an area where, as it was noted on one of the sheets um that there was two crossings per day or hour, I believe, across Washington Street.

Um so now that there will be a reduction in number of lanes and some additional curb improvements to potentially improve walkability throughout the entire Washington Street corridor.

Um does that lean into the into furthering a direction to increase the opportunity for foot traffic?

Uh yeah, I would say so.

Uh the area, I don't disagree, that area is uh pretty blighted and uh pretty low traffic as far as walking.

Um not many people are walking in that general vicinity.

However, to your point with BRT coming with uh the major infrastructure investments coming for infrastructure and safety uh especially for people walking biking taking transit um this is uh an excellent example of them sort of uh shifting their maybe typical site design um to fit the needs of this context um which I would argue they're they're doing their best to sort of orient toward the street um where people are going to be walking um you know the blue line so I would say this is generally you know we're getting there but I would say it's still um you know at the end of the day if I'm a bus user I may come there for food or drinks but that beyond that you know what else could I I'm not getting anything from gas one two three thank you final questions for the three remonstrator thank you very much remonstrators for being here thank you for your presentations members of the commission you have in your packet two ballots one is twenty five twenty twenty-five CPL eight two five which is the plates can I get a motion on the plat ballot I move that the Metropolitan Development Commission approve and find that the PLAT file dated April eleventh twenty twenty five complies with the standards of the subdivision regulations subject to the thirteen conditions outlined in the staff report and three additional commitments received today and the final testimony as I give you your second was staff agrees the plat is now in order Eddie correct yes President Dillon thank you so members of the commission go to your plat ballot first and vote on that 2025 C VR 825 which is the variance issue and mark your ballot appropriately Nancy can you collect a ballots first we have twenty twenty five CPL eight twenty five there were eight ballots cast there were eight yes votes no no votes this petition has been approved we also have twenty twenty five C VR eight two five amended again there were eight ballots cast six yes votes two no votes this petition has also been approved thank you thank you for participating in the hearing counselor uh obviously community is gonna have their eyes on this as well as I will as you know uh please let them know I'll be following the construction very closely and we'll be paying attention absolutely thank you very much Ron thank you for being here your testimony was significant to us thank you I had a question oh of course thanks for motion to adjourn let's run out in that cold weather

Uh let's become more aligned.