Plan Commission (PC)

ZIONSVILLE PLAN COMMISSION MEETING RESULTS Monday December 16, 2019 The meeting of the Zionsville Plan Commission was scheduled for Monday December 16, 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the Zionsville Town Hall Council Chamber, 1100 West Oak Street, Zionsville, Indiana. The following items were scheduled for consideration: VI. New Business Docket Address Name Item to be Considered Number of Project Due to an indecisive vote the matter was continued to the Tuesday January 21, 2020 Plan Commission Meeting 3 in Favor HUB I-65 4255 S. 2 Recused 2019-52-Z Phase Two 300 East 0 Opposed Petition for Zone Map change to rezone approximately 81.369 acres from the (AG) Agricultural Zoning District to the Rural (I-1) Light Industry Zoning District Approved 650 5 in Favor Valley 0 Opposed 2019-51-RP E. Rensink Petition for RePlat to allow for the combining of Lots 3, 4, and 5 into View Drive one parcel; to allow for the vacation of an easement; to request a waiver from Section 193.053, in the Urban (R-V) Residential Zoning District  Received a Favorable Recommendation to the Town Council 5 in Favor 0 Opposed Petition for Ordinance Amendment related to Ordinance Sections: a) 192.011 discrepancy between mapped floodplain and actual ground elevations, b) 194.163 illuminated Ground Signs within 600’ of any R for lighting restrictions, c) 194.166 Subdivision Entrance “Feature”, d) 194.018 easement obstruction exceptions, e) 194.020 clarify buffer yards, f) 194.047 clarify side yards, Town of 1100 W. g) 194.078, 194.079 remove artifacting, 2019-39-OA Zionsville Oak Street h) 194.128 clarify relevant commitments are actionable regardless of recordation, i) 194.020, 194.082, 194.165 clarify code redirects, j) 194.128 refine applicability of commitments, k) 194.095 clarify aggregate rules, l) 194.109 adding landscape stone as acceptable alternative to mulch under certain conditions m) 194.164, 194.165 added projecting signage as a sign option in business and industrial districts. n) 195.01 is proposed to include an amendment to Fee Schedule Requirements related to (platting / subdivision fees as they relate to major and minor plats, and clarify code redirects). Respectfully Submitted: Wayne DeLong, AICP, CPM Director of Planning and Economic Development December 18, 2019 Zionsville Plan Commission December 16, 2019 In attendance: David Franz, Sharon Walker, Josh Fedor, George Lewis, Jeff Papa. Absent are Larry Jones, Mary Grabianowski. Staff attending: Dan Taylor, attorney, and Wayne DeLong. A quorum is present. Franz All right. I’ll call to order the Zionsville Plan Commission meeting of Monday, December 16, 2019. Please start with the pledge of allegiance. All Pledge of Allegiance. Franz Will the secretary please call roll? DeLong Yes. Mr. Franz? Franz Present. DeLong Ms. Grabianowski? DeLong Mr. Jones? DeLong Ms. Walker? Walker Present. DeLong Mr. Papa? Papa Present. DeLong Mr. Fedor? Fedor Present DeLong Mr. Lewis? Lewis Present. Franz We have five members in attendance. We have a quorum. Any matter that is voted on tonight needs four yays or nays to be approved or denied. In your packet there was a set of minutes from the November meeting, or October meeting. Sorry. Excuse me, as the November meeting was cancelled. Does anybody have any comments, changes to those minutes? If there are none, is there a motion to approve the minutes? Walker So moved. Franz Is there a second? Fedor Second. Page 1 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission December 16, 2019 Franz All in favor signify by aye. All Aye. Franz Opposed by nay? [No response.} Franz Motion carries 5-0. Also, in your packet was a set of dates for the coming 2020 year. I think, Wayne, these are pretty consistent where they have been set up in the past several years. DeLong Yes. Consistent with previous years. Franz All right. Does anybody have any comments on this? If not, is there a motion to approve these dates? Fedor So moved. Franz Is there a second? Lewis Second. Franz All in favor, signify by aye. All Aye. Franz Opposed by nay. [No response.] Franz Motion carries. There are no continuance requests, so we’ll move on to new business. Docket # 2019-52-Z, Hub I-65 phase 2, 4255 South 300 East. Petition for zone map change to rezone approximately 81.369 acres from the AG agricultural zoning to the rural I1 light industrial zoning district. Is the petitioner present? Andreoli Thank you, Mr. President. Franz Mr. Andreoli, hold on for a second please. Fedor I need to recuse myself from Docket # 2019-52-Z. Franz Okay. You can continue now. Andreoli For the record, my name is Mike Andreoli. I represent Gerald and Jeanette Padgett. They are the actual owners of this particular property who optioned it. Walker Michael, I realize procedure. I need to recuse myself from the vote, too. Page 2 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission December 16, 2019 Franz All right. But we did open the meeting, open the hearing, so we’ll continue. Andreoli And, so you’re aware, my discussions with Mr. Price will discuss the substance of the petition with you here tonight. My comments are going to be very brief on behalf of the landowner. We understood that there had been a request for a continuance of the hearing tonight given the fact this is a rezoning and we knew that the matter could not be tabled automatically, you’d have to open the meeting, and so we could move forward, but Mr. Price I’m sure will deal with that in more detail, but I did want to alert the Board itself that our understanding was there has been a request for a continuance in some form, and please question Mr. Price about that if you haven’t received a formal request, because I know he has been in discussions with some of the landowners and perhaps even their counsel with regard to that. As I mentioned, I represent the Padgetts. My comments here are going to be very brief. Mr. Price, as I indicated, will discuss the substance of the petition, but there are several issues that we wanted to make sure that the Board understood. My clients are 84 years of age. They have been farming this property for 35 or 40 years, and have lived on the property itself. They can no longer farm. They are not at a sufficient age that would allow them to continue to do that. In fact, they’re moving, or have moved, from the farm to a residence that will accommodate their needs given their elder status now in Lebanon, and they no longer have children who will farm on a full-time basis. All their children have other professions and will not farm on a full-time basis. This is the last of all the properties that they own. So, we wanted to make sure that you were aware of this because in one of the petitions that we saw circulating, they were concerned because there was an indication in one of the petitions that somebody had made an offer or attempted to make an offer to my clients with regard to buying their ground for agricultural purposes. And, they want me to express to the Board that that is categorically false. Nobody has ever approached them in that regard. They have been approached by the current applicant. They did some due diligence, and we walked them through that particular process in terms of the contract, as well as what could this property essentially be use at if not agricultural, and in our opinion, and in our discussions with them, we thought it was ill-suited for a retail use given the proximity to the residential neighborhood, and given its size. It’s just off the interstate, well off the interstate. They just did not believe that that would be a suitable, you know, use for any kind of a retail use of the property. Multi-family, given the size of the property would be a very, very large multi-family development. We didn’t think that would particularly be a good use, given the fact that the applicant has received approval and now developing the property right next to it. We thought that would probably be the best use for this property, and they were also mindful of the fact that the applicant had worked with the neighbors with regard to the prior project and tried to make some commitments and those types of things, and they were hopeful that the applicant would do so with regard to this particular site. So, from that standpoint, they thought that, and still think that this was the right fit for what they were trying to do in terms of finally selling the last piece of property that they have in that particular area and no longer be owning any agricultural property in the future. As an aside, and very briefly, and I’m not, by making these comments, suggesting that you should not vet this. Your job is different than the Town Council’s job in many respects in terms of holding a public hearing and vetting this particular project, as with all projects. But, on a personal note, and I have looked at this particular project, and I’ve wondered just Page 3 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission December 16, 2019 in my mind, rhetorically, why did we spend so much money in legal fees to fight Whitestown with an annexation only to annex property that was going to be allowed to remain in agricultural use. To me, that didn’t make any sense whatsoever. That’s not a Plan Commission function. It’s a Town Council function. But, for me, it would seem to make some sense that if we’re going to spend that legal fees and fight that annexation and annex property, that we ought to help our tax base with it, and not allow it to remain an agricultural acreage, which really does not help Zionsville’s tax base. Not to suggest you shouldn’t vet the project. Not to suggest that there aren’t requirements that you have to look at in order to make and use your good offices to make a recommendation to the Town Council, but to me, I just thought that if we’re going to spend that money and we’re going to do this annexation, we are going to have that property out there given the fact that we know Whitestown was trying to annex property, that we ought to use it appropriately, and make sure that it’s productive and actually help our tax base for a change. Thank you. Franz All right. Thank you. Price Good evening. For the record. My name is Matt Price. I am an attorney at Bingham, Greenebaum, Doll in Indianapolis with an address of 10 West Market Street in Indianapolis, Indiana. I am here tonight on behalf of the petitioner. Let me, since there has been a procedural moves this evening already, let me just kind of clarify where I think we are procedurally for tonight, then hopefully we can proceed, I think, along the lines that the President has set forth. We had met with certain neighbors maybe a couple weeks ago prior to, in anticipation of getting ready for this evening, and as part of that meeting had understood that Mr. Trescari was going to file a request for an automatic continuance. We had that discussion. I believe he did file such a document, or at least a document that I interpreted to be a request for an automatic continuance, which I believe was timely filed, and as a result of that, when I had additional discussions with certain property owners who are represented by counsel, I represented to them that I believe the matter would be continued on the basis of that automatic continuance request, and that we would follow a process that we’re not unaccustomed with where the hearing is opened to satisfy our statutory obligation to hold the hearing, but the matter would not be continued, or would be continued. Sorry. And, in fact, I represented that to counsel, who was unable to be here this evening. So, if I’m wrong about that, I apologize. It was not my intention to presume anything. Franz What happened, just to let you know, we’re going have the hearing, but there is only five of us here, and two of them are recused. So, it’s going to be automatically continued, so we’ll deal with it that way. Price Okay. Very good. Well, I appreciate that clarification. Let me just kind of, we provided some bound materials, and then I supplemented those materials with paperclipped set of items that are behind this map. I just thought I could start off by acquainting everyone to the parcel, and then kind of work through why we think this rezoning request make sense. The first map is, you kind of have to hold it sideways, but this is the jurisdictional map, and it shows that this property is, I describe it as at the confluence of a number of different jurisdictions, which we have found on the development team for the existing project has created a Page 4 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission December 16, 2019 number of challenges in developing the site, but it also influences some of the land use decisions in the vicinity. So, the subject property, if you see this tooth that kind of sticks out. That’s a project immediately south of our parcel that is zoned industrial, and that is Whitestown’s jurisdiction. The subject parcel is this blue area here, which is immediately east of County Road 300 and south of County Road 400, and if you go just immediately north, that’s Lebanon’s jurisdiction to the north. We understand from talking to their plan director that the comprehensive plan for the area north of 400 includes light industrial-type uses, and so, surrounding our property we have industrial to the south, industrial to the east, when you include the property rezoned last year, and then planned future industrial uses to the north in Lebanon’s jurisdiction. The aerial, there is a number of aerials that are floating around out there that are available on the internet and various places, and I kind of searched around for a few that I thought gave you the best illustration of kind of the land area. This is one where 65 North is to your right as you’re looking at the picture. So, 65 is running right along here. Our property is back in this vicinity, and you can see the large building, the big box structures, if you will, for the various logistics operations and then as you move further south and east you see some of the residential pattern that starts to take place as you move further south. That kind of gives you a lay of the land from a certain perspective, and then I took, with thanks the Cushman Wakefield, I took an aerial photograph of some of their marketing materials and augmented it myself in a few places, which is to show some additional aspects of the development pattern. But, labeled here as Van Trust, is what was rezoned last December, kind of completing the L, with 400 on the north and 300 on the west, is the additional acreage that we’re seeking to rezone here. This shows the Exeter development that is immediately south, and then also rezoned last year was this Becknell project down here, east of State Road 267. And, then it shows the other development pattern in the immediate vicinity. What we did with the last, what we call Phase 1, the initial rezoning from last year, was to propose a set of zoning commitments to be cognizant of the fact that the land use in the area does have some residential use, including a very attractive development that’s called Saratoga subdivision. And, so we were creative last winter, just about this time last winter, at coming up with a set of commitments that allowed for this industrial use to be compatible with an adjoining residential subdivision and those are, several of those are noted in your staff report, but I thought I would just highlight a few of the key ones myself. And, those are in the packet, as well. One was to limit the height of light poles to 20 feet. Use directionally downward directed lighting. Importantly, let me refer to my, to our concept plan. Importantly, we include very significant buffering for the project. So, this is the, this is actually north is this way to your left, this is County Road 400. This is the Saratoga subdivision I’m speaking about. And, to marry up with the buffer we have extending east/west along the south portion of that neighborhood, we’re seeking here to extend that same buffering for this project. It’s about a 75-foot wide buffer, 12-foot in height. Also includes a 6-foot privacy fence on top, and a very robust landscaping package. And, that was something that we developed with the neighbors last year to arrive at a design that effectively screened the proposed project from the Saratoga development and did so in an attractive way and at a substantial width and height. That would be incorporated into this project, as well, at those same dimensions. We’ve also agreed to limit the height of the buildings to 55 feet in height, which is the exact same as the commitment made for Phase 1. We’ve also agreed that the project would be developed in Page 5 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission December 16, 2019 substantial conformance with the site plan as presented, and that we would screen dumpsters from view, outdoor dumpsters from view. One other thing I would add, because it was kind of a unique negotiated item during Phase 1 that we’re also carrying over into Phase 2, is that we would limit the height of any signage on the east side of the building, as well, so that it would not be visible from the homes in the Saratoga subdivision. One of the other, and then, let me mention this, we also had a cross-section of the berm and distance from the building itself. From the edge of the building to the property line, we measure at 480, and then from the edge of the asphalt to the property line at 285. And, this also depicts our privacy fence, landscaping and our berming that we seek to carry over to this project, just as we did on the last. I feel like I absolutely need to mention this, because it was a key part of the Phase 1 project, which is that the developer, Van Trust, also agreed to extend water to serve the homes inside the Saratoga subdivision as a commitment made during that rezoning process, and actually Jeff Jacob was counsel for some of the homeowners in Saratoga. Not all, but some, in connection with negotiating and documenting that commitment. We continue to work with the Town of Whitestown to secure the permitting for installing that water line. And, in essence, it comes down to this issue, which is that Whitestown essentially doesn’t want an empty vessel. They want a water line that’s actually being used in order to permit it, and permit its installation, and so what they have been discussing with us is a threshold number of commitments that they need to connect to the water line in order to allow us to install it, and that number has fluctuated a little bit depending on the analysis that their engineers have gone through, but it’s somewhere around 17 to 20 connects that they need in order for us to go live. And, my colleague, Ross Nixon, is here from American Structurepoint, can talk more specifically about some of the reasons for that, but we’ve explored a variety of different avenues for perhaps reducing the number of potential connectors to allow that water line to go forward and be installed, and we’ve not been able to get that number below approximately 17 or so. As a result of that, late last week, my client authorized me to offer to the Saratoga residents a commitment to pay for their actual connection to the Whitestown, or to the water line, so that it would remove the cost, if there is a cost impediment to someone wanting to connect now, that they would offer to pay for that up to $5000 per lot within the subdivision. Which, based on our analysis of the Whitestown connection fees and the cost of installation, essentially covers the cost of installation to the water line. In fairness to the Saratoga residents who are represented by Mr. Jacob, they’re still digesting that, and I understand they met last Thursday, and I think then again on Friday. I’m not sure if Jeff was at both of those meetings. I got an email from him indicating that they had questions relating to that commitment and had some other items they wanted to discuss with us, and that’s when he and I had the email dialogue about what the procedure would likely be for tonight. I mention that just to say that the Van Trust company is very much committed to seeing that commitment through in actuality, and is offering that as part of this zoning process that we’re launching here this evening, as well. One other item I did want to note, just from the staff report, and then I will close and be available to answer any questions that you have, is I think the staff report does a very nice job of outlining the application of the criteria for considering a rezone. And, in connection with that, it identifies, for example, paying due regard to the comprehensive plan. I did want to note that I think the staff report, the map that it shows with regard to that, I think is actually a map for the US 421/State Road 32 portion of the Page 6 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission December 16, 2019 comprehensive plan, and not the portion of the comprehensive plan that pertains to this particular vicinity, which identifies it as mixed use, but I think the rest of the analysis, the narrative analysis, is still completely appropriate because it describes how for this petition, as was the case with the Phase 1 portion of this project, it’s important to pay regard to the actual development pattern in context in the area as a way of informing how future developments should proceed, which we think highlights really the need for additional industrial rezoning in this particular vicinity. In that regard, I’ll notice, I think I’ve said lapped a couple of times, this time I mean it. The other thing I would mention, because it is driving land use decisions in the area, and in particular it can help explain some of why Mr. Andreoli’s client has not received other inquiries to purchase the property, you know, for other uses, is the contemplation of the new interchange at County Road 550. And, that interchange is kind of, for lack of better terms, is kind of a mid-point between the Whitestown Parkway interchange, or 334, and 267, and it has the effect of opening up a great deal of the land around that interchange, much of which is zoned for mixed-use development, including high-density residential, medium-density residential, and even some other lower density residential. And, so I think when presented with options about whether to locate a development in an area that appears very much like an industrial corridor, when there are other obvious choices where you can locate in the relatively near future, in areas that are already planned and even zoned. More than just planned, actually zoned, for high-density and the medium density residential, just a little bit further south, there has not been a great deal of interest, or really any interest, from residential developers or office developers when those other options are so readily present. And, so what we’ve strived to do is to make the project that’s compatible as possible with the surrounding homeowner’s, offer a significant infrastructure improvement for them, and seek that as the best form of balance for allowing the project to go forward, contributing to our local tax base at a very significant level, while at the same time being respectful of existing home sites and the very attractive homes that are in the vicinity, including in the Saratoga project. So, with that, I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have, and appreciate your attention tonight. Franz Okay. Thank you. At this time, I’ll ask for any members of the public if they have any comment on this matter. Will you step forward and please state your name and address. Trescari My name is Craig Trescari. I’m at 3270 Paddock Road. I was the one who submitted to have the continuance, and understand that you’re going to hear this, but from my understanding you’re not going to vote on it today. My home is directly adjacent to the proposed plan to build a light industrial mega-warehouse, right next to my home. The plan to change this zoning designation from AG to light industrial is not in line with the current Zionsville comprehensive land use plan, and I know that you had that in your folder, as was mentioned to Matt, but I want to go ahead and provide this to the President. This is the land usage, so no, this is off your website. And, as you can see, there is no mistake in the fact that it is mixed usage. There is not industrial or light industrial around those residential homes. This document, which is posted on your website, allows homeowners the ability to see what type of development would be placed near them so they can make informed judgements of buying homes in that area. The current plan has mixed usage designated for the land. Mixed usage as defined by you, are the Page 7 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission December 16, 2019 residential and GB, in that area. Not light industrial. And, again, you can see that on page 19 and 20 of your document. Additionally, the document states buffering between different land use, utilization of open space and agricultural preservation should, it doesn’t say may, it says should, be incorporated into the development of this area to reflect rural characteristics. This plan doesn’t allow for proper land usage buffering between residential and industrial, or keep the rural setting. Not with the warehouse overlooking one and two-story buildings, residential buildings. Zionsville land use plan specifically references CR 300 South, and CR 400 East as poor access roads to I-65 exchange. That’s from your document and from your assessment. Unlike what Van Trust presented to the community in their letter for development as I quote, “With excellent access to both Country Road 400 South and 300 East, and therefore I-65.” And, that was a document that we received from Matt for notification that they were planning on building the structure there. This is factually incorrect. Van Trust will not have access to the roads as a result. Will have one exit and one entrance point into that area. They’re going around the entire community to access 65. So, they don’t have access to 300, which is a dirt road. They won’t have access to 400 the country road. What they’ll have to do is physically go all the way around that community, Saratoga, that housing community, with their 180-bay truck vehicles, and enter their new road that they’re creating, that they have now for the warehouse on the west side, and continue on to the new Indianapolis Road, and then turn left onto 267 to turn onto 65. By turning 90 degrees right into the residential homes and placing them behind the subdivision, you’re placing that community into basically an industrial park. So, they’re turning 90 degrees and they are going directly into the community. You got the community, you got houses on the right, houses in the front, and farm houses in the left, and you’re putting a light industrial warehouse right between those areas. The current and future highway exchange plan does not support this massive movement in the area. The decision to build a new exchange, as Matt mentioned, between the Whitestown exit, and Exit 133, is planned to build in order to push. And, that’s, you know, when we went to INDOT, this is what they told us when they are developing. To push the truck access away from the 133 exit, and the exit on 133 is not an expansion plan, but a flow improvement plan. Since that area roads have been pretty much decimated in the last three years with truck usage and mega warehouses throughout Whitestown AG area. So, the 133 exit that they’re using, they’re not expanding that. They’re not making it better. They are actually changing the flow of traffic so that we could have continuous flow off and on the highways, unlike what they’re doing now, which is stopping at that intersection and not being able to flow on. And, they’re also trying to push all of that warehouse stuff over to the new interstate exchange to get it away from 133. To get it away from the residential areas that are there now. So, by placing the warehouse behind residential subdivision, you’re causing an increase in traffic, pollution, role destruction of those areas. Water issues and well depletion. In the last three years, it has become alarming, if not in critical state in some of the individuals in that area. The only access to water in that area for homeowners is well water with septic systems, and extremely expensive Whitestown water, which currently is not available to the community of both Zionsville and Lebanon. When the Town of Zionsville approved the development of the western warehouse along the property line of residential subdivision, Van Trust, as Matt mentioned, promised that they were going to bring in water. That was one of the reasons that Council was like, well, if they bring in water, that’s going to offset the fact that the values Page 8 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission December 16, 2019 of the homes and other things are going to depreciate. They are actually going to try to bring in something of value to that community. Van Trust doesn’t have the authority to bring in water. They can’t even lay the water lines without Whitestown’s approval. Whitestown controls that. The Board here doesn’t. Our Council in Zionsville doesn’t. Whitestown controls completely their ability to accept or deny water usage in that area. The water is owned, operated and distributed by Whitestown Water Corporation with excessive requirements that would be placed on residents of that area. And, let me give you a few. Even, with offer of Van Trust, to provide land owners $5000 for hook-up, this is $5000 just to hook up, and that’s the best-case scenario if the lines are close to those, you know, to those homes. They do not have the power to distribute water. So, even if they decide, as we anticipate, maybe 17, maybe 20, maybe 22, maybe by the end of this it’s 31, before Whitestown approves it, we don’t have the permission to do that. The only thing we can keep on doing is asking the Community to pay more. And, I’ll get to that here in a second. For just 22 homes that are impacted on the west side, it will cost the community homeowners, this is costing us now, from the west side, a quarter of a million dollars for the first 5 years for water. And, that’s with $110,000 to be given by Van Trust. That includes the water usage itself, which on average is about anywhere from $120 to $150 for water usage per month. Just water, not septic. The cost shifts to all homeowners in the area. Whitestown water is the most expensive north of Indianapolis, plus requires landowners to sign a contract for several years, as well as tap their wells at non- potable. So, as soon as you sign the contract, the wells that those individuals signed the contract with, with Whitestown, they are non-potable. So, we can’t drink out, we’re drinking out of them now, and we’re not able to drink out of them later, that kind of is a little disturbing. They also charge us $40 penalty per month, with increase of punishing taxes throughout the year. So, those $40 charges go up. This is just a charge because we’re not in Whitestown. So, if you’re not in Whitestown, they charge you $40 more, not to include the water or the hookup fees and all the other things that are coming with that. Average cost per month will be like I mentioned, $150 per month, of what we already had before the poor decision for development in that area. Now, with building of a new mega warehouse on top of the community, the impact on homes on 400, Indianapolis Road, the farmhouses on 300, and the houses that have no issues in Saratoga right now with water. I’m one of them. I’m at the corner. My well is deep. I have not problems with any water. I’m not going to hook up the water because I don’t need it. But now, with this mega warehouse builds right next to me, there is a potential that my wells might be impacted. There is no plan right now, there is a plan to get water, but there is no authority or accountability for getting that water in this group. You’re going to decide whether to build this, but you’re not going to be able to decide to get us water, unfortunately. Let me make it clear, there is no one in Zionsville, or Van Trust, that can get the community access to water except Whitestown, and at this time, Van Trust cannot even put infrastructure into the community. Whitestown can change the requirements at a moment’s notice with no reason. This development will compound the issue, not resolve it. Whitestown, and when I say hate, Whitestown does not like our subdivision in our area. I can tell you that right now. And, then their dislike for us is probably more than it is for the Zionsville community, because we supported you during that infrastructure. And, during the incorporation. We supported you with over 90% to get your mayors, to stop the predatory development of Whitestown into your community, and what we had is a Page 9 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission December 16, 2019 comprehensive plan that you were not going to do exactly what Mr. Price and Van Trust are asking you to do. Now we are asking Zionsville to support us and not make the situation even worse for us. Setting a new standard in Zionsville, land usage. By surrounding our community in industrial parks, Zionsville is setting a standard for future development requests in your own town. Placing custom home rural communities in Zionsville at risk with completion of putting this behind the community, even though it is not part of your comprehensive plan, that there is poor road availability, that there is water and well issues, that there is destruction or rural settings, and the destruction of home values, these multi-billion dollar corporations can come to your town and point to these areas a model for future development in your area. And being denied, can take you to court and showing that with complete disregard for the community as the model to use this in your area. This is the model you’re building. This is something that is going to be modeled throughout the whole community. You saw the impacts of Wal-Mart versus Target. Once you open the door to this kind of development model, it never closes. Right now, we have a petition of about 140+ names, and that’s not just Saratoga, and it’s not just a few people that are talking to Matt with a lawyer that are trying to get water. These are people within your community that don’t want that type of development forced upon a community. There is quite a bit of fear in Saratoga community. As some landowners have an attorney, as Matt mentioned, to help them get water for their homes. The fear has gotten so hot that in the meeting that we had just this week, they did not want to remonstrate in fear that Van Trust would pull $5000 from that particular deal. These are people that are desperate. They don’t have water, or the water is extremely poor now in that area for a home. The fear is high. One landowner said Zionsville is just going to approve it no matter what. It’s about money, not about our safety. It’s not about our homes. The fear that this will continue for years, as it has, and Whitestown area, and that homeowners will continue to suffer while these buildings continue to destroy our community. There was even fear of imminent domain as surrounding communities are devastated in the area. These homes are literally surrounded by these mega buildings. Would agree to anything to get them water. So, there are some people that Matt is talking to right now in Saratoga. They’ll do anything. They don’t care. They just, they don’t have a house if they don’t have water. Zionsville is not the decider, again, on water. As for water, I would make sure that the water is available prior to any development of that area to include homes on 400, 300, Indianapolis Road and Saratoga residential community. There has to be the infrastructure in place. We can’t say we’re going to do it, we potentially think it’s about 17 houses, but we’re not really sure, but just approve it, and then, you know, if it comes up, great, and if it doesn’t, not really our problem any more. Failure to secure this for all residents in the area is negligent. Promises had already been made, and they have not been realized. The cost has shifted to the residents in the area and have put them in desperate positions. That is not a choice this town should accept for their community. And, Van Trust can easily right now put $5000 on the table for Phase 1. They don’t have to say, well, you know, if you go ahead and approve Phase 2, we’ll potentially go ahead and give them $5000 to potentially get water in that area and cause more problems for that community. They can do it now if they want. Finally, it is your duty to take into account the impact of residential homes and property laws. I do not think anyone can say with a straight face that the surrounding community with million square foot warehouses and 180-bay truck doors in a rural community would not have profound impacts on the home Page 10 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission December 16, 2019 values. We have already seen the drop in the property value within the last year of the development that is on our west side. We’re under attack on the south side. We have development on the west side, and now you’re talking about building the same thing in the north side of that community. I’m told that this is, excuse me. You have the responsibility to protect these values, and the only opportunity to bring value back to the community is through some of the school systems that allow a community to opt into Zionsville. This is not possible because of the Township. We’re not in your Township. We’re not going to be able to get to the school systems. There is nothing value-wise that can be added to that community at this point. That being said, the only thing you are doing is potentially depressing that area. Even Van Trust structure buildings on the west side received a 10-year tax abatement. They are talking about all this money they are bringing in. They have a 10-year tax abatement. I believe that’s what, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% all the way through that period. I’m most certain that they’re going to ask for another 10-year tax abatement on the other side with the reasoning that the area is depressed. They are depressing the area. Okay, do not, just to recap. Not part of the Zionsville comprehensive plan that you have, it is mixed usage. We would like you to keep to your comprehensive plan. Road support is incompatible with that land use and using INDOT current plan as your assessment and comprehensive plan, water issues are extremely unresolved, and are in some cases dire. Community is fearful to say anything based on current water crisis. Wells will be designated as non-potable through Whitestown requirement priority values devastated by new construction. Van Trust has tax benefits while the community currently has all losses to their names. And, the only benefit for Zionsville to approve this is not necessarily the welfare of the community, but for the money that potentially can be brought through the group. Now, I talked to a bunch of farmers. I didn’t realize when they said that nobody was asking to buy the land for agricultural, but some of the farmers that I’ve talked to would love to actually farm that land. But Mr. Padgett can make about 9 times as much on that land by putting an industrial building on that land versus selling it as agricultural or general business, and that’s a fact. That’s not an assumption. Thank you. Franz All right. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to make a comment? All right. Being none, I’ll go ahead and let you guys rebut some of that, and then I guess if there is any questions from us or any points we want to make for the next time. Yes. [inaudible]43:10 Franz Yes, you’ll get your opportunity. Yes, you’ll get an opportunity. And, then, so if there is any comments from the Plan Commission that they’d like answered, or, you know, further looked into, we’ll make those, and then we’ll make the motion. All right. Price Thank you, Mr. President. I guess, first of all, I’d like to say that with regard to the Saratoga development and the residents there, there is no question that many of those homeowners for years prior to Van Trust showing up in Zionsville were experiencing some difficulties with their wells, many of which are very shallow wells. And, it’s possible that some of the development activity that predates Van Trust maybe even contributed to some difficulties they had with their wells. My Page 11 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission December 16, 2019 client, in good faith, and really as an extraordinary gesture, made a commitment that was welcomed by the Saratoga residents to provide water. Not just to sub it in, but to actually extend water lines all through their community. What all of us discovered post-commitment with regard to that is that Whitestown is requiring a certain minimum number of connections in order to go live with that water line. My last conversations with Saratoga representatives, they thought they had around 11 who were ready to connect, or ready to be committed to connecting. That was prior to the offer of the money to actually carry that forward, and so, part of what we’re looking forward to with the Van Trust team is having continued discussions with the Saratoga homeowners, not because they have a dire situation with their water, but because they have a party at the table today who has the financial resources and willingness to commit to extending infrastructure that otherwise doesn’t exist where they live. It just doesn’t exist. And, so there is no one too fearful to be here or anything else. It’s a partnership. It’s something we’ve worked through throughout the spring and summer with discussions in person and through their counsel, and I believe that the parties are committed to working that through and seeing that infrastructure completed and really providing a substantial benefit to the Saratoga homeowners. That’s what I wanted to say first off. Second, with regard to access. And, I apologize if our notice caused any confusion on this point, but our access is coming through the Indianapolis Road point of entry only. So, it’s the entryway to the east. There is no direct access for this project onto either County Road 400 or 300. And, the buildings are laid out with roadways around the entire perimeter, meaning that work or employee traffic, as well as deliveries and pickups can be accomplished without entering or exiting County Road 400 or County Road 300. The traffic will just simply go back to Indianapolis Road. We have done a traffic study. That traffic study is still being reviewed by the Town of Whitestown, but some things were recommended and we’re prepared to follow the recommendations of the traffic study, which included adding a 4-way stop at the intersection of our entrance and INDOT, it is anticipated, is going to install a light at 267 and Indianapolis Road. So, I apologize, Mr. Trescari, if my notice letter represented anything different than that. I want to correct that for the record. With regard to the, this came up last time, and it’s something that I’ve studied, because it’s not necessarily intuitive, but the data kind of speaks for itself, which is that we’ve been tracking home sale prices in Saratoga of recent vintage, including since this rezoning for Phase 1 was approved last year, and the net result of that has been that property values as a function of assessed values, for example, what we’ve used in many other zoning cases, are all going up in the Saratoga subdivision, across the board. Every single home. And, I think that’s a function of what homes are selling for based on what I’ve seen when I pull up the sales disclosure document on Boone County GIS. And, so, I wanted to submit to the record to say a listing of those home prices, or home-assessed valuations, and we picked up the last three years from 2017 to 2019, and that does include what I think is the most recent home sale from December of 2018, and I’d also add there is one home for sale now in the Saratoga subdivision. I don’t have evidence of this, but I understand that that property has received very good offers, and certainly, what the Van Trust development allows is for very robust screening of the Saratoga development, plus the additional infrastructure to really enhance that development and it does not appear that development activity around that vicinity has had any adverse impact on assessed valuations whatsoever. And, then I think the last major point I wanted to address is with regard to the comprehensive plan. Page 12 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission December 16, 2019 That comprehensive plan, I think, it does say what is says. We are, this area, though, is in the midst of some of the most rapid development activity really in the state of Indiana, and the fact of the matter is, is that the area has continued to develop along the lines that Van Trust is proposing to develop this parcel, and so much so that there is, I believe, an expansion of the State Road 267 interchange. I say that because if that’s not, if it’s not expansion of that interchange, then I don’t know what else to call it because I’m representing property owners, more than one, who are having their properties taken by the state of Indiana to increase the size of that interchange, and to improve its functionality. Very significant in my experience, and I’ve represented a lot of folks along I-69. Some of the most substantial land acquisition activity I’ve seen by INDOT in my career, and it’s to expand the size of that interchange and to increase its capacity, as well as its safety. In addition to that, the state has also seen fit to spend, I think, another just shy of $50 million on the mid-point interchange, which that comprehensive plan shows will open up the areas that are for residential development, as opposed to this area, which is just extremely suitable for the light industrial activity that we’re proposing here, with appropriate commitments. And, that’s why we think that this project does warrant a recommendation of approval, and does meet the criteria for a rezoning. On the tax abatement, it is a matter of business practice that in order to have a building that is rentable, you have to have the tax abatement. It is wrote. There is even a published schedule for what that abatement needs to look like. Any deviation from that published schedule, which is basically a declining balance over 10 years, doesn’t work, because the marketplace doesn’t understand it, and so there is a certain amount of uniformity with the abatements that have to be offered in order to have a competitive product. And, so after a great deal of analysis and study, the Town Council saw fit to approve abatements on the first two buildings. I would note that this property, by my review of the property tax bills for it, pays a little over $3000 a year in property taxes. This project even fully abated over 10 years will pay close to $4 million in property taxes. So, there is a very significant difference in property tax revenue, and that’s a function of the fact that this project would bring nearly $60 million in new investment to Zionsville and help with Zionsville’s tax base, even when abated initially for the first 10 years on the declining schedule. So, for all those reasons, we would ask at the appropriate time for a recommendation of approval and appreciate your attention this evening. Thank you. Franz Okay. Thank you. Trescari So, we’ll first talk the well issue, as far as the well not being to standard, they’re all measures. They’re all DNR. They all are on the register for wells. Some of them are different. Some of them are bucket wells versus the deep wells. Mr. Price is correct that they didn’t start the issue. The issue was started obviously, or not obviously, they had been started with the development of Valenti property with the Whitestown Crossing. That was the start of it. But the contribution to the new site is having even increased impact on those wells for the community. Shifting cost to the residents, right now the burden is being placed on the residents of that area. It’s not being placed on the developer of those people. People are losing the money, the people that are actively having to pay to get things done are the people and the residents that are living there now. And, the amount of money, when you talk about the proposed price of houses going up, I Page 13 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission December 16, 2019 live right next to the house that sold. It was selling for $350,000 was the initial price that it was supposed to be sold for, and it sold for, it’s pending now, but it’s $322,000. I can almost bet that they don’t understand that there is a warehouse going up behind them. I can almost guarantee they don’t know that. The houses that sold in that neighborhood in the last year, prior to the development and the development going on right now, have decreased. So, went from $117 per square feet, to $115 to $114. You can do a Zillow check on that. I mean, I’m not, I don’t have all the resources and brilliant people that the Council has here, but I live next to them, and I can see what the prices are going at. One house that sold initially prior to the development, it did go for good money, but the problem was as soon as the people bought the house, the next day Van Trust started moving in and their word was there was no way in the world we would pay this amount, and bought this house based on what we know now in the building right across the street from where they are. And, those are from the people that I actually live with. The comprehensive plan, don’t want you to ignore it. This is your comprehensive plan. You had a reason behind it. You had a reason to protect the individuals in the rural areas in that area. I understand Mr. Price is saying we know that the comprehensive plan doesn’t support this. Ignore it. It doesn’t matter. We can go ahead and get you a lot of money, and we understand the community is hurting, but let’s just make it industrial, because all those homes in that area, you know, it really doesn’t matter. You had the comprehensive plan for a reason. To protect the Community and allow them to understand what you’re developing in that area. That’s why they bought the homes. That’s why they’re investing in that area. That’s why they’re investing in businesses in that area because they saw what you’re building in that area. You decide to change it on a dime, then you know, your comprehensive plans throughout Zionsville probably don’t mean as much anymore. The interchange, not our, the interchange that we have, and Mr. Price mentioned, the interstate exchange that we have in our area is not expanding on the house. There is one lane that goes up against the new gas station that’s out there. That’s it on our side. Okay. It’s the flow that they’re trying to change. The light that Mr. Price mentioned, they’ve been promising that light for 2 years now with INDOT. And, let me tell you, last October, and I told this to Whitestown and their committee. We told them you’re going to kill somebody out there if you continue to go ahead and push all this stuff in there and not have the proper road systems in place in order to meet it. They killed one person in October, and seriously injured five. There is accidents on that intersection all the time. It is dangerous and the trucks that are there and that road cannot support it. Let’s see, residential. Okay, and then the residential push, there is no reason that the area behind Saratoga can’t go residential or can’t stay agricultural. I know there is people that want to buy it. The problem is that, again, Mr. Padgett can make a lot more money putting in an industrial plant right on top of that area, knowing how difficult normally those things are to put them right up against custom-developed homes ranging anywhere from $300 to $600,000, and just destroy the value of those homes in that community, to include all the farms homes and all the other area’s homes that are going to be surrounding that area. Thank you. Franz All right. Thank you. At this point in time, not you guys. Do you guys have any points you’d like to make on this one, please guys think about over the next month. Page 14 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission December 16, 2019 Papa I just have a general point, if I could. Franz Sure. Papa I’m not commenting on the merits of the project or, you’ve been saying this in an upset manner, but Mr. Andreoli said something like Prairie Township was annexed by Zionsville, and we spent a lot of money fighting Whitestown over that, and so why we wouldn’t we put it to good use. We didn’t annex Prairie Township. It was a merger of equals, and I think, for their part, my understanding is they did that because they wanted a say in their future. I’m not commenting on this particular project, but I wanted to, not being mean. I’m just correcting that statement, because we did not annex anything in Prairie Township. They asked, and it was equals coming together. Andreoli You may be correct, Mr. Papa, you probably know about that. You may have been on the Town Council when that was going on in terms of some of the aspects of that. And, I guess where I was going with this, is that I see no advantage to the Town. Recognizing what we’ve done in our past to eliminate our ability to have an appropriate tax base in our community. I see no advantage to our Town by allowing Whitestown to reap the benefits, so perhaps it’s a little different way of phrasing and maybe a more correct way of phrasing the way I did with regard to the annexation, but it seems to me that Zionsville ought to take advantage of areas that are appropriately developed and take advantage of those tax bases where we haven’t in the past. We have lost our ability to do that because of missteps that we’ve had in this community over a long number of years, predate anybody on this Board. Not anything that you’ve done, but predated a number of things dealing with Royal Run, dealing with the extension of sewers out there, dealing with the ability to use, Zionsville’s ability to control the area to be able to have an enhanced tax base when they refused to do it back years ago because we didn’t want to extend out there. I’m suggesting, at least from my client’s standpoint, we looked at other areas. We looked at whether there is mixed uses available for this particular project, and whether there is an opportunity there for that. We just didn’t see it. We just didn’t have any interest with regard to that. Whether it be a commercial facility out there, or a mixed-use development in terms of multi-family. We just couldn’t generate any interest or use for that given a specific location. so, I stand corrected to the extent that you raise that issue, but nevertheless, my overall point, I think, is we would hope you would consider it given the fact that we need to enhance our tax base in Zionsville, and we should not allow Whitestown just simply to be able to be in a position to do theirs. We need to do our own. Papa I certainly agree with that. You mentioned I may have been on the Council. I wrote the plan that brought the merger together, so it is really important to me to make that point clear because from your statement I know you didn’t necessarily mean it that way, but your statement made it sound like we went there, we took it, we can do what we want with it. And, that wasn’t the agreement when we merged. The plan does say that the zoning can be changed by Zionsville after Perry Township and Zionsville come together, but it wasn’t an annexation and, as he pointed out, they were strongly in support of that, so I’d like to make sure that we keep the spirit of that agreement. I’m not talking about this project. Page 15 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission December 16, 2019 Andreoli Yes. I understand, generally you’re correct. We just don’t see any benefit to the community to allowing this property to remain in Zionsville to remain agricultural. There is no interest out there for an agricultural use of that property. We have not received any interest from any farmer or anybody else that either wants to buy the particular property. Maybe somebody might want to cash rent it. That’s a lot different than actually making my client an offer to buy the property. There is no interest in that regard at all, and moreover, if there was, they would be doing the same thing. They would want to buy it in order to flip later on. And my client is not interested in doing that given the fact that they’ve owned it for 35 years. I guess that’s the point I wanted to make. Papa I understand. And, again, I wasn’t talking about your project. It was more general. Franz Mr. Lewis. Do you have any comments? Lewis I have got a couple questions. The property to the south that was rezoned last year, what is the current status of that. Is that building operational, or is it under construction? Price The property south of - - Lewis Saratoga. East of the one we’re talking about here. Price It’s not, yes. The reason why I ask you that is there is a building south of the Phase 1 that is an Exeter project that I believe is nearing operations. There are no actual buildings on our parcel yet. Everything is earth work to this point. Lewis Okay. Price So, the buildings you see out there are actually on the property immediately south of our project. Lewis Okay. And, then on the water issue, I mean, I have to go back and read my notes from the previous rezone, but my recollection is that one of the reasons that some of the people were supporting it was the water, and I guess you guys have talked about that a little bit, but what exactly is the water issue, or how is this working out where they are saying that there is a minimum number of people. Is that a money thing, that they want people to connect? Or a water circulation thing? Price It’s a water circulation thing, not a, at least my understanding from Whitestown is, a water circulation thing, not a monetary issue for them. And, we’ve looked, and I know what you do for a living too. And, so I saw you during my presentation. We have looked at all types of options of could we just flush the line. Can we do this? Can we do that? And, we’ve not been able to move past their requirement that there be a threshold minimum number of actual day-to-day users connected to it, and so that’s been the sticking point as far as moving forward with that aspect of the commitment. Which we’re trying to solve through this matter, which is to say, and I don’t want to speak for the Saratoga residents, but to the extent that they’re not able to achieve the critical mass of the Page 16 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission December 16, 2019 connectors because of money, we could help solve that problem, and get them up to the critical number of attachments. Franz So, let me ask a question on the water. So, it’s basically wherever they’re taking the water off into Saratoga they’ve got the issue with that. So, they’re running, Whitestown is already going to run water to Van Trust and their two properties I’m assuming? This one and if the other one is approved? Price That’s right. Franz So, it’s just, whatever they split off to get to Saratoga where the issue is. Price Correct. Which we, and I wanted to, I think I said this earlier about just, It’s more than subbing in. It is actually fully running the water line through the subdivision. Franz Okay. All right. Well, I’ll ask you to continue to work on it. Price We will. Franz At this point in time I will entertain a motion for continuance. Lewis So moved. Franz To the January 21, 2020 meeting. Is there a second? Papa Second. Franz All in favor, aye. All Aye. Franz Opposed. [No response.] Franz Motion does not carry for lack of quorum. So, therefore this is automatically continued to the next month. So, we’ll see you guys again January 21. Thanks. At this point in time, we’ll go on the next item on the Docket, # 2019-51-RP, E. Rensink, 650 Valley View Drive. Petition for replat to allow for combining of lots 3, 4 and 5 into one parcel to allow for a vacation of an easement to request a waiver from section 193.053 in the urban RB residential zoning district. Is the petitioner present? Wert Yes, good evening. Andy Wert, land-use professional with the law firm of Church, Church, Hittle and Antrim, with offices at 2 North 9th Street in Noblesville. I’m here on behalf of property owners Mary and Ed Rensink before you tonight with a replat prepared by Hahn and Associates for a full platted lot and two pieces of lots. All three of these parcels have been under single ownership since shortly after this development was platted back in 1955. This is an older residential subdivision just northwest of the Village. Originally 10 lots Page 17 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission December 16, 2019 platted in LinaBurry’s Valley View addition. A total of eight homes were constructed. So many of these homes, over the years, have been built on two lots or fractional pieces of lots. In this case the Rensink’s own Lot 4 and pieces of Lots 3 and 5 as plat. Earlier this year, a demolition permit was obtained. The original house built in 1963 is now gone. A permit has been issued for a new, somewhat larger home, and we just completed an action with Town Council to vacate an old utility easement that was never utilized, and so we obtained waivers from all the utilities in the area and removed that easement from the middle of the property. Taking a fresh look at that, we believe the removal of the easement will allow us to better center the new home on the property, so if we haven’t already, a modified site plan will be presented to the planning department for that purpose. The committee has reviewed this, and they recommended that we add drainage easements along the two side property lines, which are shown on the plat that was presented in your staff report. We did modify that. In addition, they recommended the installation of subsurface drain tile within the easements to better capture stormwater runoff. We are also in agreement with that recommendation. We are asking for one waiver. Section 193.053 of your subdivision control ordinance requires installation of sidewalks whenever you’re platting lots. In this case, there are no sidewalks in Valley View addition. We did, per staff’s suggestion, add a paragraph to the plat that commits the owners to install a sidewalk along their frontage should sidewalks ever be extended to this property. I’d like to say this is just a paper change, and it is, but it’s also an active construction project, as a new home is being built on this site, but it is just an exercise to kind of clean things up and to memorialize the vacation of the utility easement. I’m going to stop here. Mary and Ed are in the audience, property owners. We’re happy to answer any questions you might have. Franz All right. Thank you. At this point in time, does anybody like to make a comment on this from the public? Being none, Wayne, staff report please. DeLong Thank you. Staff is supportive of the petition as filed, including the waiver. This is a project that’s had multiple stops along the way to get to this point. First with the vacation petition with your Town Council, and then coming to you by state statute has required that the Town Council takes action on the vacation of the easement. The petition also sought some different relief specific to BZA action that concluded last week, about 10 days ago, give or take, and what is in front of you this evening is just to clean up the vacation request. The reconfiguration of the lot itself technically is administrative function that could have been handled in the office, but since this petition needed to come in front of the Plan Commission specific to the vacation of the easement, certainly was worth the effort to document of the lot line maneuvering as part of the application and certainly the waiver itself given that the petition speaks to putting the installation of sidewalk, if and when sidewalk finds its way to this portion of Valley View Drive, it will be installed at that time. With all these comments, staff is supportive of the petition as filed, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Franz All right. Thank you, Wayne. Does anybody have any questions on this matter? If there are none, is there a motion? Fedor I move to approve Docket # 2019-51-RP, replat to allow for combining of Lots 3, 4 and 5 into one parcel to allow for the vacation of easement in the urban RV Page 18 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission December 16, 2019 residential zoning district with a waiver in section 193.053 be approved based on findings established at public hearing. Franz Is there a second? Walker Second. Franz All in favor, signify by aye. All Aye. Franz Opposed by nay. [No response.] Franz Motion carries 5-0. Thank you. Next item on the Docket # 2019-38-08, Town of Zionsville, 1100 West Oak Street. Petition for ordinance amendment related to the ordinance sections as listed A through N. Is that good enough, Wayne? DeLong Yes, it is. Franz All right. Would you like to discuss this, Wayne? DeLong Certainly. I can run through a variety of items. This was about a year ago, this body undertook the effort that you routinely undertake every 18 months to 2 years of working through some zoning ordinance amendments. The amendment list grew during that period of time. Certainly, our office bringing you up to speed on those additions and these are simply items we are running across from time to time that really could benefit from attention. Certainly this matter was advertised at least on one other occasion, so I can say after a year of effort, more than one publication of notice, and multiple attempts to strengthen this list to what you see today, I can say that the public has had ample time to participate and be aware of and be involved in the edits and suggestions that are contained within the documents that are in front of you. These are predominantly clean-up efforts. For example, the first one listed is adding stronger language to our flood plain mapping requirements. This is actually language that’s supported by the Department of Natural Resources, where now we’re requiring that a landowner interact with the federal government when it comes to a map amendment, making it permissive. Certainly, the State is encouraging stronger language. We have some language that supports 2-foot lateral encroachment, such as eves, gutters, and other improvements like that. Certainly, this is language that’s very supportive of residents and certainly existing development. We had a peculiar item in the zoning ordinance that required a 100-foot buffer from a farm, and when we see all across our 70 square miles of community, that farm fields abut road and abut other features, and certainly some clarification of the ordinance seemed to be a relevant cause. Your zoning ordinance does not encourage monument signs that are involved with subdivisions to have any sort of ornamental features. So, certainly having the ordinance embrace the concept of installing some improvements to a sign for a subdivision and not be restricted by the height requirements by 4 feet, 6 feet if you will, certainly seemed like something that should be entertained. The language also in the ordinance, Page 19 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission December 16, 2019 provided very specific supportive language to Eagle Village. Twenty years ago, that was an area of town that envisioned the need to be protected because it could potentially compete with the Village of Zionsville, your downtown area. Certainly, over the years that’s not come to fruition, and the concept of allowing that area to simply be more, developed more in line with your overlay ordinance, is what the staff is encouraging. Other items listed through here I’m happy to dive into, but certainly that is the list that’s in front of you. I would say the major item that has been removed from this list is the requirement for the installation of carbon monoxide detectors. It is not for a lack of that requirement not being necessary, or thoughtful, or involving public dialogue. It’s now the fact that the State of Indiana building code, which goes into effect December 26 of this year, now requires carbon monoxide detectors, so there is no reason for the local ordinances across this state to talk about those specific items. Certainly, I’m happy to dive into any specific details that are of interest from this body or the public, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Franz All right. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions, or is there any comment from the public first? No. All right. You have Wayne’s staff report. So, does anybody have any questions, comments on this matter? Process goes to the Town Council? DeLong Correct. We have a recommendation form prepared, however, this Board, this Commission were to vote, certainly we will be intrigued to learn how the Town Council chooses to docket this. If it would like to docket it for it’s very first meeting in January, or the second meeting. Simply will look to see what they’re interested in. Franz Anybody else? All right. With that, is there a motion for a favorable recommendation to the Town Council? Fedor So moved. Franz Is there a second? Lewis Second. Franz All in favor, signify by aye. All Aye. Franz Opposed by nay. [No response.] Franz Motion carries 5-0. Is there any other items to discuss? If not, is there a motion to adjourn? Walker So moved. Franz Second? Page 20 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission December 16, 2019 Fedor Second. Franz All in favor, aye. All Aye. Page 21 of 21