Thank you.

Members of the commission, you received the minutes from the December 17th meeting.

Uh this last week.

You've had an opportunity to review those minutes.

Are there any additions?

Uh or or uh changes to those minutes.

Hearing none, Commissioner Garver.

Can I get a motion to approve?

So moved.

Commissioner Hergett, can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the roll.

Garver.

Garver, yes.

Hergett.

Hergitt, yes.

Lyle.

Lyle, yes.

More erity.

Moreity, yes.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

West.

West, yes.

Dylan is a yes.

They pass A to zero.

Moving forward.

Are there any continuances, withdrawals, or special request?

Yes, sir.

Please introduce yourself.

I'm Benjamin Bennett.

Address is 6762 State Road 144, Greenwood, Indiana, 46143.

Yeah, and what's your name again, sir?

Benjamin Bennett.

Thank you, Benjamin.

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

How can we help you?

Uh, the special request is in regard to 8560 North College Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46240, for which I am an interested buyer.

Uh, previous petition, uh 2025 ZON 119 was withdrawn on December 18th, 2025.

And as such, there's a three-month wait period before another petition can be filed.

I am respectfully requesting the three-month petition wait period be waived for this property.

Um, my plan is to rezone from its current zoning to D3 residential, which is in line uh with the comprehensive plan recommendation for the suburban neighborhood.

You're you're talking about a group home of some sort?

Yes, sir.

Walk us through that.

What is it?

Yes, sir.

So I want to rezone back to residential, at which point uh operated as a group home under housing with services establishment through the FSSA and run essentially a senior living home out of that property.

Any questions for the new petitioner on the 85th and college property?

Staff comments, Marlene.

Thank you, President Dylan and members of the commission.

Staff has no objection to the waiver request, seeing that they plan to rezone and the time frame would just be a one-month difference from when the three-month would end.

Okay.

Is there anybody else here who would like to comment on this special request?

Seeing none, Benjamin, give me the former site one more time on the it was filed as what the former filing was 2025 ZON 119.

And the address is 85 8560 North College Avenue, Indianapolis.

Zip code 46240.

Members of the commission, we have before us a special request to waive the three-month holding uh period for former 2025 ZON 119, which is located at 8560 College Avenue, 46240.

It's actually on the corner of 86th Street in College.

Uh so a new approach may be made on it changing the zoning back to D3 residential.

Eddie, you're comfortable.

Yes, President Dillon.

Thank you.

Commissioner West, 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.

Hergut.

Hergitt, yes.

Lyle.

Lyle, yes.

Mority.

Moreity, yes.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

West.

West, yes.

Dylan is a yes.

You are granted the waiver, Benjamin, to by a count of 8 to 0 to refile your zoning.

When you're ready to go with excellent.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

There are any other special requests, continuances.

Counselor.

President Dillon, members of the commission.

Good afternoon, Brian Twee.

My address is 9294 North Meridian.

I would uh respectfully address your attention to item number four on your agenda 2025 ZON 062.

We would request a continuance of this matter to the February 4th hearing of the Metropolitan Development Commission to allow for the owner of the property to return to town and get the commitment signed and get and then we can file them with Kathleen ahead of the meeting.

Staff any comments?

Thank you, President Dylan.

Members of the commission staff had no objection to the continuance of 2025 062 to the February 4th hearing.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here today who would like to comment on this matter?

Are there any questions from members of the commission?

Kathleen, how's he doing on the indigo matter?

We getting that moving forward.

He can better answer that.

Yes, President Dylan.

Just out of curiosity, Council.

We're moving it forward nicely now.

You're gonna you're gonna be on on task.

We'll be on TAC.

Thank you.

We have before us a request to move 2025 ZON O62 as amended uh to the February 4th meeting on a continuance request in order for commitments to be completed.

Uh, can I get a motion to do so?

Uh Commissioner Lyle.

So moved.

Thank you.

Commissioner Murphy.

Can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the roll.

Garver.

Carver, yes.

Hergit.

Hergitt, yes.

Lyle.

Lyle, yes.

Mority.

Moyerity, yes.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

West.

West, yes.

Mr.

Tui Dillon is a yes.

You have an eight to zero.

When for a continuance to February 4th, congratulations.

Thank you.

Happy New Year to all of you.

Thank you.

Are there any other continuances?

Special requests.

Thank you, President Dylan and members of the commission.

Staff would draw your attention to item number six on the agenda.

Petition 2025 C Z N 844.

Staff is requesting a continuance to the January 21st, 2026 hearing date to allow additional time for the commitment to be finalized.

Is there anyone else here who would like to comment on this continuance request?

Seeing none, any questions from members of the commission.

We have before us 2025 CZN 844 is amended.

A request from staff to move to the January 21st meeting in order for commitments to be filed.

Can I get a motion?

Uh Commissioner Hergett to approve.

So moved.

Commissioner Morti, can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the roll.

Garver.

Garver, yes.

Hergut.

Hergitt, yes.

Lyle.

Lyle, yes.

Morerity.

Mordi, yes.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

West.

West, yes.

Dylan is a yes.

Marlene, January 21st.

You've got your continuance.

Thank you.

Any other continuance of special requests.

Seeing none.

Nancy, can you read the resolution?

The resolution into the minutes.

Yes, thank you, President Dylan and Commissioners.

Resolution number 2026A001 for public hearing.

Final economic revitalization area resolution with request for waiver of non-compliance for waste management of Indiana LLC.

Located at 2025 Stoutfield West Drive.

Recommend approval of six years personal property tax abatement.

This ends the reading of the resolutions.

Thank you.

Please introduce yourself and your address.

I'm Kathy Battle with the economic incentives team.

Um and I am here to present resolution 2026A001 on behalf of Waste Management of Indiana.

This resolution supports a major investment in our city's recycling infrastructure and sustainability goals at location 2025 Stoutville West Drive.

Uh recycling facility, and they are committing to an additional 39.5 million in personal property investment for advanced recycling equipment.

Um for recycling and hauling, and they received a contract to process recyclables.

Due to the timing of the contract award uh and the application progress process, some equipment has been installed in the new facility.

However, the equipment has not been commissioned.

As a part of this project, 10 jobs will be retained and 39 new jobs will be created with an above average wage of 27.11 cents per hour.

Additionally, 5% of the estimated tax savings is going to go towards the construction of a bus stop along Minnesota Avenue and Halt Road to assist with a bus route for area employees.

In includes both the request for the six-year personal property tax abatement for qualifying equipment, and it also is requesting the approval of the waiver of noncompliance related to the timing of some of the equipment being installed in the new facility.

Staff is recommending approval of resolution 2026A001 authorizing the six-year personal property tax abatement and granting the waiver of noncompliance.

Thank you, Kathy.

Is there anyone else here who'd like to comment on this public hearing on 2026 A001?

Members of the commission, do you have any questions?

Yes, Commissioner Hergett.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Not a question, but just kudos to you and your team to WM and everyone at the city involved in this project.

For those who don't know, you referenced the fact that this is a major investment in our city sustainability goals.

We're the largest city in the country that does not have universal recycling program, and this is gonna help get us there.

And so uh just wanted to shout that out.

Um this is a the big moment for the city.

Congratulations.

Other questions or comments?

Members of the commission hearing none.

I I think it's important for the record, Nancy, that uh we make sure the record indicates that this situation with waste management has been presented in pre-meetings.

I think twice, it has been discussed at length.

Kathy's been working on this for quite some time and has done a good job of keeping the commission updated.

So we have before us 2026A 001 for public hearing.

Uh Commissioner West, I'll take a motion to approve.

So moved.

Thank you.

Commissioner Moretti, I'll take a second.

You're gonna recuse yourself.

Thank you.

Commissioner uh Robinson, I'll take a second.

Second.

Here we go.

Call the rule.

Garver.

Garver, yes.

Hergitt.

Hergitt, yes.

Lyle.

Lyle, yes.

Murphy is recused for the matter.

Is that correct?

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

West.

West, yes.

Dylan is a yes.

It passes six to zero to two recusals.

Kathy, congratulations on finally getting your project home.

Thank you, Commissioners.

All righty.

Moving forward.

Nancy, would you read the petitions no appeal into the record?

Thank you again, President Dylan and Commissioners.

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

2025 APP 017, 8075 North Shea Lin Avenue, Lawrence Township, Council District 3.

2025, MOD 022, 5110 East 82nd Street, Washington Township, Council District 3.

2025 ZON 120 at 2901 East 10th Street and 959 North Oxford Street, Center Township Council District 13.

And lastly, 2025 CZN 845 at 1032 and 1040 South East Street, Center Township Council District 18.

This ends the reading of the no appeals uh docket.

Thank you, Nancy.

We have four no appeals that have been read into the record uh 2025 APP 017, 2025 MOD 022, 2025 Z O N20, and 2025 CZN 85845.

Commissioner Mervyn, can I get a motion to approve?

I'll take them all in one vote.

So moved.

Thank you.

Commissioner West, can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the roll.

Garver.

Garver, yes.

Hergitt, yes.

Lyle.

Lyle, yes.

Morerity.

Moreity, yes.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

West.

West, yes.

Dylan is a yes.

The four petitions of no appeal pass 8 to 0.

Nancy, would you read into the record our first public hearing today?

Thank you again, President Dylan.

Our first petition for public it's actually not a petition.

It's an ordinance amendment for public hearing.

It's an ordinary amendments for initial hearing.

2025 A001, Indianapolis, Marion County.

A proposal of a general ordinance to amend chapters 740, 741, and 742 pertaining to the flood control, stormwater management and well field secondary district of the consolidated zoning and subdivision control ordinance for Indianapolis, Marion County.

Will all those continue to testify on this ordinance amendment?

Please stand now.

Raise your right hand.

Thank you.

Do you swear if you remember the penalties approved?

Did you tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

I do.

I do.

Thank you.

I don't see any remonstrators.

Is that correct?

There are no remonstrators for this petition.

Wonderful.

Shannon, uh, you have 15 minutes if needed.

You're on the clock.

Go.

Thank you, President Dillon and members of the Commission.

As Mrs.

Whitaker indicated today, I'm going to talk to you about proposed amendments to the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance for the city of Indianapolis, Marion County related to flood control, stormwater management, and the well-field secondary district.

For the benefit of the public, the well-field secondary district and the flood control secondary district are overlay districts within the uh zoning ordinance and on the zoning ordinance map.

In addition, our sister agencies, uh the Department of Public Works and the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services, administer permits from the state and federal government related to flood control well fields and stormwater management.

Today's changes or proposed changes have been prompted by regulatory changes at the federal level by the federal emergency management agency, FEMA, and the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, and also sponsored by I DEM, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management Environmental Management, and the Department of Natural Resources.

The city is required to submit to timely audits of our general permits related to each of these uh agencies.

And because of those audits, we often have findings that relate to changes in the zoning ordinance.

DMD's goal is always to adhere to the recommendations of the federal and state government and to align with our sister agencies on our regulations and policies.

We aim to mitigate or prevent conflict where uh applicable.

But also something very important is we begin to look at desired outcomes.

Um efficiency for the public, developers, citizens, and clarity in our ordinance and regulatory documents as well as our policy statements is always going to be a goal.

To that end, um, we are presenting uh DMD is presenting these proposed changes to sync up the zoning ordinance with our permitting languages as well as with um several of uh different policy documents that are available.

Um again, I'll tell you a little bit about what guided these amendments, then talk a little bit about how those desired outcomes have been achieved.

Uh the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services in 2024 adopted a stand-alone flood damage control prevention ordinance.

The first time the city had ever done this as a standalone ordinance.

Prior to that, these regulations since 1972 have been in the zoning ordinance.

Um it is a trend in cities and towns to allow these standalone ordinances to separate from the zoning ordinance in order to provide clarity in the regulations and also provide specific guidance for um the uh issuance of permits.

Um in that uh one of the things that also happened when chapter 565, the standalone ordinance was adopted, is department the department of public works also adopted a new stormwater design and construction specifications manual, which also addresses stormwater management but does have some impact on the uh flood control ordinance as well.

So many of these things came in effect at the the same time, and we are now making changes and clarifying the zoning ordinance so that all three of these departments, all three of our city's departments can provide efficiency and clarity to the public.

Um it's important to note that in providing efficiency and clarity.

One of the goals is to make sure that zoning requirements and permitting requirements are separate and distinct.

A lot of um a lot of folks uh have to come to both DMD and DPW or BNS, and we want to make that process as streamlined and simplified as possible.

It doesn't mean you don't have to follow the rules, but it means that we're laying out the rules clearly and up front so individuals know what department they need to go to for a permit or for zoning approvals.

And I think that we can all agree that this helps developers and homeowners alike.

Another um reason that we do this streamlining is because there are certain processes that require permits but not zoning approvals.

Um and so with regard to things like drainage.

We may review the subdivision requirements in DMD, but then you go forward to BNS for drainage requirements.

So separating them and making them distinct is important for customer service.

Another part um of the drainage uh changes as it relates to stormwater management is understanding what items are part of a permit versus what items are regulated by zoning, and we've done our very best to make sure that people know what chapters in the revised code, the city code, uh city and county code um exist versus what just exists in the zoning ordinance.

So laying those areas out in writing is meant to be more efficient and more helpful to customers.

I think the last couple points that I would make is one of the things that we definitely try to do, and I think that the flood control uh damage prevention ordinance is a great example of this, is um to take some of the cumbersome aspects out of the process for folks who are wanting to develop.

In doing so, making a standalone flood ordinance allows a person to understand what is being reviewed, what will be inspected based on a flood development permit, which is not issued by DMD.

So having some of that language taken out of the zone zoning ordinance does clarify that there are regulations still, um, but they don't have to seek zoning approval, which I think um adds a dimension uh in some projects that seems cumbersome.

So this was an effort to see that those processes are separate and distinct.

In addition, removing ambiguity.

Uh, the zoning ordinance sets minimum standards, but oftentimes does not prescribe standards.

Uh the zoning ordinance doesn't tell you how much drainage capacity you need, but it tells you that you need to follow the rules of the section of the revised code that requires storage and capacity.

So, again, making the process more navigable is definitely an outcome that we want to see.

I know through several other processes that DMD, BNS, and DPW are working together on.

We are seeing some of the changes that are occurring and uh hope that the public at large and the development community will see those as well.

Um basically um what I'd like to say with regard to the revisions as the commission was able to read through a digest of those proposed changes.

Uh these changes are available either by contacting the Department of Metropolitan Development or by coming into the office, you can get a copy of the ordinance.

So I'd be happy to send it out to folks either way, but it has been open for public comment for about seven weeks, and we haven't received um any comment for or against the proposed changes.

Uh I'd like to thank the director, um, administrator Honea, and also um Deputy Director Alina Jones at uh BNS for working so hard to make sure that some of these items are addressed in a fair and concise manner.

We've been working on this for quite some time.

Uh, the folks in DPW stormwater as well.

Um, that is a very very big permit to administer, and they do yeoman's work there.

Um I thank you for your time and attention, and I'd be happy to take any questions.

Questions for Shannon from members of commission.

Hearing none.

Hang tight, Shannon.

Is there anyone else here who would like to comment on 2025 A0001?

Seeing none.

We have before us 2025 A001.

I don't think you need a rebuttal.

There's nothing to rebut.

Um, so we'll go ahead forward and vote this.

Um it will be my honor and recognizing your hard work, Shannon, on this matter.

I know you put a lot of time and effort and and uh blood and sweat into it.

So I would like to make the motion for approval of 2025 A0001.

Uh Commissioner West, can I get a second?

Yes, second.

Thank you.

Let me call the roll.

Garber.

Garver, yes.

Hergitt, yes.

Lyle.

Lyle, yes.

More erity.

Moreity, yes.

Murphy.

Murphy yes.

Robinson Robinson, yes.

West.

West, yes.

Dylan is a yes.

Congratulations, Shannon.

It passes 8 to 0.

Thank you very much, President Dillon.

Members of commission, just for the public.

This will be introduced to City County Council on February 2nd, 2026.

So that is the next uh step for the passage of the work nets.

Thank you.

Thank you, Shannon.

Have a great week.

Nancy, we have one other public hearing.

Can you read it into the record?

Thank you, President Dylan.

We have a rezoning petition that was recommended for denial by the hearing examiner appeal filed by the petitioner.

2025 Z O N 126 at 3 34 41 West Washington Street, Wayne Township, Council District 17.

Jesus Yvonne Ibera Tamaro.

Uh requesting rezoning of 0.76 acre from the I3 FF T O D district to the C5 FFTOD district to provide for general commercial uses.

Well, all those continue to testify on this petition this afternoon.

Would you please come forward now to be sworn in?

No.

Yes, hello.

How are you?

Please just fine.

Please raise your right hand.

Do you swear from a penalties of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Uh good afternoon.

Hello, good afternoon.

Uh, your name and address, sir.

Edgar Gonzalez 67.

Edgar Gonzalez, 6705, Brookhaven Drive, Minnapolis, Indiana, 46226.

And you're the petitioner in a matter?

Myself and my colleague, my cousin.

Is your cousin gonna uh testify or he's shy?

Got it.

Um you have 15 minutes to make your case.

Okay.

I don't I don't know that it's gonna be anybody else who will be referred to as a remonstrator against you.

It doesn't look like it here.

Is there any remonstrators here?

I don't think so.

I'll then go to staff, and then if you have a rebuttal, you can I'll come back to you for five minutes on rebuttal.

Appreciate it.

So you're on the clock, you got 15 minutes to make your case.

If you need it, go thank you.

On the um property that we're trying to rezone, it's right now it's classified as industrial.

Everything next to us is commercial across the railroad tracks behind us.

It is industrial.

Uh, we're trying to um the the location, probably about 10-15 years ago.

There used to be a dealership there.

Uh so when we rented it out, we thought that was what it could be.

That's what we're trying to change it to at C5 so that way we can open up our dealership or repair shop.

Um the business is right next door to us for dealerships, right across the street from us or dealerships.

Um there are a few houses, but that's down the street.

Um but like I said, on our side of the railroad tracks, nothing is industrial, but the property that we're in, it's considered industrial.

Um I'm not really sure what else I'm supposed to say.

Your position is you don't agree with what the hearing officer said.

Is that correct?

No, because the cus the what the councilman said uh the they're trying to gentrify the area to make it more public, and they're trying to do east mids and but I don't see where that's gonna be happening where it's repair shops, dealers where a um coffee shop or anything else is gonna be able to go in between all of those businesses, especially in the corner that we're in.

Now on the other side of the of the um how do you say of the bridge?

There are me uh there are restaurants, grocery shops, but that's on the other side of the bridge, obviously.

Um I know the councilman was trying to keep it um more residential, but there is no rest residence residential areas in the strip that we're located in.

Thank you.

Questions for the petitioner.

I do not see uh commissioner so um it's currently industrial, and what's what's there right now?

Well, the location that the building that that's on the location, it's uh it's um mechanic shop on one side with a little office on the other side.

Okay, and you want to turn it into a dealership, or what do you want to turn?

That's what it was uh 10-15 years ago.

Okay, uh, and that's where we're we would like to open up a small family owned uh dealership.

Okay, dealership for used cars or car lot.

Yes, I'm sorry.

Got it.

Yeah, yeah, we're not that big yet.

No, I understand.

Any other questions for members of the commission?

Hang tight.

Marlene, I think this one's yours.

Who's the councilman who he's referring to?

Councillor Evans.

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead.

Thank you, President Dylan, members of the commission.

The request is to rezone the site from the I3 district to the C5 district to provide for great general commercial uses, but in particular car dealership as mentioned by the petitioner's uh colleague.

Uh the site lies lies partially within the floodway fringe of Eagle Creek, um, which is outside of the site's west side boundary.

Um aerial imagery does not indicate development within this area would occur.

However, uh oil or can or other contaminations may be detrimental to the waterway.

The site also falls within transit oriented development uh secondary district, which is intended to coordinate more compact walkable and urban development patterns with public investment in the transit system.

The ordinance notes that this uh automobile motorcycle and light vehicle sales or rental uses in its typical form as well as other vehicular related uses when concentrated in areas have a detrimental effect on the intent and objections objectives of the transit oriented development secondary district where uses are enabled by the primary zoning district, they shall be further limited in the TOD secondary district.

Um in particular, this site would uh be limited to half an acre for auto sales within this TOD overlay.

Um if intended as an auto dealership, the applicant would need to apply for a variance of use.

Um we did relay that to the applicant.

So if the rezoning were to occur to the C5 district, it still would require an additional step.

In staff's opinion, the C5 district at this location within the newly proposed blue line bus rapid transit corridor would be counterintuitive to the purpose of the transit-oriented secondary district, which promotes walkable development with a variety of services for the community.

Um there was a letter of opposition submitted to the case by councillor Evans, and uh uh staff does have a commitment request for right-of-way dedication if the request is approved against staff's recommendation.

But with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you all may have.

Thank you, Marlene.

Questions for staff question, please.

Yes.

Is the subject property did you say it's in the floodway or the floodplain?

It has it's within the floodway fringe, so the 100-year floodplain is on the west side of the property, I believe.

And are the adjacent auto dealerships also in that same floodplain?

No, there are uh we do have a map up the blue overlay shows the floodway fringe.

So there is a variance of use to the east for a dealership, and then to the north is on C5, and I believe they also operate some sort of um auto dealership, but they didn't have any vehicles on site when I went out.

So that blue correct square is the subject property.

The light blue overlay on the west side is the flood plane.

Okay.

And so storage would likely be on the property, which is partially in the floodplain, but perhaps not in the floodplain itself.

Is that true to say?

That is correct.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Yes, President Dillon.

Yes, Commissioner Murphy.

Uh can you repeat what you said about the required variance if this is approved?

Yes, the TOD overlay limits any automobile uses or at least within the TOD to half an acre.

The site in question is 0.76 of an acre.

So to run an auto dealership, they would need to apply for an additional variance of use to exceed the half acre.

Give me that one more time.

Uh automobile dealerships within the TOD are limited to half an acre of okay.

I got it.

It's because it's in a TOD.

Correct.

Okay.

Additional questions?

Yes.

Commissioner.

Um does the neighboring north auto dealership fall in the same floodplain.

I don't believe that the map indicates the floodplain reaching that far, but let me double check on my end here.

I'm just wondering, being that there's other um entities that have auto sales in the very approximate vicinity, you know, if there wouldn't be a way to allow for additional providers of that same service in the same area.

So the um dealership to the north at 344 uh Washington Street would not fall within that floodplain.

It appears to uh be within the floodway floodplain to the property north of that one, so no.

Yes, Commissioner.

It it it appears to me he's really using only half acre.

Um have you counseled with the petitioner about the variance procedure and maybe having that variance in place which would reflect what he's currently using?

So currently the business is in auto repair.

We did let them know that a variance of use would be required.

Um they didn't uh respond to that comment.

So as of now it they're only requesting for the rezoning to the C5 district.

Thank you.

Commissioner, so it's right now an I3.

Is that correct?

Correct.

And that seems an you know, I'm not you guys, but um it seems like that would be a like a worse thing to have in a flood zone or floodplain than a C whatever they want it to be.

Um so a C5.

So what's like if it stays what it is, what kind of a business could be on it?

So there are a variety of different uses that would be permitted within the I3 district.

Currently, as stated, they mentioned it's an auto repair business, so it could continue to operate as an auto repair.

Um I three district is not ideal within the flood uh flood fringe, um, but it's not being operated as an industrial district today.

Just to say Commissioner Murphy, just as a comment.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but really the flood fringe has nothing to do with zoning or what's before us today, right?

Right.

That's just uh part of staff's concern because of what contaminants could go into the waterway.

The main concern would be the TOD overlay that prohibits and would reduce the automobile uses in this location.

Right, but the flood front itself really is not a zoning matter.

It is and then what that really would impact would be future improvements if they wanted to build a structure within the flood fringe, that could be an issue, but clearly they're not gonna do that based on the site layout and where the flood fringe is on that edge, and if they just have the existing improvements, they are not in the flood fringe, correct?

And if they just have the existing improvements, they are not in the flood fringe, correct?

Right.

Existing improvements do not appear to be within that flood fringe.

Right.

Thanks.

Final questions for staff.

Hearing petitioner.

Hey, Zeus, final comments.

Yes, uh, regarding the blue over map overlap, I'm sorry, about on the on the property.

Uh I don't know if you guys would have a picture of, but right where that is, um the the overlap stand starts.

There's a big sign that people use for commercial, I mean for advertising.

So it's not like we're we would be able to put anything over there.

We wouldn't be able to put our and park any of our cars because of uh the big sign.

Uh and then on the other side on the back of the property where it would overlap, there's trees.

So we wouldn't park cars on trees either.

So wasn't really sure why the blue thing would have any effect on the actual property where we would be able to use President Dillon, members of the commission.

Well one thing I wanted to clarify about the floodplain in this case, potential contaminants are only one part uh of the discussion.

It's also the disturbance of land.

Um within the floodplain, as I mentioned during the amending ordinance discussion, the disturbance of land or the use of land, anything that could dislodge uh that stream bank, etc.

has to be considered as well.

And that's part of the the development review process.

As Marlene noted, we look at that in our um deliberation of something like this because C5 is an intense commercial district.

Um, and so regardless of if it was this particular use that may be sustainable, may not be sustainable, rezoning it to C5 could mean a lot of other uses that um could be disturbing um to the floodplain.

Not saying it will, but I think it's worth noting that a zoning decision and a rezoning matter could definitely impact no pun intended what happens downstream with a variance approval um or the like final questions, but to that end, the rezoning itself would not really facilitate or not facilitate that type of disturbance.

They would irrespective of what the zoning is, what even if it stayed industrial, if there was a redevelopment plan for that site that did contemplate disturbance, that would have to be approved.

That is correct.

Yeah, so it's not that's what I'm saying, it's not really a zoning issue, it's more a site development issue.

It could be, but if this but if the site is rezoned and they've already indicated what they're gonna rezone it to, I was just making the point that obviously there is a future plan for development that's incongruous with the secondary district for flood control and as well as the TOD that we've mentioned.

Yeah, got it.

Thank you.

Commissioner Robinson.

Yes, I was just wondering how long have you is have you been working at this spot for a long time with the McKinney?

No, we've actually uh we were I'm sorry, we were the under the assumption that we were gonna be able to open a dealership, so we rented it out.

We bought several cars, so we've been fixing them whenever we applied for the licensing.

That's when we find out that of we we started to learn about all of these procedures.

Uh so we haven't been there that long.

Um it's I'm being less than a year that we've started the this whole process.

Thank you.

Question?

Yes, Commissioner West.

Thank you.

Um, so I agree with you, Shannon.

Uh change to a commercial could be far reaching.

Our building that we have space in has a billboard over the top of it, so you certainly could park things under the billboard and trees can come down too.

Um the other hand, uh I'm a fan of small business, but would there be a different path?

Could you would you be willing to apply for the variants or commit to a half acre or whatever it took to work with staff and find a way that we can be respectful to the floodplain?

Yeah, we as long as we can have a small spots of park cars and sell cars, we don't really uh you know mine how big because we don't really use any of the back area.

So if we deny your petition now, then that would be a process that would be available to you in order to continue to do what you want.

Yeah, because what we're doing right now is we are trying to clean up the property because the pre the owner of the property, he had residents there before us, the tenants.

They were um it looked like a big um repair shop, body shop, because it had a lot of car parts in the back of the building, and we we're trying to maintain it as clean as possible.

So long as we could just don't have a small area, even if it's just we we would actually just need the parking lot.

Uh I don't think the the parking lot would cover um uh a lot of the property that we would actually need to be able to do what we have to do.

President Dillon, members of the commission, if I may, um I just kind of want to re-steer this conversation.

Uh yes, we know that the proposed use is going is to be automobile repair and car sales, however, those are heavily uh further restricted by the presence of the TOD overlay.

Staff's main concern about the future redevelopment of this property is based primarily by the presence of the TOD overlay itself.

Um staff you know thinks it's believes that it's a slippery slope to say, you know, just file a variance of use because we're gonna have the same concerns associated with that.

But specifically, you know, TOD is intended to promote you know more pedestrian-oriented businesses, but specifically uh the blue lines strategic plan calls out uh the areas between uh central state and Irvington Plaza as the areas most clearly identified to benefit from future redevelopment efforts, while this is outside of that being just west of Central State, it's not very far west of that.

So staff sees this as a critical part of the implementation of that segment and realizing the investment that we've put into the overlay with our partners at Indigo.

Um so for that reason, staff would strongly uh request that the petition be denied and would also express that any future potential filing would likely be met with a staff recommendation of denial for uses that are prohibited or otherwise further restricted by the TOD overlay, which this would be being greater than a half acre.

Final questions, yes, sir.

Yes, Commissioner Watson.

Um would it be appropriate in that case to see some resolution where the current occupant business owner um has a commitment to operate that type of business within the half acre portion of that site, or is it such that the TOD policy would not allow that type of business to operate because it's not future forward in walkable business opportunity?

So the the regulation itself is by lot size, we can't you know say because you're using less than a half acre of that lot, so it would need a variance regardless.

Um, but staff would be very hesitant to enter those types of negotiations on just because the policy, it's counter to the intent, as you can see through the staff report photos, there's already uh degree of site unorderliness, and staff would be concerned that it could extend beyond that half acre, eventually getting into that flood wave fringe and contaminating waterways.

Heard.

Um, but being that as the other commissioner mentioned, it currently serves as uh mechanic shop, so an auto shop that in many other cases we've argued has larger implications for spillage and waste management opportunities than a car dealership naturally would, and being that there is another car dealership of the competing entity directly north of that, I'm wondering how does that play into that TOD decision?

Is that a grandfather situation because the other business already exists right across the street that already does auto sales, or how how do we look at that?

So the existing auto sales operations in the area would be legal non-conforming by virtue of having began operation prior to the TOD adoption in 2021, in terms of this specific site and potential remedies for it, it would require a variance, however, it's already zoned I3, it's already operating a permitted use, giving them the latitude to operate and deviate even further through the grant uh of another variance, is just going the opposite direction of what the TOD overlay is intended to provide.

Okay, thank you.

Question.

Commissioner West.

Thank you.

Um I hope I'm not belaboring the point that if he were to replant and divide and be half acre, would that be in compliance for him, the petitioner?

Yes, that could achieve getting it under a half acre.

However, I there would be concerns.

You've got an I3 lot, a request for C5.

These are two of the more intense districts of our zoning ordinance.

I three is where we begin to see heavy industrial begin to manifest.

Think of your super targets, your lows with outdoor lumber.

Those are the types of sizes that we expect to see with C5, even though we don't have standards.

So to circumvent the TOD regulations through replatting by presumably creating an almost non-usable portion of an I3 lot because it wouldn't be able to meet its setbacks, would not be good planning practice.

Commissioners, final questions.

Hearing none, let me state the facts.

Councillor, correct me if I'm wrong.

Hearing officer denied this request.

Councillor Evans is against this situation and has testified against it.

Staff is against this situation.

And the main issue is the overlay, which is the indigo, what I call the indigo overlay that has changed the the uh situation.

Now they've talked about a variance of use, Jose has a if you lose today, you can't file for that variance for 12 months.

Correct?

Correct.

Okay.

So that just wanna make sure everybody understood that he's he's dead for 12 months in order to come back.

All right.

What's the exception of the waiver?

The exception of the waiver which we granted today and the other matter for the for the three-month waiver.

He could come forward with that, but typically it's a 12-month set out until you come back.

All right, those are the facts as I see him.

Counselor, did I miss anything?

You're good.

Staff, did I miss anything?

I'd ask you to go to your ballots.

A yes approves the petitioner's position and overrides.

A no denies the petition.

Please go to your ballots, we have to do that.

Hey, CC Valenbera, tomorrow uh there were eight ballots cast.

There were four yes votes and four no votes.

So we have a tie.

Yeah, I just predicted to our esteemed council.

We got the heart eight.

That's a four-four.

Let me explain to you what happens.

We'll have another hearing.

We'll start all over.

De novo hearing, which means none of this counted.

That tie, we come back.

Uh Eddie, what would be the timing of the hearing?

It's the next MDC.

Next MDC meeting.

We're gonna do it again.

Uh, and we'll start all over from scratch.

Uh I would be ready for that hearing, have your testimony ready to go, and we'll start fresh.

4-4 tie starts over.

Appreciate that.

I like to refer to it as a heart eight.

All right, thank you very much.

We'll see you again at the next hearing.

Uh, do you know when that will be?

Yes.

What's our next hearing, Nancy?

I can't hear you, Nancy.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Wednesday, January 21st, 1 o'clock.

All righty.

But you gotta, you gotta f I mean, does he have to file Eddie to do it?

No, it's an automatic.

It's an automatic, so you're set to go.

All right, thank you.

All right, that concludes our meeting.

Happy New Year to everybody.

It's great to see you, and uh we'll see you at the next meeting.

Thank you.