Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fraternal Order of Police seeks fence variance at Cottage & Shelby; hearing examiner approves with modified sight-triangle plan
Summary
FOP Lodge 86 asked to keep a 6.5-foot perimeter security fence and electronic gate that encroach into the clear-sight triangle at Cottage and Shelby streets; the hearing examiner granted the variance subject to adjusted fence placement, landscaping and recorded commitments after staff raised sight-triangle concerns.
The hearing examiner granted a variance April 10 to amend site commitments and allow a 6.5-foot perimeter security fence and electronic gate at the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) Indianapolis Lodge 86 headquarters at the southeast corner of Cottage and Shelby streets, subject to modified placement, landscaping and written commitments. The examiner will forward a recommendation on the companion rezoning/modification petition to the Metropolitan Development Commission on May 7, 2025.
Attorney Will Gooden represented the petitioner and emphasized the property’s role as a Department of Homeland Security-designated safe place and a local emergency operations center. Gooden told the hearing examiner the fence is a security measure designed to protect critical equipment and the site during emergencies, and that locating certain utility boxes inside the fence reduces the risk of intruders using them as a climbing aid. “The security is that if the fence is located on the outside of the boxes, then a person could use the boxes…to get over the fence,” Gooden said.
Staff supported most requested changes but opposed the degree of encroachment into the municipal clear-sight triangle required by the ordinance. Kathleen, city staff, said the fence as installed does not match the location approved in a 2021 administrative approval and that the current installation sits adjacent to the sidewalk rather than at the previously approved parking-lot line. Kathleen said the traffic-engineer–defined sight triangle differs from the ordinance triangle and that the installed fence exceeds what staff and DPW will accept for sight lines at the intersection. “Staff will support the 6.5-foot tall fence because that was administratively approved, but they need to pull that fence back where it should have been based upon the administrative approval,” Kathleen said.
The petitioner produced an exhibit (described in the hearing) showing an adjusted fence line — rendered in orange on the petitioner’s diagrams — that the petitioner and the neighborhood association agreed would enlarge visibility for drivers approaching the intersection sooner than DPW’s technical triangle, while still preserving security. Indigo (the regional transit provider) was contacted and provided comments; petitioner representatives said they met on-site with neighborhood groups and that one adjacent property owner verbally consented to the change.
The hearing examiner approved the requested CVR (variance) and amended CAP filings, with the modification that panels along the fence would be removed in favor of specified landscaping and that fence relocation follow the petitioner’s orange-triangle exhibit. The examiner recorded conditions requiring final building and landscape plans, a six-month deadline for fence modifications, and that commitments and site plans be submitted for administrative review and approval.
Staff and DPW will continue to coordinate on final sight-triangle geometry for the intersection. The matter will appear before the Metropolitan Development Commission on May 7.
