Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

[music] [music] [music] Heat. Heat. [music] [music] [music] Heat. Heat. [music] [music]

[music] [music] [music] Heat. Heat. [music]

[music]

Heat. Heat. [music] [music] Welcome to the Town of Avon Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. If you are interested in having a copy of the agenda, they are available to the tables to the right of the audience. Hearings on individual cases will be conducted in accordance with the board's rules of procedure. Planning staff will first introduce the case, provide a summary, and make a recommendation. Petitioners will be given up to 10 minutes to present their case. Those in the audience opposed to the proposal will be provided with a total of 10 minutes to speak. Those in the audience in support of the appro in support of the proposal will be provided a total of 10 minutes to speak. Any individual shall be allowed a maximum of three minutes. A person representing a group or organization shall be allowed a maximum of five minutes. The petitioner will then have 5 minutes for rebuttal. No further testimony will be heard unless it is at the discretion of the board. If you are interested in commenting during any public hearing, please sign up on the sheets located on the tables to the right of the audience. When your name is called, please step forward to the podium. State your name and address for the record. Please address your comments to the board and not to staff or the petitioner. Your comments should relate directly to the case at hand. We do understand that there be that there may be several attendees who wish to speak. Therefore, the chair may impose an alternate time limit for each person. Thank you for your assistance in facilitating a respectful, fair, and timely meeting. Again, welcome to our meeting. Please stand for the pledge of

allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [clears throat]

Roll call, please. Paul Guggenberger here. Annne Inman here. Marcy Tashler here. Marcus Turner here. And we will show Katherine Ransburg is absent. First item is the approval of the BZA minutes from 1216 2025. Were there any questions, comments, or concerns? And if there are none, we'll entertain a motion. I'll move that we approve the minutes of our December 16, 2025 meeting. A motion by Mr. Gutenberger. Is there a second? I'll second. Second by Mrs. Tashler. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I.

Anyone opposed? Next item is request for continuences or agenda modifications.

We have none. Next item is public comment. We will open public comment at 6:35. Would anyone like to speak? And with no one coming forward, we'll close public comment 635. Going on to old business, this is VU25-08, Rise Personal Services.

Thank you, Mr. Turner. Members of the board, [clears throat] uh you will recall we heard VU 258 at your December meeting and as you may be aware from the notes in the staff report. This was put back on the agenda this month because it was determined after that hearing that the petitioner had not mailed out legal notices to surrounding property owners as required by the rules of procedure and state statute for a variance. [clears throat] So we need to hear this again with um that public notice now having been um accomplished. Uh the petitioner did submit an affidavit of notice attesting to the fact that they have complied with the the rule on sending out that notice. Um I will be fairly limited in my comments because I don't see anyone here from the public to comment. Um, but just for the record, this is a variance of use to allow retail service use, specifically wellness and beauty services within one building at the rise property, which is zoned I2 that is not a permitted use in I2. Um, hence the [clears throat] need for the variance properties at 1691 South Maren Parkway. Um, as I mentioned is zoned I2. The building identified as number 16 on this exhibit is where the proposed uses would be located. [snorts] As mentioned last month, we do believe that the findings have been met. We don't believe that it would be injurious to the public. um we don't think it would have a negative impact on surrounding

properties and we do believe uh there's a condition peculiar to this property [snorts] that uh causes the need for the variance. Additionally, we think there'd be a unnecessary hardship if applied to this property and that it wouldn't interfere substantially with the comprehensive plan. If there are any questions or further information that you would like me to drill down on those, I'm certainly happy to do that. But since you heard all this last month, um perhaps that's not necessary. So, um, again, we are recommending approval of this request subject to the following condition that the requested wellness and beauty service uses be limited to building 16 as identified on the site plan filed November 14th, 2025. And I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Anyone have questions for staff? If not, we're right here from the petitioner. Zack Rodenbar, 565 Creek Parkway Drive, North Indianapolis, Indiana 46. Uh, thank you Paul for your presentation and we apologize for missing that uh step last time. So, we appreciate your grace uh in that and also would be happy to walk through um answer any questions, but if if there are none, I don't want to take more of the council's time than Yes.

Yeah, I have a question. Uh under wellness services, what would keep you from having massage pilers in there? I'm not sure per the definition off the top of my head, but I'm not sure

under that. I think it would, but I I would defer to staff to make sure as the definition is not top of mind for me. So, we had indicated previously in our we had indicated previously in our staff comments that um we said the requested variance of use would allow a limited range of retail service uses, specifically wellness and beauty services such as barbers, hair and nail salons, and massage therapy. Um those do seem I mean we we thought those were what were what was being requested by the petitioner. Although massage therapy would be a per permitted use under this variance.

Is there an opposition to that or is it No, I just I guess you know I that that's [snorts] a broad category. Uh and I would have opposition to um massage parlors being in there.

Trying to just wrap my head around massage parlor specifically. um and if there's an ability to single something out within this variance request versus um that specific use and maybe I would defer to staff on how to allow certain aspects of one use but disallow other aspects within that use category. I'm not sure. Um well, if you have a question, I'm happy to address it. If if your statement is just that you're opposed to um I'm not sure if you're opposed to potentially to a massage therapist on the concern

there's a concern that it would be more than that. Well, massage therapists I believe are required to be licensed by the state talking about medical versus non I know what you're saying. Well, I they're not a it's not a medical license that they get therapeutic, something that a doctor might send you to or something like that, right? Wellness versus not. I understand what you're saying. That you don't need a license for, right? Sometimes masquerade behind. Correct. Correct. Is that what you're getting at? Yep. Okay.

And I can chime I can chime in a little bit on this. Um, so Paul is correct that the state does license require licensing for any kind of massage therapy and is pretty strict about that. Um, but also the town has an ordinance in place for unlicensed massage parlors or massage therapy. So in the event that they aren't required to have a license, then the town of Avon goes in and does a licensing process uh specifically through the town. So we kind of the police get involved. We go through the site, we're allowed to go check it out. Um those sorts of things. Um, but there are very few times you can have any kind of massage therapy that is not licensed by the state. Um, it's almost entirely licensed, no matter what category it falls in. And our police have authority to go in and ensure that those licenses are up to date and that we're enforcing any laws to prevent anything that would be unoured. I would add that we also have an on-site manager um 40 hours a week as well to make sure that you know and is aware of each individual that is leasing space within the rise uh commercial district.

Any other questions for the petitioner? You sent out letters. That's correct. Did you have any result? I have We did not have any responses. Good or bad or? Yes, correct. Neither good nor bad. You got no negative response. I guess that's what I'm asking. And I believe staff did not either. Okay. Yes. No,

that's correct. I don't recall us receiving any correspondence prior to last month's hearing and we have not received any since then either. Thank you. Anything else? We're going to open up the P public hearing at 6:44. Is there anyone signed up to speak? There is not. Would anyone care to speak?

And with no one coming forward, we will close the public hearing at 6:44. Any discussion? I'll just mention that since we did hear this previously and we we did approve at 5-0 um doesn't sound like anything has changed from what we heard before. I think Anna appreciate your question because it made me look back at the minutes here and it looks like in the filing they are a little more definitive it based off staff notes. Um, in the filing that petitioner made, there's more details about the types of uh services that would be performed. Um, and I would hope that um, our law law enforcement might address anything that may not be legal that would go in there that I think I might have been indicating. So I think um we are to approve this. There's no more discussion. We'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion. Uh move we approve viru 25508 rise Avon personal services a variance of use to allow wellness and beauty services within one proposed building which is not permitted use in I2 because it will meet all requirements for variance of use under state law subject to the adopted findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.

Motion by Mr. Genenberger. Is there a second? I'll second. Second by Mrs. Tashler. Any discussion? Roll call vote, please. Genenberger, four. Inman, four. Tashler, four. Turner, four. Moving on to new business. This is uh SE25-04. I'm going to slaughter this name. Mobtha's drive-thru. Is that right? Mobas indeed.

Okay.

Um yes. Thank you, Mr. Turner. Uh S2504 is a special exception for a drive-thru. Uh this is located at 8894 East US Highway 36 which is the former Swenson's Drive-In. Uh being located within tier one or closest uh tier to US Highway 36, it uh requires a special exception for any drive-thru facility. Um, a little bit harder to see, but it's high. The site is highlighted there. There's US 36, County Road 900, and then Charles Nelson Drive running north of the property. And of course, Costco back behind here. And then to the northeast is the site where the hardware store and multi-tenant building are currently under construction. Next door, you've got uh multi-tenant buildings. Well, multi-tenant [clears throat] building to the east. the Costco fueling station to the west and then auto sales across US 36 to the south. Excuse me. That's just a view of the site facing north from US 36. So that is the front of the building. Um again, this was formerly Swinson's drive in. Um that's just a view looking west towards the Costco fueling center. Um just a a view of the front and east side of the building. See the uh Costco parking lot in the rear. And then this is just looking to the northeast. You can see the multi-tenant building to the east in the background. [snorts] Uh this property has been zone C2 since 2020 when the Harvest Landing

development was proposed and it was platted then as well. The existing building was constructed about three, four years ago um after a special exception was granted for the Swinson's being a drive-in. Even though it not typically what you would consider to be a drive-thru because people would drive up, sit in their car, order, and have food brought out, but it did technically meet the definition in the ordinance of a drive-thru. So, it did get a special exception. Um, with the site changing now, there being an addition to the building, um, the parking lots being reconfigured a bit, and now it would be a more of a traditional pickup window on the building. Um, the special exception from 2022 wouldn't cover that arrangement. So, the new special exception that's in front of you tonight um is necessary for them to go forward with their plans. Excuse [clears throat] me. This is a view of the the existing site, US 36 over here. So, this is the front of the building and you can see they've got parking all the way around the building currently. So, what will effectively change in addition [snorts] to this addition that would be built onto the west side of the building, the parking at the north or rear and the west side would go away and it would be replaced with this drive-thru lane. Um, they're not proposing an order menu board or order board. This would just be for mobile pickups. So, you wouldn't you'd have to order ahead and then um show up to pick up here.

[snorts]

So, um, as you're aware, as we've talked about, drive-throughs are only permitted in tier one of the US 36 overlay if the board grants a special exception. Um, and you have required findings that it not be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare. That it not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of properties in the immediate vicinity or substantially diminish or impair property values within the zoning district. We don't think that it will have any negative impact on the public or surrounding properties because this is an area that's very automobile oriented. Um, so drive-throughs are what you would typically find in this area already. There's a the use of the site previously was somewhat similar and did receive a special exception. So, we don't see that granting this special exception would have any negative impact to the public or surrounding properties. Um, the site has to be adequately served by public facilities. We think those are already in place. We don't see that this would create any additional public expense for public facilities or detrimentally uh impact economic welfare of the community or result in destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature. We do believe that it meets the standards of the UDO which require that along the 36 corridor that the drive-through elements not be in front of the building. So coming around the rear and side of the building, it would meet the ordinance. And again, we do think it's compatible with adjacent properties where um it is an automobile dominant development pattern and there are drive other drive-throughs in the area. We think there's adequate provision for public services, traffic control, etc. And then finally with regard to the comprehensive plan, the new

comprehensive plan that was adopted in November recommends commercial and office use for this area. uh a drive-through restaurant would be compatible with that recommendation for so for those reasons we do find that this request would meet not only the four required findings but the three ladder findings which are all optional for you to consider. So, having found that all of those would be met, staff is recommending approval of this special exception, which I apologize mentions Chase Bank um on the screen there instead of Mobetta's um but the uh the date on the site plan is correct that it would be subject to that site plan at least substantially complying with that site plan file dated December 22nd. And so with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that board members may have.

Questions for staff?

I have a couple um related to criterion six. Just question that if in the future there was an order board as opposed to just a pickup lane that is proposed now, would they need to come back or is that not a big enough change that would require for them to come back and request that? We don't think that adding that element would require a new special exception. Um, unless for some reason it didn't meet the ordinance. Um, such as if if there weren't enough stacking spaces for it. um or if there was some, you know, other reason. If you were concerned about that, you could certainly impose a condition on the approval.

Yeah. That it only that it not include a menu board or only be for mobile pickup. Yeah. In which case then they would have to come back if they wanted to change that. And I appreciate that. I I'm not concerned as much as um I think what you indicated if it would change what we look at with stacking lanes where starts to get in the front yard then that's where you we would want to see it again. So, okay.

And and from a I just to elaborate from a staff standpoint, we didn't feel like that condition was necessary because other drive-thru such as the the uh raising canes two lots to the east has a menu board and we don't think that that needed to be restricted. So, we wouldn't find that this would need to be restricted if they wanted to add that. But, you know, again, like if they didn't meet the ordinance, then they would have to come back. I don't disagree. Just when it gets called out and detailed by the petitioner, it says this is just a pickup lane, not an order lane. I wanted to ask that question. Um the other thing on criterion five, I don't know if this implies that will there be increased landscaping or is there really because I think this was there was a an exception that they didn't have to do all the landscaping. I kind of read this going, "Okay, does that mean that they're going to add landscaping?" So, just a question, not basic, not a real concern.

Yeah. And I didn't include the landscape plan here. Um I should mention um with the with the proposed building addition, they will also need to have development plan approval from the plan commission before they would go forward. And they do they are scheduled to go before the plan commission next week. Um, and [cough] [clears throat] so I I believe the landscape plan was included in that report and not this report, but I can say that they are adding additional areas of landscaping um both around parts of the perimeter of the building which they so when the Swenson's was approved, they received a waiver to only do foundation planning in the very front of the building. Um, and so it's kind of Uh, I guess you can't even see on this plan, but they are adding um some additional landscape area around the perimeter of the building as well as adding um what we call a landscape terminal island at either end of the row of parking that's immediately south or in the front of the building

which was lacking. And then we've also and then we've also um asked them to do a a couple additional tree plantings. So I think so basically where there was foundation planning was here. They're going to be adding some around this side when they do the the building um addition. And then right now there's no terminal islands on either end of this parking row. So, they're going to put landscaping there and there, as well as add tree plantings out here adjacent to the uh multi-use path along 36. Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome. Any other questions for staff? We're right here from petitioner. Hello everyone. Uh Josh Kimley Horn, uh 500 East 96th Street, Sweet 300. Um Indianapolis, Indiana 462 240. Um civil engineer on the project um and representation. Really have not much more to add than Paul did. Um as he mentioned, just proposing an additional drive-thru on the existing drive up facility and the building expansion. Um happy to answer any questions you guys have.

We're going to go ahead and open up the public hearing. It is uh 6:59. Is anyone signed up to speak? There is no one signed up but the petitioner. Does anyone care to speak? Now with no one coming forward, we will close the public hearing at 659. Questions? Nothing. I do have one question. Did you think about what jacket you were? There's I was thinking about it as we were talking at the beginning all the IU but my brother's there. I I

I understand. Should have should have thought harder about that. My my brother's at IU, so I'm on your side this time. If [laughter]

there's no questions, no discussion, we'll entertain a motion. Paul, I was just going to say general discussion wise, I think staff played it out pretty good with what was filed here. We've done drive-throughs along 36. Um, this gets a an empty building, uh, a business back into that, generate some business there. So, I think it just like staff laid out, I think they did a good job that it meets uh the need there and fits the type of business that we build on six. I was I was also in agreement with the staff report. If

there's no more discussion, we'll entertain a motion. Thank you. I'll move that we approve SE25-04 Mobetta's drive-thru, a special exception to allow for a drive-thru facility within tier one of the US Highway 36 overlay district because it will meet all the requirements for a special exception under state law, subject to the approved findings of fact, and subject to the condition listed in the staff report. [clears throat] Second. We have a motion by Mrs. Inman and a second by Mr. Genenberger. Any discussion? Roll call vote, please. Genberger, four. Inman, four. Tachler. Turner

four. Let's see. Do we have any other business? Oh, okay. No, there's no restaurant. Hawaiian. Hawaiian. Yeah, Hawaiian kind of quick serve. You don't go in. You can do that. So what do you like? [laughter] I'm obviously less familiar. I was brought on after the fact.

I think that'd be great for your opening. They uh they have a bunch of them around the the DFW area. Yeah. Seriously, we're still on the record.

Any other business? Okay, we're adjourned. Thank you.