Advisory Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] Heat. Heat. N. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music]

[Music] 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 that all cell phones are set to vibrate. Any phone calls should be taken outside of the chambers. be a good time to get your cell phones out and do your little thingy. 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 the staff or the petitioner. Your comments should relate directly to the case at hand. During the conduct of the public hearing portion of the commission's deliberations, the petitioner will have 10 minutes to present their case to the commission. Reministrators will have 10 minutes to present objections to the petition. That's 10 minutes total. Persons in support of the petition other than the petitioner will have 10 minutes to support to present support for the petition. And finally, the petitioner will will close the public hearing portion of the presentation with a fiveminute 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. We generally try to restrict individuals to two minutes in order to allow as many people as possible to speak. So if you are hearing someone say something that you yourself were going to say, I would ask that you pass on that opportunity so that we can hear as many different ideas and thoughts about the petition instead of hearing five of the same thing and then no other issues are are are brought before us. 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 p that the plan commission hold a public hearing even if the development proposal must be approved. Responses to the 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. And I do just briefly want to address an issue we've had in the last few meetings. Every single person here will have an opportunity to be heard. We ask that you respect our process, that you not speak out of line, that you not holler out or yell or whatever. This is here for your benefit, and we want to hear everybody. So, we are asking, we ask everybody to please be respectful of the process, respect your neighbors, respect our board.

Thank you for your assistance in facilitating a respectful, fair, and timely meeting. Again, welcome. Please stand for the pledge. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay, we are now going to do a roll call. Greg Zusen, present. Paul Guggenberger, here. Katherine Ransburg, here. Dave Kaufman, here. Bill Reed, here. Andrew Rockerbrand here. Jennifer Spencer here. We have a quorum. Uh we now move on to the approval of the meeting minutes from our April 28th meeting. Has everybody had an opportunity to review the meeting minutes? And are there any suggestions or for edits or changes or questions? If not, I'll take a motion for approval of the meeting minutes. I'll make that motion to approve the minutes as presented. I'll second. Having heard a motion and a second, all those in favor say I. I those in opposition say no. Meeting minutes are approved. This is the part part of the meeting where you are able to come forward and address the board or the plan commission about anything that's not on tonight's agenda. If it's about tonight's agenda, wait till we get to that and then you can speak. But if there's something else you would like to bring to our attention, this is your opportunity to

do that to do so. Is there anybody who'd like to speak to anything on that's not on tonight's agenda? Okay. Going once, going quite going twice. The public comment portion is now closed. request for continuences or agenda modifications. Thank you, President Ransburg. Members of the commission, draw your attention to DPR 254 at 1137 North Avon Avenue development plan review for a gas station and convenience store. um this was uh filed in March and went to our technical advisory committee in March and was eligible to be docketed for the April plan commission. However, at the technical advisory committee meeting, um the petitioner's representative indicated they'd probably need additional time to submit responses and revise plans. So, that's why it didn't appear on your April um agenda. Um, but we still have actually not received any responses or revised plans. Um, so this would not be able to be heard and approved. Um, because it doesn't there's many things that don't meet the ordinance. Um, we would suggest that it would be appropriate to probably continue this for two months to give the petitioner time to submit the responses. We did reach out to them but haven't heard back. Um, but it doesn't seem likely that they would be able to get responses in in time for the June uh plan commission hearing. So, it would probably be advisable to continue this to July 28th and that would be with notice still to be mailed by the petitioner. Now, is this a request from staff or request from the petitioner? We have not heard from the petitioner since the technical advisory committee

meeting. Um, so I mean I guess you can look at that however you wish. Um, consider it a a continuence needed by the petitioner since they have not uh fulfilled their obligation to respond to the technical advisory committee comments and submit revised plans. So I guess I would ask council, they've not put in a request for continuance, correct? Is that correct? Yes. And this is not a request being made because staff is asking for more time. Correct. Correct. So what happens if a petitioner does not respond to requirements from the town in a timely manner and here we are. Well, you guys have discretion to treat it as you see fit. They are entitled to one automatic continuence. However, it appears they have not requested that. Uh so if you would like to consider this for continuence, you would do it on your own motion on staff's requests, not on the petitioners. And what would be the consequences if we were to deny the motion to re to continue but the petitioner is not here? They would have to go through our processes again for a DPR. They would have to start over. Yes. It it would effectively be withdrawing their petition. Has there been any have there been any previous requests for continuances by the petitioner? No. This is the first time it's appeared on your docket. Although we could have placed it on your April docket with the same circumstances that it wouldn't have been ready to move forward, but Okay. So, this would be the initial presentation. Yes. Okay. Well, my suggestion is is that you've sent them a four-page letter dated March 18th. It's February or it's May 27th. They haven't responded. And as you indicated, there are a number of items on here that

they're going to have to address 24 of them. So, I'm not inclined to continue this if they uh if we do uh make a motion to not allow the continuence. Bring bring your microphone in closer. Thanks. Um is there a uh is there a period of time they have to wait before they can reapply? There is, if you were to dismiss this, um, there would be a six-month refiling window that they would have to wait before refiling. And there's been no response from them at all. Uh, not since the technical advisory committee meeting in March. No. Are they aware of our process and scheduling of these if Uh, I'm not aware if the petitioner's representative has filed other matters before this commission or not. Um, Linda, you look like you want to say something. Yeah. Like, were they aware that this was going to be in our on our agenda? I'm not sure about that. I did speak with the petitioner once that Palm probably is not aware of um because we had to board up the property because of safety issues and we wanted to let them know that that was the case since they didn't respond. Um this same petitioner filed before you in 2024, well actually 2023 and eventually got dismissed after lack of activity and then they had to wait their six months or they I think they withdrew. They waited their six months. They were and then refiled again. And now since I had that one conversation with him, I mean, he didn't sound like he was

abandoning the project, but we haven't heard. And this is the refiling. Yes. Thoughts? Yeah. I'm I'm sorry. I didn't When you asked if they knew about our process, I wasn't sure who had filed previously. There was a DPR23-13 is the case that Linda was referring to which was a similar request. Um, and as Linda mentioned, that was withdrawn by the petitioner some time ago. Thoughts? Looks like a pattern going on over here. And if we were to hold off even till July, it sounds like we're in a 5050 situation at best that we're even ready then. So if they if we continue it to July and we're back here and they haven't responded again um it it's like they aren't taking any responsibility nor are they penalized for not taking any activity. So would July if we if we would continue it to July would it then be at that point on their kind of against their request for continuence or if they don't request and don't show up then we just don't continue it is that our option. Uh yeah, I believe so. If they don't request a continuence, um you certainly would have it within your discretion to dismiss the matter um if they hadn't hadn't been responsive. Do do we want to So I have a feeling that because they haven't submitted responses to our TAC meeting that they think that the case is still on hold and that we haven't put it on the agenda. And that's what concerns me because we wanted it to put it on the agenda so the clock starts ticking so they start h but I we haven't heard from them. So they

may not they may not be aware they're on tonight's agenda. Okay. Okay. So I think we're because of this I think that this will give them notice here. um and to penalize them because they weren't aware it's going to be on an agenda probably wouldn't be the best step forward, but it's not like I think what Greg was talking about is that they need to take some action here. Yeah, they need to improve their communication skills obviously. Um I I'm but I'm not sure two months is a little generous if what we're talking about is just making them aware, hey, this was on tonight's agenda and you need to start following through. Um you know, if if they don't have enough time to have everything ready for the June meeting, then then they can put in a request for a continuence. This would have to be considered a request by staff since the petitioner is not here and hasn't submitted anything. So they wouldn't be waving their automatic one continuence. I don't would that it was that how you would see they would not be wait our concern with June versus July is if they do submit some things our timeline to turn something around for June is already passed like the deadline to submit. So if they get something in quickly we wouldn't okay be fully prepared. So we we could dismiss tonight if we so chose because they've not responded to any communication. If we give them two months, we can dismiss in July if they still have not responded. I think it is courteous of us and generous quite honestly of the town to allow another two months without any communication.

But if they're not aware that they were on tonight's agenda, I mean, it's like, but they need to be in communication on a regular basis so that they would be aware. Yeah, we could send a certified letter just to make sure to let them know what happened tonight and then the inclination is that it would not be granted another continuence without them being here. I think that's appropriate. Okay. So, does somebody want to make a motion? I move that we continue DPR2504 uh 1137 North Avon Avenue sea store and gas station to development plan review to provide for convenience store and gas station to the July 28th, 2025 hearing with a notice mailed to the petitioner um of potential dismissal if responses are not received. Second. Having heard a motion in a second, we'll now take a vote. Rockabbrand four. Spencer four. Reed four. Kaufman four. Ransburg. Four. Guggenberger. Four. Zusen. Four. Motion carries. The petitioner the DPR 25504 is continued to July 28th. Okay. Now moving on to old business. Beachwood Town Homes. Thank you. This is uh zoning amendment 252 located at the 7600 block of

Beachwood Center Road. I I'm going to go through the background um quickly even though this had a full hearing last time because of anybody in the audience um that wasn't here and for the one plan commissioner that wasn't here. It is approximately 10 acres and it's zoned C3 transitional office uses. It is unimproved. The zoning history on it was um a petition in 22 to reszone from C3 to R3 to provide for a 32 lot single family detached development which was denied by council. and that this petition, as most of you are aware, was heard in full as a full hearing last month and was continued um because the commission expressed interest in additional information. Uh this is just the request. It is now a reszone to R4 which is um for a 76 lot single family attached or town home style development. Petitioner David Weekley Homes. This is the subject site. Um, Beachwood Center is just south of the site, which is where the Rural King is, and um, Alenorium is now being built. Um, so it's just north of of Rural King on Beachwood Center Drive. The comprehensive plan for 20 the 2017 comprehensive plan recommends innovation uh for this which is to encourage entrepreneurs and businesses that encourage um investment in the community. The surrounding land uses are all residential on three sides or on two sides. um but Groves of Beachwood Farms to the

north, Parkplace to the west. There is a daycare and an open lot to the east and then again the rural king to the south. The zoning here is R3. R3 over here, R2 is the Groer Beachwood Farms and then C2 down here. um everything south of the site and then also uh east of the site. Uh last time I talked about the compressive plan um identifying this as innovation and the reason for that. Let me go back to the the this yellow circular blob here is the innovation area. And I talked a little bit about why that went in and or what the thinking behind that was in 2017 and that the strip center to the south had two um uh college type uses in it. There was IvyTech and another one that the name escapes me right now. trying. That's right. That's right. Thank you. Um and the thought was maybe because the center was struggling um was to try to grow that kind of use and um expand either educational or entrepreneurial activities. Um but obviously since then both of those universities have left and other uses have moved in and more retail type establishments have moved into the south. The innovation was also added as a buffer to provide a buffer between the high or the more intense retail development to the south and then the single family detached to the north and to the west. Uh also the site is zone C3 and it

has been from since at least 2009 which is the earliest zoning map that I have been able to find. uh we think it's been zoned that for much longer um and has not developed under that zoning in that time. I just want to briefly touch on the the waiverss that would be needed if this was approved. And I'll show you the site plan in a bit in a bit. But the uh waiverss that would be uh needed would be for to have 76 lots on one public street entrance, but there would be a private alley system for a second entrance to provide for a hammerhead turnaround um in lie of a culde-sac and to provide for 24 ft of pavement versus 32 that would be required. This is the site plan that has been provided. It's the same one you saw last time. Um much of the discussion last time centered on the pond that's at the west end of the development and the desire for more information about that pond. I the petitioner has more information regarding the state that it's in, the cost to improve it, as well as the ownership of it, and I will let him um present that to you. So then we get into the Oh, I just want to touch again um real quick. A lot of the remmonstrance last time centered on the traffic that would be coming and going from the site. Um based on conversations with the Department of Public Works, uh residential traffic on this site would have would there would be number of trips less traffic for residential development than there would be for commercial development. And that's in general. Obviously, we don't know if it developed commercially what kind of commercial it would be. You know, you

mini storage versus general office versus medical office versus daycare. All of those are have diff different trip amounts, but in general, commercial developments have more trip generation than a 76 unit site residentially would have. Also, there have been some comments about the signal at 36 once you get south of this site and then out to 36 and difficulties with that intersection. The Department of Public Works director indicated there would be a nominal effect on the signal at 36 with this development. And there is proposed later in the year in the November time frame a change to that signal. So it would make a dedicated left turn out of there which right now it's left and straight making it difficult to make to make a left. So it's going to change to a dedicated left and then the other one would be straight and right. So the signal itself is going to be have some of its traffic alleviated with the change to the signal. Finally, I want to get into the zoning criteria. Criteria one as the comprehensive plan as adopted. I did speak about how it would not be consistent with that recommendation because of the innovation use, but again, we don't believe the innovation use is as um desirable for this use as it once was and the comprehensive plan was clearly wanting a buffer in this area and a higher density residential would be seen as a appropriate buffer use between single family detached and retail commercial. The criteria criteria two the current conditions and character of the area. Um it is comp the area is comprised of single family detached and retail office uses and this would be

appropriate buffer use between those uses. Criteria three the most desirable use for which the land in each zoning district is adapted. Again we believe that this is a buffer use. Um, the most desirable use for the site, we would offer that if the most desirable use for the site was commercial, it would have developed in the time that it's been zoned C3 and it has not. So, the zoning is likely not appropriate at this site. Number four, the conservation of property values throughout the jurisdiction. We have no reason to believe that the property values would be substantially impacted by this development. And criterion for responsible growth and development is providing a buffer used between lowdensity residential and retail uses um would be responsible to grow growth and development. Uh staff's recommendation is the same as last time. Uh, but I do want to direct you to page four of the staff report where I outlined what was discussed at the last hearing. So, additional prohibited uses were talked about and I listed those being cemetery, recycling facility, hospital, utility, mass transit facility, live work units, and upper story residential. Um, number two, there was uh someone expressed concern about the proposed emergency access be required when platting comes when the plat comes in and that a traffic study be completed as part of the plat approval, which would be the next step if this resoning were to be

approved. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. So, just to make sure everyone present is clear as to what we're doing tonight, this is strictly a reszoning. Correct. Correct. So we are not addressing we're simply changing the zoning so that a once once a proposal for development as a residential so that it can be proposed. Correct. It's not an approval of the of the proposal to develop it as a residential. It's just simply putting the zoning in place so that it can be proposed for residential. Is that and the correct and the waiverss that I mentioned briefly um are you would not be approving now. They would have to apply for them at the plat stage and that would have to be all be addressed then. And then the traffic study if you want a traffic study it has to be included as a commitment because it wouldn't be required per the UDO. There's not enough units to require a traffic study. Okay. So, I'm glad you brought that up because if if this would be approved and the petitioner would choose not to do the development, it would still be reszoned for somebody in the future uh to do go from I think it's R4. So, you know, that's a thing that nothing's done until it's done. The reason stays with the the property. So, I got a couple questions. You said that the commercial development it would have been done but commercial all development's been delayed with the pandemic. We've seen there wasn't a lot of development going on but aren't we seeing more of an

uptick now in town in the town in the last year or two where we're seeing more development like with um Gale Emporium got the Ford's garage people we're getting more businesses coming in. I don't know if we're going to see office buildings. Still waiting to see if we're going to have that type of development. So, I would I would say you're correct from the pandemic to now that now we're seeing an uptick, but this is been zoned this way since 2009. And I suspect going back to when zoning started at the town when it was first adopted, although I find that map, right? But we we I mean that strip mall had a cub and then sat empty for a long time. But yet was never up for sale um that we would see. So that strip mall had some issues getting occupants in there. Now we're seeing more activity in there. So I I just I I appreciate the point. I just not sure if that means we won't see it or it's just been that now it's starting to come around. So that'll lead into some other comments I have after petitioner talks. Any further questions for staff? Okay, we'll have the petitioner come forward. Appreciate it. Yes. So, Linda's handing out a a few things that have developed here um over the past week. A majority of which we've

shared with uh the neighboring HOA. to start David Ellis, land acquisition manager for David Weekley, 9310 North Meridian Street, Sweet 100. It's Indianapolis 46260. I'm also here with uh Steve Rehab, our engineer from Banning, with division president, Jess McKini, and our new land entitlements manager, uh Lindseay Fipps, who I'm excited will be doing this job moving forward. Um, I'd just like to start with an update of some things that have transpired since the last meeting and and I'll go through these at a very high level. You have these notes in front of you and then just happy to answer any questions that might come up as a result. So, Mr. Eaton, the property owner, is not able to be with us tonight. Um, and this has been a long row uh for him, a long a long process with many attempts to to try to develop here. Um it ju just a high level what he would like to convey is that he really does want to be a good neighbor. That building that burm that is already existing along the south side of that that property which shields the groves from the back end of the of the subdivision was a was a good faith gesture on his part. Um he's consistently having multiple folks throwing yard trash in onto his property from the groves and in one instance a rather large stack of old pallets and scrap wood. And um so that's frustrating to have that in addition to the remmonstration against the project that he's um you know he's he has the right to sell his property at its highest possible value and and he's just looking to do that in the appropriate way. So um that's all I have to to say about Mr. Eden. Um, we were able to have several

conversations with the HOA representative Nick Stefani u from the Groves and they were very productive conversations. Um, I would summarize I would summarize it all by saying that they had three major concerns that they expressed. The first being rental properties. And at the end of our discussion, David Weekekley was willing to commit that we will direct the future HOA for this community to place a couple of highlevel restrictions on rentals. We cannot prohibit rentals. Neither can the town. And we heard that last week. But we can direct our future HOA to include some language that one would prohibit short-term rentals, which we're happy to do. So, anything 12 months or less, and then two would limit the number of rentals or investorowned units in this development to 25%. Which in this case would be 19 units. So, we find that to be a very reasonable good faith gesture. It's worked in other municipalities and we are still willing to do so. uh regardless of the feedback we received tonight from our from our neighbors. The second, as Linda already mentioned, is the cut through traffic. A very difficult thing to address when it's a public road um that's been there. We consulted with our traffic expert. We consulted with with staff. Um the most reasonable thing we thought we could do, direct thing we could do to contribute was help with the speed humps. There's already two in the neighborhood. Perhaps they could use a couple of more. We don't know what the cost of those are, so we can't commit to a dollar amount, but happy to have that discussion and contribute to additional humps if that uh would be helpful or attractive. And then the final concern uh is density. And this one I'll go into a

little bit more detail, but you know, I gave Nick uh my commitment that I would take a look at our proforma and talk to our team and see if there's any way that we could reduce the number of units that we're showing here. And the reality is after going back and looking at our notes and then looking at the history of the project, it does not make sense for us to reduce our unit count. And I'll I'll explain uh the reason why. Um, I have an a a handout for you that shows a sidebyside comparison of our property, our project with the Village Place Town Home Project, which is located just north of the Costco. These two projects are almost identical. So whether we look at why we should reszone to R4 as that acts as a perfect buffer between Costco and the residential lots to the north or if we're talking about density this comparison is very helpful. So in both cases 36 US 36 is along the south of the properties they're commercial outlots there's a large commercial box user there's a 10acre parcel that's vacant. In the case of Village Place, there's uh residential lots to the north that are 120 ft wide and recent sales are 515 to $600,000. And in the case of Beachwood, they're 90 foot wide residential lots. Still very nice large lots. Recent sales from 335 to $520,000. And so they're they're nearly identical. Village Place originally and I put some of the history there with the zoning reference approached this commission in May of 2022 with the maximum amount the maximum density allowed for R4 which is 10 per acre. So they submitted for 110 units

and uh did not receive favorable feedback. So a year later they came back proposed 80 units which is 7.25 25 units per acre and they were approved. So, as a petitioner, we always have a decision to make when we're going to present a concept plan for approval. Do we purposely max out our concept plan knowing that we'll be asked to take some away, but then showing our cooperation by taking them away? or do we come into you showing that we've already taken your history into consideration and proposed something that we think is fair and appropriate from the start and show our good faith that way. And so that's exactly what we did in this case. And I would I would ask that that type of behavior be rewarded not only for me but for any of my fellow builders, you know, that come in behind me. So to Nick's question, I know Nick can't join us, but to those he represents and he's done a great job. There was a willingness to remove units, but we did it proactively on the front end. So for that reason, in addition to what I really think is the crux of the matter, which is the drainage pond, an extra potentially $200,000 worth of expense onto our proforma that we're willing to take on. we really need to hold firm on the 76 units. So, I think that effectively summarizes um at least my understanding of our conversation with the neighboring HOA and we do continue to want to have a good relationship with them, be good neighbors and and hopefully earn their support for the reasons I've mentioned and then most importantly the drainage pond. So, I do have a few details to share, but before I do that, I'm going to have Steve come up and talk to you about the assessment that Banning performed for us and our estimate of the expenses it's going to

take to bring it up to speed. How much time do we have? Good evening. Steve Briehob, Banning Engineering, um 853 Columbia Road, Planefield, Indiana 46168. Um, I believe that the preliminary drainage report that we put together is was in your packet. And what we did, we looked at that existing pond. Um, that pond was designed to provide for storm water detention for the residential subdivision to the north as well as this 10acre site. Um, and in its current condition, as as poor as that is, it can still meet the requirements to provide for storm water detention for this site, but it doesn't meet current code, and it needs a lot of work. Um, in our preliminary study, we put together an estimate just based on historical numbers, and we thought that was going to come in about $150,000. We actually have a bid price now and it's more like 1975. So, as as David had pointed out, it's it's approaching $200,000 worth of work. That work would be to drain the pond, to dredge the pond to make it a uniform 8- foot depth, to clear all of the brush off of the banks, um to regrade the banks so that they're uniform 3:1 slope maximum, to have a safety ledge, have a maintenance ledge, um install an emergency spillway, and a new outlet control structure. So, that's quite a bit of work that needs to be done to bring that pond up to current code. Um, and David Weekly Holmes is willing to take that that that task on to improve this pond. Um, I might point out I think David has it that pond's not actually a

part of this development. Some of the site maps had showed that area included. Um, but it's its own separate parcel that um, was originally owned by Trinity and for whatever reason was not conveyed to the homeowners association. So there it sits. Is that it? That's all I got. Okay. I'd be happy to answer any questions. I think you've got about a minute left if you'd like to. Yes. Excuse me. And so to finish up, we provided an email exchange um that we've had with Beaser Homes, which is who purchased Trinity Homes, who is currently who that detention pond parcel is deed to. also last minute was able to get a statement a legal opinion from our attorney about the ownership of the pond. And the bottom line is under no circumstances Mr. Eaton or his successors responsible for the maintenance of this pond. Um so in in other words, we could purchase this pond or we could purchase this property and we could require Trinity Homes andor the HOA at the Groves to do the maintenance on this. But we want to be good neighbors and we believe in our project. We think it's the best and highest use for this parcel. So, what we're offering to do on behalf of everybody, as Steve mentioned, is take that cost on ourselves and then to share in the maintenance of that pond moving forward. So, all that's spelled out in our email to to Beaser who has given their commitment to cooperate with us. And again, we hope that the homeowners will notice that and and be willing to cooperate with us as well. and uh would appreciate a favorable recommendation. So, thank you. Um I do have a question. So, Trinity is the own currently the owner of the the property where the pond is. Correct.

Correct. And what most likely should have happened is when the common areas and ponds for the groves that are within their community were deed from Trinity to the HOA. This this parcel should have been deed to their HOA as well, but it wasn't. But it was not. So it's still sitting in Trinity's name, which is a defunct company. Beaser Homes took over Trinity in the Indianapolis market. So when we contacted Beaser, they weren't even aware that they own this pond. They've since, and I think Linda can confirm, they've since paid the back taxes on it. Good faith gesture. When one of the HOAs owns it, it'll be a nonforprofit. That shouldn't be an issue. The biggest issue for both the town and our neighbors to the north is the current condition of the pond, which is which is not in great shape at all. So when you I I think trying to keep track of all the entities and reading the memo or the letter is the HOA are you proposing the HOA would become the owners of the pond? So, what we are proposing again pending full legal review by both our council and Beaser's council, but what we're contemplating is the future HOA for our community that I referenced earlier. If all were to work out, we were to close on the property, get our permits in hand to actually start the property, that HOA would be formed, and Beeser Homes would would deed the pond parcel to our HOA to this new development to this new development. And as part of that process, between now and then, we would work with Nick and his homeowners on a shared maintenance agreement so that going forward, once we

spend the $200,000 to bring it up to speed, going forward, it stays there and that it never gets into this condition again. Do you have any formal commitments yet or is this just in uh are these just in talks? They committed it's as formal as it can be. It's an email response from Beaser that says yes, we're on board with that plan and we will cooperate with you in pursuing that plan if the project is approved. Okay. So on that, this is where kind of gotten this before where we get what's going to happen in the future and we don't get the commitments and then the developer the petitioner goes away and we don't have those commitments. Is there a way to make that a commitment that it's tied to this that this if this would be approved that has to be done because you I hear emails but emails I don't know if those are legally binding but I'm looking for something that it is going to happen versus it might happen or we've had discussions that could be an agreement couldn't be an agreement We would suggest that if approved that the pond would be included as within the plat and therefore it would have to be part of the overall drainage. But that would not be what happens tonight. Correct. Tonight's just about zoning. They could make a commitment of what they're saying, but we could say the plaque can't go forward until that's all in place. Okay. But but that's not something we would do tonight. that you can make it a commitment that what they're proposing to you that it get the ownership come out of Trinity to some majesty that it will be for this development and be maintained and you know that is part of the reason that that is what happens that whoever ends up developing that property has to take assume

responsibility for the pond and acquire ownership of it from beer. Well, somebody has to prove to us that it's gonna be brought up to to snuff and that the ownership is it is in an entity that will go forward and maintain the pond. Okay. Okay. Does this detention pond service the groves? Yes. There's a map within the drainage report that shows the groves. I believe it's section three. So, it's not the entirety of the groves. It's just section three. Okay. And then the eaten parcel and represented by a green dash line. Those are the two in those are the two entities that drain into this pond. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Uh, is there any I'm going to do this a little bit backwards, but is there anybody who would like to speak come step forward in favor of this petition for reszone? I'm shocked. Okay, now we'll move on to those who would like to remmonstrate against the petition for reszone. And again, this is a request for reszone. It's not, this doesn't have to do with this particular proposed development. That will happen later. So, do we have people signed up to uh speak? We do. And my apologies in advance to anyone if I misread or mispronounce your name. But uh first up it looks like we have Brandy Hathaway and uh just a reminders we need you to give your name and address and we are keeping um comments to two minutes. Thank you. Individual comments. Thank

you again. Brandy Hathaway, 7598 Jessica Lane. Um, I am also a board member for the Groves of Beachwood Farms. Nick Stefani was not able to be here, but I'm here. Um, trying to limit this to two minutes. I feel like there's so many things to say. I think I first want to acknowledge I know the petitioner has emailed has had a conversation with Nick and has sent numerous emails. I want to make sure it's clear like our HOA has not entered into any agreements. We've not the conversation from my knowledge again secondhand but what Nick shared was just that it was a conversation about what our concerns were as a community. Um and then I appreciate the petitioner has responded to those concerns to the best of their abilities and what they've kind of shared. Um but I would say at this point I don't think as a community um we feel that like really the primary concerns which is that related to the density really has been um addressed or the potential traffic concerns and again I know we've talked about some of the things that are going to change. Um but I think again comparing it to the village place is difficult. Those folks entrance is going to open up onto 900. ours opens up onto what is effectively a residential street. So, you would have 76 an additional 76 homes entering into that. I know we've already commented there have been comments about the previous um reasonzoning consideration back in 2022. And I want to also share I have lived at my residence since May of 2009. So, I've lived at this residence this entire time that we've already been talking about all of this. I've been on the board for over a decade as well too. So fully appreciate that, you know, there this property has sat vacant and I think we all fully support it being developed. I don't I don't think anybody wants a vacant lot behind their house necessarily. So I want to make that clear. No one's saying it shouldn't be developed or anything. And I think we all want to see it again being used for the best use of the property. When the

council looked at that previous request back in 2022, several of the things that were noted um was the time the time that it had sat there for a while and it was acknowledged at that time too that it's unlikely that it will continue to sit there for another 10 or 20 years even though it has up until this point. Um as far as my knowledge is is that Glenrock Springs is the only other uh potential development that has ever come before you all or the council. So I think it's difficult to say like it sat there vacant. We we have no idea what efforts have been made to develop it in other ways or anything like that. So again, I think it's unreasonable to say. I mean, I think at that meeting in 2022, which I've gone back and rewatched the entire video a couple of times, it was even acknowledged that the farm where Costco now sits sat vacant for decades as well, too. So, I think it's just assume because it has sat vacant for so long doesn't necessarily mean it's going to sit vacant for another 20 years. Um, and the other thing I wanted to comment again at that meeting as well too was a comment about the density. Right at that time, the Glenrock Springs was considered too dense and the Glenrock Springs was going to be 3.18 units. Um, our neighborhood is 1.79 and Parkplace is 2.12. So we're looking at something that now now that is even double that and is going to necessitate waiverss to be able to because of it because it's only going to have one entrance and it can't meet the Avon UDOS's um and is going to necess necessitate that. So again I know we're not supposed to be talking about this specific this specific thing but I just do think that that's something that should be considered as well. So um with that I'm happy to answer any questions. I think I'm probably over my two minutes so I apologize. Oh there we go. I thought it was close. I was trying to talk really fast. Very

good. Thank you. Thank you. Next, um, excuse me, Bruce Worling. Hello, Bruce Whirling, 868 Beachwood Center Road. uh lived in the neighborhood for about 10 years now and my concern is uh a hundred cars and where they're going to park. Uh they're going to end up on Beachwood Center Road and a lot of people walk and ride bikes along there. Um and there's no place for them to go on the sidewalk at that point. So if there's cars parked on there, it becomes a very dangerous road with that big curve in there and you can't see what's coming. So, I'm very concerned about foot traffic, bike traffic, pedestrians, and parking on there, and then just everybody trying to drive through that narrow little road with all that traffic and then adding alorium and all the other traffic coming back there. It's just going to get really congested in that area is my main concern. Okay, that's it. Could I ask you a question, please? Sure. Is there parking allowed on that street today? I have no idea. Do you have parking on that street in your neighborhood? Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. When a question is asked, we just ask the person at the podium to respond. You can do this, but this is being recorded, so we want to make sure everything that is needs to be heard is heard. Okay. Next, David Cox. Dave Hops. I'm at 7839 Red Sunset Way in Cabo Springs edition. We don't belly up to this, but we've had some major

concerns from our people um that uh we are pretty close by the other side of the businesses there. But the uh we presently have 10 uh houses that have been switched over to uh rentals and we have a tremendous amount of issues with them constantly. Um so that's become a very bad issue for us. So, I'm kind of seeing that I was afraid this whole thing was going to be rental rental type property, but they're talking about maybe 25% of it being that um and if they research that some more, you might be able that when the HOA is initially set up, they can even do away with any possibility, but they probably have to research that. Uh I agree with Paul that you uh once this is resone then if you don't have your commitment here which you don't uh this can go away and something come in that we don't want. So I kind of hate res without all that water down in advance. Uh, I was on the Avon town council when we passed the two entrance policy that we've used for almost all of our additions that we put in. And I really hate the idea there's only one on this. Um, I don't I don't believe in waiverss and I think this is pretty dense too. On top of that, the last thing is this area like Paul said has gone in so much change over the years and now

with the alen podium come in and some other stuff it's improving a lot which I would think would generate more commercial interest in that area. Um, if you put residential here instead of commercial, then you're pushing commercial into other areas, which we may not want them there. Uh, because, you know, Avon, you kind of want to have your a separation between your residential areas and your commercial areas. So, that would be my last concern. Thank you very much. Is just not have that there. Okay. Next, Dan Truit. Hello, I'm Dan Truit. Live at 615 Beachwood Center Road. We've lived there about 5 years. Uh, love the neighborhood, but the one thing I noticed when we first moved in was the cut through traffic. I was really surprised. Uh, after years and years, we finally got a couple speed bumps in there. Uh, but I don't really think that's curbed the traffic. Uh, we've got, you know, I'm a big fan of the ale emporium. I'm happy it's coming in and then whatever that restaurant is in the Del Taco or Chipotle. I think that's the big mystery. Nobody really knows. But, um, that's just going to fuel that traffic. And to think that we're going to add another 76 homes in that vacant lot and what that's going to do to our area, I I just think it's unnecessary. That's all I have to say. Next, Aaron Poland. Uh, good evening. Uh, Aaron Poland. I'm at 7543 Basswood Drive. Um, matter of

fact, I'm the house just on the north of that pond. Uh since we were talking about the pond earlier, it generally affects what we're doing here. Uh won't beat the dead horse too bad about the traffic. Uh other than Indiana Department of Transportation says it's about 1.65 vehicles per home at 76 homes. About 125 new cars coming in and out of that neighborhood on a daily basis. how that's less than a parking or a storage lot. I don't understand the the logic behind that or even a small dentist office. Not going to beat that horse, but I just would cordially disagree with that. Uh as far as the reszoning goes, um with 76 properties up there, um the density is concerning. Uh the pond is also a massive concern of mine. I don't think my neighbor is on the registration list, uh, but she's the one to the northeast of the pond. I can tell you right now, every time it rains, our basement's flood, uh, with the way it is right now. And the that current empty field, whether it's sat empty since 2009, where he wanted almost a million dollars for 10 acres or whether he wants whatever he's asking for right now, it's kind of irrelevant, but it does act as a watershed. Uh, and I know I have got several neighbors on my street in this room right now, and I I can tell you that when it rains, it that gets pretty heavy. And I understand the proposal was for $200,000 to dredge that pond. That pond is 6 in deep. And they want 200,000 to dredge it to 8 feet deep all the way around. Um, is is I think an unrealistic number from 6 in. my miniature pincher was standing in it yesterday and it was came came up to her knees uh in that pond. So I don't believe that's realistic. But if we are to talk about reszoning that to a residential property, I have a problem with the density and and I think that

the whoever whether it's Trinity Beaser, whoever buys it, sells it, the town of Avon can imminent domain it for a like here. Uh, but I think it needs to be tied to whatever happens to that property because I think that issue and then we're not even talking about the pond to the south of that that butts up against Royal King. That's an overflow for the north pond. Um, they need to be addressed. So, thank you very much. How much time do we have left? Two, four, six, seven. Got two minutes. We can take Keith Dun. We can take one more speaker. Keith Dunek. Okay. Next on the list is Tony Bear. I spoke at the last one. Um, one of the things that we're not really addressing your name and address. Tony Bear 82A Colin Drive. Been there 10 years. Um, obviously that's a remnant piece of land. Remnants are the last things to go. We've got three remnants surrounding our area. Um I've also done time studies. Takes 90 seconds to go from their entrance, proposed entrance to the 100 north. We co coexist with Harvest Ridge, which is next to us. And we both cross paths. So when we want to go out to 100, we go through Harvest Ridge. When Harvest Ridge wants to go out to Dan Jones, they go straight down. At 90 seconds, you can only get seven cars to turn left on the 36, which is going to be the majority of the traffic. So, we're really looking at a lot of pass through traffic. So, um I just think it's a a shame to look at this and say that, you know, this is a a viable proposal given that there's 12 actual units with no parking spaces except for seven that are designated by that pickle

pickle ball court and that there will be people parked on that on that lane right in front of those 12 houses because that's what people do. They park in front of their houses. So, there's no guest parking except for seven parallel parking spots. Thank you very much. Got a minute. We done. Got a minute. Okay. If anybody would like to speak for one minute, do we have one more? Anybody else signed up? We have three more names signed up. Next one is Angelie Sevilla. Seilla. Okay, that's a pass. And we have Maybel Edeto. And last name is Rodrigo Edeto. Okay, one minute to anybody who wants it. Hi, George Brown, 7573 Basswood Drive. Uh, I'd like to make a comment to the wood found in the tree line. If he would have walked deeper into that tree line, he would have saw culverts and all other kinds of construction material that lays within there. So, the concern about the trash inside should be looked at further. Um, with that that line, I live right at the edge of that tree uh row. I maintain that because when it's mowed, it's only backed in and I have to keep that grass off of my property. And what made it so easy for him to get back to that tree line is that everybody along that strip does the same thing. We cut probably about 15 feet beyond our property because there's poison ivy and other things. there's ticks, everything will crawl over into our properties. Um, with that, um, we're not just a community that is against this resoning. We're for this property. We want this property to succeed. Whenever there's people out there with their

four-wheelers or during the winter time, I've seen snowmobiles. I call the Avon Police Department. I try to protect this property because I want it to sell. I want it to succeed. And I feel like our community is not out here for uh any kind of amnesty or not amnesty, any kind of aggression towards this property. We want to protect it the same way we want to protect our property. So I think we're just doing our due diligence to make sure everybody has fair shot. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. The petitioner would like to come up and give five minutes of uh rebuttal. Uh excuse me. I'll start with the parking and just say definitively that we'll prohibit parking on Beachwood Center Drive. Um and I would imagine public work public works might do that as well. to clarify those rear-loaded town homes, they're at the front of the development. There are four parking spaces available per unit. Two in the garage and two in the driveway. So, that's why I can understand why there would be a concern if it was not understood that there's four units designated per unit to start with. Secondly, I would just refer to the definition of transitional zoning. So I completely agree with what the density is for groves of beachwood farms. Transitional is that we would go to higher density and then to commercial. So that's just the definition of the term. I was mistaken in my representation of the drainage from the groves into the Trinity parcel. I thought it was just section three. Uh Mr. Manning here, our expert, reminded me that actually all of the ponds from the groves drain into this parcel. they

overflow into each other and cascade down into the site. So, it has to be taken into account with um the calculations for how deep it needs to be. Yes, it's shallow now. Our number is sound. It's positive. There's way more than draining it and dredging it. There's a new storm structure. There's removal of waste. It's it's a it's a bid that we worked with a contractor to get. So, I understand the skepticism, but I can assure you that it's an accurate number. And then I would just again close with emphasizing Mr. Eaton currently and anybody that comes behind Mr. Eaton has a case for the Groves to be responsible to fix the drainage pond. It's currently in in severe disrepair. It's most likely their responsibility. they've been draining into it um since the neighborhood was developed and it should have been deeded to them. It has not. That's unfortunate, but again, we are happy to be great neighbors and fix that pond at our expense in exchange for support uh for our development. So, if there's any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. Thank you. question regarding your parking. You said there's four spaces per home, two in each garage and then two in the driveway. Correct. When they park in the driveway, is there enough depth there? They're not parking across the sidewalk. Yes. Thank you. Discussion or questions for the petitioner. I have a question for staff here. Yes. So, in a development,

the development needs to address drainage within that development. So, if it doesn't have this pond legally attached to it, man, it's like this first time I've seen development that didn't have a retention pond in it. Um, so without that, they have to have something with that pond to make sure that is going to take care of any of the drainage from that. Yeah. Thank you. Because that that's how I'm looking to respond. Yes. So oftentimes, and this is an old pond, but this this area was master planned. It's clearly been identified in the report that they've already put together that it's not within code based on where we're at in the process right now. Normally, we don't even look at drainage. And they've already put together a report that gives us a decent idea of what's going on here. Should this move on to primary plat, that's when we dig into drainage. And they're going to be required to meet the town standards no matter what. So whether they fix this pond or they provide detention in some other way, whether that's the addition of a pond elsewhere or if they do underground, there are many options. But they've already identified there's an issue with this pond. And even if you were to approve this, they're not going to be able to just drain to this pond and provide no additional mitigation whatsoever based on the issues they've already identified. So whether it's C3 or R4, whoever whatever development would go here would have to address drainage. Exactly. Yep. Yes. So I wouldn't let drainage necessarily stop you from making a decision one way or the other tonight. They're going to need to meet the drainage requirements no matter what. And at the end of the day, I think what they've proposed now where they're going to attempt to fix this, I think that that should be option A. And I

think that benefits everyone to have this um existing pond be modified. But even if they can't do that, um they're going to need to propose something else and we'll review that to be sure that it meets the requirements. So even if we don't approve the the request for a zoning change, there's still that still needs to be addressed. If there's an office park that's put in there, they're still going to have to address the issue regarding the ownership of that pond property and the functionality of the pond to get it up to code. Right. Exactly. And and there's probably some more additional work they're going to do when they get to that stage. At this point, you know, they could find calculations showing that that pond can store what it needs to now, but at this stage, they've done more than what we would typically see as zoning. Thank you. Is it possible that this property could disconnect from that pond and create their own drainage? Absolutely. There are a hundred ways you could do this. But in if let's just say they found out that this pond isn't going to drain this site or if it just can't be done or for whatever reason the the the ownership or the easements everything fell through, they're going to need to do something else. And there's a lot of options that they could do. Um, but I think what they've proposed for now makes makes sense for what for the information they have discussion. So I've got several I guess one fourth items that were brought up by the Ron Strraers issues and we're the pond's one of them the drainage and I think that's something that you know we we could consider if we would move forward to approve this as a commitment

um talk to look at making that commitment that be addressed the the traffic you I think also we ought to get a commit in for traffic study. Um because that's a lot of density in that development. And the one thing that I'm going to have a concern with this and other any development is at the one entrance. I know they propose an emergency entrance and I'm like we always seem like we're putting a band-aid over our ordinance. You know, it's like I think Mr. Cox came up and when he was on here we passed as a town two entrances that was to allow emergency vehicles to get into a subdivision and I think it's a a safety concern um when we are looking at not having two legal entrances. they are proposing that but again it's a a commitment I think it needs to go along with this if we would even look to reszone this that there's a commitment for a second entrance into this if that is something that we can do and I look for staff and legal to help us on that I just I think it's a safety concern when we don't have that access and then I think the tree line with construction material that probably would be addressed during construction because they wouldn't leave a site and can't leave a site with uh material on property. I'm not sure how to address the traffic issue because um even if we were to leave it at the zoning that it is, there are multiple options as to how that could be developed commercially. some of which could definitely have a lot more traffic coming in and out. If it was a highdensity office park where you've got three or 4 hundred employees coming in every day to work in I mean

that's going to be a lot more traffic than what is being suggested for the for the development if we make it residential. If it turns into a something that is less dense, it might be less. I don't we can't predict even if we keep the zoning the same what the traffic will be like and I can certainly appreciate having been on this commission for a few years traffic is always always always an issue. Um I appreciate the um comparison to what was it the one behind north of Costco. um you know, I guess be happy it's not going out on 900 based on on previous proposals. Um so I'm not sure other than not doing anything with that property, there's going to be an increase in traffic. The question is, is it going to be a little or a lot? And that could be true whether we leave it the same or we improve it for we approve the zoning change. Other thoughts? The statement was made by the petitioner that he would prohibit parking on Beachwood Farms Drive. Can he do that? So, the town typically won't do that, but in their covenants, they can restrict parking for them and their guests on any road that they choose. It would not be enforced by us, though. and and Anna council I just to confirm the town cannot put restrictions on

rental properties and that's settled law even that despite what's happening in Fisers and elsewhere right now that's the law but HOAs can certainly put restrictions correct yes certainly HOAs often do put restrictions on rentals um in the state so that's something that they can do and they've offered those commitments to you just so that you're aware of them um So, I would just take note of them. Can a HOA prohibit rentals? I'm not entirely sure on that, but I wouldn't be too concerned with that because that's not really our concern, right, at this time, but it was something that was brought up and so yeah, and I think it's good that they made you aware of that and obviously their future neighbors or potential neighbors. So, Right. Other thoughts? Yeah. So, it looks to me like depending no matter who uses this, the the net traffic will go up, but there's debate whether R4 or C3 will give more or less traffic. So, no matter who builds this property, develops this property, there's going to be an increase in traffic. Um, the city's working on that to make the the arrow change. So really comes down to does this commission recommend that we basically remove commercial use from this property or do we allow it for residential? There's essentially the the uh the drainage issues will have to be addressed with whoever brings this property up. The traffic is going to be a net increase no matter what we do. um the innovation district is essentially defunct because 80% of that circle is already something else. So you can't you're not going to get enough critical mass to make this an innovation zone. So it's going to be commercial with whatever um we build there. So

I this is this is a tough one because it there's the the net impact on the the region is comparable whether it's commercial residential I think now other people have have differences on that and and that's fine but I I can't tell from a a regional impact which is better or worse for the area. So that's that's kind of my view of right now. And right now we do have a proposal for a residential property that is being developed at less than what it could maximally be developed significantly less. Other ideas, thoughts, discussion. And again, this is for a zoning waiver only. We're not discussing before any of the details of what is going to be proposed can be discussed. The zoning waiver has to be granted first. A resoning, not a waiver. A resoning. Sorry, the reasonzoning. Thank you. So, so at this point we have a whole list of commitments that have been talked about. Um, should we go over those and and just to make sure that it's agreeable? So, it looks like originally there was a it was it was uh asked that apartment building small, apartment building large be prohibited. I think additionally on the report this week it says additional prohibited uses if it were to get resoned would be

cemetery, recycling facility, hospital, utility, mass transit facility, live work units, upper story residential. I think there was a commitment asked for that proposed the emergency access be required during platting. Um, there was a commitment requested that a traffic study be completed as part of plat approval. I think we also talked about uh no parking on Beachwood. Uh, no rentals or some kind of verbiage, limited rentals of some sort was was proposed. Um, additional speed humps uh was proposed. Um, am I missing anything? The speed homes were discussed. I don't think we can require them because the board of public works or the department of public works would have to approve those. So, it's not something we could So, we can't we can't do that. I mean, we could we could make we'd certainly request them or ask about them, but we can't demand that speed bumps be installed on a public street without the Department of Public Works. Okay. Involved in the discussion. Yeah. I think drainage was the commitment to to the pond was the other one. That's a whole list. Are there any of those that you disagree with? [Music] Uh no, we don't disagree with any of those. I would just want to clarify on the drainage pond commitment. We can only pay to improve that if we are successfully approved, if our primary plat is approved. So what we have to avoid is committing to fix the pond if our project doesn't go forward. We can commit to fixing the pond if our project goes forward. So however that needs to

be worded, I just want to make sure that we're clear on that. That makes sense. Commitments go with the land, not with the petitioner. Yes. So the that's correct that the commitment would go to the land. If they're making a commitment to fix the pond, then that's something that they're committing to you that we're not requiring them to do. Obviously, we've talked about that they're going to have to bring the drainage up to code regardless of what happens with that pond. Even if we don't get a commitment to that today, there will be um drainage issues will be addressed whether it's that pond or otherwise. So they would be agreeing if if we approve the resoning they would be agreeing we would be attaching a commitment to that property that they would have to agree to in order to get approval for the plat. Yes. So if they don't go ahead with this project they don't have to go out and spend money on that pond. Um if they're making that commitment it would be attached to their actions on the property if they go forward with the project um because they have to comply with drainage code to build their project. So they kind of go hand in hand. So if it doesn't if they're if this project doesn't go forward, they don't have a commitment because a commitment has to do with the property, not with the petitioner. Yeah. But in a sense, it would stay with the property. If a future property or developer came forward, they would have to comply with those commitments. And if they didn't want to, they'd have to come before you to modify the written commitments as it applied to that other developer. Okay. So does that do we or do we not then make add that to the motion as a commitment because it seems like any development would have to address that regardless of the zoning. Yes. Uh, I'm I'm not sure I can give you a golden stamp of approval, but the the my initial take is that you would want to keep drainage out of your commitments

because I'm just thinking of scenarios where this doesn't go through and who knows who owns it in the future and who comes to develop in the future and maybe they don't have the means or the permissions to modify the pond in the future, put their own drainage pond, then you've got an issue with a commitment that they physically can't meet and they'd be coming back to you to to modify that. Um I think your drainage ordinance alone is enough to ensure that they do something um to make sure that they're meeting the requirements. Right now it's out of it doesn't meet code. So even if we said nothing about the drainage, anybody who came forward, the existing pond doesn't meet the Avon code as of right now, but they have they have multiple options at their disposal that they could use to meet the drainage ordinance, whether they provide their own pond. Obviously, they they wish to modify this one. Um I just have a little bit of heartburn about Well, this is a commitment saying they have to modify this pond. wasn't uh wasn't part of the reason for the commitment was that in that the groves could be held responsible for paying for part of that cleaning up the pond and and things like that and they're saying they'll take that on. Isn't that what they're committing to? Is that you can take it if you want. I think they they they plan to share the cost from what I they said that they would they said that they would remediate the pond and then they would they would share the the maintenance there going forward but they were committing to remediating the pond now. So that's the piece I'm trying to figure out how we would word that just that's the commitment I think we're looking I mean we could we could um modify if we choose to go forward with this uh that the retention pond repair and ownership must be included in the plat for approval that that now it doesn't mean that they have to own it but that

ownership dis agreement has to be in place before plat approval and whether they repair it or somebody else repairs it that would that would be how you could put that into request. Now, that is against what he's recommending because it requires that when this property, if we go our four with this property and somebody else goes through, then they also have to repair and develop ownership of that pond. Well, and maybe not something we want to do. This is a real problem because the idea that a retention pond that is being used by an entire neighborhood was not made part of that neighborhood is I mean that's just really sloppy on on whoever however this got approved and built and and and however this this plat that of of the groves was created that was really um It's now left us with having to put the cart before the horse because normally we would not even be addressing drainage until we got to the plat approval. But you know this this is this is a problem. Yes. Yes sir. Um upon considering the discussion I do again feel the need to clarify. Currently Mr. Eaton is not responsible for the pond. And we provided both the easement document which was originally granted by Mr. Eaton to Trinity to build the groves and then we also provided the deed which happened later but referenced the original easement. So currently Mr. Eaton has zero responsibility for this pond and what we cannot do is walk out of here with an obligation for him or any of his of his successors. And I think we would agree with that whether it was right whether it was you or any

other person looking commercial or residential to develop that property. What somebody could do is seek remedy, Mr. Eaton or somebody that buys Mr. eaten property could seek remedy from Trinity or the Groves to fix that now because we have a right to drain into it now. Right? So that's what we're trying to avoid is any expense for our neighbors who potentially would have a special assessment in play to bring this up to speed if Mr. Eaton or somebody in the future came and said, "Hey, look, we have the right to drain to this pond. It doesn't it's not up to code. It doesn't meet the standard and we're requiring you asking you to bring it up to standard per the agreement the and I'm glad you brought that up here because so it again I think we're where I'm at is that we ought to set this part aside because whatever development goes on here is going to have to address drainage and I think Charlie told us there's going to be multiple options for that which is different than where I thought coming in listening to this that we wanted to have something tied to the reszone if we were going to reszone this, but you know whether it comes up speed, whoever develops is going to have to address drainage in whatever way meets code. So, ideally, it would not be in the commitments because the standard drainage process would cover it, right? And what we did is just provide you the path to the solution that we're going to seek with Beaser on behalf of the town and on behalf of quite frankly the Groves. So, so council, would it be correct to say that if we don't put anything in the commitments at all about drainage that what the petitioner just said is correct, our own code will force addressing the issue whether it's

developed commercial or residential or high density or low density. Our own code is going to force that issue to be addressed. Correct. Yeah. If even if we put absolutely nothing tonight about drainage, the process will take care of it. Yes, that's exactly what it's there for. They have to meet code um for every development. Um so if it doesn't include that pond for some reason, they still will have to meet the code so that they're not I think how you usually say it is that they're not affecting they will take care of the drainage on their own property. They may not improve it for everyone around them, but they can't make it worse and they will handle the drainage on their own property. I have concerns about commitments to that pond simply because it's not a part of the reason as far as I understand it and if their legal rights as to what they want to do with their easements as they've acquired it as new property owners that's their prerogative and so I don't necessarily want to interfere or compel them to act on those rights through their easements. However, even saying that yes drainage will be addressed regardless of whether you adopt a commitment for it. Okay, that being said, if we go forward with this, I would be inclined to say let's not put anything that that addresses drainage and let our own internal processes address that for whoever develops that property, whether it's commercial or residential, and we'll address it at the appropriate time. This just this just feels so much not just putting the cart before the horse, but putting the whole village before the [Music] horse. Any other um discussion? Remember, we're here to we're here on a request for a reszone from commercial to residential.

We're just here to give a favorable or un or recommendation. Yes. Right. Any other thoughts, conversation, discussion? If not, we'll entertain a motion. We have to do something. and we have to wrap the meeting up by 11 o'clock. So let me bring up one thing too for consideration here is that we have had discussion on um different types of housing in town and town homes address the the families or dwellers that don't want a yard that have a home but don't have to maintain a yard. So it gives us some diversity in the housing market. So that's where we're looking at that. You I think I read a letter about um the kind of implied poor quality construction town homes. You know, I think that's something that if this would be approved and that's what's going to be developed, that's what we ought to consider. But it's another product that provides a different type of uh home for residents navon and the

quality is governed by our UDOs. Yes. Would anybody like to make a motion? All right. Um, I move that we forward a favorable recommendation to the town council for ZA2502 Beachwood Town Homes, a zoning map amendment to reszone 10.06 acres from C3 to R4 subject to the commitments outlined in the staff report. Um, additional commitments noted were no parking on Beachwood and limited rentals. Um, since it has satisfied all the requirements for a zoning map amendment under state law, I'd like to clarify that the last two are parking on Beachwood and the limited rentals would be included in their covenants, not just a straight correct. That that's good clarification. So, yes. Do we need that? No, I think we got it. Good. Having heard a motion, do we have a second? Are we going to have a second or will the motion fail? Okay, having had no second, the motion fails. Do we have a another motion that anyone would like to make?

I move that we forward an unfavorable recommendation to the town council for ZA2502 Beachwood Town Homes, a zoning map amendment to reszone 10.6 6 acres from C3 to R4 subject to the nom or the commitments outlined in the staff report since it has not satisfied all the requirements for zoning map amendment under state law. I'll second. Having heard a motion a second, we will now take a vote. Rockran for the amendment. Yeah. Or for the for the unfavorable. Yeah. Spencer four. Reed four. Kaufman against. Ransburg against. Guggenberger four. Susan four. The motion to forward an unfavorable recommendation to the C town council has now passed. Okay. Moving on. For those who are going to be leaving the meeting, we'd ask that you do so quietly. Moving on to new business, Brierwood Preliminary Plat. And let's take a few minutes for the room to clear a few seconds rather. Okay. Uh, Briwood preliminary

plat. Okay, thank you. We are hearing the preliminary plat for Brier Wood which was before you as a reszone uh three months ago I think. Um it is located on County Road 900 across from the Eden Gate subdivision 18.1 acres. It's now zoned R4. It's currently improved with several single sing single family dwellings which would be removed um or this development. Um the majority of the site was annexed in 2021 and 22 and then there were three more properties uh added and annexed recently and I believe that's just about complete. Um the the final reading has already occurred. They are requesting preliminary plot approval for 55 single family detach lots. And then there is a waiver being requested to allow for the 55 lots on one access when 49 is the limit under the UDO. This is a subject site. So it includes the larger property here in the back and then three residential units um that front along 900. The access will be V2900. And as we discussed in the resoning hearing, we were staff was mainly concerned about the entrance drive lining up with the Eden Gate Drive across the street. So they did purchase um and annex this property so that that entrance could line up. When you line those up, there was not enough room on the frontage of the property to install a second entrance that met the separation requirements.

The site meets all requirements, however, for ASL, DEL lanes and and those types of things. They've also proposed an emergency access, which I'll get to in a minute. Um, but you probably remember that from the resoning hearing. The lots are consistent with the R4 standards. The open space exceeds the requirements for of the R of the UDO for R4. Um sidewalks would be along all of the internal streets and a 10- foot wide asphalt path would be installed along 900. Um these are the commitments that the petitioner agreed to during the resoning hearing. Um and uh the plat does meet all of the commitments that relate to platting. And this is the proposed concept plan that you saw with the zoning uh amendment um with the main act access again lining up with Eden Gate. Uh the main access drive is 70 ft wide and uh right away with a boulevard uh which would allow for essentially two lanes, one lane in, one lane out. So it's it's a much wider entrance than what would be required. And then additionally, they're proposing that the trail connection from 900 into the site double as an emergency access with removable ballards to provide a second access point into the subdivision. With regards to the waiver, the site is hindered by the fact that the three surrounding developments that developed in Hendrickx County did not provide stubs to the site and with the our requirement to have them line up with the Eden Gate Drive, they did have some difficulty because there was no no

stubs available to them and the um distance separation couldn't be met for a second entrance drive. This is the proposed plot. Uh it does meet the standards of the ordinance. It's essentially the same thing you saw at the resoning stage. Nothing has significantly changed. Um this is a a simplified version of that and showing the phasing that will be coming in with the dark line uh the thick line being the separator between sections one and section two that will eventually come in. Again, they are requesting the one waiver which would be for 55 lots instead of 49 lots. Um the purpose of that requirement is to make sure that access is maintained to all lots should one should the main entrance become blocked that there's a second entrance and I will just go through the criteria for the waiver. Um the proposed the proposed alternative will not be detrimental to public health safety and general welfare. We believe that the wider entrance creating a boulevard and the separate emergency access will um not have any detrimental impact on public health or safety. Criteria two, the proposed alternative will not contradict the intent design standards of the subdivision rags. the subdivision rags are in place. This part of the subdivision rags are in place for safety reasons and that the again the wider boulevard entrance and the emergency access will mitigate any uh safety concerns that could have had could have been had for having additional lots over the 49. criteria three that the proposed alternative is due to conditions

specific to the property and not applicable to the general properties of the area. And we would suggest again that this site as well as the other ones that you see that we've seen recently um utilizing emergency accesses is that they have been hindered because the development around them has been allowed to develop without stub streets. And so an alternative method of meeting that part of the intent of the ordinance is is needed to allow the property to develop the best that it can. Criteria for proposed alternative enhances the proposed development. We believe that a wide boulevard entrance will enhance the area and that the um separate entrance the emergency access will make sure that there are multiple points of access. We believe all four criteria have been met and that we are recommending approval of the Brierwood primary plat subject to the four conditions standard conditions that we that you normally see. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have. So So just to reiterate, the town wanted the entrance to align with the neighborhood across the street. Correct. Which required adding six more lots, which put the property over the threshold for requiring I wouldn't say it required six more lots, but they acquired more property to add to get that entrance to line up. And then that puts and then instead of letting it sit empty, just went ahead and used that for additional lots. They added acorage and respect. So they wanted additional lots. Okay. And then

that's what put them over the threshold. Correct. Okay. Did you bring up the uh commitments? Nothing's changed from the approval that we gave him early on for the reszone. Nothing has changed. Any further questions for staff? Okay. Have the petitioner come [Music] forward. Good evening. Steven Kyle with Dre Homes, 900 East 96 Street, um Indianapolis, Indiana, sweet 10046240. Again, just asking for approval and recommendation um on the primary plat for Brierwood. Um Linder Linda pretty did a great job at uh covering everything. Um again, nothing's changed from um when you approved it the the concept plan at Reszone. Um we did have to acquire the two additional um homes to the east on 900. Um and again there were two people living in those homes. So it was a a costly endeavor. So um our density changed from 2.99 I believe to 3.01. So not much change there when um when taking things into consideration to align that boulevard entrance along Eden Gate. Um primary plat again R4 zoning with the

commitments that you just saw. Um 55 single family detached lots. Um those lots are this community is going to be age targeted. So when the HOA commitments there are going to be restriction on playgrounds, um playets, trampolines, basketball goals, etc. And then that emergency access is going to be uh 12 feet wide as well. Um all homes are going to be ranch style homes with the option of a loft. Um and this is a again age targeted community. And with that we're also asking for a waiver for the for the boulevard entrance and the emergency access since we are above that threshold. So, um, we appreciate your consideration and hopefully infer a positive recommendation. Happy to answer any questions or comments you have. And I do have, um, stop overth engineers here as well to answer any technical questions. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody who has signed up in support of this project who would like to speak? Uh, we do have one name signed up for Tim Pedigrew. Tim Pedigrew 8854 Prairie Manor Prairie Trail. I live in Prairie Manor. I am four Brier Wood single family detached homes. I'm against the 55 homes. Currently in Prairie Manor, you look out our back, I will be looking at two and a half homes in my backyard looking right at me. So, uh, there's an existing fence. It's a barbwire fence. It's in extremely poor condition. Most of it is down. Uh, question is what's going to happen to that fence? What I'd

like to propose is that we have an additional commitment from Durice for a privacy fence for the lots to the south with three home exposure. Okay, any questions? Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in support of this petition? If not, we'll move on to anyone who would like to speak out against this petition. Any remmonstration? We have one person signed up. Ron Frasier. Good evening. Ron Fraser, 886 Per Trail, Avon, Indiana. Uh, I'm against it. Uh, not against the proposal of the individual homes, but against the number of homes. I understand you've already approved that uh the zoning for that size. However, my concern is that um we we've got the lot to the south of us at Costco. No, no towns have been built yet. They're being built. You approved a single entrance there with an emergency. And again, here what we're doing is we've got a single entrance with this emergency. There was standards for a reason. And we just keep bending them. and we just keep bending them. And um so we've now got south and north of us. We're going to have these bended. You know, this this the this standard is not the standard anymore. This seems to be the standard. That's that's the feeling I'm getting here, right? Um again, I am one of the properties that will have three houses, three of these houses looking out at my back door. Um, I have a concern with how they're going to do the drainage on the property because currently, uh, when they knock down all the trees on that property, we suddenly got an influx of water coming into our yards from that property. Um, my

understanding was that once they looking at building up the the dirt on our side to a foot or or two above our existing, which will create more of a swamp land for us in that situation. So, I do have a concern with that. I also have a concern with um I would like some sort of screening whether it be a fence or or some sort of evergreen tree foliage sort of situation there. Um these these are not um old age homes. These are targeted. What that means is you've got 55 houses that we put in here. Anyone can move into. If you have a family that squeezes into these homes with four cars getting in and out of that, th this could happen. This could happen. Um, so I do have a concern with the number of cars that are going to be going in and out of that one entrance. We've already got that going to be happening to the south of us. And I just feel like 900 is a is a mess. It's it's been a mess. It will be a mess. It will continue to be a mess. Why are we we continuing to bend rules to just put more and more traffic on that road? I thank you for your time. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to come forward and speak uh remmonstrate against this petition? Okay. If the petitioner would like to come forward with rebuttal. Thank you, Tim and Ron, for your comments. Um, regarding the fence on the grounds, we would likely take that fence out. Um, it is not our plan to keep a barb wire fence on the ground. I'm sure that was there from a past horse farm on the property. Um, and then regarding a privacy fence, that's a it's a major burden on HOAs. We understand that you guys appreciate your privacy currently with nothing behind there. Um, the HOA would have to go through

backyards. they'd have to stay in the fence every couple years. Um it's just it it would be a burdensome to the HOA with only 55 lots. And then um drainage, we've already started working on construction plans and I've had several talks with staff on those plans and had received comments back. Um we have no plans to impact any additional um home sites to the south or to the north or to the west uh negatively and we plan on meeting all requirements that the city has in the UDO. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Discussion or questions for the petitioner? My only comment is, and I don't know if it was on any of the other drawings we had earlier, but on one of your drawings here, you do show five different wetland identifications of five different wetlands. And I know when they do everything, they're going to address all the flooding and stuff. I get that. But I just I just I guess I didn't see that there are five wetlands. So can you build in those wetlands? So we're in the process now trying to get permits from IDM um going through that usually four to six month process with them and uh with comments from staff they wouldn't let us um build in those wetlands without that permitting. Thank you. So wait here I have a question for you on the emergency access. It it states that the it would be built 12 feet wide to allow a vehicle. How deep is the asphalt or whatever pavement would be? Um because it's going to have some it would have potentially heavy vehicles on that. So

12 feet wide's great, but if all a sudden it's not going to support a firet truck, it's not really going to help. Yeah. Yes. Um, so I might have lean come up here and talk to that. Um, we will have to rem meet the requirements from the city as well um to make sure that does mean requirements to hold a larger, heavier vehicle to get through there. And there'd probably be some some type of um standards that they'd come out on site and check that um impaction rate to make sure that it would hold a lot larger vehicle. Okay. Thank you. Yep. So, I'll I mean this is this goes along with it. I guess Linda, if you're going to help me with that. The other is like our ordinance says 49 and other 49 housing units. Otherwise, there are two entrances and it does seem like we're we continue to bend the standards and now we got emergency access and is it going to be developed like a road where it has to be excavated with a six to 10 in? So, I don't have the the plans handy tonight, but for the development, the first one that you all approved at the name escapes meeting 100 north. Yes. Um, nine homes. Yes. um plans were put together between DPW and the fire department and we have those plans and that's what we will when the final plaque comes in we will make sure that that drive is subject to those standards that were already we've already kind of adopted as a policy for these types of things. So let me ask you is like so we continue to I I'm I'm not supportive of

a boulevard entrance as being the only entrance. So thus emergency access but if is 49 the right number I mean because we continue to see developments more than that and I don't agree with criterion three um with the petitioner response. I don't think that meets that for the waiver. It's the desire to put 56. There's no compelling need to put 56 in. That's the developers, the petitioners desire to do that. Um um I'm like why do we continue to I mean we got the waiver? I guess is more for this the commission here is I just 49 we wouldn't need a waiver. We got 56 now we need a waiver and we got one in one main entrance. Um, not sure really like the emergency access entrance, but just to be safety issue devil's advocate here, we could have 49 if we let them put the entrance where they originally wanted to put it, but then it would not line up with the neighborhood across the street, which is also a safety issue. It's like we've got two safety issues and right now we don't have a whole lot of land left to be developed. The land is shaped the way the land is shaped. If we were building Avon from scratch, then we could abs we could stick to our ordinances that says, "No, I'm sorry. You got it. This is the way it is." But the waiverss ex the waiver process exists because not every proposed development is going to allow for adherence to the ordinances as they're written. This property is not wide enough to have two entrances. It's just not. and we and they can't change that. So, do we just let it sit there and never be developed or we insist on 49? I like the idea that you were talking earlier about, you

know, uh diversity of housing. This is being marketed towards again people who want to have less to take care of ranch homes. You know, it's it's to me it doesn't it it's about looking for the right solution, not just sticking to this is what the ordinance says. This is land is shaped the way it is. It can't be changed. Do we want the entrance in the middle or do we want want the entrance to line up with the neighbor to cross the street? That's part of the ordinances. Do we want an emergency entrance that requires a waiver? I mean, it's like we can't have both. From a planning perspective, we it seems like we're supporting we have a lot of these recently and we've been supporting them, but they truly are remnant pieces of land that did not have the land around them develop appropriately. So they're so that regulation anticipates stub streets and or anticipates frontage onto p like arterial streets and having a remnant piece of parcel that you can't get to entrances in and meet any standards. That's the whole reason the waiver process exists is to be able to be flexible in situations where the existing infrastructure is not in place to let something develop. And my view on on this property especially is um the safety need is met is met by another way and that's the point of the 49 as far as safety reasons and they're meeting that with an emergency access to address that. So yeah, in many cases maybe it it doesn't always apply, but if we meet the safety risk, we get a piece

of property that can be used. I think in this case it justifies a waiver. Oh. Um the only thing I would say is that the the extra lots are all there right up front, you know, close to to 900. It's not like there five extra lots that are further on in into the development. They're right by the [Music] entrance. Is there any further discussion, questions for staff or the petitioner? Well, I agree with Mr. Genberger about the excess lots, but I think in this case there was some give and take here. and we asked them to go acquire or to to look into acquiring the other properties to line up the entrance to um the other subdivision, which they did. And I get it. The extra lots then come with the additional cost of buying those properties as well. So, in this case, not that I'm a fan of of this, but in this case, I support what they did that they've done. There's no further discussion. I'll entertain a motion. I move that we approve map P 25005 waiver A, a request to wave Avon UDO 7.21J1B. 21 J1B to allow for more than 49 lots on one Boulevard Street access since it has satisfied all the requirements for waiverss under state law and subject to the approved findings of fact. A second. Having had a motion and a second, we'll now take a vote on

the request for waiver A. Reed four. Spencer against. Rockabbrand four. Susan four. Guggenberger against Ransburg for Kaufman four. Motion carries. The waiver is granted which allows us to move on to MAP2505 Brierwood Preliminary Plat. I move that we approve MAP P2505 Brierwood Preliminary Plat. a request to divide 18.1 acres into 55 single family lots subject to the conditions listed in the staff report since it has satisfied all the requirements for a major subdivision plat under state law and subject to the approved findings of fact. Do I have a second? I'll second. Having had a motion and a second, we'll now take a vote. Ransburg four. Kaufman four. Rockbrand four. Reed four, Guggenberger four, Spencer four, Zusen four. Motion carries and Brierwood preliminary plat is approved to forward to the town council. Next item, Silver Springs Amenity Center. Thank you, President Ransburg, members of the commission. DPR 257 is a request for a development plan review uh to approve an amenity center for residential subdivision at uh Silver Spring subdivision. This is uh located in the

future common area B of Silver Spring subdivision at the northwest corner of proposed Republic Avenue which would be a new street in the subdivision and then the eastward extension of Autumn Faith Way that would come from the uh abuing subdivision to the west across the bicesentennial trail. Um the overall common area is close to six acres. Uh the amenity center would be on a little over a half acre portion of that property is zoned R3. It's currently unimproved. It was reszoned last year uh as part of about a 50 acre reszoning from R2 to R3 to allow for a mix of single family detached and single family attached townhouse dwellings. The preliminary plat for Silver Springs has been approved and the final plat is uh has been filed and is currently under review. So the amenity center would include a pool house building with restrooms and area for equipment. Uh two inground pools, an outdoor playground, off- streetet parking and landscaping. This is a look at the property. Uh it is north of the intersection of 900 east and 200 north. You may recall this property down here that was reszoned C2 is the proposed uh Meyer development. And then here in pink is the Silver Springs uh subdivision that would be developed. And there's the approximate area where the amenity center would be where this street here, Autumn Faith Way, will extend through the property out to 900. And then Republic Avenue would be basically right there. There's a look at the site plan. So that's Autumn Faith Faith Way proposed to come through the property to

going east and then Republic Avenue. And here's the uh proposed amenity center. This just a little bit closer look. So the parking lot, pool house, the two pools, playground over here. Um there's just a look at the landscape plan. So amenity centers are regulated by chapter 7 article 17 of the UDO. Um with this being a development plan review with no waiverss requested. Uh this would be a ministerial action on your part. Staff finds that the revised plans that were submitted after the technical advisory committee meeting do appear to meet all of the requirements of the UDO. Therefore, we recommend approval uh subject to standard commitment language essentially just that it be in compliance with the plans we've received and any revised plans uh be consistent with any other approvals granted uh landscape bond and that it meet all other relevant portions of town code etc. So uh you should recommend or you should vote to approve this unless uh there is any concern that any part of this is not meeting the uh requirements of the UDO. So we are accordingly recommending approval and be happy to answer any questions you might have. My question is parking there's enough of parking available. So there is not a specific uh requirement written into the UDO for amenity centers. I believe there is it 12 spaces that are proposed off street. There also would be on street there should be on street parking available on Republic Avenue um and possibly to some extent Autumn

Faith Way although that's proposed to be on the south side of the street which would require crossing the street. Um, but generally speaking, um, based on looking at amenity centers in the past, it seems consistent with what's been approved in the past. So, we did feel that parking would proposed would be appropriate. What about bike racks? They added a bike rack to their revised plan. Not sure if can see it on here. I think there's two over here on the side of the building which does meet the the requirements of the UDO. My concern with overflow parking would be on Autumn Faith Way. That's going to be one of your major arterial roads going in and out of this subdivision and Forest Commons. But again, unless we put up no parking signs, anybody can park there, right? Correct. I do I like that it's not at the edge of the property that it's of the development that it's more center which means that you have more people who can walk to the property or bike to the property as opposed to having it being in a corner where you're creating the need for people or the desire for people to drive there. This makes it a little more walkable for a larger portion of the neighborhood. Any further questions for staff? We'll have the petitioner come forward.

Austin Lewis with Bannon Engineering, 853 Columbia Road, Planefield, Indiana. Um to answer your question, Greg, um there is 10 spots in the parking lot. There is on street parking across Otter Faith Way. Talking with the public works department, we are we are for the pedestrian crossing across Otterfaith Way. There is a speed table and we all we do have reflective um pedestrian crossing signs. the rapid the rapid flashing ones. So, but everything that Paul says, I have nothing else to add unless you guys have any other questions. So, you said a speed table. Is that going to be like the speed table down here by the Avon youth sports fields? That is what a speed table is. Yes. Yep. Okay. Is there anybody here who would like to speak for or against this petition? Having had nobody sign up, would you like to rebut the lack of I'm good. Okay. discussion andor questions for the petitioner. Like I said earlier, I do like that fact that it's not at a corner, that it's more interior, which means that more people will be likely to walk. And the entrance faces not the main street, but um what is that? What is it called? Uh or yeah, Republic Avenue. The entrance space is Republic instead of Autumn Faith

Way. Discussion. We need to have some discussion. Glad to hear that the petitioner um made changes based on the um technical committee or do we don't need to discuss what that was but as long as we're in compliance there's not much to discuss. This is one of the few no waiverss or anything. So it's really ministerial right. So and you said earlier it's administrative right? Ministerial. Yes. ministerial. Okay, then we will uh entertain a motion. I move that we approve DPR25-07 Silver Springs Amenity Center, a development plan review to provide for an amenity center for a residential subdivision 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. Susan, four. Gooenberger, four. Ransburg four. Kaufman four. Reed four. Spencer four. Rockerand four. Motion carries. And the Silver Springs Amenity Center has been uh the motion has for forwarding it to the town council has been approved. No, you're just approving it. Oh, we are approving. Okay. There we go. They get a swimming pool. Yeah. Okay. Other business. Any other business? Uh, committee reports there. No, I know there was no BCA this month redevelopment. In

addition to the invoices, we also had Dan Jones phase three utility relocation reimbursement agreements and construction engineering agreement respectively. Uh, both voted in. Okay. Any other reports? Town Council. No, nothing. Anything else from staff in that case? Hear a motion to adjurnn. Second. Thank you. I wasn't sure you wanted to stay here. Motion carries. We are adjourned.