Board of Zoning Appeals - Special Meeting

I have no idea. I have not seen him, but I did leave the door open.

You may want to try All right, y'all. We'll get started here shortly. We're just giving Sam Payne a quick minute if he gets here or not. Who's Sam Payne? Sam will not be here. He's in the hospital. That's That's what I thought. I did not know that. Just so you know, is having has had major surgery. So, I just got off the phone with his daughter. Okay. Thank you for letting me know, Shane. That's what I had thought.

I had no idea. I'd say we don't have a Don't we have to have Well, I don't know. Maybe not. Maybe we're good. So, we can ask majority, correct? Yeah.

All right, y'all. We to work. All right, we'll go ahead and uh get this meeting started. Before we get going here, I want to remind everyone um if you guys wish to speak, make sure your guys' name and address is recorded. Um that way when you guys get to the podium, we know who's speaking today. Um there's multiple people. Keep your guys' time limited and respectful. Uh, with that said, I'll go ahead and call this special meeting for March 25th to order. Can we have a roll call, please? Mike Nichols here. Scott Highlander here. Isaac Chavez, present.

Charles Bates, Sain. All right, we got a roll call moving forward here. We'll take a look at the minutes from November 20th. These minutes might be something we at the table here due to attendance. I take a motion to table the or no, I'm sorry, wrong ones.

Yeah, I take a motion to table the minutes from November 20th. So move. I will second. First and a second. Can we get roll call, please? Mike Nichols. Hi. Scott Highlander. I. Isaac Chavez. Hi. Taking a look at the minutes from January 24th or January 14th, I'm sorry. We'll have to do the same. Open a motion to table the minutes from January 14th. Make a motion to table the minutes. First, we got a second. I'll second. All right. First and a second. Roll call, please. Mike Nicholls. Hi. Scott Highlander. Hi.

Isaac Chavez.

Hi. All right, we'll make it forward here. Keep things going with the agenda. Just want to double check here that we've had no conflict of interest from the board of the petitions being heard today. All right, hearing none. Keep things rolling. Today we're going to be looking at public hearing docket 2026-002. Petitioner is stamped Frankfurt Sewing LLC requesting a special exception and six developmental standard variances for the following. The special exception is to allow a medical clinic in an industrial zoned district. The six variances are for parking spaces and required buffer yards. Liz, can we please have the staff report? Yes. Good evening. Um, all right. So, first off, I'm Louisis Ditzell. I think most of you know me, but helping you guys out with some planning uh duties. Well, I think the mayor is figuring out how she wants to handle planning long term. So, went ahead and prepared a staff report for you for tonight. Um, as you noted, the applicant is stamped Frankfurt S O I N and we're looking for a special exception for a medical health clinic, which is use 9.05, medical and dental offices. And then there's six developmental standard variances um from impervious surface for a parking lot in a front yard setback for a parking lot in a required side buffer yard area, parking in the required State Road 28 green space, and then uh

reductions to required plantings and mounding for the State Road 28 green space, and reductions to parking lot perimeter plantings required in the State Road 28 overlay. Um, I would note from the get-go that this is a situation where uh you can do different things with different requests. Sometimes when requests come to the BCA, they're interdependent where you kind of have to handle them all or none. But this is a situation where you could approve a special exception and then do different things with different variances. So you uh can choose when you get to the point of making motions how you want to organize those. If you want to do everything together or if you want to do things in different subsets based on how you feel. Um, this property in particular is zoned industrial as is all the property surrounding it in all directions. In 2004, the state road 28 overlay standards were adopted uh both in the city of Frankfurt as well as in the unincorporated areas surrounding to guard Frankfurt's gateway. There was a large planning effort to create those documents. Um, those are the there's a primary and a secondary tier. If you're not familiar, the primary tier is the stuff that fronts 28 and then the secondary is behind that. And the primary tier has the most restrictive standards out of the two tiers. The neighboring hotel, which is next to this, is a non-conforming site. It was constructed in 1997 before the overlay adoption. Um, but in this case, uh, when we'd initially looked at this, I thought it also had been constructed in the '9s, but it was not. Uh it was actually constructed under the previous a previous city administration several back uh with a previous administrator that issued permits for the site after annexation without having sent the site through city plan commission for plan review or the board of zoning appeals for developmental variances. Nor was compliance with planning and zoning regulation at that time done by either the developer um or caught by the city office. So, it turns out that it's actually an illegal site by zoning definition. Uh staff does not feel it would be appropriate to attempt to

remove the building or parking lot or force it to fully comply because even though it's not legal non-conforming, a permit was issued to build it. Um and the fact that a previous administrator acted outside of their authority and error does not change the fact either that it is illegal with respect to its compliance or the fact that it was built. So, we just have to in this in cases like this work with it as best we can from where we are now because neither the current owners who were not the developers nor uh any of you as decision makers can go back and undo what's already there. Um but parts of the ordinance that talk about legal non-conformities and the rights that they have do not apply to this site. Um in terms of site characteristics, this is at the southwest corner of West State Road 28 and South 200 West. It's lot four in the Frankfurt commercial park. There's three separate units inside inside this building. Two are rented by governmental entities which are a permitted use in the industrial district. All districts actually um and those are the bureau Bureau of Motor Vehicles and Child and Family Services. The hope is to rent the third unit to Valley Oaks for a mental health clinic, but since that is a special exception use in the industrial district, that brings it before this board. Uh Clinton County has been working for some time uh to find a replacement service for Howard Community Health to serve local mental health needs. Uh right now people have been having to travel to Cookamo or Lafayette to help you know for the last or to get help for the last few years when they're dealing with mental health crisises. Valley Oaks has agreed to locate offices in the community and they believe this building is the best option for them. The site does have enough parking and space to meet the unified development requirements for a medical clinic. So that's important because regardless of what you do with the variances, u there's already enough parking there to meet standards. Whether they choose to add additional or not is is a different topic than if you can approve the uses meeting the standards that exist in your ordinance. Um the reason they are considering more spaces

that generate the variances is Valley Oaks has a number of part-time employees that don't work full-time. So the zoning ordinance calculates parking by whole employees, but in this case, you've got several part-times that their shifts overlap. So that generates just a few more people than what would normally be anticipated when you do a square footage calculation or you look at just doctors in a conventional clinic. Um there are on the second page, third page, uh there's a site plan that shows you this from above um on the aerials and shows uh we'll get into variances after the special exception, but it shows where that parking lot is going to be. The actual clinic itself will be entirely within the existing building. No exterior changes to the building other than some building mounted signage are planned. So there's no concerns there with regards to the ordinance. There's some photographs on the fourth page um just to help you see what's at the site. I'm not going to read through it in complete detail, but I did include since it seemed like um when your previous administrator was doing staff reports, he put your ordinances in full. So, I wanted to stay the same format, I did include all the ordinances that relate on pages or I guess page five, but they're lengthy. So, unless we need to go back and reference them, I'm not going to make you sit through me reading them. And uh so I'm going to move with that into the special exception request analysis and look at that first. So in seeking an approval for a special exception use um there's a series of findings that must be found to be met in order to approve that. If any of them are not found to be met then you have to deny. So first the proposed use conforms the district provisions in which it will be located in the general regulations of the ordinance. A clinic is a special exception in the industrial district. So it may or may not be appropriate in a given location. There's no additional specific standards for this use. It is able to meet all required parking standards. Um, and there's no additions being planned for the building. So, regardless of the variances, all requirements will be met if the board

approves the special exception. They do plan to put a building mounted sign on. We've checked that and it also conforms with the regulations. So, the finding would appear to be met. to the proposed use shall not involve an element or cause a condition that may be dangerous, injurious or noxious to any other person or property and shall comply with the performance standards herein. So again, while this requires a special exception, this is going to be all inside the building similar to other professional offices. And while it is handled differently by the zoning ordinance because governmental entities uh often kind of give themselves permission to be in any district, functionally speaking, it's really pretty similar. Uh everything's inside. people are going to come in, get what they need, and then go out. There's no act or outdoor activity or or anything that would be different in function. Um the immediate neighboring properties are road ride ofway on two sides and a three sides actually and a shared retention pond. So there's there's no indication that there'd be any issue created there. Um the proposed use shall not involve an element or cause a condition that may be dangerous, injurious, noxious to any other properties and persons. Um there's no reason to think there'd be anything dangerous, injurious or noxious. Finding appears to be met. Uh the proposed use shall be sighted, oriented, and landscaped. The relationship of its buildings and grounds to adjacent buildings and properties do not impair health, safety, general welfare, or comfort, nor adversely affect values. Again, with road, rideways and a retention pond most immediately there and then the hotel and the the John Deere on the other side. Um would not appear that this is going to have a detrimental effect. In fact, uh normally when you keep space in a building rented, you have better uh cash flow for the owners, which results in uh better maintenance of the building and a positive effect on the adjacent area. So, the finding would appear to be met for the proposed juice shall produce a total environmental effect consistent with and not harmful to the environment of the neighborhood and will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses already legally permitted in the district. uh staff does not

anticipate that a clinic would have any effect positive or negative on the environment of the neighborhood or the improvement of surrounding properties given that it'll be entirely in the existing building. So finding appears to be met. Five, the proposed use shall organize vehicular access and parking to minimize conflicting traffic movement on adjacent streets. There's 34 spaces here already, which is more than the ordinance requires for all three uses added together. All the parking is off street and no new curb cuts are being created. So there should not be any change in the current traffic flows um anticipated. The standard would appear to be met. Six. The proposed use has taken or will take adequate measures to provide utilities, access, roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities. Uh this one's fairly simple with this regard because again, it's all in the existing building. So there's not changes taking place in these areas. Seven, the proposed use shall promote the objectives of the ordinance and be consistent with the city of Frankfurt's comprehensive plan. So, the unified development ordinance clearly states that this is a special exception use, meaning it may be appropriate to approve in the industrial district in some situations. This particular site is too small for industrial uses and this existing building is better suited to office space than general industry. As a result, approving the use would seem to promote the objectives of the ordinance. The 2035 comprehensive plan generally does note that industrial districts are primarily for industrial users. It also readopts the 2004 State Road 28 overlay plan which indicates this area is for general industrial. Neither document however gets into a parcel by parcel detail or discusses how to handle these area this area where you're blending older development patterns and newer ones and they're merging which is kind of right around uh 200 West which was annexed in the early 2000s. So given all of that staff thinks that this proposed juice is still consistent with the comprehensive plan for two reasons. First, it's a clinic to meet mental health needs. Mental health, much like medical and dental, uh is a need that's

widespread through all demographics of a local population, including those who work in industrial parks. So, a clinic that in a par on a parcel that's too small in a building that already exists, um will serve and support people through the community, including the employees of the industrial uses around this site. And two, um again, this site is not most suited to industrial uses. Approving it does not reduce or limit the ability of the industrial district around it to continue to be used as planned in the comprehensive plan. Uh but it does place a supporting use in an existing location that's unlikely to ever have a factory built on it because of the businesses that are already in this commercial subdivision. Approving a use on this site for a medical clinic does not undermine the comprehensive plan goals for the area. It just allows an existing building to be fully utilized um that's not most suited to industrial uses. So, this finding would appear to be met. Uh, consequently, staff recommends to approve the special exception based on the findings in the staff report incorporated in the motion by reference. And I'm going to pause here because I'm not I'm new to working with you guys. So, I don't know if you want to discuss the special exception and then handle it first and then move to the variances or if you want me to present the next the the remaining pages which are more lengthy on the variances and then come back to all of it. What's your preference? Uh, Alicia, would we be okay to continue hearing the staff report and then approving all one motion?

Um, I would probably approve the special exceptions uh separate from the um the variances, but you can hear all of the staff report and then do a motion to accept the special exceptions and a motion to accept the variances or deny them. Um, but I would do those separate just in case there are any conditions that we want to apply or anything like that. Okay. I think we will do them separate but at the end. Is that okay with the board? I I just assume do them separate. Yes. Okay. All right. So, we'll continue with the staff report and then do that at the end. Does that sound good? Yeah. All right.

Okay. Perfect. Not a problem. Um All right. So, I'm going to move now to analyzing the developmental variances, the six of them. And I'll try my best to keep this clear. It jumps around a little bit. Um hopefully you guys have looked at the staff report and will be able to track with me uh for the record. So in the unified development ordinance there's three findings that have to be found affirmatively in order to grant a variance. The first is that the approval will not be injurious to public health safety morals and general welfare of the community. So, first off, with regards to the impervious surface request, uh Dan Sheets last fall provided a report when the BCA was originally going to hear an impervious surface variance on this site that was withdrawn and he confirmed that all the drainage on the site flows to the retention pond to the west and there is sufficient capacity for anticipated runoff. Um I did double check with him to make sure nothing had changed when I wrote the staff report and he confirmed that uh that would still be the surveyor's opinion. So this variance would not seem to have any injurious effect and that finding would be met. Second, uh the variance for parking in the required front yard and the variance for parking in a required green space. So I've sort of combined those because in the overlay the green space is the first 60 foot adjacent to 28. And then your required set front setback in your industrial area is kind of within that. So you're basically looking at the same area with just two different regulations affecting it. So, in this case, we've got an existing parking lot that um while illegal, has not generated complaints or issues that staff is aware of in terms of anything injurious. Um and it was issued a permit at the time that it went in. So, staff would not find that uh granting a variance to allow an expansion of that in line is going to do any additional harm beyond what's already there. Three, variance for parking in a required buffer yard. Uh, so this actually refers to the side buffer yard and we got a final site plan um after there was an error on Beacon that was corrected and it turns out there's going to be 21 ft

remaining of grass between the new parking addition and the west property line. So uh the required buffer yard there needs depending on what option they select 10 to 20 foot in width. So in this case the variance is simply not needed as long as nothing's changing in their site plan uh for going to the side they have adequate room. when they first had looked at this with what was on Beacon, they thought they'd be going right to that side property line. Uh there was a uh a significant error in where that was drawn that we were able to get corrected with the surveyor's office. Um next, the variance for reducing or eliminating plantings and green space and the required parking lot perimeter planting. So again, as I go through this, I'm combining these two variances into one conversation because we're basically talking about the same area. Um and so I felt like they really should be handled together. There's no practical reason to separate them. So, this sits between two legal non-conforming uses built in the late 1990s. There's not ever been a burm here, and the lack thereof would not seem to be injurious. There's also no room between this parking lot and the front property line um to put both the required 6t of parking perimeter plus the 60ft green space. Even if we were going to argue about one or the other, uh there's just simply not space. There's about 10 foot between the north edge of the parcel and where the pavement is that the existing lot is and then they would expand into. Um losing connect connectivity for pedestrians uh in staff's opinion is actually more injurious in general to the overall community plans than having fewer plantings. The two legal non-conforming properties do meet the required front setbacks for the base district. At the time of construction, it was 40 foot for Liberty Chevy, which is now your uh John Deere. And that was built in 93. And then they added some parking lot to sit at about 35 ft. I didn't do the research to figure out if that was a legal or illegal addition to the parking lot since we're not looking at that site today. Um and the hotel is a Holiday Inn that was in the B4 district and had a 25 foot setback, but was built at 35. um

sidewalk has been extended partway between the city and these properties with the last state road 28 project. We anticipate it's going to continue to extend uh as the state continues to do work. Uh this property is designed in a way that it does create a challenge for getting a sidewalk across the front when everything else legal non-conforming was actually built a setback except for this and so there's adequate room on them but not on this one. So staff feels the finding is met with respect to the burm and in terms of installing the full landscaping, but staff's not sure it is fully met with regards to granting 100% variances that result in permanently having no landscaping at all and having no provisions whatsoever for the required pedestrian connectivity that should have had space reserved for it in the 60oot green space area if the site had followed the rules when it was constructed. So that finding is partly met by staff's opinion. Um, two, the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. So again, moving back to the impervious surface as the first one, this building predates the 2023 unified development ordinance, which is where the city first added impervious surface standards. Um, there's many standards that are the same between the ordinances, but that's new. That said, all the storm water drains into an approved retention pond, which does have adequate capacity. So, um, this finding would seem to be met. there wouldn't be any concern. Two variants for parking in the required front yard and parking in required green space. Uh so again, we've got an existing parking lot that's already there that we've not had complaints. Um it would appear that adjacent property is not being affected negatively and adding six parking spaces is not likely to change that. So the finding would be met for those. Uh three, the variance for parking in the required buffer yard. Um again, there was that error to the side setback. So, as long as nothing's changed in their site plan, since that was revised, this variance is just simply not needed for them to add that parking. Um, and finally, variance for reducing or eliminating the plantings in the green

space and the parking lot perimeter plantings. So, eliminating the BMS and reducing the plantings would not affect adjacent property negatively, but lacking a green space plan that allows for pedestrian connectivity does. um especially as we've got a hotel sitting further out from Frankfurt that currently when people walk from that they're walking in 28 and ultimately the plans say they would have some way of walking off the road um in that design and our green space loses us where that's supposed to go. So three, the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. So again back to the impervious surface request um and again this building predates that 2023 unified development ordinance. So this site already is at the maximum that was adopted for the district um in 2023. So any addition of anything at all no matter what they do bounces them into needing that that variance. So the finding would appear to be met. They don't have a way to avoid that. Um two uh the variances for parking in the required front yard and in the required green space. So, um, again, as we previously noted, uh, the permits for this were issued without the required reviews and compliance on the ordinances that were on the books at the time. Um, and the owner back then who developed it, put it in that way. The current owner was not involved in that. They purchased it as is. Uh, it would logically be a practical difficulty to expect the owner to pick up, move, or remove that parking lot that's been there for 18 years. given where the building was placed, even if somebody were to try to move it, there's really nowhere to go with it. You've got a road on the other side, anywhere you put that parking without moving the building is going to create uh different sets of variance requests. So given the lack of options, it would seem that having a lot impinge on required setbacks is unavoidable and extending it um is not going to make that worse. So they would have a practical difficulty with regards to that and the finding would be met. Um,

three variants for parking in the required buffer yard. Um, again noting with this one, this variance isn't needed. Um, with the revised site plan, they've got 21 foot of setback. And, uh, the buffer yard, depending on how many plantings go in it, is between 10 and 20 foot wide. So, even if they went with the widest option, they they have no impingement on it. Um and finally, the variance for reducing and eliminating the plantings in the green space and the required parking lot perimeter plantings. Um there is undoubtedly a practical difficulty in terms of fitting a burm and the full required green space plus the parking lot perimeter plantings and the sidewalk space in the room available. In fact, you'd be partway back into the building and there wouldn't be room left on the lot beyond that to build anything. So there's no question there's practical difficulty here irregardless of the fact that it didn't come through the proper variances it should have gotten before it built. It would have needed some at that time if it had come through and probably would have obtained them because of the size of the lot. Um so it would not be appropriate to attempt to move that existing parking lot or change what's there and uh adding on to that parking lot in general also would not increase the problem that we're looking at on the site. That said, staff does not see a practical difficulty that prevents any consideration at all of pedestrian connectivity across the lot or any additional plantings of any kind. Um, it might be appropriate by staff's opinion to discuss a compromise to improve the situation while also legalizing what's there in terms of the parking lot. So, future owners, there wouldn't be a question about the legality of that. We've discussed it in today's um hearing. So staff feels that space could be reserved for future sidewalk. Um and then a smaller set of plantings could be installed in front of or to either side of the parking lot. Staff did note the surrounding land is ill-maintained and overgrown. So shrubs are unlikely to have much impact on the site. And large evergreens are bushy at

the bottom and would take space not available between the parking lot and the parking lot, property line and parking lot. Um and make fitting a walkway in around them difficult. Um, additionally, staff noted that smaller or narrow deciduous or evergreen trees might be most appropriate because there are some overhead electric lines in INDOT's rideway adjacent to the property. So, a giant 60-oot tree that gets out and gets really bushy is just going to end up being hacked off if it grows. It wouldn't be appropriate in this site. So, staff would find that this the finding for this variance request is partially met. Um and staff would support a significant partial but not 100% complete variance from these standards. Um and uh staff will note uh and I think that the applicant will clarify when they speak. Uh staff and the applicant are not in full agreement on how we view those findings. So the BCA will have to work out how they feel. Uh but they were provided with a staff report and we knew we had different viewpoints on it going in. So um leading then to the recommendations on the variance. First, staff would recommend to approve the developmental variances from um 304, 308.06g, and 402.16B uh for the and to make them to include the existing parking lot. So, there's no question about the legality thereof moving forward. Uh based on the findings in the staff report incorporated in the motion by reference with the following condition, the applicant would agree to allow future pedestrian infrastructure to be placed on the northern 10 foot of the lot as needed in the event that walkways are extended from the east across their site in the future in order to preserve that part of the intent of the required green space. Um that I do not believe a VZA would have waved the requirement for had they properly heard this uh back when it was built. Um, separately, staff would recommend to partially approve the developmental variances for 402.16E and G. That's your uh parking lot

perimeter plantings and your green space plantings. Uh, with the following notes on that partial, granting a 100% variance from the earth and mound or burm requirement in the green space. Granting a 100% variance from parking lot perimeter plantings on the north side. granting an 80% variance from parking lot perimeter plantings on the west and south sides. Um to modify it from three shade trees, two ornamental trees, and 20 shrubs to simply five trees of any type the applicant wishes spaced west and south of the new lot area. Um as there's no restriction on those sides to space. And then a 60% variance from planting requirements on the north side to reduce the requirement from three. Well, I'm going to do the total. I think you can kind of read it, but the total along that front would be eight shade, five ornamental, and 25 shrubs to just reduce that to 10 trees of any type spaced along the north side with the recommendation that slender, upright, or medium ornamental varieties like an arborite or decorative plum that won't enter power lines are selected. Um, and just accept that this lot is never going to fully meet what the intent was. um but try to do the best we can to meet what the intent of the comprehensive plan and the ordinances are. And then finally, staff would recommend to deny the developmental variance request from UDO 306.12C simply because it's unneeded based on the submitted site plan. Um and uh that would be based on the findings of the staff report incorporated by reference. Staff would um additionally note that while a board of zoning appeals is prohibited by state law from approving or denying a petition based upon financial cost or financial criteria, it does bear noting that staff disagrees with the applicant stance that planting anything at all of any kind is cost prohibitive and staff does not feel that planting 15 trees with the applicant's freedom to choose the varieties and types is cost prohibitive by default. staff is certainly willing to reach out to soil and water boy scouts and other local groups to see if someone wants to

help the developer as a community project um which the developer suggested they would prefer. Um, but even if the developer gets the trees themselves, many trees that would be suitable locally have a cost under 30 a tree, assuming you're planting them small and not trying to buy something that's 10 years old and uh 6 feet tall, which would be less than 500 total and can be planted fairly quickly in spring or fall as they are just small, you know, trees, not things that are large and require a gigantic hole. Additionally, staff would note soil and water does give away native trees on Arbor Day each year locally, which could be an option for some or all of these depending on what varieties they op offer. A 210 square foot parking area addition, depending on the base and the paving surface selected, is generally expected to cost between 5,000 and 15,000. So, landscaping costs for what staff proposes would be around 3 to 10% of the cost of the lost lot addition depending on the exact cost of the lot versus the plantings. So, um, staff just wanted to point out in their opinion that I did take into consideration, um, whether or not it was, you know, an insanely high expense. I would note the expense that this site complied, um, with everybody else who's, you know, in that area would be substantially higher, but staff doesn't feel that it's uh, unreasonable out the gate. That said, um the variance requests were for complete waiverss. So the BCA can grant up to a complete waiver or anything less than that because you can grant less than but not more than whatever is requested. And if you have questions for me uh later on, I'll be available.

Thank you, Liz. Um at this time, we'll call the petitioner to speak additionally.

Thank you. Uh my name is Brian Foxworthy. My address is 11234 East Hyro Circle in Zensville 46077. I'm here on behalf of the property owner uh Delo uh regarding the request for a special exception and associated associated variances for the property at the southwest corner of 28 and county road 200. Uh at a high level, this is a very straightforward request. We're not proposing any expansion to the building or any changes in the overall character of the site. We're simply looking to lease an existing vacant suite to Valley Oaks for a mental health clinic. Something that serves a real and growing need in this community. From a land use perspective, this fits naturally with what already exists on the site. The building is currently occupied by the BMV and child and family services. So, this continues that same office and service serviceoriented use. Everything happens within the building and we don't anticipate any negative impacts to the traffic, noise, or the surrounding properties. Importantly, the site already meets the required parking under the ordinance. This request for a small parking expansion is simply to accommodate operational preferences by Valley Oaks, not because the site's deficient. We understand and appreciate staff's Liz in particular, uh, analysis and recommendations. This is an older site that predates many of today's standards, and we recognize the importance of working toward better alignment where it's reasonable to do so. To that end, uh we are supportive of staff's re recommended conditions. Specifically, uh we are comfortable reserving space along the frontage for future pedestrian connectivity and we are willing to incorporate the reduced landscaping plan as outlined in the staff report. Our goal here is to be practical and collaborative allowing a muchneeded community service to occupy an existing building while making reasonable improvements to the site where feasible. We believe the request meets all of the findings for the spe special exception and that the variance request particularly as conditioned by staff are justified given the existing conditions

of the property. We respectfully ask for your approval this evening. Uh happy to answer any questions. All right. Thank you. At this time we'll go ahead and take questions and open discussion to the public. I have a question. Liz mentioned that you guys disagreed on something. And it sounded like you just agreed to uh the the uh plantings.

So So I So we we're okay with adding five plantings on the south and west side expansion um up front on the northern side of the property. Adding 10 plantings on property we wouldn't own, we don't own is where we're having a hard time. But the the south and the west locations we can we can do that. Well, that's um

so again uh Dell Deo uh with Stamp Development as well and Brian's on our team. Um 10 uh 101 West Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. Um yeah, we originally bought this site. We do a lot of development work for the state of Indiana. So when we originally came to Frankfurt was to uh help the state establish. First of all, the Department of Child Services had a horrible location downtown that just was having a bunch of issues. So, we worked with them and then BMV. And then, which leads into this is that what's so very interesting is the only reason any of us are here is because we're trying to give Valley Oaks better access to the front for their people to access mental health services. Everything that's here, we don't need to do. um you know so like putting in a parking lot is what's being done in order to accommodate the tenant and you know is there is it a requirement that has to be done for the tenant they are they would like it to happen and I I think we see it as good now as far as planning goes and things like that what we've always talked about is expanding the building so planting trees and then ripping out trees after you've planted them for three or four years just didn't seem to make a lot of sense especially in the front of the area so our property line ends right where the front is. So, I'm not sure where you guys are going to put a sidewalk and I'm not sure where I'm where you're going to allocate area for trees. So, that is actually the property line in the state of Indiana where it sits today. Um because we we basically have built up kind of to where our property line is.

The survey and the the documents show there's actually there's 10 foot of green space there. It's got a little slope, but it could be reconfigured. when you run a sidewalk, you're gonna have to reconfigure anyway for whatever you're on. But there is there is some space there between the parking lot, right? And we have no problem with allowing the city to do that. So, but that's not something that like you're talking about ter you're talking about going down 10 feet and bringing up dirts and then planting trees in the record. So, I guess I would note like who or where nothing in this motion is dictating who's paying for what. And I will note if you do a building expansion, the State Road 28 overlay says then at that point you're going to have to put in the sidewalk that complies irregardless of what's on both sides because I'm going to buy and put more land in and make it

larger. So I guess I just want to know when you get to that point if that's the way that you go, some of these conversations will come back up. It sure will because of the building and some of them may come back here. Um, but so I deliberately didn't try to specify in that whether you were paying for a sidewalk or the city was paying for a sidewalk. Just that there was supposed to be when it was created space for that in the in that 60 foot. Obviously, there's no 60 foot there, but making sure everyone's on one page that like there does

asking us to put in trees and sidewalk or not sidewalk, but you're asking us to put in trees. I'm asking you to recognize that you're reserving space for a future sidewalk of unknown width but not more than 10 foot. Um be recognized up there if you'd gone through a proper site plan and development plan process. Not you but the previous owner. Uh that would have been designated on all your adoption. Which makes a lot of sense why there wasn't a sidewalk there because it's an industrial district and the only place I've ever seen sidewalks in industrial district is in Whitestown because they just build it all brand new. So that that makes a lot of sense why there's no sidewalk why there's no sidewalk there. Plus, it's surrounded by a detention pond to the west and then there's also a huge ditch in the front to the north.

So, the part that not being local, like our long-term plans would actually state that sidewalks are going all the way out and there's other places we're trying to reach in the city is now annexed all the way out to the interchange. So, that's going to get developed as time goes on to be urban rather than rural. Um, but no, my only point there is it's the trees and that. I mean, the board can decide, but I want to make sure you know if you're asking about costs on sidewalks, if you expand the building, then irregardless of what else is happening around or what programs I'm going to buy this lot, those conversations are going to be part of it. 100%. Yeah. But today, that's not what we're doing. All we're doing is providing parking so that Apple Valley Health can canop Valley Oaks Health can have better access.

And that commitment does not require you to install a sidewalk. It just requires you to state that that front twin foot is reserved. That conversation are required. That is what you're required. Um I think what I recommended was five spread between the south and the the west in lie of the more dense parking lot perimeter planting and side buffer yard plantings that would normally be in that area.

And that's the confusion. but leaving you with freedom leaving you with freedom to figure out what species and exactly how you want to set them so that you can try to work with your site. So, so if you guys So, you're you're saying the the west and the south side you're good with. The front side the front the front side you're not good with. But the my question about the front side is where you would where you could plant on the front side would later be have to be taken up to put a sidewalk there. Liz, is that correct? Is that the same property that would have to be turned into a sidewalk or could be turned into a sidewalk? That's that's my question. My question is if we planted trees in the front, would that be planting trees in the part that may have to be a sidewalk? If the trees were planted in front as requested to does that is that same ground the ground that will be in the future probably be a sidewalk. I think it would depend on the sidewalk alignment and on the width of the sidewalk. That's going to depend on design. There's no way to know. I think staff definitely recommend picking not gigantic trees, not things that have a lot of spread, but looking at more conicle upright. So, but so, so if so, if we did if we asked uh if we we approved uh the side the west and the south the west side and the south side trees and disregarded allow for the front side, we we'd everybody be happy, right?

Correct. On their side, I don't know that I would Yeah. I mean, depends on who you're asking. Yes, that's true. Um, you know, staff would feel that if you know, the things that we don't know at this point in time and have no way to know, um, but but there's there's good potential there'll be sidewalk out there.

If you did a five foot sidewalk and then you had 5 foot green, there are lots of upright street type trees that can grow in a 4x4 area without any issue. Conversely, if this goes in with a street project and INDOT ends up aligning the sidewalk down in the rightway instead of up here, now there's nothing that conflicts with trees. So the trees may or may not, you know, have an issue down the road, but if they're waved completely, there'll never be any semblance of the look that was the goal. And no other site has ever gotten a complete waiver. Um there's been lots of strong modifications because of issues, but everything has always tried to move closer. So I think where staff why I came at it is that um to make it the only one to just completely ignore. Now, I definitely think, you know, other options are those front trees don't necessarily have to be put in a perfect line. They could be, you know, kind of grouped or tried to set more to corners. I mean, there's different ways. I tried to leave some freedom in how I wrote the staff report for some choice. If I was planting them, I would probably pick something that's conicle and handles being on streets and around salt fine and sits closer to the parking lot rather than down the hill closer to the property line so that there would be room for this, you know, if it was a say a five foot sidewalk for it to sit, you know, next to the trees, but there's no way to know all that at this point. Um,

true. We just staff has a concern about eliminating the possibility of it ever being right. And I'd like to add too that you know visibility for these our tenants is very important. People knowing where they are. So if we have trees and I know they can be we talked about them starting small but trees grow um blocking off signage visibility you know that's just going to affect our tenants visibility. So just want to make note of that. And I think the other issue I have too I don't know what IDM's going to say but whenever I see cattails in something I know that typically might cause some issues. So, I'm not even sure what it's going to require for us to put your trees in. You're talking about on the drainage.

That's all part of where you're asking to rip it up because that's where our parking lot ends right here. So, then you go immediately into cattails. So, only on this corner if Do you have another picture? You've actually got some green space there in the staff report. Yeah. If you look down, you've actually got got some space that's not in cattails and some space over on the corner. I'm not okay with putting signage. put a trees in front of their signage. So yeah, we're we're not willing to put trees in front of the building signage where people identify with the BM because that's the Clinton County BM that is not tied to Frankfurt. That's people from all over Clinton County coming in. So that signage being extremely visibility is very important.

It's going to be their choice. Um if you look at other sites throughout the overlay, uh landscaping and identification have not created problems for other sites. Sure. But it's at the end of the day it's you know it's BCA discretion. I just from the perspective of the comprehensive plan as best I could.

Understand we have any other questions for the public hearing? None. I'll close public discussion. I'll now open discussion for the board at this time. Board. Do we have any questions? Okay, hearing none, I will close discussion for the board. Um, Alicia, before we get into a motion here, so we'll go special exception and then developmental variances.

Mhm. So, because there are many of each, um, if the board is wanting to approve or deny, there are, it looks like, um,

there's one special exception, but then there are multiple variances. So, if if the board wants to approve some of those variances, but not all of the variances, we would need to probably state which ones we're approving and which ones we're denying. Um, I would probably recommend that we do separate motions for that. So, if you wanted to approve some of them, I would do a motion to approve this one, this one, and this one. And then if you wanted to deny them, um, then I would do a separate motion for that or give a favorable or unfavorable recommendation. Um, but I would I would take the special exception first and deal with that and then do the variances and then to the degree that you wish to give a favorable recommendation or unfavorable recommendation, I would split those out. Um, but you can do multiple together if you're um, you know, if you have the same opinion on some of them.

Okay. Thank you, Alicia. Um, well, I'll entertain a motion for the special exception. I'll make a motion that we accept the um uh the special exception special exception as recommended by the U um board. I have first I have second or maybe I should have stated it a different way. I guess report

staff report. Thank you. So the special exception I recommend we a favorable or I pass the special exception itself as a separate that's the first thing we get that out of the way so to speak. So the motion is to approve the special exception. Yes. Perfect. Made by Mike. Do we have to agree unanimously on all of this stuff? This is correct. Because there's only three of us here. Yes. Okay. Yes, you do. Thank you. Yes, you do. I have first. I will second the special except exception. We have first and a second. We roll call, please. Mike Nichols. I. Scott Highlander. I.

Isaac Chavez.

I. All right. Now, taking a look at the developmental variances. Just for organization. It might help you if you look at like page nine of the staff report where I list out under one of the findings the different groups so you can see what they're for with the numbers and cross reference that with the last page where I didn't note what they were but I just noted the number so you kind of know what you're what you're looking at for which okay so the first variance we're dealing with is with impervious service dealing with UDO 304. I'll open a motion to the board. So, we we need to go down through each one of these UDOs's. Correct. Each variance. Yes. I will motion to approve variance from previous service studio 304.

I'll make the motion. Uh first and a second. Roll call, please. Mike Nichols. I. Scott Highlander. I. Isaac Chavez.

I. Moving forward, we'll take a look at the variance for parking and required front yard UDO 308.06 06 section G and parking in required green space UDO 402.16B. Giving that the existing parking lot was and is placed illegally in both the required front yard and required green space but has not generated complaints by neighboring properties. Staff is aware and would appear that the adjacent property is not being affected negatively and an additional six parking spaces will likely not change that. I will motion to approve variance for parking in the required front yard 308.06 and parking required green space UDO 402.16B. Uh do I have a second?

Second. We have a first and a second. Roll call, please. Mike Nichols. Hi. Scott Highlander. Hi.

Isaac Chavez. I next we'll take a look at the variance for parking and required buffer yard that deals with UDO 306.12G. According to the final site plan after an air on beacon was corrected based on the survey submitted there will be 21 um 21 ft remaining grass between the new parking addition and the west property line. The required buffer yard, depending on which option is selected, needs 10 to 20 feet in width so that the lot will not enter it at all. And this variance is not needed as long as that remains true.

I will now open a motion for variance for parking and required buffer yard 306.12 C. I will motion to approve variance for parking and require buffer yard 306.12c. Do I have a second? I will I uh if you're going to approve then you only specify different findings in the staff report for your approval because the staff the staff report doesn't list findings in support of approving because it wasn't needed. In other words, the staff report

so we don't need to vote on this. Uh well, they've requested it. So you need to do something. The staff report recommended you deny it because it's not a needed variance in their final site plan. If you wish to approve it, then you would need to have different findings in the staff report to follow the state law requirement that your motions be based on those findings. So, I'd recommend that. Did you already make the Yeah, I will amend that to deny. I'll second it. That way that we deny UDO 306.12c because it's not required. Okay, I'll second that. Would that be a first from Mike?

So, why don't we have Isaac resend his motion? Okay, I'll resend. And then we have And then we have Mike make the motion to deny it because it's not needed. And that would be our first and then we would need a second. Second. Uh, first and a second. Roll call, please. Mike Nichols. Hi. Scott Highlander. Hi.

Isaac Chavez. Okay, next we'll take a look at the variance for reduced and eliminated required plantings and green space and required parking lot perimeter plantings. This deals with UDO 402.16E and G. This includes eliminating BMS and reducing plantings would not affect adjacent property negative negatively, but lacking a green space plan that allows for pedestrian connectivity does. This finding is partially met.

I would No, you don't have to reread my finding here. I was just I wasn't trying to tell you do that. I was just saying to reference which ones because on the last page it doesn't tell you what the numbers go with. I have a Isaac if I could I'd like to ask Liz a question here. Not Liz Alicia a question. Yes. Okay. The staff recommendation u is what we were uh recommendations for as uh plants planting and so forth was what we were discussing earlier. And I'd like

I'd like to make a motion that we recommend this partial approvement but adapt but change the change the partial approvement. Can we do that? In other words, in other words, I want to do I want to eliminate the the I want to eliminate the requirement for the front. Yeah, you can do that. And I don't think that would necessarily change the findings as I laid them out. You're just dividing the partial variance differently than I proposed it in the staff report. So, we'd be recommending you need to specify how you're changing it. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Yes. Uh, so yes. So we'd be recommending partial approval.

I think Alicia was trying to add something to that. She's just behind you. Sorry. So um, what yeah, what Liz said is correct. So the findings of fact in the staff report recommended a partial approval. So you what you'll need to do is outline specifically which ones you want to approve and if there's one that you want to change. Um, and I'm guessing based on the conversation that we're maybe wanting to change the one that's around uh about the front of the lot. Is that right? That's what that's what I'd like to propose. Yes.

Okay. So So what I would recommend is if you're okay with the 100% variance for the burm, the 100% variance for the perimeter plantings on the north, and the 80% variance from the west and south sides. I would recommend approving those variances. And then if you don't want the 60% variance, then we can do that kind of as a separate thing. But that way it's very clear what you're approving based on the staff report and what we're changing. Okay. So is that what we want to do? Yes. I think it's just a matter of wording that for money.

Okay. So, so we would want to uh approve a 100% variance uh from the earth and mound BM requirement in green space. We would want to approve the 100% variance from parking lot perimeter plantings on the north side. And we would want to approve an 80% variance from parking lot perimeter plantings on the west and south sides um from three shade, two ornamental, 20 shrubs to five trees of any type that the applicant wishes spaced west and south of the new lot area. And so that would be the motion that we would need to make. Alicia, yes.

Could just a question. and I'm new um on this side, but could they simply because the findings haven't changed, could they simply just add to that motion that uh they are additionally going to do a 100% variance from the planting requirements on the north side instead of the staff report specified 60%. And then it's all covered in one. Yes, they could do that if they wanted to. I was just trying to make it a little bit more simple by splitting it up, but that's fine.

I'm good with either way. Whatever you think so. So, so essentially the the motion would be 100% variance from the burm, 100% variance for the parking lot from the north, 80% variance as described in the south south the staff report on the south and west sides and a 100% variance from the um front is the motion that would need to be made to enc encapsulate everything. Say so now. So if someone wants to move that we want a 100% variance on the on the front. What do you mean? YOU'RE ELIMINATING ALL

SO WHAT what what Liz has recommended and the staff report has recommended is that they plant uh five. Yeah, I know. I can I'm looking I'm looking at what it says. I'm just curious about whether it's 0% or 100%. Yeah. So a 0% varian 100% would mean Oh, right. 100% variance means that we're completely giving them a pass on that. Yeah. So they wouldn't have to meet any tree requirements. Okay. Correct. Or greenery requirements on the front. So it would be 100%. Yeah. Mhm. So the 80% would be the south and west. Correct. So the other way to look at that 80% is 80% of what's required is being waved. You're installing 20% which is

Oh, okay. I'm I see. Okay. So in the case of this, you know, you're going 100% is being waved to we're installing zero grid. So uh I'd like to make the motion that we uh partially approve UDO 402.16E NG as followed 100% 100% 80% 100%. as listed in the staff report except for the 60% becomes 100%. Well, that's what I mean. Yeah, that's Yeah, that's what he said. Perfect.

And then we just need to make sure in the minutes that we get all of the actual language. I hear first. I get a second. Second. You can piece them together.

I will second. He was second. Oh, you did Scott. I'm sorry. Very good. Um, that was Mike and Scott. First and second. Can I get a roll call, please? Mike Nichols. Hi. Scott Highlander. Hi, Isaac Chavez. I was there another var. I had my I have my percentages backwards. That's it. Yeah, for you guys. Yeah, I've got one thing under other business when I get to it. Thank you everyone. All right. Thank you. Appreciate you very much. You guys have a good evening back too. Have a good evening. Okay.

Before we move on to any old business, um I did roll on over our election of officers. I did that cuz we don't have a full staff here. Are we okay with tableing election of officers to next meeting? Did Did we I thought we had elected officers. We did. Oh, we did. I don't know why I had that on my agenda on my personal agenda. I'm sorry. It's it's it's in the long that's what the minutes are on January of 14th, Isaac. Okay. I'm I'm so present. I knew that. All right, moving on. Uh do you have any other business for us, Liz? Yeah, I have one item. Um did you print off copies? Yes. Of the BA?

Yeah. So, I'm going to try to briefly brief you on this conversation and we don't necessarily have to do something about it tonight. Uh we can. Um, so this is going to fall under amendments to your board rules and your applications. Uh there have been some cases that have come through um in recent months where once they've gotten into the nitty-gritty in the office. Um it's turned out that there wasn't as good of communication with utilities and other entities as maybe would have been ideal, which is not at all on the board, but there's a concern um that had come up with city council and with the mayor and building services staff that for future applications, we try to make sure that when someone's filed, they've actually talked to all the utilities and the street department and made sure that there's not a major issue that this board should be aware of when they're having the conversation about whether or not to approve. So, Grace has been awesome in kind of putting this together as a draft and Alicia's taken a quick look and I do have one recommended amendment from how it is, but kind of go through it's it's the same except for the these changes on the first page unrelated to what I'm talking about. Um, Grace had changed this contact to be the general building services email instead of Don Stock's information. So, that will come to all staff in the office. Um, on the bottom of the second page, we've added a new requirement for filing, which is a utility signoff sheet. And Grace has placed a description that reads, "The petitioners required to obtain signatures from all departments listed on attachment B. This process allows each department to determine whether utilities can be provided to the location where the proposed project will take place. For additions to existing structures, it also allows up departments to identify any existing utility lines that may interfere with the project site. It is also the petitioner's responsibility to obtain a drainage level letter from the Clinton County Surveyor's Office. So, we're putting this before filing instead of trying to chase it down later on and then finding out there's a reason why a site maybe can't be developed and maybe we didn't want to lead them down that

path. So then if you turn to the very back of what you've got, you've got a new attachment D, which is a utility signoff sheet for BCA filing where they fill out their information. And then uh we're looking at sending this um the mayor had wanted all utilities involved and then the surveyor. So we've put Frankfurt Power and Light, sewer maintenance, water department, Clinton County surveyor, street department if it's on a state road, and then centerpoint energy. My recommended change, which I didn't get a chance to talk to Grace and Alicia with before, is I felt we modified this off a form that's used for permitting. Um, and it says approved or denied, but they're not actually giving a final approval or denial here. They're just giving information. So, the one change I recommended is that we change approved and denied to read informed slashno concerns or have concerns and then they can put their comments down below. So what they're actually signing is just that they know and they're in communication and nobody's being surprised. So since this is an amendment to application and rules, you do not have to advertise it for hearing or have it on your agenda ahead of time. you can vote um you would have to vote unanimously in order to adopt the changes in your application or if you felt that you wanted to take it under advisement and come back to it at your next meeting um you could do that as well. Uh if you were going to adopt it, I would just ask that unless Alicia has an objection or a change to that wording that we would just make that one change to not say approved and denied and instead indicate they're either okay or they have concerns.

Yeah, that's good information. Thank you, Liz. Uh Lisa, do you have anything to add to that? Would you be okay with moving forward?

I'm comfortable moving forward. Liz and I met and discussed this and I think it's a good idea. Essentially, the purpose of this is just to ensure that before anyone comes before the BCA, um that that they have talked to all of the appropriate parties. So, they've talked to the street department, the drainage board, you know, whoever needs the utilities. Um, and I think that will eliminate um, potential future problems where we've had a lot of folks come before the BCA and they haven't yet talked to the drainage board and they haven't yet talked to the utilities and so we conditionally approve it. Um, and they believe that they've got the green light when really they've got all of these other boards to to talk to and then they run into problems and it just creates a mess. So, I think this will eliminate a lot of future problems and will give the board more information um, upon which to make their decisions. So, I I am in favor of it um as a concept. I haven't had a chance today to look at the specific um document itself, but I did discuss it with Liz. And so, um the concept and and what she was planning to put in that document, I did uh I did have no problem with. So, um I'm fine with moving forward with it. And then if we do see any amendments, we can always amend it later as well.

Okay. With that said, can I open I can open a motion to the board. Are you guys okay with making this change? We need a motion in the second. I make a motion that we accept the changes. All right. First, I hear a second. I'll second. All right. First and second. Roll call, please. Mike Nichols. Hi. Scott Highlander. Hi. Isaac Chavez. I. Thank you, Liz. Um, anything else, guys? All right. Hear nothing. I'll take a motion to adjurnn. I'll motion to adjurnn. All in favor say I.