Advisory Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

[music] [music] [music] [music] Heat. Heat. [music] [music] Heat. Heat. [music] [music] [music]

[music]

Heat. [music] Heat.

[music] [music] Heat. Heat. [music]

[music]

Good evening. [clears throat] Welcome to the town of Avon Advisory Plan Commission meeting. If you are interested in having a copy of the agenda, they are available on the tables to the right of the audience. We will be conducting business as outlined on the agenda. From time to time, the board may deviate from the agenda. As president of this body, I will inform those in attendance of any deviations. This meeting is being recorded for the public record. Because of this, we request that personal conversations are taken to a minimum are kept to a minimum and that all cell phones are set to vibrate. In fact, we would ask that you take personal conversations outside the chamber. Any phone calls shall also be taken outside 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 total 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 also 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 we understand there may be several persons who wish to speak this evening. In order to keep the meeting running in a timely fashion, we would request that you not repeat previous comments. Thank you for your assistance in facilitating a respectful, fair, and timely meeting. Again, welcome and please stand for the pledge. [snorts]

I pledge to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[snorts] We can now take a roll call. Jennifer Spencer here. Andrew Rockerbrand here. Bill Reid here. Dave Kaufman here. Katherine Ransburg here. Paul Genenberger is absent. And Greg Susan here.

We have a quorum now. However, we are minus one person. Um, for those who are present, if you would prefer that this that your petition be heard by the full panel, it would be appropriate for you to consider asking for a motion to continue. Uh, moving on to the meeting minutes from September. Has everybody had an opportunity to review the minutes? And are there any suggested changes, editorial comments, etc.? If not, I'll take a motion to approve. I'll go ahead.

I'll move that we approve the uh minutes as presented from September 22nd, 2025. Have a second. I'll second. Having had a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? None opposed. The motion carries. Whoops. We now move on to the public comment portion of the evening. This is an opportunity for those who are present to come and speak to the plan commission about items that are not already on the agenda. If there's something you would like to bring to our attention that's not already going to be addressed tonight, this would be the time to do it. Is there anybody who would like to step forward and speak to the commission? Having had no one step forward, the public comment question public comment period is now closed. Are there any requests for continuences or agenda modifications?

Thank you, President Ransburg, members of the commission. Um, first just to note, you had you should have or should have received the revised agenda. Um, just for anybody else who might have looked at the original agenda that was published, um, item 5.1 under old business, town of Avon comprehensive plan update was removed from the modified agenda and we expect that'll be on your November agenda. That doesn't require any action by the commission at this time. Um, drawing your attention to item 4.1 on your agenda, DPR2504 at 1137 North Avon Avenue. Staff recommends that the petition that the commission um dismiss this petition. This petition was filed [snorts] uh in late February or early March. It went to technical advisory committee on March 20th. It following the normal schedule would have been initially scheduled for hearing at your April 28th hearing, but because the petitioner indicated after the technical advisory committee meeting that they would not be able to get revisions submitted in time, we didn't docket it for April. So, we initially docketed it for the May 27th hearing. Um, we did not get any revised plans or responses from the petitioner ahead of the May hearing and it was continued to your July hearing at the petitioner's request. We did not receive any revised plans or responses after the July meeting and it [clears throat] or ahead of the July meeting and then it was continued from July three months to

this meeting. We have still received no responses or revised plans to all of the issues that were raised at the technical advisory committee over six months ago. Um therefore, we would recommend that you dismiss this for want or lack of prosecution on behalf of the petitioner. We have not heard anything from the petitioner leading up to today's meeting. Um, I just be happy to answer any questions you have.

If you can just remind us what is the general timeline for between when a petition is first submitted and when it needs to be resolved. Um well, you have in your rules of procedure uh prohibition, I believe it's article nine, section five, that no petition may be continued more than six months beyond the original scheduled hearing date. So, by that timeline, because we didn't docket this in April, if we had docketed it in April as we normally would have, your six months would be up tonight. Um, since we didn't dock it till May, you could continue this to November. um if you chose to do so and not be in violation of your rules of procedure. Um staff doesn't believe that that that would be anything other than a waste of time at this point. As in order for staff to uh analyze and prepare a staff report for the November hearing, we would need revised plans and responses submitted by the end of this week. Um if something were going to be docketed for November. So, having heard nothing from the petitioner since September 2nd, I'm sorry, September 3rd when their architect checked in and I gave him the uh timeline for the October hearing that we would need plans or responses submitted by or before October 2nd in order to have anything heard today. Um, I find it extremely unlikely that we're going to get plants and submitted by the end of this week.

Have you had And it's it's you're not required to allow a petition to linger for six months. Sure. It's just one of your rules that you're not allowed to extend it out six more than six months beyond the When's the last time staff actually spoke to the petitioner? I know you said you spoke to the architect. the LA um we haven't had any contact from the attorney representing the petitioner I don't believe since your July hearing. No talked to him for the code is

I have been in contact with the attorney but only because of ongoing code enforcement issues on the site not regarding the case. thoughts. I think at the last meeting You'll need to Oh, I don't know if you can be heard or not. [laughter] I think at the last meeting we we had a lot of um a lot of back and forth asking what had happened. Um I think there was communicated that uh the petitioner said they hadn't received certain communications. They said, "Okay, well now you've received the communications, so you should know to be ready." They knew the date then. I recall that too.

And it was it I thought it was a pretty stern conversation. Hey, you got to get on top of this and here we are now and there's been nothing new. I I don't see a reason to continue. Had the initial thought that he was going to step up in good faith and it doesn't sound as if that's happened. So, any other thoughts? No, I agree. I think I think there's no movement from the petitioner on this and um there's I don't see a reason to continue this another month.

Mr. Taylor or I'm sorry um Mr. Bentley, what would be the um if we dismiss tonight, what they have to wait six months before they can refile. Is that correct? I believe that's I believe that's correct. Um So they're not prohibited from

Is this Yeah, that this a similar petition was filed in late 23 and was I think that was technically withdrawn rather than dismissed in the middle of last year and I know the refiling um period that they had to wait was six months. So I believe it's the same for withdrawal or dismissal. Okay. So there's nothing preventing them from coming forward again. But I think I agree with the rest of my colleagues that that yeah, it's if you're not if they're not moving forward, I don't see any reason why we should keep it on our docket. Well, they have a plenty opportunity to withdraw it and they've not done it. So, right,

I recommend we just dismiss it and staff can use their time that they've put towards this to other projects. In that case, uh we'll entertain a motion. I make a motion that we dismiss DPR25-04 1137 North Avon Avenue sea store and gas station. I'll second. Having heard a motion in a second, I'll now take a roll call vote Spencer four. Susan four fourman [clears throat]

four. Uh, motion carries. DPR 254 is now dismissed. I have one comment. When you look at the pictures in your presentation, can we have code enforcement get out there to clean up this property? There's a lot of garbage and the retention pond has got I think there's more debris in it than water. We do have enforcement activity pending. All right, thank you on that. Okay, moving on to DPR 2512 Parkplace Crossing.

Thank you again, President Ransburg and members of the commission. Uh staff is recommending that this matter be continued to your December 22nd hearing uh with mailed notice to be provided by the petitioner. Um, this went to technical advisory committee meeting last month and there were a number of issues as you can see in the TAC letter that is attached to your staff report. Staff has met with the petitioner subsequent to that. there's a at least one major issue that needs to be worked out and petitioner is working on um revising their plan to address um those issues most notably the one related to u potential extension of Beachwood Senate Road. So we would recommend that this go to your December 22nd hearing with notice to be mailed by the petitioner. be happy to answer any questions you have.

And this would be cons considered a request for continuence by staff, not by the petitioner. Okay.

Um well, I mean, the petitioner is not here asking to move forward. So, I think they're in concurrence. I I did email the petitioner um indicating the staff would probably recommend December versus November. they sent a response and didn't give any real indication that they disagreed with going to December. So, I took that as a uh a lack of objection, but I mean, yeah, you can you can categorize staff request, I guess. Okay. Sure.

Uh in that case, if unless any there's any discussion or objection to staff's recommendation, we can entertain a motion. I'll make that motion that we uh continue uh case DPR25-12 Parkplace crossing to the December 22nd 25 meeting 2025 meeting. I second. Having heard a motion in a second, we'll now take a roll call vote. Spencer four. Rockabbrand four. Reed four. Kaufman four. Ransburg four. Zusen four. Motion carries and yeah,

DPR 2512 is now continued to the December 22nd plan commission meeting. Thank you.

The all comprehensive plan is also going to be continued. We've already discussed this. Moving on to new business, we now have WC2501 reserve at Shiloh Creek. Okay, thank you. This is uh the reserve at Shiloh Creek which will be section two if approved and then platted. This is a written commitment change from a Hendrickx County resoning. And I just want to just touch base on that. We've had this at one one other time recently and that was with Whispering Pines uh South and that the county approved the resoning in 2003 and it was subject to written commitments. The property is going through a super voluntary annexation to be incorporated into the town and the current zoning of RB would automatically transfer to an R2 and our jurisdiction. uh but the petitioner is requesting to modify the commitments from the 2003 case. When that happens, uh the petitioner not only has to notify the normal surrounding people, but it's everybody that um is in state state statute. It gives a certain boundary that they have to meet and they have to notify the county commissioners who initially put the uh commitment on. So that has taken place. Uh the existing commitments do relate to the overall 58 acre parcel from 2003. Um a little under half of that has been developed as section one. So what you're considering tonight is just for future

section 2. It would not amend any commitments in original section one. There are several amendments being made. a redline copy of which was given to you. Uh some of them are just text um technical changes that change it from Hendricks County to Avon or change the date to current date or change the standards that they have to meet from Hendricks County to Avon. But there are five that I've pulled out that that are that we believe this the most impactful or the most substantial changes. So um number one is just that they would have to follow Avon R2 standards. Number two the minimum living space would be increased uh from 900 to,200 on single story and uh would remain at 2,000 for the twotory. Uh the minimum lot area would decrease from 14,000 square ft to 12 12,500. Um, this does meet the minimum or is consistent with the minimum lot size in R2, which is 12,500. The minimum lot width would decrease from 95 ft to 80 ft. This is consistent with the R2 standard. And then commitment number one under the architectural standards would change the option of including a rear screened porch to a rear covered porch. So, I'm going go over a little bit of um where this is. Uh this I know is is not the easiest map to read, but this here is 1050 east and then 100 100 north along the north here. The R1 that is yellow in here is section one.

So, it was originally approved in 2003 and platted after that. It has access to 100 north and then access over here to 1050. The white that is outlined would be section two. It is surrounded with Charlotte Creek section one to the north and then county jurisdiction all the way around. And I have the zoning underneath. This is just a zoomed in view of where it is in the world. This is the original concept plan submitted to the county in 2003. This has been uh shifted. So, north is to your left as you're looking at it. And so, 1050 east is uh along the bottom of the photo there. So this is what was originally filed as a concept plan. Section one in the area that's not outlined in red what has been developed as I indicated but was not developed in this exact layout. Section two is what you're considering tonight and that is what's outlined in the red. Um note to of note of this original concept plan was two the two sub streets that exist in the subdivision to the south. Um it was going to utilize a connect to those and then it would was not proposed to have a connection out here to 1050 east and that all the traffic from the new section was to go through the county subdivision to the south. And then two lots, I don't know if you can see it very well, but two lots were to front on 1050. This is the revised concept plan that

was given to us by the petitioner. This is not set in stone as what exactly going to be platted because they haven't done engineering I assume but they've done some conceptual markups and the the major change in this other than the general uh layout of the subdivision is that the there is a pond now on the north side of the development. there is a connection to 1050 still maintaining the two connections to the subdivision to the south. [snorts] I will also note that the number of lots that that abudded the subdivision to the south along the south property line is being reduced by one. So the number that's in here along this part goes down by one. The overall number of lots in original section two here was 54. This layout shows 50. So although they are requesting a reduction in the size of the lot, they are also requesting a reduction in the number of lots. And then no homes would front on 1050 as they would all be on the new access drive or new access road coming in. Just to go over the surrounding land uses again, the reserve at Shallow Creek is to the north uh zoned R1. To the west is uh county RB and that's known as a a Ashton section six. To the east are large lot county agriculture leoned land. and to the south it's known as Shiloh Creek Estate section six which is in the county as AGR agriculture. Um the comprehensive plan future land

use map does not have a recommendation for this parcel. So we would take that to mean the RB zoning would be the recommendation which does equate to the R2 zoning that we would be bringing them in at. um is staff's opinion that the R2 zoning district along with the remaining commitments um ensures that this development would be compatible with the surrounding development. Again, the number of lots originally proposed in section 2 was 54. This would be reduced to 50. That's a significant change. Um the number of lots along the south property line as I indicated was eight and this would be re um taken down to seven. And then the most significant change we think is the road out to 1050 which would take pretty much the entirety of the traffic from this new section to 1050 as opposed to through the neighborhood of that county jurisdiction. Uh, I want to go back to the overall. This map doesn't show it real well, but this this is the subdivision to the south, and you can get go south on here and then out. And this is Raceway Road here. So, there is an outlet to Raceway, which yeah, if you're going to Raceway Road would obviously be used, but we think the majority of traffic would be out here to 1050. Oh, and then the our recommendation to the commission is that because of the changes that are proposed, we think are actually a better um manner to develop the property and the number of lots hasn't increased. We believe the changes um would be

acceptable and we do recommend the forwarding of a positive recommendation to the town council and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. I have a question about commitments. Uhu. So for all those the things that you listed about square footage and things like that, did they actually have written commitments prior versus it just being a the rule of that zoning the RV? Yes. So, when it went through the county in 2003, whatever the zoning ordinance had in place at the time, they were making commitments above what those requirements were.

And the primary purpose of this is to get that property in line with our ordinances. Correct. [clears throat] Well, you could have R2 zoning and still have these requirements in place requiring the larger lot size and the wider lots. That that can certainly still occur. Okay.

Um but we don't think keeping those lot sizes the way they were is necessary and that our R2 takes care of a lot size and they're not getting any more lots out of it than they would have. Any further questions for staff? If not, we'll have the petitioner come forward. Hello, John Lazaro, J. Lazaro Builders, 8459 Kingston Street, Avon. And I don't have any more to add. It was pretty straightforward. We're just actually since we are annexing and it made sense to uh amend the commitments since it's been 22 years to more align with actually what's going on in the market. So I don't if anybody has any questions glad to answer them. Otherwise I don't have anything to add. Okay. Is there anybody who would like to come forward to speak out against this petition? Is there anybody who would like to come forward to speak in support of this petition other than the petitioner? Then I'm assuming we don't need a rebuttal. [laughter] Okay. Public hearing clerk portion is closed on this discussion. So based on that, I do have a few questions. Um number one, the north of this property, is there um just green space north of that property between section one and section two?

There is there is the wooded area. So section one lots end here and then there's a large common area here um that that would still remain common area and then the pond would be proposed in this area here. Is there any development like um paths or anything in that area or is it a creek bed or what's I don't know of any paths in there currently. And then 1050 east does that that stubs into Ronald Reagan, doesn't it? Or how does that does that continue all the way down?

It comes down and then becomes Do you know? Yeah. When you go south on 1050, um it actually if you follow 1050 all the way south, it'll it'll go to a culde-sac. But prior to that culde-sac, there's a little spot where you can turn that's just about 100 feet from Ronald Reagan to connect to it. Okay. That's where traffic would would go. It's there at the fire station where Okay. That's right. That's what I was trying to frame location. And finally, is there any commitment to those number of lots the 50 lots? There is not.

Okay. I like the fact that um the petitioner is engaged in a super annexation [clears throat] to great make more of Washington Township Avon. So I appreciate I appreciate those efforts that are happening and I think it obviously makes sense that if they're going to be part of Avon that they should embrace what we're doing. Any [clears throat] further conversation, discussion, or questions for the petitioner?

Just to go back to your question, Mr. Rockbran, about the 50 lots. Um, they're they do um state that it would be substantially consistent with the preliminary plan. I would note that they're showing a 1.70 uh density and it's would actually equate to 1.85. So that change would need to be made.

Any further discussion or questions? If not, we'll entertain a motion. Wait, if I can clarify that it would be at So 50 lots would be 1.85 or 50 lots would be 1.7. 50 lots would be 1.85, not 1.7. versus 1.97 that we was in the write up. Well, this the proposed development commitments show 1.7. So, how many lots would that be? Would that be 49 or how does that work? 46. Okay.

So, I guess we could ask petitioner whi which is is it 50 lots or is it 1.7? I'm suggesting it should be amended to 1.85 85 instead of 1.7. Okay. So, so that would be 50 lots and then that in addition to the substantially consistent with the conceptual site plan would bring this similar same site plan back to you unless there are substantial changes they would need to come back again. [snorts] Why would we allow more than what is petitioned?

This isn't 1.7 lots per acre fewer lots and that's what they're asking for. 1.7 is a hold over from the original commitment that probably wasn't changed and it's I consider it more of a typo that they didn't change that density for this south section but it would equate to 46 lots not the 50 that they've shown. What is the requirement under the ordinance for R2?

Oh, it's it's two two 3.0 3.0.

So, if this property is the same size, how did we get how was it originally at 54 at a 1.7 density? It was because it was the overall density. So, it took in this common area here. And if you add all that in, the overall density of both sections and it's from 2003. Yeah. So, within that number, it included the open space for section one and section two. Okay. And that was also and that was on under the Hendricks County requirements.

I just suggest we just make that administration administrative change from 170 to 185 1.85. Yeah. Right. Okay. Any further questions, discussion. [clears throat] Um, should we include the administrative change in the motion? Yes. Okay. I would.

In that case, we'll entertain a motion. Okay.

I move that we forward a favorable recommendation to the town council 251. Reserve at Chila Creek section two commitments a modification of written commitments to change existing commitments from county zoning amendment map amendment edition ZA301 0306 [clears throat] which will be incorporated into the zoning is the seven requirements for a modification written a commitment. Does that meet the requirement?

Okay, we have a second. Having heard a motion and a second, we'll now take a roll call vote. Kaufman, four. Reed, four. Ransburg, four. Spencer, four. Zusen, four. Rockef motion carries. [clears throat] We now move on to other business which is the 2026 plan commission meeting calendar. I can't believe we're doing this again already [laughter]

every year. [clears throat] So, you received uh this copy here which uh lays out the dates for next year. Uh the only two that are not the fourth Monday of the month are in May as usual. That hits on Memorial Day. So, it's being moved to Tuesday following Memorial Day. And then in December, I elected to move that meeting up a week because otherwise it would fall in the week between Christmas and New Year's. So, it's now going to be the third Monday. Um, that does conflict with the RD CDA. I don't know which one it is,

but that one we know that you guys can get in there and then move over here like we did last Christmas. So, [snorts] do we need to take any action on this? Like for you to approve it so we can publish [clears throat] it. Okay. Does anybody have any questions or would like to see any changes to the proposed calendar for next year? If not, we'll entertain a motion. Move that we approve uh the proposed planning commission 2026 dates. I'll second.

Having heard [clears throat] a motion and a a couple of seconds, [laughter] we'll now uh take a roll call vote. Read four. Spencer four. Rockabbrand four. Kaufman four. Ransbury four. Susan four. Motion carries and the 2026 calendar of the Avon Advisory Plan Commission is now set in stoneish. [laughter] Uh committee reports. I know we had a BCA meeting and I'm trying to remember what we did. [laughter]

Usually Paul takes care of that. Approved [laughter] something. Mary, no. A special exception for the drive-thru for the rebuild at the Chase Bank. That's right. That's right. We did Avenue. Yeah. And that's the I believe that's the only thing we did that evening. So, okay. uh for uh the most recent redevelopment commission meeting, we [clears throat] had our uh invoice approvals and a change order went in for county row 900 East and discussion on a counter offer for parcel for 525 East. Okay. Anything from the town?

I was on a cruise so I don't know. [laughter] Don't rub it in, Greg. [laughter] I thought you just been golfing a lot extra. So, okay, having uh no more committee uh no more committee reports, is there anything else that needs to be added for the good of the order? If not, I'll move that we are adjourned.