I don't think I might think this is not a comment.

I think we've got a hell of a ready.

I think you can just find out.

Thanks very much.

All right.

I think we have your calendar.

I have to see you.

Okay.

And then here's the question.

So we're going to do this.

I apologize for the two-minute late start.

We had a very long pre-meeting.

Welcome to the May 6th, 2026 meeting of the Metropolitan Development Commission.

We will now come to order with a full quorum.

Albany Hart, can you please go to the podium?

Ladies and gentlemen, Albany is the Director of Communications for the DMD and the MDC.

She has been wonderful and has done its great job.

And Albany and I have a great rhythm going, and we're really in sync.

And I walk in today and I find out she's leaving.

And to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

It has been an honor.

Please join me for all that.

Moving forward.

Members of the commission, you received the minutes of the April 15th meeting.

They were slim from a very short meeting.

Are there any additions or deletions to that?

Set of minutes.

Hearing none.

Commissioner Hergett, can I take a motion to approve?

So moved.

Thank you.

Commissioner Lyle, can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the roll.

Hergett.

Hergett, yes.

Lyle.

Lyle, yes.

More erity.

Mority, yes.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher.

Schumacher, yes.

West.

West, yes.

Dylan is a yes.

They passed 8 to 0.

Moving forward.

Do we have any requests for continuances, withdrawals, or special requests.

Kathleen, I think you got one or two.

I have one, President Dylan, and Mr.

Cauldron is here to request that continuance.

Counselor.

Thank you and good afternoon, President Dylan, members of the commission, Joe Calderon, 11 South Meridian here in Indianapolis, representing the petitioner in item number 10 under petitions of no appeal.

2025 Z O N 110, 10302 East 38th Street.

Oh, sorry, Council.

Give it to me one more time.

Which one is it?

Uh 2025 Z O N 110.

Got it.

Go ahead.

10302 East 38th Street.

Got it.

I have uh been in conversation with Kathleen, our planner on this matter.

I was kind of pulled into this zoning case after the filing and while working on the commitments that staff had requested as part of the rezoning.

Uh I discovered that the legal description that was used when the rezoning was filing was incorrect.

It uh comprises the entire quote church property, properties owned by a church, whereas the rezoning is only supposed to uh pertain to a portion of that property.

So uh after communicating uh on several occasions with the client, uh they have hired a new civil engineering uh surveying company uh to prepare the legal.

They tell me that it's ready in a few weeks.

So I had requested to Kathleen that uh if the commission would be kind enough to postpone this to June 3rd, we would be ready.

I understand that the commission and staff still remain skeptical of that, so uh my understanding is that the commission might be more comfortable with July 1st as the date to have this finalized.

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

Are there any questions from members of the commission?

Counselor, I'm gonna make a motion that we move 2025 Z O N 110 to July first.

If it don't happen July 1st, it's all over but the crime, understood.

This is the third time.

Yes, it is and I know you're in new to the deal.

I get it, but enough's enough and tell our guys in New York.

You know, I'm glad you're coming here, but this is it.

Understood.

I'll make a motion to move 2025 Z-O-N-11 to be heard on July 1st of 2026.

Can I get a second, please?

Second, thank you.

Let me call the roll hurgett.

Hergett, yes, Lyle, Lyle, yes, more erity, moreity, yes, Murphy.

Murphy, yes, Robinson.

Robinson, yes, Schumacher.

Schumacher, yes, West.

West, yes.

Dylan is a yes, 2025 Z O N 110 moves to July 1st by a vote of 8 to 0.

And counselor, we have an agreement you're gonna withdraw it if we're not ready to go.

We have to, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Kathleen, what else we got?

Uh that's all I that's all I have, President Dylan.

Thank you.

Are there any other requests for continuances?

Special request.

I thought we had another one, did we not, Mr.

York?

That should be it, sir.

Thank you very much.

Let's go to resolutions.

Can you read the resolutions into the record?

Yes, thank you, President Dillon and Commissioners.

2026 R013 authorizes the Department of Metropolitan Development to convey title or an option to purchase title of property to the transferree as approved by vacant to vibrant review committee for the purpose of providing development that will best serve the interests of the city.

2026A012 for public hearing.

Located at 8205 8215 8345 Georgetown Road 4635 West 84th Street and 4925 West 86th Street Council District 1 Pike Township.

Recommend approval of six years real property tax abatement.

2026A 013 for public hearing final economic revitalization area resolution for TC Hartland LLC doing business as Heartland Food Pro Food Products Group located at 8205 8215 and 8345 Georgetown Road 4635 West 84th Street and 4925 West 86th Street Council District 1 Pipe Township recommend approval of six years personal property tax abatement 2026 E002 authorizes the Metropolitan Development Commission to reimburse the Department of Public Works for Reasonable Expenditures associated with improving the alley known as North Alley 3750 behind the United States Post Office located at 80 located at 2830 North Sherman Drive Indianapolis 2026A 018 Preliminary Economic Revitalization Area Resolution for Zima International Incorporated located at 6900 English Avenue Council District 20 Warren Township recommend approval of seven years personal property tax abatement 2026 P006 authorizes the Department of Metropolitan Development to negotiate and execute an agreement with Nelson NyGard Consulting Associated Incorporated for a term through December 31st, 2027 for a contractual amount not to exceed 350,780 to provide an inventory of available parking in various areas.

The plan maps out two interior spaces that make up the historic area located at 55 Monument Circle and provides preservation guidelines and recommendations based on the historic architectural and cultural significance of the two interior spaces, which include the first floor lobby and the second floor 1930's historic barber shop.

This ends the reading of the resolution.

Thank you, Nancy.

We have before us four policy resolutions that do not stand for public hearing today.

2026 R013, 2026 E002, 2026 A018, 2026 P 006.

I'd like to take all four of those as one.

Commissioner Schumacher, can I get a motion to approve those four?

So move.

Thank you.

Commissioner Robinson, can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the roll.

Hergitt.

Hergett, yes.

Lyle.

Lyle, yes.

Morarity.

Moreity, yes.

Murphy.

Murphy.

Yes, with the exception of item 7.

22683 001.

Well, that's uh we're gonna have a public hearing on its own.

We'll come back to that one.

I vote yes.

Right, it's 2026 R013, 2026 E002, 2026 A018, and 2026 P006.

I vote yes on those.

Thank you.

Um Schumacher.

Yes.

I think I just lost my position there.

West.

West, yes.

Dillon is a yes, I apologize.

Did I vote?

You're a yes.

Thank you, Commissioner Robinson.

I got thrown off.

Um Commissioner Moretti, I got you in as well.

Correct.

Okay.

We have eight yes votes.

And it all four of the policy resolutions not scheduled for public hearing pass eight to zero.

Moving forward, our first public hearing is on 2026 A-012.

Final economic revitalization area resolution for Tag Midwest Properties LLC, located at 8205, 8215, 8345 Georgetown Road, 4635 West 84th Street, 4925 West 86th Street, Council District No.

Pike Township.

This recommends approval of six years real property tax abatement.

Welcome, staff.

Introduce yourself.

Good afternoon, President Dillon and Commissioners.

My name is Tanya Ellison, Program Manager with Economic Incentives.

I'm here on behalf of resolutions 2026A 012, Tag Midwest LLC, Real Property Tax Abatement, and Resolution 2026A 013 for TC Hartland Personal Property Tax Abatement.

These resolutions are requests for expansions of this existing Indianapolis location.

The request is for a six-year real and personal property abatement with a total investment of 91 million.

The project will retain 832 jobs, 73% of those jobs are currently Marion County residents, and will create 30 new positions all above the average wage of 2875.

The project is in the Dow Ilaco TIFF allocation area and has received approval of the SB1 from City County Council on May the 4th, 2026.

Staff is recommending approval for resolution 2026A12 real property tax abatement and resolution 2026A 013 for personal property tax abatement questions for uh Tanya from members of the commission.

Is there any of us here like to speak on this resolution today?

Seeing uh Commissioner Schumacher, can I get a motion to approve?

So moved.

Commissioner Morerity, can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the roll.

Hergitt, yes.

Lyle.

Lyle, yes.

Morerity.

Morerity, yes.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson Robinson, yes.

Schumacher.

Schumacher, yes.

West, yes.

Dillon is a yes.

It passes 8 to 0.

And is approved.

I'm assuming you're gonna handle 2026 A013 as well, the dovetail.

No, sir.

You're not.

Who's handling that one?

Not sure.

Who from staff's got 2026 A013?

Which is Heartland Foods.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I am handling that as well.

My apologies.

You're good.

So we have before us 2026 A013.

Final Economic Revitalization Area Resolution for TC Hartland LLC.

DBA Heartland Food Products Group located at 8205 8215 8345 Georgetown Road, 4635 West 84th Street, and 4925 West 86th Street.

Council District Number 1 Pike Township.

This is recommended approval of six years of personal property tax abatement.

And as I said at Dovestail into the last resolution.

Yes.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Thank you.

Staff is recommending approval of resolution 2026A12 Real Property Tax Abatement and Resolution 2026A13 for personal property tax abatement.

Is there anyone else here in the audience who'd like to comment on this resolution?

Are there any questions from members of the commission?

We have before us 2026A 013.

Commissioner Lyle, can I get a motion to approve?

So move.

Commissioner Murphy, can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the roll.

Hergett.

Lyle.

Lyle, yes.

Morerity.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher.

Schumacher, yes.

West.

West, yes.

Dillon is a yes.

It also passes 8 to 0.

And for the record, Nancy, both of these resolutions were presented in the pre-meeting two weeks ago to the commission at quite a length.

Thank you.

Moving forward.

We now have a public hearing for 2026 HP001.

Adopts the Circle Tower Historical Area Plan 45 into the comprehensive plan for Indianapolis Marion County.

The plan maps out two interior spaces that make up the historic area located at 55 Monument Circle and provides preservation guidelines and recommendations based on the historic architectural and cultural significance of the two interior spaces, which include the first floor lobby and the second floor 1930 Historic Barber Shop.

Who's presenting for staff?

Please introduce yourself.

Hi, my name is Meg Bush.

I'm the administrator of the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission.

Thank you, President Dillon and the Commission, and I respectfully request on behalf of the IHPC and DMD your adoption of Historic Area Plan number 45 for the two interior spaces of Circle Tower into the comprehensive plan.

And I can answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for Meg?

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

I will also show for the record, Nancy, that we had quite a discussion in the pre-meeting on this particular resolution and how it was developed.

So we have before us 2026 HP 001.

Commissioner Robinson, can I get a motion to approve?

So move.

Thank you.

Commissioner Lyle, can I get a second?

Second.

I'm going to go through the roll.

Hergett.

Hergitt, yes.

Lyle.

Lyle, yes.

Morerity.

Morarty, no.

Murphy.

Murphy, no.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher.

Schumacher, yes.

West.

West, yes.

Dylan is a no.

It passes.

It passes five to three.

And I hope that vote is heard loud and clear.

Moving forward.

Nancy, you want to read the zoning petitions and no appeal into the record.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you, President Dillon and Commissioners.

The petitions of no appeal recommended for approval by the hearing examiner are remaining on the docket.

2026 APP 005 at 4600 Sunset Avenue, Washington Township, Council District 7.

2026 APP 006, 1702, and 1706 Reckle Street and 516 East 17th Street, Center Township Council District 13.

2025 ZON 112 amended at 641 Langsdale Avenue and 2110 2058 Dr.

Martin Luther King Junior Street Center Township Council District 12 2026 Z O N 003 at 951 South White River Parkway West Drive Center Township Council District 18 2026 Z O N 012 at 2946 2950 2954 McPherson Street Center Township Council District 8 2026 Z O N 013 at 2910 McPherson Street Center Township Council District 8 2026 Z O N 019 at 1714 West Minnesota Street Center Township Council District 18.

This ends the reading of the no appeals docket scheduled for your attention.

Thank you, Nancy.

We have seven.

Recommended for approval, zoning petitions of non-appeal 2026 APP 005, 2026 AP P006, 2025 Z O N 112, 2026 ZON 003, 2026 Z O N 012, 2026 Z O N 013, 2026 ZON 019.

Commissioner West, can I get a motion to approve all seven?

So moved.

Can I get a second from Commissioner Schumacher?

Second.

Let me call the roll.

Hergit.

Hergett, yes.

Lyle.

Lyle, yes.

Can you show me can you show me recused on number 11 2025 Z O N 112 amended?

2026 ZON 012.

2025 Z O N 112.

Ah, 2025 Z O N 112.

We will show you recused.

Thank you.

Got it.

Morerity.

Murphy.

Murphy, yes.

Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher.

Schumacher, yes.

West.

West, yes.

Dylan is a yes.

So six of the petitions pass.

Nancy 8 to 0, with the exception being 2025 0N112, which passes 74.

No against 1 recusal.

Wonderful.

Alright, moving forward.

On our hearings today.

I'd like Nancy to call 2025 ZON 132, which is agenda item 18, I believe.

2025 ZON 132 as amended 5736 Madison Avenue, Perry Township, Council District number 23, Jade Investments, GMALLC.

Petitioner, come forward, please.

Good afternoon, President Dylan and Commission.

My name is Jay Sandifer.

Yes, J A Y.

J.

Sandifer.

Please raise your right hand.

Do you swear affirming the penance of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Let me explain the rules of engagement.

You have 15 minutes for the petitioner to make his case.

Are there remonstrators here on this matter?

Thank you.

Uh we'll have you come up and you'll be sworn, and you'll have 15 minutes to make your case.

Are there any city council people here?

I can't see anybody that looks like a council person.

We'll then go to staff.

I'll come back to you for five minutes rebuttal, and then I'll go back to the remonstrator for five minutes rebuttal if necessary.

You're on the clock.

Go.

Okay.

Um I am here to discuss.

I don't know if do we need to state that again.

The uh 2025 zone 132 at 5736 Madison Avenue.

Uh we had previously submitted a request for this modify or for the zoning change.

Uh back in I believe it was December.

Our attorney uh is no longer working with us anymore.

My sister and I own the property.

Uh it was actually our grandmother's house.

She lived there for maybe 80 years or something like that.

Um we are looking for a rezoning on the property.

It's a gorgeous piece of property on Madison Avenue.

Um if you look at the map up there, or I don't know if you have it in front of you.

Uh the light blue shaded area is the property, uh, just it's under two acres.

Uh there's a retant retention pond in the back.

The house is quite a ways off the road.

There are two entrances into the property off of Madison Avenue, and then there's a drive that goes around uh the entire house with parking in the back.

Um it is a large house, 3,000 square foot home.

Uh we have uh requested to change that to office uses.

We originally had um talked about making it like a bistro or a boutique or something like that, but we've since backed off of C3 zoning, and now we're just looking at simple uh office use, you know, possible medical office tax uh assistance, something like that.

Um we do have access, like I said, two accesses in and out of uh Madison Avenue.

It is on city sewer and city water, uh so there's no concerns there of usage.

I don't uh believe there will be any more traffic in that area than there would be if it's used as a duplex.

Um the house can be set up as two, it's got basically two kitchens in it, um so it can be set up that way.

I think office use would just be minimal uh for that location.

Um we've been in communication with Kathleen and staff, they still are not in agreement.

Uh a big reason is, and if if there's any chance we can bring up the map one more time, I can talk through that.

Um we are the location of the property, uh, the the bottom right hand corner, that's a Kroger facility and all the strip center, the Donatos, the McDonald's, everything else.

Just above that long strip, that's um new apartments they recently put in.

I say recently, probably 10 years ago, and then there's a bus stop directly in front of it and across the street from our location.

Uh the other blue bottom left uh darker blue, that is a CVS, and it also has a commercial building on the corner near Madison and Edgewood, and then that the in between blue, just below the the light blue, that is a property that um we have ownership of also.

So the corner property is the only property between us and all the um commercial district, and we have approval from all the neighbors surrounding us.

Um they've signed an agreement uh that they agree with what our plan is.

We go around and talk to everyone and let them know what we're thinking and what we're doing.

It's a gorgeous location.

Uh the property is we have no plans to add, remove, change, or do anything else.

It's a nice white house on top of a hill that just looks really nice and has plenty of area to be able to move around for office uses.

Uh I think that covers about everything that I wanted to talk to.

Uh on the top, there's also the top darker blue that is also commercial, and then commercial runs down the road on Madison uh that way also.

So I just feel with the location uh the highest and best use for us since my sister and I took over, would be to have office use possibly.

We still have quite a few people interested in uh renting it for a residence, but we'd like to have the option to do office if that's a possibility when we ask the commission.

Status of the daycare, daycare's been removed.

We're not looking into daycare or anything else anymore.

Um we pulled away from that.

We know there was concerns, and uh it was actually gonna be more of adult daycare too.

I think people were concerned with a a young daycare on Madison Avenue.

Um it it was an adult daycare we had to talked with uh a previous client about, and then we ended up not doing anything like that.

So we're just looking at just simple office uses at this time.

Who owns the pond to the southwest?

We do.

That's part of the property.

And what is the status of the pond?

It looks wide open to me wide open as not fenced it is not it isn't it had a old fence that rotted it was probably there for a long long time it's quite a ways there now there's no fence there now yes correct um it's quite a uh ways back on the property uh we talked to staff I think we believe we talked to Kathleen about it and I don't remember that I don't think there was a requirement for a fence but we don't mind having that discussion of putting one up it's that's not a concern president Dillon members of the commission yes there was a discussion about that staff looked at the ordinance there is no requirement there but staff suggested that Mr Zanniford actually consult with the Indiana building code which may require the fencing and I don't know whether that whether he did that or not but in terms of the ordinance it is not required.

Thank you are you making a commitment as part of your petition to put a fence up yeah I think we can do that that's that's not a problem.

So that's a yes you're making the commitment to put a fence up yes we can do it everybody can you show that directly please Kathleen yes any other questions for Jay members in commission and the daycare center you'll have to explain that to me how it's out and permanently out when we uh come to you well uh when staff had a concern about the fact that if this was a commercial uh that there they were requesting commercial uses staff felt like uh daycare at this location would not be appropriate staff also believes that any so any commercial use at this location would not be uh acceptable to staff and then they amended the petition they started out with a C3 which would allow the the child care and then they amended it down to a C1 which will eliminate that and it will be limited to office uses with the C1.

Thanks Kathleen go you have a question any questions we'll come back to you yes sir I do have one more comment um there uh the Thomson Edgewood association which is a small group there that keeps an eye on the area I talked to both Greg Katz Miller and um the other gentlemen um around this uh they were siding with staff but they had originally in January sent letters of remonstration against it so I tried to reach out to them they said they had not talked to anybody yet to remove but I have communicated with with the association in that area and they are aware what we're asking.

Thank you Jay remonstrators please come forward you may want to clarify what I yes my name's Dale Raber I'm sorry sir I missed the numbers.

Dale D A L E Dale Dale got it raber.

Dale can you raise your right hand you give your address 56 26 Laurel Street thank you do you swear a firm of the pennies of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth I do I do thank you.

Dale you have 15 minutes and I know you've been here before thank you for coming back.

Okay thank you president I live in that the neighborhood I just live I built a brand new house in that neighborhood on 5626 Laurel Street I'm about a block away from this I own two other houses within a block just within probably 200 feet from it on Gilbert Avenue and I own two also on Dudley which is two blocks from this and I'm very concerned about you know commercial coming into a suburban neighborhood like this you know when I checked with um Citizen gas I know they say there's city water and city sewer there citizens gas I've checked with them um three or four times and they do not have any water there.

There's water available, but they'll have to, you know, draw up a petition, you know, to let them know how much it would take to get it to the property.

So, you know, you might want to consider that too and uh also too, I'm very considerate about commercial coming in here.

I haven't seen any site plans or anything, and I think you know it's very crucial when we come into a suburban neighborhood like this to just automatically change, you know, residential to commercial.

I know that they you know it was denied back on the last petition by the administrator, and you know, I think they required they like to see intervals of about a mile, they like to see them more at Edgewood and Appler, which we've got plenty of commercial at at Edward Edgewood and Epler.

I also want to bring to staff staff and the board here, that you know, if we go, it's like going into home cropped off of Madison Avenue and jumping in to suburban neighborhood of home cropped and putting commercial in there, you know.

I think you know, we gotta consider between these intersections like Hiplar and uh Edgewood to keep this, you know, residential as much as possible, you know, to keep our values of our houses up.

Like I said, I own four houses within a two blocks of this, and uh it's gonna depreciate our homes.

And you know, if I knew more exactly what was going on, I've always seen whenever zoning is changed, the you know, they could just be changing this zoning just to sell it commercial.

I've seen this happen many and many, many times.

So, you know, we don't even know exactly like petitioners said, exactly what type of office, what type of business or anything that's going into this.

You know, they just want the zoning change to C1, which you know, we know what that includes office bill, you know, offices and stuff things like that.

You know, we're we're on a creek here.

This creek does have, you know, setbacks like when it comes out of its banks, there's been flooding over in this area many times and it's come out of its banks.

We don't even know if they can meet the setbacks, you know, for the buffer zones for the residential neighborhood.

Uh, you know, there's just a lot here to consider here when you start changing zoning without site plans.

I would like to see some site plans.

I would know want to know first time when if you do change it exactly what's coming in there, you know.

I I would ask that you stick to the denial of this petition.

Thank you.

Thanks, Dale.

Questions for the remonstrator.

Hearing none.

Thanks, Dale.

Stand by.

Kathleen.

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

You'll know staff is recommending denial of this.

We generally, as you know, you hear this all the time from us, that we like to support the comprehensive plan which talks about suburban neighborhood as being the recommended land use on this site.

As you know, there's a pattern book that goes along with that comprehensive plan, and it has guidelines in that plan that tell them to uh what would be required to mitigate any commercial use here.

The two that I would like to talk about in the pattern book is that commercial nodes, yes, they are permitted, small commercial nodes are permitted in the suburban neighborhood typology.

However, that node should be con should be located at the intersections of two arterials.

The two arterials where the which is the dark blue over there to the southwest and to on the and then to the southeast on that uh on that photograph on that uh depiction, is at the intersection of Madison Avenue and Edgewood Avenue.

So that area right there is prime for commercial uses.

But when you start moving and they're moving north, that's getting away from what the pattern book recommends.

The other concern that staff has is that there should be some separation between those commercial nodes, and it talks about no closer than one mile to another commercial node.

We're 200 feet from that commercial node that's there on Edgewood and Madison.

This is also locating a commercial use mid block.

Yes, it is surrounded by residential to the north, it is surrounded by residential to the west to the south and to the east.

Staff believes that the encroachment and the and having this land zone commercial would not be appropriate, and that staff is not supporting that.

In the event that this is, in fact, approved, staff has and it is identified in the staff report beginning on page 97.

Staff has is requesting if this is approved, we are requesting three commitments.

One is that there's a wetlands on this area, and staff would like to see a delineation of that, and how are they going to deal with that wetlands?

The second one is that is the dedication of right-of-way along Madison Avenue Avenue.

As you know, we frequently will ask for the dedication of right-of-way based upon the thoroughfare plan from the Department of Public Works.

And they and that plan is also looking into the future and any future connections as far as greenways or trails.

So in order to preserve that area for any future improvements, staff is asking for the dedication of right-of-way along Madison Avenue.

And then third is keeping this area clean.

Again, staff has an again we would be adding a fourth, which is in uh fencing the pond.

So staff would be glad to answer any questions that you might have, but staff believes this is not an appropriate request.

Questions for staff?

Uh one please.

Yes, would staff also be concerned about the nature of the frontage road, the shared drive, the shared mailbox arrangement there.

Yes, that is a concern, yes.

And I'm not sure how DPW would look at that.

Generally, DPW gets into the access to these sites and any conflicts and safety issues that might arise from that.

Other questions?

While we're on the topic, what kind of fence do we want Kevin on that part?

Well, I was what do you recommend?

I'm wondering about the height of the fence.

What's your recommendation?

Uh well, I know that in residential areas we're talking about at least three feet tall, and it should be some type some type of secure fence that other you know that people cannot get into that area.

Um I don't know that a privacy fence would be appropriate, perhaps a chain link fence would be appropriate in this area, but something that would again I guess back to what you are you're requesting, it needs to be staff believes it should be at least three feet tall.

Final questions for staff.

Thank you.

Petitioner, you're back.

Jay, you have five minutes for rebuttal as we get into that.

Let's make sure you and I understand your commitment.

It is a uh chain link fence, three foot high, secure.

Agreed?

Agreed.

Do you have it, Kathleen?

You have five minutes, Jake.

If I could just, I'm sorry to interrupt.

If there could be a time frame that would be placed where it would be installed, that would also be helpful.

Well, if we if it's approved, if it is approved immediately.

Immediately, okay.

I think it's dangerous as it can be.

I appreciate that clarification.

Thank you.

And we have a time frame of like four months just to get everyone out there and figure out what we want to get finished with it.

If it's approved, whether you think if it's approved, yes.

Kathleen, where do you think it's reasonable?

Four months sounds like a long time to me.

Yes, it does.

To me, it would uh staff would think that maybe two months would be appropriate.

Two months.

We can work towards that.

My only concern is contractors are booked up at the beginning of the year.

It's a yeah or nay.

Are you in for that or not?

Yes, thank you.

You have five minutes on rebuttal, okay.

Um so I just want to talk a little bit of the concerns, the entry into the property, so it has two entries now, um, one uh just south of the house.

I don't know if you can see the house very well in that image, but the house is closer to the road, the pond sits back in that L-shaped section there.

Um that entry uh just goes up through our property and then around, and we have an exit out the other side of the property.

So it is the shared mailbox.

We can move it to our side if needed, but we're okay with that.

Um as far as the water, we are on city water, it's not under that address, so we probably that specific address is multiple parcels there.

So we probably didn't find that.

As far as the site plan, uh, we have no site plan because nothing's changing.

We're not adding or removing anything, we're keeping it as is, and we've already redeveloped or re-improved the house.

We've repainted, um, we've redone the driveway, we've cleaned up the area, we've removed trees, we've cleaned up the pond, we refilled the pond.

It used to be closed up.

Everything's uh beautiful in that location, and we plan to keep it that way.

We both live in the south side of Indianapolis, and this is important to us too.

We live in that area, it's very important.

Um there is uh just to be clear.

I know that it is not officially in a commercial area, but we do have the apartments directly across the street.

We have the bus stop directly across the street.

We have approval from all the neighbors, and there's one neighbor between us and the commercial property.

Um this has been in the family for since my grandmother and grandfather purchased it back in 19 probably 40s or even longer, and we plan to keep it in the family for a long time after.

This is important to us and our family to have it as part of of our uh lineage, and then uh I scribbled something down and I can't read it.

I think that's about it.

Questions for the petitioner?

Yes, President Dillon.

Commissioner Murphy.

Um in the memorandum of the examiner's decision, it states letters of opposition were submitted by two area property owners, and by the Thompson Edgewood residential association, and another area property owner appeared at the hearing.

So my question where it says letters of opposition were submitted by two area property owners.

Have those two owners resended their letters or submitted subsequent letters of approval?

They have not, so those are the two people that I was talking about was uh Greg Katz Miller and a Mark Bash.

I have spoken to both of those individuals.

Uh they were unaware of what we were planning.

I think their side was um they were willing to go with what staff agreed with, and I'm sure they would be willing to discuss that situation.

Uh they just did not reach out.

I didn't follow up apparently enough to make sure that they pulled those back at that time.

But and then when it states Thompson Edgewood Residential Association submitted a letter of opposition, has that been rescinded or have they submitted a subsequent letter of support?

Both those both those gentlemen are part of that group.

The Mark Katzmiller or uh Greg Katzmiller.

Well, but this would indicate that those gentlemen submitted letters of opposition as individuals, and then the residential association as the association submitted a letter of opposition.

I think it is Mark is the president of the association.

I understand that.

But I think they're both part of it.

I understand that may be the case, but what they can do is they can submit letters as individual property owners, and then if there's a neighborhood association, which apparently there is, the neighborhood association could submit a letter on behalf of the association, which appeared which apparently it did in opposition, correct?

Correct.

Yes, I understand what you're saying.

So the association rescinded their letter, or has the association provided a subsequent letter of support.

No, they had not.

Thank you.

I'm also happy to follow up with them too.

Thank you, sir.

Yes, yes.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

Has there been any further conversation about the conflict with the pattern book and the neighborhood association?

Any of the other uh stakeholders in the area about how your anticipated commercial project does not align with the pattern book.

Has there been any discussion about that?

There has not been any discussion of that.

The only communication we originally had was the letters that came in, and they came in the day before we first started this process.

Uh we had no time to reach out and talk with them.

Uh we have since reached out and talked with at least the president and another individual that's part of that association, but we haven't there has been no discussion or anything.

If you want to know the truth, we didn't know there was association in that area.

My and like I said, we've been my grandmother's lived there forever, so it was nice to find out we have something and someone's watching out for the area.

Thank you.

Any other questions, members of the commission?

Does the facility have water?

Absolutely, yes.

City water.

And Kathleen, can you confirm that?

I cannot, but I can certainly look into that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Dale.

You have five minutes for rebuttal if needed.

Closing comments.

I don't know.

Has there been letters for he said that the petitioner said that there's been support, you know, by neighbor neighbors.

I haven't, you know, I I own four houses in the neighborhood.

I've they've never contacted me or you know, ask me for support or anything, or tell me exactly what's going on.

So I'm wondering, you know, why the monstrators aren't here for support.

You know, that's a big question.

And you know, what I'm just saying is that without site plans, you know, coming into a suburban neighborhood like this with residents on all sides.

I can see this house from two of my houses, you know, one on Gilbert at 1430, one at 1537 Gilbert.

You know, I I the it shares a driveway like they said, it there's a frontage road here, kind of like what home cross's got, and it'd be like coming in home crop and in the center of like uh Cardinal Drive or something and putting you know commercial building that it's just gonna cause a lot more traffic on the frontage road there, and you know, it's we got a shared driveway there, it's just not set up for you know commercial and you know, without site plans, not knowing what's going in there, you know.

This is just a profit making thing, like sometimes you get stuff rezoned like this, you know, without any site plans and that.

You know, and I think it should stay suburban neighborhood.

I've lived in this neighborhood, I've got a lot vested in this neighborhood.

I built I'm I'm taxed property taxed the highest in this neighborhood from a brand new house I built in 2008, and I've raised my family here and then I've invested in this neighborhood.

I keep my properties up very nice, and I'd rather see the commercial stay at the intervals like you know Dudley and Madison, not Dudley, but um Epler and Madison.

We've got a lot going on there.

We got a lot going on at Edgewood, and just keep this to the south, homecroft and this little neighborhood that I've vested in between Epler and Edgewood.

Let's just keep it suburban neighborhood like it should be.

That's the way it's set up.

There's wetlands here.

There's a lot of hoops that he's gonna have to jump through here because that creek comes out of its banks, and they they haven't talked about any type of landscaping that separates the residential neighborhood to commercial neighborhoods, and that that's always a requirement, and you know, commitments we're getting ready to go on another case here right after this on commitments that they haven't.

You know, I'm very concerned about commitments by Jade Investment.

You know, you you'll find out here on the next hearing, you know, we're on a modification on commitments that hasn't been done for 12 years.

So I just hope you take this all on stick to this hearing, Dale.

Okay.

Anything else?

No, that's about all uh questions for the remonstrator.

Yes, uh President Dillon.

This is in a way, it's not really a question of the remonstrating, it's a question to staff, but along the comments of the remonstrator, does staff have in the file any letters of support from neighbors?

No, there are no support letters for this one.

There are yeah, okay, thank you.

Thank you, Dale.

Any other questions from the remonstrator?

Seeing none.

Please go to your ballots.

There should be a support letter.

Thank you.

Your parts done.

Thank you.

I hope not.

Twenty twenty-five Z O N one thirty-two amended Jade Investments GMA LLC.

There were eight ballots cast.

There were two yes votes.

And there were six no votes.

This petition has been denied.

Thank you.

The petition, please show us denied moving forward.

Take care.

Thanks for coming.

Counselor, I see you over there.

Which which hearing are you here for?

All right.

Well, I was not going to take it next, but I will since the city councilman's here.

Nancy, let's go to uh item seventeen, twenty twenty-five zon oh eight four.

Please read into the record.

Thank you, President Dillon.

Uh number seventeen is a rezoning petition recommended for denial by hearing the hearing examiner.

Appeal filed by petitioner twenty twenty-five ZON zero eight four at four thousand and one South Keystone Avenue, Perry Township, Council District 19.

Amon LLC by Tyler Oaks requesting rezoning of one point zero seven five acres from the C4 district to the CS District to provide for all C three uses and an automobile fueling station.

Will all those intending to testify on this petition this afternoon?

Please stand now to be sworn in.

And if you have not filled out a speaking slip and you do come forward to speak, please fill one out at that time.

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

Say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Counselor.

How many of you are going to have testify in your remonstration?

Probably only I, but thank you.

Thank you.

Uh please introduce yourself and I'll walk you through the rules of engagement.

Yep.

Thanks, President Dillon.

For the record, Tyler Oakes pose McKinney and Evans offices at one-one-one Monument Circle, suite 2700, Indianapolis, Indiana, here on petitioner.

Thank you, Counselor.

Uh, the petitioner has 15 minutes to present your case.

I will then go to the remonstrator.

Councilor, you'll have 15 minutes to present your case.

I then will go to the honorable uh city councilman for your comments, and then I will come back to staff.

At that point, I come back to petitioner for five minutes rebuttal, and then I'll finish with remonstrators counsel for five minutes rebuttal.

You're on the clock.

Go.

Thank you, President Dillon and members of the commission.

Again, Tyler Oakes, Bose McKinney, and Evans here today on behalf of the petitioner.

I'm on LLC.

With me today is Greg Hahn, who's also a partner with Bose McKinney.

Um, and we'd like to formally thank uh Councillor Mascarry for his support on this project and and going through this process.

Here today to request a rezone.

Currently, the property at 4001 South Keystone Ave is zoned C4 with commitments.

I'm here today to request a rezone to a CS zoning classification.

Some uh and again, as as was stated, this would be to allow for an automobile fueling station to be operable at the property.

Currently, that site is used as a convenience store that's been up and running for uh about one to two years now.

A little bit of site history just real quick.

Uh this site was rezoned in 2016 from C3 to C4.

There is a by the time it was a 21st Amendment liquor store that is across to the north of Hanna Avenue.

Um, that rezone was requested to eventually move that liquor store south.

That never occurred.

So the 21st Amendment is still located on the north side of Hannah Avenue where it currently is.

In 2022 and 2024, there are two separate uh hearings in front of this body to have a modification of commitments.

Uh both of those commitments were subsequently denied.

And so we're here today requesting a rezone as opposed to those modification of commitments again to a CS, which would be all C3 uses in that automobile fueling station.

So we're going to uh reduce the current intensity of that parcel, which is a C4, bring it down to a C3.

The only caveat is it would be allowed to have an automobile fueling station, which is only permitted in a C4, five, and seven for the commercial districts.

So additionally, some some housekeeping just on the site itself to the north.

Like I said, we have that C4 for 21st Amendment to the south is commercial.

We have an appliance store as well as a tire store.

To the east is residential, there are uh some houses that line Hanna Avenue, and then to the west is a large commercial development.

You can kind of see it in the maps.

It's a dollar, a dollar generals over there.

There's another tire store over there.

I believe there's some sort of spa that's located at that intersection as well.

Um the site sits on the southeast side of that intersection of Keystone and Hannah Avenue.

Those are both two major arterials with heavy traffic going both ways, particularly on Keystone Avenue.

Um I've provided you a handout uh that has the zoning map.

If you uh want to see how it's laid out predominantly, like I said, C3 around it.

Additionally, I've provided three different photos to or from the Hannah Avenue viewpoint that show what the property is today.

Those were taken, I believe, in 2025.

So it shows the convenience store and how the property's been developed.

When my client first bought this property in 2022, uh 2021, 2022, it had been vacant for about a five-year period.

Uh my clients put quite a bit of time and effort and money into that property to make it a uh contributing parcel to uh the community again.

Uh that includes cleaning up trash, landscaping, things of that nature.

And so the convenience store has since now been running for about a year.

It's been very successful so far.

Um, however, with modern economic viability, it's important that we rezone this to allow the gas station to come in so that the convenience store can continue to operate.

We believe that the convenience store has been a great asset to the community.

We've spoken with community members who are thrilled about its existent and use it frequently, but for that to be able to exist long term to continue to benefit that community.

Uh, we're gonna need to have the gas station as well, which is why we're in front of you today requesting that.

Going through the staff report, staff has uh recommended denial.

We received denial at the hearing examiner as well.

Um, a lot of the reasoning stems from the comprehensive plan itself.

As staff has noted in the report, the comprehensive plan calls for this to be a mixed village use.

Um we understand that, and and and as staff's report will tell you, it recommends automobile uses not to go there.

Um we would respectfully uh uh I guess contest and and argue that this is an appropriate spot for this gas station to occur.

I've attached on page five of that handout.

You'll see this is from NDOT's website.

It lists their traffic counts at the intersection of Keystone and Hannah.

Roughly 14,500 cars are going through this intersection daily.

Um, that is significantly higher than what you'd see for a mixed village use typical area.

Predominantly on that uh on that graph as well, you'll see that in 2022, it was about 12,500, and it's since bumped to 14,000 pretty consistently since.

So you've seen about a 15 to 20% increase in cars that have gone through that area since 2022 alone, and is held steady since this gas station is a normal complementary use of that convenience store that's already there.

We're not coming into this area that has residential to eat to the east and introducing a new commercial node.

This is simply an additional service that's going to be offered to the neighborhood.

It provides a right-in, right-out gas station heading northbound on Keystone.

That's south of Hannah Avenue.

The only one is up near the 65 exit.

Again, you have two major arterials with a significant count.

So even though the plan, the comprehensive plan, we understand calls for mixed village use, and I understand that in theory that would be the goal to have that there.

The reality of the situation is that there's heavy traffic in this that suggests that village use is not necessarily the best use for this property.

The fueling station allows that convenience store, which which we think is a great addition to the neighborhood, it's cleaned up the property to really continue to thrive and serve that area.

Um you're gonna see, like I said, there's no increase in that commercial footprint.

Nobody is going to be going to this site because a gas station was put there.

It's not a destination, at least I would hope, that people aren't, you know, making a destination trip to go to a gas station.

Rather, this is to service drivers 14,000 a day who are already going north and southbound on Keystone Avenue.

It allows them to have another opportunity to stop and get gas, and you're not going to see an increase of traffic that's going to impact the area.

It's going to remain constant.

It's just providing another service for that area.

Excuse me.

Um, I know staff is as addressed some concerns about the CS zoning and being using or using that as a tool as well.

We think the CS zoning is perfect.

Um, it's a great modern adaptation in the zoning ordinance that allows us to for flexible zoning with this property.

Here we've seen an increase in traffic over the last three to four years.

Um, that's held pretty steady at 14,000.

We know that heavy commercial areas in the area, particularly at Troy and Madison, see about 17,000 cars that go through daily for I guess a good comparison for downtown.

If you were to go southbound on the I-65 from Washington Street, that ramp alone also gets about 14,000 cars a day.

So it is a significant amount of traffic that's going through their area.

This is on par with other heavy commercial areas located on the south side of Indianapolis.

And so we believe that the gas station, again, economic viability can be a planning tool.

It helps to ensure that that property is going to stay uh in you know in operation, continue to serve the community, continue to be an asset to that community.

So with all that, we would respectfully request to grant this rezone to a CS, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Questions for the petitioner stand by counsel, we'll be back to you.

Thank you.

Remonstrators.

Welcome.

How you been?

Good.

Good to be here.

President Dylan, you have 15 minutes.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

You're on the clock.

Thank you.

My name is Greg Zubek.

I'm an attorney with offices at 10475 Cross Point Boulevard in Indianapolis, Indiana.

I uh represent the Keystone Food Mart and its proprietor Mike Singh.

Mike, would you stand, please?

And that is uh located uh um caddy corner from the subject property.

Uh there are also some other remonstrators here today, uh, and I think they they are unlikely to testify, but I want them to be um I want to introduce them and recognize them.

Um, and these would be the owners and operators of the Conaco Station, which is the 2202 East Hannah, which is about two-tenths of a mile, folks.

Would you stand?

And they are they are also uh opposed to this uh rezoning, and then also we have uh the folks at 3939 South Keystone at the liquor store uh and they are opposed to this.

I think they can acknowledge that they are by just a nod, and they've taken the time to come down here.

We also have uh a whole bunch of uh folks who've signed uh uh a petition in remonstrance to this.

All that being said, um we have presented you with some exhibits, and um, and I'll go through that and some of the history that we have at this site.

Uh I trust um that uh Nancy has passed out these items.

The first exhibit that we have is a let me just say this this is the sixth public hearing on this property.

Some of you may know that, and some of you may not.

Some of you have been here over the last three years.

This is now the uh the sixth public hearing.

We've had three hearings in front of the uh hearing examiner.

The first two there was one in 2022, modification of the commitment relative to no fueling station here.

They lost in front of the hearing examiner, they lost in front of the commission.

They waited more than a year, they filed another one.

Again, modification of the petition, wanted a fueling station, wanted that that commitment um to be modified so that it wouldn't be in effect.

Went in front of the hearing examiner, lost, they took an appeal, they came to this commission, lost again.

Now we had the fifth hearing on this property after they waited two years.

So we've been 2022, 2024, now we're in 2026, and now we have another hearing, which is to rezone, but really the impact of it is to have a fueling station, which has already been denied at five previous public hearings.

Now we're here on the sixth public hearing.

So some of you may recall that and some of you may not.

I'm not sure how how long everybody's been on the on the uh on the commission.

The things I want to talk about and I'll go through the exhibit.

First, the purchase of this property, this is our exhibit one, was in two uh in 2022, February of 2022, for 199,999 by Amon LLC, and I'm on LLC is located at 13150 Ditch Road, Carmel, Indiana.

The secretary of state shows Pritt Paul Carr is a member at 13150 Ditch Road, which is a Carmel residence owned by Sukwinder Singh and Pritt Paul Carr husband and wife.

You may recall that Suquender Singh testified uh at a previous uh hearing that we had on this case, and we're gonna have a tape played for some of his testimony in this case.

I note he's not here today.

Then four months later, after it was purchased, Amon by Sequinder Singh filed a petition to modify and remove that prohibition against automobile fueling station.

Staff opposed it, McCannna opposed it, uh remonstrators came forward, and the um and the um uh petition to modify was denied in 2024.

Petitioner filed that second petition to remove the commitments again.

Staff opposed it, remonstrators came forward against it, uh McCannna opposed it, wrote a letter against the uh the removal of that commitment.

The petitioner appealed, and that case was was uh also decided.

Now we have this rezoning petition again.

The hearing examiner has uh has uh recommended that the uh rezone not occur.

Um, as counsel indicated, the C store has operated for over a year, and the petitioner uh filed now to add this fueling station.

So a bit of background.

Did the uh we've talked about the exhibits.

The first exhibit is the purchase for the hundred and ninety-nine thousand dollars uh by uh Amon, and uh uh the fact that it was uh um purchased with really nothing on it, that what was there was demolished.

He started out with a clean slate.

Uh the uh the second exhibit is the commitment that was made back in 2017, negotiated by a lawyer that I certainly hold in high regard, and I expect opposing counsel does, Mr.

Tim Oakes.

And it says here the following uses shall be denied.

This is our exhibit two, shall be shall be prohibited.

And and it's this automobile fueling station.

So an express commitment made in 2017 that there would not be a fueling station.

Exhibit three is a map of the uh of the fueling stations that are in this area.

So we don't we don't have uh a lack of fueling stations.

If you look at exhibit three, you'll see five fueling stations that are in existence.

And the yellow at the very bottom of the of this uh gas station exhibit shows where the subject property is.

Exhibit one is a BP station, Caddy corner from the subject.

Number two, just to the left of that, or to the west of that is a conical station.

We go up Keystone, and on the on the east side, we have a shell station.

Number four is a full service is a uh speedway station.

Uh I'll skip 3565, which I've written on this map that you'll see in red, and we go on to the north side of uh 460 of 65, and that fifth station is another BP station.

So we have five existing stations within seven tenths of a mile of the subject property.

I've added 3565 because this is going to come before you presently.

There was a and and I'll and we can look at uh the next exhibit.

I think it's uh exhibit number four.

This property at 3565 was recently in front of the hearing examiner.

Kathleen was the was the uh staff uh person that wrote the report, and you'll see on exhibit four, there was a filing earlier this year on that property to have a quick trip fueling station and convenience store that was withdrawn.

Apparently the deal went away.

Uh Mr.

Russell Brown uh represented the petitioner.

They came back and had it rezoned at C4, asked the hearing examiner to rezone it as C4.

Again, remonstrance was made asking that no fueling station be had.

That was denied.

They got their C4, it's gonna come before you after approval by the hearing examiner, and you're gonna have that probably in the next couple of weeks, and staff supported that.

So there's likely to be another another uh fueling station uh in this stretch of four six of uh Keystone Avenue.

The next exhibit I want to talk about is exhibit number five.

Uh and this is in two pages, and here you can see the front of the uh of the convenience store.

Uh, I went in not too long ago, bought a lottery ticket, didn't win, but that's okay.

I wanted to go in and see this convenience store.

This picture was taken, and it's called Keystone Food Center, and you can see all the signage in the windows, drive-through available.

I'm not sure that they have permission for a drive-thru, that's not under the comprehensive plan allowed, and milk, candy, t-shirts, uh cigarettes, um, other things.

The windows have all kinds of things about what's for sale here.

This is a new building that was built.

I'm glad to hear counsel say that it's been successful, that's good.

It stands upon its own with these items that it's that it's selling, and that's great news.

So we don't need another gas station, and I'll get to the rationale for that.

The next uh is picture two is uh is another picture of the station.

Uh and then I want to get to exhibit number six, which are it's a search for enforcement cases.

Now, we had this discussion in one of the prior hearings, and certainly when the when the uh petitioner bought this property in 2022, we can't we're not suggesting that violations, trash, and other things should be on this petitioner on LLC.

But what's curious here is that we have in if you look at this, we have petitions here.

Uh there's a violation of zoning uh shown on the first page, uh page two of seven, uh, filed August 1st of 2025.

We have one, a uh a citation issue 10 8 of 25, enforcement citation for zoning.

We have another one on 10 8 of 25, enforcement citation for zoning, and then we have one below that.

I missed one.

Uh in in um 7 10 of 25, an investigation for zoning.

There's a little bit more information about these on the next couple of pages.

Apparently, this has to do with signage and some other violations.

I'm not saying that this convenience store is a bad thing for this neighborhood.

I'm what I am pointing out is that there have been some recent violations in in the second half of 2025, oddly enough, right before they come in for this hearing.

So then the next thing I want to talk about is our exhibit number seven, which is a letter from uh Satinder Cower, who is uh and and we've talked about him at 2202 um uh East Hannah, which is within a couple blocks of this station.

And then we have several people who have signed petitions against us.

And council last time criticized the fact that we didn't have addresses.

Not everybody wants to give an address, but these people all signed saying that they didn't want another gas station in the area.

They said they either live in the area, uh own property in the area, or come or or do commerce in the area.

Many of them do commerce and the and they're against another gas station.

A couple of other things I want to talk about in my remaining time.

The comprehensive plan.

You know, this comprehensive plan, and and it shows this to be uh village mixed use.

We we indicate we our position is this is not mixing use, this is a repetitive other use.

There are all kinds of commercial uses that can be put on this property.

And Kathleen talks about 50 or something like that in her staff report that are available.

We've got a C store.

He went ahead and bought the property.

Amon bought the property, developed this DC store, and then we have a pattern book that says, and this pattern book said was here's the resolution signed by John Dillon, president of this commission, and this was this was 10 to 2019.

So it was before this property was purchased in 2022.

So Amon LLC knew about this, and it and they was previous testimony in a prior hearing in front of the hearing examiner, where Suckwinder Singh came up and testified on questions from the hearing examiner.

Did you know of this commitment when you bought?

And the answer was yes.

Appreciate the the candor on that.

Couple of things about village mixed use.

The typology creates neighborhood gathering places with a wide range of small businesses, housing types, and public facilities.

This typology is intended to strengthen existing historically small town centers as well as to promote new neighborhood centers.

Businesses found in this typology adjacent neighborhood serve adjacent neighborhoods rather than the wider community.

And then specifically, this comprehensive plan states, mixed-use structures are preferred.

Automotive uses such as gas stations and auto repair and uses with drive-through lanes are excluded.

Not supposed to have this.

The comp plan says it, they knew he knew about the comp plan, he knew about the commitment.

All these things were done before he purchased the property and developed the C store.

The um last thing I want to talk about is the C S.

Well, I have an exhibit to play, but the the other thing is is Kathleen will talk about this.

This comp her her report is spot on and covers every aspect of this property and why this should not be rezoned to CS.

Not only is it contrary to the comp plan, but it doesn't even fit the fit the uh the definition and the purposes of the CS.

There are five purposes.

Kathleen, I'm sure we'll get into this.

Staff believes the development of this site with a gasoline station does not align with any of the above purposes of the ordinance outlines for the CS district.

The last thing I'm gonna ask is that I have this tape play.

This is from the last hearing that we had in front of this commission in 2024 when a commissioner asked the petitioner, Sequinder Singh, who's the proprietor of Amon LLC, about whether it was going to even open the convenience store.

Can we get that play, please?

Did I understand you to say that if this petition is denied, you may or may not move forward with operating a convenience store in the building?

I'm not going to be opening.

You won't open it.

No, sir.

Thank you.

I and I'm not, I'm not sure who propounded the question.

I don't recall.

I'm sorry, but it was propounded by what might have been Commissioner Murphy, but it was, he nods.

So it and he said he wasn't going to open it.

He opened it shortly thereafter.

It's been a success, as counsel said.

I I noted that when he made his remarks.

Respectfully, we request that now for the sixth time under this rezoning petition, rather than the modification of the commitments, that the that the members of the Metropolitan Development Commission deny this petition to have this rezone to CS, which is contrary to the comp plan and really doesn't fit the definition of CS and does not really add anything to the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Happy to take any questions.

Questions from Commission for the remonstrance.

Hearing none, please stand by.

Yes.

I do have one question, maybe more of a point.

Yes.

I've actually been here through all this.

I thought so.

Um but you recall, as I do, that it was a tough piece of property.

And they have cleaned it up.

They have built a very nice facility.

They have said what they would do, what they would do on that.

Would would you agree with me on that?

I would agree it was a nice convenience store.

Coming from a tough piece of property that was uh vacant and torn up and dirty and trash everywhere and the whole deal.

It was bad, but my point is they made some progress on it.

They made some progress and they built a nice convenience store.

Thank you.

Sure.

Councillor Mascara, welcome.

Good to see you, sir.

And thank you for your uh support of the Metropolitan Development Commission.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And everybody needs to know they're they're doing this for free.

Nobody's getting paid.

Um I grew up on the South Side.

I lived there all my life.

I remember that uh as a gas station back in the 70s, and it was a window tent place, then it was the oil change place, and they've taken this building and just demolished it and made a brand new building.

It's beautiful in there.

Um, you know, it comes down to it's a gas war.

Right now we're paying five, six dollars, five dollars a gallon in gas.

It's just competition that is remonstrating.

We have neighbors in the that area that are for this.

I had a little lady call me a couple years ago when you first came about this.

She was all excited about this being re redone across the street.

We have a huge uh center there that's just very barely running.

I mean, there's hardly anything going on.

Remember, there used to be a a um uh theater there.

I seen bullet when I was 12 years old there.

My older brother came back from Vietnam and he took me there to see that movie on it on the screen.

Counselor, your aging yourself here.

Yeah, I'm an old man.

Go ahead.

When I play blackjack, I act like I'm 80, though.

But um, I'd you know I'd like to approve this thing.

I don't want to see it come to the full council.

I don't want that to happen.

Um, but uh the only remonstrators we have is the competition.

With gas prices the way they are, this we need more competition as far as the gas prices.

Um, but the neighborhood wants this.

The there if you've been there, it's it's beautiful, it's a heck of a building.

The other building I went or the other gas station I've been there, it's not in too good a shape.

They sell a lot of crazy things in there.

Questions for Councillor Masquer.

Once again, thank you for being here and appreciate the testimony.

You stand for the petitioner.

Right, I do, and I I appreciate what you folks do, and you've been through an awful lot lately, for data centers and things.

Thank you.

Staff.

Thank you, President Dillon.

Members of the commission.

Again, staff is recommending denial of this request.

This time they are using a rezoning to the CS district.

For those of you who are not familiar with the CS district, it's a commercial special.

That district allows a mix of uses that would normally require specific districts.

For example, it will allow a combination of commercial uses and industrial uses.

When this is rezoned to a CS district, the uses are specifically identified that will be allowed in that district.

If that district, if they want to add a new use, and this sounds a little crazy, they would have to rezone from CS to CS to allow that new use.

In this case, staff does not believe that this is an appropriate use of the CS district.

Just the first purpose to encourage a more creative approach in land planning, superior site and structural design and development, and an efficient and desirable use of open space.

Staff does not believe the addition of a gas station at this site really complies and is appropriate for the CS district.

As Mr.

Zubek indicated, it's already zone C4.

There are 59 primary uses that are permitted with a C4, and then 26 accessory uses.

And those are, and then in addition to those primary land uses, they are kind of categories, and in within those categories, there are seeming some additional uses.

So staff does not believe again that this is an appropriate use of the CS zoning.

As is mentioned, as I've said before, comprehensive plan, village mixed use.

And as has been indicated to the east, there's a residential neighborhood.

Staff has recommended denial of all of the previous petitions that have come before the commission and continues to recommend denial of this because again, the comprehensive plan recommendation of village makes use is not compatible with a gas station drive through our drive-throughs.

Again, staff is opposed to this and does not believe that this is an appropriate use of the CS district, and with that, staff would be glad to answer any questions that you might have.

Questions for staff.

Commissioner Robinson.

Yes, I see that you had put in here some recommendations.

If it is approved, the commitments that you'd like to see.

Yes.

So are you still on board for those?

Yes.

Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

Yes.

Thanks.

Can you go through those for me?

Well, let's see if I can find.

Okay, there are two.

And I believe the one has, and Mr.

Oaks can confirm this.

I believe the right of way has already been dedicated, but I'm I don't know for sure because that's handled by another department.

But there are the two.

Counselor, please come to the podium.

Yeah, the two commandments for dedication of right of way and then keeping the site clean and maintenance free.

Council, I'm looking at you guys have committed to those two commitments.

Yeah, my understanding is that, as Kathleen has indicated, that the right of way has already been dedicated.

However, if it has not been, we are fine with that commitment as well, and as well as the other one Kathleen's already suggested.

And the original Kathleen, you and I go back too far.

The original one on keeping it clean in the trash was you and I because it was such bad shape.

And my recent visit down there, they've done a good job of keeping it clean, it looks like to me.

I don't know if you've been down to see it.

I agree with you on all counts.

It was when I first made the site visit of this site, it was really in horrible shape.

Yeah, they have removed that building and they have built a building, and right now it is again.

I'm not sure I would call a convenience store a beautiful store or beautiful building, but it is cleaned up and we've come a long way back from where we are.

We have, yes, admittedly.

Yes.

All right.

I just want to point that out that we've got something done.

Final questions for staff.

Council, you have five minutes on rebuttal.

Thank you again, President Dillon and Commission members.

Uh Tyler Oakes again for the record, um, want to thank the counselor and reiterate everything he had said in his comments.

Um, land use planning is not the appropriate forum, as the hearing examiner has stated multiple times, not the appropriate forum for a competition discussion.

So we'd reiterate everything that the counselor's already stated regarding uh competition, and we will not be going delving into that further.

Um in terms of the comments from staff regarding the mixed use uh typology.

Our our response to that is this store, as evidenced by the letters of support that has been submitted and and to Councilor Mascari's testimony regarding the neighborhood's desire.

This store has been integrated into the community.

Um it's offering a community service.

There are community members that are coming frequently.

The residential residences, there is compatibility here.

They have this convenience store that they're able to attend.

The automobile fueling allows for this to be a sustained business through the process.

It allows for that to continue to serve those residences and those community members that are that are coming frequently to visit the store.

So from that standpoint, we disagree that this is not compatible with residential uses.

We think it's been integrated quite well, and especially given as been noted multiple times uh the cleanup that's occurred on that site.

Um, additionally, you know, there's been some talk about how this is not appropriate for a CS zoning, and again, we would respectfully disagree.

We think ZS is CS zoning is appropriate here for a couple reasons.

One, this is a little bit of a unique property.

You've got two different entrances, one off Keystone, one off Hannah, and you've got a third one that that goes into the commercial property to the south.

You've got residences boarding it directly to the east, so there's a significant amount of landscaping that goes into that too to keep that going, but ultimately it is a unique property.

If you look at the zoning map that's provided or the map that staff has provided, it is a super weirdly shaped property.

It is it is unique.

And additionally, when you look at the purposes that staff has laid out in in her report regarding the uses for it, um, we would provide you know, again, we would point to number five in particular, which is to provide maximum adaptability and flexibility in zoning and development controls to meet the changing and diverse needs of the metropolitan area.

We've heard feedback from community members that traffic, as you've seen in the last three years, traffic four years, excuse me, traffic has increased, needs have changed.

There has become a need for this convenience store to be sustained in the pro and in the community, and so we think that based on number one, based on number five of Kathleen's report, the CS is absolutely appropriate.

We're gonna take the intensity down to Kathleen's point.

We're gonna bring that intensity down so that instead of these C4 uses, it's just going to be C3.

The only C4 use we're incorporating back in is that automobile fueling station.

So other than that, there's no intensity being added to the property, it's already a commercial property.

We're just giving it an accessory use that's compatible with the current use on the property.

So, in closing, you know, we've addressed uh obviously the competition and staff's report, but at the core, this is an appropriate use of an already developed commercial property.

We're adding an accessory use for something that's already existing, and we want to continue to keep going.

We've addressed the comprehensive plan, and although this is mixed use typology, we think that it's still a cohesive use that's going to be integrated into the community, continue to benefit that community, as the counselor has stated.

This is a pass-by destination.

We're not going to increase traffic, it's going to be traffic, uh, cars that are already on the road who are stopping to use this gas station.

Um, and again, just to reiterate, this is a property that sat vacant for five years.

In those five years, anybody could have come in under the zoning that was applicable to the property at that time and put something in, and nobody did.

It took five years for a very prominent site at a prominent intersection in Indianapolis to finally be put back into productive use, and my client has done that.

And so economic viability, like I stated earlier, is a a factor that should be considered when making these decisions, and we would respectfully request approval of that rezone so that we can continue to keep that property looking nice and benefiting the community and community members.

Thank you.

Questions for the petitioner.

Final questions.

Thank you, Council.

Thank you.

Counselor Zubach, you've got five minutes.

A couple of things.

I'm not sure what my opposing counsel has submitted as far as letters of support and the like.

We've given you nine pages of people who are opposed to this.

They're not all gas station operators.

There's there are people who either own, as the premise says on that on those sheets, those people either own property nearby, they reside nearby, or they do conduct business nearby, and they don't want another gas station.

There are plenty of gas stations in the area.

You know, it really always comes down, you know.

We've got somebody from a liquor store.

We've got a liquor store operator here who doesn't want a gas station.

They're across the street.

That there are their issue.

And I'm going to ask somebody to come up and speak to this.

Why not?

Because it's really traffic at this location and more in and out.

Council says it's not going to create more traffic.

It may not create more than 14,800 cars or whatever he said goes by there.

And I don't, I'm I'll take him at his word, I guess, for what in dot shows the counts to be.

You're going to have a lot more right in and right out with Keystone, which is a busy area, and you've got, and you've got a liquor store across the street, you've got a lot of other businesses, and they've already said that the and kudos to them for building a successful convenience store under zoning that allows it, even though he said he wasn't going to do it the last time when he was here because he wanted to get that commitment removed so he could put a gas station in.

Council has indicated today that it's been successful, and now he wants to call this an accessory use.

A gas station is a primary use, it doesn't fit at this location.

It's going to create more in and out.

They wouldn't be asking for this unless they expected more cars to come in and out of this location on the Keystone where we already have 14,800 cars coming by.

There is economic viability.

Council says that's a factor to be considered.

Don't disagree.

The good news is that they built this, didn't have to build it, could have could have marketed it to a CVS or a Walgreens or one of 58 other 59, 50 some odd other uses that would be permitted here.

He built the convenience store.

Council says it's successful.

Great.

You've seen the pictures of it and the kind of stuff that they're selling in there and what's all over their windows.

It's the C store.

This isn't a and he says it's successful.

So that's good.

Kudos to them, kudos to the neighborhood.

I guess I guess I would, you know, I've always wanted to do this.

Chief Justice Roberts of the I'm getting a smile.

Chief Justice Roberts has quoted Bob Dylan and other people in opinions that he's written.

So I'm gonna try probably the first time in 46 years.

I'm gonna do it.

And I'm gonna say, I'm gonna quote the stones.

You can't always get what you want, but you get what you need.

And they got what they needed, and that is they got a convenience store, which it was which which was permitted under the zoning, they bought it knewing of the knowing of the zoning, they got it knowing of the commitment.

He he said he wasn't gonna open the store, he opened the store, it's been successful.

We don't need to to go contrary to what the comp plan says, and this is certainly not appropriate for a CS.

Again, we respectfully request that this that the commission deny this petition, as as we come before the sixth time this has been up for hearing for uh for a uh a fueling station.

Thank you for your time.

Happy to take any questions.

Final questions from remonstrator.

Counselor, yes, always enjoy you being here.

Thank you.

Good to be here.

Thank you, President Dillon.

Members of the commission, please go to your ballots.

A yes passes the petition, a no defeats the petition.

Petition 2025 Z O N 084 Amon LLC.

There were seven ballots cast.

There were three yes votes for no votes.

This petition has been denied.

Thank you.

The petition has been denied.

Moving forward.

Nancy, let's go to 2025 Z O N One.

Oh.

Back up.

There we go.

Let's go to 2025 MODO two four.

If you would read that into the record.

Thank you, President Dylan and Commissioners.

Next we have modification petition recommended for denial by the hearing examiner.

Appeal filed by the petitioner.

Twenty twenty-five MOD zero two four, fifty-six zero one and fifty six twenty-one, Madison Avenue and fifteen twenty-five East Dudley Avenue.

Perry Township.

Council District 23 is zone C5 T O D.

Petitioners Jade Investments of Indy Incorporated.

Requesting a modification of commitments number two and five related to two fifteen Z O N zero zero seven, subject to the site plan, file data, November eighteenth, twenty twenty-five for landscaping and office location, previous commitments provided for administrators' approval for redevelopment or replacement of the residential structure, no other commercial use, and removal of the mobile office within twenty-four months after final approval of the rezoning.

Well, all those intending to testify on this modification petition, please stand now to be identified and sworn in.

Thank you.

Of a property, the people were moving, it was a rundown house.

We uh put in for uh rezoning of the house with commitments.

Uh the house was falling down, we've completely improved the house, turned it into an office.

Uh we do auto sales at this location.

Um of the main commitments that we're going to discuss today that I think was going to be tried to brought up is going to be brought up is that we did not do our commitments, and I want to prove here that we have done what we said we would do.

Um we did fall short on following through on a couple of items, but I'll point that out as we go along.

Uh the two major commitments.

If you see on the top right corner, and it's kind of tough to see the top right corner box, the bottom right corner of that box.

There's a little office trailer there.

It's a little white top roof that's there.

One of the commitments was to remove the office trailer.

It was not clear in the commitment that what we were allowed to do after that.

We did remove that office trader.

We brought in another nice office trailer.

If you can see on the bottom left box, um that was changed out in 2015, which was one of our commitments to remove the office trader, and we did.

Uh we also planted um I think it was 10 nine trees per the um per the uh commitment.

Uh we did plant at that time.

We had probably well, exactly of the nine, we had four five of the trees die up to this day.

We had a fourth that lasted a little while longer.

Uh so that was one of the commitments we didn't do a good job of keeping up with.

We did that at the beginning.

We replanted all of these trees uh around that location, just some died, and we didn't follow up on making sure.

But I want to clarify that we did everything that was proposed for our commitments at this original uh plan.

Uh so the office trailer I think is is right now one of the uh the pieces that's in contention of what we we plan to do.

Um we have been in communication with Kathleen and staff, and uh we have I believe came to a resolution that um we will remove the office trailer within 24 months.

Um that's part of the proposal we're putting out today.

Uh we have also already replanted trees, those were easy to put back in again, so all the landscaping plan has been met.

Um we're just asking that um we get some time because currently that is used.

We that building trailer that's there is used as an office, and we just want some time because we plan to build a permanent foundation building at that location.

Um so I want to make clear that we have followed through with every commitment that was expected when we originally did this uh plan.

Uh we also have should have on file, and I want to confirm all the neighbors' approvals and signatures.

And I don't know, Kathleen, if you have that on file, and this may be a mix-up of our previous attorney.

This is part of the reason we don't we're not working with him anymore, and we're trying to finish it up ourselves that proper paperwork and everything was not filed correctly, so that's my concern on our previous discussion because we do have full paperwork full signatures forms, and they've been emailed through to the team.

So that being said, we have uh improved the location.

Uh we keep it clean, nice in that area.

Uh we do our best to employ uh individuals, bring them into the community.

We lease this property out.

We do know the individuals, they are very aware of what's going on with the situation, have changed some of the things they do based on our challenges with reason with getting this cleared up.

If you look to the bottom right, that's the plan, and it's it's pretty close to what it's basically what we have today, but it will be removing the office trailer and then eventually putting a permanent uh structure in that location, but the landscaping and everything is all in place at this time.

Uh, like I said, we do have approval from all the neighbors surrounding neighbors, and uh we are aware of what car lots can turn into and what they can look like, and we try to stay on top of that and make sure that is not the case.

Um there has not particularly been uh major issues with the look.

Um we're dealing with one violation.

Currently, we've had it extended dealing with the city on that, and that's part of the reason we're requesting uh this change.

Uh there was confusion, I think, on the office trailer, because in the commitments it says the office trailer needed to be removed.

We removed that office trailer.

We did bring in a different one.

Uh, it has been there for now 10 years, but we are willing to um take that off the board and remove it and put a permanent structure in there uh down the road just to bring a better office into the location.

So I'm happy to take any questions anyone may have questions for the petitioner.

Yes, sir, President Dillon.

Commissioner, so just so that I'm clear.

Um, in 2025, you signed the statement of modification for the attached exhibit B, which exhibit B said that the mobile office structure at that time in 2025 was able to remain for 24 months before needing to be removed, yes?

Correct, yes, it's 2015.

We we agreed to that, right?

Yes, so was that removed within 24 months?

Yes, and it was replaced with another one that was also permitted or no?

Correct.

Uh the gentleman that leases the property.

Well, the previous gentleman that leased the property brought it in and they were responsible for all the permits.

I think they went through that process, if I'm not mistaken.

So I don't know how it slipped through the cracks, but the the old building was really rough condition.

Uh the new place was nice, had all it had a ramp and everything to it, and all of that.

So our understanding was it was the building that the physical uh looks of the building that were the problem.

Sure.

You would spare me the the history that I wasn't there in 2015 to know what conditions were, but just from the commitment that you signed, you did say that the mobile trailer would be removed in 24 months.

Correct, and we did, but then there was another one there.

So my question is was there approval for the new replacement trailer if there wasn't permission to have one after 24 months?

I believe there should have been.

We didn't handle that.

Our uh tenants did.

So as the owner, do you have documentation of that approval?

Uh I could check with them, but I would I mean, it I'm not 100% positive what they've done.

Kathleen, the answer that's no, I think.

That is correct.

Commissioner, the answer is no, there was not permission granted.

Thank you, sir.

Other questions?

I have a question.

Commissioner Murphy, and forgive me if you covered this, um, and I missed it.

But so the other structure, not the temporary office, but the other structure that looks at one time is probably an old house.

What is it being used for?

Correct, it's currently being used as office space.

Okay, and that was the original reason um that we started the rezone because it was previously all C5 around it, just not that little house right there.

Are both structures being used for the same business or is it two different businesses?

It currently right now we have one individual, but we have uh previously had two individuals with two offices.

So right now the singular business being run off the site is auto sales.

Correct, yes, and they're utilizing both the permanent structure and the temporary structure.

Correct.

Thank you.

Final questions for petitioner.

Jay, stay close.

Dale.

Please reintroduce yourself and your address.

Dale Raver, 5626 Laurel Street.

I'm just one block west of 50 56.

Um 21.

Um, if you look at that print up there, it shows four lots up there.

That's the new one that they just submitted.

If you notice there's no parcel number on the one that's in green, I guess that's where they want to put their new structure there.

But uh, they're gonna have to have a parcel number.

If you go back in your pamphlet and look at the 2015 structure, it'll show 56.

Let's see, 56.

21, 5621, the old one, it shows three parcels.

It the green's not in it.

5621 goes back on the green and that, and then you got 5601 and you got the one on Dudley.

So, and then it does have all the parcel numbers on those three parcels.

So there's something going on with that site plan with no parcel number on that green.

And I think the problem is what's going on here.

This was approved in 2015 without city sewer.

That should have come up in 2015 before this board.

I don't know if any of you were on this board in 2015.

You guys should have asked Wayland, Dudley, and Gilbert.

There's no city sewer west of Madison, east of Madison Avenue.

So right now they can't build anything on that property without City Sewer.

So all this stuff that they're talking about, they're going to get building permit, they're going to put another structure in there.

They're not going to be able to do it.

There's no city sewer there.

Now you go up to Edgewood or Madison.

I mean Edgewood or Epler, yes, there's City Sewer there.

I owned a property east of uh Madison Avenue on Gilbert.

I just last December ended up putting a 40,000 dollar septic system in there.

I researched this area.

I know this area.

I'm not talking about now calling citizens energy group.

I'm talking about I researched it.

There is no city sewers east of Madison Avenue on Dudley, Whalen, or Gilbert to the railroad tracks.

And how this ever approved back in 2015 with no city sewer, I don't know, with a two mobile sites there, two offices.

That's why I'm questioning like this last, you know, water and stuff.

I know this area very well.

I like I said, I own five houses in this area.

And they had two years from 2015 to remove this mobile site.

That's 2017.

Where's 2026 and it's still there?

Now they want asking for another two more years.

I don't, I it should have been gone a long time ago.

And like staff said, there wasn't no permits, there was no way they could have got permits with those sewers to bring in another one.

There's no way, because it takes water and sewer to even bring in a residential site.

So you know, there has never been sewers here.

When they built those apartments behind back by Kroger's, they had to add on it and you know, buy upgrade that lift station just to get sewers to those apartments.

But here, then I had to have a new septic system put in in December because they elevated that ground on Gilbert Street to seven feet and caused problems on my septic system.

I would I was fighting with them for years, but anyways, that's hindsight.

But anyways, that area, I know it's hard to believe there's no septic, no sewers in that area.

It's just weird.

Nobody that comes out in that area says, oh, come on, there's gotta be city sewers here.

No, there isn't.

Or I would be hooked up to city sewer last December.

Their septic system.

So I'm just trying to say is that the site plan from you you should have them both in your folder, three parcels, and they can't be sharing a septic system that those two mobile offices.

There's not enough land there for a septic system for two offices or two buildings.

You know, it's car lot, it's all hard surface, it's all hard surface, 5601 to 5621.

That's all hard surface up front.

So what they're doing is right now they're sharing a septic system on that green space that you see up there.

They have to be.

So the landscaping plans again, I don't know even know.

I would like to see the commitment that they had 90 days.

They had 90 days when this was approved to to submit a landscaping plan because they didn't have one.

Did you ever get a landscaping plan within 90 days?

I'd like to see it.

Because I've never seen the landscaping plan when you approved of this in 2015.

And they had 90 days to submit it.

I'd like to know that.

Thank you.

Questions from Ronstrator.

Thank you, Dale, stand by staff.

Thank you, President Dillon.

Members of the Commission.

The request on this petition relates to modification of the commitments.

So I would like to draw attention to the commitments there on page 70 of the staff report commitments number one and five.

The first one, and there's been discussion about the landscape.

It says a landscape plan providing the minimum of 10 foot front yard along street frontages, and a 20 foot east transitional yard shall be submitted for administrators' approval within 30 days of the approval of this request with implementation of the landscape plan within 90 days of the approval.

Staff did a search of the records and the administrators' approval, there was nothing ever submitted for administrators' approval for the landscaping.

And it was obviously, I don't know whether it was in again.

This is we're talking about 11 years ago.

I don't know if that was installed at that time, but there's nothing that would indicate the administrator approval was given for the landscaping.

In fact, staff made a second site visit within the last week or two, and it is not compliant with what the ordinance requires for landscaping on frontage frontages.

And they have three frontages, they have Dudley, they have Madison, and they have Wayland.

Putting trees, only trees there, is not, should have been there, should have been a plan submitted for administrator approval that identified the plant material that was going to be in there.

There should be shrubs in there.

Nothing was submitted.

As you know, as you may or may not know, there are some prohibited trees.

Staff has no idea what tree was trees have been installed here.

So staff has a concern about that.

The mobile office structure indicated on the site plan, file dated February 11, 2015, shall only be permitted to remain on site for 24 months after the approval of this rezoning.

Thereafter, it shall be removed from the site.

Staff has a concern about that.

The one that staff would disagree with is that they have failed to provide a hard surface for outdoor display in this last visit again within the last couple of weeks.

There is grass growing up, and it's particularly along Dudley, which is on the southern, or excuse me, Whalen, which is on the southern portion of the site.

It is it is not paved, and it was should have been paved.

And I'll you'll also you'll see those um in the photographs that were taken earlier that there's mud and and now there's grass growing up in that area.

So staff has a concern about that.

However, all that being said, in an effort to move this forward, staff would recommend approval, and that's has changed their position, subject to the commitment, and I tried to get more ex uh specific about this.

The mobile home structure indicated on the site plan file dated March 23rd, 2026, shall only be permitted to remain on site for 24 months after the approval of the modification.

Thereafter, the mobile home structure shall be removed, and no other mobile home or temporary structure shall be permitted on the site.

Any new structure or changes in the site plan shall be submitted for administrator approval prior to the issuance of an improvement location permit and or any land disturbance?

Again, this has been going on for 11 years, or excuse me, yeah, 11 years, and they were aware of the violations that were issued two years ago.

Staff is concerned about the appearance of this site, but in again in an effort to move on and try to get this resolved, staff will support the request with that change in the commitment number five with all those other commitments that were previously agreed to to be a remain in place.

How many commitments?

How many commitments are there?

There are five.

Number five is the last one you just read.

Yeah, five is the one that would be changed to the one that staff is has placed in the staff report on page 57.

Questions for staff.

Okay, question.

I'll direct it to staff.

I don't know if that's the preferred route though.

Can we get some clarification please on what a yes vote does and what a no vote does, please?

If there is a yes vote on the modification, it would be subject to the four commitments that are on page 70, which is going to require, and these are from the old 2015 commitments, which will require administrator approval, and then a change with number five on page 70.

That would be that commitment would be substituted by the one that is on staff's in the staff report.

So the four would remain, and then the fifth would be changed to what staff is requesting, and with that staff would recommend approval.

And the no vote means no commitments.

That's why staff is offering this commitment so that it can move forward in an effort to clean up this site and get it in compliance with the ordinance.

And I know it is complied with previous that is a concern, yes.

So a no vote might be status quo.

It would be status quo, yes.

A no vote would mean that those five commitments that are on page 70 would still remain and be in effect, which requires the removal of that mobile home office, and then we would follow up to make sure those happen, those four requirements four commitments, yes.

Yes, sir.

Commissioner, excuse me.

So with these commitments being over a decade old, what mechanisms are there to enforce them?

The mechanism would be again uh filing a complaint with the Department of Business and Neighborhood Service and having a zoning inspector go out there, and that's what occurred two years ago with the violations.

Yes, right.

Okay, thank you.

Final questions for staff.

Jay.

Five minutes rebuttal.

Bye, by ladies.

Good luck to you.

Thank you, Commissioner for hearing this.

Um, so a few points to bring up.

Uh we did have an attorney previously when we went through this first process.

Our understanding was that um we were good with the landscaping.

I don't know what was missed, but we're happy to correct that.

However, we can.

So we're happy to correct that issue also.

As far as the green space, the green space, if you bring up if you're able to bring up that image one more time, the green space sits directly behind the office.

The images, these images that come up are mostly taken in the fall, I think, to get a better view of everything, but it's not very green looking at at those images, but there is a nice green space there.

If we did a new uh building, it would be right on the edge of that.

We'd still continue to have that green space in front of it.

Speaking of the new building, there are sewer access, it's just across Madison Avenue, which is quite expensive to get across, but there is sewer access across.

That location has two uh septic systems.

It has one from the old house that was uh we purchased, and then it had a septic system for the original property was that was there uh before.

So it has two septics on that property uh to date.

There is that property is multiple parcels.

I think after the purchase of the house, it turns it into four parcels that I believe, if I'm not mistaken, we're we're pulled into one.

Uh that was part of our plan or our original 2015 when we hired an attorney, and uh I think that's it.

We we our request our site plan originally um didn't have we we would like to asphalt and make that all a nice area.

So if you saw areas that weren't, we our plan is to make that make it that way, and this is part of that approval to be able to do that, Jay.

Let's be straightforward.

Yes, sir.

There are four commitments now, five commitments, which has just been added that have been read into the record.

Are you agreeing to all five commitments?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Including removing the trailer for good.

Final questions for petitioner.

Uh just one.

Go ahead.

On the old house that you bought, it has a septic, right?

Correct.

And you paved what appears to be the entire lot.

No, it comes the septic comes back out to that green area through there.

So the house, the septic runs uh it would be south of where the house currently is.

There's a holding tank that has a cap and a lid, and then the fingers run over to the green space.

Can we see that view brought down?

Well, there but so he's talking about right here.

It doesn't look like it goes there.

Off the house, the back side, um, which the back side would be the so um you're looking at it south would be south in this view.

So south of it, there's a holding tank uh right there, and then the fingers stretch further south to the green space.

Is that a separate parcel?

No, uh the parcel that's a little longer.

I think that that house parcel was a little longer, and then uh the original parser was a little bit split.

Okay, thank you.

Final questions.

Jay.

If it passes, and maybe even if it doesn't pass, I'm gonna file a complaint myself, just so you know.

If it's not done, it's coming from me, and they will follow up on it.

So you know for the record.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Remonstrator.

Dale, you've got five minutes if needed again.

Again, it turned in in 2015 to be three parcels.

Now it's four parcels with the green space with no parcel number on that green space.

There is of record three parcels there, or you wouldn't be allowed to have that trailer there.

Without using that green space that's behind that house on Dudley at at 5 1525 East Dudley.

You'd have to have two holding tanks.

Finger systems.

I just put one in.

It takes up the whole entire yard.

You can't have two properties on that little bitty lot that's it wouldn't even be suitable a septic system just for the office, let alone another mobile site.

This mobile site's got to go now.

I don't I think if you sent the Board of Health out there, it it's not legal.

And I don't think there's a septic system hooked up on that trailer because I don't know how they would have got it permitted to do it.

I know I just did one in December, and they had a fringe because of the lot being so small, just so the house wasn't condemned on Gilbert at 1537, the house that I own.

But I got it done through Mac's septic system.

But how this was ever approved, what I'm saying with the this before this board in 2015, without City Sewer, Bob's lock service, two doors, three doors down between Whalen and Gilbert.

They couldn't even open up when they bought that system.

The question came up whether they were on city sewer, and they weren't.

And they had a tunnel under Madison Avenue on the west side to hook up to sewers.

That's very expensive.

You might say, how can they do it at Edgewood?

How could they do it at Epler?

Because there's sewers, there's no sewers on those three streets, Whalen, Gilbert, and Dudley.

I believe has to come up before this board whenever you allow rezoning with their septic and and sewers and water.

This is very important, I think, because it makes it very hard to even build a house or anything on these small lots, and they don't like anything on septic system in Indianapolis anymore.

But I think say the trailers got to go now because I don't think it's legal.

And they had, like I said, in 2015, it should have been removed in 2017.

We need commitments should not be disobeyed.

You know, there's too much on you, President, to try to enforce these things if everybody disobeyed commitments.

Maybe with fines that it has to go like tomorrow, the trailer, and maybe the house, whether that's got a legal septic system that handled those three parcels.

A lot of people come and going.

Separating a residential on that back behind that trailer that it was supposed to be done.

Commitments are very important, and you shouldn't guys should have to bur the burden to enforce things, and you know, commitments shouldn't be taken lightly, and I think you should enforce something here today on this.

Final questions for the remonstrator.

Yeah, I've got a question.

If you've got a house in that neighborhood or anywhere, and you've got nowhere to flush a toilet, that house is subject to condemnation, is it not?

It can be condemned.

My property if it was.

Is the same true for a commercial structure?

Commercial, it's different, they won't won't even allow allow business on commercial usually.

Residents, the only reason I got one done is because they didn't want to condemn the house.

The lot's only 40 by 120 feet.

Really, it the tanks are are in the front yard, and all my finger works is between the garage and the house and in the back.

And they still didn't have enough square footage, but they had to put in a writing.

That's the best they could do till the city sewers come in.

I don't I can't say that for sure, but I'm just trying to say before it is approved.

I know they wouldn't allow it.

I do know that.

Kathleen, you know the answer to that.

Uh I from what I understand, if there is a commercial use, it has and there are sewers in the area, it has to be connected to that sewer.

So the trailer commercial building is in violation.

It would appear so.

If to be to be brought back in violation, would would you give someone 24 months?

Well, that would be up to the commission, but if you wanted to cut that back to maybe, I don't know what would be reasonable in order to get plans uh developed and submitted for uh for permitting uh you know, perhaps maybe a year, I don't know.

Are you talking about the new building to replace the no?

I thought you'd you'd say no that you wouldn't give somebody that long.

I see what to be within compliance.

He's been asked to have the building vacated in 24 months.

So I thought, well, why would how do we give him 24 months to move a building when really it could be condemned and yes removed for that reason in a time faster than 24 months?

Yes, you're that is correct.

Yes, the temporary structure, yes.

And I'm not you know, I I understand what you're asking now.

Is that you know you would want something you would want that addressed and taken care of within less than 24 months, how how could we even allow a building to be there in for 24 months if we know it's in violation and condemnable?

Yeah, that I cannot well we shouldn't be doing that, and I don't know if the zoning inspector would have picked up on that or not permitting.

Would have they said they polled permits when they brought that new trailer, they would have it's a code enforcement matter.

Thank you.

And it would be the department of health to that would deal with that.

So somebody would have to turn that in.

I know they pick it up on the that is true.

And just final questions for the remonstrator.

Thank you, Deal.

President Dillon, before we Commissioner Murphy, before we vote on this, um, I'd like to make a motion.

I assume that's the right methodology, um, to modify or change the uh commitment or requirement as stated by staff where it references that the mobile office be removed within 24 months after final approval of the rezoning and reduce that to 12 months, Jay.

Can you come back with us?

Commission's desire that the 24 months, which started what, 48 months?

When what did we start with?

Excuse me, initially it was 24 months with the original commitments.

But I thought we backed that down.

We did not.

No, that was that was in 2015.

The commission wants you to make another commitment, which would be number six to take the mobile office removed in 12 months, not 24 months.

We would agree to that.

Would that be a change in commission five then?

No, it's it's a change.

Maybe it would be a change to commitment for this.

Yeah, that would be it would not be a sixth commitment.

It would just be modifying the fifth commitment that uh staff is recommending.

Read me number five.

The one that staff is recommending would be the mobile home structure indicated on the site plan file dated March 23rd, 2026, twenty twenty-six shall only be permitted to remain on site for staff had twenty-four months.

What the motion is asking for is 12 months after the approval of the modification.

Thereafter, the mobile home structure shall be removed, and no other mobile home or temporary structure shall be permitted on site.

Any new structure or any changes in the site plan shall be submitted for administrator approval prior to the issuance of improvement improvement location permit and or any land disturbance.

That's the the commitment the staff is proposing to replace the original number five to make it clear that that mobile home office needs to be removed.

Got it.

Within twelve months.

Yes.

So she now has agreed to number five being twelve months.

Twelve months, yes.

And I'm going to send a letter to permitting, probably by the end of the week, asking them to review the site and telling them what we if this passes what we've agreed to.

If it doesn't pass, then they're going to have to deal with permitting.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you, Jay.

Members of the commission.

With the five commitments.

Go to your ballots.

A yes passes.

The petition, a no defeats the petition.

And the record will show I'm sending a note, formal letter to permits to take a look at the site.

And so they understand Kathleen where we're at.

There were seven ballots cast.

There were five yes votes to no votes.

This petition has been approved with the conditions.

The petition has been approved.

Jay, I suggest you get to business quickly.

All righty.

Apologize.

Yeah.

For a quick restroom break.

So we're going to have to do it.

I don't know if I see.

It is but you don't have to read the reverse, which was over there on a screen.

I know what your office is seeing, and I would have to come up here with the call.

I was like, can't we go to the screen?

It's better.

But it still requires you to probably make them here.

But they need one over here.

Well, they want to bring some down in here for I don't know what it's screenshot.

I don't think facing wise.

For uh general.

Well, there was a um R association.

They started taking up a collection for you guys.

Or like, I think two yeah, you know, we're like, you know, so yeah, that's what we have.

You can see it.

Well, yeah, it's like I didn't summon the order.

So I need to talk to you about it.

I do all the direct facilities.

And this is very more high, these are nothing or I don't know what you could have like a little bit of a little bit of everything.

Yeah, yeah.

But if we go, I don't want to get it.

Well, even when I'm sitting there, I actually pretty much.

But I think we can look at it.

Yeah.

So I think that's where we have a point.

Is it really kind of like on TV?

Oh, yeah.

So you can see that.

Yeah, but I think the challenge is around the banner request.

So always you know, but you kind of want to concentrate.

Oh, yeah.

So I always have to find one for the people.

I think that's what I have to do.

I don't want to have a lot of people.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Now we're gonna have to decide what we're gonna get called.

We have still seven.

Councillor, I apologize for the delay.

Nancy, can you read the next case into the minutes?

Yes, thank you, President Dylan and Commissioners.

Uh we have a set of companion petitions transferred by the hearing examiner for initial hearing.

They are twenty twenty-six Z C Z N eight oh eight and twenty twenty-six C V R eight oh eight at eighty-four fifty Westfield Boulevard, Washington Township, Council District Two.

The property is zone C three T O D and S U thirty eight T O D.

Petition is Black Panther Athletica.

At uh L LLC by Michael Rabinovich requesting rezoning of 6.16 acres from the C3 T O D and S U 38 T O D to the S U 16 T O D to provide for an indoor and outdoor recreational facility with accessories uses, including daycare, a restaurant, and retail.

Also requesting variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for development with a 6.5 foot north side transitional yard setback.

Minimum 20 foot side transitional yard required, a five-foot rear yard setback, minimum of 10 foot rear yard setback required, a zero foot south side yard setback, minimum of 10 foot side yard setback required, a building height of 64 feet along a transitional yard, maximum of 18 foot height permitted, a front building line 94 feet from the property line and 51% of the lot width, range of 0 to 20 feet and 60% required, a single primary entry feature, three required, 254 parking spaces, minimum of 363 parking spaces required, a driveway with 32 feet with in width, maximum of 24 feet width allowed, and front yard parking with a 20-foot setback, 25 foot setback required, and to provide for a pylon sign with an electronic variable messaging sign, EVMS component, pylon sign within 600 feet of a protected district not permitted, EVMS not permitted.

Will all those intending to testify on these two petitions this afternoon?

Please stand now to be identified and sworn in at this time.

Do we have no remonstrance present?

Do you swear a firm of the pennies of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

Thank you.

Counselor, hold on a second.

We're debating an issue.

Councilor, welcome.

Apologize for the long day.

No worries.

You have 15 minutes to present your case if necessary.

There are no remonstrators that I see.

I will go to staff.

Then I'll come back to you for five minutes rebuttal and we'll look at making the decision.

Here's how we're going to play this.

And this has been developed and discussed all day.

The key issue on the variance is the electronic sign.

It's been suggested we just vote on the sign itself, not vote on the sign.

I'm going to vote, call for a vote on the zoning.

And then I'm going to call for a vote on the variances.

Then I'm going to call for a vote on the variances.

In the discussion through the hearing, if you want to take the sign out, that's fine.

You can take it out, and we'll just consider the variances that are left.

Or if you don't want to take the sign out, we're just going to vote on the variances that are in there.

So it'll be all the variances, including the signs.

Up or down.

I'm not going to have a separate variance for the sign and a separate variance for all the rest of it.

Am I clear?

You're clear.

I would just suggest that maybe a third option, depending on how things go, is vote on the zoning.

Vote on all the variances except the uh EVMS component.

It's been suggested to me, and that's not how it was submitted originally in the file.

You submitted it all in a as a variance, all those categories.

I submitted eight or nine or however many variances there were, yes.

Yes.

All separately filed variances with separate findings of fact.

They're showing up under our files as one master lack of a better term variance of 2025 C VR 808.

I'm not sure how your system does it when they're filed.

They're eight or nine separate variances, they all come under one number.

That's correct.

And that's how I want to vote it.

So all the variances are either in or you can take a variance out if you prefer.

Up to you.

I guess Mr.

Steinmetz, do you have a comment on that?

I've already talked to council.

Council.

Yeah, I've got a comment on it.

That was how we're gonna vote it.

Any other questions on that?

No.

Thank you.

You have 15 minutes to do your case.

Go.

President Dylan.

Commissioner's Misha, we're gonna watch offices at one Indiana Square, suite 1800.

In this matter, I represent the petitioner Panther Panther Athletica, whose principal Bill Bastion is here today, and you'll hear from him in addition to me.

Bill is a local uh businessman, very successful entrepreneur that is fortunate to be able to incorporate into the work that he does and the resources that he has, economic development and community-minded projects like the one that we're gonna present to you today.

We're requesting the rezoning and the variances for a new indoor tennis facility near 86th Street and Westfield Boulevard in the Nora neighborhood.

Bill is a North Central graduate, played tennis there from a tennis family.

Um, he's had a close affiliation over the years with the Washington Township tennis program and Barbara Wynne.

For those of you that don't know her, she's kind of a legend in her own right, having started the Washington Township Tennis Program over 60 years ago.

One of the primary goals of this facility is to encourage and promote youth tennis.

Bill's work with the Washington Township Tennis and Education Foundation, the Rajiv Ram Foundation.

Rajiv is a professional tennis player from Carmel, for those of you don't know, and other stakeholders to bring this exciting project to the north side of Indianapolis.

A few years ago, Bill purchased the property that's at 8450 uh Westfield Boulevard with the intent to redevelop it with this indoor tennis facility.

Um the materials in the booklet generally track what's on the screen, so you can kind of look at both, whichever's easiest for you.

As you can see from the aerial, the the property is just north of the Jordan YMCA on Westfield, and it is just south of the notch apartments.

Bill has worked very closely with the YMCA.

We're working on an agreement with them.

They're very supportive of this project.

There, their letter of support is in the uh materials.

There are lots of opportunities to partner uh with the Y and vice versa.

Same with the Notch Apartments, they've offered their letter of support and have been working closely with us on certain aspects of the project.

We met with the Nora Community Council on three separate occasions for three months, as you know.

I think over the years, they're not the easiest group to um get through, but they have offered their letter of uh no opposition.

And so, to uh President Dylan's point, given that the only issue that we're aware of really is related to the electronic component of that sign.

We would like to give you an overview of the project because I think it's a important that it's all considered the significance of the project together, but we'll focus on the on the sign issue.

Um, I also wanted to point out that counselor Delaney has offered her letter of support and specifically has commented on the importance and her support for the electronic component of the pylon sign.

Properties the property is currently zoned C3 and SU 38, as Nancy said.

We're proposing to rezone it to SU 16.

That was at the suggestion of staff.

That is for indoor recreation, is the same zoning as the YMCA.

The primary use of the building would be the 10 indoor tennis courts and four Padel courts.

Padell is a rapidly growing indoor racket sport, new to the city.

This is exciting for the north side, but something that will soon become the pickleball of the future, if you will.

Many of the variances that are being requested are because we apply the C1 development standards to the SU 16 zoning classification.

So they're more conducive to an office building.

They don't really take into account the naturally established building line and setback.

So that's why there are so many variances.

We're eliminating two uh access points off of Westfield Boulevard.

There'll be shared drives, which we've worked with the Y and with the notch on, which makes it a much more pedestrian uh attractive uh frontage along Westfield Boulevard.

There'll be a new sidewalk and landscaping and plantings.

With respect to parking, that was an issue that came up.

We studied that very carefully.

Parking for this zoning classification is calculated based upon the area of the building.

But as you know, with a tennis court, although you have a large area, you may only have typically four four players on a court at once.

So that's why that there's a significant variance there.

Wanted to show you some pictures, images of the building.

These are some exterior uh renderings.

The building's primarily uh brick masonry.

This is a sort of aerial shot from the south looking towards uh the north of the building, and then here's uh the rear of the building.

Uh some some interior images.

Uh, this is uh interior image of the lobby, and then the restaurant for conceptual image.

Um here we're looking at the first floor plan.

There's again there's 10 tennis courts with on the first floor there are locker rooms and other accessory uh components of the office and and that are related to the tennis, also a small retail portion and a daycare center.

Here's an interior image.

Um you can see that the middle element of the building on the second floor, there's a viewing area and a restaurant.

This is the the second floor plan.

These are in your materials.

I know it's a little bit hard to see, and then there's some additional office space there on the second floor.

Um let's see, and then the third floor, again, it's it's hard to see, but there are there are four Padel courts.

I think I have a Padell image here.

For those of you that don't know, it's it's played with glass walls.

Um it's a bigger than a pickleball court, but smaller than a tennis court and is really uh catching on here in this country.

Uh now to focus on the sign.

We're asking for uh variances related to the sign.

Um, it's an 11 foot pylon sign.

11 feet is actually smaller than what could go there.

The um, I believe a 15-foot pylon sign is permitted.

The piece of the pylon sign that I think staff has taken exception to is the electronic portion, and that is the if you're looking at that, it's the portion that's above the Panther Athletica there, and that is a four-foot by eight-foot electronic changeable message component.

And it would only offer information of activities occurring on site.

This is an outdoor advertising.

I know there's a lot of you know community uh action against outdoor billboards and electronic billboards.

This is not that.

This is only advertised only advertising activities that are occurring on site, and it would only be black and white.

Corollary is the one that's at North Central High School.

What we're proposing is very similar.

The other images there are of signs that are either at schools or churches, or even some uh commercial uh uses for those.

With that, I do want to give Bill Bastion some time to talk a little bit more about his vision for the project and why the electronic component of the sign is important.

Uh good afternoon.

Uh President Dillon, members of the commission.

Bill, were you duly sworn in?

Nancy, I was.

Go ahead.

I think you were you were sworn in.

I thought you wrote your hand, did you?

I did initially.

You're good.

Let's go.

So I'll focus a little more on the uh I guess big picture.

We're trying to do something nice for the youth in the uh community and really use tennis as the platform.

Um I was fortunate when I grew up, I played in Mrs.

Wynne's program, and it taught you a lot about uh winning, losing, and um friendships.

And uh anyway, that's kind of the genesis of this.

The uh in Indianapolis Tennis Education Foundation have been trying to do this for about 15 years, and so finally this land just north of the YMC opened up, and so we purchased it.

We had to wait until the uh tenants moved out, and then we've um in 25 last year we took the building down, and now we're looking to build this facility.

So just a little little background.

Uh concerning the um the sign, um we would operate uh as Misha talked about with uh some specific display protocols, and I know there's a lot of concerns that you you don't want to distract people on the highway, particularly high school kids that are north central.

So things we would do would be um the black background, so you just have the the white text on the black background, they would be static displays, so you would not see um video style animations, anything like that that could distract people.

It would be automatic dimming, so at dusk the intensity would go down, so it's not bright.

Um there would be nightly curfews, so at 10 p.m.

it would be turned off or go black, and um in the morning, 6 a.m.

or so it would it would come back on.

Um, some of the messaging that we're we're trying to use the sign for.

Um actually, if you look at the bottom of the sign, the top of the sign is very similar, and that that's what we're trying to do.

Although the bottom of the sign is static, it's there the whole time.

But things that would be helpful for the daycare or the child care, if there is inclement weather and the change of pickup times, it's nice to let people know that if there's summer programs or times to register.

If you're having a tournament, you have people coming in from out of town, it's nice to let them know when the sign-up is, when first round uh quarterfinals, semifinals, finals would occur.

If there's going to be clinics that are going on, if there's open courts, often open courts can be purchased at a discount.

So you're taking up that availability, it lets people kind of know real time what that is.

Um it's a good platform if we have local people who've won tournaments to give them some recognition, and uh from a public safety standpoint, if there was I don't know a tornado or an amber alert or something like that, we could use that also to help the public.

So those are some of the reasons why we were looking for messaging.

So that's quick overview.

Bill don't go far I got several questions for you.

The only thing I wanted to sort of close with each of the letters of support that we've we have submitted which are in your materials Washington Township schools or Indianapolis community tennis program that's Mrs.

Wynne's program.

City Councilor Brianne Delaney who again has specifically offered her support for the electronic component of the sign the notch apartments which is the neighbor to the north and the YMCA which is the neighbor to the south with that I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Bill can you come back?

First and foremost I agree with counselors open comments about your sterling business reputation thank you for being here today.

Here's my first question the YMCA and I'm going from memory own the to the west the property in the back have you acquired that from the YMCA no we'll they still own that they still will they still own that and actually in the plan we've been working with them very closely the intent is to combine the parking spaces or their northern parking lot with our southern parking lot and that way we both have spillover.

So you'll come over with the parking to the north correct and your your curb cut off of Westland would be closer to 86th Street for lack of better.

It yeah the the two that are currently there would go away and then we would use 85th which is going into the notch apartments and then we would use the YMCA's northern um entrance onto Westfield so and we've gone through that and done the traffic studies and it's just less congestion less um entries into Westfield.

What is the Y going to use the back are they going to keep soccer back there or something I'm just curious.

They are and that's why the Y would really like to use our western parking lot because for parents it's nice they can come up they can probably sit in their car watch the kids play so that was the reason.

Got it all right let's go to the sign on Westfield will be the sign.

Is it going to be facing north-south is it gonna be flat facing east-west how's it gonna be it was flat facing east-west it's a two-sided sign so you you have uh people going uh to the north would see the south side people coming from the north would see the north side got it okay I had it backwards in my head but so both directions on Westfield can see the sign correct not it's gonna not gonna be like this to Westfield no because um I think they'd be hard to see uh as you're coming by you you'd really have to get almost parallel to it before you could see it all right and then the top of the sign is the electronic piece and how big is that it's four feet by eight feet four feet by eight feet four feet on the 11 foot side commissioners other questions for the petitioner yes I have a couple go ahead what's the approximate square footage of the building the footprint is a hundred and ten thousand square feet total square footage of the buildings a hundred and seventy five thousand square feet because you have three levels, but the tennis courts take up about 75,000.

And what's your approximate total development cost?

Total development cost is estimated at 50 million.

And as this uh if you requested of the city any uh tax abatement or any other city incentives, I haven't.

Thank you.

Further questions for petitioner.

Yes, sir, President Dillon.

Commissioner, um if you wouldn't mind going back a few slides to the signage.

Um there.

So the first thing that caught my eye was it says white text on black background only.

And then in the rendering next to it, there are logos for the schools on there.

Is there any clarity on exactly what the sign will include and what it will not?

Because I think that's a misrepresentation of white text only on black background, if any logo would be present.

Yeah, I'm I'm happy to define that, but if we had a north central match, it would be nice to have a um little square with their logo.

Uh butler is also voiced interest, it'd be nice to have a butler bulldog up there, and I'd be happy to clarify the um dimensions of the logo, but from a uh tech standpoint, the the intent is to have white on black match what is below and to have it static.

Yeah, I would just insist that if we're gonna say it's gonna be a thing, then we make it what we say it's gonna be and not have other ancillary changes that aren't heard before people make decisions.

Okay, additional questions.

Bill, please stand close by.

We'll be back to you.

Who's got this one?

Michael.

That's correct.

Yep.

Absolutely.

Uh thank you, uh President Dillon and the Commission for your time.

Thank you to the petitioner and the representative for their comments.

Uh the sub-staff recommends approval of most aspects of this petition with the exception of the digital sign of reasons we'll get into a subject petition petition would be to allow for a multi-story athletic facility, primarily housing tennis courts on the lot as described by the petitioner, also including retail restaurant and daycare functions as an accessory use.

I won't go into great detail about that.

The petitioners cover it, it's not a point of contention for staff or for any remonstrators that are present today.

I would note that due to its proximity to the YMCA to the south and the shared parking proposed.

That's why this is coming before you for initial hearing, given our hearing examiner's professional relationship with the YMCA.

She chose to recuse herself.

I for seeking both a rezoning to SU 16, which is a special use district for indoor and outdoor recreation, as well as 11 total variances of development standards.

Uh four related to the building height and setbacks of parking areas, four related to the site being within the transit oriented development secondary zoning district, one related to parking being below maximum or above, yeah, one related to parking and then two related to signage.

Happy to discuss more of those in detail if needed, but we'll focus our comments today on the digital signage that will be placed within VSU zoning district perpendicular to Westfield, since that is the part that is under contention.

Uh, the ordinance places limits on digital or EVMS signage within commercial districts.

Uh there's 600 feet of separation would be required from residential even for comparably more intense commercial areas, and it disallows them entirely within SU zoning districts special use as proposed here.

Um the origin of these rules is related both to driver safety, you know, we're seeking to limit distracted driving and sudden changes within the driver's field of vision, especially in the area near a high school where there might be a high percentage of new drivers, as well as negative externalities for residential areas nearby.

Keeping digital signage away from residential areas was listed as a priority in many of the community meetings that were held by the by the department.

Uh staff notes the presence of apartment units within a DP zoning district just to the north of this site.

Um, in addition to the letters of support that were mentioned by the petitioner, there were two letters of opposition related to the digital signs that were in your file as well, submitted by Clark Collow and by Elizabeth Mahoney with the River Park Neighborhood Association.

Uh they similarly reflect that feedback from that round of ordinance amendments.

Finding some testimony provided by the applicants, make reference to other similar signs, but exists within the county that have been approved by other variances, including most relevantly signage for North Central High School along 86th Street to the northeast of this site, as well as the need for advertising events and other things of that nature to the public.

Staff doesn't feel that these findings and testimony as presented display site-specific practical difficulty to justify an approval recommendation for that specific variance.

Doesn't appear that any digital signs exist along this section of Westfield itself.

See, I lost my place here.

I apologize.

On the section Westfield, other institutional uses nearby, including the YMCA to the south and the educational use directly to the east along Westfield, seem to be able to advertise on disfrontage without the usage of digital elements and presumably similar levels of events and of activities.

There's a sign along the eastern portion of Westfield that utilizes a changeable copy board where you can sort of slide the letters in and out.

That might be a somewhat similar option that could be contemplated here.

Specifically the North Central sign to the northeast along 86th Street was approved in 2013 with six commitments in place.

Among those commitments were a stipulation that no commercial advertising or sponsorship would be displayed, only things related to the school or to you know public uses.

My understanding is that while this use might have regular patronage from the high school to the east, it would not be directly affiliated with the school and would be a private use.

I'm not sure if a direct one-to-one comparison between those two signs could be made.

Staff would also note that alternate methods could allow for the advertising of events that would meet ordinance rules and intent.

Uh, the aforementioned changeable copy sign, usage of online advertising, things of this nature.

Pylon signs are allowed within SU districts when not within 600 feet of residential zoning areas.

We feel that the sign height proposed is comparable to surrounding intensity on the corridor, and that's not the issue here.

The issue would be the EVMS and the digital elements.

We recommend approval of the rezoning and the requested variances with the exception of the digital sign variance, given the lack of site-specific practical difficulty and the fact that it doesn't meet the intent of the ordinance.

If there was openness to remove that from the request, we'd recommend full approval of everything they're asking for.

Additionally, if approved over a denial, we feel it would be appropriate to have recorded commitments in place for things mentioned during their testimony, including things like the cutoff hours, the black background with the white text, uh messaging being strictly related to the use and things of that nature.

Happy to answer questions that you might have.

Questions for staff.

I have a couple comments.

I think it's important for the record to recognize that previously Northview High School was right across the street.

Northview, excuse me, middle school was right across the street from the facility.

It has now moved, and it is at 91st in college.

So the active traffic of students is no longer there as it's gone to the north.

It is now a busing facility that they are working on.

Secondly, I I'm confused on how this was filed with staff as I made my point to council, but I'm going to follow up on that with the following.

We have had several situations on electronic signs of this nature that and specifically are the same type size, and we've had, and by the way, up on 86th Street and a couple of locations which I can take you and show you.

To my knowledge, Kathleen and I followed it.

We've had no issues with that whatsoever.

So I'm worried about why are we hung up on this electronic sign that they need to run their business?

And if you understand what they're trying to do, they're trying to say, hey, tournament change, uh, you know, uh matches changed, open, close, and they're very respectful on their time.

So why are we hung up on the electronic sign?

Sure.

Uh well, when considering this variance request as well as other ones of a burden of proof, what we were looking at was a site-specific practical difficulty that would prevent alternate development or um any other sort of sign that could be legally placed.

In my time with the department, I think our recommendations on electronic signage of this nature have been relatively consistent.

It's possible that we may have had positive recommendations for once in the past, but I wouldn't be able to speak to that in a great level of detail.

Um the ordinances are in intent, yeah.

It's a $50 million project.

You heard that, right?

Yes.

Alright, final questions for staff.

I've got one go.

Uh would it be fair to say that this electronic sign, black and white, isn't what people fear when they think about electronic signs?

Sure.

I think a version with those sorts of commitments may be limiting you know, colors being used monochromatic red or green, preventing any sort of flashing or animation, which our ordinance already would allow against.

If it were to be approved having limiting commitments in place of that nature would likely be a good idea.

And it really doesn't even it doesn't have the characteristics of a traditional old electronic sign, right?

It might not strike a person as an electronic sign.

It seems to me.

Would you agree?

Right.

I suppose from from a visual level, it might appear somewhat similar given the black and white background.

I think the fact that they would still have the ability to change it remotely through the electronic variable message system means they would be classified per ordinance as an electronic sign.

But I I I see the point you're making.

So if I'm looking at a guy sliding in letters, I'm gonna check that out as I'm driving by.

I'm gonna be drawn to that.

Whereas new message, I don't even notice.

Right, like like the sort of the tri vision the folding board.

Yeah, I I suppose a quick message change could draw the eye, and that that might be one of the reasons why our ordinance has rules about it, but if I'm final questions for uh Jeffrey, do you have something?

Yeah, I'd like to just make a comment.

I to Commissioner West's point, uh, this is different than the typical EVMS signs that we see.

Uh in fact, there's a church sign in my neighborhood that has a white background, and they have moving text on that with uh dark letters, and it's the opposite of what we would want to see.

So if uh this is black text or white text on black background, so the impact is less, you know, is less.

Thank you, Jeffrey.

Final questions for staff.

Michael, I drive by this site every day, and I know that area very well.

You come off 86th Street, you head Westfield to the south.

There is an actual stoplight right there at the Y, it is a very controlled area.

The kids are gone.

They're over on 91st Street.

I can't imagine this being a problem for a driver in this controlled venue.

So I'm just making that point to staff that I think those are important considerations going forward.

All right, counselor, you have five minutes for rebuttal.

I'll I'll keep it short.

I won't need five.

Um it's a as y'all know now it's a 50 million dollar project, it's a significant investment in the community.

Let's give it the best opportunity it has to succeed.

If this property were being rezoned to Z4, we wouldn't have this issue.

The problem is that it's being zone uh zoned as special use for an indoor recreation facility.

Those properties on 86th Street are zoned C4.

Um again, I just wanted to reiterate that we've we've gotten the support and approval for not only the project but the sign from all of the adjacent neighbors, North Community Council, and most importantly, uh Councillor Delaney.

Um I had scratched out a commitment that I thought um might address Commissioner Lyle's um concern about you know logo size, if if you'd like for me to read that to you and incorporate that into the record, I'm happy to do that.

Um the commitment would be uh any advertising on the sign shall be limited to advertising activities occurring on site, the digital component of the sign shall be white text on black background only.

Any school logos that incorporate color shall be limited to no more than eighteen inches by eighteen inches.

Being that there's a couple of letters of remonstrance here that are totally against the signage at all, I think it will be helpful to have some extremely clear language because the rendering shows something that the text that describes the signage does not.

So if there is a bridge between the two, some commitment that's written should be able to do that.

Yeah, I attempted to do that, but it may need for further uh development, but but we're certainly in agreement with you.

Um, I can address the remonstrators' comments, Mr.

Kahlo.

Um I attempted to reach out to him.

I think you're familiar with his uh interaction here, but um I guess with that, unless Bill, you have anything else to say, we would ask for your uh approval of the report.

Well, Counselor, this just to follow up on Commissioner's point.

I think their intent is to get done what you want to get done.

What I want is a commitment.

You understand what commissioners voicing if it passes to work with staff to get it done, what we're talking about.

Does that make sense?

Yeah.

Bill, does that make sense?

Okay.

Counselor, are you done?

Yes.

Members of the commission, go to your ballot.

We have two votes, one on the zoning and one on all the variances with the commitment that he'll work with staff.

Michael, you heard the commitment, he'll work with you on logos to make sure that they fit what's been portrayed.

Okay.

Please go to your ballots.

Okay, petition twenty twenty-five, CZN eight oh eight, Black Panther Athletic Athletica, LLC.

There were seven ballots cast, all seven were yes votes, and for the variants twenty-twenty-five, C VR eight oh eight, Black Panther Athletica, LLC, again.

There were seven ballots cast, and all were yes votes.

Bill, congratulations.

Just a comment, that is a significant, important location, and please do a great job.

And by the way, I've got every confidence in the world you will.

So congratulations.

All right, sir.

All right.

That concludes our hearings.

Can I get a motion to dismiss?

So moved.

Thank you.

So we are dismissed.