Advisory Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

you

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. 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 that 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 sheets located on the tables to the right of the audience. 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 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 total to present their case to the commission. Remonstrators will have 10 minutes total to present objections to the petition. Persons in support of the petition, other than the petitioner, will also have 10 minutes total to present support for the petition. And finally, the petitioner will close the public hearing portion of the presentation with a five-minute 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, 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 there may be several persons who wish to speak this evening. In order to keep the meeting running in a timely fashion, we request that you not repeat previous comments. Thank you for your assistance in facilitating a respectful, fair, and timely meeting. Again, welcome to our meeting. Please stand for the pledge.

And let's move on to a roll call.

Greg Zuzan. Greg Zuzan is absent. Paul Guckenberger. Here. Katherine Ransberg.

Here.

Dave Kaufman. Bill Reed. Here. Jennifer Spencer. Jennifer Spencer is absent. Andrew Rockerbrand. Here.

We do have a quorum. I would like to... point out to any of the petitioners here today that because we don't have a full commission, we do have a quorum but not a full commission. If you are concerned about what the outcome of your petition request is and you would rather have it be heard by full commission, you might consider whether or not you want to continue your petition request. Moving on to the approval of the meeting minutes. Has everybody had an opportunity to read the meeting minutes from April? And are there any suggestions, changes, editorial comments from anyone? If not, I'll entertain a motion.

I motion we accept the minutes from last meeting as written. Second.

Having heard a motion and a second, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries, minutes are approved. We are now in the public comment portion of the meeting. This is when you have the opportunity to come forward and speak to the commission about anything that is not on tonight's agenda. If there is something you want to say relating to what is on the agenda, please wait until that portion, but if you would like to speak about anything else. I always bring up too many chicken places on 36 or needing more rib places or anything like that. Now is your opportunity to step up and be heard. Is there anybody who'd like to come forward and speak for anything not on the agenda tonight? Okay, then our public comment portion of the meeting is closed. Staff, have there been any requests for continuances or agenda modifications?

We have not received any from the public. However, staff would draw your attention to DPR 2604, rights gymnastics under old business. And because you also have a zoning map amendment for the same property under new business, we would suggest that it would make more sense for you to hear the zoning map amendment first, since the DPR is somewhat dependent on the action on the zoning amendment. So we would recommend that you move DPR 2604 to the end of new business. 2601. DPR 2604, we would recommend that you move that to be item 6.4 or in that position after ZA 2601.

Okay, sorry, I apologize. So you want to move rights gymnastics to DPR 2604 to be heard immediately before 2601.

No, actually to be after ZA 2601.

After 2601, okay. Anybody have any objections to that? Okay. Okay, so now we're moving on to Actually, old business is being moved to the end of new business. So we're now going straight to new business, which is MIP 2601, Shiloh Crossing, Minor Platte.

Thank you. This is a request to subdivide two lots and one block into, or one block into two lots and one block. This property is at the intersection of US Highway 36 and Shiloh Crossing Drive. It's across from the Target Shopping Center and also across from Texas Roadhouse to the east. Surrounded by commercial development, the land use plan recommends commercial office development. This is the site, as I just mentioned, the Target Shopping Center is down here. This is Shiloh Crossing Drive. Texas Roadhouse is in here. So we're talking about this piece here, and there is a drainage ditch that runs through the middle of it. This was originally plotted in 1995 under the county, and it is one of the lots and blocks within that. And then last year there was a petition, administrative petition to relocate that ditch a little bit to the north. You'll see the ditch in here that kind of angles down and then it's being relocated a little bit to the northeast. So these are the side-by-side of what's existing right now. Lot seven's the lower lot, the block F is where the ditch is. And they would subdivide lot seven into lot 7A and 7B. And then block F would change a little bit based on where the ditch is being relocated. 7A would continue to house the edge of the existing strip center and 7B would be available for development under the C2 district and the US 31 overlay district. Lot 7B would be accessed via an access easement going through the existing lot 7A to access drive that's north of the lots that backs up to the lots. No access is proposed. to Shiloh Crossing Drive or to US 36. It would be up through an access drive to the Shiloh Professional Drive, which is a private drive to the north. Again, it was originally approved in 1995. It would be split into a 7A and 7B with the block F being slightly redrawn to allow for the two lots, and lot 7B would be available for commercial development The plot meets all standards of the UDO. There are no waivers requested. We are recommending approval subject to our three standard conditions.

I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. At first I thought there might be some pages missing because there's only one and a half pages on the report. No waivers, no no other request other than just reconfiguring?

It's adding an additional developable lot and reconfiguring the lot lines of the existing parcels. Okay.

So taking the lot from two to three parcels.

Correct.

Okay.

So I do have a question. It seems like a really small lot. What kind of businesses that we've seen could go on a lot that size?

We have been, um, in preliminary discussions with some folks that want to develop the corner and we have seen site plans and other than needing a special exception, um, the lot does appear to be developable. I mean, it would utilize some of the parking that's kind of there and they would be an integrated center together. So it's not, it doesn't need it's full setbacks. Like, like it's a separate lot. It's going to be integrated with what's there.

I'm assuming like a special exception could be something like a drive through on 36. That would be correct. Thank you.

Any further questions for staff? Okay. Petitioner, make him forward.

Good evening. My name is Ryan Lindley with Banning Engineering 853 Columbia Road, Plainfield. um linda stole all my glory as will paul later um we only hire the best so yeah very very cut and to the point here um just uh creating another developable lot for um a piece that uh you'll probably see come before you in a couple months and happy to answer any questions

Okay, thank you. Is there anybody present who'd like to come forward and speak in favor of the proposal? Is there anybody who would like to come forward to remonstrate against the proposal? Okay, I'm assuming you don't want to do any rebuttal, so. Okay. Discussion?

I think staff has presented it with the details and with their report. It's pretty straightforward. As you just said here, it's dividing up a lot to develop a lot. and that strip mall, so it's pretty straightforward. Staff recommends approval and I would agree with them.

Yeah, I don't- Any other commentary?

I don't see, the only question I would have is, does it need to be split or just reconfigured? So the splitting into a lot allows for separate purchase, is that correct?

That's correct.

Just to show that the petitioner confirmed, yes. Yes, OK. Any other conversation? If not, we'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion. I'll move that we approve MIP 26-01. Shiloh Crossing, Minor Platte, amended lot seven and block F. I request to subdivide 2.8 acres into two lots and one block, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, since it has satisfied all the requirements for Minor Platte 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.

Guggenberger? For. Randsburg?

For.

Coffman?

For.

Reed?

For.

Rockabrand? For.

Okay, motion carries and MIP 2601 is approved. And now we move on to... What am I missing? Oh, DPR 2607, Avon Logistics Building.

Thank you, President Randsburg, members of the commission. This is a request for development plan review to provide for construction of a little over 600,000 square foot industrial building with parking, loading and related improvements. located 9538 East County Road 100 South. It is currently part of block A in the Avon Logistics Center, section one subdivision. There is currently a final plat pending under administrative review, which will create lot three for this particular building. And that lot three will be 48.1 acres. It is zoned PUD. On the map here, this is the Avon Logistics Center PUD. You have lot one and lot two over on the west end. This will be lot three. But it will be building six because the buildings, existing and planned or numbered going left to right or west to east. So it will be lot three. We're not discussing the lot because the subdivision, the final plat is reviewed administratively and we don't see any issues with that being approved. It just needs to go through the steps. But the building that will be on here is referred to as building six. And that's just a view of the site facing north from County Road 100 South. That's a look northeast towards the abutting subdivision, which is Sunchase, which is under Hendricks County jurisdiction. That's a look at the industrial development across the street to the south. And that's looking west down 100 from the front of the site, where you can see buildings one and two in the distance. Finally, that's just a look at the front facade of building, I believe that's building two, which is on lot one. It's a little confusing, but that is the closest industrial building when you go west in Avon Logistics. And then that's a look at, I believe, building one, which is on lot two. looking west from the parking lot of lot one where building two sits, if I have that correct. So the site was rezoned as part of the Avon Logistics Center PUD back in 2020. which rezoned about 273 acres into that planned unit development. There was another 70 acres added shortly thereafter. And then it was, well, lots one and two were platted and block A was created, which is where this future lot three will be created shortly to allow for the construction of this building number six, Clear? Great. The surrounding uses to the north, you have the CSX rail yard. To the west are the unimproved portions of Block A in the Avon Logistics PUD. To the east is the Sunchase single family subdivision that I mentioned. And to the south is industrial development across COUNTY ROAD 100 SOUTH. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS PARCEL AS WELL AS THE REST OF THE AVON LOGISTICS. YOU HAVE IN YOUR SITE PLAN, IN YOUR PACKET, A COPY OF THE SITE PLAN. IT'S OBVIOUSLY A LARGE SITE, SO IT'S HARD TO SEE AT THE SIZE THAT THE STAFF WOULD READ THAT, BUT THIS IS A COPY OF THE site plan county road 100 is to the left so north is if you go left to right that's going south to north so here's county road 100 here's the ontario road which is proposed which will go between building six and presumably building five in the future there's parking in the front as well as in the rear I don't believe that a user for the site has been identified. So it could be a single user. It could be a multi-tenant building with office space and employee access on both ends. And then you'd have loading along both the east and west sides of the building with trailer storage there. Very similar to what's already been approved and developed on lots one and two to the west. This is just an excerpt of the revised site plan showing the pedestrian connection from County Road 100 to the building, which staff required as part of the attack review comments that has been added. This is an overall landscape plan. i think it might have been mentioned in the staff report trees needed to be added along county road 100 here to meet the parkway tree requirement that's been added to this revised plan and then this is just a portion of the plans along ontario road just because it's not shown on this overall plan but there will be trees planted along the proposed Ontario Road frontage. So there's separate sheets showing that. And this is just where Ontario Road begins from County Road 100 South going north. If I included the other three sheets, you'd see the trees were proposed on both sides of that street all the way going north. These are the proposed billion elevations. At the top, you have the south elevation that would be considered the front facing County Road 100 south. We do believe that it meets the architectural standards of the PUD ordinance. This is the rear that would face north towards CSX. And then these two really long sides would face east and west Um, again, our review has concluded that they do meet the architectural standards and the ordinance. It would have a very similar appearance to the existing buildings that have been constructed to the West. So we do find that the site plans, landscape plans and elevations do meet the requirements of the PUD as I mentioned, as well as the applicable requirements of the UDO with no waivers being requested or deemed necessary per staff's review. So for those reasons, we are recommending approval of DPR 2607 subject to the following conditions. And those are three standard conditions that you see with any DPR. and I'd be happy to answer any questions the commission might have.

It's been a minute since we reviewed or since we had buildings one and two, also known as lots one and two reversed in front of us. And if I recall, and I was trying to think about this, Paul, maybe you can help me. There were some questions about at that time parking maybe or something else that we required some changes. I don't know if you do, I don't recall. Yeah, it's been too long, but I just wanted to confirm with staff that this building is consistent in terms of, and consistent with the other buildings in terms of the way they're, can they're configured.

Yeah, I, we weren't here when the previous buildings were reviewed, but as far as the parking goes, um, the ordinance would require a minimum of 205 spaces and this plan shows 393 being proposed.

There was an issue with lot one, building two, needing more parking for a tenant they had in there and they wanted to potentially do some offsite parking. I'm not sure if that's what you're thinking of.

Maybe that's what I'm remembering.

But I don't, that went away, so.

Okay, okay. And that would not be an issue here? Correct. Okay, okay.

I was wondering, Paul, could you talk to the east edge of the development that's the one that abuts with the residential area i mean what was the buffer that's planned there that you've received no last petition of that too so there's a 40 foot um landscape easement or uh excuse me yeah 40 foot landscape easement required along the east property line

per the PUD that is being met. It's hard to see on such a large site, a single page, but you can see the landscaping that would be planted at 40 foot landscape easement. And then it should be noted that there's woods to the, in the Northeast corner that are also marked to be, preserved and that area not disturbed. And then you also have the retention or detention area that would also just provide a spatial buffer between the development and the neighborhood to the east in addition to the 40 foot landscape easement.

Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.

Any additional questions for staff? With that, we'll have the petitioner come forward.

Good evening again, Ryan Lindley with Banning Engineering, 853 Columbia Road in Plainfield. Also with me this evening is an owner's representative, Luke Roffey, as well as the architect, Paul Myers here on JRA. Another thorough presentation by staff. I will add to the buffer along Sun Chase. So during the PUD, which as you can imagine that was a hot topic, we met with the the residences of the subdivision, came up with a nice buffer. There's a four-foot mound, a variety of native trees. Also, as Paul mentioned, there's a large detention pond, the banks of which will be lined with native plantings, prairie grasses, that sort of thing. Linda educated me during the TAC meeting that Sunchase, and forgive me if I don't quote you correctly, but Sunchase had an interest in bees and butterflies. So all of the plantings along that east side there are geared to attract those types of things. So other than that, with our representatives here, we can answer some more questions if you have.

Thank you. Is there anybody here who would like to speak against this proposal? Is there anybody here who'd like to step up and speak in favor of this proposal? Then we don't need any rebuttal. Okay, discussion. I like the fact that there's not being any waivers requested. That always makes me happy.

Yeah, Paul, can you go back to the photo you had showing essentially the back of the Sanchez property? So there's, it looks like there were significant existing trees that are right there. Are those planning to stay? Is there any, so there's no touching of any of those trees? You're just going to add, essentially add to the buffer with additional, okay.

Yeah, those trees are actually, I believe, in a common area in the Sunshade subdivision. So they shouldn't be touched at all.

Okay.

Could you step forward again? Just to follow up on that. So there will be additional landscaping added to that. So that visual buffer will be much greater than it is now.

Absolutely.

So it looks like you're adding another row of trees between Sun Chase and the detention pond. And then planting along that as well, or how is that described?

So the existing trees will remain, and then all those darker images there are the proposed trees.

Additional trees, okay.

I do have a color exhibit from the PUD to share with you. It may help you visualize. It's the last page. There you go. So you can see the green strip between the houses and the colored trees there. That is the existing tree line. And then the colored trees would be what is being proposed on a four foot tall mound. And then the edges of the pond would be the native plantings.

I see.

Thank you for that.

Thank you.

I appreciate the efforts made by the petitioner to accommodate the neighbors on that and native plantings.

So just to confirm with staff, I mean, with the DPR, unless there would be something that we would identify that we didn't agree with your decision, this is ministerial, no waivers, straightforward. That's correct. Thank you.

Any further discussion? Questions for the petitioner or for staff? If not, we can entertain a motion.

I move that we approve DPR 26-07 Avon Logistics Building 6, a development plan review to provide for construction of 613,714 square foot industrial building. with surface parking and related improvements 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.

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

Reed. Four. Rockabrand. Four. Guggenberger. Four. Bransburg.

Four.

Coffman.

DPR 2607 is approved. We now moved on to ZA 2601, is that correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you again, President Randsburg. ZA 2601 is a request for a favorable recommendation for a zoning map amendment rezoning 2.27 acres from I-2 and C-2 to exclusively C-2. Property is located at 8170 Kingston Street. It is lot 13 in Avon Commerce Park. And it is located within tier three of the US Highway 36 overlay. You have this look at the zoning map. The red box outlines the site. The blue area is zone C2. So you have US 36 up here to the north, Dan Jones off to the west. And you have everything coming south from US 36 is C2 until you get about a third of the way into this site. And then the green area is currently zone I2. This is a look facing north from Kingston Street at the unimproved site with the Godby Furniture Store in the background. This is a look facing west from Dover Street across the vacant site, the building in the background where there's a dental or orthodontics office and another medical office there to the northwest of the site. This is facing north along Dover Street with the subject site visible to the left. And then this is facing west along Kingston Street with the subject site visible to the right. This site was planted back in 1997. It was brought into the US 36 overlay upon adoption of those provisions in 2008. Most recently, the Board of Zoning Appeals heard a variance at their last meeting in April, a variance request that would have allowed for a trash enclosure to be located within the established front yard, and that was denied by the Board. So the site plan that accompanies the development plan review has been amended. to relocate the trash enclosure out of the established front yard we'll talk of course about that dpr after after this case but the dpr would allow for a roughly 23 000 square foot commercial flex building with a waiver related to driveway location so this is just a sneak preview if you will at the proposed site plan kingston street to the south dover street to the east the proposed building on the north part of the site with parking to the south and then here's that trash enclosure which has been relocated it was previously located down in this area in front of the front building line, which required a variance, which the BZA denied. So it has been relocated behind the front building line in compliance with that provision of the ordinance. Here's the recorded plat. This is lot 13 is circled. So you can see Kingston Street and Dover Street. I mentioned the plat in part because initially staff had requested some additional right-of-way be dedicated, because there's a 25-foot existing half right-of-way along Kingston Street. And because it's identified as a business collector street in the thoroughfare plan, and those typically have a wider right-of-way, we had first requested additional right-of-way from the petitioner. But after more discussion with the Department of Public Works, it was determined that there aren't any future plans to widen Kingston Street, so additional right-of-way was not required. However, in order to make sure there was enough room to both put in the required public sidewalk along the streets, Kingston Street frontage, and to plant parkway trees between the street and the sidewalk, in lieu of dedicating additional right-of-way, we requested that the petitioner grant a pedestrian easement into their site so that the sidewalk can be a little farther back from Kingston Street than the current right-of-way would allow. Department of Public Works is, they are pleased with having an easement in lieu of right of way. So that has been addressed. We'll just have a condition with the DPR that that easement actually be recorded prior to a building permit being issued. But just wanted to kind of explain that as to why there is no request for additional right of way dedication with the rezoning. So when you consider making a recommendation to town council on a rezoning, you have five criteria that you have to pay reasonable regard to. It's not like the findings of facts on a waiver or a variance where you have to find that each and every one of these criteria is met before you can, approve or recommend approval. In this case, you have to look at the totality of these five criteria and then make a recommendation that you think is in the best interest of the town. So those five criteria are to pay reasonable regard to the comprehensive plan. The requested C2 zoning would be consistent with the plan's recommendation for commercial office use. The second criteria is to consider the current conditions and character of the current structures and uses in each district. We believe the requested C2 zoning would be more compatible with the existing structures that are mostly being used for commercial uses. The third criteria, the most desirable use for which the land in each district is adapted. Since commercial uses appear to be well, commercial uses are what are predominant in this area, both in the C2, as well as in some of the area that's zoned I2. We do believe that commercial would be the most desirable use for this land. And then the fourth criteria being the conservation of property values throughout the jurisdiction. Again, similarly, because there's predominantly commercial uses surrounding this, we believe that commercial use of this site would have a better impact, a more positive impact on surrounding property values than would an industrial use if it were located at this site. And finally, what constitutes responsible development and growth for the reasons already mentioned, staff believes that commercial use would represent responsible development and growth at this site. So for those reasons, we are recommending that you provide a favorable recommendation to the town council for ZA 2601. And we do not see the need for any conditions or commitments with that. Just backing up, as I think I neglected to mention. I mentioned a little bit when I was looking at, when we were going through the photos, but just to go through the surrounding uses. To the north, this is the Godby Furniture Store. You have dental and medical offices here to the west. You have this Meineke Brake Shop here to the east. And then more office development to the northeast. And then you have multi-tenant buildings here to the south, southwest that are zoned industrial, but a number of the users in there are more commercial retail type, not necessarily retail, but service uses. Some of those uses can be permitted in I-2, but they're not traditional industrial uses. So they're kind of more typical commercial uses. And then this is the former indoor firing range to the southeast. So just kind of to touch on my comments about the surrounding uses being predominantly commercial rather than typical industrial uses. And so for those reasons, we're recommending approval and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you for explaining the easement right-of-way situation, because I know that was brought up in our prior hearing. Questions for staff? Okay, petitioner may come forward.

Hello, Dylan Reynolds with Space Co. at 3850 Priority Way South Drive in Indianapolis. Civil engineer representing the owner. I have Tom Sears with the development team and ownership team as well, if there's any questions for him. But yeah, like Paul kind of described, pretty straightforward. We kind of got in a weird situation of split zoning on the same parcel, C2 and I2. So with the proposed development that you will see, On the DPR case next, we're requesting a change of zoning to all C2. I can answer any questions. Okay.

Is there anybody who would like to come forward and speak in favor of this proposal? Is there anybody who'd like to speak against the proposal? Assuming there'd be no rebuttal. Okay, thank you. Discussion.

It seems in line with the other businesses in the area to me.

Yeah, this makes sense from everybody around it and the use is appropriate for that area of town as well.

And I appreciate the petitioner addressing our concerns with relation to the trash area. Any other discussion, questions for petitioner or staff?

No, not for zoning.

Okay. In that case, we can entertain a motion.

I'll move that we forward a favorable recommendation to the town council for ZA 2601, Wrights Gymnastics. A zoning map amendment to rezone 2.27 acres from I-2 and C-2 to C-2, since it has satisfied all the requirements for zoning map amendment under state law.

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

Rocket Brand. Four. Reed. Four. Kaufman.

Four.

Mansberg.

Four.

Guggenberger. Four.

ZA 2601. is approved. And now we move to DPR 2604.

thank you again president ransberg dpr 2604 same site we just discussed for rights gymnastics would allow for construction of an approximately 23 000 square foot commercial flex building with surface parking and related improvements and there is a waiver of design standards requested which would allow for a new full access driveway along kingston street with deficient separation from the intersection of dover street and i'll talk more about that in a minute again it's the same site same characteristics with the rezoning to all c2 pending So as I touched on a little bit, this is the location of the dumpster enclosure. It does need to be mentioned that the US 36 overlay requires that trash enclosures be located at the rear of buildings. unless an alternate location is approved by the plan commission. So the way that's worded in the ordinance, it doesn't require a variance for the trash enclosure to not be at the rear of the building. You just by approving this development plan review, if you vote to do so, would approve this to technically be at the side of the building as the, ordinance defines this property. The Kingston Street frontage to the south here would be the front. Dover Street would be what the UDO calls a street side. So the west property line would be the side yard as well. And then technically the rear of the property would be to the north. So the only place that that could be located technically at the rear would be along the north side of the building. However, we believe that putting the building behind the front building line here meets the spirit and intent of the regulation, which is to have the dumpster be out of view and located significantly back from public view along a public street. And so if you imagine if they, the dumpster technically at the rear of the building here it would be very close to dover street and much more visible to the public than where they've located it here so for those reasons we think you should approve the dpr with that trash enclosure location there that isn't technically at the rear of the building and that is within your discretion without a variance or without a waiver and without meeting any findings As I mentioned a little bit earlier, so this is if you look at the property line here, in relation to Kingston Street what we need to have is uh 10 feet or more in order to have the five foot wide sidewalk and then have at least a five foot planning strip in order to put Parkway trees between the sidewalk and the street as required by the ordinance so if you look here you can see the sidewalk which would connect to the existing sidewalk to the west it then kind of jogs a little to the north and then actually would be partially on site both here along Kingston Street and then you'd have the same effect up here along Dover Street so that there's enough space between the sidewalk and the curb in order to plant trees and have those thrive. So moving to the landscape plan, then it's a little bit harder to see, um, where the sidewalk is, but you see these trees out here, which would be in the right of way, which is where parkway trees, um, are required to go. And then the sidewalk would be kind of straddling the property line, um, And then you'd have, of course, the front yard landscaping that's required by ordinance, which is separate from the parkway trees. So you'd basically have trees on both sides of the public sidewalk on each side. Again, there are no waivers other than the one for the driveway, which I'm going to talk about, but you've got all the required foundation plantings as well as perimeter and interior plantings. The building elevations have been revised from what was initially submitted in order to meet all of the architectural standards, both generally for commercial buildings and those that apply additionally in tier three of the US 36 overlay. Just to make clear, that's the front elevation facing Kingston Street. This is actually the side that would face the dental office to the west. You have the trash enclosure here which is required to be enclosed on three sides with a solid wall which is consistent with the architecture for the building. So you've got this brick wall enclosure. which meets the standards. This would be the rear elevation, which faces Godby furniture. And then this would be the technically street side elevation facing Dover street. And all of those do meet the architectural requirements of the UDO with no waivers requested. Again, comprehensive plan recommends commercial office development. The proposed use would be a gymnastics facility, although there would be multiple tenant spaces. So that would be the main first tenant. And then they would have a couple other spaces for I believe what they expect to be somewhat related commercial retail uses. So as I mentioned, with approval of the revised trash enclosure, the revised plans meet all of the UDO requirements except for the one requested waiver. So that waiver is, as I mentioned earlier, to allow for a full access driveway on Kingston Street, about 80 feet from the intersection with Dilbert Street, where 150 foot separation is required. So to go back to the site plan here, Here's that intersection where Kingston and Dover meet. Here's the proposed driveway. The reason why staff is supportive of this as well as the Department of Public Works is because this is designed to line up with this existing driveway to the south. If there were no driveway here to the south, we would expect this to be further west to meet the required separation. But the intent of the regulations is to both limit the number of access points and to adequately space them out because of this existing driveway that's long been here, probably predates the town standards for separation from this intersection. it's safer to align this proposed driveway with this driveway rather than to offset it by another 70 feet and then have multiple access points where drivers coming out of either from this intersection or from this driveway or from this driveway where you have you basically create more conflict points by offsetting the intersection so It's always safer when able to do so to align those, much like these are aligned. There's a very slight offset here, but as long as the center lines are within the driveway of each other, the Department of Public Works doesn't consider that. They consider that to be aligned. And this meets the separation actually, because Dover street only has a 100 foot separation from the intersection here. So there's no waiver required here. The waiver is just for this driveway point here, which aligns with the existing driveway to the south. So looking at the findings that you're required to consider for this waiver, those be that it's not detrimental to the public, that the alternative that's being proposed doesn't contradict the intent of the standards or the purpose of the subdivision regulations, that the proposed alternative is due to conditions specific to the property and not generally applicable to other properties, and that the proposed alternative enhances the development and surrounding area. And you have to find that all four of those are met. We believe that all four of those are met. Most notably, as I mentioned, the alignment of the driveway with the existing driveway meets the intent of the regulations. It provides for public safety by consolidating and minimizing the number of different access points along the street. It's due to conditions that are specific to this property because this property can't control that that existing driveway where it is across Kingston Street. And we do believe that this would be a better alternative than trying to place it farther west and then having a deficient separation from the existing driveway across the street. So for those reasons, we do believe that all four required findings have been met. And so we recommend approval of this waiver. And if you approve the waiver, then we would be recommending approval of DPR 2604, subject to the following conditions. Numbers three, four, and five are the standard conditions that you typically always see with a DPR. One and two have changed slightly from what was published in your staff report. Number two had previously asked for revised site landscape and building elevations that were consistent with the changes they had to make for the trash enclosure location. We've received those revised plans since the staff report was published. We would just recommend that your approval on the DPR be conditioned upon the zoning amendment being approved by town council prior to the issuance of a billing permit. And then backing up to number one, the proposed pedestrian easement that will accommodate the sidewalk in the appropriate location that will allow for parkway trees to be planted in the appropriate location just needs, the actual easement needs to be submitted and recorded before a building permit is issued. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

So a couple of questions around the waiver. Does the town require two entrances to the parking lot?

The UDO does not require two entrances to the parking lot. It's likely that the fire department will request that as we've seen on similar commercial developments.

And was consideration made to join the parking lot with the one to the west as opposed to a new entrance? So if you look at the property just to the west of there, there's an entrance actually that you can see the tail of the entrance to Kingston right there. If you just take out that new entrance and just run that road directly west. I realize that involves neighbor's property. So that's why I'm asking if that consideration has been made.

Yeah, I don't know if the petitioner has had any conversations with the adjacent property. It's not something that the town requested that they do.

Okay.

So I have a question on procedure. if we approve the waiver, then the DPR becomes ministerial unless we find something that doesn't need to be, or we don't agree with, conditions weren't met, but the trash enclosure doesn't require any formal action. So therefore, if we don't agree it should be there, but the DPR becomes ministerial, it has to be approved with the way it's designed.

Well, I believe that the way the language in the ordinance is written about the trash enclosure location in the U.S. 36 overlay, it would be at your discretion to indicate that you would want it in a different location if that were the commission's will, and you could instruct the petitioner accordingly. And if you chose, you could deny it. To back up, yes, generally, I mean, if the waiver is approved, then a DPR becomes ministerial. But if it's the commission's determination that this is an inappropriate location for the dumpster, then it would be at your discretion to not approve the DPR if that's not changed to your liking.

Okay, thank you.

Any further questions for staff? Okay, petitioner may come forward.

Hello again, Dylan Reynolds with Spaceco, the civil engineer, 3850 Priority Way South Drive in Indianapolis. Again, Tom Sears with the development ownership team with me as well. I think, I know at least a couple of you have seen this before when we came before the BZA. So really since then, You know, what we're looking at is, you know, obviously a 20,000 and change square foot building and parking lot. I think Paul went through kind of the changes we've made since then, actually shrunk the building a little bit from the original proposal so we could get the dumpster there on the side kind of behind the front face of the building. And just to kind of point out that it's kind of grouped with the dumpster also to you can kind of see it there fade in the back northwest of the green circle on the adjoining property. There's a dumpster there as well. So it kind of also groups a couple of dumpsters together, you know, as it sits a few hundred feet off the road. We did adjust the sidewalk to allow more space for landscaping along Kingston and Dover Street. And yeah, just to reiterate what Paul said, working with Public Works on that Kingston Street driveway to get those aligned to be a little bit safer than meeting the true separation distances. And I think to answer your question just directly, I don't think maybe Tom, I'm assuming the answer is no, we haven't reached out to that owner to the west. Just like you said, it brings in a third party and you're asking for access easements. And so we just, we haven't explored that yet, but I believe for the parcel size and location, the UDO does allow two entrance points. So I can answer any questions.

Anyone who wants to come speak? In support of the petition, we can step forward now. As can anyone who wishes to speak against the petition. Okay, no rebuttal, I'm assuming.

Do you have a question for the petitioner? So I know the BZA was not the place to bring this up, but it was brought up at the BZA as far as it's a multi-tenant facility. you have one trash enclosure where we talked about, usually we see trash enclosure per tenant space. And I don't know if we size trash enclosures. If staff is comfortable with this, I'm assuming this is size big enough for any anticipated trash dumping, because, you know, I guess I've seen where you get trash thrown around outside the containers, even though it's enclosed. It seems like there'd be some concern about that being in close to the front of your building.

uh yeah i mean so that enclosure is i believe it's sized for two eight yard dumpsters so i mean still pretty good size um dumpsters in there and then yeah i mean it's really up to i mean obviously the maybe tom can speak to it too but um just getting a feel for how i mean trash fills up you got to pay someone to come get it so just kind of once they get all the users established establishing how often that the trash pickup has to be and making sure they don't get

Is there any anticipation that there would be any kind of, and this is not zoned for any kind of restaurant, correct? Or is it? I'm trying to remember.

Yes, C2 allows that use.

Okay.

Presuming it's rezoned by town council and C2.

Because restaurants do tend to be the big...

trash creators yeah and i will say right rights gymnastics will be a part owner so to back up rights gymnastics is taking about half of this building um and the other half is leaseable tennis space but rights rights gymnastics themselves will be a part owner in this building and that dumpster enclosure is the closest to their front door so Just to kind of put that out there, the owner of their building, you know, what other incentive do you have that I own the building and I operate the suite closest to the trash enclosure as kind of an extra incentive to keep it picked up and clean?

Just for general discussion for the rest of the commission, uh, the heard a variance to request, put the trash enclosure in the front of the building. So basically at the West side, besides those parking spaces, and that was denied. I would thinking that shouldn't be in the front of the building. So this, I think the petitioners worked with staff to come up with a. a better solution that helps with the development a lot, because you got kind of two front yards with Dover Street and Kingston Street there. And the staff's worked with them to come up with this and recommending approval. I think it's better than what the BZA saw as far as the solution for that, knowing it's a corner lot. And then I'll just go as far as the waiver goes. I'm relying on DPR, Department of Public Works, to help us there and what staff has said as far as lining up and providing that access and having that where it's at because I was thinking why not go ahead and move that, but I'm not the expert on roads, so if that's where they feel is the best for traffic concern, I'm going to support staff and DPR coming up with that.

Yeah, I would like to see investigation about just joining with the existing cutout on the adjoining property because it meets all the requirements. It gets you two entrances. That's a large entrance to the, I think it's a dental office right next to it. And it would flow, I think it would flow right from a fire issue as well, be able to flow through the lot. But I don't know if it's, worth denying the request today. I think it would be a better flow if you could do it, if you could work with the neighbors to do that and arguably be less expensive too, because you wouldn't have to do a new cutout and all those kinds of things, but that's your design. So, yeah.

How far off from the requirements is the spacing?

So the proposed driveway is approximately 80 feet from the intersection where a 150 foot separation is required And I don't know the history of how the driveway to the south got approved, but if that wasn't there, we would certainly request that this be further separated, probably meet the, you know, there wouldn't be a compelling reason from staff and DPW's standpoint to approve this, but for the fact that there's an existing driveway to the south that we can't change, and we'd rather have those cars coming out of the two properties align. So if you have you imagine two left turns coming at each other, they can make your typical left turns in front of each other rather than being offset and going into each other's paths. So that's that's just a little bit more insight into our analysis on that.

I think it's important to remember that the reason the waiver process exists is because occasionally you have ordinances that are in conflict with each other, which is what we have here. And sometimes the configuration of a property just simply, it's not, it creates more problems to meet the ordinances than it does to allow for the waiver. In this case, we've all been on this commission long enough to know the importance of having entrance drives directly across from each other in order to reduce possibility of accidents, both pedestrian and vehicular. And is Kingston, or Kingston is considered a secondary?

It's a business collector.

It's a business, it's a collector. And Dover is considered? It's a local. It's a local. So these aren't, neither of these are streets that are going to be traveled unless you want to be there. So I think it makes sense to compromise and provide the waiver on the distance and keeping the safety of the two in order to keep the safety that having the two entrances lineup.

It looks like the neighboring drive to the west doesn't align with the one south of it either, does it?

Yeah, it's fairly close. since it was kind of outside of the scope of what we're looking at here, I didn't look at how close they are, but I mean, there's certainly a little bit of a misalignment, but it might be close enough to be considered okay, but it would be ideal if they were better aligned, certainly.

I'm just curious. Is there any further discussion or questions for staff or petitioner? If not, we'll entertain a motion.

Make a motion that we approve DPR 2604 waiver A, request to waive Avon UDO 7.21E1 to allow for a new full access driveway located approximately 80 feet from the intersection with Overstreet, requiring a minimum 140 foot separation. Since it has, satisfied all the requirements for waivers 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.

Guggenberger. For. Randsburg.

For.

Coffman.

For.

Reed. For. Rockabrand.

For.

Motion carries and the waiver A is approved and now we move on to DPR 2604, the development plan itself. Any further discussion about the DPR? If not, we'll entertain a motion.

Just in anticipation of someone making a positive motion to approve this, if you could reference the revised conditions that were presented tonight rather than the conditions listed in the staff report, that would be much appreciated.

I move that we approve DPR 36-04, rights gymnastics, a development plan review to allow for construction of a 23,051 square foot commercial flex building with surface parking and related improvements subject to the revised 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.

One question before we go for a second. Has the size of the building appreciably changed and does that matter from a legal perspective here? Because of the drawings I'm seeing are like 21,900 feet versus 23,000. Does that matter or is that more of?

The building was reduced. Yeah, I'm sorry. The 23,000 square foot number was the original submission. So, yeah, the revised building is looking like it's a little under 22,000 square feet. I don't know that it's. to have the exact square footage number.

Okay, then I just want to verify from a legal perspective.

Could you just modify the motion?

Yeah.

One more go here. I move that we approve DPR 2604, Rice Gymnastics and Development to allow for construction of an approximately 22,000 square foot commercial flex building with surface parking and related improvements. subject to the revised 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 effect. Second.

Second.

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

Reed. For. Rockenbrand. For. Guggenberger. For. Ramsburg.

For.

Coffman.

For.

DPR 2604 passes and is approved. moving on to other business is there any other business from staff or anybody else here staff has no other business committee reports it'll be easy meeting this month okay redevelopment most recently in addition to approving approval of uh invoices we added

for proposals for the Civic Center furniture and appliances.

okay she wasn't able to join but uh ahead of the meeting this week uh last week we uh we did a tour of the new civic building to see the progress and that was that was fun oh nice i think we should be invited to see the new civic building it's nice good good all right see her office i haven't seen my office we we all get separate offices right right now

In that case, if there's nothing else to be discussed, we are adjourned.