Advisory Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Hey, Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. All right. Thank you. Did you get it? Okay. Good evening.

I hope everyone is staying warm after we were promised spring and then it lied to us. So, welcome to the town of Avon Advisory Plan Commission meeting. If you are interested in having a copy of the agenda, they are available on the tables to the right of the audience. We will be conducting business as outlined on the agenda. From time to time, the board may deviate from the agenda. As president of this body, I will inform those in attendance of any deviations. This meeting is being recorded for the public record. Because of this, we request that personal conversations are kept to a minimum and all cell phones are set to vibrate. Any phone calls shall be taken outside of the chambers. If you are interested in commenting during the public hearing portion of the commission's deliberations, please sign up on the on the sheets located on the tables to the right of the audience. When your name is called, excuse me, please step forward to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Please address your comments to the board and not to the staff or the petitioner. Your comments should relate directly to the case at hand. During the conduct of the public hearing portion of the commission's deliberations, the petitioner will have 10 minutes to present their case to the commission. Reministrators will have 10 minutes total to present objections to the petition. Persons in support of the petition other than the petitioner will have 10 minutes to present support for the petition. And finally, the petitioner will close the public hearing portion of the presentation with a fivem minute rebuttal period. I hope you all wrote that down. Once the public hearing is closed, no additional testimony will be heard unless it is solicited solicited by members of the commission during question and answer phase of the commission's deliberations. Subdivision plat and development plan

petitions are ministerial requests, meaning that if the proposal meets the requirements set forth in the town's development ordinances, the plan commission must approve the request. In the interest of transparency, state law requires that the plan commission hold a public hearing even if the development proposal must be approved. Responses to public comments and questions may be given once the public hearing portion is closed. We understand that there may be several persons who wish to speak tonight. In order to keep the meeting running timely, we ask that you not repeat previous comments. So, you might want to keep that in mind as your particular agenda item comes up. If someone else has spoken to the issue to the concern you have, let's try and hear as many different um opinions as we can instead of that 10 minutes being kept with all the same concern. That makes it easier for us to deliberate. Thank you for Oh, the other thing I should add is that we do not have we have a quorum, but we do not have a full panel tonight. So if you feel like if the petitioners feel like there may be something that could be close, you might consider whether or not you would want to ask for continuence until we have a full panel. Thank you for your assistance in facilitating a respectful, fair, and timely meeting. Again, welcome to our meeting and please stand for the pledge. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, let's get started here. Uh, we now need to do a roll call. Jennifer Spencer here. Andrew Rockerbrand here. Bill Reid here. Dave Kaufman. Dave Kaufman is absent. Katherine Ransburg here. Paul Genenberger here. Greg Zusen. Greg Zusen is absent. We do have a quorum. However, we do not have a full panel. We now move on to the election of officers. So, are there any nominations from the panel?

I would like to nominate Katherine Ringensburg as president. Second. Thank you. Uh well, is this a uh common vote or a biperson vote? It can be a common. Okay. All those in favor say I. I. I. Those opposed. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. We now move on to the election of our uh vice president. And I would like to nominate Paul Guggenberg. Second. All those in favor say I. I.

Those opposed. Motion is carried. And now we move on to the election of our treasurer secretary which I believe is currently. I'll nominate Linda Alurn. Thank you. Second. Having heard a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. Motion carries. And we now have our officers elected. That was nice and easy. Thank you. Okay. approval of the meeting minutes from December 2 to appoint your representative to the BCA. Oh yes, we do need to do that, don't we? Um, who is our current representative?

I am on uh I've been that appointee for last year and I would like to continue that if the commission would allow it. I would love to have you continue as the nominee to the BCA. I'll nominate Paul as BCA. That's most seconded. Having had a motion, a second, those in favor say I. I.

We now have our nominee to the our appointment to the BCA. Any other boards we need to appoint to. That's it. Okay. So, we are done with that. Move on to the approval of meeting minutes for December 22nd. And has everybody had an opportunity to read those meeting minutes? Have any changes, edits, questions? Okay. I move we approve the minutes of December 22nd, 2025. I'll second. Having heard a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I.

Motion carries. Meeting minutes from December 22nd are approved. We're now moving on to the public comment section. And this is the point at which those of you who are present can comment on anything that is not already on tonight's agenda. If it's on tonight's agenda, you'll have an opportunity at that time to speak about it. But if you would like to speak about anything else, too many chicken places on 36, anything like that. Not that we can do anything about that, but if there's anything that's not on tonight's agenda that you would like to speak to, now's your opportunity to come forward and speak. Has anybody signed up for that?

Is there anybody here who would like to come forward and speak? Go. Yeah, go right ahead. Please state your name and your address. Press the button if it's not. No lights coming on. Oh, we can hear you.

Okay. Yeah, you can hear me. My name is Tom Downer. I am the director of the Avon Chamber of Commerce, 8244 East US Highway 36. Thank you. Uh, also the, as I said, the director of the Chamber of Commerce enjoys eating at those chicken places on US 36. Um I wanted to come to you tonight to talk a little about a little bit about the gathering place. Um having been on the the chamber for 26 years, give you a little background in history. I know that uh previously um John Taylor, our economic development commission person, has come in front of this board as well with regards to the rise development. And one of the things she talked about was bringing in small business with the hopes of them growing and remaining here in Avon. And that's what this petitioner is doing today. They're a small little shop off 267 of which they rent. What they're looking to do is expand to a 9,000 square foot building in a place where on our comprehensive plan from 267 to Park Place, I think f future goal would be to have that all change and be redeveloped and that's what's in our comprehensive plan. I would also like to add that I think we all know that the comprehensive plan is a fluid plan, right? It changes from time to time. We just endorsed a new comprehensive plan.

One of the things that that the petitioner is having a tr a tough time with is the proposed road that is in front of Rural King.

So, so let me just interject here. This is about something that's already on the agenda. Is that correct? The gathering. Okay. So, I don't want to stomp on your on your enthusiasm here, but this section of the meeting is for people to speak about things that are not on the agenda. So, we'll be happy to hear from you. Thank you so much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak about anything that is not on the agenda for tonight? Okay. Thank you very much. Public hearing portion is closed or public comment portion is closed. Do we have a request for any continuences or agenda modifications? We are not aware of any.

Okay, very good. We've got a full docket this evening. So, I would remind everyone before we get started that we pride ourselves on having very respectful and very um thoughtful interchange. We would ask that when the opportunity comes for you to speak that you take your turn, you sign up, you come and you speak, that you don't yell out from the from uh your seats and that you wait until it's time to ask questions. We always always always listen to everyone who is here tonight and uh you will be respected and we just ask that you respect our respect our community and respect uh where we are. Okay. No old no. Oh, I'm sorry. Here we have old business parkplace crossing DPR 2512.

Thank you, President Ransburg, members of the commission. Uh DPR 2512 is a request for approval of a development plan review to provide for approximately 9,000 square foot multi-tenant commercial building along with six waiverss of the UDO um related to the required extension of Beachwood Center Road. the required front landscape buffer, the required parking space length, the area of foundation planning around the building, the separation of a proposed driveway uh to a public street, and the requirement to have uh recesses or projections around the entirety of the building. And of course, I'll talk a little bit about each of those. The site is located on the west side of Parkplace Boulevard. Um it's compi comprised of three platted lots that are zone C2. Um and it is located in with both within both tiers one and two of the US Highway 36 zoning overlay. You can see the site here. This is US 36 Parkplace Boulevard. This is the uh multi-tenant building. I believe it's called Key West uh Plaza. Um, and then we're looking at these three vacant lots to the north. This is a view of the site facing west across Parkplace Boulevard. Um, the street that you're looking down here is Beachwood Center Road. We're going to talk about that being required by the ordinance to extend through this site. And then this is just looking back the opposite direction to the commercial development on the uh east side of Parkplace Boulevard from looking from the site. And then that's just facing south towards US 36. And then the view looking north into the Parkplace residential subdivision.

This site was platted and recorded back in the 80s prior to incorporation of the town of Avon. Uh it appears to have been zon C2 upon incorporation of the town. The site as I mentioned is unimproved. And you have again the six waiverss. I'm going to talk about those in just a minute. Um, I want to tell one of the reasons just generally speaking, I know you don't normally see that many waiverss and when you do, um, sometimes it it can certainly be a bit of a red flag that there are that many deviations from the ordinance. A lot of the justification for the waiverss comes from the fact that this is a unique situation where the thoroughfare plan calls for an extension of a public street right through the property. So for that reason I wanted to highlight the original site plan that was filed um the three lots here 567 going south to north and what they had proposed is to put the building here parking around it and then a retention pond down here at the south but as you can see over here this is where Beachwood Center Road um currently exists and of course right now it's a it's a dead end here it goes you know couple hundred feet and then it runs into the LKQ property Um and then it picks up again on the other side. The thoroughfare plan calls for that road to be extended both west and east to create a continuous connection parallel to US 36 to provide better connectivity both between adjacent commercial developments even between adjacent residential subdivisions and to also provide an outlet valve if you will um when needed if there's an incident on US 36 to allow traffic to move east and west. So after this was filed and the the need for that connector street to be constructed through the site was uh brought to the

petitioner's attention, then they revised the plan, shifted the building parking lot south um to be able to accommodate the the road connection. So now you can see everything shifted to the south. I've cut off the top part of the plan, but um this extension of Beachwood Center Road would then come through the site um and be able to be extended further in the future. And there's a copy uh look at the landscape plan. We can refer back to that if there are questions. Um and there's the proposed building elevations, front and rear, and then the two sides at the bottom. So the the revised plans appear to be mostly consistent with the standard standards of the ordinance. Um one minor exception was that the lighting plan um shows a little bit of excessive light spillage into the right of way. So we would ask that you include a condition that a revised lighting plan be submitted that meets the ordinance. I think the petitioner is in agree with agreement with that. Um, another note, a subdivision plat will need to be approved prior to issuance of a building permit so that the proposed building can be constructed across uh the platted lot line. And at that time, the requirement to dedicate the right of way for Beachwood Center Road um would be imposed per the thoroughfare plan unless a waiver were requested and approved at that time. Um and then one other note just kind of going back to the site plan. One issue that staff had of concern was that when this becomes a public it it we would expect it to be a public street when this is developed. But when it actually connects both, you know, to the east and west and has more traffic than just serving this site, we'd be concerned about having this access point right here because it would be too close

to the intersection of these two public streets. Um the petitioners indicated that they're willing to close this at such time as the town extends this street further west and we think that's a reasonable compromise. So we would ask um also for a condition um documenting that agreement. So to run through the waivers, waiver A is a waiver of development standards to allow for that extension of Beachwood Center Road to be narrower than what the thoroughfare plan standards call for um to be a 28 foot wide paved surface where the ordinance requires 36 feet and then 44 feet either as an easement or right of way. Um and this the standard is for 60 ft. The town is supportive of that um because it would match what was developed across the street to the east and we do think it would adequate adequately allow for future traffic there. Of course, with any waiver, you have the five required findings for a development standards waiver. And I'm not going to go through these every time, but just to uh just to mention those that basically that the requests not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. That it be harmonious with the purpose and intent of the zoning district in which the project is located. That it enhances the overall development plan, the abunding streetscapes, neighborhoods, and surrounding area. that it not produce a site design that is impractical or detracts from the appearance of the proposed development in the surrounding area and that it provide improved site design characteristics characteristics such as increased pedestrian connections, enhanced landscaping, tree preservation or public art. In this case for waiver A, we believe that all five findings would be met. Most notably, we would uh we believe that the proposal allows for an appropriate extension of Beachwood

Center Road that would benefit the public. It would be harmonious with the intent of the thoroughfare plan in the UDO and it would enhance the surrounding area by accommodating a future collector street to provide better vehicular connectivity as well as a future pedestrian connection from east to west. So we are in support of waiver A. Waiver B is to allow for a reduced front landscape buffer along Parkplace Boulevard. The ordinance requires um in the US 36 overlay a 20 foot front landscape buffer which is greater than the the 10-ft landscape buffer that would be um typically required but they are requesting a 16.9 ft front landscape buffer. Um again you have the same findings. We believe they would all be met. We believe that this is a minor deviation around 15% of the standard. Um we don't think it would detract from the site. It would als it would still allow for the required plings and it would also allow for a sidewalk which normally would be in the public right ofway but there isn't there isn't an existing sidewalk here and there isn't enough public rightway to accommodate a sidewalk fully in the right of way. So they would be um providing that within their front landscape buffer and we do believe those findings would be met and so we recommend approval of waiver B. Waiver C is a minor uh reduction of the depth of parking spaces for one row of parking. So, they're asking for one row of parking to be 18 feet deep or long, I guess, depending on how you want to look at that geometrically. Um, this row of parking in front of the building. So, our standard is a minimum 10 foot wide by 20 foot long or deep parking space. These would be 10 by 18 ft. Um, the rest of these would meet the 10

by 20 standard. We do think that this site has a bit of a a development challenge or practical difficulty um given its it's fairly shallow depth for a commercial lot. Combine that with the fact that unlike most commercial sites, it's required to develop this public street extension through it. So we think there there is some justification for that. Further, this would be a this is slated to be like a flex office type space which would not have the same type of typically the same type of frequent turnover of parking spaces like you would see at a retail establishment like a restaurant or or grocery store where people are coming and going um as quickly. But given the the 10-ft wide space and the 24 ft wide aisle that would meet uh otherwise meet standards, we think a a 10% reduction in the depth of the parking spaces is appropriate. Um so we are recommending approval of waiver C or halfway through the waiverss. All right. Waiver D is a waiver of the requirement to have a minimum five foot wide planning area around the entire perimeter of the building exclusive of loading areas and doorways. Um, let me go back to the landscape plan to give you a little bit of a visual on this. So, oops. So they, well, it's hard to see at this scale, but they would be meeting the five- foot um required landscape foundation landscape strip on the north and south of the building. Where they're asking for a waiver is along the rear um where they would have some loading doors, but it wouldn't be, you know, like a continuous loading dock or anything that would totally exempt it. Um and then along the front where they

do have articulation in the building, projections and recesses. So, some of these areas, of course, there's doorways where you'll see no landscaping, which is appropriate, of course. Um, and then some of these areas are 5T deep, and then some of them are um two, three feet deep where the building um projects out. So, then five again, and then the shorter area there. again given the challenges of the site that it's a little bit um shallower lot than a typical commercial development today and having uh the requirement for a public street extension through it. We do think that that's u a reasonable request. We do think it meets the findings and we are recommending approval of waiver D. Waiver E is um a waiver of the requirement to have all driveways uh separated by a minimum of 150 50 foot separation in this situation. Going back to the site plan, I'll show you exactly where that would be. So we're talking about this access point onto Parkplace Boulevard. it. So, it has to not only be 150 feet from another access point on the same side of the street, but it also has to meet that separation from access points on the other side of the street. And this is a situation where you have two driveways on the east side of ParkPlace Boulevard, which is a a non-conforming situation. Um, but there's essentially nowhere to put a driveway on the west side of Parkplace Boulevard that would meet the standard. And so we've talked with our public works department and we believe that lining up here as closely as possible to being aligned with these two driveways is the the safest situation possible given um given the fact that the ordinance standard can't be met.

So we do believe that the findings for this waiver request would be met. Um, and we're recommending approval of waiver D. I'm sorry, waiver E. And then finally, waiver F is a waiver of design standards of the requirement to have articulation of the building facade, which means it either projects outward or recesses inward to create visual interest in the building rather than having essentially a flat wall. Um this particular request only relates to the west facade which would be the rear of the building. So they are meeting the articulation requirement along uh ParkPlace Boulevard as well as on both the south end actually this would be the south which faces US 36 although there's an intervening building and then the north end which will u facewood center road the the request relates to the back end of the building. Um, again, we think it's a reasonable request. We do think that the the building otherwise meets all of the architectural requirements. We do think there's visual interest with the change of materials and colors on the back side of the building. And given the development challenges again with the depth of the lot, the requirement to put a street through, um we think that, you know, not requiring a couple extra feet to be taken up by, um adding projections on the back of the building is a reasonable request. We do think it meets the required findings. And um I should mention these last two waiverss are waivers of design standards. So you have slightly different findings for waiverss of design standards versus development standards. Um but those being that it

not be detrimental to public health, safety or general welfare or injurious to adjacent or nearby property. That the proposed alternative would not contradict the intent of the design standards or the purpose of the subdivision regulations. That the alternative is due to conditions specific to the property, which I think um I've addressed. and it's a proposed development. Um, and then it not be applicable generally to other properties, which we don't think these waiverss would generally apply to other properties because most properties don't have um the challenges this that this site does. And then finally, that the proposed alternative enhances the proposed development in the surrounding area. So, we do think that all four findings would be met for waiver F and we are u believing that relief from the ordinance is warranted and so we're recommending approval of waiver F. And so recommending approval of all six waivers. If those are granted, then we would recommend approval of the overall development plan review subject to the five conditions listed in the staff report as well as this following condition, which is what I touched on earlier. that at the time that Beachwood Center Road would be extended west of the subject site that the owner at their sole expense would close the eastern driveway closest to the intersection with Parkplace Boulevard and restore the curb line along Beachwood Center Road in accordance with town standards. And again, just to be clear on that, uh that would be this driveway right here. So they would still have this access on ParkPlace Boulevard and this secondary access over here. that's separated from the intersection. And with that, I would be happy to answer any questions the commission might have.

You mentioned on on one of the first two um panels that the property appears to be zoned in C2. Is that believe? No, it's definitely zone C2. I just indicate I I meant to convey that I believe it's always been zone C2 but never developed. Okay. Okay. I just didn't want to I just want to make sure there wasn't like No. Yeah, we're it definitely there's not just some confusion or Okay, great. Sorry, Frank. And then on the original plan, there was a retention pond planned, but there is not one for this.

Yeah. So, they're um I believe they're still um doing some back and forth with our consulting engineer on the storm water drainage. Um but they are planning to and the petitioner could probably talk to that more, but they're planning to run the storm water back here into this area. Um and so they'll have to get that approved. It'll have to meet the town standards before they could pull a permit to do that. But they they're confident that their alternative method of um detaining the storm water and treating that will get approved. Okay.

Paul um in on waiver E on the access points. I know that in other cases we've talked about where we would okay not have an access point like on is it Parkplace Boulevard and just come in and that other access point off the the new road there but because of is this because of the future potentially of shutting that access point down that we're already taking in anticipation needing that access point on ParkPlace because the other access point will be closed at some point in time.

Correct. I mean, we essentially the size of the site makes it very difficult to meet that standard. Um, but yeah, we think that the best place for the primary access is to be where they're showing the one to the south on Parkplace Boulevard. That that's preferable to having one on uh Beachwood Center Road that's that's very close to the intersection. Okay. Is that okay? Is that what you were asking? Yes. Yeah. And on on that south entrance, is that far enough away from 36 that everybody's okay with having to slow down and turn there without blocking?

It is. it meets the standard. Um because the standard is based on the road that it's accessing. Um so that type of street requires 150 foot separation and this would be um well the the south property line is approximately 165 ft from US 36. Okay. So this would put it about 200 feet and it would meet that standard. Okay. Another question. Just to make sure when I read the plans here, there is a sidewalk in the plans. Yep. Yeah, there's it's hard to see. It's kind of the the speckled space there and then there's a connection from the public sidewalk that would take you

across the drive aisle there and up to the building. Okay. And then I'll ask the petitioner also, but did the petitioner indicate any sort of barrier on the backside between the property and the property it abuts to? Yeah. So, their landscape plan um in addition to the the plannings that they show, um one of these notes indicates that there's a a a privacy fence that would go in there as well. Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome. The final question I have is around waiver A with the size of the road on the north. I know this is unique for the the site, but if that is a feed of road, does that meet our expectations for a feeder road that runs along 36? I know it is comparable to what's there, but is that even adequate? The Beach Grove. Yeah, the town is um we we talked with the public works department and they believe that that will satisfy the town's need in the future. Obviously, it's deficient of the standard for um for that type of street based on what is in the town standards in the thoroughare plan. Um but one we think it it will accommodate traffic as needed. Um and again it also meets what was developed um to the east. So

has there been any discussion about moving the rightway north? I mean, kind of shifting the road a little bit north to get the rightway expectation of that road on this side or on the the across the street on seven like on five, six, and seven, like moving it keeping the the south curb the same, moving farther north to to widen that road to meet the expectation because that lot is not being used,

right? Um, I I think our our point, excuse me, our position at this point is that we think the decision was made some time ago when the site across the street was developed that um 28 ft would be adequate. And so we're trying to be consistent and apply that same standard. Um, and although it's short of the standard, um, you know, it would certain, in talking to public works, they think that it would meet the the town's desire to basically, I mean, we're not looking to have a four-lane road there, so it would certainly accommodate, you know, two-way traffic. Um, all right. Thank you. You're welcome.

Any further questions for staff? Okay. Petitioner may come forward. Please state your name and address. Good evening. I'm Cruz Cruz Consulting 734 Center Drive

in Avon and I'm here this evening here this evening on behalf of our developers. Our developers this evening are actually local citizens. I'm here on behalf of Mike and Jery. Their two kids, two of their three kids are here with them and also Josh and Jara Kris. They're our developer of this project. And it's um it's a lot easier for me to stand up here and do these presentations when my heart's in it. And I'm a local I'm a local business owner. I've been a local business owner for 30 years. And Mike and Jennifer have for 30, Josh and Tara have lived here for 15, been business owners for five. And they're electing to build this building not only as an investment in speculative lease space, but they also are proposing to move their businesses into this building. both of them. So, there's six suites. Two of the suites would be occupied by their own businesses. And I when I drove in this evening, I was like, "Wow, there's a lot of people here." Like, what? They're not here for me. And so, when I walked in the the foyer, the car said to me, she's like I said, I said to her, I said, "And you pack a big crowd." And I was kidding. And she was like, "No, they're all here for me." So, who raise your hand? Who Who's here for this position? In support of this. That never happens. I have only filled the room one time with people that were in support and I didn't even know they were in support until they started speaking only once. So, I think what what I get out of this is um it's a hometown project and they would like to be here. It's a challenging site. This site has sat vacant since 1988 for a reason and it's because it's a challenging site. Fred Freeman owned

this ground for years. He had multiple people walk away from developing this parcel because of the challenges. This developer bought this property didn't even know what the challenges were get with the challenges with the first petition that was made. Took weeks of back and forth with town staff. They're very gracious with us to help us to get to here tonight. And we're thankful for that. That we were able to uh save the building. The building we started with is the building that's on that screen. and we're able to save the northernmost vacant lot, which um kind of plays into your question about widing road. There's a there's one more additional vacant lots in the north that could have built on it also. So, I really don't want to stand here and reinvent everything that Paul already did because he does a great job of introducing everything and if I just stand up here and rehash it all, I'm probably just going to confuse. So, I'd rather not do that. So, what I'd rather do is ask you answer any questions that you that you all might have.

Um, we will ask you questions once we've had a chance to hear from everybody here. It looks like we've got a lot of people in support of this project, which is nice to see. Um, we love community involvement. So, um, unless you have something else, you can go ahead and seat and we'll we'll pull call you back up for questions. Thank you. Um, so we just had a quick show of hands from people who are in support of this this uh project. If there's is there anybody who would like to come speak in support of this project? Sign up. I'm sorry. You're right. Do we have a sign up for anyone who would like to speak? Okay. Tom Down. Okay.

Welcome back, Mr. Downard.

Glad to be back again. Tom Downard, 8244 East US Highway 36. Uh it's the Avon Chamber of Commerce. Uh as I mentioned earlier, I've been there 26 years now. Seen a lot of growth in our community and um a proud citizen for over 30 years here, almost 40 years to be honest. I just basically want to speak in in support of Miss Mission Health and Wellness. They've been chamber members all five years that they've been here in our community. Uh they're active chamber members. They do great things in our community and uh I think they will add to this site uh a future development that is proposed here in Avon along 36 267 and in uh Parkplace. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have anybody else signed up? We also have a Jake Ble.

Hi there Jake Ble. Uh 19 Avon Parkway, that's just west of lot 5 on there. Um public speaking is not my forte, so I'll be reading from my notes. Uh I'm just factf finding. I'm just got some questions curious about. Um under staff comments about parking, it states if permit permanent use requiring parking are proposed in the future. Additional parking would be required at that time. Where would that additional parking go? Would that be in lot five possibly? Or we're just here to we're just here to hear your comments. That's all. Okay. Okay.

Um, waiver A addresses the extension of Beachwood Center Road. The extension allows for future roadway connectivity to the west. Uh, what are the future plans if if there are any? Because that would affect uh me and my neighbors to the west. Um, exhibit B3 or the landscape plan shows a green box extend extending to the west of lot 5. Uh, what is that green box? Just curious because that's be part of our property. On the landscape plan, it shows the uh, and then just what's the proposed timeline for the project? Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who has signed up to speak in support of this project? There are nobody left to to speak at all. Okay, hold on a second. Is there anybody here who would like to come and speak come forward and speak in support of this project? Okay. Is there anybody here who would like to Who is Oh, yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. Come forward. Come forward. Yeah. That's all right. That's all right. Please state your name and address for the record.

Okay. Uh Missy Davis, 1795 Water Oakway, Davis and Vargas LLC. Um actually, we've owned two rental properties in Parkplace for over 20 years. And I think this project is something that's going to bring it's going to be a good thing for the community. I don't have a problem as a as an owner in this uh to to support this, but I already do support the business, but I do think that what they're doing is going to bring more into the community and build community more than anything. So, short. Thank you. Is there anybody else present who'd like to come in? Uh how much time do we have left? Eight minutes.

Oh, we've got a lot of time. Anybody else would like to come forward and and speak in support of this project? Can I see us a show of hands maybe again of those who support this project? Okay, thank you very much. Uh, now we move on to those who would like to remmonstrate against this project. Anybody who is there's nobody else signed up. Is that correct? Nobody. Is there anybody present who would like to come and uh speak out um against this project? No. Okay. And our petitioner has five minutes of rebuttal for all the support you have for your project if you'd like to.

Um I'll just answer the gentleman's questions as as best I can that did have questions. Um the future parking we don't anticipate a need for additional parking. Those the future parking I think would come with a use that we likely won't have here. Um that was like was that restaurant Paul that that kicked it over? Yeah. Yeah, we don't anticipate a restaurant being here. Uh, in fact, West Central Conservancy District requires grease traps for restaurants and we don't have grease traps. So, we don't anticipate that. Um, the future parkway, um, I don't know, you Paul can maybe answer that one a little better. I think the idea eventually is to get that north road to 267 eventually is the goal. Um, but it's got to get through the neighborhood to the west to do that. This is just one building block building. this one piece of it. Then, um, as far as his question about a green box on the landscape plan, I don't know. I I don't know what he was talking about there. We're not proposing to do anything off of our property. We're going over to the property line, but not we're not proposing to get off of the property onto his or any of the other neighbor properties for what what we're trying to do. And that's it.

I think there was also a question about timeline. If I could, I think the green box, if you look around where the landscape trees are and the lines behind it, that all kind of appears as a green box. Is that what you were referring to? Yes. Oh, up on top. I can't even answer what that green line is, but it's not a proposal to do anything onto the onto off the property. And that's on the northern vacant lot that we're not that's not part of the petition tonight. That area he's talking about is to the north on the lot. That's not even part of our petition tonight.

And and maybe to the point for the public, too, you couldn't do anything outside the property. Um anyway, that that'd be something that would be a development that you'd be working with property owners that you'd be imposing on if that was developed. Correct. Okay. And I believe there was a question about a timeline for timeline would be breakground hopefully uh summer fall. Okay.

Any other comments? Anybody who'd like to come forward and speak for or against this project before we close this section and move on to discussion. Okay, we'll move on to discussion. I do Oh, yes sir. come forward or ma'am. Sorry, I just saw the hand. My name is Patty Malloy and I cover all three boxes. What is your address, ma'am?

Uh, my address is 8418 Anderson Circle here in Avon. So, I say I cover all three boxes because I live I own my home in Avon. As you can see, I'm an employee of Mission Health and Wellness, but more important than that, I'm a patient. And I'm not going to be up here long because I just want to say that I feel like I can speak on behalf of many of the people here because many of the people here in support of mission are patients. And what I can tell you is if I was not an employee, I would still be a patient because the work that a mission health and wellness does, first of all, it's the only clinic in Avon that does what they do. And I think most of the patients here would use the word lifechanging to describe the treatment that they receive at Mission Health and Wellness. And I would not only agree with the term life-changing, but in many of our cases, mine included, I would add lifesaving. So, I think it would be a tremendous detriment to the town of Avon for them to not be able to move forward with this project. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else? We've got some time. Okay. Before we move on to discussion, um I would like to explain to you, you heard a lot about waiverss tonight, and perhaps Mr. Taylor, our attorney, can explain to you what it means when they are requesting a waiver versus requesting approval of this proposal and why we have to go through one before we can get to the other. So the petition is requesting to be relieved from the standards that the town has in terms of development standards. When that occurs with the development plan review, those have to be addressed first. So what you'll see the commission do is they'll address and vote on waivers first and there are six of them. Then when that's done, then they'll vote on a motion to approve or deny the overall development. And do all of the waivers have to be approved before we can approve the development in whole?

No. Okay. The the waivers are request the u if if they were all approved, there still has to be a vote on the development plan. If they're all denied, there still has to be a vote on the approval plan. And if it's 3324 51, there still then is considered. The uh decision on waiverss just will tell Mr. crews then and the petitioners how it will have to be constructed whether they have relief from all six requests or not and the waiverss are discretionary unlike the development plan which is non-discretionary so this is where uh much of the work is done

okay wanted to explain that all to you so you understand what's happening tonight so okay moving on we first need to address waiver A which is get to the waiver of the development standards.

I make a comment just it'll pertain to all the waivers that you know I think the staff did a great job on the presentation on all the waivers. Um it's it's as they point out unusually shaped or thin skinny property whatever u term you want to use there. And it seems like the petitioner has been working well with staff and asked for the waiverss that are necessary for development to help with town's future plans because the road I think a lot of us um that know that long-term plans are to have a boulevard going to 267 from in front of rural king.

So that that's something that um that was asked by the gentleman that's in way in the future because there's a lot of work that would need to be done to do that. So I think staff did a good job on on all these. So my comments would be the same. But as far as like waiver A again the U from going 20 28 foot wide access road. I mean again staff I think presented well on why that is needed and supported. I think this is a really good example of um why the waiver of process is important because especially when we're dealing with these lots that are surrounded by other development or other infrastructure that isn't going any place. We need to consider the waiverss in order to accommodate the development that we want to have happen. And I agree. I think staff has done an excellent job of presenting this and um I appreciate the petitioner working with our staff to accommodate our requirements. Any other thoughts on on these?

Yeah, having been here a year and a half, give or take, I generally am not a big fan of waivers except where we need them. And I I think in this case the community support helps a lot and the property the project probably couldn't go forward with many of without many of these. It just wouldn't be viable. I agree.

And the the building is designed well. I think it looks great. I think it'll it'll still um contribute to the the beauty of Avon even though that there may be some minor variations there. I think this is an opportunity. My only concern is that north one because I the the north road because we know how much traffic is on 36 and that is designed to remove it. I know it's not going to happen this year or probably in the next five or 10 years, but if we build a small road there, it's going to be really hard to make it bigger when there's buildings around it. So, I'd like I'd like us to consider that one as something maybe we need to to to talk about. But, um the rest of them I'm comfortable with. Jennifer Bill,

I think any project that comes is going to come with waiverss and this seems like a pretty good project. A lot of community support. The owners are willing to work with the town. I think it's I think it's a good I think we should consider the waiverss and definitely uh looking back especially uh since a lot of the initial setup work I guess if you will uh predates even the incorporation of Avon uh this is a I would say a very needed piece to kind of update things.

Yeah. Well, this should be easy then especially for six waivers. So, um, do we want to have just some quick discussion on each? Let I I suggest we have some quick discussion on each waiver, which is what we should do anyway, and just go through the waivers and um approve them as as we wish, and then move on to the approval. So, let's talk about waiver development. waiver one which is um to allow for a 28 foot wide access road within the 40 foot wide easement or right of way instead of a 36 foot access access road. Andy, you brought that um that was your your main your main concern there. Yeah,

I think we talked through it a little bit that you're asking for a 28 foot wide road versus a 36 foot wide road and if this is going to be shunting traffic eventually. So I want to confirm DBW's okay with a 28 foot wide road. That's correct. Okay. And and they would be okay with that that width going all the way down to 267 if so uh so designed. I mean, I can't commit to what would be done west of here, but um but it would be consistent with what's east of here, and so it would likely be something similar going west. Okay.

Any other conversation about waiver A? That case, we'll take a vote or hear a motion rather. I move that we approve DPR25-12 waiver A, a request to wave Avon UDO2.10L to allow for 28 foot wide access road within a 44 foot wide easement or ride of way in lie of constructing a 36 foot wide street with sidewalks within a 60 foot ride of way since it has satisfied all the requirements for waiverss. under state law and subject to the find approved findings of fact.

Second. Having heard a motion and a second, we'll now take a vote. Genenberger four. Ransburg for Reed four. Spencer four. Rockabbrand against.

The motion carries with a vote of 4 to one. We now move on to waiver B, which is the request for the um reduction of the landscape buffer with the sidewalk. I move that we approve uh DPR 2512 waiver B, a request to wave Avon UDO 2.10 10 M1 to allow for a 16.9 ft front landscape buffer with sidewalk therein minimum 20 foot front landscape buffer required since it has satisfied all the requirements for waiverss under state law and subject to the approved finding effect. Second.

Having heard a motion and a second, we'll now take a vote. Ransburg, four. Reed, four. Spencer, four. Rockerbrand four. Genenberger, four. Motion carries. We now move on to waiver C which um allows for a reduction in the depth of off streetet parking. Do we have any discussion or commentary on that? Just for the record, I mean we've done this before where we've have a a shorter um size or depth of parking space than the 20 foot. That's not an uncommon waiver that's been requested. Correct.

Yes, we have had that waiver approved. Um and um many other municipalities do have a minimum 18 foot space, which is what's being proposed. And is this for all of the parking spaces or just some of them? Just some just it's the row. Yeah, just the row in front of the building. Right. Okay.

Make a motion that we approve DPR 2512 waiver C. a request to wave Avon UDO table 6.1 to allow for a row of 18t deep off- streetet parking spaces normally a minimum 20 foot depth required since it has satisfied all the requirements for waiverss under state law and subject to the approved findings of fact second having had a motion and a second we'll now take a vote Reed four Spencer four rockabbrand four Genenberger four Ransburg four

motion carries and waiver C is approved. We move on now to waiver D which uh allows for no foundation planting adjacent to the west facade and a reduc reduced width of foundation area along the east facade. Any conversation or discussion about that? I think the staff made a very good argument. Again, this all goes back to the size of the lot and it being constrained by infrastructure and pre-existing buildings and stuff. So, here a motion. I'll move that we approve DPR 2512 waiver D, a request to wave Avon UDO 6.5A to allow for no foundation planting area adjacent to the west facade and a reduced width of foundation area along portions of the east facade. Usually minimum 5 foot wide planting area required since it has satisfied all the requirements for waiverss under state law and subject to the approved findings of fact. I'll second.

Having heard a motion and a second, we'll now take a vote. Spencer for Rockerbrand for Guggenberger. Ransburg for Reed. Four. Motion carries and waiver D is approved. We now move on to waiver E which is to allow for full access driveway into Parkplace Boulevard offset from two existing driveways on the opposite side which is you want to pull that up. It's the uh entrance nearest 36. Correct. Yes.

Okay. Any conversation about that? So part of the discussion on this was it's okay because we're getting ready to we would potentially close the north entrance, right? Is that in your recommendation or your findings that that is an agreed to? It would be that the sixth condition that we've added. It's not in your staff report, but it was up on the screen and got we would ask that when you get to the DPR that your motion include that sixth condition. Gotcha. Okay. Okay, no more discussion for me. If there's no more discussion, we'll entertain a motion.

I move that we approve DPR25-12 waiver E, a request to wave Avon UDO2.10L to allow for full access driveway onto ParkPlace Boulevard offset from two existing driveways on the opposite side of the street. Minimum 150 foot separation required since it has satisfied all the requirements for waiverss under state law and subject to the approved findings of fact. Second. Having heard a motion and a second, we'll now take a vote. Rockabbrand. Guggenberger four. Ransburg four. Reed four. Spencer four.

Motion carries and waiver E is approved. We move now on to the last waiver, waiver F, which is um to allow for construction of a building without the required recesses or projections along the west facade, which is the rear facade. Any thoughts about that? I think the fact that they plan on doing there's I believe they said there was going to be a fence, a privacy fence and landscaping. It's not going to be visible from 36 or from the boulevard. Um be a very private place. Um and again keeping in mind the constraints of the lot to see that. So that that's of concern as well,

but they are doing architectural standards on the back that that meet the requirement. Yes. Yeah. No further discussion. We'll entertain a motion. I move that we approve DPR 2512 waiver F to request to wave UDO 2.103A to allow for construction of a building without the required recesses or projections along the rear west facade since it has satisfied all the requirements for waiverss under state law subject to the approved findings effect. I'll second. Having a motion and a second, we'll now entertain or we'll now hear a vote. Gener, Ransburg, four,

Reed, four, Spencer, four, Rockerbrand four.

Motion carries and waver waiver F is approved. We now move on to the approval of the development plan review for Parkplace Crossing. Um, I just want to say that usually when we have this many people in a room, they're very upset and not real happy. And it's nice to know that we have so many people standing room only who are supporting a project in our community. And um especially this kind of a a project um that makes me very happy. You're welcome to come to all of our other meetings, too. So, I would encourage you to do that. So, thoughts,

how do we add the sixth recommendation to this discussion? We just can we just say in addition to recommendation number six from town town planning staff, is that simple enough? Okay. Don't we also need to add in uh the revised lighting plan? Yes, I saw that too. I had that written down. Condition one or two? That's Yeah, that's condition number one in the staff report. Okay. Yes. Okay. Any other conversation about this proposal?

If not, we'll entertain a motion. I move that we approve DPR25-12 Parkplace crossing and development plan review to provide for a 9,000 square f foot multi-tenant commercial building with surface parking and related improvements subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and uh amended conditions recommended by staff since it has satisfied all the requirements for a development plan review under state law and subject to the approved findings of fact. I'll second. Having heard a motion and a second, we will now take a vote. Reed four, Spencer four. Rock,

four, four, four. And the DPR 2512 has passed and is now approved. Just want to say thank you all for your consideration tonight and help the staff to get to where we are tonight. Okay. Thank you. And thank you all for coming out. You're welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting. So, it's kind of fun. It's fun when you get people

Yeah. The people that aren't mad at you. Yeah. We would ask we would ask everyone to go ahead and move on out into the lobby so we can continue our meeting. There's a lot more empty seats available now. Looks like I know.

Okay, moving on to our next agenda item, which is Walmart Market. Thank you again, President Ransburg, members of the commission. DPR 2518 is a request for approval of a development plan review to provide for construction of a roughly 50,000 square foot grocery store with a pharmacy drive-thru, surface parking, and related improvements. There are also three waiverss requested with this petition. One is a waiver of design standards to allow for a new driveway onto Avon Avenue where the separation requirements are not met as well as two waiverss of development standards related to uh lighting on site. Approximate address of the property 1439 South Avon Avenue, the northeast corner of Avon Avenue and County Road 150 South or Oral Way. This is lot two in the Governor's Row Road Extension at Turner Trace Subdivision. It is zone C2. Uh let's see, where is it? It's right there on this big map. Avon Avenue here, County Road 150 here. Obviously, you can see the uh rail yard up this way, US 36, just to kind of give you overall. Um and there's a closer look at the site. It is this site outlined in blue. So, it's it would be a square, but for the office building that exists down here in the southeast corner. So, here's County Road 150 or Oriel Way to the south, Avon Avenue to the north, and then it's also bound by Governor's Row to the north, sorry, Avon Avenue to the west, Governor's Row to the north, and then

the village at Turner Trace uh residential development to the east. This is a view facing north um from County Road 150 or Way. To the right you see the Oops. To the right you see the existing driveway that goes in and serves that office building that's in the southeast corner um of the quadrant there. This driveway would be used also to access this development. This is a look facing east along County Road 150 at the area of that existing driveway. And you can see the uh office building in the background there. This is facing south from Governor's Row. So um Governor's Row here in the foreground. Here's the site and then the homes on the south side of County Road 150 or Way in the background. And then we're just looking basically from the same place southeast across the site towards the existing residential development of village at Turner Trace. Now, here's a look at the area of the proposed direct access to Avon Avenue that we're going to talk about uh because of the waiver request. This is facing west across Avon Avenue. This is a existing street in Hendrickx County, Todd Road. And this would be the area where they're proposing the direct access along Avon Avenue. And then this is just looking back the opposite way from Todd Road across Avon Avenue to the subject site where they're proposing their access point. And then from the intersection of Todd Road and Avon Avenue looking south towards the existing roundabout at 150/ Oral Way. And then finally from that same B uh same location looking north towards the intersection here of Avon

Avenue and Governor's Row. There you have the new fire station in the background. Uh site was reszoned from R2 to C2 back in 1997. It was platted in 2009 and has remained unimproved. Um there were commitments from 1997 the 1997 resoning which aren't directly um they're not directly relevant to the request at hand tonight. Just giving you the history. There were some commitments about certain uses that are not permitted at the site. Those were modified slightly in 2022. surrounding uses. Um, as I mentioned, the fire station and there's a child care business um, across Governor's Road to the north. Single family dwellings to the west and to the south across Avon Avenue and County Road 150/ Oral Way and then single family dwellings, town houses and offices to the east. So the specifically the waiverss um and there's been some modification to the plan. So what was originally proposed was a full access driveway onto Avon Avenue which as you'll see noted here requires a 400 foot separation from the existing intersections at uh 150 or at Governor's Row. A revised site plan has been submitted proposing a right in right out access onto Avon Avenue that has a separation requirement of 300 ft. So, it's still deficient. I'll talk a little bit more about that in a minute. Um the other two lighting the other two waiverss as I mentioned briefly um are to allow excessive average parking lot lighting level and then to allow for excessive light spillage into the public right of way.

So, here's the proposed site plan. This is the store parking out front. Um, this is labeled as a grocery mobile uh internet order pickup area. The pharmacy drive-thru would go right along the north side of the building here. And so, you have these two existing access points which um were already approved and are you can see they actually kind of exist even though the site isn't developed. And then you have the existing access to the south out to 150 oral way which would be shared with the office development there. And then this is the area of the proposed access onto Avon Avenue. There's a look at the landscape plan. Um if you looked at previous versions of the staff report before this case was heard, there were deficiencies in the landscape plan. Um those have been addressed. There were areas that needed foundation plannings along the south, the west, even the north. Well, actually some on the east, too. So, all of those have been addressed. The uh interior parking lot landscaping standards have also been addressed. Um there was also a note in the staff report that we needed additional information to make sure that the elevations were meeting the standard. um most specifically for the glazing which would be the amount of you know windows or doors on both the front of the building and the two sides. So this is the front of the building facing west towards Avon Avenue. The requirement is that 35% of the ground floor be covered with windows or doors that um basically glass. And so we have received additional information to um to basically document that they would be meeting that standard because it was a little unclear from what was first submitted and that they would also be meeting the the requirement for the

sides. This would be the south side facing 150. This would be the north side facing uh Governor's Row. And then that's the back of the building. that face east toward um the village at Turner Trace. So, this is just an exhibit to kind of show you from uh show you a view of where this proposed Avon Avenue driveway would be aligned with the existing Todd Road here. It would be about 260 feet from the Governor's Row intersection and it would be about 320 feet from the uh 150/ Oral Way intersection. Both deficient of the standard required 400T separation for a full access. Given the revised plan that they've submitted for right in right out, that only has a 300 foot separation requirement. So, it would meet the separation requirement from uh 150 oral way, but it would still be deficient from the intersection of Governor's Row. Uh excuse me. So, for that reason, um we do have concerns about that not meeting the town standard um that is meant to ensure that we both have um safe gaps for cars um turning out onto an arterial road as well as um you know, not interfering with traffic flow along the arterial road. Um these are pages from the petitioner's traffic study. So, this is going to actually get into staff's request uh when I talk about the development plan review, but just pointing out this is scenario two. And you see that without this traffic, without this development occurring, the traffic study shows that in the PM peak hour, the westbound Governor's Row

turning left onto Avon Avenue would be what we call level service C. Um traffic engineers will assign a level of service from A through F. A being the least amount of delay. Uh F being the most amount of delay. Um there may be some debate on whether F is clearly unacceptable. Some might say that E is acceptable. Some say it's unacceptable. Um the town typically looks at an E or an F level of service as unacceptable. But in this scenario, um, you would have level of service F at westbound Governor's Row at Avon Avenue when the development occurs. So you would go from C without it to F with the development. Um, and this is the scenario where there's no direct access to Avon. So it's in compliance with the town standards which don't allow any direct access onto Avon Avenue. Now under scenario three is what's what's shown on the revised site plan which would be with the right in right out access onto Avon Avenue. You can see of course this background traffic is going to be the same without the development occurring level of service C but you still have level of service F even with the right in right out access that is now proposed by the petitioner. So, that's why we're going to talk about improvements that the town believes um need to be included with the development plan in order for this to be approved. Um this is the lighting plan. It's kind of hard to show you. Obviously, they take the average of all of these numbers on here at all these individual areas to come up with the average. That's the south half. Um what's more important or easier to look at is the the calculations here. These averages they need to be uh and the town has a

range in our ordinance. They can be from 0.1 one all the way up to 1.6. But if you're requesting to go over 1.6 then that's outside of the range. And so this is why a waiver would be required to do that. So to speak specifically to the waivers, waiver A is a waiver of design standards to allow either a new full access driveway as originally proposed or right in right out access onto Avon Avenue. Um the the former would be deficient of separation from both intersections to the north and the south. The latter would be deficient of the required separation from Governor's Row. You have the four findings that we touched on in the last petition that need to be met for a design waiver. That it not be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare or injurious to adjacent or nearby property. That it not contradict the intent of the design standards or the purpose of the subdivision regulations. That the alternative be due to conditions specific to the property and the proposed development and not applicable generally to other properties. and that the proposed alternative enhances the proposed development in the surrounding area. You must find that all four of those criteria would be met. U staff does not believe that any of the criteria would be met for this waiver. Most notably, we believe the introduction of either a full access driveway or even a right in ride out with inadequate separation from two adjacent intersections on a 45 mph arterial street would jeopardize public health safety and general welfare by unnecessarily increasing the risk of collisions and injuries. And we are recommending denial of waiver A. waiver B to allow an average parking lot lighting level of 2.16 foot candles where the maximum average allowed is

1.6. Um, this is a development standard rather than a design standard. So, you have the slightly different five required findings here that it not be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare. That it be harmonious with the purpose and intent of the zoning district in which it's located. that it enhance the overall development plan abudding streetscapes and neighborhoods and surrounding area. That it not produce a design that is impractical or detracts from the appearance of the proposed development of the surrounding area. And it provide improved site design characteristics as listed there. Again, you must find in order to prove the waiver that all five criteria would be met. Um, we don't think staff does not believe that the first four findings would be met. Uh, most notably, we believe that a parking lot that's brighter than the maximum allowable level would have a negative impact to the traveling public due to the contrast between the brightness of the site and the adjacent roadways. And we also believe it would uh not enhance the surrounding area because of the diminished quality of night sky views that would be caused. So we are recommending denial of waiver B. And then finally waiver C which would be allow light spillage of 0.4 foot candles into the abuing rights of way where the maximum allowed by the standard is.3. Um the specifically you have the same five standards but specifically I want to note that the where the light spillage would exceed the standard is um right at the the the driveways where the the driveways meet the public streets. Um and in discussing this with our public works department, we're supportive of of minor deviations there because it's appropriate for to have a

higher light level of lighting um at the intersection and it's a minor deviation. Um so we do believe that that waiver would be supported and we find that all five findings would be met. So we recommend approval of waiver C. Um, I already touched on these items that the landscape plan has been revised to meet the deficiencies that were pointed out in previous iterations of the staff report. Um, and that it's the architectural plans have been revised to demonstrate compliance with the the minimum glazing requirements as well as um the required roof features and the inclusion of two community enhancement amenities. So, as indicated in the staff report, um the unified development ordinance under chapter 8.10F 10F requires that development plans provide traffic circulation that creates conditions favorable to the health safe safety and harmonious development including street and highway access points that minimize safety hazards and congestion by their design and location and that capacity of adjacent streets and highways is sufficient to safely and efficiently accept traffic generated by the proposed development. So after staff in conjunction with our public works department and we have a consulting traffic engineer that we send um traffic studies to when petitioners submit those. Um we both oppose the the request for the waiver for access onto Avon Avenue and we've determined that um the property owner should construct uh

improvements to the public street system in order to adequately uh handle the traffic that this proposed development would generate. Um I already talked about the level of service um being degraded from level of service C to level of service F either under the petitioner's current site plan to do a rightin ride out access onto Avon Avenue or under our preferred um scenario in which they would not ask for that waiver and not have direct access to Avon Avenue since we believe the site is adequately served by the existing access points. onto Governor's Row and onto County Road 150/Oal Way. So, um, in order to have the capacity of adjacent streets be sufficient to safely and efficiently accept the traffic generated by this development, um, as indicated in the staff report, staff is asking for four uh, improvements to be included on the development plan. and that be that because you would have an unacceptable level service on Governor's Row at the intersection of Avon Avenue, um that a roundabout intersection be constructed at Governor's Row and Avon Avenue. That Governor's Row also be widened to provide two lanes in each direction adjacent to the site up to the to the access point to the property. Um, and then there would be installation of speed humps on Governor's Row East of the site. This would be to calm traffic that might come to and from the site and go through the neighborhood uh of Village at Turner Trace, which also connects um to the the new neighborhood to the north, which go uh connects up to County Road 100.

Um, and that there also be a speed hump on Turner Trace Place South. And then that there be a dedicated right turn lane uh from westbound county road 150/oral way into the site. That's where the existing driveway is for the office development. Um that was developed prior to the town standard requiring that right turn lane. Um I know their their site plan had indicated that right turn lane at some point, but their traffic study had indicated they didn't believe it was warranted. So we just wanted to be clear on that. I think petitioner's in agreement with that one. Um, so in summary, uh, we are recommending denial of waiverss A and B, we would be supportive of waiver C. And then because the proposed plans do not include the necessary public street improvements, um, in addition to two of the waiverss not being supportable, excuse me, we recommend denial of the development plan review. And if the PLA plan commission were to make a motion to approve it, uh, we would recommend that any approval be subject to the conditions that are listed in the staff report. Um, and I'd be happy to discuss any of those if you have any questions. Um, or if you have questions about anything else at all. Thank you.

Questions for staff? So, the question on the roundabout, is that something that whatever business would go into that area, is that a recommendation that we're going to see for um approval of any commercial development on that property?

I couldn't say because the traffic study and the the calculations that were made to determine the change in level of service was specific to this development. So presumably a different development of a bigger smaller size or if it's a use that has that generates a different level of traffic it would have a a separate traffic study and so recommendations would be made based on those calculations. Okay. So it's all based on traffic study that's driving that. Okay. Good. And then if there is a roundabout there how does that impact the fire station that's going in because that's almost immediate south of the fire station. Uh do they did they weigh in on that need?

Uh I have not heard from the fire station. Um it's our belief that there is space to make that happen without interfering with the fire station based on u where their access points would be. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Any other questions for staff? If not, we'll have the petitioner come forward.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. U Commissioners Misha Rabino, land use and zoning attorney uh here in Indianapolis, uh office at 1 Indiana Square 1800. Thank you for hearing our petition tonight. Um here with me on behalf of Walmart is Eric Hinst. Um, we also have from Bowler Engineer Matt Point, Matt Po Dextter, the civil engineer on the project. And we have Matt call us the traffic engineer. And I'm going to have you hear from Matt because I understand that that access off of Avon Road is the critical piece here. And there's a reason why we have proceeded in this way. Just as sort of a a little bit of an introduction, I wanted to make it very clear that the Walmart that's being proposed here is a neighborhood market. It's essentially a grocery store. It's not your 150,000 square foot superstore. It's a 49 to 50,000 square foot grocery store with all the typical things that you would see with meats and deli and bakery uh and all of those things. Um the site as you heard is zone C2. So um essentially by right the use is permitted and as um madame chairman indicated in our opening comments the DPR would be um a ministerial decision but for what we think are three um important waiverss for you to consider and we're going to focus the time on that. Um we understand that this is a sensitive area. It is surrounded by residential and these are highly trafficked streets. So, I don't want anyone here in the audience or commissioners to to think that what we're saying is is insensitive because we've tried to listen to the neighbors that we've heard from and balance competing concerns quite frankly for what is happening on Governor's Row

versus what is happening on on Avon Avenue. We've worked with the staff to make considerable changes to the architecture, to the landscaping, parking layout, um the lighting, and and again, we're presenting to you a plan where we're just requesting three, um waivers. Um as you know, um I'm going to take them a little bit out of order because I want to end on the access waiver. Uh waiver B is the interior parking lot lighting. Walmart has a specific standard uh that they think is is the safest way to go. It's a bit above uh the lighting standard uh in the town's ordinance. We can live with the town's uh requirement if that's what your preference is and would withdraw that one. Um should that be uh not uh supported by the commission?

So, are you are you offering to withdraw that waiver B now? Yes, we would we would withdraw waiver B. Okay.

Uh waiver C um I think is the is the waiver which relates to the uh lighting near the right ofway area. Um and I believe we're in agreement with or staff's in agreement with us that that provides a safer condition. So we would like to proceed with waiver C. And that leaves us with waiver A which is the Avon uh Avenue access which we have studied uh in detail. As you know I think we originally proposed a full access believing that that is the safest and best condition. It helps to um relieve traffic on Governor's Row which we were hearing from some of the neighbors. Because of the feedback we received from staff. We adjusted that down to a right in right out thinking that was a compromise. We understand that um the traffic study indicates um a lower than acceptable service uh for the one turning movement at one period of time. And I'd like for Mr. Colluses to address that briefly. He's the traffic engineer.

Thanks Misha. So, as as Misha mentioned, um, let me meet you to, if you could please, your name and address. I'm sorry, Matt Kohus. Uh, I'm with engineering firm GHD, traffic consulting uh, uh, firm on the project. I'm actually from out of state in Michigan. And what is that address? 5647 Meadow Lane. Good job.

So, as Misha mentioned, uh, we believe the access with the right in right out drive, the proposed drive on Avon Avenue provides the best access. Um without this access even more of our site traffic would be going to Governor's Row and we would like to maintain the traffic on the main roads without going to Governor's Row and interfering with residential traffic at this proposed right and right out drive. We are proposing a northbound right turn lane which the intention of that it is warranted and the intention of that is to get the site traffic out of the through lane on Avon Avenue. So there in order to reduce any potential conflicts or um any safety to actually improve safety um the right out access provides sorry about that provides a safer access alternative than the full access drive because we're removing the left turning movements both in and out and thus eliminating a number of conflicts. Now, we do not meet the city, the town's 300 foot um requirement to two governor's row. We do meet the 300 foot requirement to Oreo Way and two Governor's Row, we have about 260 to 270 ft. It would be about a 10% deviant variance from the from the ordinance. And we're talking about just to visualize that, we're talking about one to two car lengths. So, it's it's much less than the the variation from the full access, but it still is around 20 to 30 feet. Um, now the as far as the level service F for the westbound left turning movement, it is projected to operate acceptably during the AM peak hour, but it is projected to operate at level service F during the PM peak hour. Now, it's projected to operate with about 52 seconds of delay. And the threshold for level service E is 50 seconds. So, there's only two seconds there. So, it's very close to being on the borderline of level service E and level service F. And

the queue of this movement is about 100 ft, less than 100 ft during either peak hour. So, the queueing isn't really an issue there at that westbound left turning movement. There's this there's a full width center lane on Avon Avenue south of Governor's Row. And as this as the delay increases, well, uh, vehicular motorists can be expected to do is to turn left into that center lane before then merging into southbound traffic. Um, and and that in itself is a it's very common thing that people do and that would improve that level of service. Really, once you take in it's called a two-stage exit and once you take that into consideration, that level of service F actually goes to a level service C. So it's the the way it was modeled in the traffic study was the most conservative way, but when taking other things into consideration, level service F would not be that bad for an extended period of time.

So excuse me, you go back and again where you're talking about this on Avon Avenue exiting Governor's Row, turning left onto Avon Avenue. So you're saying that it'd go from service level F to service level E when when A is the best and where A is the best and F is the worst when when modeling it with a two-stage exit where vehicles do turn into the center lane before then merging into the southbound through lane. Yes, it would go from F to C. You're saying that they would turn into the center lane and then wait to merge into the right lane as if it's a safe haven. Yes. And then moni look in their rearview mirror to monitor southbound traffic. Okay. And then merge southbound. That's You're the traffic engineer. I am. And that's considered safe traffic

flow. It It happens. It's a phenomenon that does happen. It's not something that I know it happens. Is that considered a safe traffic flow? It's as a traffic engineer, do you consider a safe traffic flow? That's what I'm asking. Any left turning movement is considered dangerous. Okay. Thank you.

Mhm. Uh, additionally, there's also a traffic signal about 3/10en of a mile to the north at County Road 100 South. And that traffic signal also, as it turns red and stops southbound flow, provide gaps in traffic that will allow those left turns opportunities to enter southbound traffic. And so it's it's our opinion that that level service F will really only occur during certain periods of time, not for the entire peak hour, but based on these other things, the traffic signal, the two-stage exit, it will not be level service F for the entire length of time. It will be slightly better, slightly improved than level service app. So we feel a roundabout is a costly solution to mitigate a movement that really only operates poorly for a short period of time. Now, regarding widening Governor's Row to a four-lane cross-section, the traffic study does not show a need to widen that to a four-lane crosssection. There's only 60 vehicles uh projected to use Governor's Row in either direction during the AM peak hour and about 100 vehicles during the PM peak hour. Now, the traffic study did analyze Governor's Row with separate left and right turn lanes similar to how it was.

Just to let you know, you're coming up on your 10 minutes. Would you like to request additional time? Uh, I can I can I can wrap it up. Okay. Therefore, the traffic study shows the existing cross-section on Governor's Road can accommodate the sight traffic. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Has there anybody signed up to speak in support of this development?

There is not other than those that the petitioner that are with the petitioner. Okay. Anybody present who would like to come speak in support of this development? Okay. Is there anybody signed up who would like to remmonstrate against this development? Yes. First one is Chris Thornberry.

Chris Thornberry, 1303 Brighton Place. So, I'm here tonight as a resident of the village at Turn of Trace, but I'm also representing the homeowners association in my capacity as the president. My intention as the uh the president of the association is to do what we can to protect the neighborhood, to protect the community, to protect the properties. Um we're aware that the lot is there and it's been zoned commercial and eventually something is going to end up being there. We're aware of that. Um the residents have a number of concerns. The biggest concern, which is the one that I'd like to address, is that safety with traffic. Um, some of the other members of the board as well as residents are going to speak specifically to things about traffic and the safety that's there. Um, I also think it's important to note that we met with the town on a number of occasions as well as met with Walmart and their representatives and the developer during this process. We believe that if this project is to be approved that it does it should have um access directly to Avon Avenue either the right in right out or full access. We want to limit traffic as much as we possibly can to Governor's Row um for the as safe environment as possible. Um it's my understanding and I think Paul in the beginning talked about that this was zoned in 1997. I don't know for those of us that are on the commission for me if I go back to 1997. It's been a number of years. I was graduating high school, right? I was still living with my parents, right? 28 years ago. Um fast forward 27 to 28 years ago. A lot of my needs have changed, right? as a parent of three kids and uh and a father. Um I think a lot of those things have changed with regard to the uh the property as well.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else who has signed up to remmonstrate? Clayton Giddis. Hope I said that right.

You did. Thank you. Uh like you said, my name is Clayton Giddis. I'm at 1258 Bolton Place, also in Village Turner Trace. Um also on the HOA board. Um, one thing I definitely want to talk about, and it was kind of mentioned about the commitments that were on this plot by the developers and agreed to by the town, and then they were changed in May of 2022. Um, and I do think they're relevant. The the planning commission that was in your place in May 2022 discussed it. What are we changing it to? Why are we changing it? What are we going to approve it to? Multiple members thought that they should have a further discussion of it. And some of them just wanted to be done. But the changes that were made and what is prohibited are no convenience stores, no liquor stores, no drive ups, no drive-throughs. This Walmart has all of them in kind of a bigger form. It's a bigger convenience store. They're going to sell liquor and they're going to have drive-throughs. Those were commitments the town agreed to, develop agreed to. Now we're kind of pushing this through. Um there's many traffic concerns that have already been stated, right? But the biggest one for me is obviously now you guys have the fire department there. They're going to be backed up that already from 150 or from 100 South all the way down to Governor's Row is already stopped at that stoplight. When it's red, it backs all the way up down there. How is a fire truck to get out, let alone go through a roundabout that's already clogged up as well. Um once again, Governor's Row, it's one way median, one way out. Right now, with those town homes the way they are, all the deliveries are made and those trucks are stopped right there to get through with more cars. Um, we did meet with one request. They're obviously they were great people. They heard us out. They wanted to hear our concerns. They wanted to get our support for the cut on Avon Avenue. But we also had some requests. How are we going to reduce traffic to go through Governor's Row? They mentioned multiple times if people are trying to vote traffic on Avon Avenue, they're going to cut through the neighborhood on on Governor's Row. We already have that, especially with Bellwood now connected to our village at Turner Trace. People

are already cutting up from 100 south to 150 to avoid Dan Jones to avoid 267. It's only going to get worse adding more traffic. Um, I'll give more time for more members. Thank you. Thank you. Next person who signed up to remmonstrate, Jeremy Giddens.

Good evening. My name is Jeremy Mc Giddens. I live at 7306 Governor's Row. Um I am the president of the town homes um Turner Trace town homes. My primary concern and the primary concern of the neighborhood residents is the traffic using Governor's Row and the two access points from the proposed Walmart site onto Governor's Row. Uh in Turner Trace, we have 209 school age children. Uh and then in the new um neighborhood to the north of us, they have an additional 159. But just west of the proposed Walmart site, uh less than 700 feet from the site is um the intersection with Bristol Place. Uh that is where some of the largest common areas are at. That's where our neighborhood swimming pool is at. That's where the most children play in the neighborhood. A couple hundred feet further, less than a thousand feet from the proposed Walmart location is um a large circle um at Turner Trace Turner Trace Place North. That's another common area where children play. Um my concern is traffic coming out of Walmart. That's a very short if you come out of that that Walmart parking lot to turn left onto Governor's Row and then you hit Avon Avenue. It only takes a few cars before that's backed up and cars are turning east on Governor's Row to get out of the neighborhood um to the south or cutting through Bellwood Place. that puts more traffic uh on Governor's Row. Uh in addition, another major concern that I I have is the northeastmost exit from the proposed Walmart site, is a road exiting their loading dock in the northeast corner. That that loading dock exit, which which is not supposed to be the primary exit for for semi-truckss and delivery vehicles, but um people people drive wherever they want to

drive. They don't always exercise common sense, but that that exit is about as close as from this podium to that wall to a town home. Um I've we've spoken with the Walmart um representatives about potentially um removing that. Uh we never got any sort of of commitment to do that. I'd like to hear if they have anything to say about that this evening. Uh that's about all I have. Thank you. Thank you. We have two minutes left uh for remr's time. Who would who else is is on the list? Maybe you guys can decide who speaks. Lori and Riley Rston.

Oh, I'm sorry. We have four minutes left. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Raleigh, I'm sorry.

No. Okay.

Um, yeah. My concerns I I'm sorry. I'm Lori Rston. This is my husband, Raleigh Rston. We live at 1311 South Avon Avenue. were on the property just immediately to the north of the new fire station. Um, and my concerns are public safety, um, disruption of the residential nature of the neighborhood and the impact on the property values of the people that live nearby. Um, I'm concerned about the traffic. Uh, less because of how long it might take me to get out of my driveway, which it already does take me quite a while sometimes, but because I think you all realize we were within one to two miles of three elementary schools. There's a 240 child capacity daycare, and there's also a 4,000 student high school. And so, you have a lot of school buses. You have a lot of kids being transported in parents' cars. We have teenagers driving. Um, we have people taking their kids to the daycare. I noticed that the traffic study was run from 4 to 6:00 p.m. The schools get out at 2:15 and at 3:10. And in my experience, that is when the traffic is at its worst. Um, and you often see um that there's a backup into the roundabout on Dan Jones and 150 South because of kids coming out of the school. So, I think it just creates a very dangerous situation to put what was um going to be an extra 3,000 trips per day to that area because of the Walmart being there. I'm also concerned because the traffic pattern is also confu already confusing. If you are coming north and you go through the roundabout at 150 south, you can come through in two lanes, two-lane traffic, but you immediately if you're in the left lane, you're in a left turn only. The same thing if you're coming into that roundabout from the south and you're heading uh eastbound on 150 South. If you're in the left lane, you're immediately in a left turn only. So, you have lots of people all of a sudden

trying to get over. And if there's also a right turn lane to get into Walmart, then you've got three lanes that you're dealing with. And I think putting in this uh no left turn uh in, no left turn out doesn't really help address that situation. I'm concerned about the firefighters being able to get in and out. I'd like to remind you that there's also a waiver already a waiver that was approved to allow the fire station exit to be closer to Governor's Row than is allowed. So, this would be two waivers for that same intersection, which to me seems a bit dangerous. Um, I'm concerned about having a organ or a company that's open from 6:00 am to 11 pm and introducing a lot of uh more people, more traffic, more activity into what is a residential neighborhood. And I'm especially concerned about crime. I did go get some crime statistics from the Planefield Police. There were 53 police calls to the neighborhood market there last year. Um, eight of those generated incident reports. And so that that does give me some pause and make me somewhat nervous because currently I feel safe in my neighborhood. I don't know how safe I'll feel um if that's the case. I'm worried about property values. U maybe not so much mine, but for the people that live right adjacent across the street from Walmart or on the other side in uh Turner Trace. And then finally, I'm concerned about that area becoming a commercial corridor. And you can say, well, it's only this property that's that's um commercial. But I can tell you that um the other there's a lot of available land there. There's a lot of property owners that aren't going to get a good value for their home being across from Walmart. And most of those areas are in the county, not in the town. So, it would not be up to the town to decide if people would go in and petition to have their property changed to commercial because that would be the way

that we would get a lot more money. Um, especially for our property with the fire station next door, but go ahead real quick because we got people waiting. Yeah, mine's really short. Um, need you to state your name and address, sir. I'm her husband. Well, she does. I know that serves in in in social situations, but we need to know specific your and I live next to the fire station, 1311 South Avon Avenue. Very good. Okay. Um, sorry.

That's that was my husband's title, too. Her husband. So, I get it. Um, mine situation's different than anybody else's in here because while I'm not for it, if you guys approve this, things change. I have seven acres right adjacent to this Walmart. Starting November 1st, before I had even heard about this Walmart, I was getting calls developers, and I'm sure some of them are from Walmart because one of Walmart's divisions under Sam Walton develops properties adjacent to their um Walmarts. So, I've had seven calls from different developers who have been requesting to buy my land. If this Walmart goes in, it's going to trigger my land. And I have to think really hard about what I'm going to do because land next to Walmart is just so it's it's so valuable. I don't want to do that. But um I will tell you this, one of the people I did talk to was from Meyer.

So your wife is calling you. Is there anybody else who signed up? How much time do we have? We have two minutes. Anybody else signed up to speak? Andrew Larkin.

I'm Andrew Lin, 7265 Willshshire Way. Um, I lived in the village of Turner Trace for 15 years. Um, just a small antidote, we saw this with the construction of the roundabout at 150 and Avon Avenue with people cutting through our neighborhood. People who don't live there don't care. They're going 354 miles an hour through the stop signs. I heard someone mention possibility of some speed bumps going in. Again, that's a burden on the neighborhood having to go over speed bumps every time you're going in and out of your own neighborhood. um that on top of the light pollution and noise pollution from the semis. We want to make sure there's any kind of guarantees that these semis are not going to be going down Governor Governor's Road that they'll be exiting a different way. Um it's just a huge public safety issue with all this traffic. If people pull out to the north and they see three or four cars there at 267, they're going to turn right, head east, go through our neighborhood, and it's going to be a huge mess. So, we definitely ask that this not be approved or they find a different solution for the traffic. Thank you.

Thank you, Annette Workman. And this will probably be our last person.

Okay. Annette Workman, 1266 James Drive. James Drive is directly across from Avon High School where there is no light. There's 40 families that live in the Whispering Wind subdivision. Our only way out is 150. We deal with the schools. We have been here for 43 years. We've dealt with all this development in the same house. We play a game of chicken every time we get out in 150, no matter what time of day it is. Then you throw in an early release day from the school and it's backed up all of 150 and Dan Jones and Avon Avenue. You get parents that are trying to pick up their kids and the kids start coming out from the school everywhere into the traffic to get to their cars. You put in a Walmart. Where do you think those parents are going to park now? They already do that on our side streets, especially Maria Lane, which is at the stoplight by the school. They park there so they don't have to get in the line of traffic. You know, it's just we have everything. Within 10, 15 minutes you can be at three other Walmarts, plus your Kroger, plus your Myers. When did we become a society that we have to have everything two minutes away? You know, we have the deliveries for people that are not able to get out. I understand that, but we don't need another one. you know, put in something that is beautiful like a prairie garden, something like that that we can enjoy and not a bunch of concrete. In 40 years, we have put up with all this development and it's fine. It's been

it's been necessary. You guys have done a good job, but there is a comes to a point where you got to say no to something because I'm we're tired of trying to get in and out of our street even though we're able to pick a time that school is not letting out or going. And there's, you know, you need to say something for our families that have been here and helped build this. There comes a time to say no. Thanks. Thank you very much. Uh, petitioners have five minutes of rebuttal.

Thank you. Um, I just want to address a few things. Um, one thing going back to the site plan, I wanted to make sure that it was clear. Um, I didn't mention it. Truck traffic is limited to the southern um, entrance off of Oral Way there. There's no truck traffic entrance or exit off of those two uh governor's row access points. It will be signed. And if you look at how the configuration of the site plan is, which is on the screen, the truck, a large truck physically could not um exit out of that northeast um uh exit. There was a comment made by I believe Mr. Giddens uh regarding that northeast access and I guess this is sort of my overall our overall issue here is we're trying to present a plan that is the safest and best condition for the neighborhood. And we did hear from the folks in Turner Trace that they'd prefer that access not be part of the plan. and we could give up that access, but the concern is that we would be asked to give up that access and the Avon Avenue access and that becomes um very problematic. So, if it was a matter of making this project work, we certainly could give up that um northeast access. Again, just just to summarize, we um again are trying to balance the comments we've heard from the neighbors. Um we know they're concerned about traffic. That's one of the wonderful things about having a growing uh town like you do is unfortunately there are traffic issues. But what we've

tried to present to you is a project that balances the interests that we've we've heard. Um we think the Avon Avenue right in right out is a good compromise. Um eliminating that would be problematic. Um so I guess with that I'd ask if if you have any questions for us, we have the experts here. We're happy to answer them. But with that, I'm um would request your support. Thank you.

Time for discussion. I usually rely on Paul, my vice president, to raise the issue of safety, but I have to say sometimes I wonder if some of our petitioners actually drive down these roads and are aware of what is going on. 267 is a two-lane road with no shoulders. There's a high school, three elementary schools. I live very close to there. I'm on that road all the time. And I'm just um the idea of adding another entrance on the 267 between the fire station and 150 and and Governor's Row just um perplexes me from a safety standpoint. I just I can't I mean we've already seen the traffic study that has it at the worst levels or be or almost the worst levels. Um I agree with staff as far as their their waiver recommendations are concerned and I agree with them as far as their um recommendation for the entire development is concerned. This is a lot to ask of us in my opinion.

I personally I'm not comfortable being at a level F for any amount of the day whether it's 5 minutes or two hours being that close to schools, a fire station. Um that's very concerning to me. So I have a question for the traffic uh study. How many additional vehicles does this project or does this project put onto the that intersection? What was the projected increase over baseline? Like what is the baseline for in 2025 versus what is proposed after the project is complete?

Could you come to the podium please? Yeah, you can come to the podium please. Yeah. So the project, the total new trips for the project are 110 trips in the AM peak hour. That's 64 vehicles in, 46 vehicles out of the site, and 326 new trips during the PM peak hour, 165 vehicles in, and 161 vehicles out. Now, of of those trips, some some vehicles are passed by. I believe it was about 24% in this study, meaning vehicles already on the road that are driving past the site and decided to go in in the site and then continue on their way. What are AM

in the morning peak hour? During the morning peak hour, which is what which are what hours? 7:15 to 8:15. And what about PM? In the PM, I believe was 4:30 to 5:30. And were there any traffic studies done during school drop off and let out? We had a scoping meeting with the town and the those school hours were not um requested to be studied. It was the hours of seven to nine and four to six. Was was the petitioner aware that we have so many schools within such a close perimeter of the of the uh of the project? They they were aware. Yes. And yet there was no thought put into doing a traffic study relating to schools.

It was it was asked uh or it was discussed I believe during the during the scoping meeting with the town, but the peak hours were identified as 4 to 6 in the PM, 7:00 to 9 in the A.M. That's those are the hours that were studied. So if did I hear this right that the morning the morning peak is going to go from 25 to 50ome vehicles per hour or what is that? So it's going to double the traffic load on that and then and then

and which road were you referring to? Well, so my my question is if these roads and and I' I'd rather agg I'd rather aggregate it by day rather than by a one hour or two hour peak at the evenings. I know it um that is the worst. But if you are normally doing five cars an hour at 2 2 p.m. or 1:30 and now you're up to 30 cars per hour at 3 p.m. that that's my question is how does it how does it increase the average number of trips per day on these roads either 150 and 267 the relative to what is currently the baseline.

I don't have the daily traffic volumes that the site would produce in front of me. I'm sorry. Okay.

All right. Before you go away, I got a question for staff. So, he's indicating that the scope was to look at, I'm assuming, a time frame in the morning, time frame in the evening. Um, so we did not request any other times to be studied. So, I don't recall um our planning staff recommending hours for a scope. Um, I will say that Ryan Cannon is here to represent the town's public works department. If you have uh more specific questions and if he has information on that, um, he may provide it. I do know that after they submitted their initial traffic study, we did ask them to do some additional traffic counts. Um, I believe for two reasons. One was that Avon Avenue was closed to the south of this project area. So, we thought that was affecting um the the current existing traffic counts and also the school wasn't in session when they did the first counts. So, um I believe the the second counts they did when they revised the traffic study did account for school being in session at least and Avon Avenue being open. But I'm not sure um if we would have um suggested a specific time or if that's just you know standard practice to look at. I would assume the peak hour

and then also the traffic study. Was that just on Avon Avenue or did you look at oral way also? Oral way was also okay. So um I Oh, sorry. I was just going to comment that because I I think there was a question on the the number of trips added. Um, and correct me if I'm misinterpreting this, but I believe on page five of the revised traffic study, it says in 2028, the proposed development is projected to add 3,423 new daily trips, 110 new trips during the AM peak hour and 326 new trips during the PM peak hour,

which means a lot of those would be happening during school let out. That's new trips per hour. 110 new trips in the morning. 110 new trips in the morning and 300 new trips in the evening. 300 3,423 new daily trips. 110 of those being during the AM peak hour and 326 during the PM peak hour. Okay, Mr. Taylor, you have a look on your face.

Yeah, I just had that. I just think um yeah, you've got it's not a reszone case. DPR. You have a request for a waiver which uh you know you have two left it sounds like one on the access issue and then uh really only one because the other one is recommended for approval. So not as not as controversial as the first. So you're going to have to vote on two. Yeah.

And uh each waiver has their own factors. So again, if you look at the staff report, they went through that long list of factors with you. But I think again just remember uh the focus should be on whether the waiver request meets our factors for a waiver and then um if you move through those I think that'll help you do that work. Thanks for redirecting us Dan.

Just uh I do have a question for staff. Um so you're welcome to sit down if you like to. The um the commitments that were brought up by um one of the administrators is that we I think in years past there was the no liquor, no drive-thru. How does that affect this DPR? Well, we don't think that those commitments would prohibit the use of a grocery store. Um, as was referred to, those commitments as revised in 2022, um, now indicate that no lots to be sold to drive up restaurants or other typical outlot users, i.e. fast foods, convenience stores, gas stations, auto service centers, etc. No adult stores of any kind, no liquor stores or nightclubs. Um so taking that sentence in its totality um we we don't think that a store that happens to sell liquor in one or two aisles or whatever it may be a small percentage of the store that that would legally be considered a liquor store. Um and it it certainly wouldn't be considered a convenience store. So that's why we don't think the commitments, although obviously they they still legally apply to the property, we didn't think a discussion of those was relevant because we don't think this proposal would violate those.

Okay.

All right. Thank you. So with waiver then um I mean I think staff did a real good job going through the criterion and explaining the positions and I would agree with them. Um the and I appreciate the information that was provided about the going from level F to level E and turn into the middle turn lane which I think is not safe. Um regardless and that's why I can see the staff wanting to have a roundabout at Governor's Row. You know, I think maybe longterm I understand the residents not liking that, but we have a commercial C2 property here that's going to get developed commercially at some point in time long term. I don't I don't know what happens. We may see more commercial development if this gets developed commercially, but traffic is an issue. It's been something Avon's been dealing with, especially on Avon Avenue and on 150 South and Oral Way there. So, I I think staff did a really good job. I support their position on waiver A because I don't think what's being proposed a having a curb cut on Avon Avenue is the appropriate thing to alleviate traffic and the right in right out. I I've seen other areas where it doesn't deter people from turning left around the little pie there. They'll they'll scrape their car. They'll go around whatever they can do. So, I think it would could potentially, you never know, create even more of a traffic hazard. So,

there would have to be a median and 267 again is two lanes with no shoulder there. There's no place for a median to stop people from turning left. I I definitely I support staff's recommendation to deny waiver A. Any further discussion about waiver A? If not, we'll entertain a motion.

I'll move that we deny DPR 2518 waiver A a request to wave Avon UDO 7.21E1 to allow for direct access driveway to Avon Avenue with less than the required separation from existing intersections since it has not satisfied all the requirements for waiverss under state law and subject to the approved findings of fact. I'll second. Having heard a motion in a second, we'll now take a vote. Genberger, four. Ransburg, four. Reed, four. Spencer, four. Rockebrand.

Four. Motion carries and waiver A is denied. Moving on to waiver B which has been withdrawn. We now go on to waiver C, which is the uh request to wave the UDO lighting to allow spillage uh into the abuing rights of way, which staff has recommended approval of.

I tend to agree with having extra lighting at intersection. I I don't see a problem with that. It's it's a minimal amount of of of additional lighting. I think from a safety standpoint, it's it makes sense. Any further conversations about waiver C?

So, I move that we approve DPR 2518 waiver C to request the wave Avon UDO 6.10. C or C to allow light spillage of 0.4 four candle foot candles into the abuing rights of way. Maximum light spillage of 0.3 foot candles permitted since it um since it has satisfied all the requirements of the waiverss under state law and subject to the approved finding effect. Having heard a motion, do we have a second? Second. Thank you. Having heard a motion and a second, we now take a vote. Rockabbrand four. Spencer four. Reed four. Bransburg

four. Guggenberger four. Motion carries and waiver C on the DPR 2518 is approved. We now move on to the development plan review and approval for DPR 2518 Walmart market Avon Avenue. Madame President. Yes sir.

Glad to address you. Um thank you. I think because of the denial of waiver A related to the Avon avenue access, it's so integral to how the site plan and development plan are currently configured that what I'd request of you is that we table or continue consideration of the development plan so that in the event we can come back to you with a by application that eliminates that access, you would actually be considering a development pro plan that's approvable because now you're you're not so uh in my opinion. So that's my request.

Have there been any uh previous requests for continuences on this project there by the petitioner? There would have been a request last month, but obviously our meeting was cancelled due to the weather travel advisory. So given that the meeting was canceled, we wouldn't really count that as a as a continuous the petitioner. So um we believe per your rules of procedure that they they would still be entitled to a continuence request. And you're making a formal request for continuance? Yes. Okay. Uh Mr. Taylor, we need to we do need to vote on this. Correct. Just a formality. Take a motion.

Okay. We'll take a motion for petitioner's request to continue this. 30 days, 60 days. How long would you need? Let's try for 30 days. Um I'm hopeful that we could come back to you, you know, with a with a new plan. So 30 days. Keep in mind if it's 30 days and you get to 30 days and you're not ready, then it's discretionary whether or not you get another continuance. I think we need to do 30 days. I because I don't have authority for more. I don't know what the terms of the agreement with the seller are. Um Okay. We'll do our best.

Okay. Hear a motion. I motion we accept the continuence um on DPR 2518 for 30 days. I'll second. Having heard a motion and a second, we'll now take a vote. Rockabbrand four. Spencer four. Reed four. Ransburg four. Genberger. Four. Motion to continue is uh granted and we will be back on March 23rd for this. Thank you very much. Okay. Uh we will now take a short recess of five That's

Moving on to DPR 2520, Avon retail shops. Okay,

moving on. Um DPR 2520 is um titled as A Avon Retail Shops. It's um in the 10,000 block of US Highway 36, which is between Reagan and Raceway. It's um cross from Steak and Shake approximately. Um these parcel there are several parcels here uh that have never been platted. um property was uh recently building property that recently been demolished um previously used for automotive collision repair business and a construction office property. The request is to approve two buildings totally 29,000 rough square feet with two waivers of design standards. One for drive access points and one um waiver of design standards for reduced masonry on the front of building in tier one of us. So as I mentioned this is the subject site. Off to the left here is Ronald Reagan, US 36. This is the subject site here outlined in white. Um to the immediate east is a I believe across the street is check some other businesses uh in front of This is a close-up view of the properties here. There are five parcels again that would have to be combined for this development. And all of the

structures that you see there on this photo have been removed. I will note on this photo you can see the access points that go into the overall property. There are four of them. So one here, one here and then two for this property surrounding property uses. Um it is residential to the north. It is a county jurisdiction. Um to the west and east are both commercial and to the south is also commercial, retail commercial. The new comprehensive plan recommends commercial offices office for the site. Therefore, this proposal would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. This is the proposed site plan. As I said, two retail uh strip center type buildings, so with tenant spots in the fronting on US 36, two rows of parking in front of the building, and then two or three rows behind the building. The um garbage dump dumpster areas would be also behind the building or to the north and west of the the western building. They are proposing uh storm water um attention underground. So that's why you don't see a pond on the site. The northern area of the property appears where there are residences to the north. So the 30 foot buffer yard that is required is shown in that location. your landscaping plan. Um, and it has been reviewed and it does meet standards. It's been revised a few times, but gotten there and it does meet or

one other thing I want to point out on the site plan. We are we are proposing an access drive or sorry an access easement from here down through here so that if we ever need one of those frontage or backage roads we like to call them. Can you show that again?

From this point here it goes over and then we come down this property here. Um so we're continuing to to have discussions with property owners to be able to get those access points connected between properties so that people utilizing businesses don't have to turn right in right out only um from sections of US 36 that do have a median there and you just get over to the lane when needed. Um this one if you get one property over from here you get to the car wash and then get out drive.

Uh we start in with the waiver request. This request is to allow two driveways or two driveway access points um within separations of of three different distances. There uh seems like a lot. Um I don't think it's anywhere near the kind of safety concerns we had at the last. So the measurements down here and down here showing 338 and 218, those are the measurements we're kind of talking about. Our numbers are a little bit different because we don't measure in our ordinance from center line of the drive, center line of the drive. We measure from edge or where a stop bar would be. So that's what the numbers are a little bit off, but that's the distances we're talking about. So the current there's a current drive right in here. There's another one in here and then there are two right here. So they would be maintaining one of them and then creating one in the center um that would go north in between the buildings and then they would remove three of them. So they're going from four to two. And remember that this is a divided highway. So there's no left turns allowed at all with a concrete median. So the safety concerns are greatly reduced. Uh we showed this to the fire department and the fire department was actually supportive of having two access points for circulation in and around the site should they need to get in and around the site. Um and then INDOT sent a letter to staff or to the consulting traffic engineer um indicating

that they would like the eastern most drive to look um being right out only and then um I'm the petitioner's representative can describe this better but a mouthful urban or large vehicle turns um that would need to utilize that access point, but generally it would be a right out only that eastern access point. And the reason for that is there's not a area over here to get off out of the travel lane to then slow down and make that turn. So they right out and then this area does continue this lane all the way to Reagan. So they can turn it in here and then merge it.

INDOT. So INDOP approves all accesses on 36 and they were willing to have the two access points because they are going from 4 to two and if this changes were made for the eastern most access point due to the concerns about circulation of trucks and emergency. So, the uh design waiver criteria findings um I know we're familiar with them tonight. I won't go through everyone, but I put up the petitioner response which is right out of your staff report. Um but it generally talks about going from five to two combining parcels into one of development. And overall in general, we think that's a positive thing in this area because we are combining those individual access points that were historically there prior to the town's town annexing on these properties when it was um the alternative will not contradict the intent standards for the purpose of the subdivision regulations. Um we think that the subdivision regulations um basically are primarily focused on safety and we think because of the divided media on 36 and the safety of emergency vehicles that this does produce alternative that's desirable. Uh we do think it is a a situation that's familiar to this property and we do think it advances enhances the proposed development. Again the number of access points are

reduced. INDOT has indicated they are requiring the eastern most access point to be exit only. The fire department has reviewed and supports the waiver request and Um staff is recommending approval of waiver A for the separation for the driveway access.

Can I ask a point on this? Um so the fire department likes having the two access points, but having a right out on the one access point seems to make it that the fire department has to go in on the other access point. So doesn't that inhibit the fire department's capabilities for what they want? So their their general concern coming in here and then being able to just come around and out if they need to rather than coming in here left right turn one.

So they don't necessarily worry about having more than one entrance so much as they want they're happy about having more than one exit. Okay.

And then the second waiver was on the brick that is on the front facade of structure. The top rendering there is the front facade of this building. The tier one overlay requires an 80% brick. masonry brick, a higher end masonry material for 80% of the facade on the front. So, this uh building shows brick anywhere that is like the whole back of the building is brick, the sides of the building are brick. It's just some of these um other things that are in here to show detail differences and for signage areas that are not brick. Um we believe the building of high-end design, high standards and that the products that they use are durable products and we think it would enhance the quality of this site as well as the surrounding area. Do we think it satisfies the purpose of intent of the open?

So before we get off this, I'd like to So we've not seen any information in our packet about what the products are. So can you go into or I can ask the petitioner that question if you'd rather I didn't.

Okay. Um, so the the ranges of brick range from 36% on the front facade and 97% on the rear facade. Again, it seems like that is backwards, but the front facade is is just creating more visual interest with different types of materials and to create relief. um to have the the recession and the different things of the building to look more interesting. they've done different materials that we do think that supports the intent of the so we do recommend approval of the three waiver and then our overall recommendation um is to approve the development plan with the two waivers questions you have. So, does the UDO not require modulation of surface on the back of the building? Because that looks like it was just straight across. So the requirement is building greater than 60 ft length.

That's got to be greater than 60 ft, isn't it? It's 188 ft. Yes. Articulation requirement is required. included.

So there is no articulation on the back. There is none. Okay. But there's also not been a request for a waiver from that. Correct. That is correct. Okay. Any further questions for staff? Yeah. Are there any other accesses to this property other than on 36 or is it just is it like landlocked by other buildings from a parking lot perspective? There is not I know you left areas to go but so yeah I see

properties intervening but there is an access piece over here these residential properties. Yeah, of course. And then this one would provide an access here and then down. But currently there aren't like cutouts there for

to go across. Okay. So just uh the question I was ask about the articulation on the rear of the building. If there's no waiver, it doesn't meet the building standards and of the overlay. Is that correct?

That is correct. So we would recommend that be added to our standard versions that revised elevations that would meet that requ Unless they're would like to continue. Okay. Any further questions for staff? Okay, we'll have the petitioner come forward. All right. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Brian Cross, Civil Sight Group, offices at 718 Adam Street, Carmel, Indiana. Uh, thank you for the time this evening submitting this petition for development plan approval. Uh, Linda, she rolled through all the um information on the project. A little background and history regarding driveway access point there. Uh we did a scoping meeting with INDOT. I believe it was in July and came up with the uh items needed for traffic engineering analysis. We completed that analysis including Ronald Reagan as well as Commercial Drive uh which is uh the stop light there where McDonald's and Chick-fil-A and u crew car washes at. So INDOT's very they're in favor of the actual uh reduction of the driveways from four to two. Um the one item that they did mention I I'll read the uh from the letter that they sent in January, late January, uh regarding that part of it just because one of the commission members asked about maybe fire department wanting you know access as well. So, the guidance we received from uh from Tim Watson there at the Greenfield, I'm sorry, the Crawford'sville district, um they like the eastmost drive to be an exit only driveway as it will not have an auxiliary lane for turning traffic to get out of the mainline flow of US 36 going westbound. Additionally, it should have a curbed radius for entry by emergency vehicles, but also have a raised triangular mountable apron from the entry radius that directs exiting traffic to the right and discourages vehicles from entering. This apron could have brick red colored concrete to discourage crossing. As it will be mountable, large trucks could still drive over it as they make an exit. And there will be a do not enter sign located there as well. So, emergency vehicles could still enter there if

needed. it will be accessible for that maneuver. Uh but there will be traffic warning signs and other uh deterrence for you know regular passenger vehicles. Um so that's that's one of the uh items I wanted to bring up. Uh with respect to the property four acres combining five partals into one. We will be doing a secondary plat to do that um following development plan approval. if I got uh this particular one here is an existing condition showing you know driveways ex again like like Linda had already run through this existing drive here existing drive here and this is kind of a a double drive on this parcel. Is it going to move? There it goes. So with moving too fast now get back to that site plan. Okay. So like Linda had mentioned center access drive here. I guess it's just it's still searching. Try one more time. I'll bring out the easels and still spinning. Okay. Yeah. Center drive here. Keep that one drive over here. We'll make that work.

We'll take your word for it.

Yep. Yep. So one of the other key components um is also the the thoroughare plan describes what they call a business collector along this corridor. So uh this driveway here to the north going to the back of the property eventually you know the plan is to connect and have easements reciprocal access easements with neighboring properties to the east and west. And because there's a subdivision lot, you know, directly in line with this, that's why we're going to turn that easement and go this way with it. And it'll tie into this commercial parcel here. All that will be done through the secondary plat with easements and language on that. Um, with respect to the architecture, um, the building itself, I mean, we've been working with staff on this since the November, um, TAC hearing, and I apologize if it was missed on the articulation in the back. Um, it it wasn't described in one of the TAC review letters, but um, I'm I do have uh, uh, Peterson Architecture here this evening. they can address the articulation uh with the front front of the building along with the the masonry percentage uh waiver that we're requesting. Um and that we will make you know some different material changes in the back of the building to to meet you know articulation there. Um so you can give different depths with different materials on that as well. Um but that's just something I think we we ran through do the the TAC review process. It wasn't a direct comment. So, we'll get that addressed and make a commitment to meet the requirements on that. But I would ask Claire if she would like to discuss the particular items of architecture.

Hi, my name is Claire Silverbeck, 29 298 South 10th Street, Noblesville, Indiana. Um with our design on the two retail centers, we wanted wanting to create a unique visual interest that in keeps into UDO's requirement of a high develop high quality development. Um we think we've achieved this through um unique visual interest along 36. We use um high quality materials including the masonry that you've requested. um use of cast stone um and some accent materials like nicha which is a high quality fiber cement sighting panel um along with ephus along the um tenant signage areas and cornice that has three different color variations to create unique interest in those areas Yeah, and that exhibit that uh Linda had I sent to her today just just outlining that INDOT, you know, request on the sketch for what that would look like there. One other item to add with you know this particular project even though we're you know changing the uh driveways here keeping the existing modifying it per individuous turn lane it will run it will actually match into the turn lane going all the way to Ronald Reagan. So that's an additional lane of pavement and turning you know for that. So um traffic cues everything's you know in line it worked out. Again, we do know that there's a median a median in the middle. So, it is right out only, right in only. Um, after talking to INDOT, you know, the the opportunity was there when they did the actual the widening of 36. Um, they understood that that was going to be the case on both sides there for a ride in ride out. And the signal there, Commerce

Drive is going to be used as a U-turn as it is now. uh there's one vehicle of additional queuing you know during that and INDOT said they could modify that signal length for that U-turn movement if needed. So, and we would just request um development plan approval this evening along with the waiverss as presented and meet the condition of you know additional articulation in the back with you know different building materials you know to meet that requirement and we'll get with staff on specifically what that ordinance requirement is but I apologize it was something that we we both went over and uh we would have had that in our initial petition if we would have uh had the opportunity.

Thank you. Is there anybody who has signed up to in support of this project to speak in support of this project? There is not. Is there anybody who has signed up to remmonstrate against this project? There is none.

Is there anybody present who would like to come forward and speak for or against this project? Can I assume that the petitioner does not wish to rebut the total lack of interest in supporting or remmonstrating against this project? Okay, discussion. So, got a question for staff um just to make sure. So, right now they have the right to four entrances on 36. So if we don't grant the waiver, they still have the ability to use those four entrances. Yes, that's my understanding.

Okay. So the idea given the waiver actually is is good to be able to reduce that um traffic going into and off 36. So I think that's a good idea of the waiver and overall I mean I think that the development is a good addition for those properties. Um there's nothing there now and it brings business and it's going to make that area look good. So, I I I like the development. Um, the one thing I would like is I don't think we ever saw an illustration of the the materials. So, you asked for a waiver for alternate to reduce the masonry, but we didn't see materials. I'm going to rely on staff that they're high quality. Um, and I believe they'll be high quality, but I would, you know, I'd like to see something that shows us the materials um in future cases. doesn't have to be a sample, but more description than a rendering of some sorts that show us that. So,

and then the the thing I appreciate the petitioner too is like willingness to add a commitment to the articulation to the rear of the building um just to conform to that. So, you know, overall with the the waiver on the building materials and the the access points along with DPR, I think staff's report did a good job of describing everything. I I definitely support that and I appreciate the petitioner working with staff on getting those put together.

I agree. And I like the um as Avon is is growing and developing, we still have those last vestigages of when for or when um 36 was just this long country State Road with houses and farms along it. And you know, to to just fill in those last spots to make it look like a a modern community is is um I like I like this. And I I also appreciate the petitioner's uh proactive response to adding um more information about the articulation on the back. Any further discussion? If not, we'll entertain a motion.

I move that we approve DPR2-20 waiver A, a request to wave Avon UDO2.10L. 10 L to allow for two driveway access points with separations of 50 feet, 150 ft, and 280 ft. Minimum 600 foot separation required since it has satisfied all the requirements for waiverss under state law and subject to the approved findings of fact. Do we have a second? I'll second. Having heard a motion in a second, we'll now take a vote. Reed four, Ransburg four, Guggenberger four, Rockabbrand four, Spencer

four. Waiver A for DPR 2520 passes. Now, uh, waiver B, which with is regards to the masonry. Um, usually we do like to see the the the product itself. Um, but I agree with Paul that I trust our staff. And can I just make one mention of that the uh elevations that we did submit it did have a legend area on the lower right hand side. I don't know if you can pull I tried to read that but it's microscopic for what I got and I'm telling I can't I mean we could perhaps zoom in on that on a PDF and but it does outline what those materials are. Okay.

We'll get that on the next one be more clear. Exactly. Even could bring samples. Thank you. I appreciate that. and and but I do appreciate, you know, I trust our staff. They do a great job and if they say these are very high quality materials, I will take their word at it. So staff already approved the materials. You already materials pending the waiver. We're satisfied with Okay, I see. We are we ready for that? Ready to entertain a motion on waiver B.

All right. I will move that we approve DPR 2520 waiver B at a request to wave UDO2.102A 10 02A to allow for reduced masonry minimum 80% required since it is met satisfy the requirements for waiverss under state law subject to the approval uh findings of fact approved findings effect second having heard a motion and a second we'll now take a vote rock four Spencer four Reed four Ransburg four Genenberger four motion carries and waiver B for DPR 2520 is approved we now move On to the development plan review for DPR2 2520.

I move that we approve DPR25-20 Avon retail shops development plan review to provide for construction of two retail buildings totaling 29,400 square feet with related improvements subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and the noted amendments this evening. since it has satisfied all the requirements for development plan review under state law and subject to the approved findings of facts. Hold re can I just ask a clarifying question? So um do you mean to include the commitment made by the petitioner also? Yes on on the ar rear articulation. Yes sir. Okay. I just want to clarify that.

Did I get that? Would you like to amend your motion? Should I amend the motion, Mr. Tiller? Did I get it? Okay. say yes that be fine. Yes. Yeah. Thanks for the clarification. And the second the second approves also. Yes. Okay. Very good. Having heard a motion and a second of the amended or having heard amended motion or we now take a vote read four. Oh four rocker brand four. Spencer four. Motion carries and uh DPR 2520 is passed. Thank you very much for your time tonight. Hey, thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we're getting there, folks. Moving on to DPR 252021. Moettes, thank you.

Excuse me. Thank you again, President Ransburg, members of the commission. DBR 2521 Moetta is a request for approval of development plan review to provide for renovation of an existing 1580 foot restaurant with a 760 ft building addition. uh addition of a drive-through pickup window and miscellaneous parking and landscaping changes along with one waiver of design standards to allow for the use of thin brick on the facade of the uh building. This property is 8894 East US Highway 36. It's lot number five in the Harvest Landing subdivision. It's about a acre and a third. It's zone C2 and it's located within tier one of the US Highway 36 overlay. Um you can see it outlined in turquoise on the map. Um to the west is the Costco fuel station. To the east is a multi-tenant retail building. Obviously behind to the north here is the Costco. And then the new buildings that are under construction, um, multi-tenant retail buildings there to the north. And then, uh, the auto dealerships across US 36 to the south. That's a look at the existing building facing north from US 36. You may recognize it as the former Swenson's Drive-In. Um, that's just looking west at the Costco Fuel Center. And then just a couple more um views of the building. That would be the uh east facade there that's most prominent. And then the west facade there. Um and that's the the west facade is the area where the building addition would occur essentially underneath that overhang.

Um, this was reszoned from R1 to C2 and platted just uh recently in 2020. And the Swson's building was grant a special exception for the not technically what we think of a drive-thru, but it was interpreted at the time that given the definition in the ordinance that a drive-in met. So, it required a special exception and uh of course standard DPR approval um in order to construct that building. And that use was only in operation for a couple years and it's been vacant for um close to two years now. So, this is a look at the existing conditions and then this is the proposed site plan. So, the major changes would be again the addition on the west side of the building here that this would be enclosed space added to the building and then the drive-through lane to get to the pickup window here. Um, it is noted this wouldn't be a drive up with a menu board and a speaker. It would just be for online orders to be picked up. And then there's some changes. If you look back, obviously you had parking on the west side of the building that's going to be taken up both by the building addition and the drive-through lane. And there's some miscellaneous changes um to landscaping. There'll be landscape areas added that don't exist here that bring this more into compliance with the ordinance. Um there was a waiver granted when Swenson's went in to not require the typical U foundation plings. Um I believe in part because you have these overhangs on the east and west of the building. So there was a concern

that plantings wouldn't thrive underneath the overhang. Um so there are additional landscape areas that are being added to bring this uh closer into compliance with the ordinance. Here's a look at the elevations. You can see this is the existing building and this is the part that they're going to add on the west. That would be additional enclosed space. And specific to the waiver, thin brick is what's used on the building now. They just want to continue that. I'll talk a little bit more about that in a minute. Um, back up. So just to be clear that you have the existing elevations how they appear on the left and then the proposed on the right. So the front facing south to US 36 at the top and then this would be kind of the back facing um Dr. Charles Nelson Drive to the north and then here you have the east elevation which will remain the same and then the west elevation um and how it will change. It's kind of hard to see, but um I've already talked about surrounding land land uses comprehensive plan recommends commercial office develop commercial or office um which this would be in compliance with. Um as I said the revised plans increase the area foundation plings for which the original building was granted a waiver. It also increases compliance with the perimeter parkway tree planting requirements. They will be adding some additional tree plantings that the site appears to be deficient of. Um and otherwise it meets all requirements of the UDO except for the one requested waiver which is to allow the use of thin

brick. Um, so interestingly, when this building was approved in 2022, we were still operating under the old zoning ordinance. And one of the changes that occurred when the unified development ordinance was adopted a few years ago is that it specified that masonry um that you can't use a brick that's less than 4 in thick for it to meet the masonry requirement. So, um, a thin brick. It looks just like brick on the outside, but it's a obviously a thinner material, a thinner siding material. Um, so for the waiver request, you have the four findings that are required to be met. That it not be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare or injurious to adjacent or nearby property. That it not contradict the intent of the design standards or the purpose of the subdivision regulations. that the alternative is due to conditions specific to the property and not generally applicable to other properties and enhance the proposed development and the surrounding area. Um, we think it's reasonable rather than to try to take the existing building that has this thin brick siding on it and to require a different type of brick on, you know, roughly a third of the building. um we we think that wouldn't be beneficial to the public or to adjacent properties. We don't think it would be it would obviously be more difficult to to make that match and look like a cohesive uh building. Um, we think it it meets the intent of the standard and we certainly think it that the alternative is due to conditions specific to the property because you essentially have a building design that is a legal because it it met the standard when it was constructed yet non-conforming. So, it's a legal

non-conforming situation which you wouldn't wouldn't typically apply to other properties if somebody came in and said, "I just want to build this new building and uh do this material that's not permitted." And so, we think it would be beneficial to the development and the surrounding area to keep that uh cohesive design where they're able to match the appearance of the existing uh facade material. So we do think that all four findings would be met and so we are recommending approval of the waiver and if the waiver is approved then we would recommend approval of the overall development plan review. Um, one item that of note on the landscaping, um, we did find that there was a need per the ordinance to add some landscaping around this trash enclosure. So, I don't believe we received a revised plan yet. So that's the reason why we have that condition number one recommended that there be uh a revised landscape plan indicating compliance with that requirement to provide some landscaping around the trash enclosure. I did have a conversation with the the I believe was the architect on the project and he indicated agreement with that that they would be able to do that. Um the other three conditions are just the standard conditions that we uh recommend with any development plan review. So we recommend approval of the waiver and then approval of the DPR subject to these conditions. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Is this a an eatin restaurant that's being proposed?

Uh yeah, I believe they Well, yes, they they would have dining in area um with the expanded building. Yes. Okay. Any questions for staff?

Okay. Petitioner may come forward. David Greenwood, uh 4100 North Chapel Ridge Road. Um we'd like to thank Paul for explaining our project in such detail and and the staff are recommending proceeding with the waiver. Uh this is currently a vacant building. Um we are proposing to utilize for our restaurant. There currently is thin brick on all sides. Um maybe we'll go through show some chicken and some inside the restaurant pictures. which are dine in. We heard you guys want another chicken concept on 36 and granted but with thin brick on all four sides of the current building. Uh we're modifying one I think to be more harmonious of what's what currently is there and such. It is a good condition building. It was built in 2022. Uh no reason to change an entire building. Let's match what's there. Uh, and we look forward to, I guess, further serving the people of Avon and, uh, working more with the staff to get them a updated uh, landscape plan. Um, but with that, no, no further comments.

Okay. Has anybody signed up to uh, speak on in favor of this proposal? There's not. Has anybody signed up to speak against this proposal?

There is not. And so I can assume that there's no need for rebuttal. Okay. Very good. Well, I like the fact that a restaurant that came and went um in the blink of an eye is that the building is being not going to be sitting empty any longer. So with waiver A um I I agree with u what the petitioners um indicated is their responses to the criterion and staff's support of that that existing building a use thin brick which was permitted um it'd be I think to continue that look and allow that for the renovation to get that building in use again is a a good uh step there and I think the waiver is justified. So I'd agree with staff on that and overall I support the the DPR um as staff has explained and and presented.

Agreed. I'd like to see the reuse of the facility. I do like the additional plantings as well. That that's nice. That property is pretty bare. Yes. And it's I would like to see more, but with the overhang I know it restricts a lot of the access. So glad to see the additional plantings. So that's an improvement. Any further discussion or questions for the petitioner?

If not, we'll entertain a motion. I move that we approve DPR25-21 waiver A, a request to wave Avon UDO 7.10 I1 to allow for use of thin brick sighting brick less than 4 in thick not permitted since it has satisfied all the requirements for waiverss under state law and subject to the approved findings effect. Second. I'll second. Having heard a motion in a second, we'll now take a vote. Reed four, Ransburg four. Genenberger four, Rockebrand for Spencer four.

Motion carries and waiver A for DPR 2521 has passed. We now move on to the development plan review for DPR 2521.

I'll move that we approve DPR 2521. Moetta is a development plan review to allow for renovation of an existing 1580 square ft restaurant building, including a 760 square ft building addition with a drive-thru pickup window and miscellaneous parking and landscaping changes subject to the conditions listed in the staff report since it has satisfied all the requirements for development plan review under state law and subject to the approved findings of effect. I'll second. Having heard a motion and a second, we'll now take a vote. Guggenberger, four. Ransburg, four. Reed, four. Spencer, four. Rocket Brand,

four. Motion carries and DPR 2521 is approved.

Okay, on to our last agenda item. Thank you for your patience. We now go to ZA2503, the gathering slot two. Thank you once again, President Ransburg and members of the commission. This is a request for a favorable recommendation on a zoning map amendment reszoning a little over 2 acres from I2 to C2. This property is located on US 36. Uh I don't have the address there. That's interesting. What do I have for an address? 8403 8403 uh East US Highway 36. Um it's along the I think I said the south side of US 36. It's zone C the sorry the front of the site is zoned C2 which is lot one. I'll get to that. Let me just a little sorts with the slides here. So this is US 36 at the top of the aerial page here. This is lot one in the Gatherings commercial subdivision. This property, which has a multi-tenant commercial uh building on it, is currently zone C2. The property we're looking at today is lot number two, which is kind of in the middle of the site. Lots two and three are both zoned I2. So the proposal is to take lot two and reszone it from I2 to C2 to match lot one. And here's a look at the site facing south from US 36. You see the access here to the property. So this is the multi-tenant building that's on lot one. It has Advanced Automotive um and multiple smaller tenant spaces.

And then if you were to follow this driveway back along the east side of that building, you would be able to then see the buildings on lot two. So if you had just driven down that driveway, you'd be then looking southwest towards the two buildings on lot two, which is the the subject property. And that is zoned I2. That's where Red Curb Comedy Club used to be, right? That is correct. And that space now has a a martial arts studio, I believe.

Yeah. Um so the site is improved with two uh multi-tenant commercial buildings. This was originally uh a lumber yard which was redeveloped for multiple commercial and industrial tenants back in 2006. Um and recently we had a request for a variance on lot one where Advanced Automotive is in order to be able to expand that business. um into another part of the building on lot one. Um a variance was required because that wasn't a permitted use in lot one. That's been approved. Um but during the the review of that request, we determined that a zoning map amendment to reszone lot 2 from I2 to C2 would help legally establish u non-com non-conforming commercial uses that are on lot two. Um, so lot two. This building has actually a grocery store in it and uh I believe it's a dance studio. Um, when this property was reszoned in 2006, there was a special exception granted for an indoor entertainment type use. I think it was like a trampoline park um indoor trampoline um use. Um, and then this building was used by Fry Electric for industrial use. We couldn't find any history of how the uh the comedy club use that was in there, how that um came to be or whether um it was just something that kind of slipped by um without being, you know, a permitted use in the industrial district. But the uses that are here now um are compatible or permitted by the C2

district. Um but they're not I2 industrial uses. So hence the the the reason for this request to reszone from I2 to C2. Um, as part of when the variance came in, we also noted that some of the landscaping like these islands here um that were supposed to have been done 20 years ago actually never occurred. So, the petitioner, we've also worked with the petitioner on uh an amended development plan review that staff um reviewed administratively and approved. And so they are going to be improving some of these areas where there there aren't landscape islands on site and also adding landscaping here along this uh west perimeter where there are vehicles kind of queued up now for repair for the advanced automotive. So we have been working with the petitioner on addressing other um non-compliant aspects of the site. So, I know it's been a little bit since it's been a little bit since we had a we had a zoning map amendment come zoning map amendment come before the before the commission. So, to remind you commission. So, to remind you guys when guys when we're looking at a res zoning we're looking at a res zoning map map amendment, we have five criteria amendment, we have five criteria that that are laid out in state statute. are laid out in state statute. And unlike a waiver where you have to And unlike a waiver where you have to find that all of those criteria are met, find that all of those criteria are met, you just have to give reasonable regard you just have to give reasonable regard to all of these criteria. So, I know to all of these criteria. You don't have to say that it definitively met every single one. You're really looking at the totality of the circumstances when you make a recommendation to town council on whether or not to approve the zoning map amendment. So, I'm just going to kind of quickly go through those criteria. The first is the the comprehensive plan. Um the requested C2 district would be consistent with the plan's future land

use recommendation of commercial or office use. Second criteria is to look at the current conditions and character of the current structures and uses in each district. We think that the C2 zoning would be compatible with the existing structures that are currently being used for commercial uses rather than industrial uses. The third criteria being the most desirable use for which the land in each zoning district is adapted. Commercial use appears to be the most desirable use given how the property is improved and has been occupied for many years. The fourth criteria being conservation of property values throughout the jurisdiction. We uh don't have any reason to believe that commercial use of the site would have a negative impact on property values as opposed to industrial use. And then finally, what would constitute responsible development and growth? And we believe that continued use of the site for commercial activity would indeed um constitute responsible development and growth. So, for those reasons, we are recommending the forwarding of a favorable recommendation for petition ZA2503 to the town council without any conditions. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. I think the fact that this is this almost feels like a technicality because the property's been used as a commercial property for a very very long time and it almost it just almost feels like we're just doing cleanup here as you know as opposed to making it commercial and then the property's coming in. Is it essentially out of compliance now or is it just not normally used?

We haven't we we weren't able to find any approvals that would have allowed the grocery um to occupy the space it's in um like I said or to approve the comedy club which is now a a martial arts studio. So, um I mean it's as far as we know, unless there's some variance or special exception that was granted that we couldn't find in our records, those would be uh non-compliant uses under the I2 zoning. Any further questions for staff? If not, we'll have the petitioner come forward. Thank you. For the record, uh, my name is David Gilman. My address is 211 South Ritter Avenue, Sweet H, Indianapolis 46 219. And it's times like now, you can appreciate the thoroughess of the staff review. Um, so I don't have a lot to add. The questions that you did ask, that's exactly our intent is to bring this site in compliance. Um, going back this in the 80s, this was an 84 lumber. And then in 2007, uh, a local electric contractor redeveloped the site more for commercial purposes, but kept some industrial on the back. My client, uh, Churchyard LLC, acquired the property in 2022. Um, we've been working for the past six months with the staff getting the site improvements up to code and this is the last step in cleaning up this property and getting our uses um in compliance with the proper zoning. So, um, you were right. Exactly. That's that's why we're here tonight and we'd appreciate your recommendation for the resoning and I'll answer questions that you have.

Thank you. Mhm. Has anybody signed up to speak on behalf of the in support of the property of the proposal? No one has. And has anyone signed up to speak out against the proposal? Again, no one. Nobody. Which means we don't need any rebuttal. Thank you.

Thank you. Um to me this feels really straightforward. Um we're just I appreciate Mr. Gilman coming in and and uh his clients bringing commercial properties into compliance with the town instead of us having to proactively go after them. And uh sounds like there might be some some good ideas in the works there. Um I I find nothing objectionable about this petition at all. Yeah, I think the staff did a good job um explaining the criterion and it almost seems like a rise type of development where you got businesses that have gone in and made use of an existing property and this is just a I guess complete the appropriate zoning for that.

Yeah. Yep. Agreed. There's if there's any further conversation, we'll entertain a motion. I move that we forward a favorable recommendation to the town council for ZA25-03, the gatherings lot 2, a zoning, pardon me, zoning map amendment to reszone 2.08 acres from I2 to C2 since it has satisfied all the requirements for a zoning map amendment under state law. I'll second. Having had a motion and a second, we'll now take a vote. Reed for Spencer for Rockabbrand for Ransburg

for Guggenberger. And having taken a vote, CA2503 has now passed. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. We now have a staff report. Oh, never mind. I'm reading the wrong. It's late. Sorry. Uh, plan commission annual training. Don't be so excited.

By our esteemed town council. Ryan's back there saying, "Please let me go home." I'll be as brief as I can. First, you'll see I've uh backed by popular demand. I have created a quick reference page for you by type of case with factors and whether your decision is discretionary. It may assist you during a meeting when you're trying to make sense of all those pages in your UDO. Then on your materials, I am presenting you with uh 39 pages which I will not cover tonight. I'm going to hit some highlights and let you go home. But if you look at page two this year, there were two primary kind of big statutes that affect what you do. The first in Senate enrolled act 425. What the legislature did there was rework the process for text amendments. Previously, if you sent a recommendation to the town council, the town council disagreed with you, it came back to you and the state legislature has eliminated that. And so they uh that you're going to send recommendations on the text amendment to the town council and you will never see them again. So that's going to be something new. While they did that, they also changed the procedure a little bit and that is that they inserted a requirement that said that you have to make a decision on a proposed text amendment within 60 days of your public hearing. So, if you have something that requires uh more debate and has a continuence, you just have to keep in mind that you are limited to 60 days uh after your first public hearing, you have to make a decision. So you could string that a while out a while but not not forever.

The second thing that bill did was it it expanded uh section 1109 which is the vested rights part of the law and we have always had a vested rights section in our training materials. So I'm going to tell you just a some of the highlights of that. What they did is uh sometimes with larger developments now they're actually development agreements that are being entered into uh that address all kinds of things funding phasing uh road conditions road construction cost sharing. So now uh as you remember 1109 had a rather expansive definition of permits and it really didn't mean permits as we understand them for that section only invested rights. uh they said look we're going to you know DPR is a permit for purposes of vested rights um you know a PUD is a permit for purposes of vested rights they added these development agreements so vest the vested rights section basically says that um if an approval of a permit is made then that holder of that permit or that vested right you can't change the rules on them they they're bound by the rules that were in place of the time of the approval and if we change our UDO or we change our other rules and regulations they they're really they get to stick with what was in place what they approved these development agreements were added uh this year then in secondly in response to the pandemic primarily and all that went along with that including shortages of supplies and materials delays in delivery things like that uh and closures they have now added a new section which says basically ally that if there is a delay to what the developer is supposed to do and that is caused by extraordinary events and they're defined and and I've listed them for you. If they are caused by an

extraordinary event then we cannot hold the developer to that deadline. So plaid expiration, DPR expiration, all these things if they in if they confront an extra event, they're going to they're they have the right to ask for more time. Thirdly, that new section says that if an extension of time is requested, we have to make findings if we deny them. And finally, that section said that if they appeal your decision for an extension of that uh period of time, the the permit holder gets a tolling of the applicable time period. Those are pretty big changes in 11:09. 119 is very very very important for us and for us and developers because it helps us uh stay away from the argument of when do these vested rights apply and in states that don't have something like 1109 and there are a lot of states that don't there's all this you know all this evidence has to come in about when that happens in Indiana 1109 tells us when it happens and so now there's this further tweaking kind of a push and pull between the local governments and the developers, but I want you to be aware of that. Um, I always want you to be aware of that that timing change in 11:09 uh really they set some shot clocks in on how quickly we determine completeness and how uh quickly we make determinations at the staff level. And of course, uh that's why Linda looks so excited right now. It's not me talking, it's this that worries her. But these shot clocks, you know, can be ownorous. But it it tells you a little bit about what the legislation was hearing, particularly from the development side. House Enrolled Act U 1460 is the other

one, and it said a shot clock on plat approval. Again, kind of u moving toward that. If you would go to page four, I just always want to emphasize uh our making of findings effect. And you guys, you guys did a really good job this year. I make copious notes about things I want to cover in training and I probably had fewer things this year than any year. And so you guys did a really good job. But let me just just serve as a little reminder. I still want to emphasize the importance of making findings of fact. And I have four rules here that I think will help. One is does my question relate to one of the factors? So, this is what I call the tension between curiosity and movement. And we want to move these cases along because you you may be here late. And so, to keep them moving along, I would invite you to say, "Okay, I'm ready to ask this question. Which factor does it relate to or am I just asking whether they serve chicken again on US 36?" I'd like to avoid that. So, uh the cheat sheet tells you what the factors are, but yeah, really think about um doing that. that that's useful for not just moving cases along, but the more our questions and our debate and discussion relate to the factors, the easier it'll be for Anna to convince the judge that's what you're focusing on. If your discussion and your questions don't relate to those factors, the uh other party will say, "Well, just look at what they said. They were focused on things they shouldn't have been focusing. their decision is based upon things that shouldn't have been on. And so um there are case there's case after case where the courts say let's you know we have to submit the entire transcript of your meetings and they look at what you say and they look at the questions you ask it's really really really important um the questions you ask so the more

focused we are and if we can say in a transcript Mr. Guggenberg asked question number one and it related to this factor right here. The court's going to support your ruling. Okay, if we can win that battle, this is what this discussion was. It was about traffic. It's this factor. That's exactly how the court is going to dissect that. They'll say, is the decision or are the findings supported by evidence? And if they can tie questions to a particular factor and discussion to a particular factor, we're in business. And so that's what I want to want you to do. And and you guys like tonight, you did a really good job with your emotions because it was clear based upon your discussion the reasons for your decision-making. I thought you you guys were great tonight. So I call this the focus rule. If we can just say is my question about one of the factors, then it's you got a green light. Go for that. And if you if you say no, not really. I'm just curious about this. Try not to be curious until maybe later. Let's let our first questions really hit the hit the ball. Okay, now I'm going to go fast. Are you ready?

Ready.

So, if you would, what I want you to do is do what I do. I want you to circle the page numbers I mentioned and go back and study this later. Page seven, conflicts of interest. It is my job to tell you about conflicts of interest. Though, there are two types for legislative acts, which are PUDS, reszones, and text amendments. The rule is you cannot vote if you have a indirect or direct pecunary interest. If you have a financial interest on a property, you cannot vote. You have to leave the room. You have to tell the secretary you're not going to participate. That is disqualification in a legislative act. If you turn to page eight, you will see that for non legislative acts or what the law calls zoning decisions, plats, DPRs, we have a different rule. It has the same direct or indirect pecuniary rule, but has another one because you're the final word on zoning decisions, a little higher standard, not just pecuni interest, but if you are biased, prejudiced, or otherwise unable to be impartial. So that's a little broader. You see, if you're just making a recommendation, it's just pecunary interest, but if it's a zoning decision, it's even broader. And you know, we have to make sure you can be impartial because you are the final word. So, you know what you you know what these words mean. We cover this every year, but it's just my job to point this out. You'll see at the bottom of page eight that you'll see a little more explanation when the courts have dealt with it. They've said really two things. First of all, it's not enough. You can see in this Perryworth concerned citizens versus Boone County, it's not enough that your spouse hasn't, you know, owns property next door. Now, could that property next door be affected? Maybe, but it's not yours, it's your spouse's. That's just not direct enough. The court said it's got to be your money. It's got to be your interest, and it has to

really have an effect. That's a great case because that was kind of like you wonder, well, how how indirect can this be? And this is where they kind of drew the line in in this Boone County case in 2000. Then the second one, the Leaport case, the I think it's great. It's the fail case. So glad I wasn't born with that being my last name. But this one says, look, it's not if you have a conflict of interest, if you have a financial interest, it's not important that you were influenced by that. No one has to show that that's the reason you voted. You did. You're just out. It's just wrong. You can't participate. So, just keep that in mind. If you go to page nine, you'll see just uh what like how do people know you're biased? How do people know? I always get a care because it could be positional. It could be that you just like you're married to that person's ex-wife now or something and you can't stand them. I don't know. But the bigger one is statements. the the case after case after case after case on bias is they present evidence that at the coffee shop you told everyone you would never vote for it. You know when I first came to Avon the mantra was we will never have apartments and I kept saying quit saying that say we will consider every application in its due course and review those facts right never is a bad word so and then you know personal so just remember bias if you just say look I could never be impartial I could never be objected we'll just ask you to excuse yourself and we'll decide it with you uh page 10 is where I start the types of cases and I've given you the quick reference But if you want to really drill down on that, there are the factors starting there and they go on to 11. And you've heard me talk about that, but again, I'd like for you to revisit that, circling those pages. If you go to page um 15,

just a couple reminders. At the top of that page, when someone submits a PUD, it of course uh needs greater scrutiny. It's it's a it's a it's even more it deserves more scrutiny than a reszone because they have to meet all five criteria and like more. But what I want to emphasize to you is if we're going to let someone write their own zoning ordinance, we need to be careful. So I would encourage you staff will already do it, but read the read the ordinance. Read the PUD ordinance they're submitting and let's make sure that giving them that freedom is smart. Okay, let's try to make sure that that we do it even though you've got a great staff and they'll do that. Just think that that's why we have to be so careful with it where it's like letting the teenager drive the car the first time on their own. We should be concerned. We're giving them a lot of power.

Yes. We haven't seen a PUD in a long time. Is that something that's kind of out of fashion now? Not in my experience. I think it may have something to do with just when you have infill development, you're not going to see much. Okay. But I I I don't think it's slowed down. I think it just has to do with uh which land is being developed recently and where if if you have big sites, of course, I think you're still going to see PUDS and uh in the residential side, they're slowing down somewhat, but not in commercial in my experience. So, we may see some more as we move west.

You will see them. They're very popular among developers because they have more freedom. And again, we may like it. I'm not saying they're bad or inherently bad or good, but it's just that we're going to give someone the chance to write our ordinance after we've spent so much time writing ordinance. We just need to be extra careful there. Um bottom of page 15, you'll see again a little more on the new procedure for text amendments. Um, then on page 17, you'll see a whole uh you'll see a lot more about findings. And I do want you to review that. I'm not going to cover tonight, but I mean why you make findings, how you ask questions, how you determine waivers in this section. Uh, we've tried to really give you some detail about how to do that. And you guys did you had lots of waivers tonight. You did a great job. That's heavy lifting, but you guys did a really good job. And of course your staff, those are some nice staff reports tonight where they gave you a lot of detail and so we we know they bring their agame. But that was really amazing to watch you work through six. You guys did a really good job. Page 19. Remember the difference between a waiver and a variance. They're not the same thing. You deal with waivers. You never deal with variances. Only Paul who goes to the BCA ever deals with variances. So the key is we can't grant waivers unless this UDO says they can get a waiver. Okay. So, if it doesn't say they get a waiver, then we call that a variance, that relief they're requesting, and that goes to BCA. Open door law page 20. My duty is to inform you that you can't have illegal meetings. I've laid it all out there for you. On page 21, pay special attention to the email rule and the texting rule, which is that if you communicate with each other or anyone else in the world for that matter about plane commission business, the public can get to that. So keep that in mind when writing or texting. Our loop is on page 22. Um

the Religious Lens Use Act. I just again the rules are so simple. Treat religious petitioners just like a commercial or institutional uh petitioner. Don't discriminate. Don't ask questions about their religion. Focus on the development issues and that you'll be fine. Uh last year we discussed in our loopa case and it was it was interesting but again you just have to treat them like anyone else. Um the bottom page 22 you know make the petitioner present their facts. It's not staff's job to deliver the facts that support the petitioner's petition. That's the petitioner's job. And so how do you do that? Asking questions. So you'll see on 23 some questions I would ask especially when it comes to like a reszone. I wrote them out. So that's worth looking at. Best practices are also on page 23. You might look at that. Vested rights, a more thorough intellectual kind of discussion on them. Page 24. Uh page 25 is the we it's not our job to enforce homeowners association covenants. It's just a friendly reminder. We all have covenants, but those are private agreements and we don't do that. If you'll now go to page 37. Yes, 37. Last year we had a ton of new cases. We had like seven uh or eight cases and this year we had one. So it was really interesting to me that I mean one case about what you guys really do and that was this chosen consulting case and this was in federal court went all the way to the seventh circuit appeals in Chicago and this case we're going to see these these are cases where a nursing home a developer wanted to repurpose a nursing home into a residential addiction center. Now, you could imagine if that's next to your subdivision, you you might hear opinions about whether that's a good

idea. And this is happening everywhere. It's really big business. It's there's a big need for it. And you know, everybody wants them, but they don't want them in their backyard. And so this case um in this case they the staff told the developer that they they needed a use variance and the um developer could have applied for the use variance uh in that particular case or uh they could have asked they could have appealed the staff's decision. They did neither. They simply called the town council president letter from someone at the town telling me I can do it. That's just what happened in him in in Highland, Indiana. And so um when he didn't get the letter, the developer didn't file for any of those things. He just sued in federal court saying that their refusal to give the letter was not only a violation of their own zoning uh procedures but also discrimination against those who had disabilities. Uh the court did something interesting here because I like what they did. They said, "Look, you can't do this. If you think the staff is wrong, you can appeal their decision to the BCA and if you if they say you need a use variance and you don't u challenge that in an administrative appeal, you're stuck with that and they had to file for use variance, you didn't either. You have no standing to be before the federal court. They really said again, there's a rule that says you have to exhaust your administrative remedies and they said chosen consulting did not do that. This case has been up and down for about a two-year period. This is we're going to hear about this case again. Uh but this this whoever this chosen consulting are, they they've been pretty serious about their battle. If you will look then on page 39, I just want to point out to you, I said this last year, but in the

world of open door law, just remember that it this is the Marshall County case, but if you um go to an executive session for an acceptable reason like litigation, we're going to talk about litigation we're in. We can talk about that. But then toward the end of the meeting, Bill Reid can't say, "Hey, by the way, let can we talk about that commercial battery thing?" Because that's what they did here. They met for a valid reason. They talked about valid things that are allowed under the act. And then because one member was concerned about something that was being proposed, they talked about a topic that would have been a text amendment. That's not allowed under executive sessions. So, you know how those are really secretive? You might ask yourself how they find out. The way the public access council filed that was one of them, one of the members of plan commission called them and turned themselves in and that's a violation. So, just remember and cannot do

question. We can have an executive session

over certain topics. Litigation strategy is one that would apply to you. most of the others would not apply to you. So, the initiation of litigation like a like an enforcement of a covenant. I had one recently with the plane commission. If you guys were going to initiate litigation, you could talk about it beforehand about whether you wanted to do that. Strategy, you don't make any decisions. You would have to come out in a public meeting and vote on that, but you can talk about strategy in executive session or someone sues you. Otherwise, most of the reasons you can meet an executive session which are related to employees or the purchase of real estate, things like that probably don't apply to plan commissions very often, but there there's a specific list of what you can meet in executive session for and that's the one that really applies to you. Otherwise, you can't do it.

Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Committee reports. BCA.

On BCA, we had uh two variances that were approved. The Chick-fil-A down front of the Meyers requested variance to put a canopy over their um the lanes where they deliver food. That was approved. and Joink uh which I guess is the company running fiber and Avon um asked for variance to put a small building on the property here on Avon Avenue um around the curve across from me thanks house their uh cables that they're using that was approved also so that was just to put a smaller building than what the ordinance requires with redevelopment uh with January and February. Uh January we had our and February of course we had invoice approvals. Uh in addition to that uh county road 525 rightaway purchase uh agreement to complete the required annual redevelopment commission reporting also in January. And then last week update on the police substation and training facility in addition to utility reimbursement agreement for county road 525 east with citizens water.

Okay. Any further committees we need to hear from? Don't think so. Okay. In that case we are adjourned.