Advisory Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey, [Music] hey, hey. [Music]

[Music] Good evening. Hope everybody is staying cool. 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 body 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. This would be a good time to take your phone out and make sure it's on silent. Any phone calls should be taken outside of the chambers. If you are interested in commenting during the public hearing portion of the commission's deliberations, please sign up on the sheets located on the tables to the right of the audience. When your name is called, please step forward to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Please address your comments to the board and not to the staff or to the petitioner. Your comments should relate directly to the case at hand. During the conduct of the public hearing portion of the commission's deliberations, the petitioner will have 10 minutes to present their case to the commission. Reministrators will have 10 minutes to present objections to the petition. Persons in support of the petition other than the petitioner will have 10 minutes to present support for the petition. Finally, the petitioner 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. Subdivision plat and development plan petitions are ministerial requests, meaning that if the proposal meets the requirements set forth in the town's development ordinances, the plan commission must approve the request. In the interest of transparency, state law requires that the plan commission hold a public hearing even if the development proposal must be approved. Responses to public comments and questions may be given once the public hearing portion is closed. We do understand there may be several persons who wish to speak. In order to keep the meeting running in a timely fashion, we would request that you not repeat previous comments. Thank you for your assistance in facilitating a respectful, fair, and timely meeting. And again, welcome to our meeting. Please stand for the pledge. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, roll call. Susan, present. Guggenberg here. Ransburg here. Kaufman here. Reed Rocke Spencer Spencer is absent. We do have a quorum. We now move on to the approval of the meeting minutes from May 27th. Has the commission members have the commission members have an opportunity to review the minutes? Are there any suggested changes, edits, questions? No. I'll take a motion to approve the meeting minutes. I make that motion to

approve the minutes uh from the May 27th, 2025 meeting as presented. Second. Having had a motion and a second, all in favor say I. I. I. Those opposed say no. Motion carries. The meeting minutes are approved. We're now moving on to the public comment section of our meeting. And this is an opportunity for those of you who are present to come and speak to the commission about any item that is not already on the agenda. If you want to talk about something on the agenda, then wait till we get to that part. But if there's something else you want to speak about, too many chicken restaurants on 36, anything like that, now's your opportunity to come forward and be heard. Is there anybody who'd like to step forward? Having nobody step forward, the public comment section of our meeting is closed. Request for continuences or agenda modifications. Staff has no requests. Okay, we do not have any old business. We are now moving on to new business, which the first one is MIP2502 reed plat of minor plat 064. Thank you, members of the commission. This is uh a minor plat located at the corner of 100 North and Avon Avenue. Um currently developed on the property is a U Hendricks Bank. It is uh the overall parcel is 3.948 acres and is zoned C2 general commercial. Um previous cases on this site u was the

development of the bank in 2006 and then the remainder of the parcel that you're considering tonight is undeveloped. This is the subject parcel outlined. Uh, Avon Avenue, 100 North. And you see the bank property at the corner. And then this other lot that we're considering tonight is this undeveloped piece to the west of the bank. I'm sorry, to the east of the bank. So, lot one would contain the existing branch bank and lot two would be available under for development under the C2 district. We do not have any development plans proposed. The proposed subdivision is compliant with all sections of the United Unified Development Ordinance. Uh this is a copy of the plat. You'll see lot one and lot two. There's an existing entrance onto 100 North in between the two lots and there'll be an easement that they'll share that access. This is what it looks like with the bank on it. the bank here, the access here, and then that access point, that easement that they'll share between lots one and two. Staff is recommending approval subject to our standard conditions. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. That existing easement is a an existing road cut then too for the correct that there's a road cut here and it's actually going to be on lot two and then there is an easement proposed for that so the bank will still have access to it and then there's a access easement down here in this corner for this access. Thank you. And this does not need a reszone or waiverss or anything. is just simply dividing one plat into two parcels.

Correct. One commercial correct plat into two parcels. Okay. Any further questions for staff? Okay. We'll have the petitioner come forward. Good evening. My name is Parker Maze with Bang Engineering. address is 853 Columbia Road, Sweet 101 in Planefield. Um, thank you, Linda. Did a pretty good job explaining everything that made my job pretty easy. Uh, we agree with everything in the staff letter and you're here looking for approval. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer. Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody here who'd like to speak for or against this particular petition? I'm assuming you don't want to respond to the lack of interest in your petition. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um Okay. Moving on to uh discussion. Any questions for the petitioner or general? I think this is pretty straightforward. We're not going to be having to deal with any access issues because there's already access on 100 North. Okay. If that case would I we would entertain a motion. And if there's no other discussion, I make a motion. Move that we approve MIP2 replat a minor plat number 06-04 request to divide 3.95 acres into two lots subject to the conditions listed in the staff report since it has satisfied all the requirements for a minor plat under

state law and subject to the approved findings of fact. I'll second. Having heard a motion and a second we'll now take a vote. Rockerbrand four. Reed four. Kaufman four. Ransburg four. Guggenberger four. Susan four. Motion carries and the replat is approved. Moving on now to map 257 Whispering Pine South. Before we get started, I would just like to remind everyone, we've been here a couple of times before and there have been some pretty passionate responses to this. I would remind everybody to be respectful. everyone will have an opportunity to be heard in a timely manner and uh we would ask that we all behave like adults. So um staff, thank you President Ransburg, members of the commission. MAP 257 is a request for preliminary approval of a major subdivision plat for Whispering Pine South. Property is located at 1520 South County Road 625 East, which is basically the southwest corner of 625 and 150, that being 625 running north south. 150 south running east west here, turns into Whispering Pines Boulevard at the north end of this site. Um, it is just about third little shade over 32 acres. It's zoned R2. It was reszoned a few months ago uh with zoning map amendment ZA 2411, which included additional commitments in addition to those commitments that were in effect from 2003 when this property was reszoned uh when it was under Hendricks County jurisdiction. Um and along with the resoning that the

commission and town council approved recently, there was a request to modify some of the commitments back from 2003 which uh that request was also approved. This would divide the little over 32 acres into 64 lots. And it includes a waiver of design standards of our subdivision regulations in chapter 7 of the UDO to allow for a reduced ride ofway width or the internal streets. Uh again, this is the property. It's zoned R2 per the recent resoning. It's surrounded by residential uh and/or agricultural use. Whispering Pine subdivision zoned R2 to the north. Bridgewater, which is under Hendricks County jurisdiction, zoned RB to the east. You have Timber Ben to the south, zoned R1. And then you have u this large semi-aggricultural residential property uh zoned R1 to the west. This is a look at the layout of the 64 lots and common areas. The property would gain access via these two existing stub streets to the north from Whispering Pines uh or well from Whispering Pines Boulevard. These two streets are existing going north into Whispering Pines. Those would be extended south into this subdivision. And then there would be this new street intersection near the southeast corner of the property uh which would give the property its two connections to the arterial street system. There's a new retention pond over here in the northwest corner where drainage would flow before then outletting to the existing Whispering Pines pond which is in this area here before water then

continues uh on its natural pattern moving west. the uh the lots do all meet the the minimum R2 standards uh for lot width lot area and other development standards as well as the um zoning commitments. As you may recall, these lots along the south line had a commitment to be both wider and larger than the rest of the lots in the subdivision where this essentially doesn't technically abut Timber bend because there's an intervening strip here which is a driveway for the vapors but it's basically adjacent to Timber Bend which is zoned R1 and has the larger lots. But again, all of the the lots do meet standards of the UDO as well as the higher standards of the zoning commitments that are in place. There's a a look at the landscape plan with the required um street trees or parkway trees as the UDO calls them. Um, so, uh, it does appear to be consistent with all the standards of the UDO aside from the one RA waiver request as well as being consistent with the zoning commitments that are in place to address the waiver. Um, the request is for a 52 foot ride ofway width for the new internal streets. This wouldn't have any impact on on 625 East or on Whispering Pines Boulevard where the property gains access on the north. This would just be for the new internal streets. So, the town has several different street crosssections based on the the zoning um and the number of lots that would be

served by a particular street. We have a 1A, a 1B, a 2A, and a 2B. Um, which are basically just for local internal streets. And then we have, of course, other standards for larger collector and arterial streets. Um, in this case, we're talking specifically about the town's 2A standard. Um, just to back up a little bit, when the petitioner filed this request, they originally requested a waiver in order for the improvements to match what's in the existing Whispering Pines neighborhood to the north, which actually has, I believe, a little bit wider street pavement. Um, but it has narrow narrower tree lawns and and narrower sidewalks than the town's current standard. Um, and that's likely because the existing Whispering Pines was initially approved and platted under county jurisdiction before being annexed into the town. Um, and that waiver request would have been with a 50-foot rightway. Um, the town's response was that we would rather see our uh standard be utilized for the actual improvements in the rightway. So going, you know, from the center out, you have the street with the curb, the tree lawn, and then the sidewalk. And then what we have behind the sidewalk, um, is labeled as a utility strip. And I'm going to show you actually a picture here that helps. So this is the town standard for a 60-oot rideway for the for our 2A street. And so you'd have a 24 foot asphalt pavement, two feet of curb on each side, a sixoot tree lawn, a five- foot uh sidewalk, and then what we call a 5-ft utility strip. So that utility strip can be helpful to

locate utilities to um to provide additional space behind the sidewalk and to keep utilities out closer to the street. It's it's help it can be helpful for homeowners that the utilities then don't encroach as far into their yard. Um, however, modern plats typically always include a utility easement in the front yard now that can accommodate utilities much like this plat does. So, this is what's actually being proposed today. So, you'll see that the pavement is 12 and 12. That's 24, the same as the town standard. Two- foot curb on each side, six foot tree plot or tree lawn, 5 foot sidewalk. That all matches the town standard. The only difference is they're doing a just a one foot, let's call it, as it is here, utility strip behind the sidewalk, um, rather than the five- foot for our standard. I show our 1A standard just to demonstrate that the town does have crosssections that we use sometimes that only have a one- foot utility strip behind the sidewalk. And our public works department has verified and confirmed that one foot is enough space for the town to adequately maintain that sidewalk in the future. So, for that reason, um the town was supportive of reducing this 5- foot utility strip down to the 1-T strip that the petitioner has proposed. Um so that will allow the petitioner to um to have all their their lots fit. Um and because there's a 20 foot I think it's mentioned here. It's kind of hard to read, but there's a platted drainage and utility easement, which if I go back to the plat,

of course, it's hard to see at this scale, but um the rightway line basically is is right here behind the sidewalk. The back to this first dash line, that's 20 foot drainage and utility easement. So there's no concern on the town's part that there won't be adequate room to uh install and service utilities or to uh maintain the public sidewalk. And so for those reasons, the town is is supportive of reducing the rideway width from 60 feet down to 52 feet. So we do support the waiver and then we also uh recommend approval of the plat because we do believe it meets all other requirements of the UDO as well as the uh applicable commitments that were agreed to through the zoning process. So, we recommend approval subject to these um standard conditions and I'll be happy to answer any questions that any of the commissioners may have. So, just to be clear, we're not talking about the waiver is not to request that the street be narrower. It's that the easement space be smaller. that the the utility would be not that I mean not technically an easement per se. It would be the right of way of which yes traditionally we would allow utilities to enter into to use but because there's a 20ft utility easement behind the right of way um there's not a need for that additional space. Okay. But again to answer the question we're not doing anything different to the road. The road remains the same width. Correct. The the asphalt curb to curb, the curb size, the tree lawn between the

curb and the sidewalk and the width of the sidewalk would all be exactly to the town standard. And how does that compare to the width of the pavement in Whispering Pines? I believe the pavement is a couple feet wider actually in Whispering Pines. Are there any further questions for staff? Um, I do have a question. Um, how many people have signed up to speak on this? Um, other than the petitioner, we have three people signed up. Okay. We've had a request from the vapors to be able to read into uh the record some objections they have to this plan. It's um I've read through it and I the I believe they're correct. We normally allow two minutes per petitioner um to do this. We also normally allow 10 minutes for the petitioner and the remrs to address this. Um I'm inclined to allow extra time to allow these to be read in, but I would ask that the rem the vapors keep it quick. We will be discussing all of this. Um so um question that I have is and I haven't read these because they were just given to us. Does this information that they're going to read into this have anything to do with the plat approval? Yes, they're they're making requests they're making requests to the changes to the plat is my understanding or

they're they're wanting certain language added and again we'll discuss this prior. Can I ask staff can you give us like what you've seen are these actionable? So without going through point by point um I mean but most of these and I've had discussion with um Kurt Vapor here in our office earlier today as well as I think last week. Um, we don't think these are things that need to be addressed on the plat in order for you to approve it. Um, so I'll I'll I'll hold then on that. I think that's good enough and wait till we get in discussion. Thank you. Okay. Any further questions for staff? If there's no further questions, petitioner may be in. Thank you. U Melissa Gerard for PY Homes. I have uh Dave Compton from PY Hems here with me tonight and also Lancefell and Parker Maize from Banning Engineering. Um I probably can't be as brief as Parker, but I'm going to try to be as brief as I can. I know we've all heard this a number of times, and there's not really a lot new here from the last time you saw it. I think more we've just put some meat on the bones, but the basic um project is the same as you've seen for several months. And am I not on Oh, my clicker. Okay, cool. This is the same as you've seen for um several months and I think as late as March. Um but I did want to briefly highlight and I'll get back to that as well. Um in response to Mr. Zusen's comments, I think it's our position that um to the extent that any of these issues in the vapor letter um are uh relevant uh still I their construction plan details, they haven't identified any deficiencies in the plat or our compliance. the plat complies

with your UDO staff has recommended approval. We have one um waiver request which I'll explain the need for that um later on, but other than that, as you pointed out in your introduction, President Ratensburg, the it's a ministerial obligation to approve a compliant plat. Um this is the uh location uh for Whispering Pines. Uh Paul did a good job identifying all these issues. Um this is a um rendering of the current plat. It's a little um prettier I think maybe than the the actual plat document, but um the only change really significantly to this layout. Um when we went to town council, the town council requested that those tan lots originally there were nine of them. They requested that we eliminate one of those tan lots and kind of relocate it up towards I don't even know if I can point up towards the north to that weird little common area that we had up in the north. Um uh and make these lots larger 120 ft. So those um and it was 110 ft when we were last at the plan commission. Those are now 110 ft. The tan lots um to match um uh sort of what the standard is in Timber Bend or or what and just just so for those who can't necessarily see the color difference, you're talking about the lots on the south side of the property. Yeah. The the ones that are colored kind of brownish, pinkish, tan. Yeah. Um there are 5.33 acres of common area. Um that equates to about 16.57% open space. That's more than two times the standard in your ordinance for R2. Um I went a little bit further or asked Parker and we can thank Parker for these lovely drawings um to demonstrate what we're asking for in the waiver. These are all kind of sca to scale and I've tried to line them up um on top of each

other so you can see what's different. So um the top one is your 2A standard. everything between and the the middle one is what we're doing in this subdivision and then the bottom one is kind of what's at existing Whispering Pines. Um, as you can see, uh, everything between the red lines is exactly the same as your 2A standard. We're constructing all the hard infrastructure the same, including the 5-ft sidewalks and the sixoot tree lines, which are your current standards. Now, um then in behind those, which I don't know are really a standard in your ordinance, but as Paul pointed out, most modern flats include a um uh drainage and utility um easement beyond that. That's the green area that's shown there. The yellow area is the reduced um uh utility strip. I don't even really know why we have utility strips anymore because most of the utilities don't want to be in your rideway. They would rather be in private easements outside of the rideway because if they're in the rideway, if you ever do any work in the rideway, you can force them to move at at their expense. If they're in easements behind the rideway, then they have to be compensated. So, they don't want to have to move their utilities at their expense. Um, so that's why they make us put everything in easements. Anyway, the reason we need this is because we are matching those two stub roads at um, Whispering Pines Boulevard. So, we have to kind of be the same width as them. But more importantly, uh, probably is that the utilities are already stubbed in there. So, we've got to connect where the utilities go. when if we have a 10 foot wider, you know, area and then the 20 foot utility easement behind that, they're they're not going to match up, right? So, um so

the only deviation from your 2A standard is the um the reduced uh utility strip that allows us to get from the four feet on each side allows us to reduce the rideway from 60 to 52 feet. Um, and then but I would also note that the utility strip in existing Whispering Pines is actually only one foot as well. Existing Whispering Pines has actually narrower sidewalks and narrower tree lawns, I think, as well. They're at 4ft sidewalks and 5ft tree lawns. So, we think it's going to look better to have well and it's more ADA compliant as well to have the 5- foot sidewalks and the larger tree lawns. So, um, that's the request for the waiver. Um, Mr. Vapor, I think, submitted comments, written comments to staff um, this morning. Um, we submitted a written response this afternoon. I don't intend to get into too much detail on those. Um, unless you have questions or unless I need to on rebuttal, um, I would just stand on my written response. But I would say that um none of these issues go to the compliance of our plat uh with the UDO standards. Um a lot of these issues were addressed he for the most part these are just a renewal of the same issues that he raised on zoning. Um for which we addressed in written commitments where we could um he want now wants more than what we gave in zoning. But through the same same comments and concerns, we are working with town staff um intimately on some of these issues. Um and we will continue to work with town town staff through the construction plan phase. Some of these issues, the drainage issues, etc. will be revisited as well when our

construction plans come up through the TAC process. Um but again, they're not um an identifiable reason to reject a compliant plan. if you have any questions. Otherwise, I'll save the rest of my time for rebuttal. Okay. Thank you. We have understand we have three people who have signed up. Well, let me back up a little. Is there anybody here who would like to speak in support of this petition? That usually gets done quicker. Um, we'll now go uh to the people who have signed up. First, we have Kurt Vapor. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Kurt Vapor, 4927 Silver Bell Drive in Planefield, Indiana. Um, my understanding of this meeting is it was to comment on the plat, and that's what I will do. We came up with seven comments. I provide those seven comments on this handout and I I will be as brief as I can to get through these two pages if that's okay. Item one. Uh this is a we appreciate the plat change to keep our historic lane untouched by Whispering Pine South Development. We don't want the appearance of our historic lane changed. We also want our lane to open directly onto 625 east and not open onto a whispering whispering pine south acceleration lane for reasons of both safety and historic preservation. Item two, we appreciate the whispering pine south plat change to

eliminate the line of sight hazard at our lanes entrance to 625 east. Our interpretation of the plat is there are no trees between the walking trail on the west side of 625 east and the acceleration lane from the nearby Whisperings Pine South exit onto 625 east. This design provides clear line of sight from Vapor Lane onto 625 east. However, we do request a plat change stating the area between the walking path and 625 East Roadway is to be planted in grass or landscaping that doesn't obstruct vapor lane line of sight to the north. A note here is our line of sight uh has previously been obstructed by trees and foliage. This situation has previously been made tolerable by Avon schools. occasionally trimming back the foliage. PY has refused to help us with this line of sight problem, so we appreciate the change in the plat. Item three, the Whispering Pine South exit lane on the 625 East doesn't meet Indiana Department of Transportation separation requirements between driveways. This will create hazardous conditions for the vapors when exiting our lane. And there's some uh numbers there uh from the INDOT requirements. I won't take the time to read those. Appreciate that. This is all right out of the DOT published uh guidelines. Item four. As part of the upzoning process, PY committed to build a six-foot wooden

privacy fence to improve the landscape transition from PY to vapor property. However, PY has now refused to extend this private f privacy fence to existing vapor fence lines, which define vapor property lines. This severely dampens the effectiveness of the fence as a landscape transition and in our view does not meet the intent of the agreement made during the zoning process. Vapor request plat changes showing the landscape transition provided by the privacy fence extend to vapor fence line property lines. We also request the easement we've been asked to provide for fence maintenance be added to the plat. We also request the we also request a plat change stating whispering pine south is responsible for privacy fence maintenance. Item five. The plat in two places on vapor property states existing woodlands to remain. These comments are attain attendant to vapor property and should be removed. Vapor property and existing vapor trees are not bound in any way by the whispering pine south plat. Item six, vapors petitioned during the upzoning process for the town of Avon to maintain our dam and drainage infrastructure through our property due to added stress from whispering pine south storm water. This additional storm water adds financial risk for vapors risk the

vapors have done nothing to cause. Vapors request a plat change stating whispering pine south storm water will not flow onto vapor property. We also request a plat change stating vapors are in no way responsible for whispering pine south drainage problems. Item seven. During uh the upzoning process, Vapor commented on the risk whispering Pine South landscaping will cause our lane to flood. Currently, the sides of our lane hold a small amount of water when rainfall is heavy, but standing water never gets onto our lane's roadway. We request a plat change stating whispering pine south landscaping and storm water will not cause flooding or water damage on our lane or any other part of Vapor property. Thank you for this opportunity to speak with these objections and we will appreciate a written response from Avon on these items. Thank you. Thank you. Uh who's next on the list? Teresa Vapor, I decline. Okay, moving on. And last we have Leslie Vapor Ratliff. I also decline. Okay, appreciate that. Um, would you like to uh respond, petitioner? And because we gave the vapors additional time, we will allow for additional time. I don't think I'll need it, but we'll we'll see how it goes. Um, on the site distance issues, um, let me say that the the trees that he's complaining about are existing trees

that exist right now, which we are subject to commitment not to remove unless necessary for roadway improvements. I don't want to remove trees that might get me in trouble uh, with some obligation to the town. Now, that said, there are going to be trees that need to be removed for roadway purposes or utility purposes. Um, and we we intend to replace those trees to meet the um spirit of the commitments um that we gave to the town. Um we are going to work with uh the uh public works director to make sure that we are clear on all line of sight issues and we have actually engaged Mr. Moore um on that subject already. Um, and I think he is satisfied in that regard. But I would note, and this is a comment I think with a lot of the vapor comments, I don't think they understand the distinction between the plat and the landscape plans. Um, the landscape plans are things that we continue to refine. Um, the TAC is going to get another obligation or opportunity to look at them. Um, and that includes a variety of matters with regard to drainage, which Mr. atics will review on behalf of the town with landscaping issues with public safety issues um and that sort of thing. So those issues are going to be continued to refine but the landscape plan is not part of the plat that you are approving tonight or or that we're asking that you approve tonight. Um Mr. Moore has not identified any um line of sight or safety issues that he we have in the current plat. Um and no revision to the plat is necessary. Um on the distance between the the separation between our southern entrance drive and the the vapor driveway. County road 625 east is not an INDOT regulated road. The INDOT standard does not apply. Our plot satisfies the town of Avon

standards per staff including Mr. more. Um, the town of Avon's UDO actually requires that that drive be exactly where it is because the center line has to align with 625 east in the reserve at Bridgewater. We cannot move that road. It is necessary to be exactly where it is to meet that standard of the town's UDO. If we moved it further north away from the vapor's driveway, it would create more safety problems with the reserve at Bridgewater than and whatever safety problems there may be with the alignment of the road. And I don't think there are any with the vapors driveway. The Avon UDO um as I said, INDOT standard does not apply. The Avon UDO actually specifies a minimum offset for local streets of 125 ft. Um this isn't actually a street, it's just a driveway. Um, but even if you use that standard, they at about 200 feet and we meet the Avon standard in that regard. I don't again I don't think it applies because it's dealing with two streets and not a driveway and a street. Um, I've indicated in the letter I submitted there's a picture that shows the distance um and the compliance with the Avon UDO standard. um on the privacy fence. Um let me first say that this um exhibit uh or this little picture that's in this letter is exactly in the text of the written commitments. This is taken directly from the written commitments. We discussed both at this body and at the town council the privacy fence that would be um granted. Um, and the uh this is what was agreed to as part of the commitments. Um, you know, I don't think it's fair to request. Mr. Vapor never objected to this picture that was included um in the written commitments, although he had multiple opportunities to do so. Um, and

it's unfair right now to seek a second um bite at the that apple. Um with regard to the easement for the maintenance on the fence, let me first say that a plot only covers um property within our boundary lines. Right? I can't create easements on property outside of what we own or control. Um we have provided common area that's sufficient to maintain the fence on our side. I can't by plaque create an easement on Mr. vapor property for the maintenance of the fence on his side. He will have to give us a private easement if he wants us to take care of that maintenance on that fence. So, that's something again outside of the plat process because we can't plat and we can't put easements on property outside of the the plat that we control. Um the comment with regard to existing woodlands to remain again that's just some language on a landscape plan that went beyond the limits of what we could print it on. Um we legally don't have the right to do anything to any trees or um woodlands on their property and nothing um in the plaque can change that fact. Um they control their property, we control our property. if they want them removed, they can remove them. If they don't, they don't have to remove them. Although, I would note that the existing Whispering Pines commitments that um uh discourage the removal of trees do affect some portions of the vapor property because it was originally part of the uh reasonzoning at the county that those those commitments came into play. Um so the next one is uh the dam and the

downstream drainage infrastructure from the whispering pines pond. This is a matter between the town and the vapors. Um Mr. Moore has met with the vapors um on site. He has offered terms for the town to assume the maintenance of the drainage infrastructure. The vapors rejected those terms. Um, PY has made some commitments concerning the maintenance of the downstream in or the drainage infrastructure in connection with our zoning commitments. We're not willing to do any more than what we've given in our zoning commitments. In addition, um I would note that and there's a picture in in the response that I gave you, the the watershed for the water that goes through that part of the vapor property is much larger than just the whispering pine, the whis our little platted area. It includes um large sections of existing Whispering Pines and parts of the county subdivisions to the um east as well. So, it's not fair to ask Pulsey to assume all of that obligation. We've agreed to the extent that there's not a legal drain or something created that we will help with part of the maintenance of the outfall structure. Um, but that's in the commitments and and we will abide by those. Um, but I'm not we're not willing to give anything more in that regard. Um, in addition, I would note that PY will be adding another pond which will greatly reduce the storm water maximum discharge from the existing pond which actually was designed to accept the outflow from our uh subdivision as well. Um, and all town drainage standards will be met. Um, this again is not a revision to the plat. Uh, it's a a drainage thing that will be continued to look be looked at and refined as construction plans are approved. I'm sure Mr. Maddox will

scrutinize our our drainage items as well. And in fact, he's already made several requests for additional information to ban. Um and then the final uh comment is with regard to their um uh driveway. Um Banning tells me that this particular area um drains the the P of the vapor property drains to the north. It doesn't drain south. So they are actually draining onto us. We are not discharging onto them. Um so it's exactly the opposite. Um, and again, uh, the trees in this area are existing. Um, so if those are impeding drainage, they're existing and we're not supposed to be removing them. Um, all construction plans and landscape plans will continue to be reviewed by town staff and crossroads with respect to drainage and PY will meet all town drainage standards. No revisions to the plat are necessary on any of these items. I would specifically note that the vapors have not taken issue with the waiver request uh which is internal to the Whispering Pine South um subdivision. So um I don't think that there's any uh objection to that. Um and with that we would suggest that the plaque complies with all town standards. Uh staff supports that interpretation and um I'm happy to answer any additional questions if you have any. Thank you. Are there any questions for the petitioner or the vapors? Okay, we'll get into discussion if we need clarification from either. We will certainly ask you to come forward. So, uh, a question for staff here, and I

appreciate the explanation, uh, in your report here because when I came in, I was confusing right away with street widths and and so you helped correct me on my thinking there. So, really, it it sounds like this utility strip is would be town property or town maintenance. Um but now utilities are looking to from what we hear on the petitioner and appreciate that explanation education on that utilities rather put utilities in non-easement a non-rideway area here. So that utility strip is that like a hold over from development here and where utilities have looked to get away from that working with developers. Um, I don't know if I'd say it's just a holdover. I mean, I don't know if I able to say that um, the town sees it as completely unnecessary. Um, there could be situations where there's a maybe there's not as much easement provided or there's not as much space depending on, you know, the zoning district and the front setback requirement. Um, there could be times when that would be necessary. Um but as mentioned generally the the utilities aren't using that space okay for the most part. So the granting of the waiver if we would grant that the town really is able to get what is needed to maintain the rightway so the town doesn't really lose that capability. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. All the comments that were just made by Mr. Vapor as well as PY. Do those comments have anything to do with this waiver that they're requesting? Because the waiver is on the internal streets. Correct. Correct.

That's that's how I see it too is that the waiver is completely and entirely segregated from the other issues that were raised by the vapors. And just for clarification, Mr. Taylor, we need to address the waiver first before we move on to the PLA approval. Yes. Okay. Well, then let's go ahead and talk about the waiver. I think um staff and the petitioner did a very good job of explaining why it's necessary. The fact that it's not going to impact, they're not asking for a narrower street is good. That was um the first thing that came to mind when I saw that. But the fact that it has to do with this um quirky little utility ride of way um thing. I don't see a um reason to not grant the waiver request. Does the town of Avon have any standards that include a 13- foot road width that is in the current uh neighborhood? Just a moment and I will answer your question. That was the only difference I noticed. These roads were essentially 2 ft narrower than the rest of the neighborhood with it based on the 2-way standard. No, we do not appear to have a standard that would match existing West Marine Pines, but that was done under under jurisdiction of the county. Correct. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. Do we have any residential roads that are wider than 24 ft for the actual asphalt width for for

residential use? We should we have because our our 1B and 2B standards both require wider pavement um and those are those are used um typically with higher zoning districts where there's um where the lots are smaller and there's the expectation that there'll be more on street parking required or needed utilized. Okay. So what is the um typical expected parking on the road for a 24 foot width? Is that just park on one side or what's the standard understanding? Yes, for the 2A standard that would be applied. Um here it's anticipated that it could accommodate parking on one side of the street and still have vehicles pass two vehicles pass on the remaining street pavement. All right. Any further discussion on the waiver request? There's no further discussion. We'll take a motion. I just want to make one comment before we do that regarding the private drive of the vapors. That is one way for them to get to their property. There is another way to get to their property and that is through the Timberbend subdivision. there is an easement or a rightway or whatever the proper terminology is I think right next to the Whipple property that they can get to their property by coming through Timber band and getting to their property. So to me they have two access points and no one's even talked about the second one through this whole discussion. Can I speak to that Mr. Not not yet sir. No sir. Okay. Okay. Any further question? Any further discussion about the waiver request?

If there's no further discussion, we'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion. I move that we approve MAPP2507 waiver A to request to wave Avon UDO 7.21E 21E to allow for a 52 foot right ofway width for internal streets where the town's 2A standard requires a 60oot right of way of width since it has satisfied all the requirements for waiverss under state law and subject to the approved findings of fact I'll second having had a motion and a second we'll now take a vote Genenberger four Reed four vabbrand four Kaufman four Susan four Ransburg four. Having taken a vote, the waiver is granted and we now move on to the approval of Whispering Pine South Preliminary Plat. Um, I appreciate the vapors. They've been very involved in this from day one and they've been very proactive. which I appreciate very much, but I do think petitioner has a point on several of these and that a lot of what's being addressed is not something that we would consider tonight. These are things that would come into play when we're looking at proposed landscaping. Uh some of the things um for instance on number three uh 625 is not under INDOT jurisdiction, therefore that doesn't apply. Um, so I I think that most of what is on uh the vapor's concerns are not things that would be

addressed this evening. That's how I'm looking at it. Not that they can't be addressed in the future, but just that um tonight's not the night to address them. So will final plans come through this committee or yes the final plat with landscape and everything? Okay. No, the final plat is approved administratively based on being generally u consistent and compliant with what you approved tonight. But we do we will see the president of the commission signs it but it will not come back before this body or the committee. So this is the last opportunity we have to discuss those concerns. Right. Right. You wanted to say something, Mr. Taylor? Yeah. The issue you heard a reference to construction process and that process is the permitting process. Those matters would not come back to the plane commission, but they would be handled by staff. I stand corrected. Yeah, but you were right. You just maybe we just need to uh think about how that works. So if the plat is approved by you all then we move to the construction process at which time the developer has to then have all their all their detailed plans approved uh for drainage and for compliance and the roads could again very detailed uh plans that have to be approved. Um I also think that you know as we have discussed before, you and I have discussed before that when you have a plat your job is to say the question is does the plaid before you comply with our ordinance. That's the issue and that's why it's it's an it's viewed as a nondiscretionary decision by you. And so the fact that with with all due respect to the vapors, you know, the fact that someone has

objections to what you require or wish that you required other things is is not really an issue before you because you're the law says you have to have a concrete set of standards for a plaid. not only that it's specific enough but also it is one that can be understood by developers and they have to then design to comply with it. And so what you've heard the petitioner say is kind of the same thing which is nothing in those concerns address whether the plaque complies with the ordinance. So I would remind you that um yeah your task is not to ask whether everyone agrees. It's very simply does it meet our ordinance and if there are other issues um or concerns that people have outside of that I think you are very limited at this stage of what you do. In the same respect if there are issues in the construction phase about whether the construction plans comply with your appro all of your approvals commitments reszone and plat you know those are going to be dealt with by your staff. So Andrew I appreciate your question. It is the last time you would see it, but it's not the last time the town would see would be involved in that process again to ensure compliance with the approvals made by the town council and by you and and to comply with our ordinances. And would it be appropriate to say that going forward um the vapors should continue to work closely with the town staff on their concerns? Right. And it sounds like that there may be issues that are in negotiation with the developer and the vapors and maybe the town and the vapors and those yeah those should continue and those issues will need to be resolved but that doesn't necessarily go to you all as the plan commission. It's just

kind of outside your job. Thank you for that clarification as always Mr. Taylor. So since we approved the waiver and that seems to address the one thing that would not comply to the ordinances now that unless we find something else that uh isn't in compliance with the ordinances makes a ministerial. So I'd like to make a motion. Okay. Um I move that we approve MAP2507 waiver A request to wave Avon UDO7. Sorry reading wrong thing. I move that we approve MAPP2507 Whispering Pine South Preliminary Plat, a request to divide 32.16 acres into 64 single family lots subjects 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. Having had a motion and a second, we'll now take a vote. Kaufman four Reed four Rockabbrand four Z Susan four Genenberger four Ransburg four motion carries preliminary plant is approved. Moving on to continued new business. Ray Skilman Automotive of Avon DPR 258. Looks like we've got two waiverss with this one. So, I want to start by saying you received a copy of a secondary plat for race gum in your packets that went out inadvertently. They filed a a final plat, which as we just talked about, the final plat don't come before you. So, yes, they filed it, but it it got stuck in your packets by mistake. We're not going to be discussing the race Gilman

plat that looks like this. only the larger set of Oh, you did? Oh, I'm sorry. I took that out. Paul took it out. It wasn't out of my packet, so apologize for the confusion. Okay. So, uh a few months ago, we saw the the plat petition for the southeast corner of US Highway 36 and uh County Road 900 East. It is the southeast corner um known will be known as Ray Gilman Mazda. It is currently 6 acres zone C2 and is in tiers one and two of the US Highway 36 overlay. The parcel is currently unimproved. Um I again I just mentioned the the it was part of a plat to subdivide into two blocks and two lots. Um, and this will be on one of the lots being lot one of that subdivision. The site's also gone through the BCA for two cases. Uh, the first of which was a special exception uh to have automo automobile sales within the US30 highway 36 overlay tier one. And then the second was a variance of development standards to allow the building setback uh to be approximately 250 ft back from US 36 and then to have more than two rows or actually to allow for six rows of parking in front of the building. Um, as a car dealership, you you'll see um further west of this site, they all have the same variances for um setback and for parking roads. There'll also be two waivers that I will

get to tonight. um one is kind of a bundle of of waiverss for the design of the building and then the second one is for foundation planting on the along the frontage of the building facing 36. This is the subject site. So it's outlined of US 36 900. This is the site here and it was part of a larger plat that came down like that. Um, and then there are six car dealerships uh to the west along the south side of US 36. This is a zoning map of the site. It's zoned C2 and automobile sales are permitted in the C2 um with a special exception. And again, that special exception's already been granted by the board of zoning appeals. This is the site plan for the site. Um the dealership building will be centralized in the middle of the site um with the dealership operations uh on the north side of the building and then the service center on the south side of the building kind of as you see most dealerships set up. Again, this setback, the variance was to have a 250 foot setback when 125 is the limit and then to have six rows of parking out front when two rows are normally the limit. Surrounded by commercial except the property immediately to the to the east is undeveloped currently. Um it is not within the area retail of the comprehensive plan but it is immediately adjacent to it and extending that comprehensive bubble of area retail into this property is logical and that's what we use to determine that the comprehensive plan is being met for this site.

Aside from the the waiverss that we're going to get to, um this is consistent with the UDO and for development standards and then we'll get to the design standards as well. This is the list of the design standards that the building would that they have requested for the building. And it does look like a lot and I understand that. Um but we'll we'll kind of dive into it. I didn't put this list in your staff report. It It's We kind of looked at the building as one whole development and style as opposed to narrowing down and getting into the weeds of each individual item. These are the uh waivers and I those are in your staff I mean the findings for the waiver. Those are in your staff report and I've just listed what the petitioner has indicated as a response for each of the waiverss. Um pretty standard um responses indicating that it would be a car dealership and it's standard across normal dealership development that they have to meet a standard that the brand puts on them that they that they are not allowed to uh vary from. This is the elev building elevations. The top being the north which would face US 36. Um mostly windows and then metal panels. And then you'll see the sides with the service bay doors. I did put in what they submitted to us as an concept plan elevation. You'll see a lot of windows and then some metal panel panels. Uh we generally are supportive of design waiverss for the dealerships. Uh the six

that are to the west of here all receive design waivers for their buildings and none of them um meet any of the standards of the US 36 overlay. I've gone ahead and taken some snapshots of the existing dealerships um just so you can get a flavor of the buildings that have been approved um for the develop kind of area along US 36. Um, we put in here that the intent and the per the purpose of the overlay is to preserve aesthetic qualities. And we believe while it doesn't specifically meet our standards as they're laid out, it does have a nice design and a and a good design for an automobile dealership. It is consistent um with the other waiverss that we have approved for dealerships to the west. Also, because we've allowed it by the variance to sit further back from US 36, the appearance of it along US 36 is not as as imposing or striking as a lot of the other buildings um adjacent to the US 36. So, the the architecture um right from the rideway line um is not as detailed. It kind of has to sit back and pop more with the windows and the metal and just the aesthetics of it adjacent to the cars. It's it's a different kind of look and we get that. Then I would like to go into the development standards waiver which is the foundation plantings adjacent to the front of the building. This is the landscape plan and this is the it's cut

in half so that we have a north and a south. So this will be the north side 36 at the north end and the building in here is where the foundation planting has not been shown and uh we've struggled a bit since I've been here and understanding the foundation planting section of the ordinance because when we talk about it people keep showing us sites that didn't don't have the foundation planting and we couldn't find variances or waiverss for it and then we finally figured it out in that the old zoning ordinance allowed the plan commission to adopt an alternate landscaping plan as part of the approval without saying the word waiver or saying the word variance. So like the building across the street, well diagonally across the street, the one that has um uh crumble cookie and who else is in there? Chicken style chick. I I don't know if it's that, but that that that tenant does not have any. And that one that's the one that kept getting tossed in my face was saying, "Well, they don't even have any." And so so now we figured it out that the old ordinance allowed just an alternate plan and that's what was being approved as through the development plan process. Now they require a waiver to do the same thing that had been done in this case. We the purpose of the the purpose of the foundation plantings is to make commercial properties look more appealing um to soften hard lines, that sort of thing. In the case of an auto dealership, because it's so far set back and it has the the glass and the the metal panels in front of it, we're not as concerned

about the f foundation planting in front of the building again because it the bottom of the building won't be seen from US 36. And through this landscaping plan, they are not reducing the amount of landscaping required. they have distributed across the rest of the site. So they're not asking for a waiver of the number of plantings, just that they would not have to put it adjacent to the building along this frontage here. So because it's so far set back and they are not reducing the amount of landscaping, we are supportive of of that waiver as well. And if those two waiverss are approved, the DPR would meet standards of the UDO and we would recommend approval of that. Questions for staff? So I do have a couple questions. Um, so you brought up the uh other car dealerships in that. So, I just want to make sure no previous decision by the commission sets a precedent for any current case. That's absolutely correct. So, while those were approved, that's not a precedent that requires approval because those were approved. That's correct. Okay. When you were talking with the petitioner, did they show you materials um that they would like to use as an alternative to our ordinances? Because I know in past when we've talked to dealerships, one of the things that was brought forward is they're bringing in superior materials or materials that would enhance the the development along 36 as opposed to being all masonry. So like the the metal panels and the glazing. So they've showed us this elevation and they

provided to us what the materials are going to be which are generally glass and metal. Um, we while it doesn't meet our standards for masonry and that sort of thing, we think the design is still a superior design for what the type of for the type of building that it is that we're not losing architectural heightened architectural like requirements. We're just it's a different kind of building for it's not a compromise of architectural integrity, I guess you would say. I Yeah. So, so they're asking us to to give a waiver against the ordinance without us seeing the materials that they plan to use. And that's that's where I guess for and I've seen it enough where I can and we see these developments. So, I I get that, but it's like like petitioners bring them examples of that to help support their argument on why we would enforce or want to see our ordinance as followed as opposed to a different more aesthetically pleasing material and and I'm assuming that too that you got the these are the design standards that they can't deviate otherwise they can't develop the put the development here they got to follow these developments. standards, design standards. So, well, they have to meet our design standards if the waiver is not approved of the car dealership. The car dealership. Yeah. Um, as far as materials go, I'm not I wasn't aware that you have been had materials brought into you or I would have recommended they do. It doesn't happen every time, but it happens regularly. Just asked for it. And I think the last one was before you got to came to Avon. Sorry. And I I looked over the materials that they're proposing and I don't I don't know that I saw any issues with it, but I understand your I'll ask the

petitioner for more details. I thank you. Any further questions for staff? My only question is this project was approved in the past and it and it expired now. So yeah, I I neglected to mention that this project was approved in 2015. Um and the waiverss for the building materials were also approved at that time. Um but it was not developed within the one-year period. So it did expire. So really nothing has changed from that approval. Is it safe to say? The scope of the approvals changed because they were proposing two dealerships though and this has shrunk into one but otherwise the building placements changed a little but otherwise it's not changed. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? We'll have the petitioner come forward. Good evening. Derek Snider with Cross Engineers 115 North 17th Avenue, Indiana. Uh I'm here on behalf of race and realy request develop. I'm joined here tonight uh by Kevin Eron, controller for Auto Group and Tom McGomery with Montgomery Architecture. Linda did a great job. So I will probably breeze through uh many of these slides to kind of get into the meat of uh the request which is the waivers seems to be kind of the biggest question. So, um

here so uh project site located on US 36 between County Road 800 East and Ronald Raven Parkway. Uh more specifically at the southeast corner of 900 East and US 36. Uh the yellow line that you see there is kind of the platform which is the companion petition that was filed with the DPR. Um, as Linda indicated, the the project is zone C2 within the tiers one and two of the US 36 overlays and that applies to the Mazda, which is the bulk of the DPR. Okay. Uh so as indicated um this is kind of uh for lack of a better term u car dealership row essentially. So we have six yes six car dealerships to the west. Uh as you can see here um the the proposed race film in Mazda which is located on the southeast corner as Linda had indicated uh the setback variance to allow for 250 ft would allow for the building to align with the other dealerships and that was granted through the BCA. This is the uh proposed layout of kind of the overall commercial subdivision. Again, that NAPF application was filed concurrent with the DBR. So the Mazda post Mazda dealership will be located on block one outlined in red and then block A there in blue as well as block B which is outlined in orange would be undeveloped and could be developed in the future under the current zoning standards and then uh the

existing race smoking collision center uh is included in this plat storm water detention would be provided And in the southeast corner, there's actually an existing detention pond there and we would expand upon that to provide storm detention for development. So this is a uh a blow up enhanced view of the site plan for the NASA. Uh so the property u as indicated the the front setback u the variance allowed for the front of the building to align with the other dealerships and the variance for number of parking rows in front of the building. In addition we have our access pedestrian access from public sidewalks along US 36 and 900 east. So, uh, the the main pedestrian routes probably um to the front of the building are shown. Uh, access vehicular access to the property would be obtained off of Kro 900 East as well as this is the south of the proposed site plan as well as a uh relocated drive off Kingston Street. So, as stated, the majority of the parking in front of the building will be used for uh vehicle display inventory as well as some new car customer parking. And then we would anticipate that the parking in the southern half of the building or the lot, excuse me, would be some inventory as well as uh new car customer maintenance and service customers etc. Uh and then this is just a uh enlarged view of the access. Uh as you may recall a waiver was granted for the driveway separation as part of the uh the primary

path map 24-10 actually mixed up but regardless the uh the access shown on the DPR construction plans is consistent with the and then again this is just an enlarged view of the landscape plan which was included in the staff report. Um to Linda's point, the uh all of the landscaping that is required by ordinance is provided. Uh but it has been kind of shifted around away from the front of the building with the intent that that wider sidewalk adjacent to the building provides an enhanced pedestrian uh route to the front what will be the main pedestrian entry uh for new car services and uh etc. And then the next slide shows the southern half of the property. again compliance with the UEO as it relates to landscape quantities and location with the exception of the prim directly to US36. So this time I'm going to welcome Tom McGomery of McGomery Architects to come up and discuss the architectural building. I'm Tom Montgomery of Montgomery Architects located at 6235 Northshore Drive, Medinaville, Indiana. Um, this is a uh 30 it's about 40,000 square foot um car dealership. Uh the service department is in the rear. It's uh approximately 14,700 ft. Um there's a second floor approximately 9500 square ft. Um, majority of the building, I mean the showroom portion is on the north side of the building. Um, which is along 36.

This is this is Mazda's prototypical design. It's provided by Mazda. Um, they like to stay with their brand. This is what everyone sees throughout the United States. And this is what the owner is requesting to build. Um the materials are this is white aluminum composite material. Um it's like a 4 mm aluminum panel on like a plastic substrate. You see it on all the car dealerships up and down the road. Uh this is a black aluminum composite material that uh surrounds this uh black frame curtain wall with clear glass. Clear glass is used to see within the building. Um at the bottom of the building is a black ephus or drive it. Um kind of is a frame of the the lower glass that goes into the showroom. Um on the right side of the building is the this is the new car delivery where there's there's three service doors that enter on the side and it's also composed of white aluminum composite material and the black eus on the bottom. This is just the front elevation. This the top one's the front elevation of what I just showed you. Um the rendering was actually prepared by Mazda and it's it's identical to what this elevation is right here. Um on the left hand side is where the cars enter the service reception and it also has the white aluminum composite material and the black eus on the bottom. And this is the rear elevation uh the south elevation the rear elevation of the service department. It is it will be what we're proposing is painted recast concrete panels. It would be like a light gray more of a medium gray. Um uh we also carry the ACM and the EUS

around side as well where the the new car delivery the service reception from the building. Uh these are the side elevations. This is the west elevation that faces Toyota. You see the service department on the right and the showroom area on the left. And this is the east elevation. uh same typeation and these are the exterior material. This is looks like a white ACM black ACM. There's some epheus material. This is a gray eus but we're proposing to use a paint that matches the gray. So the service department will be similar to this color. So, the materials you just talked about, are those the same materials you have at your Highendi dealership right down the street? Yeah, they are. Yeah, they use that same material exactly the aluminum composite material. They use the bronze color on that. Thank you. I think they use as well. And I think they paid a pre on the service department as well. Thank you. Is there anybody present? Is there anybody who has signed up to speak to remmonstrate against this petition? No, there is not. Okay. I'm assuming you do not wish to rebet the lack of remmonstration. No, I would just say if there are any questions as to the waiver requests, you know, we're happy to answer any of

those. I know had we been aware of the the material request, I I certainly would have come prepared with some, you know, samples, I think, in hand. to Tom's point. So, we we did this the civil design on the Hyundai dealership and it's been several years. I I do recall that there were waiverss requested for that if I recall correctly, right? Building materials are are pretty similar. I'm not 100% sure, you know, we're not architects, but I have recall having very similar discussions I was 10 years ago. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. discussion. Yeah. So, I got a question then for staff. Um, if the waiver is approved, the materials that are used still or is there still some requirement though that materials would meet u the ordinances as far as like is Ephis material an accepted building material? I can't remember off the top of my head. I mean, we've seen it. So, because that you're talking about the composite aluminum. Well, I'm just any any materials that are used the or the waiver wouldn't relieve them of meeting any other requirements. So, would the materials they use still have to meet any other um requirement of the ordinance because just masonry that were Well, no. the the other um list of page four of your staff report where it lists all of the actual waivers. It's not just masonry. Um they're they're talking about plane projections and un

uninterrupted walls. Yes. Um and they're requesting waivers of that. So, so I'm I'm just going with building materials though right now that the waiver is request to be relieved of following the masonry requirement. Correct. But any of the materials that are used still have to be Well, do we have any other ordinances that now I'm saying that thinking is there a requirement on the type of materials they're talking about? Are those in our ordinances as being approved like Ephus? All of the materials they're talking about, they they are in lists of what's allowed and what's not. Okay. So, they still have to follow that. And if they they don't follow that, then they're back here asking for another waiver. Correct. Okay. That's what I was asking. All right. Thank you. You got there. So, I have some questions about um how the town is going with potentially using Kingston as a secondary thoroughfare behind the building. And so, the front facade I think looks great on 36. It's architecturally interesting. It's got variations, but the back of that building is a pre-cast concrete building, right? Just square block, straight walls, painted gray. Can you pull that up? You know, as as plain as can be essentially. And I think that does not meet the intent of what a secondary thoroughfare should look at. And essentially, you're looking at the back half of that building. All the white is just pre-cast concrete and there's nothing articulally interesting about that. So I think that and that's where you're getting the the 100 foot length projections and you're you're putting a lot of waiverss in to get the back half of the building to look ugly so the front half can look good essentially. And I I don't know if that meets the intent of what we're we're doing here. So is your question regarding the rear or the sides or both? Yeah, the both. I mean that the whole that whole back half

of that building is what you're going to see on Kingston and on that brand new uh extension of 800 East I think it is. You're going to see this big white wall or I guess light gray wall and it's it's not nearly as architecturally interesting as the front of the building and is there a way we can wrap some of that interesting architecture around the back sides where it's going to be a secondary thoroughfare on the back of that building. So the answer to your question about Kingston Street is yes. That's still the long-term plan for that to be a secondary thoroughare essentially. We well and the where Kingston Street is turns into tier three. So it's I guess at Kingston Street I think is where it turns into tier three. So uh I understand your point. Um, I actually went and and double checked the Toyota dealership to see what it was facing. So, I brought these pics in. So, the the top picture is Toyota's full wall that faces 900. This is kind of the front of it. So, this piece up here is this. And then that's their full wall with essentially no windows, no anything of what they're going to be facing. And so I was trying to compare it to what was out there and what was across the street from it. And then this back piece here is the rear facing Kingston of the Toyota dealership. And the only thing interesting in that elevation is an overhead door. Um I realize that this this building will have three street elevations but correct the the goal of the architectural standards and the US 36 standards is how it looks from 36 and that's where they focused. I would not consider get back to the side.

I'm not I actually thought the sides were pretty good for normally we just get one giant wall and then that this is actually broken up a little bit. So I I guess I didn't see it from the point of view you were seeing it from. But I understand your comments. Yeah. Yeah. I mean at least some articulations would be nice, wouldn't it? Give it a little bit more interesting look. The other thing too is like knowing that they have three streets that to deal with maybe the the landscaping to obstruct the view of the rear of the building. So there's more landscaping. So, as we're moving the foundation planning, so I appreciate that you've talked about, well, you're still doing the planning, number of plantings, just not on the foundation in front. Getting more plantings in the back because I don't think you're displaying I don't know, you can tell me displaying cars for sale in the back as much as on 36. That's where you want your inventory to be seen. So, this is the back of the building. They're they are putting the foundation planting around them. So along Kingston Street though, Kingston Street is here. The landscaping is there. This is 900 with this landscaping and then interior here. So, and and then the foundation plan, right? I guess my point to what Andrew is talking about is that you got this wall back here and we're we're all talking about it's like, okay, it's on the street. There should be some articulation. if there's not articulation. Um, you know, I'm saying, do we get more street plannings to obscure that view? Because the inventory back here, I'm assuming, is for availability. The display is up front on 36. That's the reason for six rows of parking. But we've also got I'm assuming some of the the relocation of

landscaping along the front of the building. Some of that has happened moved it to the back because it looks like there's pretty intensive tree planting tree planting planned along Kingston Street. Am I reading that correctly? So, um the the west uh along the west side of the buildings that's the there's that landscape island in the middle. So, I believe that um had a slide in the PowerPoint that showed I think it was three or four there's a handful almost half a dozen additional trees that have landscape island in the middle of the parking area that would uh basically separate that building elevation from 930s in addition to the perimeter parking and the parkway trees as well as there are foundation shrubs along that facade. Um and then along the portion that faces Kingston Street, uh there are foundation plantings there. There is an overhead door uh that's the main the second access in and out of that service area. and then uh perimeter parking shrubs, trees, and parkway plantings along Kingston as well. I would note on the site plan, you can see that this isn't one large wall. It's just that the elevations show it, but it's broken up into different planes here. So, it's not this one is, but it comes up here, comes further west, and then gets to the front of the building. And then the rear has four different planes breaking it up. How tall is that building? Is that 30 ft? 23 ft in the back. 26 ft in the front. Okay.

Just a reminder, we have two waiverss to address first before we can do PL approval. So I want to add that I mean I've been looking for this development for a long time when uh race come first came and proposed multiple car dealerships and I I missed the trees that were on the corner of that property they got and maybe it predates you guys but um so I thought those dealerships going in there so it's good to see a dealership coming in there the right place with all the other dealerships and I think that was one of the objectives is trying to keep the dealerships on 36 in that area and not spread out throughout the town. So, I think it's a a good place and it's good to see another Ray Skilman business come to town here. And I appreciate also that instead of just asking for a reduction of landscaping, you've just reallocated it on the property, which we I appreciate that. And I think uh Linda made a great point that with that additional setback um you know the the foundation plantings right up against the building and the amount of trees and the amount of inventory you wouldn't see those plantings from 36 you would almost have to be in the parking lot to see them. So kind of distributing them elsewhere through the site I feel like also kind of draws a little more attention to them set back those smaller shrubs against the building. Any further questions for the petitioner or further discussion before we address waiver A? Noting that waiver A is actually a

collection of waiver requests. Perhaps it would be good for us to just review what those are. Yeah. From from a waiver A waiver A is what I'm concerned about. Waiver B, I think you've done a great job with landscape plan. I think it it breaks it up. It provides flow through the site. I just I disagree with w making those big waiverss for the back twothirds of that building and the the large surface areas there that could be architecturally more interesting with just a few modifications. I don't know what would I propose I'm not an architect but it is a huge waiver for a a prominent building on that on 36 possible well that that's a I'm not going to make suggestions I I just we don't negotiate You know, if you were to wrap similar materials around the entire building, I know that's a lot more expensive. I I respect that. But something comparable that would provide more architectural interest, I think that would be a benefit. And I think by doing all of these waiverss, we make no requests for any additional changes to design. So, or no requirements for it. So, that's why I would hesitate on waiver one. So we've got the first A1 is that no is the masonry issue. Uh 80% a a masonry is required on the front and 50% on the side facade and they are asking for none which we've already they've already done that. The second one has to do with wall plane projections. Um, we our standards are requiring projections every 40 feet with a depth of at least 3 feet and they're asking and a minimum width of 40 ft. Um, they are asking to allow for an uninterrupted wall longer than 50 feet. They're asking to provide for facades greater than 100

ft in length without projections or recesses. Uh, basically what we're seeing is a request for minimal articulation, I guess, to provide for walls without repeating patterns, to provide for facades without architectural features repeating horizontally or vertically, and to provide for east and west facades without two separate materials. Um, I also understand that when dealing with the car dealerships and really any kind of franchise, restaurants, whatever, corporate has their model and they are like, "This is how we do it." And sometimes there's flexibility and sometimes there's not. Costco worked with us quite well in meeting our standards, came to us with their corporate model. We said we want more masonry. They worked with us on that. Um I'm not sure how car dealerships think. I understand the branding more on the side that faces the road, but I don't know why the exceptions are needed for the other sides. Can I ask one one question? Something that's got popped in my head and I'm not an architect, so I I didn't study this section of the very closely. I know there's the tier one, tier two, tier three. And I think um the the cut off line for tier one and tier two kind of goes through a part of the building. Correct. Is the architectural standards that the waiverss are being requested from? Are those applicable to both tier one and two or is it being applied because the building is in both tiers? So, it's the higher of the That's a good question.

It's being applied as all tier one through the sides. Yeah. And does if this was in entirely in tier two, would the same standards apply? There are different standards for tier one, tier two. I'm don't have them I memorized to to explain right now. So, it's based on tier two. Okay, we did break it up into tier one and tier two. I apologize. So, tier one is 80% all the way around. Tier two is 80 front and 50 sides. So, that's how we broke it down. So, you know, this it's it's our I guess it's our way to run the business of the plan commission. We have suggested motions from staff, but we don't have to do those motions as staff has suggested. Right. Look at Okay, that's correct. So, we could break these down, make a motion on each one as a separate waiver. Correct. Which I think the thing that I' I'd bring up is if there's one or more of these that we object to, I would bring up the petitioner because they may want to have a continuence to address that rather than be denied the waiver. I you I was thinking the same thing. I I nor I would not object if there were only one or if there were only two or three that they were bundled together, but we've got seven. And it looks like I think some of these we could probably we might say, "Yeah, we're good with that." And others we want to have a more thorough discussion or have the petitioner come back with a revised plan. So I think it

would behoove us to go through the seven, see where we are and that way the petitioner is more informed in terms of, you know, it's not just waiver A. It's it may be a it may be A1 and A3 and four, but the rest we're fine with. And I'm just example, I'm not saying that's the case. Um, so I think maybe we should look at where are we on each of these waivers. I agree that waiver two or waiver B, I think there's there they've made a very good argument for that and I think I'm not hearing any strong objection to that. it's waiver A that um could be an issue um in part in parts because there's multiple parts to it. Um so generally speaking um what I'm hearing is is the issue of primarily the south wall the south the sides also but the south wall south half the south half of the building based on the front half of the building And I'm only one commission here. Sure. I I do have a question. So on all of these requests, uninterrupted wall longer than 50 ft, facades greater than 100 ft in length without projections or recesses. Does that apply primarily to the back half of the building? Yeah, I think the front's fine. There's plent there's plenty of projections and Yeah. So this is mostly we're looking at the back half of the building. Okay. The only one. So would you say that the first one having to do with masonry is

probably the only one that applies to the front half of the building? Okay. And everything else is about the back half of the building. I didn't have so much variation. I just assumed it met all the other criteria. It's just the materials. Right. That's right. Okay. Okay. I mean again number one is 80% masonry on the front, 50% masonry on the side. This is a no masonry. No masonry anywhere. So anywhere, right? And and which would be consistent with the car dealerships and the materials that are being used. So it while while that didn't set a precedent by doing that, it still would make it look like the other and we do want consistency. Yeah. in terms of that. Um, but that doesn't address your question, which has to do with um not that there's no masonry, but that there's only that it's just painted cement or there's just one material on the back half of the building. It it's like that u the business that's down the street on Kingston that where they had three buildings and the front was internal to the lot to buildings facing each other and the rear of the building was on Kingston Street. And we asked for some design to make it look at least like the a front or more pleasant than doors with sidewalks running up to or just a pad there. um because it was fronting on Kingston Street. So, this property has three front yards. Exactly. So, while there's a lot of landscaping on 900 um to help there, I think to the point that you're making Andrew, what we're saying is give us more architectural enhancements to at least make it pleasing rather than just pre-cast cement painted gray or some articulation to make it look um a little better than

just the back of a building. It's not an alley, it's a secondary street. And that's that was my concern is I know Kingston and this is there's a stub of Kingston there where it doesn't really proceed past this property yet, but there is definitely on the in the future plan to carry that all the way through to to make that a extra road access to pull uh traffic off 36. And so that will be a fairly commonly used road. And I think putting some architectural I think landscape wise he's doing great. I think there's no question there. You've added the appropriate lings on Kingston. It's great. It's just architecturally it's not doesn't match. That's all. So Greg, Bill, Dave, I I agree. I I want to see something more interesting. Yeah. Okay. Well, I agree because what you've done is you've taken seven waivers and put them into one. Yep. I don't like that what you've done. That's a little So we would all say that there needs to be we need to see something else as far as the first waiver is concerned. Yes, I would agree. That's my preference. Okay. So the second one is to provide for wall plane projections that don't meet the standards of having projections every 40 feet, having a depth of at least three feet and minimum width of 40 feet. So, what is it that you're actually asking for with waiver A2? Excuse me. That's okay. What is it? So, on waiver A2 to provide for wall plane projections that don't meet the standards of having projections every 40 feet with a depth of three feet and a minimum width of 40 feet. What is it that you are actually asking for? Are you asking for no projections? Are you asking for larger projections? You start

to provide projections in the service department, then you're going to mess with the functionality of the service department. You're going to have longer bay, shorter bays. It's just I mean, it's just the service department works well with aisle down the middle and then you got the bays on each side. And as soon as you start providing this undulation on the elevations, then it's just it's just going to mess. So it's a functionality. It is. It's a functionality. Okay. It's just So there. So you're asking to be able to have no articulations in this service department area. Number two. Yeah. So is this internal or external? That's the explain sounds. It's more internal. It's more internal than external. So I think you understand what you're doing because you've built these all over the place. We don't and so we need you to get we're internal. I mean, you got these bays that are 24 foot long and 14 foot wide and got a line of bays and it just works well when everything's you got the center aisle and then you got the bays on each side and as soon as you start providing projections and you got some days are longer then now the projection is lined up with the bays and then it just kind of I guess we could do that make some days longer some days shorter. Yeah, those are pre-cast. Does that cause other issues? Well, yeah. Then you got joists that are longer because they're low very preach panel. So as soon as you start providing projections then you got you know it messes with the structure as well the roof joist and uh it just so so that makes sense to me that that as a functionality that that makes a lot of cost too. Right. Okay. That's something that I would be okay with. I don't know how the rest of the commission feels. Does it have to impact the the inside to have a facade that

just has projections on it? You could add some small projections with I mean not affect the inside by just adding deepest detail. You carry some deepest down the side. You could put some reveals on the pre-cast. You could add a different paint scheme on the outside. I mean, you could really dress that up and not affect the inside at all and just keep the straight plane. And you could provide some projections just with added details too. You can add panels to the outside, ephus panels. There's a lot of things you can do, but not three feet, right? If you add three feet, then you you are messing with the structure. Well, I'm wondering because when I when I and maybe I'm wrong, but when when I go into Costco, their walls look straight to me, but they got a facade on the outside that has that doing exactly that. They didn't impact the inside. They just made the outside have a facade. We could put a couple feet, right? Minimum of minimum of 40 ft and at least 3 ft deep. How go three feet or come out three feet probably come out reduce the depth of the service bay. So you come out three feet then go another 40t go in. I mean you could add a couple functionality. You just make a couple days a little bit longer and a couple joist a little bit longer roof choice that fan service. Okay. But it does it does affect the structure of the building as well. So would it would would the commission agree that if we could see some compromise there, that's something we'd like to see. that I I don't particularly have an issue with the shape of the building, but the facade is so plain and boring. It really I think will take away from the aesthetic of the of the streets

around it. So if there are decorative panels or uh projections you know awning you know I don't know what all you can put on the existing facility just to create an architectural break of that se section like we do with other other large um big box stores there are there are architectural things you can do to enhance the look that don't necessarily affect functionality because I respect this a pre-cast system right I mean I think we've seen that too with colors as opposed to with actual physical projections or reduced projections because I think Costco's a good example of going too far out would actually have an impact on delivery trucks. So it was reduced on the extension bay colors give you that impression of of depth or whatever. And then you know the the roof line lots of that kind of stuff something because I'm looking at number three and four the 50 foot and the 100 foot and length wall same thing those are the plane areas there that because you've got front yards and that's the thing you're you're fronting on three streets that are significant will be significant I mean basically we're talking aesthetics here uh that's my view it is it is purely aesthetic I don't want to change functionality and the the primary structure of the That's three and four. Same thing uninterrupted with without projections or recesses. I think you're hearing we would be open to alternatives that you might propose to us. You know, we're not obviously not voting not telling you right now. Um, sure. Uh, number five, provide walls without repeating p without pre- repeating patterns. I'm not sure what that means. Someone wants to put a hounds tooth. We like to see things that repeat. So, this would almost qualify with these windows how they repeat across the facade or in the

front how there's, you know, vertical lines that repeat across. So, you already have repeating patterns. I did not take the window consideration. Okay. Windows might not. Okay. And then number uh seven to provide that's the rear of the building that doesn't have like the actual facade. Okay. And then number six is to provide for facades without architectural features repeating horizontally or vertically which I think is what we just Yeah. There's several sections in the ordinance that repeat themselves. So and then to provide for east and west facades without two separate materials. And that goes Andy to your points, multiple materials or at a minimum colors. Um, so I think so I think we've given you a good overview of on each of these and Mr. Taylor, was it Mr. Taylor who suggested that we or Greg who perhaps coming back might be it's your call. Uh yeah. So just to clarify uh and I think I can see this is heading but just so I'm aware. So waiverss if the DPR is rejected there's I mean it's how many months? before you can refile or I guess the waiver the waivers would just be rejected right and then you would have to design a building that meets re notify I assume if it's not if you're not requesting waiver we're just back here next correct yeah I would suggest that that you've heard them and I that you should go away with that redesign the back half of the building and come back with a new design

next month. So, is there a request for continuance? Uh, yes. I think we would like to request continu and this is their first continuence. It is which means it's a continuence of right? Um, so do we miss do we need to vote on that? Still vote on it. Okay. Motion. Okay. I'll move that we continue DPR 258 raise Kilman Automotive of Avon to the Jul you make July to the July 28th with no additional public correct the July meeting of the plan commission having heard a motion and a second we'll take a vote Guggenberger four Zusen four rockabbrand four Reed Four coffin or Ransburg four. Motion carries. This uh petition is continued to the July 28th meeting. Thank you so much. Thank you for listening to us. Um other business. Any other business? I'd like staff does not have any. Okay. Yes. Um, we we've talked about some things tonight that I'm adding to the list of we seem to be seeing waiverss over and over again of the same things and which calls into question is our UDO what it needs to be and I was having a conversation with Paul earlier that when we did the UDO and that was before Linda Paul you guys joined the town um the developers were part of the group that put helped put the UDO together and so now We're getting waiver requests from the developers on some of the things as they do development. So, do we and you know, I'm going to pick on the how many

units before they have to have a second entrance into the subdivision. We talked about foundation plannings. Um the, you know, street width is another thing that's been in discussion. So, I I would like us to look at and make a plan to look at this. We've talked about it, but let let's get something actionable because we keep seeing the same type of waiverss over and over again. That means our UDO is not working um in meeting the needs or we just need to stand on these are ordinances or it is working. The petitioner doesn't think it's working. Well, I I think also too, we have to like tonight, for instance, we're talking about not just a generic waiver, but a waiver consistent with the way that industry is building its buildings, which which I don't know if the the dealerships were part of our discussion or not, as opposed to generic developers. Um and and I think some of the thing I mean we have a waiver process for a reason because sometimes the functionality of our development comes into conflict with our ordinances. You know a lot of our housing developments are on little pockets of land that are already surrounded by that just simply don't allow to meet our ordinance. Maybe it's the wrong place for that type of development. It would be the other thing too. So I mean those are and that's what we have to discuss. I mean parking spaces is another one that comes up of how wide should it be, how deep should it be. So if we could get the ordinances where we could reduce the waiverss, it I'm assuming it would help you as you're doing these cases. It reduces the work because now you don't have a developer that's probably working on you to give them some guidance to let them develop what they want. But to do that, they have to come forward and get a waiver. And I think I've heard stories no matter

the guidance that you give them, they do what they want to do. So they come forward even when you might have given them guidance that maybe isn't the best thing to do. So I'm it just seems like again the same type of waivers keep coming forward. Let's look at our ordinances and modify those. I I think there's some waiverss that I've seen over and over about number of ingress, egress, you know, to places that it seems like there's there's an in between the the boulevard entrance that's not considered. I could see that being something that we modified. I think there's other waivers I've seen that I'm okay with because they're coming in and they're they're trying to present a solution that's in the spirit of the waiver. So, they might need an adjustment. I'm I'm more okay with those. But there's ones that are repeating, I I completely agree. It would be nice to address them in some way. How can we help you in this matter? It's not like, okay, throw it out there and see can go home now, but how can we help you with that? So, yeah, we've taken note of every waiver request that we've had in these discussions and that certainly does help when you all discuss it amongst yourself to know what waivers you're think are fine, which ones you're willing to grant. I mean, if you grant a waiver over and over again, then that's the sign that your your ordinance needs to change. Well, I think one of the what comes to mind commercialwise is the drive-throughs. We've given multiple waiverss to allow for drivethrus on the 36 tier one when So, that is a special exception than not a variance. And a special exception is different than a variance and it has different findings. It's it's a permitted use. It's just permitted by special exception. So the the the level of of what they have to prove to you is not nearly what it's different. It's it's it's we're not just putting it into place and then throwing it out the window at the same time. It's it is a

process. So they have to come and show you how they are going to do that drive-thru. It's not it was never meant to prohibit them. Okay. If it was put in as a special exception and not outright prohibited. What are you seeing the most waiver requests for the access at this point? Um, but I would say that all of the properties that we've had come through this year and late last year have been infill sites without stubs to them. So, it has been more difficult to develop those sites. They are not, with the exception of Silver Springs, they are not new ground that has ample opportunity to find access points all over the place. So those are precisely the reason why waiverss are in place in your ordinance for you for them to come before you and ask for or when we have difficult circumstances. But don't those infill I mean they could do what they want if they'd followed the ordinance. It wouldn't require the waiverss and their response is that it doesn't make economic sense for them for the number of units like the town houses the town homes. So that that's where again it's like okay and what I hear is well 49's arbitrary okay but it's our ordinance it is. So let's if that's not the right number let's make the right number because you're going to get people like me it's like that's the number you know why do I have to be looking at a different waiver when our ordinance says this. So I I I hear you and we are we are going through the ordinance. Paul has gone through the entire ordinance and he and I together have made it about through half of it and once we get through the second half and get a draft. it's coming before you and we'll probably take it chap one or two chapters at a time. Maybe we'll get together as a you know a separate committee that's not during your meeting

time to go through it and we can session with the town council maybe. Right. One that keeps popping up that I've seen a lot is the whole situation about masonry. You know that 80% and then somebody comes through and say, "Well, I don't want to do any at all." But to Paul's point early tonight, is there any way necessarily if somebody wants to wave that for them in fact be required to bring a sample in to show us? We can certainly make that a requirement. Absolutely. We can show us your burden, you know, the burden of proof on them. Absolutely. We can make them bring in material mind that's out there and everything. We're just, you know, check the box every time. We expected to check the box. I'll be talking only if a waiver is requested. Right. Nothing. That's pretty. Absolutely. We can change our petitions to require that. I'll be a broken record on that because it's like, okay, you don't want to do our ordinance, look at Lowe's and Caramel. It's all brick. And so don't tell me if you want to do business here, you're going to build the your business to be able to do business here. So, and and that's the thing is like show us what you want other than well, you know, our design standards by corporate says this. Yeah. Well, well, sometimes to my point the Lowe's and Caramel, that's a nice Lowe's. It is all masonry because Caramel said this is what we do and they wanted to be there. And you know, some people are they want to be here bad enough and they'll they'll like yeah, we'll move on that. And then we've seen other proposals where they just don't want it. I mean, they just they want what they want and they want what they want. And we we saw something similar with the Bank of America proposal. They came in and broke every ordinance we had and we said, "No, we don't like it." And they said, "Okay." And they came back and had one that met the ordinances. Right. So, well, I think when you go on vacation, I

know I do, and I think everybody else does, you look at other buildings and you go, "Wow, they built that like that and they told me they couldn't do that here. Why do we let them off the hook?" And hold their feet to the fire. So, we shouldn't I mean, we should demand what we want. Hold their feet to the fire. Well, and you have also have to follow architectural trends, too. That masonry isn't always in trend. brick isn't always a trend and these metal panels are in high trend now that yes they are and there's it's still good material it's not like it's uh fireworks they're they're generally good material if they're using good materials I mean you can't you can't material I think it's their presentation though they have to educate me I don't know this I'm not a I'm not a developer I'm not a builder I'm not a contractor so educate me show me this is what you don't want. Okay, I get that. Now, what are you going to replace it with? And then show me those materials. Well, and I I think it's it's I I'm glad that you asked the question about the materials they were pres wanting to use. Are they on an approved list somewhere? Um, and I I think that's the first step. Are they on, you know, if we're going to grant a waiver, at a minimum, they need to be on an approved list if they're come, but if they're coming in with some brand new, and we ran into this a few years ago, and I don't remember, but it was a composite that they were wanting to use. It was before we had the new UDO, and um we asked them to bring in samples because we didn't know what they were talking about. Um because it was first watch. Yeah. Yeah. You're right. You're right. for. Yeah. So, okay. Anything else that needs to be I do have one more thing. Paul and Linda are are working on the UDO finessing. And what else?

And what else? Um the comp plan public presentation will actually take place at a special meeting of this body and it's going to be on July 14th here in this room. So, you'll have two meetings next month. Um there will be no business at the 14th meeting. It will um just be to have a public presentation of it. You will actually consider it at a meeting in August um for formal recommendation to council 6:30 just like you're meeting here. So they're just uh public will be invited and they will just give a presentation of everything of the the draft of the document. Is that 6:30? Correct. There'll be no petitions and you will not vote on the comp plan. It's just a presentation. So, so this will be a presentation to the commission, but we will not be voting commission. Correct. And that the public's invited to. So, it's a public presentation of it. And then you'll see at your August meeting is when you'll actually consider it. And it's you can also give comments back on the draft at that time. Will there be public comment on the 14th? They will or they'll take questions or they'll take questions. It's it's not going to be a formal it's not going to be as formal as our our meeting. Okay. It's not a hearing. It's not a hearing for sure. But because you're not going to consider it, but yeah, it's often um sometimes limited questions are allowed, but you're not required to allow. Is it going to be televised and okay? Yes. All your meetings uh will be required to be livereamed after July one. Oh, okay. They have been live streamed for some time now, but it's a requirement starting July 1. Okay.

July 14th. Okay. Yep. And I'll send you an email reminder just because it's a nontraditional meeting. M and then next month we have this continued case as well as what other continue but no new cases. Oh good. Wow. Um, committee reports redevelopment invoice approvals. In addition to invoice approvals, uh, Angelina Way and County Road 900 East roundabout bid uh, was approved in addition to change orders five and six for Dan Jones phase 2 BCA. Trying to remember what we did. to continue very quickly. Dutch Brothers, you Oh, that's right. Dutch Brothers was continued. That's right. And we had a long conversation about it. Thank you for that. You did? Well, I mean September. We had a We had a conversation about it. Um about the continuence. Um anything else from the town? Okay. Meeting adjourned.