Advisory Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. 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. All 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 total to present support for the petition. Finally, the petitioner will close the public hearing portion of the presentation with a five-minute rebuttal period. Once the public hearing is closed, no additional testimony will be heard unless it is solicited by members of the commission during the question and answer phase of the commission's deliberations. Subdivision plat and development plan petitions are ministerial requests, meaning that if the proposal meets the requirements set forth in the town's development ordinances, the plan commission must approve the request. In the interest of transparency, state law requires that the plan commission hold a public hearing even if the development proposal must be approved. Responses to public comments and questions may be given once the public hearing portion is closed. We understand there may be several persons who wish to speak tonight. 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 to our meeting and 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. Uh, let's do a roll call. Greg Zusen, present. Paul Guggenberger, here. Katherine Ransburg, here. Dave Kaufman, here. Bill Reid, here. Andrew Rockerbrand, here. Jennifer Spencer, here.

And we have a full quorum tonight. Moving on to the next agenda item, approval of the meeting minutes from October 27th. Has everyone had an opportunity to review those meeting minutes? And are there any questions, edits, changes, objection to the font? Any? If not, I'll recommend him. I'll take a motion. I'll make that motion to approve of that October 27th, 2025 advisory plan commission uh meeting minutes as presented.

Second. Having heard a second and a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I. I.

Meeting uh any opposed. Meeting minutes are approved. Okay. We are now moving on to the public comment section of tonight's meeting. This is an opportunity for the people who are present to speak about anything that's not already on tonight's agenda. If you want to speak about something that's on tonight's agenda, then you will have an opportunity at that time. But if there's something else you'd like to talk to uh or address the the um the commission about too many chicken restaurants, anything like that, um this is the opportunity to to come forward. Is there anybody who'd like to come and speak about anything that's not on tonight's agenda? Okay. Having no one step forward, the public hearing comment or public comment section is now closed. Uh requests for continuences or agenda modifications.

We do not have any. Okay. Moving on to old business. We now have are going to address the amended town of Avon comprehensive plan update.

Yes. Just go ahead, please.

All right. My name is Rachel Christensen. I work with HWC Engineering and have been working with the town of Avon for a little over a year now on the comprehensive plan update. Uh we did take this to the town council, not last month, but the month before for consideration, and it was there were some recommended changes that they wanted the plan commission to consider. Um there was some land use uh there were some amendments to the future land use map that they wanted to see. Um I believe you guys have um what those amendments are in your packet. Um and I think if there's any questions on that um I'm happy to to answer those and I'm sure Linda would be um happy to talk through that as well. So, um, with that, I think Katherine, I'm not sure because I wasn't at your last meeting of I don't think it was discussed at the last meeting, but I just want to confirm.

It was not. No. Okay. Um, I guess is there any more details about what the proposed amendments are that you guys should be considering tonight or would you like more information? I have staff comment for you, too. Okay. Um, go ahead and have a seat. Okay. Okay.

I got it. Just tell me. Okay.

Oh, I got it. Okay. If you recall, you saw the comprehensive plan at your August 25th uh 2025 meeting where you made a favorable recommendation of the C comp plan as it was presented with a 6 to zero vote to the town council. Um this was after a public presentation of the plan in July prior to this meeting, the August 25th meeting. Then on October 9th, 2025, the town council voted to return the comprehensive plan to you um for reconsideration with a change made to the future land use map. Uh I just want to know once you make a decision tonight, what happens? Um if the commission approves the amendment tonight, the comprehensive plan will stand as approved after your vote. If the commission disapproves the amendment, the amendment stands only if the town council makes a second resolution to adopt it with their changes at a future meeting of the town council. And then ultimately, whenever it's passed, either tonight or at a future town council meeting, it must be recorded with the Hendricks County Recorders Office. The location of the proposed change from the town council was the area outlined here in white. Um the the blue dot in the middle of the white circle is the new middle school. So it's areas surrounding that to the west, to the south, and to the north. And I've highlighted those changes on this map that you have in your packet. So everything outlined in white. Uh the proposal from town council would be to take that area to agriculture on

the future land use map. Uh our staff comment on on the change is um that we would point out to you that the agricultural recommendation in the plan does uh recommend agriculture. But it also goes on to say that should the area be serviced with sewer and water that the residential recommendation should be considered. So the immediate recommendation for the area that was shown to you would be agriculture. It would not have to be that forever should sewer and water be serviced to the properties. Uh and then ultimately knowing that any change to zoning of the property would have they would have to file a resoning petition and would have to be approved by town council in order for any residential development to to be approved. So, with that, we are suggesting approval of the comp plan with the changes made by town council. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

Questions for staff?

In the existing comp plan, we already have it listed as agricultural. Is that true? The comp plan shows I think all of that as agricultural except for the maybe the top two properties aren't within you know those blobs. It just doesn't have a recommendation. Linda, was this area the part of the area where we were talking about estate lots and then we had a lot of discussion around having the state lot designation and wasn't that this part of this area or this area? I don't recall. Do you recall

I believe the estate lots is that your five acres per Yeah. dwelling unit. Yes. And I think we were I think the discussion was that it would not be the estate lots that um as it was moving forward that there would be a little bit more density in that area. I would say gentle density, something that's appropriate and was going to be comparable or compatible to adjacent properties that had already been developed. Um so I think that was what I remember from the discussions from the steering committee. Okay. So, how much these lots currently?

Let me double check before I answer that.

They are all zoned agricultural currently. the the school is not um but everything else is. So regardless of the plan, it would have to go through reszoning. Correct. Correct. Yeah. This is just a land use map. Anything that goes there is going to have to get reszoned. Correct. And this is a proposed vision. This isn't zoning. This isn't platting. This is just a proposed recommendation for future use. Correct. How much discussion was there at town council on this? Was it a pretty contentious meeting or was it just it was pretty simple?

Um I I don't I wouldn't say the word contentious. Just that some thought that the area should be agg and they voted for the change. It wasn't a unanimous vote. Okay. So the the committee went through a pretty extensive process of creating this proposed land map and my view of this is that we've had we've had the we've gone through the process we voted for unanimously and this is again not reszoning but what sense does it make to have a school in the middle of a farm field and never plan to put agricult put

if I could have you put a pin on that because we need to hear from demonstrators before we have discussion. Okay. So, I mean, we all want to hear what you have to say on this. Talk later. Yeah. So, if we could get through that process. So, um petitioners finished with your presentation. Okay. Um is there anybody here who would like to speak out against this proposed uh future land use? We have three signed in. Three signed in. I think these two are for Chase Bank actually.

Okay. Who's the first person? So I think uh obviously if anybody wants to speak they can get up but um I think two people signed up here um are actually here for Chase Bank. So we have uh Shri Cole Carney. Okay. Signed up to speak in opposition. Absolutely. If you could come forward sure sir place your say excuse me long day. If you could state your name and address please 5109. Okay go ahead. the green light on.

It's on. Yeah. Um, good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you about my property. So, I own this, uh, the bulk of this property in question at the southwest corner, uh, 450 and 150, right, that surrounds the middle school. So, most of what I'm going to talk about, I think that you guys have heard through a letter that I sent and hopefully they distributed it. I think that they said that they were going to. So, yeah, exactly. So, some of this is going to come for the second time, but I think it's really important to understand. So, we've owned this property for 21 years, pay taxes. For most of that time, I would agree with the perspective that this is an agricultural piece of dirt. For most of that time, I do think a couple meaningful changes have happened. A, there's a new middle school. The middle school has 1,200 kids that go to it. It's a meaningful investment. The second one, and I think that you guys all know this, is that there's utilities going through. So, there's a sewer line that I just signed the paperwork for. It's a 15-inch main that's going to go through my property and connect to my to my neighbor to the west and go north. My neighbor Ken Edmonson, who's been farming my property for a long time, annexed into Danville. So, his property is going to be commercial and and industrial. That's what Danville wants for his piece of property. So, it's just an it's just not fair. It's my annexation was an involuntary annexation. So, basically, even though I'm the majority land holder in this area by acreage, so I own 120 acres, we sold the 80 acres to the school back in the day. They annexed my property without my permission. And there's some way to do that under under state law. In spite of all that, I still would have agreed and said it's not the right time. Things have meaningfully changed. And as the planning commission board here, your job is to plan, right? Is to think about the future. Take all of the variables

into consideration, right? Not just the eight or 10 people who live around this property, the entire town of Avon. Houses are overpriced. People are struggling to pay and uh make their down payments. this is an opportunity to potentially put a uh 120 acres into service for a potential use as residential. I looked at every other uh middle school in Avon. There's not a single other middle school that's not surrounded by commercial or residential. Not a single one. This would be the first one. I don't know. I could go on and on. Like my letter says it all. There's there just is no in my in my perspective no legitimate reason that this piece of property given all of the facts that you guys all know should stay residential. Now, why it's important, right? I think a comment was made, you still have to go through the resoning process. Part of the reasoning process requires some uh you to look into whether it matches the comprehensive plan. So, if I come to uh city council down the road, there's new city council members, they're going to look at this comprehensive plan and say, "Does it match what, you know, the comprehensive plan said 3, four, 5 years ago or 2, three years ago or seven, eight years ago, whatever it is." Council members may have changed. I still have to This is still a barrier to development and um you know, it's a meaningful barrier. So, I know that I still have to go in front of town council to get this reszoned. it with at the right time with the right team. We're absolutely willing to do what it takes. There's buffers. There's all kinds of things you can do to make make uh the neighbors feel better about the development. But net of it all, is this a residential property on the comprehensive plan or is this is this an agricultural property? I just can't understand how it continues to stay a from a comprehensive plan perspective. All of the ingredients are there. um

utilities being like I said one of the most important the fact that there's a middle school you have you have public improvements on the roadways so I don't know all things being equal I think this is a great opportunity to help all of Avon find good housing and and produce the right uh plan moving forward so happy to answer questions if you have them for me but thank you we'll take questions if there's any afterwards is there anybody else who has signed up uh to speak out against this proposal? There's not. Okay. Is there anybody who would like to stand up to speak for the proposal?

Okay. Would the petitioner care to remmonstrate? You don't have to, but no, because I feel like I'm in an awkward spot because I am representing uh the town. Of course, you guys had hired us to to prepare this. So we are the author of your plan and happy to make the changes that um the community or this the town wants. So thank you. Okay. Thank you. Can I ask a question? Yes. Before we go, can you remind us

can you remind us of the discussion if you remember that was had around this because it's land use not zoning. It's currently zoned agriculture. This is a future land use uh plan. Um, can you help us with any of your memory of this discussion of this area?

Yeah, and I we did have several discussions about this particular area. Um, I think there was a a couple times we went back and forth on this. We talked about even removing agriculture as a future land use classification as part of this planning process. Um, we ultimately sat on that for a minute. When we came back as a group, the the steering committee decided that that was not the direction we wanted to go as a community yet. So, we brought that agricultural classification back. Um, we thought that that could be a good placeholder for some properties that truly weren't ready for um, you know, a a true res uh, residential designation quite yet. Um, so we moved forward with that direction. However, in this particular area, there was a lot of discussion around the utilities and that the school had kind of changed what that landscape looked like in that area that um it could be an appropriate time to change that future land use classification to the residential. Um and that is I think where the steering committee ended up on um with their thoughts on it and was ultimately presented to this commission um a couple months ago. Okay.

Thank you. You're welcome. um discussion. Go ahead and let you pick up where you left off. Sorry.

Yeah. So, you know, we we it was a year of process going through trying to find this. We had lots of discussions about this area as part of the the steering committee and with the um the greenway and everything that's going roughly going through that area. It's a little bit further um further east, but um and the school there, the the thoughts were very clear that it makes sense to have housing around the school. That way you can um you can people can walk to school, all those kinds of things. So I would disagree that we should move this back to agricultural. I think the discussion was had and was um overwhelmingly believed that this should be considered long-term eventually because this um plan is roughly a 10-year look ahead that this would be an appropriate location for residential housing. And so I I think that was very clear in the the committee recommendation.

Any more discussion? Other thoughts, comments? I'm just going to add what Andrew said because that's what I remember the discussion was too that um the land use not the zoning of this area uh would be residential because of looking at the school and what we were looking at in future. So um and to the point that yeah I mean we got out of this and it was unanimous approval of the comp plan. So I you know does it make sense? I think from a land use from a citizen I'd be going if I got to do a reszone does it really matter what it is but where this is looking forward of what we're projecting would like to see there so I agree with Andrew I mean we look at this as being residential in that area for land use

um I just want to clarify with staff so it's currently zoned agricultural correct zoned agricultural correct I just want to clarify my statement. It is all agricultural except for the these smaller lots right in here which are R1. But yes, everything in outlined in white is agricultural and that will not change if the proposed land use is made residential. Correct. Correct. So it will still be agriculturally zoned.

Correct. And this is just saying in the future we think this is the best use of this land. Correct? Again, I want to point out the state the the way the future land use matrix section of the comp plan is written where it says yes agriculture but should water and sewer not just sewer but water and sewer utilities be made available then residential would should be considered. So it doesn't close the door on residential per se. And we understand that uh sewer is going through right now. Is that correct? Not not the all of the properties. Yeah, there is a sewer line going in. Yeah.

Any questions or further discussion thoughts about this? Well, so Lyn, I'm going to ask you because um because it is land use. So what from a planning perspective here the idea of supporting going back to going to agriculture versus residential from planning director? um what your thoughts on why why do that instead of where we landed when we did the comp plan?

Well, I think my voice in the comp plan process all along was that it should stay agriculture until sewer and water is available. So whether it's yellow on the map or whether it's brown on the map, I don't think it should be reszoned until the utilities are in and resed. But we're talking about land use,

right? So if anybody wanted to develop it I and it was without water and sewer lines, then it should stay agg which is you know the direction of this change would go and then should water and sewer become available then I think it's reasonable to consider residential development. Any more discussion? Linda, could it be worded like that on the

plan on the map? So, the the wording in the document already says that yes, it's agricultural. Immediately we see this remaining a then if water and sewer are made available then it says stop looking at this section go and look at the residential section. The residential section then goes on to say, "All right, you have to have sewer and water. Is there commercial nearby? What kind of lots would be best served near school?" That's I mean, there's a lot of criteria that that are there. So, the the guide of the document from a planning point of view, I don't think this change uh would impact how we would analyze a petition should it come in. If if it didn't have water and sewer, we should say this should stay agg.

So, this is a little I won't say unorthodox, but out of out of routine. Mr. Carney is raising his hand out there. We've closed the public section, the public comment section on this hearing. Um, does anybody object to Mr. Cole Carney coming forward and speaking some more? We don't normally do this, but are there is anybody object at all? I don't. Um, Mr. Colarnney, you can come forward.

I'll keep this really I'll keep this really brief, but there is uh water too. Obviously, the school as it was developed has water needed water service. This uh this 15-in trunk line is a major line. So, yeah, there's both sets of utilities available to the property today. I think that's an important point.

Thank you. So, um, if this was if this land was just, um, had not been previously, if you were just looking at it brand new and had not been previously agricultural, knowing that there's a school there and we have utilities going through, what would be the recommended future land use, would you say? the the recommended land use would be residential if those factors were all in place.

Okay. So do have another question for you, Linda, that um were was this amendment um communicated to the entire steering committee because we had representation from a lot of different areas in in Avon or was it only sent to the plan commission? I did send an email out to the steering committee after to um suggest these changes. Um so it did go out to I I did say that there were recommended changes that was going back to the plan commission. Did you receive any response back to that?

Um I did um I believe Nick Anderson had emailed me back. he just had some questions about process on, you know, and he watched the the meeting and um but I wouldn't say that there was any um direct feedback on the decision from the schools or Jeff Banning or I um Jeff Banning was at the meeting, the town council meeting um and but I don't want to speak for him. Okay. All right. Thank you.

You're welcome. President Katherine, could I I just want to elaborate on something that Linda said. I think she makes a really good point in that when she says it's the entire comp plan that is the factor that has to be considered during a reszone. It is not just the map. And as you know, the land use is not a small document. The comp plan is a pretty big document, right? You know, it's got analysis in it, has art, it articulates reasoning, and most people when they appear before you for recommendation and the town council for reszone, they just look at that map and they show you that map sometimes. And that is a gross oversimplification of the analysis required by you when you make recommendations and to the town council. I don't hear this much, but it's a great point that she makes. Um, and you can do that with what you want, but that's really worth noting is that the value of your comprehensive plan is not the maps it creates. It's the entire thing. And so much work goes into it. So this very subtle, I would call it nuance about when we might look at areas differently when they are served by utilities, uh, is really important. And I'm I'm not sure that tells you which way to go on this your decision. I'm not saying I'm saying that this drives home the point that you're adopting a very important document. It's a word. It's it's about much more than any map that's in there.

Thanks for pointing that out. And um I just we we had a um a proposal development proposal multiple development proposals for the land beside behind Costco. And that on the last comprehensive plan that was originally considered to be something like healthc care or something something different. I think you're talking about Beachwood or Beachwood. Yes. Yes. And and the original comp plan for that was totally different but things around or educational I think it was supposed to be right because of the educational

the circum the the circumstances changed uh the was it devy that was there pulled out or and and suddenly it wasn't what we thought was going to be an educational hub suddenly was not it. And so what we've looked at for that has not been what the comprehensive plan recommended 10 years ago because things change. And I think the fact that it is still that that's and and thank you for pointing out this is much more than just those that bit of acreage. It's about all of Avon and everything that we're planning for Avon, including our parks and our our work live area and everything else. Um, when this becomes when this property is developed, and I have no doubt that especially with the school being there and utilities going in, it will be developed, then we will address the reasonzoning there at that time. And um for whatever reason, the town council has decided they want that to remain agricultural. And that's not going to stop that property from being developed. As far as it as far as the future land use masses,

it will though because the council has to approve that resoning, right? Council would have to approve that resoning.

So I'm sure when the council says, "Oh, we don't want to reszone this because our comprehensive map says it's supposed to be agricultural." they'll use that. So, if if this map is not that big a deal, why did it just go through as it was? Because you're not changing the they're not reszoning that property. You're just approving the comprehensive plan. I think this is a I do do not agree with this comprehensive plan uh modification at all. And I think it's it I think it's crazy that it's coming back for us. If if it's so inconsequential for this map, why is it coming back to us? So one one of the things that you know Dan brought up it's a big plan and this amendment is a very focused amendment and I I don't disagree with what you're saying Andrew is like our job is planning.

We make a recommendation to the council. The council is responsible for the vision and execution of the town. So where our job is just to pass them a recommendation and we're planning and we should be doing our job of planning 10 20 30 years out for what we're looking for the development Avon because if you've heard me over time I'm sitting there going all Washington Township should be Avon you got an Avon address why wouldn't you want to be part of the town of Avon that's the planning part execution's up to the town council members so I'm I'm having a hard time with this amendment als also recommendation of very small area, very small part of the overall plan that we spent better part of a year on putting together and a lot of discussion around land use and getting it beat into our heads me um on it's not zoning, it's land use, it's a forecast what we're looking to do.

Bill Dave, do you have any thoughts? I I do like that the the verbiage behind it says that once water and sewer there that it should be consider considered for residential. So there's a piece of verbage that says that should be considered and I do agree when you're looking at the whole plan this is a very small small piece but Bill I just kind of see this as a placeholder situation that's kind of been brought up this evening that uh you know such time when someone is interested in the area it's going to be subject to reszone. So um there's going to be another step in there regardless. So and again the verbiage is is key and I think that verbiage is pretty solid. So

as stated Jennifer I agree. I like the message being in there. I think that's future. Greg, any thoughts?

Well, I I agree. I mean, I don't like the rational being just on one piece of it, but then I have to go back and look at the whole the whole presentation. We have 160ome pages here of documentation and we're focused on one piece of it. That piece as the old comp plan is in place today is agricultural. We've had many pieces of land out there that are zoned agricultural that have to come to us and get reszoned and they put commercial on it, they put residential on it, they've put industrial on it. So that's a process that's in place. So, I think, and I like the staff's comment on the language. I don't disagree. The utilities are out there, but they're going to have to find a buyer, which they probably have, and they're going to have to come back and it's going to have to get reszoned, no matter if it's the old plan or the new plan. So, I'm fine to leave it as agricultural because I'm looking at the whole comp plan, not just one specific component of it.

I think that's a good point, too. I I don't know what the it' be interesting to go back and look at zonings resonings that we've approved and I can recall several where we talked about well comprehensive plan doesn't say this but surrounding surrounding this area or these businesses decisions were made based on that as well. So I think we've had other instances consider those other Any further discussion or thoughts? Yeah,

sorry to keep asking about this. So, I'm looking for the language. Is is there really a language change other than residential to agriculture because I'm reading this as comments, not as the language. So the change would be a change to the future land use map. The area outlined in white on the staff report would be changed to agriculture. Okay. So there's really no there'll be no detail in there around when utilities are brought to that. That's already in there. That's been in there. Okay. And I'm I'm trusting you because my memory is as of yesterday. Um

did you sleep since then? No. But a motion can be as simple as to accept the amendment from the town council or to reject it. That's really the motion. That's your That's your job. That's those are the words the statute uses to accept the amendment proposed by the town council or to reject it. You don't have to be much more elaborate. Would you agree, Linda? I think they can. Um I do have one last question because we do need to move on. um how much weight does the comprehensive plan play in terms of or should play let's say five years from now someone comes forward and wants to develop that as some kind of a um mid density or low density residential which is in a in an area that is both zoned and on the comprehensive plan as agriculture. How much weight would that or should that carry with the plan?

Well, remember the there are five factors that you are supposed to consider in the town council on a reszone. None of them are more important than any of the other factors. Your job and the town council's job is to deal with the totality of the circumstances using those five factors. But there's no one that's more important. There's no law that says the older a comprehensive plan gets, the less weight it carries. But I think as a practical matter in this room over 20 years, we've heard things like that. The other thing I would say is we really should replace this comprehensive plan in about five years anyway because the changes that you've heard about tonight and Mr. Kcarnney makes a good point. as change occurs. Um, and I remember when all when almost all this town was agricultural and David's right, there have been a lot of reszones and all kinds of things uh because the town has changed a lot. But so I think I think the best way to think about it is that we're not supposed to give special weight to any of the five factors. It's just part of the consideration and then both you and the town council are supposed to use your discretion in making reszone decisions to do what is right. And the law does give wide discretion. It's one of the few things the law gives wide discretion on. And the law says it's a legislative decision. It is not a zoning decision. It's a legislative decision in terms of

and this is a legislative body. That's what I was going to say just like adopting a comprehensive plan is a legislative decision so is the zoning ordinance and so are reszones and PUDs. So broad discretion do what's right consider the the statutory factors giving no one factor more weight than the other. Okay. Any more discussion?

Yeah, I got to ask a question now because of what um Mr. Taylor said. So going back to Lind. So, it seems like there's three prongs to this. The planning staff, if you're brand new to a town, you depend on that comp plan to help with when you look at cases. I'm assuming I I know you do because when we get your staff reports, you reference the comp plan. So, if you're brand new to the town, um, and we've had several planning directors since I've been on the commission, you got to rely on the the comp plan to help with what was intended there. Would you agree to that? as as a planning director new to the town, I would wait I would heavily rely on a comprehensive plan.

Okay. And and that's depending on its age

and and then our job is as a plan commission pass on recommendations to town council be to look at your staff report all the weigh all the criterion um and at any evaluation. And I know if we would disagree with the recommendation, we would state the why we would disagree with that. Mr. Taylor would make sure we do that to get that on record so that the council would have full information to execute the plan that the council would see of whether to take our recommendation or to reject our recommendation. So, I'm going back to our job is planning to make that recommendation and then the council has the the option. Um, and that's their job is is that the right vision and for the outcome or what we want for the town and our recommendation. So, I'm just that's why I'm like the comp plan is is important because the planning staff relies on that.

But again, we don't just rely on the future land use map. We re rely almost more heavily on the text of the document and what it says. Yeah, I will agree. Um my last comment on this is everybody knows this is going to be raised um is not going to be maintained agricultural. We know it's all going to go residential. All the utilities are going out there. Everybody on this commission knows that this is going to go residential, but for some reason we can't we can't say that. And I think that's inappropriate. So that's my final comment. Anybody else have anything to say or add? Staff, anybody? Okay. Um, then we would um take a motion on this. I move that we reject the town council's revision to CP 20 CPA 25501 plan Avon uh an amendment to the town council comprehensive plan since it would not satisfactory meet the town's objectives accommodate new growth and adapt the new circumstances while promoting the public health safety morals and convenience order and general welfare of the town.

Second. Having had a motion and a second we'll now take a vote. A reminder, this is a motion to reject the proposed amendment uh asked for by the town. Rockabbrand four. Spencer four. Reed against Kaufman against Ransburg.

Against. Genberger for Zusen against.

Okay. The motion to reject the amendment has been defeated. Four to three. Do we now entertain a second motion? A second motion. We need to have a motion on the approval of the recommended changes. Having no motion, um I guess this goes forward to the town with no recommendation. Would that be correct?

Not an option. Not an option. If you're rejected or accepted, if you don't take any actions within 60 days of the certification, then it's then the amendment is accepted by default. Is if you take no action amendment is going to be accepted. Anybody?

Okay. Um, before we move on, yeah, I'm going to I would look to my fellow commission members that rejected the rejection. Make an amendment or make a motion to approve it, please. I mean, that seems to be the position. So, let's let's move forward with the business. Make a motion. I move that we approve the town council's revision to CPA 251 plan Amendment to the town's comprehensive plan since it would satisfy the town's objectives accommodate new growth and adapt new circumstances while promoting the public health safety morals convenience order and general welfare of the town.

I'll second. Having had a motion in a second, we'll now take a vote. This is a vote to approve the amended requested by the town. The amendment requested by the town to the comprehensive plan. Kaufman Reed four. Spencer against. Rockabbrand against. Zusen four. Genenberger against. Ransburg four. Motion carries. The amendment to the Avon comprehensive plan is now being forwarded to the town for approval.

Yes. I just wanted to say thank you guys for working with us um on this comprehensive plan. I really have enjoyed the steering committee and just listening to the plan commission discussion. You guys are really thoughtful and mindful about your community and you don't see that quite at that level everywhere that I've worked. So, nice job you guys and keep up the good work. Can we hire her, please? Okay, moving on. We now move on to new business. Chase Bank, Avon Avenue, DPR 2516.

Thank you, President Ransberg, members of the commission. DPR216 for Chase Bank on Avon Avenue is a request for a development plan review to allow for redevelopment of that site, which would consist of demolition of the existing improvements and construction of a new bank building with uh two drive-through ATM lanes, surface parking, and related improvements. Um the property consists of three platted lots um that were platted back in the 1970s. Um there's two of them are addressed along US 36. Um and one is addressed along Galon Galen Drive to the south. Interestingly, the bank actually has a mailing address of 29 South Avon Avenue.

It's the southeast corner of 36 and Avon. Um, you can see it on the map here. 36 running east and west, Avon Avenue running north and south. It's these three lots at the southeast corner. It's zone C2. It is in um mostly tier one, a little bit of the south end of the property and tier two of the US 36 zoning overlay. This is facing south from US 36 at the existing bank. That's facing east from Avon Avenue. That's facing north um back towards kind of the back of the building. You can see the the drive-thru that exists with I believe there's six actual lanes or is it five? Um most of them under a canopy there. And then this is looking south from the property. There's a, you know, south parking lot on that southern parcel that's part of the bank property and that's looking south towards Galen Drive with Avon Avenue to the right. Um, I mentioned it's in it's zone C2 and in the 36 overlay. It was platted back in the 70s. The existing bank was constructed in 1979 and the board of zoning appeals last month approved a special exception for the drive-through lanes that would be proposed with the new bank building. Along with the development plan review request is one waiver request. It's a waiver of actually it's a development standard. That's my mistake, not a design standard, but uh it' be a waiver of development standards of chapter six of the UDO. the lighting section to provide for an average parking lot lighting level that exceeds the maximum level allowed. I'll talk about that in just a minute. Just kind of running you through the background here. This is the proposed

site plan. So again, US 36 would be here to the north, Avon Avenue to the south, or I'm sorry, Avon Avenue to the west, Gayen Drive to the south. Um, and you can see here's the proposed building, which is in a similar location to the existing building, be a little bit farther south, so you can have parking in front of the building here, which the current bank doesn't have. And then there would be two drive up lanes that um are both proposed just for ATMs. Um, one certainly one positive aspect um of the redevelopment would be the existing curb cut right here. that's too close to the intersection, doesn't meet standards for separation from this intersection would go away. Property would still be accessed uh have access from US 36 with a shared driveway with uh the oil change facility to the east and then they'd also keep this access point on Galen Drive to the south. This is a look at the landscape plan. I'm going to touch on uh one issue with landscaping in a moment. Here's the proposed building elevations. This is the north elevation facing US 36, the south elevation, and then the west elevation facing Avon Avenue, and then the more of the backside facing the uh the drive-throughs. Um I will point out there was an additional waiver that was requested initially which would have been a waiver of design standards related to the architectural standards um that require uh 30 or 35 I think 35% glazing along the front facade. So that's basically clear glass. Well, it doesn't have to be clear actually, but um but they they have added these windows which actually

would be spandro glass. So, you can't necessarily see through that, but from a distance, it gives appear an appearance of windows, which um improves the the appearance of the facade. So, by adding that, they were able to withdraw the waiver request for not meeting the required amount of glazing on the front of the building. This is the north half of the phototric plan, which is where they show us how much the property is going to be lit up. So, this is a little complicated. Obviously, not going to go into every number on here, but each of these numbers that you see throughout here, and so this is the edge of the parking lot. And so, the waiver request relates to just the paved areas. So all of these numbers in here represent amount of foot candles of light at a particular point along the pavement. And so what the ordinance allows is a maximum average parking lot lighting level of 1.6 foot candles. The reason that we regulate the maximum amount of lighting is I'd say for a couple reasons. one to prevent um glare and light spillage onto other properties or onto the right ofway. That's not an issue in this case because we also have a standard for the amount of light that can spill across a property line. They're meeting the ordinance as far as that goes. Um, the other reasons we we regulate the maximum level of lighting that you can have on a parking lot is to prevent light pollution into the sky so that we can maintain some semblance of dark skies so that people can enjoy looking at the sky and look seeing stars at night and not seeing um or not being unable to see um the night sky. The other reason is to prevent u stark

contrast between um one property and adjacent property or the roadway so that if you look at a property and it's overlit and it's too bright and then you look back at the road it's harder to adjust to the lower light level. Um so those are kind of the reasons why we typically regulate maximum parking lot lighting level. And so if you just I know it's kind of hard to probably read these numbers, but um the petitioner is going to I mean I'm I don't want to speak for the petitioner, but based on the conversations we've had and what they've submitted with their proposed findings, um they've indicated that they believe the reason that they need uh a waiver is that the areas around the ATMs and by the front door where there's apparently also going to be a walk up 24-hour ATM is to provide additional security there. Um they initially started out at a proposed lighting level of I believe it was 2.4 2.3 somewhere in there. They brought it down a little bit. They've they've actually submitted two revised plans. I believe their most recent plan this one. Actually I can skip ahead and show. Yeah. 2.01 is what they're now proposing. So it's about 25% above the 1.6 standard. Um, but I'm going to go through the findings, but oh well, I think I should do that and then we can come back to take a look at those plans. Um, everything around this is retail. The comprehensive plan land use map recommends neighborhood retail for this parcel and all sides of the US 36 Avon Avenue intersection. the as far as the development plan review goes, the plans meet all elements of the UDO except for the waiver, which of course we're going to keep talking about. And then there's one issue with the landscape plan that it doesn't clear to uh appear to clearly demonstrate

compliance with the required amount of interior parking lot landscaping. A waiver has not been requested for that. That item was pointed out at the technical advisory committee meeting. the response that came back still didn't clearly demonstrate to us that they were meeting that standard. So, we would suggest that any approval um tonight be conditioned on submission of a revised landscape plan and we think that's u reasonable for you to go forward with that being addressed with a a revised plan submitted later for staff to review. So, in regards to the waiver, you have five findings that you need to believe are met in order to grant a waiver. The first being that it's not detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare. The petitioner indicated that it's due to additional security lighting um that's fully contained within the property. However, as I mentioned, one of the reasons we have maximum lighting level is to preserve dark skies as well as to avoid harsh contrast and lighting levels between uh adjacent sites and and along with um between sites and public rights away. The second finding is that be the proposal is harmonious with the purpose and intent of the zoning district in which it's located. The petitioner indicates that this site complies with the maximum foot candle average allowance. um as well as spillage across property lines. We would agree, as I already mentioned, that it doesn't violate the amount of light spillage over the property line. We don't have a standard for what the overall site lighting can be just for the the parking lot area. Um, but we believe that even exclusive of the the areas that they're trying to light up by the ATMs, we think that what they're proposing in the parking lot is excessive and could be modified to meet the standard.

The third required finding that enhances the overall development plan abuing streetscapes and neighborhoods and surrounding area. Again, petitioner cites the lighting of the after hours ATM areas for safety. Um, I'm sorry I have that duplicated on there. Um, again, we don't have an issue with additional lighting at the ATM areas. We just think that the lighting in the rest of the parking lot could be reduced to meet our standard. Um, the fourth finding being that it doesn't produce a site design that's impractical or detracts from the appearance of the proposed development. um kind of similar responses u from both the petitioner and staff. Oops. And finally, the fifth finding that you're required to find is met is that the proposal provides improved site design characteristics such as increased pedestrian connections, enhanced landscaping, tree preservation, or public art. Again, the petitioner site safety um we just disagree that the need for the waiver is due to the additional level of lighting provided at the ATMs. We believe that the number and intensity of fixtures could be adjusted. So that might mean I'm not sure how many um light fixtures they have proposed, but if they have 10, maybe they have one less or maybe they have more but they turn down the intensity so that they can get a better um coverage of every area without it being excessive. Just going back to these plans and again I don't want to go into too much on here unless there are questions but when you look at these plans and staff did analyze this and look at all of these numbers through all of the paved areas here. So this parking lot parking area in front of the building drive aisle wrapping around to parking lot on the west side of the building and then this parking lot. So, you pick up here and

continue down to this extra parking lot to the south. And remembering that our maximum average is 1.6. Um, you see most of these numbers appear to exceed 1.6. There's some areas over here where it's, you know, below one, but you have extensive areas over here that are lit up well over two, sometimes over three. And you have that same condition on the front, not just here where the 24-hour ATM entrance would be, but around the west here, you have plenty of areas that are lit up well over two foot candles. Um, so in our analysis, we found that even not counting the areas right in front of the north entrance or where the drive up ATMs are, they still would exceed the maximum parking lot lighting level of 1.6. So for all those reasons, we do recommend denial of the waiver request. Um we would recommend approval of the development plan review subject to the five conditions here and were that were outlined in your staff report. Um, number one is the submission of a revised landscape plan as mentioned earlier to make sure that they comply with the interior parking lot landscaping requirements. Number two would be necessary if you deny the waiver. If you were to approve the waiver, then we wouldn't need number two because number two would require submission of a revised lighting plan to comply with the ordinance. And then three, four, and five are the standard conditions that you typically see. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions the commission may have. So, if I'm hearing you correctly, there's if we're if we're parsing out the different areas of the

plan, there's no objection to having extra light for security at the ATMs, at the entrance, that sort of thing. The objection appears to be for instance that south parking lot. This is a business that would only be open till I believe five o'clock. Is that correct? Five or six o'clock the building would be. So the objection would be to have that there's too much lighting on areas like the southern parking lot. That is not necessary. Would that be correct?

Correct. It's not that we object to them lighting the other areas of the lot. It's just that those many of those areas exceed the maximum average. And again, it's intended to be an average because you're not going to have, you know, the same lighting throughout. That would be impossible to do. Um, but yeah, we do believe that there are so many areas of the lot that aren't near the ATMs that exceed the average that if they brought those areas down, they could bring the overall average down and comply with the ordinance. Just out of curiosity, if this was a restaurant or a a a retail shop that was open till 9:00, would the would the standard be different if that business So, it's the same whether this is a business that closes at 5 or closes at 9.

Correct. Yeah. That that it has no bearing on how late they're open or how early they close. Okay. the lighting standard is meant to provide adequate lighting for a site that's in use. Okay. Um questions for staff. Okay. Petitioner can come forward.

Please state your name and address. Yeah, my name is Chad Maize. I'm with Kimley Horn Associates located at 500 East 96 Street, Sweet 300 in Indianapolis, Indiana. I'm here with Ken Kander with Chase Amy Ferguson with uh the uh the architect's partnership. She's the architect for the project and my colleague Colin Nikowski to request Thank you. Is it There it goes. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. to request approval for the development plan and minor plat which is a a separate item on the agenda but trying to save some time for for everyone and not go through a slideshow twice that I think Paul and Linda are very thorough and that he did a great job of explaining the project southeast corner of Avon Avenue and US 36 um little valine to the east there to better establish yourself.

Yes. And as as noted, it is a proposed bank on 1.17 acres uh currently zone C2 in the tier 1 US 36 overlay um with 33 spaces. Here's the the site plan that Paul went over thorough. Um, Avon Avenue is on the west side, 36 is on the the north and Gallian is on the south. You can see parking on the north side. East is the ATM and then the west is also parking as as well as the south with the refuge areas down there at the the trash area down at the south. Um, the plat will take the three lots and put them into one. uh that'll be part of the secondary plot that'll get recorded. But this is the overall uh primary plot that you're looking at here on this screen. Here is the uh zoomed in version of the north elevation with the material shown. This will be the the main entrance facing US 36. And this will be the east side, the side that faces the valvalene where the ATMs will be. And then the west um west side facing Avon Avenue. And here is the south elevation which I would consider back of house where utilities will come into the building. And then this is the list of uh materials showing compliance with with the ordinance. And then this is the the phototric plan. Just wanted to point out again that Paul hit on pretty well there is um we're exceeding basically a good majority of

it but mainly probably because of the ATM being overlit. Um we did we we were discussing and we're working with our phototric designer. Our intent is to to meet the ordinance. So I I don't believe that the waiver will be necessary anymore. And then this is excerpt from the staff report for the development plan. Um, essentially what Paul had mentioned there is they're recommending approval with the the following conditions. Our our intent as well is to provide a revised landscape plan to to meet the the ordinance. So we're we're still in the works of that. And here is the recommendation for the staff report for um the minor plat like to thank Paul and Linda. You guys helped us um through answering questions and providing guidance. Appreciate that. So if you guys have any questions or anyone else does, we'll do our best to answer them.

Thank you. Is there anybody who would like to step forward uh to speak against this um petition? Okay. I'm assuming there's no need for remmonstration or for rebuttal rather. I thought you had mentioned pardon. Didn't you mention at the beginning of the meeting there signed up case? Uh they signed up uh in support Ken Collander and Amy Ferguson. Okay.

Would those persons like to come and step up and speak in support of this petition? Uh Amy Ferguson, the Architects Partnership, 680 North Lakeshore Drive, Chicago, Illinois. Uh I wholeheartedly support this. Um we are we are actively working with our photometrics expert to bring down the lighting levels to comply. Um in general, it's Chase's stance to have a minimum foot candle level of two foot candles. So, this is a little lower than what they feel is is safe, but we've worked with their security personnel that manages this area and gotten their permission to bring the light levels down so that we can be in compliance with the ordinance.

Okay. Anybody else who'd like to speak in support?

Hi, my name is Ken Kander. I'm with Chase Bank at 10 South Airborne Chicago, which I think you have. Um, we look forward to hopefully tearing this building down and giving you something a little bit newer than something that was built in 1979, so 46 years ago. It's time we bank differently. If you remember back then, how were people paid? Paper check on a Friday. They went to the banks, went through the drive-in drive-thru, excuse me, waited in line, cashed your check, move on. So, over the last 46 years, we don't do that anymore. We're using ATMs. We're using ATMs less. So, in another 46 years, who knows how we're going to be banking, but we're evolving. We're all evolving. So, it's time that we change. And uh hopefully we can get this going with your approval tonight. So, thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else who'd like to speak for or against this position? Okay. Public hearing section is closed on this um discussion. Actually, I do have a question for the petitioner. Um and perhaps you would be the one to answer this. So, I I see that it's just ATM lines. I can tell you I go through the drive-thru and make deposits just in my business at least once a week, but it's the nature of my business. So, um, it's but you're just saying that banking is changing, which no longer requires the No, you

putting the stuff in the tube and setting it forward. Matter of fact, I just asked for deposit slips today. So, that's correct. And if you think about it, um, you can take use your c your phone to take deposit checks. So, this new location is a what we deem a financial center. There's not going to be a demand or drive up window. So, it's just those two ATMs. If you want to deposit something or do a withdraw inside the branch, if you can't do it at the machine, you can probably do it at the ATMs, but if you want to go inside, you you can still do that. There will be teller windows inside.

Okay. discussion. Well, I think it was helpful to hear what Chase's recommendation for parking. That's why the design came in so hot that you recommend two and so our ordinance is different. I I'm glad to hear that we're working working together to figure that out. Um but that get does give perspective of why this is different than which I guess raises. Are you withdrawing the request for the waiver? Yes. Okay. So, we do not need to vote on the waiver. that's being withdrawn. Okay. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. I like the conversation.

I do like the update. I think it's a good good design. I think it's a much uh and I'm glad that it is adapting to what banking is, but still keeping a presence in the community because that that's helpful, too. Yes.

Any other comments, questions? memes. Okay. In that case, we'll entertain a motion. We are not they have withdrawn the request for the waiver. So, we go straight to the development plan review. Correct, Mr. Taylor? Okay. So, would anybody like to make a motion on this? I move that we approve DPR25-16 Chase Bank Avon Avenue development plan review to provide for a 35 3552 square foot bank building drive-thru ATM lanes surface parking and related improvements subject to the conditions listed in the staff report since it has satisfied all the requirements for a development plan review under state law and subject to the approved findings effect. You have a second. I'll

second. Having heard a motion and a second, we'll now take a vote. Reed for Kaufman. Ransburg, four. Guggenberger for Zusen four. Rockabbrand four. Spencer four.

Motion carries unanimously and DPR 2516 is approved. And we now move on to related matter MIP2503. Thank you again. MIP2503 is a minor plat uh requesting preliminary approval of minor subdivision plat combining three existing lots totaling a little over an acre into one lot. This is the property we just talked about and the petitioner um touched on a little bit in their presentation. Um so I can skip over a lot of the details here. This is the existing plat from back in the 70s from a couple decades before Avon was incorporated. The property in question is lots 11 through 13 here on this plat. Um the town's UDO requires that these lots be consolidated one plot uh into one lot in order to build um in order to get a permit to build a new building because we don't allow buildings to generally be built across uh platted lot lines. So that's what necessitated this request. This is the proposed plaids. A little bit difficult to see, but again it's the same property. It's just going to be taken from lots 11 through 13 in the Evong Square section one turned into this one lot subdivision. No waiverss have been requested. The preliminary cloud appears to meet the requirements of the UDO. So for those reasons, we have recommended approval subject to the three conditions that were in the staff

report. Those are standard conditions that you see uh in pretty much any plat that comes before you. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you have on this questions for staff. Questions for staff? No. Okay. Petitioner can come forward again.

Yep. Chad Mays Kimley Horn Associates, 500 East 96 Street, Sweet 300. Um, as as Paul mentioned, we're here to request the approval for the minor plat um that was previously presented upon. So, if you have any questions, just please let me know. Okay. Is there anybody who would like to remmonstrate against this this uh petition? Anybody who would like to speak in support of this petition? Okay. public hearing portion of this se of this agenda item is closed. Discussion. I approve. I mean I mean it makes sense.

It seems pretty clearcut if if the ordinances require the combination of the three plats to be able to build the building that's already sitting there. It it makes sense to get everything, you know, clean up the paperwork. Yeah. Does that meet our requirement for discussion, Mr. Taylor? You okay. Okay. Do we have a motion?

Sure. I'll move that we approve MIP 253 replat of lots 11 through13 and Avon Square section one request to consolidate three lots totaling 1.17 acres into one lot 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 vote. Gooenberger, four. Zusen, four. Rockabbrand, four. Spencer, four. Reed, four. Kaufman, Ransburg, four.

Motion carries. MIP 253 is approved. And we now move on to our last agenda item, which is DPR 2517 Gibbs Park. Okay. Gibbs Park Welcome Center and Administrative Building. Uh this is on the southwest corner of Avon. Um the parcel is approximately a 20 acre piece of land. Um, it's currently improved with a converted dwelling that the park Hendrickx County Parks is using for administrative offices. And it has some accessory agricultural structures and a silo on it. Again, it's 20 acres, but it's part of an overall 160 acres that's owned by Hendrickx County Parks. Current zoning is agriculture. It's a request to provide for the construction of roughly 7500 square foot park welcome center and administrative office building surface parking related improvements with no waiverss requested. This is the southwest corner of town. This whole area here is the the park and then the area outlined in green is the portion we're we're talking about here. This isn't the best layout, but I put in this so you can see how the drive will connect to their existing drive within the park. There's not going to be a new curb cut onto the the main thoroughare. This is a

a somewhat blown up um picture of the site plan showing the proposed building, parking, um sidewalks, potential future parking, area for buses to park, that sort of thing. Uh the surrounding lands uses are agriculture and residential park uses are considered appropriate adjacent to residential uses. The comprehensive plan on the now former land uh comprehensive plan recommend agricultural uses for the site. The new plan also recommends and has always recommended agricultural uses for the site. The request was reviewed to determine compliance with the items you see there on the screen and they were all determined to be compliant including the architectural requirements. Um, this is the first building I've reviewed that has met architectural standards on the first review. So, it was it was quite a surprise to find that. So, uh,

do you give them a gold star? So, and and I think it's a very attractive building. So, I we're excited to see it. And, uh, we are recommending approval subject to our standard conditions. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. So I do have a a question. You said that this is currently zoned agricultural. Correct. Even though it's part of the park. Correct. Parks are permitted use in the agricultural district.

Okay. So putting so that Okay, never mind. I'm overthinking. Questions for staff. No. Okay. Have the petitioner come forward. Congratulations on your gold star. Thank you very much.

So, good evening. I am Ryan Lelay. I'm the superintendent of Hendrickx County Parks. Our address is 8841 Gibbs Road, Danville, Indiana 4622. 46122. It does have a Danville address. Is kind of bizarre if you ask that right off the bat. the postmaster assigned that. So, there's some confusion, but um want to repeat a lot of the things Linda said, so I will be brief, but uh the park board acquired this 140 acres in 2009. Uh the park was opened July 21st of 2021. Uh we originally had 140 acres. We acquired the remaining 20 acres last fall from the Gibbs family, and that is the site we're proposing to build this building. We are a nature themed uh park uh department as many counts are through the state of Indiana. Uh right now we have about 120,000 visitors to this park. I expect that to skyrocket. Uh the the facility itself um what am I doing wrong here? There we go. Site plan uh is this. So it's aesthetically pleasing. uh kind of continues our theme. Uh it will come in on the main roadway uh in the park as Linda said. Uh the facility is about 7,600 square ft. Um same elevations here. And then um the facility will have uh offices for administrative staff, naturalist staff. Um and then we will have a reservable exhibition hall which will be 1,500 square feet. There is the entrance leading to the exhibition hall. It will be a reservable facility. Uh I would like to propose to our park board that that is a reduced fee for Hendrickx County citizens. Outside of Hendrickx County will have to pay a little bit more and that'll occupy about 99 to 100

people in the exhibition hall. That will lead out the back of the facility and we will also have a classroom that can occupy around 30 folks. So that's where we will host our park board meetings at and that will also be available to the citizens of our county on a reservable fee. So uh if this ultimately gets approved, uh it's going to enhance the community quality of life. Obviously this area is growing tremendously. Um and then we would like to uh we will be starting the bid process soon. This project we would like to break ground next spring and hopefully be done next fall or winter. So with that, I don't know if there's any questions for me. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Is there anybody who would like to speak in support of this propo if there's a petition? If there's there anybody who would like to speak to remmonstrate against this petition, I'm assuming we need no rebuttal. So, okay. Public comment portion of this agenda item is closed. Discussion

seems to be very straightforward. Staff did a good job in covering it their report and describing it. Um it's nice that we have a submission that doesn't require any waiverss or doesn't even sound like there's a lot of long tedious discussions with petitioners. So appreciate the work between all parties there. So I think you know definitely deserves our support. I like the idea of there being another facility for public community um that the public can use. So that's that's nice and that's a nice park. Gibbs Park is a nice park. Any further discussion or questions?

You had a question about in discussion about So what comes to my mind is we got a a rural agricultural area that now has a huge parking lot in it. Have is there discussion about light? I know I assume it meets ordinance, but are there other controls you can put in place to reduce light pollution in a generally residential or general agricultural area or what is the lighting of that area even the park during in the evening? I'm I've not been out there at night. Is this going to be like a bright shining beacon on the corner of this property? Um well I did review the plan for lighting compliance and it does have it it has almost zero foot candles at the property boundary. So okay

spillage off the property is not an issue. The the light itself around the building meets the standard of the ordinance. So you will be able to see it. It's still going to be lit up but it's it does comply with and we have a higher standard if you're adjacent to residential than if you're adjacent to commercial. and they do meet that. Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion, comments?

In that case, we'll entertain a motion. I move that we approve DPR25-17 Gibbs Park Welcome Center, a development plan review to provide for a 7559 square foot welcome center and administrative building with surface parking and related improvements subject to the conditions in the staff report since it has satisfied all the requirements for development plan review under state law and subject to the approved findings of effect. I'll second. Having had a motion and a second, we'll now take a vote. Reed, four, Spencer, four. Rockabbrand, four. Ransburg, four. Kaufman, Genenberger,

four, Zusen, four. Motion carries unanimously. DPR 2517 is approved. Is there any other business? Committee reports

redevelopment uh met just last Monday. Uh in addition to our uh invoice approvals, we had Greg Geratas in to discuss uh the TIFF districts with his annual reports and also uh utility relocation agreement for Dan Jones phase 3 with AT&T and also resolution 2025-06 authorizing the acquisition rightway for County Road 525 East. Okay. BGA I was not there. So I'll look for help from my friends here because it was before yesterday or after. Yeah. So

you slept cases. Yeah. There was one case on the BCA docket last week which was approved. It was a a variance to allow for an accessory building behind an existing duplex but that happened to be zoned commercial. So required a variance to do what normally would be allowed if it were zoned appropriately. Okay. Anything from the town council? Nothing to report. Okay. Is there anything else for the good of the order? In that case, we are adjourned.