Advisory Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Good evening and 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, and

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. All 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 sheets located on the tables to the right of the audience. And when your name is called, 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 to 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 to present objections to the petition. Persons in support of the petition other than the petitioner will have a total of 10 minutes to present support for the petition. And then finally, the petitioner will close the public hearing portion of the presentation with a fiveminute rebut rebuttal period. Once the public hearing is closed, no additional testimony will be heard unless it is solicited by members of the commission during the 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, the state of Indiana 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 there may be several persons who wish to speak. In order to keep the meeting running in a timely fashion, we would request that you not repeat previous comments. Thank you for your assistance in facilitating a respectful, fair, and timely meeting. Again, welcome and please stand for the pledge. 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.

Uh, we could do the roll call, please. Greg Zusen, here. Paul Genenberger here. Katherine Ransburg here. Dave Kaufman. Dave Kaufman is absent. Bill Reed here. Andrew Rockebrand here. Jennifer Spencer. Jennifer Spencer is absent.

We do have a quorum. However, I would like to point out to the um people who are present today that because we do not have a full body available. If you are wanting to have the full body hear your case as opposed to just simply the quorum, this would be an opportunity for you to consider whether or not you want to continue this until a time when we would have a full quorum, a full membership present. Let's move on to the approval of the meeting minutes. Where did I put those? Has everybody had an opportunity to to read the minutes? Are there any suggestions for um changes, edits, questions?

I make a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Second. Having heard a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I. I.

Meeting minutes of March 23rd are approved. We now turn to the public comment portion of our hearing. And this is the opportunity for anybody present to speak about anything that is not on tonight's hearing. If it's already scheduled for tonight's hearing, then please wait for that agenda item to come up. Otherwise, if you'd like to speak about something else, uh this is your opportunity to step forward. Anybody want to talk about something that's not being heard tonight? Okay. In that case, our public comment portion of the meeting is closed. Have there been any requests for continuences or agenda modifications?

Thank you, President Ransburg, members of the commission. Staff would draw your attention to DPR 2604 under new business. Um although you have a full report in your packet, staff was suggesting that this would probably be best continued to your May hearing to allow for uh some revisions to the site and landscaping plan. This is for Avon Landing building 3.

Nope. This is DPR 2604 Rice Gymnastics Gymnastics at 8170 Kingston Street. Um we were we were suggesting this should probably be continued in May. That was prior to the uh board of zoning appeals hearing last week where a variance request for this property was denied. And so that will also require some change to the site plan. And so the petitioner is in agreement with continuing this to your May 26 hearing without additional notice. Is this a a petitioner's request or a staff request? Let's call it a staff request.

Okay. Any comments or discussion about the staff's request to move DPR 2604 to the May 26th meeting, I think you said. Yes. Okay. Here. Okay. I'll entertain a motion. I'll make that motion to approve the continuence of DPR26-04 rights gymnastics to our May 26th uh 2026 meeting. Do we hear a second? Second. Having had a motion and a second. Uh we'll now take a uh take a roll call vote. Reed

four. Rockabbrand four. Zusen four. Guggenberger four. Ransburg four. Motion carries and DPR 2604 is continued to May 26th. There is no new bit no old business. So we now go on to new business which is DPR 2602 Avon Landing building 3. Just a minute. Staff goes first. Oh sorry many communities. We appreciate the enthusiasm. Go ahead and have a seat.

Okay. DPR 2602, Avon Landing, Building 3. Um, as you all are aware, Avon Landing is located on the northeast side of town where the Sephora park or Sephora building is and um, one other industrial building currently. And then the Avon Landing Apartments are also out that way. This development would be for 2569 Logistics Way, which is the southeast corner of Logistics Way and Ronald Reagan, lot three of the plat. And it currently is zoned PUD, and the PUD was approved in 2017, and it's also within the Ronald Reagan overlay. Um, to the north is an undeveloped industrial lot, which I will discuss. which I will discuss briefly. To this to the uh west is an existing industrial building. To the east is the Avon Landing Apartments that I mentioned earlier and to the south is an undeveloped piece of land that is currently zoned residential. Comprehensive plan uh recommends industrial for the site. So it would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. This is an aerial photo of the site. It's outlined in white. You'll see the Sephora building here. This is 900 Reagan. Another industrial building here. That was the first one that went up. Avon Landing Apartments are across Ronald Reagan. This is a little bit zoomed in. And that is the zoning. So everything that's in the Avon landing PUB is in pink. Uh except for over here. This is

residential across 900. Um the R1 shown south of the PUD is still R1, but it is planned for more industrial development similar to what is in this development. Just a few quick photos here. This is looking southeast towards the site across Logistics Way. This is the south side of Logistics Way. Um the site is to the right looking directly into the site. Again, the existing pond on site is already there as you can see. This is turned around looking towards uh Sephora is in the background here. So the site is to your left. This is the existing building one I think it is. Um to the west of the current site, that is the Sephora building. If you look to the southwest, this is looking due east on Logistics Way. And you can see in the distance the Avon Landing Apartments. The site is to your right. And then this is looking south um from the east edge of the property. Ronald Reagan is to your left and the majority of the site is to your right. Um history of the property I wanted to point out the property that's to the north um was approved for building 2 for Avon Landing and it was approved in 2003. Um it was approved with similar architectural waiverss as are being requested today for this building. Um, and it was not approved with the driveway separation, which I will talk about when we get to that one. Um, the site does have an amendment that was made to the original PUD for the size of the industrial buildings. Um, and then the

building one and then the plat are the also included in the history. So they're looking to construct an approximately 156,000 square foot industrial building. It would be for speculative occupancy uh with associated parking and loading drainage and then they have requested three waiverss here which we will um go through each one separately. So this is the site plan as proposed. um I have it the building in the main portion of the site and then two entrance drives shown here and here. Ronald Reagan is over here to your right. It would be automobile parking up here to the north of the building and then um truck loading um to the south. This isn't real clear on this um photo, but it is the landscape plan and the landscape on there has been reviewed. I will note and this is not in the end of your staff report. Um I have added a condition which will be on the screen at the end but there are perimeter trees here or what we call parkway trees along logistics way along the south side and they were shown on the site plan in the landscaping plan and I didn't catch it until after your staff report went out but there are not any right in this area immediately west of the pond and the reason for that is there was a temporary turnaround culde-sac here for a few years um before it was taken out when logistics way was um extended to the south. So the parkway trees here are missing and they just need to go in and

so I've added a fourth condition to your staff or to the staff report that the parkway trees be added to the landscaping plan. These are the building elevations proposed. They're very similar to what's existing around it and they are also similar to what was approved across the street although never constructed. So we're going to talk about the first waiver now and that relates to the separation of the new drive with logistics way and how how far the distance that is from the intersection at Reagan. Our thoroughfare plan identifies logistics way as a business collector here and the separation that's required as 300 ft from the stop bar here at Reagan this way should be 300 ft. The planning documents for the original uh PUB showed the drive in the proposed location that you'll that you saw in the site plan. So it had always planned to be here. You will also see the when the plat was approved, the drainage system for the entire development was put in. So you could kind of see here where the building footprint's going to go. So everything's been graded and such for the existing drainage system. So relocating the building is not uh ideal because it's already been developed and improved for the drainage system. Additionally, in 2017 when the PUD was originally approved, the Therapare plan did not include logistics way. And when the PUD was approved, I think it was going to be assumed that this was going to be a local street and not a collector, but it's since changed to a collector.

So, here's a a blowup of the intersection. And our standards require you to measure the distance separation from the edge of the drive, so right here, to the stop bar at Reagan. Our DPW director required this curve here to be much wider than it was originally going to be um for the purposes of having trucks coming out here, being able to make this turn without moving into oncoming traffic and then also not blocking both of these lanes when they pulled out to stop at the light. So requiring that made the edge of this driveway much closer to the stop bar when the the distance actually did not change from where the edge of the driveway would normally be. If you measure from the center line of the drive to the stop bar, it's approximately 250 ft. And then you'll also note that Reagan has a wide rideway. So from the edge of the pavement, if you come westward from that to this line, which is the property line, 70 ft, which is a large right of way. So the effective distance of folks coming down here and making this turn to the to the right if you're coming south or coming north and turning left, the effective distance from here to here does meet that 300 ft. If you bring in all the the distances that I've just talked about um on the site plan, you can see the previous development that was approved for building two. And again, I would like to know did that location did not

get a waiver. And I think the reason why is because in a PUD you can set your own standard. So, I believe the previous director saw the driveway location on the original PUD and determined that it was essentially approved by that PUD and that they didn't have to meet the full 300 ft that's in our current standards for a drive. I had to come through and get a waiver. I just I wanted it to be cleaner and and uh our DPW director was on board with that happening. But I think one could make the call either way that it either needs a waiver or the PUD kind of approved it already. So that's where we are with the requirement of the waiver. Uh we are recommending approval based on the DPW director's recommendation um that he is satisfied that the location of the driveway Let me go back to the site plan real quick. So, the way this lays out with all of the auto parking up north, ideally we would like the auto parking here to use one access and then the truck traffic to all use another access to keep them separated. However, because this is a speculative tenant construction, they could have the desire, and most industrial tenants do, to split the building and split the site so that truck traffic could use both and car traffic could use both. So having two entrances and exits uh we believe are necessary for the usage of the building for the potential tenants in the building um as well as um

fire safety and trucks getting in and around the building. So I will these are we are recommending approval um and mentioning the reasons that I already spoke about for that separation. So I'm going to move on to waivers B and C and I'll take them together because they are both architecture related. Um, these are both waiverss from the old zoning ordinance and I want to make sure that's clear that the Avon PUD when adopted referenced the former zoning ordinance. So, it takes into consideration architectural standards in the Ronald Reagan overlay that have been removed. So, they're not in the overlay anymore. We just refer back to the in the UDO we refer back to the current commercial industrial architectural standards and don't have any separate in the Ronald Reagan overlay. So these are for standards that aren't even in the ord anymore. Now the 50-ft wall um plane is still in the architectural standard. So that waiver would be necessary, but I just want to indicate especially waiver C that it's not required anymore in the UDO. So the first waiver is to have an 84 foot or have two 84 foot long building facades without the required change in plane. So that's just so you don't have a large uh wall with no no break in it. and they're having two 84 foot long um pieces of the front facade which is the north facade. And then the second waiver is to allow for wall plane projections that are um having a depth of less than 3% of the length. So, if we look at the facade of the building,

oh, I'm sorry. There are sticking two sets. There are two sets of 84 foot long for the front of this building. These are the sides. These show what the 50-ft lengths would be. And the sides are going to meet the architectural standards, but the front of the building, which is the north facade of the building, is not broken up quite as much. these four segments are 84 feet instead of 54 or 50 feet. Um, a main reason for the for this standard in the Ronald Reagan overlay of the former zoning ordinance was to have building facades that were more um officelike. they were that the quarter was envisioned to be um for corporate headquarters and offices and things like that where this kind of architectural change and standard would make sense, but it doesn't makes as much sense for a warehouse um in in an industrial district. Um I happen to think these this facade is actually better with these longer sections. It breaks up the shorter sections here with the longer sections. They actually showed me a a spec of what this facade would look like with the shorter sections and it was too busy actually and I don't think enhanced that northern facade. Then when we get to the projections and recessions in the front facade um 3% of this long building would be a lot to project in and out. So that's 18 feet I think what the projection would be. Um, we've changed that standard. Now it's it's three feet in or out, but the old ordinance still references the 3%. So, we are recommending approval

of both waivers. So, that would be approval of all three waivers and the staff ultimately is recommending approvals should the waivers be granted. and with the fourth additional condition that's not in your staff report that's up here that the a revised landscape plan be submitted that shows the parkway trees and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have I have a question um on waiver A there's two entrances off of logistics way

and the eastern, I'm sorry, the western entrance doesn't appear to have that broad curve that the that the one nearest Ronald Reagan has

in order to allow trucks to avoid and why would that not be necessary there as well as why would why would that broad and I I appreciate the design intent to it's a safety issue but why would that also apply to the second entry So making the right turn generally a truck can make that but they sometimes make a broader turn than they need to. In this instance someone making a broad wrong button. Someone making this broad turn and then going into oncoming traffic is significantly more of a problem from a safety standard for someone coming down here and turning and then automatically seeing a truck. Whereas the other location, if they swing out for a second or two, the oncoming traffic will certainly see that and not have as much of a safety issue

because they would already be on the drive another lane. Okay. How many semis can you stack there before you back into that exit? How long is a semi? 408 50 ft. Well, then the other the other unknown is you could be going right or you could be going left. So, you really have two stacking lanes then. Right. That's correct. I would say probably two comfortably three. All right. Then go back to the western. Oh yeah.

Egress ingress down on the bottom. It doesn't tie into the existing. Is there an existing driveway lower down down here? Right up right up right there. There's an existing drive here to the other industrial building. Do we need it does not line up match up line? Well, there's the pond is here, right? So, could you move the pond and drop move the pond up drive the driveway down? Well, it's an it's already there. Oh, okay. That's it. Well, you want to you want to drain it and relocate it then?

And this separation is compliant between these two. So, I have a question on the the waiver C, B, and C. So there it's it's really a waiver of the PUD requirements that they're asking for. Even though they reference the old zoning ordinance, they did that for a shortcut to indicate the standards, but it's their PUD. They're asking a waiver for it's it's a waiver of the the PUD referenced the former zoning ordinance, right? And the separation distance in the former zoning ordinance was same as today. The classification of that street was not the same as today.

Oh, you're BNC the the articulation I guess. I'm sorry. Yeah. Say the question again. So, they're asking for a waiver of their for their PUD, their their standards, their requirements, not to our zoning ordinances because even though they may reference that, it's what they wanted to have approved that they were going to design and build to.

So, why do they need that? Well, I I'll ask the petitioner about the waiverss, but it's to the PUD, not to our zoning ordinance. Correct. Okay. So I guess that I want to follow up with that because I want I'm not sure I completely understand if it's it is a POD correct and they set their own standards. Yes. And they're not required. So does that mean they're not required to come to us for a waiver or they're required to come to us to wave either their standards as well? They're required to come before us on the architectural standards for sure because those are referenced in the PUD.

Okay. A PUD can amend ordinance any standards district. The PUD didn't say this is where the driveway cut will be but it showed it. So one could say that it was already approved in that location that curb cut. Okay. But my question I my question is even though the PE the PUDs established its own standards in order to get away from those standards they still have to come to us for a waiver. Yes.

Okay. So it doesn't matter the fact that it's a PUD is irrelevant. Well, what I was trying to imply is or trying to indicate was I could have made a call that the PUD had already waved this separation. I chose to have them come to you to get the waiver, but I'm just saying that's why the one to the north didn't because I believe the planning director made the call that the separation was already on paper in the PUD. It's a judgment call, but okay.

But but on the building standards, they would need to get a waiver because they don't they're asking not to develop to the requirements that were agreed to that they set forward in their PUD. Correct. Okay. Okay. And then on BNC, the existing building that is there, that 400 and some square foot building, does it have the same waiverss within the architecture of that of those of that building?

That building did not request any waivers. I did not ma measure the facade pieces in it um to see if it actually made meets it. Um but the one across logistics way um definitely got waivers of these requirements. And just so I understand waiver C basically the the old the PUD said 3%. Ours says three feet. Correct.

Correct. Um and 3% would have not looked 3% is more similar to a smaller office building. It would make sense in that type of thing. But when you have a facade this long, an 18 foot projection and recession, okay, isn't practical. Okay. My last question is back to the waiver A. If you can show your Okay. The building to the north has not been built yet and their road cut will line up with their road cup. Correct. Correct.

All right. So, unmuted. So, is that showing an island in the in the center between at the north uh cutaway or is that just a painted? Yeah. Is that just a painted like lane marker? Oh, I see. I see what you're looking at. This is an extension of the turn lane. They are moving it a little bit to allow a little bit more. There is I I can't remember. I think there's a curb in the center here.

I I thought that was that would be odd if that other uh development north is going to use that same Oh, yeah. I understand. Yeah, this is noting where it's it's going to be extended to extended. Okay. So, but that that's just paint or that's just going to be a painted that will be paint. And I had a question about the waiver B I think it is uh for architectural um facade. Does the is the back exempt or is the back compliant? The Ronald Reagan overlay district did not require the back like the current UDO does for US 36 is what you're thinking about.

Yeah. Um it's not the same for the Ronald Reagan quarter on and this PUB. So it's not required correct on all four sides. Correct. Okay. Any further questions for staff? Okay. petitioner may come forward. Thank you. Um I'm Tyler Sylvia with American Constructure Point representing the petitioner Van Trust Real Estate. Um I'm so used to presenting at these so thank you Linda for covering that for me. Um I guess I open the floor to questions, right?

Would you like to just sum up anything? Yeah, I I can run back through what Linda already spoke to, but um yeah, it's 156,000 foot warehouse in the uh Avon Landing District. Um it was master planned a handful of years ago. Um the building, the first lot to the northwest has already built. The lot to the north has mostly been approved, but hasn't been built yet. And yep, she got to all of it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Question I can address maybe some of Oh yeah, the architectural questions.

Yeah, too. Um, my name is Paul Meyer. I'm with J Architecture. Um, let's see. What is our address? 7222 North Shadlin, Indianapolis, Indiana 46250 9025 River Road.

All right. a little bit of history on some of these PUDs. I know this one and the one for Avon Logistics Park were done about the same time as far as PUDs go, if I remember right. I I do forget things now. I'm getting a little older here, so I don't have ironclad memory. But, um, at that time, I believe you had a planning director who was sort of an interim director, if I remember right, when these couple PUDs came up. And I think her rationale was she wanted to have that wording in the PUD and she wanted us to bring in and make a case for the exceptions which is the waiver process. So I think that's kind of her thinking. She knew it wasn't really appropriate, but she didn't want to just let us do whatever we wanted. She wanted to make sure the plan commission has it has an ability to understand why we're asking for the waiver from our own PUB. I know it's a little silly and we tried to tell her that our attorney tried to tell her not to do that but it's in place and since then we've developed a few buildings here and uh down in Avon Logistics Center over by the rail yard as well. So we're going to do another building there and we're going to have to ask for the same kind of waiver. So it's Not that we don't want to comply, it's just they don't make a lot of sense for this building type in particular. Um, when we're talking about the 3% facade length, I think that's C. Um, on this length of building, the long length, it'd be almost 20 24 feet of a uh projection or a recess, which is pretty big, pretty deep at 3%. Now, on the sides, that still was 7.8. 8 ft. So that's a big divot in your building or a big projection sticking out there and we'd probably be in the front yard of

Ronald Reagan pretty quickly if we did that. So that's why we're doing the projections on these building entrant corners is 3 foot4. So it does meet the current ordinance for those type of steps. And then there are also some depressions in the facade which are the vertical stripe areas that kind of break up the facade. And we're in compliance on the Ronald Reagan side because those are 48 feet apart basically. I think they're 8 foot long maybe. And the longer facade like we discussed earlier. When we looked at putting two of those in between the entry features, it looked really busy. It kind of chopped up that facade. So we did present that. And so we were hoping, you know, that we would we spaced them out about 84 feet apart. and they seem to look a lot better in proportion to the building facade. So that's the rationale for those uh couple waiverss that we're asking for.

Before you go any further, is there anybody present who'd like to demonstrate against this project?

And I'm assuming everybody else is here to support the project. Is that correct? That's fine.

So, does that help kind of illustrate why we're asking for these waiverss or is there you have any other questions that I can address or Yeah. So, I think um I appreciate you bringing that history up and and I agree with the planning director at the times like the the idea is not to give the community a blank check on you can build whatever because we have no requirements in there. So, I'm I'm sure for your referencing the person I'm thinking of, she wanted to have some sort of standards in there, check process. Um, and I believe at that time these this property and the one to the north were envisioned to be more of a commercial type development than a warehouse.

So then that leads to the question I was going to ask to begin with is are these waivers more to align the development to a warehouse like u what Linda was talking about. Is that why you're asking for a waiver to your PD?

Yeah, correct. because you could see if there's a lot of projections and you're got racks of material. If something comes into the building or you know you project out it's not it's not usable space and if it comes in then it's you know um breaking up your racking and your forklift traffic paths are ziggy zigging and zagging around those projection so it's not as efficient. So this building if based off um the waiverss here would look more like what's been built behind it and the Sephora that type of building. I can't speak for Seapora, but it'll look very much in proportion to the existing building one. Okay. Thank you. What's my question? Is this in line with what we have in building one?

Yeah. And the colors are going to be the same as that as that building as well. So it's it's we're trying to remain proportional. Well, I know we need to address the uh Ronald Reagan facade. So, we did that here by breaking that facade up a little bit more since it's directly uh adjacent to Ronald Reagan.

Any additional questions for petitioner?

Okay, go ahead and have a seat. Thank you. So, um, just for the record, before we can go on to approval of the petition, we first need to address the waiverss and trying to find everything. Okay, here we go. So, waiver A, uh, let's go ahead and discuss this. And this obviously has to do or I shouldn't say obviously, but this is the request for the waiver uh relating to the drive um entrance closest to Ronald Reagan. I appreciate um safety is always is a primary purpose for our ordinances and waiver is specifically a safety um issue. I appreciate our um uh director of public works insisting that that entry be wider to allow for the turn of trucks without impeding cars that are turning onto Ronald Reagan because that's not a very short space or a very big space to be coming in. So to me that safety feature overrides the requirements of the ordinances. Yeah, I think that's a that's a compensation that you make if you don't if you can't meet ordinances exactly like like on the other entrance the ordinance is fully met and there's not a wide cutout. So in this case because of the short cutout you make other uh compensations to increase safety. I think that's exactly what this waiver process is about.

Yeah, I agree. Any other discussion about waiver A? Okay. Well, then if we're done with discussion, we'll entertain a motion with regards to waiver A. Is that correct?

Yeah. I I move that we approve uh DPR 2602 waiver A, a request to wave Avon UDO 7.21E to allow for full access driveway under Logistics Way located approximately 125 ft from the intersection of Ronald Reagan Parkway with a minimum 300 foot separation required since it has satisfied all the requirements for waiverss under state law and subject to the approving approved findings of fact. I'll second. Having heard a motion and a second, we'll now take a vote. Rocker Brand four. Reed, four. Ransburg, four. Guggenberg, four. Susan, four.

Having had a unanimous force or a unanimous vote, the U request for a waiver um A is approved. We now move on to waiver B, which involves the the distances between the facade breaks. Um, I really like the way that um, Linda and the petitioner talked about it and being able to see it. Um, I can even though we haven't seen what it would look like if we met the ordinances, I can see how it would be very cluttered looking if there were more breaks on that wall with it being with the building being as large as it is and especially with the three entrance doors being designed the way they are. And this is an architectural feature. So, it's or an architectural standard. So, it's really about appearances.

Yeah, I think uh one I appreciate the the historical reference that the petitioner gave us and I think Linda did a good job of, you know, what's being built versus maybe what the concept plan was when the POD was put in place. Um, so I thought staff did a good job of explaining the need for this waiver and why they support that. Mhm. Well, it helps that the developer is the same one who built the building that's already existing. So, it makes sense. Any further discussion on waiver B?

If not, we'll entertain a motion. I move that we approve DPR26-02 waiver B, a request to wave old zoning ordinance section 24-123 as incorporated into the Avon Landing PUD to allow for 84 foot building facade sections without the required change in plane pattern window or equivalent element maximum 50 foot uninterrupted wall permitted 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, a second, we'll now take a vote. Reed four, Ransburg,

four, Guggenberger for Zusen for Rockerbrand four.

Motion carries unanimously. Wor B is passed. We now move on to waiver C, which has to do with the depth of the recesses or projections on the outside of the building. I am very glad that they're not asking that we do the 3% if it's going to be 28 ft. Well, I think this is the same as waiver B and what Linda had described that um it it maybe um might have made sense for what was the concept plan at the time, but for a warehouse. So again, I think staff did a good job of in the report and explaining it and and I agree that um that we should approve waiver C.

And I appreciate the fact that they're not asking to eliminate the projections entirely, but that they're just asking it to be adapted to the actual project itself, the realities of the project itself. So So does it? It's just waving that doesn't change. They aren't adding anything. Did I hear different? They do have projections in just a 3% we're we're waving. They're not asking for just a big flat space. Yeah.

Okay. Any further conversation, discussion, questions? If not, we'll entertain a motion. I'll move that we approve uh DPR 2602 waiver C to request a wave old zoning ordinance uh section 24-123 as incorporated into the Avon landing PUD to allow for wall plane projections or recesses having a depth of less than 3% of the length of the facade minimum 3% foot required since it has satisfied all the requirements for waiverss under state law and subject to the approved findings of facts. I'll second. Having heard a motion and a second, we'll now take a vote. Cookenberg, four, Ransburg, four, Reed,

four, Rockefus, four,

and waiver C is approved. Having approved waiver A, B, and C, we now move on to the develop development plan approval, DPR 2602. Um, I think the fact that we've approved all the waiverss is kind of indicative of where we feel about this, but it's nice to see those that land being developed. Um, sometimes these approval processes have end up with land just sitting there for years and years and I'm glad to see that this is moving forward. Um any further any discussion, commentary, knock jokes?

No. Okay. In that case, we'll entertain a motion. I move that we approve DPR26-02 Avon Landing Building 3, a development plan review to develop an approximately 156,400 ft industrial building with associated parking, loading, and drainage facilities subject to the conditions listed in the staff report since it has satisfied all the requirements for a development plan review under state law and subject to the approved findings of fact. And you want to amend your staff your motion to add the fourth condition that's on the screen about the revised landscape. Oh, with the uh with the fourth condition as amended. I thought you did. Thanks.

Second. That's the revised landscape plan. Thanks for that. That's the revised landscape plan. Yes. Correct. Oh, yes. Thanks for that. I'll second. Second. Second. Having heard a motion and a second, we'll now take a vote. Reed, four. Rocke, four. Zusen, four. Guggenberg for Ransburg for DPR 2602 is approved. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you gentlemen.

We now move on to other business. Determination of necessity of emergency action for an unsafe building. Yes. So I will introduce this and then I know that Drew is going to speak uh to this as well because he's been on the ground working on this project. Um, but just as some background, um, there is a site at 1137 North Avon Avenue where there has been an ongoing unsafe building action being taken by the town. Um, in situations like this, uh, how this process works, it's kind of broken up between different parts of the town. Um, so your building department is actually your enforcement authority under your town code. Um, that's under state law, you designate someone as your enforcement authority. So under your town code, the building department is the one that really takes action with regards to unsafe building or unsafe premises within the town. Um however, there are certain situations in which you have to go to a hearing authority. Um in this case, you the plan commission is the hearing authority under unsafe building. Um under your town code, um there are certain actions the building department takes without having to seek your authority and then there are certain times where they must come to you and seek your authority. And one of those is when emergency action is taken. So, generally in unsafe building um cases, we provide several notices to the property owner. We make several requests that they do this work on their own or pay for the town's costs associated with this work. But there are certain situations when there's um the town determines that there's an immediate threat to safety or there's a danger that the town can take action without notice um and go ahead and take corrective action just to remedy the immediate danger. Um, in this case, there was projects done that weren't um there wasn't an immediate threat to danger and those were taken care of. And I know that Drew will speak to you about that, but that's not really what we're talking about tonight. We're not talking about cleaning up the pond or the contractor that we had go out. For those, we did provide notices to the property owners, several notices, and the town council recently approved um administrative costs associated with that action. What we're asking you

tonight to approve is the emergency action, which was um action taken and work done on the actual property itself to make it secure and sealed and safe from um essentially people from going in um or being subject to danger if they were on that site. Um, so I know that Drew will talk more about that, but what we're asking you tonight is to determine that the action taken by the town with regard to the emergency action was necessary and that the cost that we um incurred that we'll eventually attempt to collect from the property owner was a reasonable cost. Um, so you'll have um a chart with lots of costs on here. Some of this has already been approved by the town council. Um, but I'll just point out that the only cost that we're approving tonight is the $29546, which is the cost of the materials to seal the building and then the cost of the notices sent to the property owner with regards to this hearing. Doesn't mean that those other costs aren't going to be sought. We're not going to seek that from the property owner. They're just being sought under the general unsafe building action and not under the emergency action because generally we want to provide as much notice to the property owner as possible. um they were provided notice of this hearing tonight of other of everything that we've done on their property with the exception of the emergency action which is why we have to come to you tonight. So I just want to give you that background and then I'll let Drew give you an explanation as to what's been going on on the property.

So there's been no response from the registered agent or from the LLC that owns the building. I'll have Drew speak to that a little bit more because he's been um the one in contact with the property owner. Thanks.

Evening plan commission. My name is Drew Wilson. I'm the uh code enforcement officer for the town of Avon. Our unsafe building action started on March 3rd, 2025. During a routine inspection, it was found that the door had been broken into and it was irreparably damaged. They busted the lock off and the door knob so you couldn't shut the door. So, we closed the door the best we could, pushed it up against there, it didn't latch. On March 5th, we left a voicemail for the property owner's legal representative and we got that information because they were uh working with DPR2504 for the Avon Sea store. It's that location. So, we did try to reach out to them. Uh we did not get a answer back on March 20th, 2025 during the TAC meeting. We gave them the uh corrective notice that said it's an unsafe building. It's unsecured building. It needs to be secured because someone could go in there and get hurt or trapped or into the building. On April 1st, I inspected the building again and the condition of the building was the door was almost completely off. The inside of the building was completely wrecked. The office area, all the copper had been removed. All the all the fixtures had been taken down and destroyed. So, in an effort to secure the building itself that we bought a lock and a new latch and lashed the door and put a padlock on there where no one else could get in there. We continued weekly inspections of the site until October 30th, 2025 when during our inspection, we found that someone had busted our brand new lock off of the building and went in and uh graffitied the building, damaged that. They also busted out there's a small window that's on the door front facing

it to Avon Avenue. They broke that. So, there was broken glass right where someone could reach in and get cut. So, uh, on November 20th, the town of Avon published a notice to correct in the Republican newspaper with no one coming forward with necessary repairs to secure that building. On November 26, 2025, we purchased the required supplies and we boarded the front door of the building up and boarded the window up, knocked all the glass out of it so no one could get cut if they were to get in there. We also posted a notice on there that it was an unsafe building and that no one should be going into that building. Weekly inspections continued on to present day without further issue to the building. I can take any questions you have. What is the what is the emergency action specifically that you're asking for? It just says necessity of emergency action.

Uh the emergency action was for us to board up the building, board up the window so no one had access to the building where they could go in there and get injured. Are there is Is there an intent to gain eminent domain over this building in order to tear it down or The only thing that we're asking tonight is to recoup the cost that we had securing the unsafe building. What goes forward with the building, I'm not quite sure. Okay. Okay. So, this is just strictly about an accounting.

This is only just to recoup the cost that the town had to put out to secure that building. And that is $2,74.95. No, the total is 29546. Oh, the 29546. Okay.

Probably what's more important is when you talked about earlier the project representative, who was that? Uh, that was their legal representative that was on the property. the agent? No, not the registered agent. Their actual uh legal representative. Their attorney was the one that was working with the DPR with the planning department. Their legal attorney was Pat Rooney. He he was here a couple times for the land development or the development plan review. He was hired for the petition. I don't think he represents them on everything, but that's who we had. So, we we noticed him along with the owners.

Okay. and he was representing them when they were looking to get an approval of their project when they were the petitioner that was denied. So I don't Is he still representing them or is he I guess what I'm trying to find is who can we contact instead of just sending stuff up because this is going to continue to happen. this isn't going to go away until the building goes away. And I don't want to incur the cost of that. And I get what you're trying to do. And you've got better things to do than go over there and and uh look for vagrants or uh look at uh any destruction to the existing building. So

what do we do to keep it from happening? The three certified letters that we did send for the unsafe building, two of them were signed for and returned to us. And that was uh Mr. Rooney's and the registered agent. Both of them signed for it and returned the green card back to us, but we did not get a response from the property owner himself, which is Three Brothers LLC. Yes. Okay. and we're going to put a lean against the property for any of the costs that we've incurred, your 295 that you're requesting and whatever the town council approved at their last meeting. Correct.

Uh, correct. So, there's several costs kind of coming from different angles here. So, the town council um at the last meeting approved the average forecast of processing expense associated with this, which I included cost of salaries, times, attorneys fees, cost of notices, cost of searching for these property owners. Um, that's just kind of the administrative cost. We also are going to be collecting the cost of the uh corrective action that was taken. That was not an emergency action. A contractor did go out. We still have another contractor we're anticipating is going to go out to make additional repairs with regards to that pond in the back. Um, so that was done. We're going to have to do that again. Um, so those will be leaned as well. They've been provided notices that that work's been done. We have not received payment. We will send them notice of not only this tonight's cost, the cost the town council approved, but also the contractor's work. If they don't pay that within a certain period of time, we can file a lean on the property. Um, with respect to this, I I know the general concern is broader than the emergency action with regards to this property. There are certain circumstances where if this does go far enough, the property may be considered abandoned under statute. Um, so there if we'd make a determination that the property's been abandoned, we could move forward with essentially where the town takes over the property. Um, that's not always um that would be a determination that we'd have the town council eventually make. Um, but at this time we wanted to just get out there, get this done now, and then we can assess future steps with regards to the property if this is an ongoing issue.

The the question I had asked was were the property taxes current and the answer was yes, just for what's due in May. So, if you base it on the taxes are current, would it be difficult to say the property has been abandoned? Potentially. There are several factors that go into the abandonment. Um, but a continuous ongoing unsafe building action is a factor in determining whether it's abandoned. So, initiating this action is one step that we're taking with regards to that um determination.

Thank you. Any further questions, discussion that case, we'll take a we'll entertain a motion. I move that we affirm the necessity of the emergency action taken at a unsafe building and premises and affirm the cost as presented in the staff report for UB26-01 1137 North Avon Avenue since it has satisfied all the requirements under state law and town code. I'll second.

Having heard a motion and a second, we'll now take a vote. Susan four, four, four, four, four.

Having taken a unanimous vote, we now affirm the necessity for or we affirm UB 2601 for 1137 North Avon Avenue. Committee reports. So BCA had one case uh where the um BZA denied a variance request to put a trash storage area in the front of the building. That was the only case we hurt

development invoice approvals and addition uh resolution 2026-03 no excess assessed value was approved addition to the fee schedule for trustee registar and paying agent services quote for extraction fan and HVAC equipment for the police substation and finally arbitrage rebate calculation for lease rental bonds of 2020 and then also Avon logistics improvements discussion. Okay. Anything from the town?

Um we talked about this the necess necessity of emergency action that we just talked about and then the other item was um tax abatement on a 613,000 square foot building uh down on 100 South the Church of Latterday Saints property. Okay. That's the first step of probably three. Anything else from the town or staff? I would like to note that your next meeting on May 26th is a Tuesday because of the Memorial Day holiday. So, just note that.

Thank you for that reminder. I will not be here for that meeting. I'll be golfing. being here. In that case, if there is nothing more for the good of the order, we are now adjourned.