Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.

May I have your attention?

We have a quorum.

Let the record show it is March 4th, 2026.

This is the meeting of the Metropolitan Development Commission.

We will now come to order.

Uh would all rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you very much.

Members of the Commission, you had the minutes of the February 18th meeting delivered to you last week.

Are there any additions or deletions to those minutes?

Hearing none.

Commissioner Lyle, can I get a motion to approve?

So moved.

Commissioner Hergett, can I get a second?

Second.

Call the roll.

Garver.

Garver, yes.

Hergett.

Hergitty, yes.

Lyle, yes.

More erity.

More erity, yes.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

West.

West, yes.

Dylan is a yes.

It passes A to zero.

Thank you.

Moving forward.

I will now move into the continuances, withdrawals or special requests part of the meeting.

Councillor Gibson, you mentioned something to me coming in the room.

Yes, uh, thank you very much.

Uh uh, Mr.

President, members of the commission.

Uh, I'm Councilman Ron Gibson, representing District 8.

I would respect request that we uh uh move uh proposal for 2505 North Sherman Drive.

I'll continue for a month until the your April hearing, if you would please.

Council, that would be April 1st for the uh that that first April hearing.

And we'll work very hard in that next 30 days to try to inform the community more about the benefits of this project.

Thank you.

Because you are the excuse me, sir, that's the last time.

Because you are the district counselor, I am going to make the motion myself for 2025 ZON 124, 2025 VARO12 to be continued till April 1st of 2026.

Commissioner Hergett, can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the roll.

Garver.

Garver, yes.

Hergett.

Lyle.

Lyle, yes.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

West.

West, yes.

Dylan is a yes.

Counselor, you've got your continuance till April 1st.

We will hear it April 1st.

Thank you very much, sir.

I appreciate it.

Thank you for being here today, Counselor.

Appreciate it.

Moving forward.

Nancy, can you read the petitions into the record?

Excuse me, President Dylan.

I think we have some other other continuances.

Oh, I apologize.

Kathleen, do you have a continuance?

Sir, please come forward.

Yes.

Hello.

Uh my name is Jay Sandifer, 5736 Madison Avenue.

I'm here.

Jason, you got to speak up.

Into the mic.

Jay Sandifer, 5736 Madison Avenue.

Uh I'm here for modification 024 and zoning 132.

President Dylan, those uh those two petitions are items number 11 and number 12 on the agenda.

Thank you.

I'm shuffling my papers.

All right.

2025 MOD 024.

And 2025 ZON 132.

What is your request?

Uh request to extend it to April 1st due to we've uh split ways with our previous attorney and we're putting uh everything together the correct way.

I guess we were unhappy with the way it was presented previously.

We have a request for 2025 ZON 132 and 2025 MOD 024 to be continued until April 1st.

Staff, you have any comments?

Uh thank you, President Dillon.

Members of the Commission staff is ready to move forward on these, but would defer to and support the decision of the commission.

Thank you.

Can I get a motion to move 2025 ZON 132?

2025 MOD 024.

Commissioner Murphy, can I get a motion to continue?

So move.

Thank you.

Commissioner Robinson, can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the roll.

Garver.

Garver, yes.

Hergett.

Hergie, yes.

Lyle, yes.

Moyert, yes.

Murphy.

Murphy S.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

West.

West, yes.

Dylan is a yes.

Jason.

We'll go to April 1st, but we're going to hear it April 1st.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir.

Any other continues, special request.

Kathleen.

I think I have no, excuse me.

I have no further continuances.

Ready to go.

Anybody else have a continuance?

Special request.

Withdrawal.

Seeing none.

Now, Nancy, let's go over the petitions.

Uh to the resolutions.

Resolutions, sir.

Further resolution.

Thank you.

First, we have 2026 R004.

Authorizes the Department of Metropolitan Development to contract for placemaking services with downtown ND Inc.

Incorporated for and an overall amount not to exceed $2,040,000.

2026 E001 authorizes the expenditure of 120,000 certified technology park grant funds for demolition and site preparation for slab located at 1200 Indiana Avenue in 16 Tech Park.

This ends the reading of the resolutions.

Thank you, Nancy.

Neither resolution stands for a public hearing today, so I will take both resolutions 2026 R 004 2026 E001 together.

Commissioner West, can I get a motion to approve?

So moved.

Thank you.

Commissioner Lyle, can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the roll.

Garver.

Garver, yes.

Hergett.

Hergett, yes.

Lyle.

Lyle, yes.

Morerity.

Moyerity, yes.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Yes.

West.

West, yes.

Dylan is a yes.

Congratulations to Downtown Indy Inc.

And congratulations to 16 Tech Park.

Both of your resolutions have passed.

8 to 0.

All right.

Nancy.

Let's read the petitions of no appeal into the record.

Thank you again, President Dillon and Commissioners.

The petitions of no appeal recommended for approval by the hearing examiner are 2025 ZON 075 at 5416 North College Avenue, Washington Township, Council District 7.

2025 ZON 128.

Amended at 2802 Lafayette Road, Wayne Township, Council District 11.

2025 ZON 140 at 1802 Cornell Avenue Center Township, Council District 13.

2025 ZON 143 at 1860 Sugar Grove Avenue, Center Township, Council District 12.

2026 ZON 004 at 3 Beachway Drive, Wayne Township, Council District 16.

2025 CAP 854 at 6340 Intec Commons Drive, Pike Township, Council District 6.

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

Thank you, Nancy.

So we have all eight.

That have been read into the record, correct?

Wonderful.

Um individuals for 2025 CAP 854 here.

Please introduce yourself.

Chairperson Dillon, members of the commission for the record, Tim Oakes, Attorney NiceMoe with offices at One American Square, suite uh 2900, Indianapolis, Indiana 46282-0200 here this afternoon on behalf of the petitioner.

Nancy, would you please swear him in?

Thank you.

Yes, please raise your right hand.

Do you swear or affirm an open use of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Counselor, can you walk us through?

I understand the hearing officer approved it, but it's not clear to me exactly what you're trying to get accomplished here.

So I'd just like an explanation.

Sure.

Uh happy to do so.

So this is part of the uh in tech park project.

When it was originally zoned over 20 years ago as a CS, it had a complicated development plan attached to it.

In that development plan, it had a restriction that said uh in this geographic area, only one uh business with a drive-thru is allowed.

And to define that area, it used distances from adjoining roadways.

It was done in a very complicated manner, so when you read it, it looks convoluted.

But simply what's really happening.

Counselor, I would agree with you.

That's why I'm asking you.

So what's happening is those lines are being moved to allow my clients use, which is a seven brew uh coffee shop, which is a drive-through.

So that had to be modified.

That's what's occurring.

And it's that simple.

It is that simple.

Counselor, thank you for being here.

You're welcome.

Secondly, on 2025 ZON 128.

Counselor, I think I saw you in the back of the room.

I saw the graphics on this, but I don't necessarily understand them.

Is this a self-storage facility?

It is not.

Could you be sworn in and then talk about this?

Please raise your hand.

Do you swear affirmative penalties of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth that I do?

I do.

To answer your question, it is not self-storage.

I realize that uh those words are included in the staff's blur, but these are small flex industrial buildings.

They have spaces that are from 600 square feet to 2500 square feet that are used by your entrepreneurs, your contractors, uh, HVAC, plumbing, heating, and cooling.

Um I think at the hearing examiner here we made it very clear that these are not self-storage, and these are really good opportunity spaces for your small business who may be operating out of somebody's garage.

This is a place for them to operate.

Why does it say self-storage?

You'll have to ask staff.

I I think this is a unique use.

I don't think it appears expressly in the ordinance, and so I think that was the best way to describe it.

Who whose hand on this from staff?

Go ahead.

Yeah.

Uh thank you, President Dylan, members of the commission.

Um, it's it was blurbed to self-storage because that was the closest point of comparison that exists within our zoning ordinance.

Um the petitioner is correct that it's closer to um self-storage for businesses as opposed to individuals, maybe mixing elements of commercial and industrial use.

So, counselor, you're on record under oath saying these are not self-storage units.

I am thank you very much.

Thank you for being here.

2025 ZON 140, 2025 ZON 143, 2026 Z O N 004, 2025 CAP 854, 2025 C Z N 859, 2025 C Z N 863.

Commissioner Hergett, I'd like to take all eight as one.

Can I get a motion to approve?

So moved.

Commissioner Garver, can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the roll Garver.

Hergett.

Yes.

Lyle.

Lyle, yes.

Can you show me recused on number six?

Number six, which is 2025 Z O N 143.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Lyles recused more.

Is he yes?

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

West.

West, yes.

Dylan is a yes.

So seven of them pass, eight to zero.

And one hold on.

They pass seven to zero with one recusal on 2025 Z O N 143.

Thank you very much.

Nancy.

We're down to one hearing.

Thank you, President Dylan and Commissioners.

Our petition for public hearing this afternoon is a rezoning petition recommended for denial by the hearing examiner.

Appeal filed by the petitioner.

It is 2025 ZON 133 amended at 2650 West Epler Avenue and 5201 South Warmen Avenue.

Prairie Township Council District 22.

K and S Realty LLC by Mindy Westwick Brown and Mark R.

Leach requesting rezoning of 38.53 acres from the DAFF and D5 F F districts to the I3FF district to provide for medium industrial uses.

Well, all those intending to testify on this petition this afternoon, please stand now and raise your right hands to be sworn in at this time.

Anybody else?

Thank you.

Do you do you swear under the penalties of do you swear from a penalties of project to tell the truth and nothing but that you say I do?

I do.

Thank you.

Are there any remonstrators here for this hearing?

Seeing none, counsel only let me walk through the uh rules of engagement.

Welcome back.

Nice to see you.

You as well.

You have 15 minutes to present your case.

I will then look for remonstrators once again.

I don't think we have any.

I would then we'll go to staff for their presentation.

I don't think there are any city counselors here for this matter.

I'll come back to you for rebuttal if needed.

Uh if remonstrators show, I'll give them five minutes of rebuttal.

And then we were members of the commission will go to our ballots.

Mindy, you're on the shot clock.

Go.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Members of the Commission.

Uh Mindy Westrick Brown with um Fagary Drinker here today, joined with our senior land use planner Mark Leach, as well as Tom Blinkenship, who represents KNS Realty as well as the Kapetsky family here if we have any historical questions that need answered today.

As Nancy stated, the request is to rezone this property from DA and D5 to I3.

Um in light of no remonstrators, amendments to the proposal, staff's change to support.

I'm gonna walk through this pretty quickly if that's okay with you, Mr.

Chairman.

Yes, go next slide.

Um shows the changes.

I do think you need to explain the history.

The original filing was staff was against it.

Yes, you've amended it, now they're for it.

Yep, that's exactly what this slide does, and we've got some background slides as well.

So staff now recommends approval of this request.

Um and the reason being, and I've got a slide to show this, but we have removed three of the residential parcels that were originally part of this proposal.

Staff has indicated that it is important for the county to keep as many residential homes as possible, and so we've removed the three residential properties along Warmen as part of our request here.

We've also included some prohibited uses which are listed out on this slide as well.

Um, after hearing from the hearing examiner about this site and its its location, um so we've reduced the intensity of those uses by prohibiting those here.

We also updated a preliminary site plan, which is not necessary for a rezoning, but staff was curious about configuration, and so we gladly drew up a site plan which showed how this site could be developed.

It's important for us to get this rezoning and then think about potential development after the rezoning is in place.

But with the prohibited uses and the potential site plan, I think we have a clear explanation to all of you of what we're asking to here today.

We've also amended the project description.

So this case was filed in November and had some amendments along the way.

It also had some staff changes, and the staff report didn't really fully reflect all of those changes as there were staff changes in the in the middle of it when we presented to the hearing examiner.

So now I think with the all of these changes and the site plan and the prohibited uses, we now have a clearer picture of what the request is before you all today.

To orient you to the site, the KNS Realty and the Kapeski family owned this property, which is just south of 465, where the new I-69 meets up with 465.

And you can see here that their property was split in parts with the construction of that I-69, which is part of the reason we're before you today.

As I mentioned, uh here's a potential site plan, which helped staff kind of orient them to potential development on this site.

The hearing examiner also talked about this parcels location, and and we agree that strong buffering is important.

And so we wanted to show some photos that were taken recently about the existing trees and brush as well as the amount of acreage available for this transitional yard.

And so here you're at the corner of Warman and Epler looking at the property, and all of that will remain as part of the buffering for Warmen.

The site was previously zoned SU 23 for Grand Sand and Barrow mining.

It had a man-made lake on it, and so in the early 2000s, the Capescu family rezoned the property for what they thought was going to be residential uses, putting homes around that man-made lake.

That never came to fruition and was also not likely to happen with the building of I-69 there, and that man-made lake has now been filled in.

These next slides show that with the construction of I-69, Epler has been improved.

We have talked to INDOT about the quality after talking to staff about the quality of EPLER and its repaving, and have a slide here.

That pavement's currently rated for a thousand heavy trucks per day for 20 to 25 years.

So we think this property can handle development for this rezoning with the existing entrance, which will only be on Epler, and truck traffic will be oriented to the east and not to the west to stay on that new pavement.

Here you can see where the new pavement is and a photo of that from Google Earth.

We have two letters of support from Councillor Annay.

Unfortunately, he was not able to be here today, but we have our original letter of support for this rezone, and then we've also been in contact with him after the hearing examiner's recommendation, let him know about the changes, and you can see that his new letter continues his support and appreciates the the changes that have been made to get staff support for this petition.

We have seven proposed commitments.

We're in agreement with the staff report.

Um staff has asked us for a right-of-way to be dedicated.

We agree with that.

I mentioned we'll maintain the buffering and the 200 feet along Warman Avenue and those trees will um continue to be maintained or removed if if necessary.

Um we have a slide showing that 200 foot buffer and that man-made lake is in the process of being filled in.

And then the following commitments to close us out that um we'll keep the industrial development to the east side of the property.

We'll only use EPLAR as an entrance.

Trucks will be directed through signage to only exit towards the east and stay on that new pavement.

Um there'll be some landscaping, which will be planted on 15 foot on center instead of 25 as called by the landscape um requirements in the zoning ordinance, and then you have our prohibited uses to close us out.

And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions any members have.

Questions for the petitioner.

Hearing none.

Are there any remonstrators here?

Staff.

Absolutely.

Uh thank you, President Dillon, members of the commission.

Uh, thank you to be petitioner as well for their presentation.

Uh staff will keep our remarks brief.

Also, since this case is no longer being contested.

Uh, the original filing um as discussed made multiple references to truck parking as a primary use.

It included six residential parcels, including free are currently developed with single family homes and did not provide staff of a conceptual site plan for review.

Uh staff recommended denial of that version of the filing and v hearing examiner agreed with that um on very February 12th hearing date.

The memo generated by the hearing examiner cited concerns about the compatibility with adjacent residential areas and the comprehensive plan and suggested that uh light industrial development such as an I-2 district might be an option for a more appropriate buffer.

Uh following that adverse decision, the petitioner engaged staff in further discussion and some changes were made.

Um the petitioner outlined them uh pretty comprehensively, but uh references to truck parking as a primary use were removed, which wouldn't have been allowed in the primary zoning or within the floodway fringe anyway.

They also amended a petition to remove three of the northern parcels that are currently improved with single family homes.

Um gave a list of I3 uses to be excluded from the site, uh nine in total, which they had showed on those slides, and are also within the exhibits of staff's amended report.

And they also provided us with a conceptual site plan.

Uh that site plan wouldn't be binding or final in any sense, but just to give a broad um understanding of how the property might be developed.

Um that provided site plan didn't appear to show substantial areas of outdoor storage or intensity similar to what might one might expect from I-3 and looked a bit closer to something that could be contemplated within I2.

I think that uh more closely approximated what the hearing examiner had envisioned when they wrote that memo.

Um overall, staff finds these changes to be productive and um thanks to petitioner for their flexibility in working to find a mutually agreeable solution uh for those reasons as well as for the context they provided about road improvements and buffering of the use lead us to recommend approval of the amended filing uh subject to those commitments of which there are seven in total.

Uh happy to answer questions that the commission might have.

Questions for staff Michael The new design 6937 kind of makes this an odd turn-in lot type thing.

Were you concerned about that or all?

Uh we had had some worry about access of trucks potentially utilizing Warmen or other local streets to the to the west of the site.

Uh the petitioner did offer a commitment that truck access would solely come from those areas to the east for our some truck parking facilities on the trucks will only come off.

Correct.

They wouldn't be coming to or from areas from the West now be by signage.

Uh uh Wampler.

Uh that's the understanding provided to me by that commitment, yes.

Counselor, is that correct?

Yes.

Thompson's closed, and so all trucks will exit off Epler to and go east.

No, no uh egress ingress from Woner.

Correct.

Okay, got it.

Anything else, Mark?

Yes, uh, nothing else.

Thank you.

Councilor rebuttal.

If you need to I'd like to waive that.

Thank you.

Sorry.

I will I'll wave rebuttal not necessary.

Thank you very much.

Uh we have before us members of the commission.

2025 Z O N 133 as amended, and with Michael, how many commitments seven total commitments?

Seven total commitments.

And the seven total commitments, please go to your ballots.

A yes passes the passes the petition.

A no defeats the petition.

Petition 2025 Z O N one thirty-three amended.

K and S Realty LLC.

There were eight ballots cast, eight yes votes.

This petition has been approved.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Do a good job down there.

That's a new new area that we need to take care of.

It is a little odd coming in there off of 376.

No, off the 37 area, but do handle it.

All right, members of the commission.

Uh that concludes our meeting.

Let me take a moment uh in a sincere thank you to the Marion County Sheriff's Department for being here.

Uh appreciate it very much, and so do members of the commission.

Thank you very much.

Can I get a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

We are adjourned.

Thank you.