Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Today is June 16, 2026. The Lawrence Board of Zoning Appeals is called to order at this time. I need a motion and a second for the approval of the minutes from May 19, 2026.

We'll make a motion to approve.

Second.

All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed, nay. Minutes stand as written. If you've not done so, please sign in at the back of the room. And anyone wishing to speak tonight, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Answer with I do. I do. Thank you. Do we have any special requests tonight, continuance, withdrawals, or waivers?

Good evening. Renee Rafa director of public works. We had a motion or a request for a continuance to the July 21st with notice for the, uh, petition 26 LSV 0 7 81 0 1 Pendleton Pike. You don't need to vote or anything.

Just letting you know, they want a continuance.

Yes. It's an automatic continuance of the petition with notice.

Okay. Thank you. OK.

So we're down to unfinished business.

OK. The board will hear unfinished business, 26 LSB 08, 9625 East 52nd Street, partial 4003707. Corns Investment, request of areas of a standard from the form from the City of Indianapolis Consolidated Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. To permit recreational common area space less than 8% of the project area. 8% of total project area to be recreational and non-open space. Minimum separation of 10 feet between mobile home dwelling units proposed. 25 foot minimum separation required. No storage area for travel traders, campers, boats, and recreational vehicles. Provide 120 square feet for each mobile dwelling required. Sidewalks along public streets required. No perimeter sidewalks proposed. And no underground safe room proposed. Underground safe room with at least 20 square feet of space for each mobile home dwelling and the development required.

Hi, good evening. Thank you, Chairperson Lytle, members of the board, Joe Calderon. 11 South Meridian Indianapolis representing Corwin's Investments. They have operated in Lawrence for many years, as you well know. If I may approach and provide some exhibit.

Thank you Thank you

It sure sounded like I'm asking on behalf of my client for quite a few variances. The explanation is, simply put, it requires a little bit of history. Briar Creek Mobile Home Park, which has been around since the 1990s, overall, Corwin's have been operating in Lawrence since 1955. So even going back to 1997, when Briar Creek first opened, this is really the last phase of it. In 1997, the code or the zoning ordinance was much different. And in 2016, essentially, Indianapolis rewrote the zoning ordinance. And they put in about five dedicated pages to update, if you will, the standards for D11 zoning. At that time, Briar Creek had already gone through three phases and this piece, which is about 13 and a half acres, was undeveloped but planned to be part of the expansion for the finishing out of the mobile home park. So really what we're asking for makes sense if you think about it in the context of the project having been around since before the rewrite of the zoning ordinance. And I think you will see that What we're requesting will make sense even if you think about today's standards in that what Correns is proposing is going to provide for a safe environment consistent with what you see on the ground today and importantly provides an ability for truly affordable housing for some folks in the community. So I'll run through these kind of in order, and then we'll take a look. Now, each of you has an exhibit book with five tabs, one loose page, and I am sorry, that's at the back of your books, and that, unfortunately, is the first topic, which is the open space. And I apologize for not putting that exhibit in the main body of the book, but... With respect to open space, imagine the mobile home park being completely developed out with no open space within it, if you will. What Cole Rohns have agreed to do is actually knock out a block of existing within the park and provide for about two and a half acres of open space. And you could see that in the loose tab. and if you hold it such that you can kind of read it right side up you can see the green space that's about two and a half acres the section that we're talking about is just to the bottom of that or holding it up appropriately it's just to the east so this open space will benefit everybody in the section that we're proposing as well as others within existing sections overall 60 acres part of the park so even though it's less than eight percent it is a significant change they're actually removing lots with homes upon them to provide some level of open space and we hope that that is a reasonable variance request Next, with respect to home separation, 10 feet.

Hold on just a second. We have to get.

Quite all right. Do we have an exhibit book for him? I just gave him one. Awesome. Thank you. So do I need to repeat anything I mentioned for the board member that just walked in?

Would you like him to repeat what he was just talking about, sir?

Please. Thank you. So there's. five development standards in play. What I was telling your colleagues on the board, you have to, in my opinion, kind of take what we're asking for in the context that Briar Creek mobile home park has been around since many years before the ordinance was rewritten in 2016. This is the last phase. What we're really asking to do is do what they've done in every other phase in terms of lot size and layout, et cetera. Unfortunately, in 2016, Indianapolis rewrote the zoning ordinance and it put in a special, pretty significant section related to D11, which is zoning for this property and which permits mobile home manufactured home parks. So the first standard that I was talking about with the board was the open space requirement. And that is a new standard as of 2016 for 25 years prior, Briar Creek was able to be developed without any internal open space requirement for its residents. So not saying there's anything wrong with an open space requirement, but it makes a project that has been previously developed for many years at a significant disadvantage to all of a sudden have to provide open space. What Coleruns has decided to do, because they've been around a long time, they've really been a good neighbor and a good partner with the community, is they've actually knocked out a block of improved lots to create open space. So in the back of your exhibit book, and I apologize to the board for having a loose page, you can see This exhibit, the green area is a block that was once homes. There's been about 20 that have been removed that will now be used for park or open space purposes. It doesn't meet the entire requirement of 8% for the project. We're only developing about 13 and a half acres for this last phase. So we would have more than enough for that, but the overall project is 60 acres. So it's about half of the total required open space. So we're asking for a variance of 8% down to 4%, but keep in mind that's based on a project whereby it's three quarters of the way built already prior to the code changing over. I'll stop and allow the board to ask any questions on the open space requirement.

I have a question. Sure. You had indicated that there were already existing homes on the land. So are those homes?

Nobody's being displaced.

No displacement. Yeah.

Yeah. core owns might own a number of rents, some are owned by others, but the plan is to make available open space without harming any community members. And maybe some of those on that space move to the new section. they do propose to provide a meaningful open space particularly in context of the 13 and a half acres that we are developing so maybe i heard something wrong you said there was no one to be displaced but then you said there may be some that we would put in the new lot did i maybe that could be yeah i don't know if homes on this portion would be moved to the new section but nobody will be homeless because of this open space okay if that makes sense it makes sense i'm trying to figure out where if there is someone that is being displaced where are you putting them like where would they go Well, we're developing 102 new lots in this new section. Well, I understand that, but it takes... Or they could go in another available lot within the park. Oh, okay. People come and they go over the course of time, if that makes sense. Yep. What I am committed to say, and we can put this on the record, is that nobody's going to be homeless by reason of creating open space for... the purpose of the expansion of the new section.

Thank you.

Okay. So. Well, I have one further question. So is that part of the reason why you didn't do the 8% because there was a concern that you may have to displace? Why was there not the 8% as required?

Well, 8% would be a pretty significant reduction in available lot count, lot count before, especially considering that we are only proposing to expand. The new section is 13 and a half acres. So 8% of 13 and a half acres is a little more than an acre maybe, if that makes sense. We're doing double that. What we're saying is because the 13 and a half acres is part of a 60 acre project, I suppose we're asking for the variance based on that, because that's how the ordinance is written, which we think is tough to apply when something's been built out to 47 acres already with no open space and then to try to retrofit it for the whole project even though our expansion is a fraction of that is what we think is a practical difficulty to fully comply with the ordinance.

Okay, because you're already 47. Yes, it's already developed. If it had been there originally, it would have been easier to put this.

So if you consider two and a half acres as a percentage of the 13 and a half that's being developed, it's more than meets it. But if you consider it as... thirteen-and-a-half acres as part of a sixty-acre project, which I think we're required to do. And then it doesn't quite pencil out. I understand. Thank you. If that makes sense. It does.

I have a question.

Sure.

Will you have services to help them with displacement? I mean, obviously this is going to be a cost or a hardship. for them to move to a different lot within the same community.

Matt Coron couldn't be here tonight, so I can't speak to all the services. All I can tell you is that they manage everything very well. And nobody, you know, we can certainly commit that if you want, we can commit or make a condition that nobody will be displaced by reason of creation of the open space. I have no problem with that.

As long as they've been in the community, I've never known them to displace anybody.

Right.

Okay. I would almost guarantee they would put them somewhere or a system in somewhere.

Exactly. Exactly.

the question is that she's at whose expense so they've already covered whatever it took them to move from wherever they are it's it could be a hardship if they're not planned or budgeted for those costs um so understood yeah yeah um

Again, Matt's not here, but that can certainly be a condition that people will not be displaced.

Or the ones that are displaced will not be at the cost.

Will not be at their cost. We can do that. We can put that in there. Does that make sense? Yes. I think we're all trying to get to the same point, that nobody's going to be.

Because you said homeless, but we didn't know. Yeah, nobody's going to be kicked out. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. So, going back sequentially, the next variance relates to the unit separation requirement. For this, if you all will turn to tab 4, you can see a typical lot layout plan. uh... that shows homes and it actually does show separation meeting the requirement uh... the current conditions are that not all the homes meet the twenty five foot separation so we have requested a variance for ten feet which is uh... matches the existing conditions uh... just to put in the context for you if you look at A 25-foot separation requirement. That is what you would find in a multifamily building type scenario, not a mobile home, which is a single family unit. D11 is lumped in with D6, D7, D8, D9, D10, all multifamily standards that way, which makes little sense. Just to pick a couple of pretty typical suburban single-family zoning districts, D3 or D4, which are single-family districts, they only require four-foot side yards, which would be eight-foot separation. Those are minimums. So we think that 10 feet, which by the way does meet fire code, would be a reasonable compromise compared to the 25-foot requirement.

What is it in the other park? Is it 10? Is it 25? I think it's 10. Yeah, Matt requested 10. My understanding it's still the consistency of what they have now in all the seven parks that they bought.

That's ultimately what we're trying to achieve is consistency in the face that standards were changed midstream. So do any of the other board members have a question on this?

Well, I'll just be curious to those those that are living there. They have they expressed any concerns about the ten feet? I mean, that's

I know that's to me that's not a lot of space between people, but if they're the current ones have never had any complaints about that or we have never had any issues with respect to that simply because it does meet fire architectural fire code standards for minimum separation again the 25 feet is new and you can build two new single-family homes in d3 or d4 which is suburban single-family districts with closer separation requirements technically speaking so we're just trying to be consistent we're not aware of any nobody certainly nobody's here to remonstrate to the best of my knowledge on that issue, but we want to just be up front with the board about the standards we're seeking relief from and the reasons why.

That's fair enough. I mean, when people buy them, I mean, they realize they're... They're that close. So that's the problem. I buy it right.

And like I said, there's probably some that are more than that. But, you know, they're not big lots. And there are certain unit types that are slightly different from one another that go on the lot. So, again, it's a minimum standard that we're requesting relief from, not a maximum standard or anything. Just to stay consistent with what they already have. Keep in mind. There are several hundred units already in this section or in this Briar Creek development. This is a brand new section kind of continuing the same. Right. Third area. Again, an existing condition and that relates to a new requirement that the code wanted to have a separate storage area for campers and boats and trailers and things like that. just no area available for that in this particular development. That doesn't seem to be an issue that exists today with several hundred units, so we don't anticipate it being the same. The fourth one relates to sidewalks along public streets. If you all will turn to tab three, I apologize. And if you look at the site plan, it's kind of turned sideways, but you can see 52nd Street on the left and 46th Street on the right. The purple area is the section that we're expanding. So technically speaking, even though we don't run up against 52nd Street. The Business and Neighborhood Services in Indianapolis says that this development, this expansion triggers the perimeter sidewalk requirement along 52nd and 46th Streets. There's no sidewalks on either at this point. I think that we are okay putting in sidewalks in the future but we don't want to do it piecemeal because we don't front with this expansion on all of it we just need to kind of take our time and implement it. I think 52nd Street is a much more important street, perhaps, than 46th Street, just given the lot layout. We've got retention down at the south end by 46th Street. You can kind of see in tab two some of the street photos, the existing conditions of what the property looks like from the expansion area. I mean, you've got curb streets and all that, They're private. 52nd Street is even further to the north of where this first photo was taken. You can see kind of the lot layouts running down the private street that runs parallel to 52nd. Does it make sense to put sidewalks on 52nd Street? Not really, but is it something that makes some civic sense down the road? Yes. So I think we're willing to do that if you would just give us a period of time, say five years to implement that. I think we'd be willing to do that and you can make it a condition. So you can kind of see the flavor of the homes that are in play here. And I hope that you would agree that for what they are, this creates a very nice environment, much different than what we might have envisioned many years ago with respect to mobile home parks. This provides good shelter, ample space, deck space covered carport space etc a lot of amenities that you might not otherwise expect for a mobile home park that's significantly older now starting in the 90s in the fifth and final And this one relates to a requirement that was kind of, it's actually the last requirement in the D11 section. The city put in an underground safe room requirement for each mobile home in the development. To my knowledge, there's no mobile home park that has a basement shelter area. I worked on one on the west side a few years ago, an expansion. Similarly, we got the exact same variance, different jurisdiction, but the same point. It was a section that was being developed. So I'm not going to sit here and tell you as a board that safety is not important. particularly with manufactured homes or mobile homes. We absolutely agree. We do have plans in place for those events. If you turn to tab five, you can see there's a relationship with the YMCA to provide a safe place for folks in case they need to shelter. You can see that in the first page of tab 5. Each unit comes with a weather alert radio. You can see that on the second page of tab 5. And then finally, You can kind of see the tie-down system that is engineered to withstand wind speeds of 90 miles an hour plus, and every home is subject to this kind of foundation requirement. There's never been any damage to Briar Creek mobile home units in all the years they've had it. Not to say that there couldn't be an event that would be destructive for a single family home or a mobile home.

Thanks, Renee. Thanks, Renee.

But we do take our safety responsibilities seriously, and that's why we have made arrangements and have put some of that information in the record for you. There's a whole bunch of other requirements that we do meet. We had originally applied for variances that sought relief from some of the perimeter yard requirements. We reworked the site plan to meet those. Even though one of the perimeter yards butts up against an industrial building, we're trying to do what we can to meet the ordinance requirements to the best of our ability. But again, the point of all of this is that there are several hundred mobile home units in Briar Creek existing that were built at a time before the new code requirements came into place. We simply want to expand in the same fashion although we have taken some additional steps to at least try to meet the code halfway i.e the open space etc we think that because this is an existing condition that there is a practical difficulty imposed by the ordinance it doesn't provide any relief for phased projects unfortunately so we're stuck coming to you all as as a board of zoning appeals to seek that relief I'm not aware of any remonstrance. We're very grateful for the City of Lawrence staff support of this project and I'll stop and be happy to answer any questions that the board may have.

Yes, I have a question. Sure. You stated that you or you all could do sidewalks within five years. Could that be moved up to say two and a half?

Um... Matt's not here. We say three years, would that be okay? Two and a half is kind of an awkward, I guess that would be what, January of 29? We want to say by December 31, 2028 or something like that. I'm sure he can make that work.

Thank you.

about the the shelter piece of it yes so the why you're saying it can accommodate this I don't want to say entire community but I mean how much and what's the capacity to accommodate the computer that community because at the Y yeah the entity I'm just thinking about for them want to get there from where they are. I mean, the storms get pretty... They can be pretty quick. Yeah, and then, you know, I've got space in my house to go. I can imagine if I had to travel and go somewhere to get...

Think about it, though. Think about it. I can build a slab home, single-family home. I don't have to have a basement. I don't have to have an emergency shelter by code. I get why they wanted to put in something for mobile home parks. Maybe that's more perception than experience. I don't know. I can't second guess that. The time to implement something like that is if you're developing a park for the first time where 20 square feet per unit would be impossible to do given the existing conditions. So what we're saying is that we've got an arrangement that exists today. And I don't know how many times people have gone to the Y, but it's available to them. But even if we did a common... underground safe room for everybody in the residence people might have to get out and go to that anyway it's not like it's a perfect scenario in certain types of weather events excellent question fair question but my understanding is there's a high water table over there too and if they were to put those shelters down there they would be constantly full of water okay

That's another issue.

It could be. So these safe rooms there are separate from the manufacturer home themselves? It's an area where they still got to go to on the property?

It's buried on the ground.

I know, but I'm thinking it's not adjacent to their home?

No, right on the lot.

Okay, right.

You either could do it on the lot.

Right. It should make more sense if you could do it.

Or do it as a common area for everybody. It makes difficult economic sense to do it lot by lot. Right, right. I see that, right. And there could be some lots that as chairperson Why don't mention that just you simply can't do it if you can't do anything underground?

safely from a water table perspective so So there is no I guess you know the the Y is kind of like that common area now It's not on the property, but so I say in the property didn't allow for I Can see that versus trying to do it on these in the only fly. Yeah.

Yeah that they're doing that today So they're just saying hey we can accommodate this additional section for the same purpose. Okay, I'm going to get that.

So they're doing that now? Yes. Oh, okay. Exactly. So it's like, okay, then it says, like, there's not nowhere over there for them to go in the area. Right. That's why I was thinking, they've got to travel, but you're saying there's space there already. Yes. The Y is in addition.

The Y is, yeah, well, no, the Y is offering shelter for the existing folks in Briar Creek today. So 400 units, folks can go there today. Keep in mind they were, those units were built before there was an underground safe room requirement.

Is that a state law or is that the Marion County? It's local. So it's Marion County then? Yeah. Okay. And this would, yeah. There's no other parks in Marion County that have them?

No.

Okay.

no there was one other park on the west side that underwent an expansion much like this about 2021 i think it was that we had to get a variance for the same thing okay any other questions okay thank you thank you thank you

Is there any demonstrators for or against this petition? We'll hear from the city of Lawrence. Renee?

Good evening, board members. Renee Rafflet, director of public works. When Joe filed this petition, we sat down with co-runs and I've talked with Joe many, many times over the last 35 days. I think they originally started with like 13 variances and we've whittled it down to five. So they've worked really, really hard to meet what the current code requires. Now, prior to 2016, there was nothing in the Marion County Code like this for a requirement for a mobile home park. This park originally was approved back in 1982, and none of these standards were there. The existing Park, this is the third section. So we've already done two sections. It was a pre-planned. development. We knew that this other section was going to be built, and they've already significantly changed the layout for section three from what section one and two were. They're adding that green space that was not planned. That's something that they've made a concession and said, OK, we can we can do some green space. We can't do 8%, but we can meet you halfway and do 4.2 a little more than halfway. They're willing to make a commitment that if anyone is displaced because of the creation of that green space, that they'll bear the cost for that. I've heard Joe say that a couple times, so I'm comfortable with that. The whole purpose of a variance is when there's a practical difficulty. The ordinance change in 2016 makes the future development, this Section 3, a practical difficulty for co-runs. You're asking them to meet standards that weren't in existence when they planned the subdivision. It does cause a practical difficulty financially and conceptually. How odd will it look if all of a sudden we've got 25 feet between lots where we had 10? They're expanding it to 20. So they're doubling it. So it's already going to look a little weird, but that extra five feet makes a big difference in the layout of the subdivision. And I think it's a practical difficulty to ask them to meet that standard. Let's see what else. The part about storage, recreational vehicle storage. Co-runs has their sales office. I lived in a mobile home of Co-runs in Parkwood for 20 years. When a storm's coming through, we planned. We watched the weather. We had a friend who had a basement. We'd go to their house. Or I have come to this building. Many, many times I let myself in and my kids and I have gone to the basement with our pillows and our blankets and our little TV that's on my desk until the storm passed. You make arrangements when you live in a mobile home. You know that you can't stay there. To ask them to provide a safe space for 100 and some lots at 20 square foot a lot, that's a huge undertaking on a development that's already been pre-planned. They've gone and they're offering every new mobile home, or even if you buy a used one, you get a weather alert radio. They're handing those out to every single mobile home purchaser. And we've got an arrangement with YMCA. It doesn't say in the code that that 20 square foot per person has to be in the park. I think they've met that requirement. Um, they also made a commitment about doing the sidewalks in five years. We changed that to free.

I think we said what, December 31, 2028. Okay.

Okay. I want to make sure that that's clear so that that's recorded in the notes. Um, when it comes to the sidewalk, I've had a couple of conversations with, uh, Bobby Coran and Matt and Jacob. Um, We've got some developments coming in on Mithoffer and then one where the Monarch Gardens used to be. So we do want some connectivity there to get people to the Purple Line is kind of my thought. So to me, it makes a little more sense to put it on 46th Street as opposed to 52nd Street. 52nd Street is going to kind of be a sidewalk that goes nowhere. Yeah, it'll get you up to Pendleton Pike or it'll get you to Mithoffer. But if we put it on 46th Street, that gets you to the Purple Line. makes a little more sense to me, but that's something we can figure out, um, as we, as they get to the development of the property and what future development is going to be there. So by December 31st or 28, I'd ask that you let the administration determine where that sidewalk goes based on what works best for the community. Um, I think I've addressed all of that. Um, I want to just point out again, 1980s when they started this subdivision and then 2016 when Indy decided to change the rules. It is not a state requirement. It is something specific only to Marion County. And honestly, I think it's a little excessive. And especially for an existing, if you had a brand new mobile home park coming in, you know, get the design from the very beginning to meet all these requirements, that's a different ballgame. Do you have any questions for me?

Could you, again, what was that commitment on date for the sidewalks?

December 31st, 2028. Thank you.

Renee, when we vote, I want to make sure we get the commitments that are already written. As long as they, I mentioned them, I don't have to go down each one, correct?

Yeah. The two commitments I had noted was if anyone is displaced because of the creation of green space, will bear the cost. OK. And the sidewalks will be completed by December 31 of 2020.

Those are the only two requirements for this? OK.

Those are the two commitments I show. I also want to point out, because Sean can't vote, because he's an alternate for you or Danielle, you have to have a unanimous vote tonight or it's automatically continued to the July hearing.

Right. At first, I thought we had a mayor and a council pick that wasn't here, so that's why we had you come up, but it turns out they're both council.

so that's why you can't vote tonight so the three of us have to vote unanimously if not then it's automatically continued to next month and I'd like to make that with notice if it does get continued okay one question for you this is just curious I get your part of this the ordinance is not practical do you have any idea why would they even bother to do Because I've heard us say at times that the ordinances are done for a reason. So we're trying to figure out.

I'm not quite certain what the thought process was on some of these requirements. Unfortunately, we weren't a party at the table.

Particularly the safe space, because that's a huge cause to try to do that. I was just trying to figure out some rationale.

I think it was a great idea conceptually, but when you go to do it, the practicality of it, it's just not something that's very practical. and i know that india is currently looking at the zoning ordinance again 10 years later and going to be making some changes i'm hoping this part's updated because not that we're going to have any more mobile home parks in the city of lawrence but maybe this place other places in marion county and i think some of these requirements are a little unattainable.

Well thank you for sharing that you state that that's a good insight because I mean no matter what we say we have to prepare but you buy these homes knowing The old issues. And so I'll just, so thank you for your insight.

They've improved a lot. You know, the mobile home that I bought, that was a 1950s model. Um, you know, I upgraded it and I bought a 2020 model and the manufacturing of it is much more weather resistant and the way that they tie them down. Karan's is very, um,

They take pride in what they do.

They take care of it. And they make sure that we're as safe as you can be in the mobile home parks. And back when I bought mine, I didn't get a radio. So they've made improvements. I did not either. Now you get a radio, and there's a plan in place where you can go to the YMCA. There wasn't one 20 years ago, 25 years ago. um so you know it's it's improving i think the safe room is a little much but you know we can dream big right thank you yes sir any questions petitioner no really additional comments i think renee had mentioned that the sidewalk commitment would be

subject to the administration approving the location of the sidewalk. So just make sure that's in the record. Thank you.

Okay.

Board, have any questions? Any more questions?

No. Okay. At this time, the board is voting on 26 LSV 08 Korns mobile homes investment request a variance of development standard for the from the city of Indianapolis consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to permit Recreation common area space less than 8% of projected area 8% of total project area to be recreational and common open space The minimum separation of 10 feet between mobile home dwelling units, proposed 25 foot separation required. No storage area for travel trailers, campers, boats, recreational vehicles, provide 120 square feet for each mobile dwelling required. Sidewalks along public street requirement, no perimeter sidewalks proposed. And no underground safe room proposed. Underground safe room with at least 20 square feet of space for each mobile home dwelling. The development requires there are two stipulations that sidewalks be installed by December 31st, 2028. And that the administration will make the decision of the location. And any displacement of residents will be absorbed by the Korns mobile home. The board has unanimously granted your petition, sir. Thank you so much. The board now will hear 26 LSV0911711 Fox Road. Mark Bastin, request of variance of development standard from the City of Indianapolis Consulate Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to prevent a variance of development standard of the City of Indianapolis sign ordinance. to permit the installation of a pole sign with digital display components. OK, sir.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Thank you all for seeing me this evening and working for our customer. We understand the intent of the ordinance is to prevent visual clutter and maintain orderly corridor. However, this request is not for additional signage in the traditional sense. This is a functional component of a fuel station. Fuel pricing is fundamentally different from retail signage. Drivers make fueling decisions in seconds at speed and based on what they can see from the roadway. If pricing is not visible before entering the site, that decision happens too late, which can affect traffic behavior and site circulation. Tenant panel signs are not designated to serve this function, which is part of the property. They are static identification panels limited in size and format, while fuel pricing requires large, high visible real-time numeric displays that can be read at a distance, those two sign types are not interchangeable. Because this site is part of an integrated center, the available signage has already been allocated to tenant identification. That creates a practical difficulty and there is no viable way to display fuel pricing in a manner consistent with how fuel stations operate. A free-standing pylon sign is specifically designed for roadway visibility. It provides the height and scale necessary for drivers to recognize information safely and early rather than at a point of entry. A freestanding pylon sign is specifically, excuse me, this request is not about increasing signage, it is about providing the correct type of signage for fuel use while respecting the intent of the ordinance. For those reasons, we believe this meets the criteria for practical difficulty and can be approved without adverse impact on the corridor. I'm assuming you've all seen the packet with the various information that kind of highlights the location of the sign on the property and the adjacent tenant panel sign.

OK.

Now, this is where the old Marsh Shopping Center used to be, right? Yes.

Okay. And where is the gas station going?

It's to the northeast of Goodwill that is in the new location. And so between Goodwill and Pac-Mail in that strip center.

Right across. Okay. Okay. This would be on all the time, correct?

It would be on all the time as far as the pricers are concerned. If the location itself has closed hours, then the shell image portion would probably be out at that point. It would be just the pricers on. But I don't know the specifics on that location and what their plans are for that. Essentially, the drawing that's provided in there shows you the sign with the regular pricer and the diesel pricer, and then their V-power promotion that's part of that.

There's not going to be any flashing or any digital signs?

There's no scrolling or flashing to it. It's just the LED illumination that they can remotely change from the store location when prices need to be, you know, raised up or down.

Digital signs are a pet peeve of mine. Renee, will this require anything that we have? No. Okay. I have my answer for that one.

So this is not for there's some integrated signs. They're close to this is, um, not too far from that, those integrated signs.

It's 161 feet from the tenant panel sign, which still gives clear visibility for traffic and for there being a safe space for that sign to be located without causing any disruption.

So it's the issue you want to be able to display the pricing is why you don't want it as part of that integrated sign.

There's no discussion about using the integrated sign, and certainly if there were, the only space that might have been considered available, and I don't know that it is, is literally like 24 inches tall, which would only incorporate about an 8-inch pricer, and we're looking at a 24-inch pricer for clear visibility for the traffic. And that's a pretty standard configuration for this particular sign. And for that purpose, it's just the tenant penal sign doesn't serve that. And that's why we see it as a practical difficulty.

Any other questions? Thank you. Is there any other Points that I will be able to make before a vote or is this no No, we'll hear from remonstrators They will hear from the city of Lawrence and then you get to Reese you get to come back up if there's any rebuttal or anything Okay, okay Is there any remonstrators for or against the petition We'll hear from the city of Lawrence

So the petitioner states that the proposed sign is necessary to display fuel pricing, meet corporate branding standards, improve customer awareness, and provide a more aesthetically pleasing appearance. While we acknowledge that fuel pricing is a common component of a modern gas station, those considerations don't demonstrate a practical difficulty associated with the property itself. They built the property, the gas station, knowing that they only had 227 feet of frontage. And that the sign was there. That they would have to place their sign for the gas station someplace on that property. That wasn't a consideration when they bought the property, when they were building the gas station, up until they applied for the sign permit. Then they came back and they said, well, we can't fit the sign where we want it. We need a variance. The code requires 300 feet separation. We have 1,227. Let me get my numbers. Yes, 1,227 feet of frontage. for that whole integrated center. The code requires that the signs be 300 feet apart. This sign is proposed to be 161 feet from the proposed integrated center sign. They've not even talked to the people who own the integrated center sign to see if it's a possibility to add their branding and their pricing to that sign. So we feel like There's not really a practical difficulty that's because of the property. It's because of the way they develop the property. While it may provide an enhanced visibility and branding opportunities, their request is primarily driven by marketing and operational preferences rather than a practical difficulty created by the property. The Board of Appeals should consider the application materials, the site characteristics, and the applicable development standards. The findings submitted by the petitioner in determining whether or not this request for a variance satisfies the applicable criteria. We don't... Not support it, but we don't support it either. We're going to leave it up to you guys to make the decision on what you feel is best for the community.

Could they have, this is just asking a question, could they have a ground sign?

We proposed that and they didn't want to consider it.

Have a what?

A ground monument sign. They said it wouldn't give them the visibility that they needed. That this is the sign they want. And they didn't want to they did make one concession. They had originally asked for it to be 25 feet high. The code only allows it to be 20 so they did reduce it to 20 feet.

Have we not in the past, and I want to stay consistent, these signs of being so far apart, we've had people have to take the signs down, correct?

So we just recently had a petition for the AutoZone that's going on Post Road, I don't know if you guys remember that, where we denied their petition for the very reason that the signs were going to be too close together. It was causing clutter in the neighborhood and we encouraged them to talk with the other integrated center sign.

Right. Yes, you did.

And they actually came back and they found a solution. They're going to use the sign that was there for the go-kart place. And they're going to reface it. And it meets the criteria. It's far enough apart. And it gives them everything they wanted. With that information, you guys get to make the hard decision. OK. Do you have any other questions for me?

So it's just a distance. It is. And they haven't discussed with the tenant about the integrated sign.

Not that I'm aware of. I asked and the information response I got that that wasn't an option.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Petitioner. We can do a couple things. We can vote tonight. And if we are not unanimous, you have an automatic continuance. Or the board could elect to do a continuance, and you speak to the people and see if you can get your sign integrated onto their sign. And then you could come back before us next month, and we can re-look at this.

What does the board think of the choices? Yes.

Or the 300. Or you said it had to be the 300 feet.

Right.

Yeah. From the existing integrated site.

Mm-hmm.

If it's 300 feet from it, then that's in compliance, right?

Mm-hmm.

That's one of the purposes why we're here requesting.

Yeah, I want to make sure that Renee.

It wouldn't be on their property. They want it on their property. Their sign should be on their property, but the integrated center sign is already on their property.

They go through 100 feet, takes it off of their property.

Takes it off of their property and onto somebody else's.

Whoever that is, you haven't talked to them about going onto their property.

If they wanted to meet the 300 foot distance requirement, if they went on the integrated center sign, it's already on their property.

Yeah, I guess, yeah. But he mentioned a point about the upgraded sign. Well, you haven't talked to them, but yeah, if there's no space on there or for that.

And that's my question. Are you willing to have that conversation with them to see if that's a possibility?

Not about the tenant panel integrated sign. It's a practical difficulty. You can speak about it not being one and it's marketing. It's not truly all marketing because it is a viable part of a fuel station. And so with that in mind, you know, I'd like to address a few concerns, if I may. Regarding, you know, hardship versus convenience, you know, and talking about marketing, I mean, these are not about preferences and branding. It's variances are not granted on convenience. And we agree with that standard. However, the situation creates a practical difficulty because the site cannot reasonably communicate fuel pricing using the signage types currently available. The limitation is not self-imposed. It results from how the integrated center standard applies to this specific use. Now, secondly, on the point that the existing signage should be sufficient or used, those signs are tenant identification panels. They are static, limited in size, and not designed to display large real-time pricing visible from the roadway. So while signage exists, the functionality doesn't serve the fuel use on this property. That is the core issue. While I understand things that were spoken about with the owner, I'm not a part of that. I'm here today presenting to you what I know to present in dealing with the issues with the variants and why I'm here, obviously, for that purpose. Thirdly, regarding visual clutter and corridor impact, we understand and respect the concern that the intent of the ordinance is to prevent excessive and confusing signage, not to prevent necessary communication. This request is not adding redundant signage, it is providing a single functional sign type that allows the site to operate in a predictable and consistent way with how fuel stations are typically designed. fourth on the idea that the business can operate without it if there is such thought well technically true technically true the standard is not whether a use can exist at all but whether a strict application of the ordinance creates practical difficulty in in reasonably using the property. In this case, it does because fuel sales depend on advanced visibility and quick driver decision making. Finally, this request is limited in scope. It is not a broad exception, the minimum necessary to allow the site to function properly while still respecting the intent of the ordinance and the surrounding corridor. For those reasons, we believe that the request meets the criteria for practical difficulty. Now, I believe you mentioned that Either way, there would be a continuance from this meeting?

No, I said if the three of us are not unanimous in our vote, that's an automatic continuance. If we denied it, you have to wait another year to come back. Right. So it's your choice of whether you want us to vote or you would want to talk to the people about the integrated sign, see if there's something you could work out in the meantime. This is up to you what you would like to do.

Yeah. Well, ultimately, I came here today to make the request for the approval of the pylon sign because from a corporate standpoint and from a visibility standpoint, it's what matters the most over any integrated center sign.

Can I ask you a quick and I'm sorry I didn't tell me what your existing signings look like I didn't look at that what you have it's the Because I notice I know when I drive I'm looking for the big signs look for prices because I still look to try to get the best price Yeah, it's nice for me to see them. They're just that's correct to do that, but I'm just curious I don't I didn't see what your existing signage looks like it's it's tenant panel signs in

Basically, there's multiple tenants in the strip behind that utilizes that sign that's on the property. And again, you're talking about panels this wide and this tall that's got to house functional Pricers that have to be maintained and so and accessible for that reason.

Are those prices maintained manually? I'm trying to remember. Are these the ones where you've got to go and physically change the?

No. No, it's not. But they do require maintenance on occasion.

I don't know where it is. You know, they're electrical signs. It's a paper she gave us.

Right, but that's what he wants. That's what he wants. I'm trying to figure out what he has there now. Oh. I was just trying to see what he has now. First notice.

No, this is a brand new building, but in suggesting that we utilize the integrated center sign, it's just not...

But you can't use a ground sign? I mean, I've seen them other places, you know, where... Yeah, they have them.

Yeah. Yeah. I guess that's going to depend on what limitations there would be for a ground sign. If it's going from...

Still have to meet the 300 feet? Okay, thank you.

Yeah. Then I'd like to ask for a continuance, please, so I can go back to my client and discuss how we need to proceed here.

OK. Board in agreeance with that, I would say with notice.

Yeah. Agree.

OK. So the board is going to vote tonight on a continuance on 26 LSV 09 with notice.

I move that we vote on continuance 26 LSV 09 with notice. Second. Second.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Your continuance has been granted with notice.

Thank you. I appreciate all your time this evening. Thank you. Okay, that's that.

Now the board will hear 26 LSB 10, 5649 Lee Road, and... It's lit. 95-35 Memorial Park Drive. Fort Bend LLC requests a variance of development standard of the Lawrence Village at the Fort PUD. Modification requests. Given the site conditions and location within Fort Harrison, there are no natural blocks and lot connectors that would allow the project to meet the design standards after communication with the Fort reuse authority staff and the director of public works it was agreed that this uh this decided 60 feet block length would be acceptable a modification request with the location the proposed building the public facing elevation would be west evaluation and north evaluation due to the over overall length of the building achieving the parking setback line as described in this section is unachievable and would significantly affect the flag site plan projected as currently designed modification requested currently designed the project has significant parking for the proposed uses and the need for carpool spaces could be rendered as obstacle and an outdated practice after discussion with the Fort Harrison reuse of staff and the public director of public works it was agreed the showing zero carpool spaces would be acceptable modification requests due to construction cost related factors with this design standard relief is request to allow for appropriated signing screening between the commercial and residential uses sorry if I may I've got a presentation to run

Renee, I have another one. We've got another one. Thank you all for your time tonight. I just want to say thank you to Renee and her team. We've been working very closely with them on this project and are really nearing the end of kind of all of our approvals here at the local level and are very appreciative of Renee and her staff for everything that they've helped us through with this project. My name is Grant Deaton. I'm a Senior Development Director at the Ridge Group, 3225 South Hoyt Avenue, Muncie, Indiana. With me today are a number of team members on our on our project team. So if you go ahead and flip over to the next page. This project is a co-development between Rebar Companies and the Ridge Group. With me tonight is Tom Dickey, partner in principle at the Rebar Companies. As part of this project is Studio Access, their architect of record for the project. Chris Hagan and his team are here, or Chris is here tonight. And I want to also note Studio is an Indianapolis-based architecture firm. Here also tonight, I always butcher Fred's last name, but he's with Context Design. He's a local Fort Harrison or Fort Bend landscape architect that's working on a project. And then here with the Veritas Group in the Vidium is Jennifer and Kelly, also local here to Fort Harrison. We're very appreciative of our team's work to get to this point. So if you just want to go ahead and flip over to the next page, this is just a very quick high level about rebar development in the Ridge Group. Rebar development was founded in 2017. Since its inception, rebar has done 10 deals, very similar to the one that we're discussing tonight, public-private type partnerships. And across those 10 deals, that equates to approximately $250 million of total development costs across the state of Indiana. Moving on to the next page here, just a high level about TRG development. The Ridge Group was actually founded in 1990 as Ridge Petroleum Contractors with a focus on installing underground fuel system tanks. So essentially what we still do today is one division of our business is install fuel tanks for gas stations. And then back in 2018, Tyler Ridge II founded our multifamily platform and construction division, TRG Development and Construction. Since our inception in 2018, we're under construction on nine projects in the state of Indiana. Again, all very similar to this, public-private partnerships for an estimated total development cost of $150 million. Moving on to the next slide, we were working on this project for, gosh, about a year now. And I know Tom and his team have been working with FHRA and other stakeholders for a lot longer than that. And so as I mentioned earlier, we're nearing kind of the finish line, if you will, but the start of construction. And so this slide that we're on just kind of shows the vicinity and surrounding areas, just kind of in the context of the wider Fort Harrison area. Directly to our north of the site is Memorial Park Drive, and then kind of to our west is Lee Road heading to the north. Moving on to the next slide. Again, this is just a zoomed in aerial of the project site. So the different parcels at play here that we're working through are part of our kind of larger project. Veritas, their team owns one parcel, and then the Fort Harrison Reuse Authority owns two other parcels as part of this larger project. If you go ahead and flip over to the next page, this is our site plan. So included in the site plan is what we're calling, it's a phase one and phase two. We're actively working on and what we're here tonight to discuss is phase one of the project, which I'll get to further details here momentarily. But phase one of the project is what we're discussing tonight and is before you for the variance request. Phase two is a future phase two that our team will work through with the FHRA, Heather and her team, again, in the future as a phase two piece of that. to go ahead and flip over to the next page. We recently, back in April, completed our rezone from DP to, bear with me, it's a bit of a mouthful here, to Area 2 of the Village Center District in the Lawrence Village at the Fort PUD. Renee and her staff are very supportive of that rezone, as well as the FHRA staff. We feel like the development overall really meets those design intents and standards of that area, too, and creating walkability and kind of the mixed uses of that zoning designation. And then kind of getting into some of the variance requests. And again, these variance requests were discussed with Renee and her team very early on in the design process. We made sure that they were incorporated early. We had those discussions that way that we had their full support. um once it was time to get through our rezone um and get to kind of the the board here tonight um to to receive the necessary approvals that we need to build our project so the first one is section 2.2.7 which effectively states that there can be no block length greater than 450 feet if you kind of flip back to our site plan or look at the overall site aerials you can see there's really no natural block and lot connectors that we could connect to our project as the site runs east to west. And so we would ask for relief there as the current design is approximately 600 feet.

I have a question. Yeah.

Okay, I'm confused. We have three partials here.

Yep.

One is Vertidas, Fort Harrison, and then Fort Harrison is. So you have all three properties.

Correct.

The first one is the one in yellow that you're talking about, correct?

So if you look at the project site, if you look at these two slides together, it kind of gives you a bit of a full context of what we're looking to achieve. So we're working now, and we go before the Indianapolis DMD plat and vacation committee on July 7th to replat and kind of redraw some of these property boundaries. I see what I'm saying. No, go ahead. Yeah, and so effectively we're working with Veritas, we're working with FHRA, and all three parcels are integrated into the Phase 1 project that we're discussing tonight and then the future Phase 2 project that will be, again, in the future because it's a Phase 2.

It'll be all three of those properties.

Correct. It'll all be integrated into – a multi-phased project but tonight we're only talking about it's 104 units in the the hatch kind of yellow or orange on slide number seven which is so you're saying the phase one does not include include all three of those parcels or it does it encompasses parts of them so it doesn't mirror it exactly correct yeah and so when we go in front of the plaque committee or dmd we'll we'll redraw the property lines, if you will, that allow us to show kind of accurately what we're depicting here in this site plan. On page number six, that shows the parcel outlines as they sit today. Does that help clarify at all?

Continue. I'll keep following.

Yeah, absolutely. And apologies if that wasn't explicitly clear as I was running through it. So again, 2.2.7, just the natural, the 450-foot block and lot, there's no natural connector to our project. And so we would look for request relief on the 600-foot kind of block length as our site plan lays out now. There's practical difficulty in the fact that if we were to adhere to this section, we would basically have to create a sidewalk or a street between, you know, in the middle of our building, essentially. And obviously that would change the site plan significantly. And so we would request relief from that section. 2.3.2 requires the setback line that is one half the distance from the public face of the building to the rear. And so, as I mentioned earlier, the northern part of the of the project faces memorial park drive we have no issue meeting this design intent or or section um on the northern face where we run into an issue is on the western face or elevation that fronts lee road so if you if you were to to you know go from i guess if we're looking at the site plan you know page page left you know half of that building and we have to that would be required to be the parking setback line it would substantially alter the way we could lay out the project in the site and we could not achieve you know the the intent of what we're looking to do at this at this point in time on the on the project Section 2.9.5 requires a minimum of 5% of carpool spaces to be carpool spaces. As of right now, I want to say the total site has over 250 parking spaces. Our project site has 170 dedicated parking spaces, and so we feel we have ample parking required on site to provide enough parking for our residents to park. And then finally, section 4.6.3 requiring residential areas adjacent to the commercial activity seven entrance two feet above the sidewalk level. So if we were to go out to our site, you'll see a fairly significant grade change going from the west side of the site to the east side of the site. And so due to those grade changes in the requirement to have the two feet of separation between the commercial space and the residential space. It would require and would cause some practical difficulties with the screening required to meet that intent of this section. And as part of our project, we're doing 2,800 square feet of retail on the first floor. That's going to be at the corner of Lee Road and Memorial Park Drive. We will have ample screening. We've talked to, again, Renee and her team. We talked to the FHRA actually last week for an ARC board meeting and talked about kind of a screening. We're going to do a mural and work with the FHRA and their staff to really make sure that we screen that area appropriately. We'll have landscaping. And so... And at the same time, I do want to say we want to create a cohesive mixed-use community, and that's what we're trying to achieve here as well. And so, again, we would ask for relief due to practical difficulties due to some of the great changes and different things in consideration here. If we go ahead and flip over to the next page, I can just run through this quickly at a high level. So our project will be a 104-unit Class A multifamily project. Like I alluded to earlier, it will be 170 parking spaces with 2,800 square feet of retail. This project will have your standard, you know, nice Class A amenities, clubhouse, pool, fitness center, yoga lawn. We'll have a rooftop amenity deck on the fourth floor overlooking Fork Bend, which we're really excited about. We'll have pickleball courts and a dog park as well. that we're really excited to offer our residents. Also on the page, you'll just see kind of our unit mix as well as our general timeline for construction in closing with our financial partners. Next slide here is just an overview of the amenities that I just touched on. So I won't discuss those anymore, but this is kind of the inspiration behind what we're looking to do and achieve. Moving on to the next slide here, just a couple more. Again, we really appreciate all of Renee's support on this project and would appreciate your support tonight. We feel like our development and project is consistent with the Fort Harrison Master Use Plan. We feel like it's consistent with the Lawrence Village at the Fort PUD, specifically Area 2 of the PUD. And then in addition to those two things, we're creating high-quality housing for Lawrence, which is always a plus. Then again, just running out the presentation here, here's just estimated, again, kind of timelines of construction, completion, and everything. Happy to take any questions from the board.

Does the board have any questions right now?

I do not.

No.

No? OK, thank you. Are there any remonstrators at this time? for or against the petition we'll hear from the city of Lawrence

So we've been working with the rebar group and grant and his team, um, close to a year now on this project presented it in April. I believe it was to the common council for a rezone, um, which the city is supporting. Um, that was passed and knowing that we were going to have these few variances looking at. the site on the first variance about the length of the block it's not allowed to be low greater than 450 feet without a street or an alley or a pedestrian pathway this is going to be about 600 feet so yes there is a variance but the way the property is laid out it wouldn't make sense at 450 feet to put a sidewalk or an alley We've worked really hard to develop the property to get the most impact. On the very corner, they're going to have like a 2,800 square foot retail. And then you're going to have your apartments and your rooftop that looks over Lee Road. And it's going to be a really nice addition. We have found in looking when things are developed, the closer you put a building to the road, it slows people down. You have less accidents because people are looking to see what's near them. It seems like The traditional where you have the big front yards and everything's pushed back from the road is kind of going away, and they're moving everything closer, making it a little more accessible for pedestrians. So that addresses that block length variance request. The parking setback, again, we'd rather have the buildings up front and the parking back a little further. It, we, we do have to accommodate though with 170 unit, or I'm sorry, 104 units, you gotta have parking for all that. So we feel that the layout that they're proposing works for the development of the site. Carpooling parking spaces. 10 years ago when they updated the zoning code carpooling was kind of a big thing and that's kind of gone away we don't have i remember you used to be able to meet over here at d-fest and park and carpool over to downtown and we we just not seeing that as much anymore um if you are going to do something like that you're going to take the bus which we have the purple line that's come in so i think people are using that more than the carpooling. I'm just not seeing that. So I think it's reasonable to ask for a variance from that. The elevation difference between the two foot thing, we made an exception for the Keystone building to not have that two foot variance. What it is is they want to give a clear, you've got your main level with your commercial and they want two steps to kind of separate the residential part. The elevation of this property, it doesn't make sense to do that. They'd have to bring in tons of dirt, lots and lots and lots of dirt. And then that messes up the elevation at the west or further east because it's so much higher. Or lower. I'm sorry. It's so much lower. So to get that elevation, it's going to look really funny on the back end if we had to do that. So I think there's a practical difficulty for this property to develop it with that two foot difference. In order to approve a variance, we've talked about this, you have to prove that there's a practical difficulty on the property that prevents you from doing what's required. For the four variances that they've requested, I think they've proven that a practical difficulty exists and that we should consider approval without any commitments on this one.

Did I hear you say that there's going to be commercial there too?

Yeah, so there's going to be one 2,800 square foot space at the very front corner of this first building. Phase two, there may be additional, but we'll get to that when we get to phase two.

And what would be in the commercial part of it?

Whatever tenant decides to come and apply. Okay.

in our mind we're thinking you know something similar to a coffee shop ice cream shop you know that might offer sandwiches or a professional services type business that can go in there i mean at the end of the day we want to activate that space and make it a place that not only our residents want to patronize but also those that live in fort harrison so we'll as soon as we start on construction and are moving forward we'll hire a broker reputable firm that will help us find the right tenant for that space or if there's others that renee or anybody knows that want to be in fort harrison and are looking for 200 square feet you can send them my way and then the other phases will have commercial in them too Go ahead. That's yet to be determined. As of right now, we know just approximately the second phase will be roughly 120 units, but we do not know if there will be retail there or commercial space in that building.

We'll have to see where the market's at and what's needed at that time when we go to the second building. So this has been a partnership with the Redevelopment, the Reuse Authority, and the Rebar Group. for almost a year, really close to a year now. And getting the property set up, doing the, we had to vacate some right away. We had to replant. There's been a bunch of steps in this process. So this is kind of the last step before we actually get In a construction, we're already kind of looking at the construction plans. I think they're 80%, 90% plans. So these are just the last little check boxes so that we can move forward with the project. And we appreciate your support.

So no commitments at this time? No.

There's not anything that we would need. Okay.

Does the board have any questions for the petition? No, I don't. Okay. Thank you. Do you have anything else to answer?

No, just thank you all for your time tonight. We really appreciate it.

So the board will be voting on 26 LSV 10, 5649 Lee Road, and 9535 Memorial Park Drive. Request a variance development standard of this Lawrence villages at the fort Modification is given the site condition a location within Fort Harrison There are no natural blocks and lot connectors that would allow the project to meet the stand design standard Requesting setback line that is half of the distance from the public face to the building rear and Require a minimum of five percent of spaces be carpal spaces. I The board has unanimously granted your request. Thank you. With there no more business tonight, the Lawrence Board of Zoning Appeals is adjourned.