Plan Commission (PC)

ZIONSVILLE PLAN COMMISSION RESULTS Monday, November 21, 2022 7:00 PM (Local Time) THIS PUBLIC MEETING WAS CONDUCTED ONSITE AT THE ZIONSVILLE TOWN HALL IN ROOM 105 (COUNCIL CHAMBERS), LOCATED AT 1100 WEST OAK STREET AND ELECTRONICALLY VIA ZOOM The following items are scheduled for consideration: I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Attendance: Dave Franz, Mary Grabianoski, Chris Lake, Larry Jones, Sharon Walker, and Jim Hurst attended in person. Cindy Madrick attended via Zoom. III. Election of Plan Commission Secretary: Action approved at the August 15, 2022, Plan Commission Meeting IV. Community & Economic Development October Monthly Report (Informational Only – no action required). V. Approval of the October 17, 2022, Regular Meeting Minutes: Approved with no changes. VI. Continuance or Withdrawal Requests Docket Address of Name Item to be Considered Number Project Approved to continue from the November 21, 2022, and the October 17, 2022 Meeting, to the December 19, 2022, Plan Michael Commission Meeting. Andreoli / The Preserve at 7798 E. 500 South 7 in Favor 2022-43-PP Fishback Creek Zionsville 0 Opposed (f/k/a Marsh Petition for Approval of a Primary Plat for 8 single-family Meadows) residential lots on 39 +/- acres and Block A on 24+/- acres in the Rural (R1) and Rural (R2) Residential Zoning District. VII. Continued Business Docket Petitioner / Address of Item to be Considered Number Project Name Project None VIII. New Business Docket Petitioner/ Address of Item to be Considered Number Project Name Project November 22, 2022  Continued to the December 19, 2022, Plan Commission Meeting. Phil Sundling / 7 in Favor Replat of Lot J8 3983 Club Ridge 0 Opposed 2022-50-RP and Clubhouse Estates Petition for the Approval of a Replat to relocate the existing Lot in Holliday Zionsville property line between the Clubhouse lot and Lot J8, Farms incorporating a portion of an unplatted lot with Lot J8, being in the Planned Unit Development District (Holliday Farms PUD). Approved as Presented. Phil Sundling / 7 in Favor Replat of Lots 10651 Pete Dye 0 Opposed 2022-52-RP F32 and F33, Sec. Ridge, Petition for the Approval of a Replat of Lots F32 and F33 of 2 in Holliday Zionsville Section 2, Holliday Farms. The Replat would merge the Farms two lots into a single lot, both lots being zoned Planned Unit Development (Holliday Farms PUD). VIII. Other Matters to be considered Docket Address of Name Item to be Considered Number Project 6828 W. Minor Development Plan Amendment: Amendment to 2012-14- ACT 2022-92 Hecker’s Fitness Stonegate Drive, DP permitting modifications to existing windows, doors, and the Zionsville addition of a new door for access. Resolution was fully executed Resolution Town of If approved by the Zionsville Town Council at their 8:00 am, Rules of Zionsville December 21, 2022, meeting: Re-Adoption of the Plan Procedure Commission Rules of Procedure Form Based Form Based Status update to Plan Commission regarding the Form Based Code Code Code Respectfully Submitted: Mike Dale, AICP Director - Department of Community & Economic Development Town of Zionsville November 22, 2022 Zionsville Plan Commission November 21, 2022 In Attendance: David Franz, Sharon Walker, Jim, Hurst, Mary Grabianowski, Chris Lake, Larry Jones Virtual: Cindy Madrick Staff attending: Mike Dale, Janice Stevanovic, Dan Taylor, Attorney A quorum is present. Franz All right, we’ll call to order the – once Mike gets up here – call to order the Zionsville Plan Commission meeting of Monday, November 21, 2022. Please start with the Pledge of Allegiance please. All Pledge of Allegiance. Franz Mike, are you taking roll? Dale Yes, yes sir. Sharon Walker? Walker Present. Dale Jim Hurst? Hurst Present. Dale David Franz? Franz Present. Dale Mary Grabianowski? Grabianowski Present. Dale Chris Lake? Lake Present. Dale Cindy Madrick? Madrick [No response] Franz She’s online. Dale And Larry Jones? Jones Present. Dale All present. Page 1 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission November 21, 2022 Franz All right. In your packet there was a set of minutes from the October 17th meeting. Is there any comments, additions, deletions to those minutes? Who was present at that one? So, all right – if not, is there a motion to approve the minutes? Grabianowski So moved. Franz Is there a second? Walker Second. Franz All right. All right, all in favor signify by aye. All Aye. Franz Opposed by nay. [No response] Madrick Aye. All right, motion carries. Jim Hurst and Sharon Walker abstain. They were not present. Walker Yeah, I should. Franz Onto business – Docket Number 2022-43-PP, a continuance request for The Preserve at Fishback Creek (f/k/a also known as, formerly known as Marsh Meadows), 7798 East 500 South. Petition for Approval of a Primary Plat for 8 single-family residential lots on 39+/- acres and Block A on 24+/- acres in the Rural (R1) and Rural (R2) Residential Zoning District. Please. Andreoli Thank you Mr. President. For the record, Mike Andreoli, 1393 West Oak Street. We had submitted a written letter of a request for the Plan Commission to table this to the December meeting. We were tabled, actually, we were continued from the last meeting to basically review some information connected with the Fire Department and various other things. My client is essentially looking at his options at this point and would like to have this matter continued to the December meeting so that we can continue with further evaluation and discussion. Franz All right, thank you. Is there any questions/comments? If not, is there a motion to continue this to the December – do you know what meeting it is? Andreoli The 21st. Franz The 21st? Stevanovic 19th. Franz 19th. Today’s the 21st. Page 2 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission November 21, 2022 Lake Yeah, the 19th. Franz Right. So the December 19, 2022 meeting. Lake So moved. Franz Is there a second? Hurst Second. Franz Larry, did you have something to say? Were you going to say something? Jones Nope. Franz Okay. All in favor say aye. All Aye. Franz Any opposed? [No response] Andreoli Thank you. Franz Motion carries. We’ll see you next month. On to Continued Business – Docket Number, no New Business sorry – Docket Number 2022-50-RP, Phil Sund or Replat of Lot 38 [should be J8 – he said 38 10:08] and Clubhouse Lot in Holliday Farms, 3983 Club Ridge Estates, Zionsville. Petition for Approval of a Replat to locate the existing property line between the Clubhouse lot and Lot J8 incorporating a portion of the unplatted lot with Lot J8, being in the Planned Unit Development District (Holliday Farms PUD). Is petitioner present? Fleener Yes, Doug Fleener with Henke Development. Franz All right, before we start, did you notice with First Class Mail or, or registered mail? Do we know? Stevanovic First Class. Franz First Class? All right, so is there a motion to allow First Class Mail for proper notice? Grabianowski So moved. Franz Second? Lake Second. Franz All in favor signify by aye. All Aye. Page 3 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission November 21, 2022 Franz Opposed by nay. [No response] All right. Please proceed. Can you bring up Mr. Fleener? Well, we had him. All right, Mr. Fleener, can you hear us? Fleener Can you hear me? Franz Yes, please proceed. Fleener Sorry, I, I, I had a little bit of trouble here. Yes, for the record, Doug Fleener with Henke Development Group with an address of 12845 Vanderhorst Street in Carmel, Ind – in Carmel, Indiana and we are, we have J8 which is becoming a, a home and lot in the subdivision. We currently use that as our temporary Cllubhouse but we will be selling that as a residence that will become a, just simply a home in the development and that’s why we’re before you this evening. Franz All right. Is there anybody who’d like to comment on this matter from the public? Janice, can you do the staff report, please? Stevanovic To further expand on the request, this petition is the, for the request of approval to replat to relocate the existing property line between the Clubhouse and Lot J8 incorporating a portion of the unplatted lot with J8 and this is in the PUD Planned Unit Development District with Holliday Farms. The request is basically a realignment of lot lines in order to prepare the existing structure for residential living rather than its present use as a temporary Clubhouse. The realignment of the property lines of Lot J8 as reflected in Exhibit 6 of the staff report will allow for the accommodation of existing landscaping and improvements such as the front sidewalk. Along the south line, the additional land will accommodate lawn area, lawn area that was utilized with the temporary Clubhouse. This replat will not affect an easement, right-of-way or drainage patterns. Staff has no concerns with the realignment of the property lines with the exception of the requirement to include the sanitary sewer lines shown within the easement for documentation purposes which is Exhibit 7. Staff supports the request and I’m happy to answer any questions. Franz All right, thank you. At this point, is there is any questions or any comments from any of the members of the Plan Commission? Jones I’ve got a few – I just want to get a little clarity when it comes to construction that crosses over a building setback line. It appears to, for lack of a better way to describe it, the southwest or southeast portion of this house has kind of some hardscape and a patio area and a gazebo out there. It seems to be sitting where I would call the, on the plan a, a variable building setback line and then there’s also a variable drainage utility easement out through there. What is the, just for clarity, what are the rules and regs when it comes to what can and can’t be put across a building setback line? Stevanovic My understanding with a realignment of the property line was that that would not be encroaching into that building setback line. When you talk about setback lines the, any existing structures should not encroach upon that. Hardscape itself, my Page 4 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission November 21, 2022 understanding was, moving the property line aligned with moving resolution to where the sidewalk was laying. So, there really should not be structures within the building setback line. Lake I mean, it appears like that gazebo is. When I draw a line, I know it’s Google Earth, but when I come off the property line they’re showing it appears to cut through that gazebo. Stevanovic Doug, maybe you can answer to that? Fleener I’m – give me just one, one second here. I’m, I’m taking a look at it. Lake I think part of my concern lies with our BZA meeting last month or this month where there was a pool in a setback line and we were informed that no structures in Holliday Farms are allowed to be in a setback line and so we pushed back on a person who had a pool 85% built and I don’t want to get into that situation again. Nor does Larry I’d venture to guess. Jones Correct. And I guess the second part I find interesting – Fleener We don’t, we don’t – Jones Is that when there are existing structures it, it appears that Holliday Farm is more than willing to change property lines to accommodate same. Fleener Yeah it’s – Jones So which side of this are we on? Fleener This, this individual situation is a little unique because it started as out temporary Clubhouse and it’ll be next to the, to the Clubhouse and in, in regards to the, to the back building setback line, at both Chatham Hills in Westfield and, and at Holliday, we, we haven’t permitted any structures to be in the back BSL but we, the ARB will review anything that, that is not footed they would take a look at, whether that be a concrete patio or, or that type of thing that might, might go in the BSL and that, that’s reviewed by the ARB on a, on a case-by-case basis. In, in regards to the gazebo, we, we can take a look at that. I, I did talk with Phil, who I’m filling in for tonight, briefly before, before the meeting and I, I don’t believe that that is but we will take a, a look into that to see if that, that encroaches into that area there but that, that would be only unique to this situation as it was our temporary Clubhouse and next to the, the eventual Clubhouse. Jones So, I had a conversation with my attorney, you can imagine that it’s a full-time job being my attorney and so he takes my calls, he kind of came up and explained to me that when it comes to situations, and this is more a BZA thing, but also when you mentioned Architectural Review Board approval or review, he came up with a term it’s a two-lock box that you both have to comply with the Town of Zionsville to get the permit but you also have to comply with Holliday Farms and their Architectural Review Board and just because you get one key doesn’t mean the other key’s guaranteed. What you just now told me is that the Page 5 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission November 21, 2022 Architectural Review Board is going to take this under consideration. I guess what I’m driving for is I would prefer to see things come before us with a certain amount of clarity and closure. I’m not particularly interested in approving one change if there’s still other changes that may be needed or I don’t particularly feel comfortable with the situation where we keep hearing and somebody else will review this at a later date. Lake So, here’s the challenge I have – or, or I guess compliment to that but – the PUD is our purview. They made that our purview when they asked us to pass the PUD and if the PUD says this structure, any structure like this, an accessory structure, can't be in the building setback line, it doesn’t matter what the Architectural Review Board says, we’ve got to agree to it first. So what, what I’m struggling with is the developer kinda has the mentality that we, it’s existing we can kinda do what we want but then we get residents that come before us that are put in a situation where they don’t have that same, same luxury and in this case if that is a gazebo, that’s a structure, it’s an accessory structure, and it is not by your PUD allowed within the property line. So, if we approve the property line change, that’s still going to have to be removed from the, the property unless you go before the BZA and ask for a variance. Is that not correct? Okay. Franz I guess the question I would have is both parties have to agree. Does it matter which order they go in I guess is the question I would ask. Because I know, I, I watched the one you’re talking about – Lake Yeah – Franz And you made the comment I don’t know why it’s here – the ARB needs to approve this before it gets to us and then you just, you just reversed that and said we should approve it before the ARB – I’m just trying to figure out which would go first. Lake One was a variance. So the other one was a variance – Franz Okay. Lake So if, if they’re going to come to us for a variance, they should’ve done it having the ARB’s approval, not hoping that we would allow them the grace – Franz Right. Lake To do it and then use that as a way to force the ARB. Franz And, and I know there’s been a couple lots that came back from Holliday Farm where they did modify setbacks and – that was to us, if you recall – Lake Yeah, yeah. Franz There’s been three or four – Lake Correct. Page 6 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission November 21, 2022 Franz That I recall, so – Lake I just in this instance though, making this change causes this to be noncompliant. It may already be noncompliant and to my knowledge there was no approval of the noncompliant condition. So are we going to approve a nonconforming existing condition? Because that request is not on the table. Taylor It seems to me there are two options. One, one, I mean, they could just move the line so that it’s, so there’s, there’s not a noncompliance – Lake Yes. Taylor Or, they could ask for a variance – Lake Yes. Taylor To the standard that says you can't be there but I think we need, I think we need some clarity about whether or not there is a noncompliance. I don’t know where the gazebo is. I, I don’t know – but, I mean, I think we need to know that and so either Mr. Fleener or staff have to help us figure that out. Fleener We’d be happy to request a continuance for this evening. I think this was probably thought of as a simple replat and be happy to address any, any of the questions that were brought up this evening and then we can, can come back to you. Jones Can I make a motion? Franz All right, so this would be a motion to continue to the December 19th meeting. Is there a motion? Jones Yeah, I move that Docket 2022-50-RP gets moved to the December 19th Commission hearing. Franz All right. Is there a second? Grabianowski Second. Franz Any further discussion? All in favor signify by aye. All Aye. Franz Opposed by nay. [No response] That matter is continued to next month. I’ll ask this – Janice, is there any similar situation with this next request of theirs? Stevanovic The next petition? Franz Yeah. Is there anything similar to like or? Page 7 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission November 21, 2022 Stevanovic No, they’re, -- Franz Okay. Stevanovic They’re really two separate – Franz Okay. Stevanovic Petitions. Franz All right and on to next docket item 2022-52-RP, Replat of Lots F32 and F33, Section 2 in Holliday Farms, 10651 Pete Dye Ridge, Zionsville. Petition for the Approval of a Replat of Lots F32 and F33 of Section 2, Holliday Farms. Replat would merge the two lots into a single lot, both lots being zoned Planned Unit Development (Holliday Farms PUD). Mr. Fleener, I’m assuming you’re handling this one too? Fleener That’s correct. Franz All right, please proceed. Fleener Doug Fleener again, for the record, 12845 Vanderhorst Street in Carmel, Indiana. This is simply a, a client in Holliday Farms has request, has purchased two lots and wants to combine those into one lot for one single family home. Franz All right. Is there any comment on this one from the public? Janice, staff report please. Stevanovic This petition requests to vacate an adjoining property line to merge Lots F32 and F33 in Holliday Farms. It is commonplace with subdivision plats that most property lines provide for an easement on either side of the property line to allow for utility or drainage access. These adjoining properties located in Section 2 provide for a 10-foot drainage easement on either side of the property line. Section 193.090 of the Subdivision Control Ordinance provides the Plan Commission has the authority to vacate land and the property line within a plat. The Town Council this morning approved of the vacation of the easement at their regularly scheduled meeting. It is noted that pursuant of final sign off on an ordinance related to the vacation of the easements will be pursued at their next meeting but it was approved this morning. Franz All right, thank you. So any questions/comments from any members of the Plan Commission? Jones Sure. So, once again, it’s, it’s a building setback line across the rear of these two lots. It’s kind of interesting that there’s a 20-foot difference between them. What I also found kind of interesting as I’m reviewing this is I’ve been going through their development standards matrix and this is a Block Subarea D lot and what I find interesting is that lot F34, while this matrix calls out for a 30-foot rear setback, it’s only showing a 20 on the plan and while this doesn’t have any bearing on what we’re actually getting ready to review, approve, whatever – it is Page 8 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission November 21, 2022 worth noting and I’d like to have on the record is that part of the previous issue that we’re working on with this pool was basically a mistake on the part of the Town’s reviewer and all this ties back to the simple issue that there is not any I want to say continuity or maybe at, at some point it also appears maybe their matrix is a little bit arbitrary as to what the lots show and what the matrix shows. Secondly, one of the issues that came to light in this other Board of Zoning Appeals issue is that the actual plat for the property doesn’t contain the same information that is on these site plans or maybe I’m getting my terms backwards – this is the plat – is the house shown on a plat or a site plan? Stevanovic The plot plan print outs ____ 27:04. Jones Plot plan for the house – Lake The other was a plot plan. Jones And the development plan and this is also something we’ve talked about just trying to clean up the process of making sure that lots and properties come before us with approval of the Architectural Review Board before they get to us but the second issue is just continuity between information shown. That’s it. Nothing we can do about it. Franz The, the and I’ll ask this question for clarification because I know which one you’re talking about. If I recall, that document that, that was submitted there was really no setbacks on that drawing. I mean they listed it verbally but there was no – and I’ve seen those where there’s a lot more detail that’s in those same drawings. Jones Correct. Lake Well I think even this one F, F34 there, I mean, the minimum setback per this table is 30 foot yet the line on the, on the plat shows 20 and so there are clearly discrepancies – Franz Yeah. Lake Throughout this document and so I think we need to be more judicious in reviewing these to make sure that we’re not just going by what’s on the drawing but we’re looking at the whole document and making sure that the key is followed as well and, and kind of challenging the developers to why it’s not right and why it’s not accurate. I agree it doesn’t affect this petition but we seem to be seeing a lot of replats in Holliday Farms so. Franz All right. So as a condition would you want this document corrected or no? Lake It’s not for this lot so no, not in my opinion. Jones No. Franz Okay, all right. Any other discussion? Oh, I’m assuming this one was submitted with First Class Mail also? Page 9 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission November 21, 2022 Stevanovic Yes. Franz All right, so is there a motion to accept First Class Mail for proper notification on this matter? Hurst So moved. Franz Is there a second? Grabianowski Second. Franz All in favor signify by aye. All Aye. Franz Opposed by nay. [No response] All right, that’s approved. All right, so is there any other questions/comments? If, if not, is there a motion on this matter? Lake Sure. I move to approve the Docket Number 2022-52-RP replat to allow for the vacation of the adjoining property lines of Lots F32 and F33 resulting in the lots being combined into one parcel in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning District attached as Exhibit 5 be approved based on the Findings established at the public hearing subject to resolution of the items noted within the engineering comment letter Exhibit 6. Franz Is there a second? Walker Second. Franz Any further discussion? Mike, would you please take roll on this? Dale Larry Jones? Jones Aye. Dale Cindy Madrick? Madrick Aye. Dale Chris Lake? Lake Aye. Dale Mary Grabianowski? Grabianowski Aye. Page 10 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission November 21, 2022 Dale David Franz? Franz Aye. Dale Jim Hurst? Hurst Aye. Dale Sharon Walker? Walker Aye. Franz All right, the motion is unanimous. We’ll see you next month on the other matter. Thank you very much. Fleener Thank you. Franz Other matters to be considered Hecker’s Fitness, 6828 West Stonegate Drive, Minor Plat Amendment: Amendment to 2012-14-DP permitting modification to existing windows, doors and the addition of a new door for access. Janice – Stevanovic Yes, this is a minor amendment that staff has reviewed, approved and provided to Plan Commission several exhibits reflecting the minor amendments themselves – the first one adding one 3-foot x 7-foot door to the south corner of the garage. The second one widening the west facing existing window on the first floor. The third one slightly moving the location of the existing northeast window of the first floor and lastly, widening the existing north egress door. Again, staff is simply informing the Plan Commission of the minor amendment. Franz All right, thank you. Lake Is there a follow-up you have to do now with the petitioner still? Stevanovic For that particular? Lake Yeah or no? Stevanovic No, not – Lake Okay, the reason I ask is because I think that’s a scenario where there’s an Architectural Review Board that’ll have to approve that as well and I don’t know how much they know of that process. They’re a new owner of that building so. I guess we’ll find out. Franz Anything else on that one? All right, next item is Resolution for Plan Commission’s Rules of Procedure. Janice, can you comment on this one also? Stevanovic Yes, as I mentioned this morning, the Town Council did review the four ordinance amendments that we had put before the Plan Commission. At their last meeting they did approve for the Rules of Procedure for the Plan Commission be removed from the Zoning Ordinance so that that is squarely placed on the Plan Page 11 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission November 21, 2022 Commission to update, revise as needed. No text change happened during this process and what we’re looking for right now is simply the Plan Commission to readopt the rules as they stand. Again, no text change to them at this point in time. Franz All right, thank you. Is there any questions/comments? So we need to make a motion to readopt? Taylor To adopt the resolution which adopts, readopts your Rules of Procedure as a standalone document that you own that you don’t have to go to the Town Council to amend. Franz Okay. Would somebody like to make a motion? Lake So I move to readopt the resolution of the Plan Commission Rules of Procedure as currently adopted with no text changes. Jones Second. Franz All right, any further discussion? I’ll do this voice vote. All in favor signify by aye. All Aye. Franz Opposed by nay. [No response] All right, those are approved. Last on the docket is Form Based Code status update. Stevanovic Please do. Thank you. Lippins Here we go. Good evening Planning Commission. My name is Paul Lippins and I’m with McKenna Associates and we are the consultant that was selected to help the town with the Form Based Code Zoning Ordinance update. I’m here tonight representing my team, many of which some of you certainly know from our time down here. We spent a week down here last year doing a charrette which really is the basis for the draft code and we’re really excited to be at this point in the process where we’re working with town to vet a draft and then looking forward to bringing that draft to you hopefully early next year. We thought that this would be a good time to come to Planning Commission and present kind of the major findings of the charrette process and what you’ll be expecting to review when we do a working session early next year. So I wanted to start tonight with some of the basics and this is certainly going to be familiar to many members of the Planning Commission but I’m also doing this for the benefit of the public or anyone who, who watches this presentation at home. So what is a Form Based Code? Really, this is a way of organizing zoning principles to help create neighborhoods, to enforce town centers or, or village districts like the Village and also it’s a way to more intentionally preserve the Page 12 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission November 21, 2022 agricultural character of, of the town. My firm, McKenna, we really focus in zoning and planning around the edges of major metropolitan areas like Indianapolis and we also do a lot of rural coding so we work in all kind of formats and simply put, Form Based Codes really regulate form before function so a lot of what initial zoning codes did was they thought about the function of how land was used – Is it a commercial use? Is it a residential use? And then really just organized around that, that principle that what types of things should be allowed where. Form Based Codes really take it to a different approach and it says let’s think really about the form of these land uses. First, how do we want the architectural details, the types of buildings, to be created in different places and then allowing, still regulating the functional use of that property but doing it only after we look first at the type of architecture. The Formed Based Codes a lot of places are preferring them now because they tend to have more predictable results in the types of buildings and also they create a high-quality public realm. So the idea is they create places where people can walk, people can bike and people can live and really put people as, first in the types of designs that are permitted. So I show this picture here – I grew up outside of Ann Arbor, Michigan. This is a small hamlet called Dixboro and right across from this, the Dixboro General Store, which is now an antique store, there’s a village green which I played baseball in after school and this is really a form of urbanism and I think that many, many of you probably recognize this from rural Indiana as well. These types of commercial uses that sit right in the context of farms and, and residential uses and the interesting thing is that we, we might this a hamlet but they fit right in the, the context of different types of commercial development. In this slide there’s another place that I lived – during college I lived at First and Tenth Street in New York City and here’s like the, the ultimate urbanism, right? Probably many of you have been to New York and it’s interesting to put kind of the most densest, urbanist place in all of the, the country next to a small town, right? And we see that there are similarities in the way people utilize this space so both of these pictures show, show mixed use buildings that have buildings built at the street. They have general stores – places where people can buy groceries and also pharmaceuticals or things like that. They are also organized around some type of a traffic light or a stop sign, a place where there’s an integration with the vehicle system. You know, they have multiple stories and mixed uses in them – residential uses as well as commercial uses but the first floor is really transparent, it’s designed so people can see the space, access the space and have certain punched out opening, ground floor awnings – these are things that invite people into the space and really create a commercial environment. So in thinking about how to regulate form and regulate form in a way that fits in a variety of processes, the approach that my company proposed when, when we were selected to do this work with you was a building types code. So this is the type of code that actually kind of simplifies the types of uses or types of development that can happen based on a set of building types. So if you imagine a mixed use building type and I’ll show some pictures a little later, or a residential building type or a large scale research facility, through a set of building types developers can select the type of use that they want to put in and have more flexibility with how those buildings are used. So it’s organized first around building types and the building types are really designed based on local Page 13 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission November 21, 2022 precedence and they are designed to include the types of unique things that you might find in an, in an area. One of the things we found in Zionsville was some galleries so we created a building type that has a gallery in front of it to match the local standards. So Form Based Codes as I also allow you to regulate use by building story so you could, for instance, require retail or office on the first floor and then permit residential and office on the second and third floor. They also, as opposed to setbacks, create build-to lines. So, certain buildings you might be required to be placed at 5-foot back from the right-of-way, 10-foot back from the right-of-way or right at the right-of-way with zero setback. Form Based Codes also contain architectural regulations, so guidelines for how a window should be designed, where the placement is to be and then what type of architectural features should be included on different building types. Form Based Codes also regulate street frontage. They determine how the entryways onto different buildings should be designed. They streamline development processes so in, in, in situations where developments might be more complicated, by using a building type knowing that all of the architectural standards are included in that building type can make it so those types of developments can be approved quicker. In other words, you don’t have to determine on, for every single site what all of the different architectural review should be. If, if it fits within the building type, oftentimes you can do a staff or an administrative approval of what might otherwise be a very complicated development process. And they can require that new developments match a predetermined concept. So this is also a way that you can use a, a plan for an area to, to fast track development if a plan relates to the building types that are included in the Form Based Code. So I mentioned this before, so each area within the town can be, can be coded or mapped in zoning districts according to those values and context. So, in places where you have the, the Village you would have a set of building types that are related to the Village. In the rural areas you, you would limit the building types only to match the types of buildings that are more appropriate in the rural context and then similarly in neighborhoods you might only permit residential building types with a more limited set of other buildings that could be utilized. So all of the outcomes for the draft code that we’re preparing came from the week we spent doing a charrette. So, we haven’t been back presenting really in, in a year specifically on this code. The town did spend some time evaluating a historic commission which we participated in that evaluation and essentially the, we were put on a little bit of a hold but we are moving forward now and we’re really excited to be engaging in this process again. So, I’m going to cover here, I think, seven of the major outcomes from the charrette that will be incorporated into the draft zoning ordinance and I think that one of the major outcomes is this idea that for a commercial redevelopment it should really happen in, in two forms, either as a rural hamlet or as a town center and new town centers really, what we heard, should match the character of the Village. So not the only place in the town that can be developed like that. We actually found three additional areas that we talked about during the charrette that might be appropriate for new town centers and I’ll show you those on, on the outcomes here. So a little bit on this process. So the Zionsville Town Code process we started with analysis before the charrette. We, we looked at the Page 14 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission November 21, 2022 existing plan documents and the existing ordinance and we prepared to create a series of events that we explored during that week-long charrette. Then we’ve created a staff draft and we’re working with staff on a technical review process so we’re asking all of the town’s departments to thoroughly vet the draft before we bring it to the Planning Commission to review and then that way you’ll have a draft that really has had not just the input of our team and our interpretation of the findings, but you’ll also have a draft that has had an extensive review process of your staff and we will create then what we call the adoption draft which is the draft that we want feedback on and there’s definitely more feedback on the adoption draft but our intent is to produce that adoption draft that also has been vetted by your town staff prior to releasing it. So right now we are in that, that phase which we call a technical review phase and we’re working, I think essentially bi-weekly at staff meetings to take comments on this draft and we’re intending for that process to be completed in early 2023 and then immediately following that we’ll create this adoption draft and come back and do a working session with Planning Commission. So this body will be the first body we discuss that adoption draft with in detail in a public forum. I just put this up here to, as a quick reminder of all of the things that we did during that charrette week. So we actually did a listening event each night. We did one in Perry Township, one in Union and one in Eagle and then we did the wrap-up event here at Town Hall but throughout the day we had an, an extensive series of workshops and focus groups where we really took the time to examine a lot of the development issues that are happening in Zionsville and talk in detail about what the existing code, you know, what the issues were with the existing ordinance and how best we should approach solving those issues and creating a new zoning ordinance for the Town of Zionsville and I’ve summarized those really into seven findings or seven outcomes but I want to also cover what we presented at that, that, that last meeting about what we heard. So, in rural areas what we heard, and this is directly from town residents and, and business owners who participated in this process. It was very important to preserve the rural character, maintain open space, ensure high-quality and diverse architecture, no cookie cutter developments was what we heard. There was wide support for hamlets and cluster style zoning that would preserve development rights but also make sure that there was open space preserved as well. Residents in the rural areas were very concerned about impacts of commercial and industrial development. They wanted a variety of housing options, protecting local businesses and preventing leapfrogging of utilities and those, that type of development. So, basically, they want a development to happen adjacent to existing development, simplification of code requirements and noting that for new uses like solar or wind that it would be more desirable in commercial and industrial areas. In, in findings about the Village, we heard new development in the Village should match the existing character. We heard a lot of, a lot about height limits but that it could go up to four, four stories if it was appropriately done with setbacks and consideration of viewsheds but that there should also be limits on floor-to-floor heights, that variance standards should be looked at and enforcement of the ordinance, the new ordinance should be a priority. We heard about interest in blending housing types, providing code that would support Page 15 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission November 21, 2022 accessory dwelling units. That’s what AD use means. Also, duplex and upper story apartments, accommodating short-term rentals or emerging land uses, adjusting parking standards to fit with development economics, encouraging sidewalks on all streets and addressing storm water drainage issues. We heard a lot about storm water and drainage issues in the Village and particularly about water trespass issues. I’ve got a little more findings that we heard about the Village, we did hear a lot of about the teardowns and rebuilds and making sure that existing structures were accommodated and that lot coverage variances, addressing the need for lot coverage variances for existing structures and how that relates to the patio and outdoor hard, hardscape features. So this is also an issue that we’re looking at with staff – how to essentially right size lot, lot coverage requirements in the Village and we, I, we had a note here that was presented at the charrette about how the actual or original plat for Zionsville which I’ve included on this side, actually had lots at 5,000 feet so we actually did following the charrette somewhat extensive nonconformity analysis with staff where we looked at the lot sizes for each lot in the new districts that were being created to, to try to make sure that the new standards would reduce nonconformity. I do, I do want to say that every zoning ordinance I’ve ever worked on there are definitely lots that don’t conform with the zoning ordinance requirements but what we always try to do is move that in the right direction. So this is a part of right sizing lot standards as to actually say how, how big are the lots in this district? And if we create a lot, a lot requirement of this, this say 8,000 square feet, how does that relate to if we adjusted it to 5,000 square feet. So in the Village we also heard that it was desirable to have a variation, again, of, of inventory, housing types and those types of residential requirements as well and support for accessory dwelling units or carriage housing, houses as well. So here are the outcomes – so we feel in moving forward these were the findings that we presented at the charrette as well that we, we take, we took these to be our major charges in creating the draft ordinance. That in hamlets or in rural areas in the town, the desirable form for new commercial was hamlets so that we should create a method for new commercial development that was more urban in character than, for lack of a better word, suburban or vehically-oriented in character and this is a little bit of an example at that. We showed this extensively during the charrette but essentially this is what large lot subdivisions look like. I would call this more of a vehicular-oriented type of development or a suburban style development but it’s where say this is an example of a 40-acre lot that is just subdivided into 1-acre lots. What, what hamlets do is they actually have more of an, an urban style lot size so more like that 8,000 square foot lot size or the 5,000 square foot lot size in the Village and it says you can have that same number of units but also in doing that you would preserve the rest of the land by having a lot larger lot size. So this is a method that allows for the preservation of the rural character but also allows people who hold land in rural areas to still have residential development that occurs and this is the example, another example of what hamlets look like. This is a small town in a, in a rural landscape. This is Crested Butte, Colorado and it shows essentially the type of development that wouldn’t be out of place on, like right in the Village but also could, could happen in one of these hamlet areas in the rural areas of the town. So briefly here, I just wanted to show you from 1955 this is Zionsville. The Village is in the lower righthand part of this and you can see going up to 1981 a Page 16 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission November 21, 2022 number of subdivisions developed and then moving up to 2005 even more subdivisions and then, again, in, this is the most recent aerial in 2020, even more subdivisions. You know, so the, the principle of this is to make sure that new development actually does, takes an effort to preserve the agricultural land that is still remaining in the town. And we, again, the reason why I presented this as outcome #1 is because in all of the public events that we held around the town, we heard a lot, there was a lot of support for the idea of preserving the agricultural character in the Town of Zionsville and I think that was one of our major findings from this work. But similar to that, outcome #2 was, was that the idea of creating new town centers was also something that people were, were interested in and these are larger-scale developments and I would say these are more like small towns or several blocks of development that is more on the scale of what the Village is now. So we took the Village as really the precedent for what might also be considered in other areas of the Village and this map here shows 1, 2, 3 and 4 places that are in, not in the Village but some of them are in some of the far reaches of, of the town but that could be appropriate for new town centers and in creating a zoning map what we’re going to do is actually apply a new zoning to these areas which would permit development more consistently with the type of development that is in the village center. Like I said, the Village is the architectural precedent and these locations were selected based on proximity to high, highways and interchanges, proximity to existing residential development so they would essentially build on some of the, the subdivisions that have already been created and also proximity to rail lines and those types of infrastructure. Outcome #3 and this is maybe less fancy but one of the biggest challenges we have in Zionsville is the fact that the code is actually created from not just Eagle Township’s code but also Union and Perry. So you have really three zoning ordinances that were combined to create this zoning ordinance and with that really comes a lot of analysis to figure out. So the next couple of outcomes are kind of based on that how do we assess and update the standard? So updating the procedures was something we heard a lot of support for. That includes the development process, thinking very carefully about special exception review and adoption, thinking about the planned development processes. As I mentioned before, variance procedures, procedures to amend or and violations as well as zoning compliance review and notice requirements. So this is really how does the code function and how can we create a, a little bit of some easier procedures, even some administrative approvals as part of that process. More on updated procedures, I, I noted special exception uses but looking at what those standards are that are attached to them, when they expire and how they’re approved and who even approves them is, is something to consider as a part of this. And then combining all of the sections related to conditions for approval of special exceptions. This is something that is, was we found in review of the code. There are standards are everywhere so pulling those standards together and just making them more usable was one of the big challenges in creating the draft. Outcome #4 consolidating – and there’s only 7 of these so stick with me – I’ve already made it through half. Consolidating the general regulations. So these are standards for specific land uses. The parking and loading and access management standards, they, they were spread out. Landscaping standards were spread out so Page 17 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission November 21, 2022 we’ve kind of taken these types of standards that apply to all types of developments and we’re trying to move them into a chapter so it’s more usable. Signs, lighting, fences and walls, encroachments – really, this is just another part of the reorganization of this ordinance and then this was what we presented, slightly modified from what we presented at the charrette, but this is the reorganization of the code and this is essentially the Table of Contents that we created for the technical review draft. So, starting with the purpose of the ordinance, the title, putting the definitions right up front because they’re very important to how the code is interpreted, developing permitted use tables and permitted building types tables is part of that, a schedule of regulations which summarizes all of the, the regulatory requirements. We developed a chapter of form based standards which really describes, describes those building types and then maybe I won’t go through all of them, but you can read essentially this is a Table of Contents – that’s the reorganized version of the code and we actually went through all of Zionsville’s ordinances and we consolidated and shifted them into this format and then we began to edit and simplify, essentially trim it down to a more usable version of that code which is also part of the reason why it’s important for us to do a technical review because your staff are the people who use that code so they’re helping us make sure that we preserve the regulations and that it’ll work in its, its new form. The second part of that reorganization is to add hyperlinks cross-references so that it will be something you can click on and you can go from section to section, really looking at making sure that we’ve added enough graphics to make it usable and then that we’ve gotten the definitions right. So this is kind of our last step after the technical review. We’ll go through and actually add more hyperlinks to make sure it’s a highly functional document before the Planning Commission or the Town Council needs to look through it. So outcome #6, I’m getting there now – consolidation of districts and uses. This is a very big task and we, we showed this at, at the charrette but basically, and Janice might be able to help me with this, but I think you had something like 40 districts in the existing code? Yeah, she’s nodding – so, some, at first I thought it was 20 but I realized that was another town I work with. You had 40 districts. That is a lot of districts. So we went through those districts and we combined them. We actually looked at what are the uses permitted? What are the, the lot standards? Is, are they substantially different? You know, really they weren’t. There was a lot of in what the town called a, a urban district or a rural district, there was a lot of similarities between what those districts were actually doing so we proposed at the charrette and presented this, that we would combine those into, I think we’ve got somewhere around 12 or 13 districts here but, I should’ve done the math but, essentially we’ve got a series of end districts that are neighborhoods so what you’ve previously thought of as your residential districts, we’re saying let’s call those neighborhood districts and then we’ve taken what were some of the business districts in the previous ordinance and those are the MU districts. So we’ve created a series of mixed use districts there as well. And then your industrial districts remain industrial and your ag districts are going to be consolidated to one ag district. In, in doing that also and this is, this is the draft, this has much evolved since this version of, of it but this is actually what we presented at, at the charrette but what we did was we actually in addition to having all those districts oftentimes older zoning districts enumerated way too Page 18 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission November 21, 2022 many uses so, for instance, rather than having a, a re – this has retail under 20,000 or retail over 20,000 square feet. You might have a hat store and a men’s clothing store and a purse store and all of those things that now we just think of this is retail and there’s no need to regulate retail at that scale so we call that a consolidation of uses and there was a lot of time that we spent actually going through what the uses were in the code and consolidating those into a more easily to read version of that and this is another thing that we’re doing. We actually spent a lot of time with staff going through these permitted uses and making sure that we’ve iterated the, the uses as they do appear in the town. We’ve also created as part of this consolidation of districts, a zoning map or in form based code that’s often called a, a regulating plan but essentially it’s a new zoning map and you see here on the left the legend this would be the districts that would appear in the, in the new code and then essentially what we’ve done is we’ve used that consolidation to create a new district map and we’re going through this as well and editing it and also including those new town centers as a part of this as well. This is just a blow up of that. And then my final kind of outcome that I wanted to present tonight is the creation of the form based standards and what we did as part of this is we created a series of building types that were actually based on the types of buildings we observed in the Village and then tuned with the measurements that we took while we were here during the charrette and this is kind of a, a list. This is, I think, not the complete list but these are the, the, the basic set that we did present at the, at the charrette and those are ADUs, actually, I’ll go through them here – I’ll show you. So these are accessory dwelling units or carriage houses basically permitting residential structures in garages or above garages, creating standards for a duplex or a type of multi-family, either stacked or side by side, creating standards for a fourplex. These would be kind of small apartment unit buildings or a four, four- person apartment buildings. Standards for single-story retail or office. It’s kind of a, a misnomer that to have urbanism you have to have multiple stories – you don’t. You just have to have transparent windows, entrances and buildings like this can be very affordable and actually quite effective at creating a walkable environment. This is kind of the traditional mixed use building. This is the two- story that we heard a lot of support for this type of building but that type of building can also appear in different forms. So we’ve got a standard for a bank or I would call this an, a more significant architectural statement than often these types of buildings are included in larger mixed use developments for civic uses or uses that involve a higher architectural character. Similar to that, a theater which this could also be a, an, an, a gallery or an art space but this type of building that is permitted to have a little more sign, signage and also have kind of a grand scale in a, in a mixed use district or a, a village district. This is called the lease loft, so a, a larger type of apartment. This is an example where going from two stories to three or four stories might be appropriate and thinking about the standards of which they were permitted to go higher is something that we could do through a special exceptions process. The hotel – this is a large-scale hotel. We actually developed another version of this too which is more a, a village scale hotel that was, is modeled after some of the inns here in the Village but this would be a larger-scale hotel that would also be the type of thing you might want to build in one of the newer town centers where you’d be able to have possibly more rentable space. And then we also have this research or this could also be thought of as a large floor plate mixed use building. Certainly it is possible to Page 19 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission November 21, 2022 build larger buildings that fit well within a walkable context and, and from a development perspective looking at more large floor plate buildings is certainly something developers like to see as part of a code and this could be something that could have, again, something may be permitted as a special exception in, in the Village but permitted in some of the other mixed use districts in the town. So that’s my quick review of the major outcomes from the charrette and I would say we move forward with really what we heard at the charrette as really what our charge was in drafting and we have stuck to it. The, the message that I gave tonight is the same message that we gave on the last day, the final presentation, and we have worked in good faith to develop a draft code that really executes what we heard was, was dear to many dedicated residents in Zionsville that were vested in ensuring that this process yields the types of results and creates the style and development that they want to see in their town. So moving forward, these are next steps: We are working with staff to complete the technical review. We are moving at a good pace but we, we also are dedicated to making sure that we spend enough time to do it well and to produce a document that not only my firm has faith, good faith in but that the town staff does as well. Essentially you gotta take the time to do the work and I’m definitely pleased with the interchange of ideas and the, the work that not just my team but the town’s team is doing in this process. Our next step will be to create that adoption draft and we will be seeking public comment on that draft. There will be a Plan Commission review and a Town Council review. We will release that document basically when we start preparing for a working session with Planning Commission and it will be put on the, the website zionsvilletowncode.com and that is also linked to the city’s website as well and we will schedule then a, a working session with Planning Commission, with the Plan Commission as I mentioned. We’ll take comments from Plan Commission. There are, certainly, we could also take comments from the public at that meeting but it will be Planning Commission’s preference really how we want to structure that. There’ll be an opportunity for revisions based on those comments and then there will be another Plan Commission meeting. So you will not be asked to make any decisions on this document the first time we, we talk about it. We’ll, we’ll have a discussion. It will be a working session and then what we’ll do is we’ll go back with town staff and we’ll address the concerns and the plan is to bring it back with those revisions for you to consider and you would make a recommendation at that time for Town Council’s consideration and then we would do the same process with Town Council. They would have an opportunity to review it, make comments, request revisions and hopefully in all of this we will have a document that’s ready to, for adoption I’m hoping maybe late, late winter of 2023 or early spring but we’re really, we’re really targeting that kind of March timeframe. There’s a lot of work to get there and we also understand that there are a lot of other priorities that the town is working on so we are taking our cues also from the town about what the best timing is for, for this process but we want to time it according to not just the work that staff’s doing but also Town Council’s agendas and all of the things that Town Council is trying to, the business Town Council is trying to prioritize and as well as Planning Commission what you have on your agenda next year as well but we, we do, we do think that the, the schedule we’ve outlined is achievable and we do Page 20 of 21 Zionsville Plan Commission November 21, 2022 anticipate having a working session with you, maybe January, maybe February but I hope to see, see you soon to kind of walk through in detail the draft and that is my presentation. I maybe took longer than you wanted but hopefully not and certainly if, if there are questions or comments, I, I’d love to chat with you about it. Franz All right, thank you very much. Does anybody have any questions or comments? I guess not. Lippins All right. Franz Well, thank you very much. Lippins Thank you. Franz We look forward to working on this in the fall, in the—I guess it’ll be the spring. Lippins Appreciate it. Franz Thanks. Any other items? Is there a motion to adjourn? Grabianowski So moved. Franz All in favor signify by aye. All Aye. Franz Happy Thanksgiving everybody. Madrick You too guys. Page 21 of 21