Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Good evening everyone. Today is April 21st, 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 January 20th, 2025. I make a motion. Thank you. Second. All right. All those in favor say I. I. I. Those opposed say nay.

Okay. We're good. Um with I. If you have not done so, please sign in the back of the room. Anyone wishing to speak tonight, please stand and raise your right hand. Thank you. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Answer with I do.

Thank you. Do we have any special requests tonight? Continuences, withdrawals, or waiverss? Okay, showing no one, we'll just move forward with the meeting. Tonight we have new business 26 LSV3 in reference to 7442 Indian Lake Road, parcel number 400289, city of Lawrence LCD number 6, zone D2, Jason Cohen, request a variance of development standards from the city of Indianapolis consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinances to permit the construction of a large accessory structure uh barn workshop garage that exceeds permitic accessory structure standards in the D2 zoning district.

Go ahead. I have handouts. So, okay. How many of you? Yeah, they probably want copies.

She need copy.

Go ahead. Thank you, sir. I got one of these. Do you need one of these? Just Yeah, I got two of them.

Thank you very much. So, uh, could you please state your name for the record? Hi, I'm Jason Qin. Qan, thank you, sir. You can go ahead. Okay. Sorry.

Never done this before. Um, okay. So, uh, this is a a barn that's going to be a hobby shop. It's been a lifelong dream of mine. And, um, I've been saving up for literally like 15 years to do this. Um, so I have uh I found out to my surprise earlier today that the city was actually recommending against doing this. Um, so I apologize for the the kind of mess of papers that I just gave everyone. Um, I've been in a rush to try to like go through all this and explain why I asked for the things that I did. Um, so does everyone have a a page with some text on it and then a page with a picture? Yes.

Okay, great. Okay. So, um there are four variances listed here. Um there are really only three because one of them is a duplicate uh just listed in two different sections of code. Um but starting with the first one here, uh the uh height restriction. So, um there's a 24 foot restriction on uh max height for accessory structures. um that could be met uh with this building and we'll look at elevations here in a moment but uh it could be met by reducing the pitch of the roof uh for the structure. Um however, doing so would really detract from the aesthetics of the of the property and the neighborhood because a low pitch roofup is looks very much like a commercial structure and I want it to look like a residential, you know, barn and match the other things on the property. Um so that could be lower but uh it it would not look nice. Uh the second one here is uh the accessory height uh not being higher than the primary structure. It actually is not uh but when I measured it they were so close. Uh I requested it just out of an abundance of caution just uh um because they were almost the same but the the accessory structure is actually slightly shorter. Okay, the the third one is really the most important one. Um, and this is the an accessory structure cannot exceed the footprint of the primary structure. Um, the reason I don't think this should apply here is uh there are a number of reasons for it actually. Um, in this particular case, it's an extremely large parcel. So, it's it's nine acres of property. And the zoning ordinance for for D2 uh does not take into account the

size of the property. It only counts uh just the size of the house, period. So, it it disadvantages someone with a you know more modest size home and advantages someone with a a much larger one. And um I have an example here. We'll come back to this later in the pictures, but uh the neighbor that's basically two two properties over um almost next door has a nearly 12,000 square foot home and he has multiple accessory structures that are much larger than what I'm asking for. And um so essentially if I just did a 900 foot house addition, I could then build the structure. Um so I feel like the the size of the property itself should should be a factor in this. Um the fourth item here is with regard to the the height again which again it's just a duplicate in the code. Okay. So on the the next page here uh it talks about this uh being in a wellfield protection area. So, on the the very first photo page here, I took the the map that Lawrence provided with the Wellfield Protection Area. And it's hard to see because the property is large, but the little light patch uh right next to the border of the Wellfield um that is I then put in a picture down below here with a green green square. Uh it's actually right outside the wellfield area um technically, but regardless, any precipitation on the barn is going to just run off and go right into the ground. So, it's not going to affect anything as far as uh the the you know, absorption of water into the ground for for well purposes or anything like that. And there's no hazardous activity that's going to happen in the structure. So, it shouldn't you know, present any

concerns. Um, okay. So, onto the the pictures here. So, the first page here is this uh the Willfield protection map which we just talked about. The second page is a uh a satellite picture showing my property with uh the property almost adjacent that has the multiple very large structures on it. One of which is um brand new within the last I think year or two. The next page um is I have a uh a clipping here from the actual Indianapolis uh zoning guidelines for what defines D2. And um what it says is basically the the minimum lot size is 15,000 ft² which is about a third of an acre and the minimum main floor size is 1,200 square ft. So if you look at that from the perspective of how much land is used uh it results in 8% of the land area being used on a D2 lot. Um double that if it's you know a 2400t house instead of a,200 foot house. If you compare that with our property usage, uh, with with 8% being the the very low side of D2, uh, density of structures, we're only at 1.3% used and it'll be 2.1 with the proposed accessory structure. The next page um shows initially uh this first page here shows the property view from the street and I've basically superimposed the proposed

structure onto this view from the street in front of the house and you can see that it is not at all you apparent without really looking because it's so far back on the property. Um, it's just so far off the road and it's hidden by trees and multiple other things that u it's really not something that is going to be very noticeable to anyone and there's only one neighbor that even really has a direct view of it. Um, the next page here, I took some photos today actually. Uh the top center one is the exact same picture uh just uh without the snow. And you can see that you cannot see that area with the barn at all. And then the other two pictures are from the corners of the property showing uh I hope how far back this is and how it is really not uh you know noticeable or detracting from the from the neighborhood appearance in any way. Uh and then the last page here is just a uh a zoomed out kind of overall view to show that you know this is very low density um land usage. The vast majority of our property is is wooded and um where we back up to the Fort Ben wilderness protection area as well. So, um, it's very low density usage already and, uh, there there's not going to be really any impact on on neighbors or anything like that by building the structure. Any questions? I have a few in the in the um the handout, I guess, the second page. Which one of these properties is yours? Is yours listed in or what is the square footage of your property?

The one on the top, the smaller one, the So, the little cross-hatched area that says 3168 is the proposed structure. Which one is yours? Is you the 15 Which property here is is yours? The the one on the top of the page, the 3168. Yes, that's the proposed structure that we're talking about. And the 2,300 square foot is is my house. Okay, that's what I'm asking. Okay. Okay.

You referenced that your neighbor had a I guess approximately 12,000 squ,000t house, but he had accessory property on there, but his property did not get close to the size of his house. Is that correct? I'm sorry. Can you say that again? The neighbor's property. You said you you referenced a neighbor that had the property. It's almost 12,000 square ft. You mentioned he had accessory building if I heard correct property, but it's not near close to the size of his house. Is that correct?

Um the I I labeled all of them on here, so no, they're much smaller. I mean, his he has one that's about 3,700 square feet. Well, two that are about 3,700 square feet and then another barn that's 26. But I mean, they're they're large, but they're much smaller. Well, okay. Everything's smaller than a 12,000 foot house. So yeah. Well, you referenced it as a as a point against your property. So could you explain how you came up with the square footage for the building that you wanted? What was the basis for that for my structure? Yes. Um so I don't have a printout of this, but I have a layout of what I want the interior to look like.

Um so I have I recently closed down a business and I have my woodworking equipment that I want to bring home. Um, partly because I want to share that and teach it to my kids, but also because I'm a I'm active with the Boy Scouts of America, um, Troop 446 and I'm a merit badge counselor for, um, Crossroads of America council and, um, I want to expand the merit badges that I offer to help kids with to include woodworking and, um, some of the things that require more project space in and larger areas. So, uh, it's basically just to put our our own my my wood shop and and personal tool stuff as well as, uh, you know, we have a tractor for the property and things like that. And the existing structures were there when we got there. They're they're both horse barns, so they're not clo they're not sealed to the elements. Um, so they're not appropriate for having tools and stuff in there because they'll end up rusting.

Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Uh, yes. Um, this new structure that you're building, it would never be used for sleeping quarters or overnight stays or anything like that. It's more of a hobby room only. Yes, absolutely. Okay. Is that all? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Um those that are uh Renee Yeah. Renee the city from Lawrence.

Hi. Good afternoon. Renee Rafa, director of public works. Um, so let's look at the handout that Mr. gave. I want to point out that the property that he referenced with the 12,000 square foot house. If you look on the bottom down here, that's four different properties. It's not one property. Yes, there's 12,000 square foot on the one property. The property to next to that has building number three and number four and then the property next to that has building number five. Those are all separate parcels. That's why that was allowed. This is a different situation and not to be considered as well because he did it I can do it. This is a different circumstance. I just want to make sure that's pointed out. Um, we did recommend denial on this petition for um, several reasons that I outlined in our report. Um, the scale and the intensity. The proposed accessory building is 3,200 square ft and it has an additional um, porch of 744 square ft. So that's a very big building. um that directly conflicts with the intent of the zoning ordinance to have your home be your main structure on the property. Having a barn and other accessory buildings that are bigger than your original structure causes an issue with zoning and that's one of the reasons. the height impact. Again, you want to you want your your home, the primary structure to be

the biggest structure, the tallest structure. There's a reason there's a code that requires accessory structures to be smaller and shorter. It's to give the appearance of dominance for the home. Um, there are several buildings already on this property. The house itself, I lost that number, uh was 1,200 square feet, 1575. We've got a horse barn that's 157 I'm sorry.

The house is 2300 ft. The horse barn is 1575. There's another barn for 690 ft and a detached garage at 660 square ft. Then you add this 3200 foot barn and a 744 square foot porch.

You've got a lot of accessory buildings on on this property and that is not the intent of this dwelling district. Yes, the barn is just right outside of the wealth protection area, but it's still taking up grass area. It's still an impervious improvement that will take up great green space on the property. It is not consistent with the comprehensive plan of our zoning code and it could set a precedent. I did not find where the petitioner had demonstrated that the strict application of the development standards create a practical difficulty for the property. Um the proposed accessory structure should remain subordinate in scale and height to the primary structure that exceeds the maximum accessory building area. It exceeds the height limitations and is not consistent with D2 zoning district and the comprehensive plan. Um, we also received two letters of remmonstrance from neighbors. One from Thomas Marks at 7540 Indian Lake. The board was pro provided their letter. I hope you all had a chance to read it. If you'd like, I can read it into the minutes. Um, this was dated April 16th. Dear Board of Zoning Appeals, I would like to voice my concern objection to the proposed development of the barn building 80 foot by 40 foot 3200 square feet at 7442 Indian Lake Road, Indianapolis, 46236. The information provided the total property approximately 9 acres with approximately 6 acres of woods and approximately 3 acres of open land with house approximately 2300 square foot a

detached garage approximately 635 ft and two barns one at 695 the other at 1575. The proposed new barn is approximately 3200 ft with a covered porch at 744. The concern objection. The new barn or workshop horse barn and existing barn total approximately 5,470 square feet which is much greater than the house of 2300 square ft. The proposed structure both current and proposed would lend themselves to commercial activities or potential accessory dwelling units. Current and future code enforcement of this property with proposed buildings for commercial use could become an issue for neighbors and the city of Lawrence based on past experiences neighbors have endured with a landscaping company, a moving company, and a tree service, use of property for commercial activities, and violations of codes and the city of Lawrence's time, energy, and tax dollars to enforce. I would like to see that the new barn does not exceed the square footage of the house and that the horse barn and existing barn be demolished. Thank you for your time, Tom Mars. The second letter received was from Jeffrey Ericson, 7456 Indian Lake Road. Uh, dear board members, I am writing to formally object to the proposed construction of an additional barn out building at 7442 Indian Lake Road. Docket 26 LSV3. Based on the information provided, the petitioner has not met the burden required for approval and the request is inconsistent with both the applicable development standards and the established character of the surrounding area. Number one, failure to meet approval standards. Burden of proof approval of a variance or development standard requires a clear demonstration that the request will not be injurous to the public health, safety, morals, and

general welfare and will not adversely affect the use and value of surrounding properties. Based on the existing conditions and the nature of the proposed use, these standards have not been satisfied. Number two, incompatibility with residential character. The addition of another large accessory structure is inconsistent with the intended residential characters of the neighborhood. The scale, intensity, and cumulative effect of multiple outbuildings on a single parcel exceed what is customary and appropriate for similarly situated residential properties. Number three, overintensification of use. The subject property already contains multiple accessory structures. The proposed addition represents an overint intensification of land use that conflicts with reasonable expectations for density, spacing, and visual harmony. This level of development is not consistent with surrounding properties and undermines neighborhood cohesion. Four, adverse impact on the adjacent properties. There's a reasonable and foreseeable negative impact on neighboring properties, including diminished property values, reduced marketability and interference with quiet enjoyment. The presence of multiple outbuildings and associated activities creates conditions that are materially different from a typical residential environment. Number five, expansion of the non-residential operational activity. There is evidence of ongoing mechanical or production related activity on the property, including hovercraft construction. The addition of another structure would reasonably facilitate expansion of these activities, increasing noise, traffic, and operational intensity beyond what is appropriate for a residential zoning district. Number six, light, noise, and

environmental impacts. Additional structures typically require exterior lighting and extended uses usage contributing to light pollution and increased nighttime activity. Combine combined with increased mechanical use. This results in a measurable degragation of the surrounding residential environment. Number seven, undermining consistent enforcement and setting precedent. Granting this request would establish a precedent that weakens the consistent enforcement of zoning standards and neighborhood covenants. If approved, similar requests could follow, resulting in incremental erosion of the residential character the board is charged with protecting. Conclusion: The petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed structure meets the required approval standards, nor that it will avoid adverse impacts on surrounding properties. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the board deny the application for the proposed outbuilding at 7442 Indian Lake Road, docket 26 LSV3. Thank you for your time and your consideration, Jeffrey Ericson.

Did the board have any questions of the city or our reports? I just have one question. Was there an effort to um work with Mr. to try to bring the building in compliance with respect. So, it's not necessarily you can't have the structure, it's the size of it. Is that correct? We've got our staff report completed first thing this morning. So, no. Um, if he'd like, we can ask for a continuence and sit down and talk about that, but even reducing it down in size, he's going to have to reduce it down to smaller than the house. Sure. And then we have to add up all the buildings. So, that is definitely a conversation we'd be willing to have. Thank you. Thank you.

Um, are there any remmonstrators? Those that are for or against the petition. Come ahead or sir. You have 10 minutes. If you could state your name for record. Doug life. Okay. Go right ahead.

Okay. This will not have near that many words. I'm a lawyer's kid and I know somebody wrote that. I've lived there for 30 years almost since 98. I live straight across from if you look at this plan on Mr. Cunan's property, it looks like three separate lots. The one that's struck across for me is empty. His house is in the middle. The other structures are lined up to it. The third one is a pasture and there's a barn and I probably lived there for 20 years before I even saw it. And he's talking about putting that barn behind it. that leaves a lot of excuse me that leaves a lot of grass and I think his property has some woods and behind it is the state park. So I don't really see that it's a drainage problem or anything like that. Concerning the rest of the neighborhood, there was some talk about, you know, comparing and now he did it and now somebody else can do it and all that. Again, I'm straight across and to the next street to at least be two houses. I tried to put up a um carport and I couldn't put it in front of my house, even though my house is excessively set back further than anybody else's. But next door to me, there's a carport that the back side of it is 30 feet from the house and almost touches the road. And the next lot almost against the road is a twocar garage is not beautiful, not twocar. It's probably three or four. It's twotory. Considerably taller than the house. A little short flat roofed house. And what else in the neighborhood? Um the large house he was talking about that is probably several parcels. I imagine Mr.

Cuans was at least two at one time. um that is owned by a man and the second house on it is provided to his uh long-term secretary who helped him build his build business and he is clearly the landlord and owner of all those residences. So I don't see how that can really be a separated issue. Not directly adjacent to my property and Mr. Cuan's There's a place on the other side of 75th that would be a quarter mile away that has a wood business and a barn way back. There's somebody who in the back of my neighborhood, this would be a half a mile away, has two barns and quite a bit of business in there. Um, and these things don't bother anybody because the amount of space in our neighborhood, the amount of space on these lots. So, I I don't see that it would be a hindrance. I would be picky about it. I look across and what is out my front window is Mr. Cun's property. So, um he asked me to come along and that's my opinion of what's there. There's there's just not that much interference. Again, like I stated, I probably live there most of the time and I walk a little bit. I never even saw the barn that's in front of where this one's going to be. So, I don't even think somebody's ever going to see the new one. I mean, if they're looking for it and looking through the trees and all that, but I was surprised there's even a barn there, the little one. I think it's red. Anyway, that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you. Does the petitioner want to come back for rebuttal?

I know I'd have another opportunity. Uh I would have taken better notes. Um the main thing that comes to mind is uh with regard with whoever it was that wrote a letter saying that there was business on the property. There's absolutely never been a business on the property. Um I did have a hovercraft business. I made uh hovercraft for fire departments and things for rescue. That's the business I closed. I don't even have anything but hand tools on the property. There's absolutely never been any hovercraft construction or anything going on there. Um I do occasionally have I take one home like if I've been out testing or something with a customer or something like that, I'll have it like in the in the lot back there until I took it back to work. But there's never been any work there of any kind and nor will there be. There's no business use to this at all. So that's all I have.

Thank you. Question. Oh, go right ahead. Go ahead. For the petitioner, what is the why behind this specific size that you're asking for?

I wish I'd brought a layout. Um, but to have a proper woodworking shop and not be cramped all the time, you need a lot of space. So like for a table saw, table saw might be the size of this podium. So it doesn't seem like very big, but if you're running lumber through it, you have to have whole distance to the lumber on one side, the whole distance of lumber on the other side coming out of the saw. Um, so that's just one example. Um, and then just you add up all those tools and it just adds up to some space. So,

thank you. There's also a router that I want to put there that takes up 15 by eight or so. It just just number things add up. Thank you. Those other accessory properties on there, so they're not um can't be utilized or not suitable to

the two store use. Okay. So, the there's a detached garage. It's like a probably a 1940s concrete block little like the bare minimum you could possibly fit two cars in. So, it's it's not really good for anything. The little barn that that Mr. Life was referring to, we have never used it for anything whatsoever. It just sits there. Um, it's I mean, it's it's ancient. It's got cracks in the wood and stuff. It it like I said earlier, it's not it's not weathertight. Um so it it can't really be used for anything. Um I think we put some wheelbarls in there, you know. Uh and then the horse barn, the previous owner had horses. So the horse barn is it looks big, but the interior space is really only the only usable part is just like a 8 foot walkway through the middle because it's horse stalls on each side with dirt floors and we don't have horses. And again, it's not airtight in any way. I mean, it's just got like a sliding door on each end.

Um, would you be willing to work with the city on figuring it out? Is that something you're willing to do?

Um, yeah, I could. is just it seems frankly the square footage thing seems silly to me because it is 9 acres of land and the the usage density compared to the average house on you know a lot is minuscule and on top of that like I said I could you know if I just put a 900 foot edition on my house there would be no issue with this barn at all either. Um, like I said, I put all these pictures together this afternoon when I found out that this was coming. So, this has been kind of a rush thing. I didn't realize that the massive estate was separate parcels. Um, but either way, the the example stands, which is just if we had a larger home, this wouldn't be an issue.

Thank you.

Thank you. I just want to do the math real quick. 3200 ft barn with a 744T porch. The existing horse barn, little barn, and detached garage are 2,925 square ft. Total, that's 6,869 square ft of accessory structures compared to a 2,300 ft home. Way out, you're it's called a 75% rule. Okay? Accessory structures, you're allowed to have 75% of the main floor. Not your second floor, not your garage, not your basement. your main floor square footage living space has way exceeds it.

Thank you. Thank you. I'd just like to ask the petitioner again, would you be willing to work with the city on figuring it out?

I'd be happy to. Um, but it sounds like the answer is just it needs to be a tiny structure that's not going to do what I needed to do. So, I mean, if I could get the space that I needed to do things, then sure. Um, so I mean, if that's what I have to do, I I'll try, but it feels like if it's going to cut the whole building in half, I'm not going to have room to do the stuff that I wanted to do with it. So it kind of I don't know. Thank you.

Would you all like to bring this to a vote or have him come back and work with the city? I'm prepared to vote.

Yeah, I'm prepared to vote. Okay, we'll move to vote. Thank you all. This has been D Knight. Um, thank you.

I'm sorry. It was unanimously denied. Sorry. Thank you. Okay, we will move on to our next uh new business. 26 LSV05 at 4700 Post Road, parcel number 4002431, City of Lawrence, LCD number two, zone C4. Autozone via Jones Company, Inc. requests a variance of development standards for the for the from I'm sorry for the city of Lawrence consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance that ought to zone um have their own freestanding sign on their parcel 744-906-1 primary freestanding signs in commercial and industrial Districts C number of signs per minute maximum one pole per street frontage if frontage to which the sign is oriented is greater than 500 ft and additional freestanding sign is permitted a minimum of 300 ft separation between freestand I'm sorry freestanding signs on site proposed post sign is located in an integrated center with existing freestanding signage. Proposed signage would exceed number of signs permitted and be located less than 300 ft from an existing sign.

Petitioner, if you could come forward. Thank you. Could you please state your name? Yes. Shane Billingsley. Thank you.

Uh, and today I'm representing um Jones Signs and um Autozone. Um, we are seeking a variant to allow the AutoZone hub to have a freestanding pole sign. Um, the uh, AutoZone has chosen 19 sites across the United States um, to have a mega hub and Lawrence was one of those areas that was selected. Um, not being able to have a pull sign is going to hinder the business. Um, this, uh, location is in an area, uh, that needs business. Um, it's an area that needs someone like AutoZone who's going to bring jobs, bring, uh, money into the area. Um, they need visibility. Um, the major concern seems to be that it's an integrated property. And if I'm correct, and I may not be, but if I'm correct, what makes it integrated is it has a shared driveway with the neighboring business. They have their own parcel. Um, as a business, um, they should be allowed to have their own sign. Um, there was already a pull sign on that existing parcel for another business. Uh the parcel with the shared driveway has their own pole sign that is 154 feet away from where we are proposing the new Autozone sign. Um we reached out to the city this morning to discuss an option of AutoZone will just make their own driveway on their parcel. Um I don't know if there's a statute against that, but the city said they didn't like that idea. The idea is to have less entrances, not more. So, AutoZone gets punished because they can't put their own driveway. So, if they can't have their own driveway, I would think they would be allowed to have their own sign or allow them to have their own driveway, which then gets rid of the integrated property discussion, which then would allow them to have their own sign. So, to me, they're getting

punished um twice uh for bringing business um to our area. Um, our hope is to work with the city to come up with some type of um, compromise to find a way um, AutoZone is willing to negotiate or uh, basically do whatever needs to be done to be able to have a sign that's visible. Um, they don't want a monument sign. Um, there's enough research out there that show that monument signs are very ineffective. U, like I said, I work for a sign company. I I check the data. Um, you know, a pole sign gives them great visibility, especially the size of it. The size is within the standards of what would be allowed um if they were to able uh to

Thank you. Thank you. Any questions from the board? Yes. Um would you happen to have that data with you

as far as like what the visibility? Well, so a monument sign at 6 ft tall u versus a sign at 20 ft tall um the visibility is 10 to 12 times greater just on the distance alone that the sign becomes visible. Um a pole sign has more eyes on it than a monument sign um just for the simple fact that you can see it from the distance. Um the dot does put that information out. Um if I thought that that was going to be a factor, I would I would have brought that information. But uh in variance meetings, we bring that up because I do a lot of digital signs and people think that they're a distraction and the DOT says actually a regular sign is much more distracting than a digital sign. But um I didn't have that with me. I'm sorry.

Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you. Well, I I I have a question. So, I want to make sure. So, your your rationale for the the poll sign is is that you feel like it would generate more business than you're currently getting. Is that the

um That's not the main re I I think they should be entitled to the sign. Um because they have their own parcel. They're not part of someone else's parcel. They just happen to share a driveway and that's not their fault. Um they're willing to make their own driveway, but the city doesn't want that. Um, so it's hard to say, well, you got a share driveway, but because you share a driveway, you can't do this. But if you had your own driveway, you could do this, but we're not going to let you have your own driveway.

So, I mean, we're just looking for some type of compromise where we can work together to come up with what's best for their business. Um, like I said, they're bringing one of 19 hubs um across the United States to Lawrence. um they could have chosen just about anywhere to go and they're going to be penalized over the fact that the neighbor has a sign that's been up for 30 or 40 years. I was just curious because if that was the case, I was going to ask you to kind of based on what how would you know that that would generate more business? Well, it's it's going to generate more business just because there's visibility. People are going to know where they're at. The um the building itself is not going to have great visibility from from post. Right. Right.

Okay. because it does sit back um you know a decent decent way from the from the road. So So your thoughts about clutter? You're you don't feel like that's too much going on there? U because if you look up I mean up and down post road there's several other instances of signs that are much closer. They were just put in there before um you know certain statues were put in place. So, we're not eliminating clutter. And I I don't think that this would be adding 150 ft between signs is I that's substantial distance.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you,

Renee. City of Lawrence. Renee Rafa, director of public works. Um, they did reach out right earlier today. They've had the report for several days and today came back and asked if they could have their own driveway. Um, I want to remind you that the purple line just went down post road and part of that, um, there's now a transit overlay district that is very specific what can and what can't be done and where things have to go. This ordinance though about the spacing between signs is not new. It's more enforced now because of the transit overlay, but there's already an auto zone two buildings away from where this hub is going. Mhm.

Um, if you look on this page of your staff report, it shows where the proposed Autozone sign is going to be and where the existing sign is and that that 154 foot difference. You can see on there the shared driveway that they share with the food mart or the uh house grill. The next page shows that they're going to have signage on the front of the building that faces Post Road. It's it's a pretty good size sign, too. It's a 46 inch channel letter sign that's, you know, going to be illuminated on the side of the building. And this building doesn't sit real real far off the road. I don't see where visibility of the new auto zone is going to be a problem. It's a 36,000 square foot building. You're going to see it. Um, let's get into the rules though that prevent this. And I also want to mention that he he u mentioned that he feels like they're being uh mistreated in some way. We have already approved two previous variances and a reasonzoning for them to be able to use this property. Um, we made a special exception to allow the 32,500 ft building. It was only allowed to have 20,000. We made an exception so they could have the size building they wanted. They also wanted an exception to the driveway width. 24 feet was allowed and they wanted to keep the 36 foot driveway. We allowed that. So, it was okay back in 2024 to share a driveway,

but now that they want a sign and we're saying no, now they want their own driveway. Surface parking limits. They wanted uh the required parking frontage limit was 40% along the front of the building. We let them exceed that to 70%. a 30% variance for parking where they wanted it. Um then we had to do another variance back in 2025. I don't know several of you were here to allow the um the parcel to be used in the way they wanted to use it. So I this the evaluation of the variance requirements public self health safety and welfare while the proposed sign may not create a direct safety hazard like obstruction of visibility triangles or anything like that. The cumulative impact of additional freestanding signage contributes to a corridor clutter which the ordinance specifically seeks to minimize. very specific about clutter. There's a reason there's a 500 foot distance to keep the clutter down. It's already cluttered with the Indigo bus line coming through there and all the traffic. Adding a sign, is it really necessary? The adjacent property impacts. The addition of another freestanding sign near an existing sign may contribute to visual congestion along Post Road. While not necessarily an injurous in isolation, it is inconsistent with the intent of the coordinated signage with integrated commercial centers. The petitioner asserts that additional signage is necessary for visibility. However, the site has already received multiple zonings, which we just talked about. The property is part of a larger

commercial center where shared signage is encouraged and expected. alternative signage options. There's wall signage, there's monument signage, there's plenty of other alternatives. They're already using wall signage. Do we do we need to make an exception for another pole sign along this busy corridor? We feel the request does not meet the intent of section 7449061, which limits the number of spacing of freestanding signs. The property is part of an integrated commercial center with shared signage is expected. They have not dist demonstrated a unique hardship that to substantially and sufficiently justify the variance when there are alternative signage options available. He doesn't want to do a monument style sign. Why? More visibility. it. Like I said, this is a 36,000 foot building. You're going to see it. Do you have any questions for me?

I have one. Uh, thank you, Renee. I'm I'm trying to remember. I know we have an advanced auto in Lawrence. Camera, do they have that freestanding sign? I don't know. Yeah, I didn't think I don't know off the top of my head. Just curious. I I know the existing Autozone that's a few doors down has a freestanding sign, right? just a couple doors down. Right. They're right. That's right. They're right there together. I can't remember if they advance. So, anything else? Thank you. Thank you, Renee. I do have another question for the petitioner if he could go ahead.

Um, you were saying you were here representing the sign company and and AutoZone. Well, as a representative of the sign company. So, yeah. Right. So, I guess I'm just trying to see really for me who's really advocating for the sign. Is it really AutoZone or is it really your company? Negotiate whatever you have to negotiate to get a sign. I mean, that's that's what their stance is. Um and um and do I get an opportunity to to talk again to re rebut some of the some of the statements that were made?

Okay. Um, so the reason why a pole sign is needed instead of a monument sign is because of visibility. Um, the fact that there's an auto zone two doors down has nothing to do with this auto zone. There's speedway stations all up and down the cities of Indianapolis right across the road right next to each other. They both get their own sign. Okay? There's no business in the world that's going to say, "Well, because there's a similar business two doors down, I really don't need a sign." Um, visibility on the building. Uh signs that run parallel to the road are not nearly as effective as signs that are perpendicular to the road. Um if you are a quarter of a mile down the road, you don't see a building sign. I challenge anyone to drive tonight and look at the signs. Um you don't see signs on the building until you're there. All right. The purpose of a perpendicular sign is so they can see it far away, which also is a good safety measure. um you don't have people locking up their brakes because oh there's Autozone. I didn't see it till I got here. I saw it a half mile away. I know I need to start preparing. Um I can see it from the intersection um at uh Post and Pendleton. I can see it uh from 42nd Street. Um both of those would be very visible from where it's at. Um we do feel that they are being punished because they share a a driveway. Um and yes, I did reach out this morning because I hadn't planned on being here. the person who does the variance came up sick and I was told last night, can you show up? Okay. Um, so I tried to get as much factf finding done um last night and this morning as I could come up with a compromise. Um, they encourage integrated signage. Autozone would allow uh the other business to add to their sign, brand new sign, and I'm sure that they would eat the cost of that sign as well. That tells you how important it is to have a sign that is perpendicular. Um the monument sign like I said at six

feet um is going to get about onetenth of the visibility that a sign does that is a pole sign. Um business is important. Um the city has made many um compensations on this and and I we appreciate that. We understand that. Um but AutoZone chose to come here. You know I mean that's kind of part of doing business. When a business says, "We're coming to your area, you make concessions." I live in Greensburg. Honda came to Greensburg and said, "We want a train track and we want an exit off of Highway 74." They got it. That's what happens. That's how business happens. Uh that's how business grows. Uh that's how communities grow. When a business says, "We'll come into your community, but you do have to give some things up." And we understand that. And we'll give too. And that's what we we want to compromise. Um, you know, we don't want to leave with a situation where there's no opportunity to get the sign. Like I said, we'll work with the neighboring business to add their sign to it. We'll do whatever needs to be done. Uh, we didn't want their our own driveway, but if that eliminates the integrated property, which I do believe if you if you look in the statute, the integrated property is because they have a shared driveway. Yes, they wanted it to keep it 36 feet um because there will be semi-trailers pulling in. That was just more beneficial. Um does it have to be 36 feet? No, it doesn't have to be. Um but they elected not to change that down to the 24 ft. Um that was, you know, a decision and the city allowed that to happen and like I said, we're thankful for that. Um at the time, they didn't realize that having a shared driveway was going to prevent them from having the sign. Can Can you clarify? So So what is the compromise? I'm not You said you willing to compromise. What is that?

Wants to come up if they can give us, you know, like I said, we would compromise by eliminating the food mart sign and adding their sign onto a brand new sign for AutoZone. Um you could have the AutoZone sign at top, food mart below it. Both that's beneficial for both people. Um the food market's a brand new sign and actually what would be a little bit better location. Um the compromise like I said would be we could even move the sign farther down to get closer to that 300 ft. I don't think they have enough space to get to 300. I think they can get to about 250 to 275. Um just looking at the site plan. Um like I said, you know, I'm not going to, you know, quote that it's exactly 250 or 200, but it's in that range. Just close to 300. They I mean they can get close. um they just really want to have a sign because of the magnitude of this being one of only 19 stores across the country.

I have another question. Yes, sir. Um so you touched on visibility. Has this business been affected by I guess lack of visibility? It's not open yet. Okay.

So that's Yeah. So, it's uh like I said, we they did get a much bigger building, which you know, the city allowed, and like I said, we're thankful for that. That's more opportunities, you know, uh for the community as well. Um you know, Lucas Oil, we all know where Lucas Oil Stadium is. Then keep them from having giant signs. I mean, because people want to know. Um it doesn't matter how big a building is, it still needs, you know, you need to know where it's at. You need to know how to get there. Um, you know, like I said, and I'm using the biggest building around as the example, there's plenty of signs around Lucas Oil say Lucas Oil, and there's also a big sign right out in front of whole sign. Um, because they understand the importance of knowing exactly where our business is.

Any other questions? I I I do just from the marketing perspective, I get and I get the idea of the sign. Is that the only means of mechanism that you're going to use? cuz it it is a big going to be a big facility. I mean 36,000 ft² but I see with your point you can't see it neurally until you get to a certain space from it. But is there other things that you're going to be doing to drive visibility or make awareness that this that this auto zone is there? I mean does it just got to be this sign? Is that like the it all?

No, but that's just you know I mean that's kind of the uh the standard. you know, I you see very few businesses um across the the country that that don't have poll signs. Um small businesses have my but you know, I've never driven past a McDonald's or a gas station or any franchise. Um you know, Dunkin' Donuts, Starbucks, you you name it. They all have a poll sign. Um and they have the money to understand uh the importance of that poll sign. and they're not spending it just, you know, they're not doing the research uh just to do it. Uh they understand what sells and and the pulse sign does. That's why they're all up and down um the interstates and everywhere else because it's all about visibility. Every company wants visibility to bring more people in. And the more people that come in, the more funds, more taxes. Um you know, it's beneficial to the community. And like I said, it's not like it's something that's not uh uncommon. So the size of the sign is not uncommon. the location is not and there are plenty of other areas along Post Road that do have clutter. Um, this wouldn't be. There's a lot of signs that probably should be removed to be honest because they are eyes sores. This isn't an eyesore and this is a very nice wellfabricated sign.

I'm sorry. I do have a question. Sure. Um, and it it may require the city of Lawrence as well, but has there been discussion or was there discussion on um your collaborative effort with the food mart and their signage, the the combination of the two? No, not at this time. Um, I I brought that up and like I said, they gave me a lot of latitude. Um, and the city had just said in in uh their presentation that it's encouraged for integrated signs. So being the bigger of the two companies, AutoZone, you know, I think they would take on um that opportunity.

Is this something where you would like to come back have a discussion with the city around that signage opportunity, maybe the other company as well? Is is that something I would be up for that? Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. City of Lawrence but we're always always ready to to have conversations and try to find alternatives. So absolutely we would sit down and have that conversation and I could probably get behind if we removed a couple signs doing an integrated sign and and then we don't have the spacing issue.

Right. So I mean that would solve the problem but it has to be an agreement. We need the house grill and and those other people to agree to that and you know autoone to for them to come to an agreement and then present it to the city is what needs to happen. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Um are there any remmonstrators that are for or against this petition? You're welcome to come forward. Okay. Thank you. Um, would we like to continue or vote? No, I would like to make a motion to continue. Uh, what is this case? Um,

oh yeah, continue. 26 LS VO5. Second. Affirmed. Thank you. We need to vote. Oh, I'm sorry. Can we clarify it's continued with notice, please? Continued with notice. So, add it. Yes. Vote all in favor of the continuence. Vote all in favor of continuence. I

eyes have it. Thank you. All right. The Lawrence Board of Zoning Appeals is a journ. Yes. Is there any time for public public speech? Not at these meetings. You can't speak about each individual position as no publicity