[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:06] Hello and welcome to the August 24th, 2026 Advisory Plan Commission for the Town of Brownsburg. We'll officially call this meeting to order, and we do have a quorum with six members present, and Mr. Scaldon is absent today. Please rise for a moment of silence and a pledge of allegiance.
[0:23] The
[0:43] United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands for one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[1:02] All right, thank you.
[1:03] Our first order of business will be the election of officers, staff.
[1:11] Yes.
[1:13] So, Jessica Herring, she'll be taking over for Lindsay Breone.
[1:18] As the recording secretary for the rest of 2026,
[1:26] starting in September, starting in September.
[1:32] Okay, is there a nomination?
[1:35] I guess if we need a nomination in a second for that.
[1:39] Mr. Miller, I'd like to nominate, sorry, as a hearing, Jessica Herring.
[1:49] Jessica Herring.
[1:50] Thank you.
[1:51] for a recording secretary.
[1:54] Second.
[1:56] Any discussion?
[1:58] Will Lindsay still be available as a backup in her absence?
[2:03] Okay, thank you.
[2:08] All those in favor?
[2:09] Please respond with aye.
[2:11] Aye.
[2:12] All those opposed with nay?
[2:15] Motion passes.
[2:23] All right, next door.
[2:24] Item is the approval of previous meeting minutes
[2:26] from the July 27th, 2026 regular meeting.
[2:30] Any discussions, comments, clarifications?
[2:39] I'd like to make a motion to approve the July 27, 2026 regular meeting minutes.
[2:45] Second.
[2:48] All those in favor?
[2:50] Aye.
[2:51] All those opposed?
[2:53] Motion passes.
[2:59] All right.
[2:59] Next up, approval of finding a fact and reports of determination for PSDP-26-12.
[3:07] Low cost, spay and neuter clinic, parking lot addition, development plan review, and PSDP-26-13, gateway 74, development plan review.
[3:19] Any discussion?
[3:23] I'd like to make a motion that we approve the findings of facts and report to determination.
[3:28] And PSDP-26-12 and DSDP-26-13.
[3:34] Was that PSDP-26-13?
[3:37] I mean yes, all right. Thank you. Second. All right.
[3:42] It's a motion in a second. All those in favor, please respond with aye.
[3:46] Aye. Those opposed? All right. Thank you.
[3:53] All right. Next up hearing of requests for contingencies.
[3:56] We have none and development plan approval requests.
[4:00] Yes, Steph.
[4:03] Sorry, I'll, for PSDP-26-14, Lyons Transink Development Plan Review.
[4:10] All right, so this is PSDP-26-14, Lyons Transink Development Plan Review.
[4:28] Okay, so, this consistent with the comprehensive plan satisfies Chapter 2, zoning districts
[4:34] districts in Chapter 3 permitted uses, satisfies Chapter 5, site development standards,
[4:40] satisfies other applicable provisions of the UDO, satisfies Chapter 7, subdivision regulations
[4:46] as applicable, and satisfies construction standards.
[4:49] Development plan review, review for conformance with applicable standards of the UDO.
[4:54] Commissioners may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application based on conformity to the standards.
[5:00] So just a little history about this project.
[5:01] By keeping working with the owner since December to attempt to revise the site plan and better understand the functionality and intended operation of the site.
[5:10] Tech comments were issued in December and we subsequently held another tech review meeting based on the updated DPR plans.
[5:17] The applicant had to wait six months before being eligible to reapply following the previous denial.
[5:21] As part of the revision, the applicant did address several of the items previously identified by staff.
[5:26] So,
[5:30] for zoning, this is MS Motorsports, location 4005 North County Road 1000 East.
[5:37] This development plan is for a 2,860 square foot over the road truck maintenance building
[5:45] in a 900 square foot office building to serve Lions Transink.
[5:50] The project does not require nor have any previous variances.
[5:54] So,
[5:59] for chapters two and three, the proposed used vehicle and equipment services, heavy is
[6:04] compliant with MS zoning, development is below the max lock coverage, the maximum is 80%.
[6:11] The project is at 70.2%.
[6:13] All high and setback standards are compliant.
[6:16] For chapter five landscaping, the applicant has added the planting quantity that was required
[6:21] along with the provided landscaping amounts to their planting schedule per development services
[6:26] Tech Review Comments for lighting, the maximum light trespass allowed for an MS-done
[6:32] district is 30 lux. The proposal does not exceed this by the property line. For parking,
[6:37] the applicant provided 31 truck parking spaces, four standard spaces, and one 88 handicap
[6:42] space for a total 36 spaces that meets the parking standards. And then for vision clearance
[6:47] triangles, the VCTs are labeled on the applicant's newest landscape plan submittal. No instructions
[6:53] are present.
[6:56] The project is not located within Brownsburg's water and sewer territories.
[7:02] The site is served by citizens' energy in HCRSD. No special provisions that relate
[7:08] to the plant are noted for the site. Overlay districts are not applicable to this project,
[7:14] and no additional waivers were requested as part of the DPR. However, there are still several
[7:19] All outstanding issues that staff has continually asked the applicant to address.
[7:23] First, staff remains concerned about ingress and egress from the county road.
[7:28] It is still unclear whether any improvements to the roadway will be required,
[7:31] including acceleration and deceleration lanes, and how the proposed entrance will align.
[7:36] Staff also does not believe that the truck traffic can be completely controlled through signage.
[7:41] While signage may help direct truck traffic, there is concern that the proposed truck route signage,
[7:46] particularly when combined with the public roadway signage could create confusion for drivers.
[7:50] This raises the larger question of how trucks will navigate into and more importantly out of the site.
[7:57] Given the potential for 30 or more semis on the property, there are also significant concerns regarding maneuverability including turning movements,
[8:05] parking and the ability to get trucks to circulate safely within the site.
[8:08] Traffic entering and exiting the property will also be competing with trucks already maneuvering within the site,
[8:14] creating additional operational and safety concerns.
[8:17] There are also outstanding questions regarding the building details and overall architectural component of the proposal.
[8:24] While we understand the proposed square footage, it has never been clearly explained what activities will actually occur on the site.
[8:32] Similarly, off the office building continues to appear on the plans in the back corner.
[8:38] However, there has not been sufficient detail provided regarding its purpose or how it will function as part of the overall operation.
[8:49] So for recommendations, the advisory plan commission may request conditions and
[8:54] commitments related to the project and criteria.
[8:57] Conditions or commitments must be made as part of the motion.
[9:00] Based on the information provided in the criteria responses, staff recommends a motion to deny PESDP,
[9:06] ES26, ES1 based on the following criteria.
[9:09] No elevations of the office building have been submitted to review for compliance.
[9:14] While renderings of the maintenance building have been submitted, no information on the use activities or business occurring inside the structure are available.
[9:23] And semi-triple traffic will have limited access to the site via County Road 1000 East.
[9:28] the site for north the south and access can only easily be from the west on County Road 400 to enter into the site.
[9:38] And on top of that, Wester provided feedback on the SWPPP indicating that the plan is deficient.
[9:46] And that significant deficiencies must be addressed before the project can proceed.
[9:49] Accordingly, the notice of intent should not be filed and no land disrupting activity should commence until the identified deficiencies have been resolved, and the SWPPP should be revised to clearly identify the total project area and total anticipated land disturbance, both express and acres and should include specifications for temporary and permanent stabilization measures.
[10:13] The stabilization provisions include a seeding in multi-plan, the 70% coverage requirement for
[10:19] final stabilization in the applicable seven-day stabilization requirement.
[10:25] Additionally, the SWPPP did not provide sufficient information regarding proposed runoff control measures,
[10:31] including the locations and specifications of grade stabilization structures,
[10:36] measures to be implemented for work within water bodies or provisions for erosion and sentiment control
[10:42] on individual building lines regulated under the proposed project.
[10:46] Deficiencies were also identified in the description of the proposed post-construction stormwater management measures.
[10:54] And including stormwater detention and water quality treatment requirements under the applicable local ordinance.
[11:00] These items should also be reviewed in conjunction with the separate technical review comments.
[11:05] Finally, the SWPP should include maintenance guidelines for the proposed post-construction stormwater.
[11:12] measures as well as complete operation and maintenance, manual addressing the inspection,
[11:17] maintenance and long-term operation of the stormwater management facilities.
[11:21] So ultimately, the question before us is simply whether the proposal can technically meet the applicable development standards,
[11:29] but whether this particular use is appropriate for this particular site.
[11:33] A use may be able to meet all the development standards and still not be conductive to the surrounding area,
[11:39] or the specific characteristics of the property.
[11:42] There may be other sites that could more easily accommodate this type of operation,
[11:46] because they have better access, larger roadways, signalized intersections,
[11:50] four-line highways, or other infrastructure designed to handle the associated truck traffic.
[11:54] Staff's concern is that this site is not conducive to an operation of this size and intensity.
[11:59] And this also gets to the distinction between zoning and planning.
[12:03] Zoning establishes whether or use is permitted and whether the applicable development standards can be met.
[12:08] That planning also requires consideration of whether the proposed use is appropriate for the specific site and the surrounding transportation network.
[12:16] In this case, the primary use appears to be truck parking.
[12:19] The building is a relatively small component of the proposal compared to the overall parking lot and truck operation.
[12:25] Therefore, staff's concerns are focused not just on the building itself, but on whether the site is an appropriate location for what is and affect a large scale truck parking operation.
[12:34] All
[12:39] right. Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time, Ms. Homan?
[12:44] Okay. First of all, what's SWPPP?
[12:48] I know what SW is, but what's the PPP?
[12:51] Stormwater prevention pollution blend.
[12:53] Thank you. All right. So, a stormwater review has not been done. Why not?
[13:01] So, Wessler reviewed everything from tech and the applicant is here to
[13:07] to answer additional questions regarding why that has not been done yet.
[13:11] Okay.
[13:13] You said that some might truck traffic will have limited access from a thousand east.
[13:19] Why?
[13:19] So, looking at the north of South Traffic, regarding the turn into the lot, there is currently
[13:27] no turn lane into it and we know trucks have wide turn lengths so that we see as a concern.
[13:32] In terms of going east to west on 400, we had discussed in tech review that that would
[13:39] be really the only easy way for trucks to get in without having to do a lot of maneuvering.
[13:46] So that is a concern we do have, especially if trucks are coming from 1000, they might
[13:52] not be able to make that turn very easily without any additional road improvements being done.
[13:57] All right, but they'd be taking a left into the property.
[14:02] They don't need that as big a turn radius as they do when they're making a right.
[14:06] Well, if you're coming in from the south and you're trying to turn right,
[14:09] that's a big issue that we see.
[14:12] Oh, okay.
[14:13] I was thinking that they would come from Main Street after getting off the 74.
[14:18] Okay.
[14:18] Next.
[14:19] What's next door to this place?
[14:22] So just south of this is the Lucas Royale Raceway.
[14:25] there are a few vacant lots between here and there, but it's just to the south.
[14:31] All right, there's another property that has a bunch of trucks parked on it.
[14:38] What is that? Is that?
[14:40] That is predominantly truck parking.
[14:44] That is not up to our standards.
[14:49] And that is a concern we do have, if it's just truck parking.
[14:54] You know what is what's actually happening at that site all right, so yeah
[15:00] That's that site to the north is a concern we do have for this. Okay, those are all my questions for staff. Thank you, miss someone. Mr. Gladley. You mentioned there's no acceleration or desolation lanes. Is there on up to add those as well? There are, but in the current plan, there are not any. If you look at the plan, there is there's a little bit of an improvement in terms of creating
[15:29] being better turned radius, but there's no official lanes there, and that is a concern that staff has.
[15:35] Okay, thank you, no further questions.
[15:38] Thank you, Mr. Amphrys.
[15:40] Do you know the petitioner owns that property to the north?
[15:44] Yes, they do.
[15:45] And we have the owner of the property here too.
[15:48] Okay, gotcha.
[15:49] All right, and then one more of a clerical one, obviously the last point you made was very lengthy to understand that.
[15:55] But do we have an obligation to put all of the concerns in the denial request?
[16:05] To the extent that's the commission's motion, you can state for the reasons that set forth on the record by staff.
[16:10] That's all I got.
[16:12] Thank you.
[16:13] Thank you, Mr. Doin.
[16:16] I'll wait for the applicant.
[16:19] Mr. Peps, my question would be for the applicant also.
[16:23] So I guess I have one question on the entrance and the Excel decel lanes.
[16:30] What do our town standards say you should be installed with this?
[16:37] Lauren, are you able to pull that up?
[16:41] Just want to add one point about the stormwater commitment language.
[16:48] Staff included that because as you've heard, this project has been reviewed several times and
[16:53] Lessler has reviewed it at least two or three times this summer, and still some of the items are not met.
[17:01] And so if there was a favorable recommendation, staff was just attempting to make sure that not only are they memorialized in the comments that staff has received,
[17:12] but also in commitment language because they are conveying stormwater offsite.
[17:18] So that was the reason for the sort of the lengthy paragraph there.
[17:21] In
[17:26] relation to the on-road improvements why Mitchell is looking here, one thing that staff
[17:33] is considered over and over is the amount of trucks potentially going in multiple directions.
[17:41] When the turn radiuses were addressed, we felt at that time we made a compelling argument
[17:48] that the applicant should look at on-road solutions due to the speed of traffic.
[17:54] on the road, but also because of aligning with the entrance across the street, making sure
[18:00] that people not only had time to slow down, but also were aware of turning movements on
[18:07] the, what would be the cross street.
[18:09] So we're continuing to look, but I think the genesis of that comment is that most sites
[18:15] that are proposing parking and truck traffic in tandem or separate would look at on-road
[18:23] improvements to not only slow people down but to make those turning movements less complicated,
[18:30] especially on roads that are not improved all the way down with the shoulder.
[18:35] So those were some of the thoughts behind it.
[18:39] Okay, I appreciate that escalation. I think that mainly answers my questions but
[18:45] if you want to follow up any on the standards or.
[18:49] So we just pulled them up.
[18:52] Lauren, I will just zoom in on that.
[19:02] Okay, so these are our standards.
[19:05] It's TR-16 in our construction standards.
[19:14] So to get into kind of the technical aspects to it, the front of this site will of course
[19:21] have a turn in, which goes to the gate, which leads back to the parking.
[19:25] But there's also a very large detention area covering about 40% of the front of the property.
[19:34] So it does meet the 100 foot minimum on one side.
[19:42] It doesn't have to meet it on both, but it does meet it on one side.
[19:45] So in staff's mind, the appropriate standard would be to look at how to treat this on road.
[19:52] And I think our opinion is at least without having the engineer provide more information
[19:59] to us that it meets the minimum standards to at least do deceleration and potentially
[20:05] a passing blister but we don't have that data so it's hard to make a recommendation either
[20:10] way but it wasn't addressed in any way on the plans.
[20:14] And I don't have anything else to add.
[20:17] Thank you.
[20:17] All right. Thank you. So I just just to kind of clarify it sounds like the concerns are kind of a lack of information, correct? Okay. All right. Thank you.
[20:30] If the applicant is present, would you like to step up and present? Please state your name and address for the record, please.
[20:37] He's my name is Scott Gilliam with Munch Engineering and my address, I'm 370 Monroe Street
[20:45] in Monroe, Indiana and the offices in Plainfield.
[20:51] But answering any questions, I'm filling in for Brian Munch, he's out of town today.
[20:57] So I'll do my best to fill in any of the information that I can for you all.
[21:03] As far as the passing blisters and whatnot on the roadway, I know we added in the ASL and
[21:10] DSL lanes on our side of the road to better facilitate the truck traffic turning in and out.
[21:19] I know we've got the drive aligned with kind of road 400, I believe, going back towards
[21:24] the warehouses there.
[21:25] So, from that standpoint, you know, anything above and beyond that, if you want to go back more towards the town standards, if those are automotive traffic standards versus semi-truck standards, I would imagine if we have to do something along the lines of semi-trucks, it may actually have to increase in those departments, but I don't know that you have anything set up for that in your town standards.
[21:51] I apologize. I don't believe that we've seen any plans with A.C.L. D.C.L. lanes.
[21:59] Okay. I'm sorry. I'm filling in. So what I know about the project in terms of the coming in and out for the entryways and whatnot, I know we I guess tapers would be a better description for them as opposed to A.C.L. D.C.L.
[22:20] So we had to better facilitate the truck turning radius
[22:24] is coming in and out of the site.
[22:26] And like he said earlier with the detention pond
[22:29] or detention pond on the site, there's not
[22:33] a lot of room to try and squeeze everything through there.
[22:36] So obviously with the truck traffic coming in and out,
[22:40] we're not looking at, you know, some eyes coming in
[22:44] and out of there constantly.
[22:46] It's overnight parking basically.
[22:48] the maintenance building would be for emergency repairs
[22:51] if somebody were to come in needing a tire retrad
[22:54] or something like that, they'd park overnight
[22:57] and move on down the road.
[22:59] And to your point, most of the traffic probably
[23:02] would be coming in off the interstate routing in through.
[23:06] So could we handle through signage probably,
[23:10] but as you know, most people are gonna be going off GPS.
[23:12] Yes. So, I think some of that there is going to be dictated by, like you say, signs or even stoplight potentially going into that intersection if we did something there.
[23:30] Do you have anything else to add or should we go with questions?
[23:34] You can go to questions if you'd like to.
[23:36] Ms. Holman, do you like to ask any questions to the applicant?
[23:41] The stormwater review, why haven't you provided the information regarding the stormwater review
[23:49] and their needs?
[23:51] My understanding was we had with this latest revision on it.
[23:56] I think the biggest thing was the ONM manual for post-construction measures, that's right.
[24:03] So a lot of that is just a case of trying to get to making sure that the operation for
[24:09] on a daily maintenance after storm events, that that information is made available, which I thought was in the O&M manual.
[24:16] Did I hear you right that you said that the parking area was mostly for trucks to park overnight?
[24:26] That's my understanding. That's what it's like, right? Yeah.
[24:31] Could you step up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record, please?
[24:37] Jigna Shah, owner of the property, address 2061, spring
[24:42] record, Aivan, Indiana 4623.
[24:46] Basically, truck parking needs is driver on the road, almost 4 to 5 days a week, comes
[24:52] on the weekend, park the truck over there, if they need a little maintenance.
[24:57] They leave the truck over there for a couple of days and then when it's done, they come pick
[25:01] up their truck.
[25:02] most of the time they use the Ronald Reagan and they
[25:06] come straight to the parking at the location of 4005 East
[25:12] 1000 East. So taking turn is hard for them. So they're
[25:17] going to avoid taking those tarp done anyways. So they're
[25:21] going to come out from the property go straight to that next
[25:24] to the warehouse and go straight left or right to the Ronald
[25:28] Reagan and they have a traffic light over there.
[25:30] Okay. Well, I thought that you kind of sold this to us as a truck maintenance property,
[25:39] not a truck parking property.
[25:42] No, it is a parking and we have a small maintenance building.
[25:50] If it's get approved, it's going to get built.
[25:55] Okay.
[25:55] Okay, I knew on the property next door too.
[26:01] No, ma'am, I'm not.
[26:03] Why is the dumpster so far away from the maintenance facility?
[26:11] Just to make sure it's out of the way from truck drag.
[26:13] Somebody's going to, somebody's going to drag, change parts or whatever all the way over
[26:19] to that dumpster.
[26:21] Well, I think anything if it's stuck on the interior of the building, that's going in probably
[26:26] collection bin and being hauled off separately as opposed to daily trash that's for that dumpster.
[26:33] Okay how many employees do you think you'll have? We have a two employee right now it's a
[26:40] once if this is approved how many employees will you have? Then the repair shop people maybe have a
[26:47] three to four and the truck driver is going to be whatever like however many trucks get parked.
[26:55] All right, and in an earlier iteration of this property, they mentioned putting a chain
[27:01] link fence all the way around the property.
[27:04] It's my understanding that chain link fence is not allowed around the property per the
[27:11] UDO.
[27:13] I believe that was the argument last time.
[27:17] And especially in the front yard where I imagine you want to put the chain link and chain link
[27:24] on this condition they moved the fence so you can see it goes behind the drainage so it's technically in the side yard now so they did alleviate that from their last presentation and on their back in February they had it as chain link with slats, which was not permitted so now I believe it's just
[27:41] well it still has chain link fence with private sleep slats on the bottom so that'll need to be addressed.
[27:46] All right that's what I'm addressing.
[27:48] housing.
[27:51] How long is the maintenance building that is for emergency needs?
[27:57] The size of the maintenance.
[28:06] Peers to say 130 by 22 feet. Does that sound accurate?
[28:10] All right. Do we need to put an embellishment on that building because of the long sides?
[28:18] Currently, we've only seen the same renderings you have. We haven't seen any architectural
[28:24] details for the building, so there are some things we can't say about blank wall limits until we actually have a permit set.
[28:34] Okay, all right, that's the last of my questions.
[28:37] May I say something?
[28:39] So for the office building, are the maintenance building, we didn't have any engineer work done yet because we don't know this is going to get approval or not.
[28:50] Any drawing?
[28:51] This is for approval, this is your development plan and this is for your approval so anything
[28:57] that you put on your picture I think that we should be able to ask you questions about
[29:02] including the office and how tall it is.
[29:05] So the office is in the future, we do not ready to put the office over there yet.
[29:12] Okay.
[29:14] All right.
[29:15] Thank you.
[29:18] I think if I can jump in for a minute, if you don't mind, it would appear that a lot
[29:22] of information is needed for us to make a decision on this to move forward with it at
[29:27] least.
[29:28] I guess with Councillor Staff, you know, it seems like continuing this may be something
[29:35] to consider so the additional information could be gathered.
[29:39] I know this has been ongoing for a while so I don't know where we are with the status
[29:43] if it restarted, if we could kind of see, just want to know what options are so we could discuss with the applicant.
[29:48] Yeah, you could certainly continue the case if that's the desire of the commission.
[29:53] Your other options are to approve or deny.
[29:57] To the extent you do continue it, I would probably ask that.
[30:00] The commission gives specific direction as to what your expectations are for the information that needs to be delivered so that staff can monitor that accordingly to make sure that it's provided timely in advance of your next meeting. All right. Thank you. I guess. From the staff perspective, I think it's always a measured balance to continually hunt for information. If someone is at a point where they don't have
[30:31] of it to provide or are unwilling to go any further.
[30:37] I think that staff would just like everyone to know that we have asked for several things.
[30:45] I've only been here since June the 8th and I've been involved in that and I know there were some questions before.
[30:53] So the commission is obviously the boss there, but just from staff's perspective,
[30:59] There's been no lack of trying to get additional information, so I think from our perspective we're willing to monitor if parameters are set.
[31:15] So it's clear to say we have provided clarity on what information is needed.
[31:26] I
[31:30] guess, for the applicant, would you consider us continuing this where we can provide clear follow-up on the information that's been requested?
[31:43] Yeah, absolutely.
[31:46] Okay, fellow commissioners.
[31:48] Yeah, that makes sense.
[31:50] If you're willing to, if you have the information you said you had.
[31:53] Yeah, that's going to be able to go down here.
[31:55] And I think some of it would be being able to sit down more face-to-face with everybody
[32:01] involved over here, as far as the tech reviews and stuff like that, and make sure we're all
[32:06] on the same page instead of trying to do stuff through emails and whatnot, and translation
[32:11] may get a little discombobulated on our end, but yeah, it would be more than appreciative
[32:16] of that.
[32:17] Okay, the staff have enough information we can provide a written.
[32:24] We have given them written tech review comments.
[32:28] We have sent them via email in addition.
[32:32] We have sent them the store model review sheets.
[32:36] We have sent them emails back and forth.
[32:38] We've met with Miss Gina twice outside of her engineers.
[32:42] I don't know what, it becomes a question of, we continually tell them what they need to provide, and we don't get it back.
[32:56] So if it's a face-to-face meeting, we can do that, but I don't know what more we can say that is not in writing.
[33:04] We're not negotiating development standards.
[33:07] We're not negotiating what is required for stormwater.
[33:10] We're not negotiating it. You know what I mean? So happy to do it. At the Commission's advice will do what means to be done.
[33:20] So will those answers be forthcoming?
[33:24] In other words, do you have the information and they've just chosen not to give it to us?
[33:28] There's like the stormwater information. We did get that in and as far as I knew that it was
[33:33] It had hardly been taken care of and sent over, but I may be misinformed on that one, so yeah, okay
[33:41] So it sounds like there's additional information that is ready, that hasn't been provided.
[33:46] Potentially.
[33:47] Yeah.
[33:48] Again, I haven't been the one involved in this project much.
[33:51] I'm filling in right now for tonight.
[33:53] I think that's another reason to.
[33:54] Well, I can take those concerns back to Brian and say, hey, you know, we need to jump on this and get this, you know, ABC kind of taken care of.
[34:02] Okay.
[34:03] I guess I'd like to hear from other commissioners if you think we should continue tonight.
[34:19] I'm not saying this yet, but just with the list provided, previously provided, or a new list provided, and before they can come back for one last, and then we need to get timing to within 30 days of whether the next meeting.
[34:36] Yeah, I think you can only continue to your next meeting, right?
[34:38] So I think the expectation should be that, to the extent the commission does continue the case,
[34:42] all information must be provided by the time the packets are released for your next meeting
[34:47] in accordance with the plan commission schedule.
[34:50] We have the option.
[34:51] We could say within the next two, or does it have to be this next meeting, is that?
[34:54] I wouldn't continue it beyond a second meeting.
[34:56] I would not do that.
[34:57] I would keep it to the next meeting, and then if you find out that you need to.
[34:59] Is Brian back in time to do?
[35:01] Yeah, he'll actually be back this week.
[35:03] Okay.
[35:05] Okay. Thank you. I feel like, I mean I know they're re-bring it forward again, but they've
[35:16] been working on it and it seems like there shouldn't be this much information we're waiting on.
[35:23] I feel like they're trying to get a parking lot and they're selling us on a maintenance building in
[35:30] office that they haven't, they haven't even designed the office because they don't know
[35:35] it's going to be approved.
[35:36] So how serious are they about those two buildings?
[35:41] And if they get, are they going to get built?
[35:44] I feel like they've had plenty of time.
[35:50] They haven't been responsive, so I'm continuing.
[35:55] Well, then let's continue with our questions.
[35:58] And then once we've all had an opportunity to ask our questions and we want to have discussion after that, then we can have a motion.
[36:05] Mr. Clarely, would you like to ask any questions?
[36:07] Sure, just one question.
[36:09] So you have 36 truck parking spaces, only four car parking spaces.
[36:14] What is the expectation about how the drivers will inter and leave the property?
[36:19] So normally when they come in the car and go to the truck, they reverse their truck, park their car on their truck parking spot, and they park their car over there.
[36:35] Okay, so there'll be a little bit of movement as they enter, about to move things around a bit as they enter and leave the property.
[36:42] Okay, no further questions from me.
[36:44] Mr. Jeffrey?
[36:45] That was mine.
[36:47] Mr. Dolan?
[36:48] No other questions.
[36:49] questions. Mr. Peps. My mind more answered. Thank you.
[36:53] All right. Thank you. I do not have any other questions.
[36:57] All right. Thank you.
[36:59] Okay. Thank you.
[37:01] All right. So this is a development plan review. So we have the option to approve, deny, or continue.
[37:10] I guess any further discussion before motion?
[37:17] I'd say give them another chance at continuing, but if they follow short of that, I don't know if there's a way to dismiss it.
[37:27] Or we just give them an, yeah, we just deny.
[37:33] In denial, do they have six months again to come back?
[37:36] Does denial create a six month window?
[37:40] I believe it's a one year adverse impact decision, so therefore they'd be out 12 months.
[37:46] Okay.
[37:52] There's no other discussion.
[37:54] I do have one question for Council, if we have a motion to approve or deny, and it does not pass.
[38:03] Do we have to have, does that indicate the other one, or do we have to take another motion?
[38:08] Not necessarily, depends on the nature of the first motion, but the key to it is that you need a majority of the entire commission to take official action, so it does require four.
[38:18] Right, commissioners.
[38:19] Thank you.
[38:20] Is there a motion?
[38:30] there's been no motion. The applicant did have something else she'd like to add with your consent.
[38:37] Any objection?
[38:39] Please stop up.
[38:46] Thank you. So we have been hired Brian for almost five years
[38:52] and literally I call so many time to Bronzeberg. I didn't get lucky to talk to anyone.
[38:58] Recently, I tried calling and Mitchell has been answering my call and since then, I have
[39:05] been forcing Brian to reply to all the requirement, Brunsburg has been asking.
[39:15] So I think as a property owner, I was not very strict with Brian, followed with him because
[39:24] Because each time I call his office or him, he will say,
[39:28] oh, Browns Berkeley, this, Browns Berkeley, this,
[39:30] and when I personally talk to Mitchell very first time,
[39:35] he say, there is no communication
[39:37] for almost a year and a half.
[39:40] So before you guys deny, if you guys can give me one more chance,
[39:45] now I know that what is the gap?
[39:48] I will try to go with Brian because I
[39:56] Thank you.
[39:57] Okay.
[39:57] Thank you.
[40:01] Yeah.
[40:01] All right.
[40:02] Good promotion then.
[40:03] Yes.
[40:04] I think we can.
[40:04] Yeah.
[40:05] That kind of does it for me.
[40:06] Because I've been in the situation before.
[40:07] I understand how these things happen.
[40:09] So I would like to make a motion to continue based upon staff providing a comprehensive list of
[40:15] what the information they need and facilitating one last face-to-face meeting.
[40:26] continue to the 28th to continue to the next month's meeting which is
[40:32] December 28th.
[40:34] Thank you.
[40:43] Second.
[40:44] All right.
[40:45] Thank you.
[40:45] So we have a motion to continue this case.
[40:51] PSTP-26-14.
[40:54] Lions Transing Development Plan Review to the next meeting on September 28th in this
[41:00] room with staff clarifying the needs and a face-to-face meeting with the applicant.
[41:12] So we'll take a vote.
[41:14] All those in favor, please say aye.
[41:17] Aye.
[41:19] Those opposed, please say nay.
[41:21] Aye.
[41:22] We'll take a roll call, please.
[41:25] Ms. Homan, in favor or opposed?
[41:27] In favor.
[41:28] Mr. Clayton.
[41:28] In favor.
[41:29] Mr. Humphries.
[41:30] In favor.
[41:30] I'm in favor, Mr. Paps in favor.
[41:35] Thank you.
[41:37] So the cases continue to the next meeting, 505-1, thank you.
[41:53] Next up is old business, which we have none, so we'll move to continued public hearings,
[42:00] which is PCZT-26-2 and PCMA-26-4.
[42:09] Croger zoning text amendment and rezone now open the public hearing at 642 staff.
[42:27] Thank you, commission members.
[42:29] We will present PCZT-262 and PCMA-264, the rezone map amendment and the text amendment together.
[42:41] The requirements for both of these applications are the same, and we'll serve to request a amendment of the plan unit development known as Heritage Hill.
[42:54] You will take separate votes on them.
[42:57] On the side,
[43:07] I'm not smart as the,
[43:18] that's what I tried first.
[43:20] Okay, thank you.
[43:21] There
[43:27] are state laws requiring you give consideration to the five criterion which we're going to discuss later in the presentation after we've gotten through some of the history above on this is an aerial of the site.
[43:47] This is a 12.1 acre site located at the south-west corner of north-view, I mean north-field and green street.
[43:59] I want to talk for a minute about the totality of the proposal and a plan unit development.
[44:05] And PUD is the development of a mix of zoning classifications, densities and uses under a common classification.
[44:17] And it should also include development standards as it does become the ordinance.
[44:22] There have been a lot of comments about variances and because they write in their development standards,
[44:29] This is what they have to live up to is whatever is in that DP statement, and that's recorded document.
[44:36] So basically, this is a custom zoning situation.
[44:42] In the history, this, I'm
[44:50] going to go to the, oh, there we go, sorry.
[44:53] Okay, this was part of a property zoned 270.
[45:00] 6.3 acres originally in the Hendrix County jurisdiction. And then in 2010, it was annexed and rezoned as a PUD for the town of Brownsburg. The history shows the PUD has been provided various densities of residential development and commercial development. The application filed in 2010 includes the amount that's on the overhead in front of you that labels this property as Camargo commercial.
[45:29] However, the written and recorded development statement references a in-text, a commercial
[45:38] component as section 6 heritage crossing.
[45:43] But this recorded document did not include this conceptual plan nor indicate legal descriptions
[45:50] for each of the areas within the planning unit development or even acreages for each section
[45:59] and to try to identify what use was where.
[46:04] However, this should be noted.
[46:07] We have found a deed for this 12.1 acres.
[46:12] The original applicant in 2010 was Rolling Hills, LLC.
[46:19] In 2013, I believe, they deeded this 12.1 acres
[46:25] to Heritage Hills LLC, which is what is referenced in the written development statement.
[46:33] And also a note is that this property has been taxed as commercial property since 2012.
[46:40] And then to finish up that track of thinking this property was sold by Heritage Crossing to the Fudge Trust in 2016.
[46:51] And with that, I want to make the point that this history on this is long, and it's complicated, and it's not complete.
[47:02] And so there are a lot of holes in it, and the applicants have filed the appropriate petitions to request this change and to add the development standards for this use.
[47:18] We can't fix the documentation that we have or the history.
[47:24] But we're here in 2026, the application is filed appropriately to try to change this
[47:30] plan unit development.
[47:34] This is the site plan with the landscaping shown.
[47:38] And while this is not a development plan approval because it's amending a PUD, the applicants
[47:45] of file much more detailed than is required normally at this stage, which would normally be writing the development statements and providing a concept plan.
[47:54] If approved, this is not the final approval.
[47:59] They would still be required to file for a plat approval and for development plan approval.
[48:04] This site plan shows 99,000 square feet grocery, 380 parking spaces,
[48:11] three loading spaces to the west behind the store.
[48:15] On the north side are pickup spaces for online groceries, as well as a drive-through pharmacy window.
[48:22] And then at the northeast corner of the site at the signalized intersection of fueling facility.
[48:31] This is a colored rendering of the landscape plan that demonstrates the areas of tree preservation, high intensity buffers,
[48:40] And the larger width of those yards than what would be required in our UDO on both the South and the West.
[48:51] I also want to point out on this, the same plan that you saw before.
[48:57] I drew on this plan, you'll see a blue line to the West behind the store,
[49:02] and it comes down and curves around the South-West corner of the store.
[49:08] That blue line is a retaining wall.
[49:11] Then the yellow line that parallels it comes down,
[49:14] and then comes across the south side of the property
[49:18] is the six foot proposed vinyl fence.
[49:22] And since the original site plan was filed,
[49:25] they had, Kroger has updated this
[49:28] and extended that proposed fence to the front line
[49:32] of the store that's shown in orange.
[49:35] So, those are what we have in play here.
[49:38] And then this plan also indicates three cross sections that the applicants have provided
[49:45] to demonstrate the landscape buffering that they are proposing.
[49:51] The first one section A, and this is closer to Green Street.
[49:56] And it shows you that there is a 28 foot high intensity vegetative buffer, and then 18 feet
[50:05] of tree preservation for a total of 46 feet.
[50:10] You will remember from the amendments we made to the ordinance earlier this year,
[50:15] we addressed high intensity buffers that are used just for this purpose when you have unlike uses come in beside each other.
[50:23] Such as industrial or commercial, next to residential, and it identifies whether you need a low intensity, medium intensity or high intensity.
[50:32] The width for the high intensity buffers range from 15 feet to 25 feet and then that depends on which option you choose as far as the number of plants and if you're doing offense.
[50:50] The next cross section is further west but still showing the property line from to south.
[51:01] Again, we have 24 feet of high intensity buffer, 22 feet of tree preservation.
[51:08] And you'll note on this plan, there's a black line at the bottom of the embankment there with the landscaping, which is showing the proposed six-foot tall vinyl fence.
[51:19] The red line in this drawing at the top of the embankment is what our ordinance calls out to have the landscaping on the outside of the fence.
[51:28] So, when they would, if they are approved and file a development plan approval, we would be asked them to move that fence.
[51:42] The next cross section is from the development to the west.
[51:48] And in this area, that landscape tree preservation, and then the embankment, you see the fence at the top of the embankment on this drawing,
[51:58] ranges from 80 to over 100 feet, depending on exactly where you are on the site plan.
[52:10] As I said previously, the state law requires reasonable consideration be paid to the following criterion.
[52:17] Criterion 1, the comprehensive plan.
[52:19] The comprehensive plan and the future loan use map notes this area as recommended for local commercial.
[52:25] And it also identifies as commercial on the business area planned within the comprehensive plan.
[52:34] The proposed project is in line with this recommendation.
[52:38] The comprehensive plan was adopted in May of 2019 and the map was last updated in September of 2021.
[52:47] Criterion 2, current conditions and structures within the district.
[52:51] There are a mix of uses in this area with single family development to the south and the west,
[52:57] multi-family development to the north, and commercial development under construction to the east across Green Street.
[53:04] The project includes a text amendment that details the development standards for this proposal.
[53:11] And the UDO, as I already described, requires that properties of budding residential development
[53:18] provide high intensity buffers specifically with from 15 to 25 feet in width.
[53:26] The proposed tax amendment provides a combination of tree preservation and
[53:30] additional plantings of varying widths from 42 feet to over 100.
[53:35] Along the south and west perimeters, providing a larger buffer and in some areas a solid fence.
[53:43] The architectural details include cast brick and stone veneer.
[53:47] The scale and materials are similar to other commercial uses that have been improved across
[53:52] Green Street.
[53:54] Criterion 3, the most desirable land use in the zoning area.
[53:59] The project is located at a signalized intersection and on a primary arterial.
[54:06] These are very important for commercial development.
[54:10] Since the original annexation and rezoning to PUD, several amendments have been made to
[54:15] this plan unit development.
[54:17] This is the appropriate process and
[54:21] the request is in compliance with the current land use recommendation and
[54:25] we feel the additional buffering and setbacks that have been incorporated in the plan help the proposal as well.
[54:34] Criterion 4, the conservation of property values throughout the jurisdiction.
[54:39] The project's not expected to have a negative impact on property values.
[54:51] Generally, property values across the jurisdiction are continued to increase across all development types.
[55:00] Even when located adjacent to single family, residential closer than the proposal in front of us.
[55:07] This proposal has incorporated buffering elements in excess of the UDEO requirements for the specific purpose.
[55:15] This and meets the permitting lighting trespass and design to eliminate light spillage across
[55:23] the property lines.
[55:24] Staff does not anticipate an issue with the conservation of property values.
[55:30] Criterion five, responsible development and growth.
[55:34] The project comes at a time when responsible development growth are at the forefront of all
[55:39] of your rezoning discussions.
[55:42] In general, staff believes this is not in odds with this criterion, given that it is in compliance with the recommendations of the comprehensive plan, and the elements that we have talked about as far as the setbacks and buffering and tree preservation.
[56:00] Commercial development along primary arterials provide a transition from the thoroughfares to the single-family uses.
[56:07] The access points have been located with no direct access to the residential neighborhoods.
[56:15] Commercial offerings to support residents are in the central component in the makeup and success of the town.
[56:25] The next slide shows the elevations proposed for the grocery.
[56:30] You will notice that the elevations on the west and the south have no signage proposed.
[56:39] This will further help to negate negative impacts.
[56:47] The next slide are elevations of the fueling center to demonstrate that the color pallet
[56:52] and the materials match the primary store.
[56:57] A traffic study was submitted and reviewed because the town does not have a traffic engineer.
[57:07] The town uses crossroads engineering for as a consultant for transportation studies and
[57:15] other transportation matters.
[57:17] They have indicated the appropriateness of the intersections, the traffic distributions and
[57:22] in the forecast, as well as the recommendations in the report.
[57:27] The recommendations and conclusion include five points.
[57:32] The first four are basically the design of each of the access points, three on Northfield and one on Green Street.
[57:42] The number of lanes, the Axel, D-cell, and extending lanes on Green Street with
[57:51] appropriate storage and tapered length.
[57:54] And the fifth recommendation is to optimize the signal timings at the current intersection
[58:00] of green and north field as well as the intersection to the south at 267 and county road 200.
[58:08] The applicant has indicated they will comply and facilitate all of these recommendations.
[58:14] This is a letter from Crossroads Engineering indicating again that the traffic distribution growth rates and forecast are appropriate as presented and the resulting capacity analysis on the selected intersections and recommended improvements meet acceptable performance standards.
[58:35] With that, the staff is recommending sending a favorable recommendation for both of these petitions with the following conditions.
[58:46] Compliance with all tech review comments, submission of commitments that address the traffic impact,
[58:52] analysis, recommendations and conclusions, and the approval of the findings of fact and report of determination by the plan commission.
[59:01] With that, I am happy to answer any questions.
[59:05] All right, thank you.
[59:07] We'll start with questions, Mr. Papsd, any questions?
[59:11] I don't have any at this time, that was very thorough, in addition to the packet.
[59:15] Mr. Dormit?
[59:17] On the west side of the property, you had the buffering and the tree preservation.
[59:26] Is there another piece of property then between the tree preservation in the houses or is that the tree preservation?
[59:35] There is the tree preservation and the buffering that I'm talking about is all on the subject 12.1 acres.
[59:43] The cross section that was provided, which I think they can probably speak to as well,
[59:50] shows the area between that property line and the closest house, but in
[59:56] between there I believe there's a parcel owned by
[1:00:00] The homeowners association, and a part of that area, because it's a stream, is also a protected US water.
[1:00:11] On the one.
[1:00:14] On the parking lot, it had the right in and right out on the one entrance on North field. That's the furthest west intersection. That's really only for. That was the furthest one I thought on the diagram. It looked like that was the closest to North field. Do you have it that?
[1:00:31] Yeah.
[1:00:33] Maybe not.
[1:00:34] Yes, the one on the right hand, you're right.
[1:00:37] Why would that need to be a right in, right?
[1:00:39] I did.
[1:00:39] It looks like there's a median right there.
[1:00:44] So, why do we have to make that a right in?
[1:00:47] And then that, obvious?
[1:00:49] Well, people do silly things.
[1:00:51] Okay.
[1:00:54] I've seen it.
[1:00:55] That's my, that's the question.
[1:00:57] All right.
[1:00:57] Thank you, Mr. Doin.
[1:00:59] Mr. Humphries?
[1:01:00] Yeah, Elizabeth, I was wondering if you could confirm, do we have our own definition of local versus corridor and regional commercial?
[1:01:10] We do and I looked at that, I mean when you talk about local commercial in the comprehensive plan it describes that and a grocery store is seen as a local use because it's not like
[1:01:26] a huge mall that you draw things from the region, it is, and grocery stores have changed.
[1:01:38] They do have a bigger footprint than they used to.
[1:01:41] Many ordinances have changed how many square feet are there, but
[1:01:45] it is still a use that is seen by planners to draw from the immediate neighborhood,
[1:01:51] or people passing through the neighborhood.
[1:01:54] but it is not something that somebody's gonna drive
[1:01:57] from West Indianapolis over to this grocery store
[1:01:59] because there, you know, people want it to be convenient.
[1:02:03] You'd seem to go to the grocery store a lot.
[1:02:05] That's sort of the genesis of the changing.
[1:02:11] Please be quiet while we discuss this, thank you.
[1:02:18] Okay.
[1:02:19] I can speak, I mean, corridor commercial speaks more
[1:02:22] to their linear fashion, but we are on a primary arterial here.
[1:02:28] That's why you're seeing such as on a lot of our arterials and some of the other changes
[1:02:33] we've made as far as auto uses and those things that line up on a primary arterial.
[1:02:40] Regional, our uses are, our ritual commercial, our big box uses when you're talking about
[1:02:49] something that depends on the use they usually well over 100,000 square feet.
[1:02:58] But that's where we are.
[1:03:01] Give me an additional question, I'll follow up on that same topic.
[1:03:04] I just kind of want to ask them the local, so the local's not the business.
[1:03:08] It's you're trying to get a business that is used by just local residents, not out of town.
[1:03:17] Someone who's correct, there's supposed to be just for the close proximity, not.
[1:03:22] Yeah, it's basically providing daily shopping service needs and surrounding neighborhoods.
[1:03:28] And then it talks about a super market as a typical tenant.
[1:03:34] It does speak, it does go on to say typically that that would be under 50,000 square feet.
[1:03:39] But as I said, grocery stores have changed in what they are proposing these days unless your trader Joe's or
[1:03:50] small Walmart market area item, what they're called, but they have a smaller footprint.
[1:03:56] What I'm getting at is isn't the intent to be businesses that are just used by basically the community.
[1:04:01] You don't have people coming from outside the community to visit this business.
[1:04:05] That is my understanding and I think the applicant could also smile to that.
[1:04:09] Yeah, mine too.
[1:04:11] Would that mean like you're thinking of like a wholesale club that draws a regional base,
[1:04:15] not just the local community and surrounding community.
[1:04:19] Is that what you're trying to get at?
[1:04:20] Correct, okay.
[1:04:22] Okay, thank you.
[1:04:23] It's not a Costco.
[1:04:27] I had the same question.
[1:04:29] I think kind of looking at our zoning,
[1:04:33] where we have local versus regional commercial listed
[1:04:37] in the comprehensive plan,
[1:04:39] trying to kind of line that up with where that zoning fits.
[1:04:43] I believe C3 is our highest intents.
[1:04:47] I had this intensity commercial, you know, so kind of go making the assumption regional
[1:04:54] down to local would kind of be that C3 going to the C2.
[1:04:58] You kind of touched on what I was looking at.
[1:05:01] The retail in the C2 goes up to 50,000 square feet while the C3 is kind of the 50,000 square
[1:05:09] feet are over which, you know, I know this is the grocery store is kind of go with the split
[1:05:15] is 25,000 square feet. So I think there is something we, as they take away, probably want
[1:05:22] to look at with the UDO because we kind of have a mixed, mixed in our definitions of
[1:05:27] that.
[1:05:32] But, you know, I guess how do we, what will we see as when we're looking at local
[1:05:38] versus regional, but then we have, you know, with retail, you know, the size, how, how
[1:05:46] How should we look at that?
[1:05:48] Well, one thing I can say is in the development statement that was adopted in 2010, the heritage crossing that is detailed in the text, a grocery store is a permitted use and it does not refer to any kind of square footage.
[1:06:10] Okay, thank you.
[1:06:13] Sorry to jump in there.
[1:06:15] Go ahead.
[1:06:15] from any time. Okay, so my next one was noise pollution. We've seen time and time again,
[1:06:22] not only the light pollution is a concern, but noise. What are the controlling factors and
[1:06:28] determinations to restrain noise pollution to the adjacent properties?
[1:06:35] I believe that noise pollution is usually handled under, you know, a nuisance, you know, if it gets
[1:06:42] that's out of hand after, you know,
[1:06:44] quiet hours in a community that becomes a police matter.
[1:06:49] There's, you know, you can ask the applicant
[1:06:52] to speak to how their operations work.
[1:06:58] We don't have a plan of operation as far as hours
[1:07:01] or anything like that at this point.
[1:07:03] Right, so under our current rules and regulations,
[1:07:05] there's not really a whole lot under the jurisdiction.
[1:07:08] It's very general.
[1:07:09] Right, exactly.
[1:07:10] Okay. Thank you.
[1:07:12] Thank you, Mr. Klyly.
[1:07:14] Sure, I had two questions.
[1:07:16] The first one is around the current zoning.
[1:07:19] It looks like there's some inconsistencies, and you mentioned that this goes back a while,
[1:07:24] and I notice that the drawing would imply this is already commercial as do the property tax records,
[1:07:29] but then the text of the existing PUD does not speak because this is being commercial.
[1:07:35] Is there a piece of information that we should deemed to be controlling here,
[1:07:38] where we sort of have a little bit of conflicting information.
[1:07:42] I think the controlling matter is the recorded development statement that calls out heritage
[1:07:48] crossing as a commercial.
[1:07:50] So there was commercial considered in this, but the amount that they provided doesn't show
[1:07:57] that anywhere, and subsequent history, they did have a filing for a residential use on
[1:08:04] this property.
[1:08:06] But it never would anywhere.
[1:08:09] I mean, that's just the nature of when you have a development and
[1:08:13] you're the developer that you file to, especially in a PUD.
[1:08:18] That's why you see them amended so many times because somebody else comes in with a different idea.
[1:08:25] Okay, my second question was related to the ownership of properties.
[1:08:29] I read through the written comments.
[1:08:31] There were some people asserting or questioning whether Kroger has the authority to even raise this given that they're not the owners of the property.
[1:08:40] And I think I already know the answer to this given that this is fairly common.
[1:08:43] Do they have some sort of legal proxy or given that they have an option to purchase?
[1:08:49] Does that meet our rules or at least our accepted practice?
[1:08:52] Yes, they filed a consent from the property owner, the Fudge Trust, notarized and submitted
[1:09:01] to the file that allows them to file on their behalf.
[1:09:05] Okay, thank you, no further questions.
[1:09:09] Thank you, Ms. Klee.
[1:09:10] Ms. Homan?
[1:09:12] Okay.
[1:09:13] From the buffer picture, it looks like,
[1:09:21] is that the one you want?
[1:09:24] What's the other one?
[1:09:25] That's the South property line.
[1:09:27] That one.
[1:09:27] yeah shows Kroger's way higher than the neighborhood so did the other picture
[1:09:36] just wasn't as dramatic there is no stream there so are we gonna do I know
[1:09:43] that the people on the South property line get their backyards flooded at
[1:09:50] the
[1:09:51] time and if it with the with the higher elevation I would think that would mean
[1:09:54] more water from those impervious sources could end up in these backyards so
[1:10:01] So can we do a berm?
[1:10:05] I'm not an engineer.
[1:10:09] And when they came through tech review, most of the comments,
[1:10:13] because it's the rezoning stage,
[1:10:15] we're from planning, not from stormwater and those things.
[1:10:19] They will be required just like every other applicant
[1:10:22] to submit and own immemorial and a complete stormwater proposal,
[1:10:27] whether that's going to be underground
[1:10:30] or how they're going to handle that.
[1:10:32] and we will let the engineers that the Wessler will review all of that, as well as our professionals within the building.
[1:10:40] So that would be considered at the primary plan?
[1:10:43] Or the development plan approval?
[1:10:46] Development plan?
[1:10:46] Okay.
[1:10:47] I have more South Green Street exit entrance.
[1:10:52] How far away from the light is that?
[1:10:55] There's no measurement on the maps.
[1:11:08] That's probably a question for the applicant, because I'm not sure, other than what's shown here.
[1:11:13] it's over halfway from the middle of the lot but I'm not sure about the
[1:11:18] dimension. Okay because don't we have rules about how close you can and enter
[1:11:23] this? We do and those will review they are not they're not violating that. That
[1:11:32] we that you know of or we don't know how far away it is do we? I think it's
[1:11:36] greater than what is required from an intersection. Okay. We did have tech
[1:11:42] review and there were the street people who were there, street department.
[1:11:48] Okay, now there were some other things that were on here that I think require variances like their foundation
[1:11:54] plantings, the wall sign, the canopy signs, the number of canopy signs.
[1:12:01] Those are all written into the development statement as development standards.
[1:12:06] that was in the red line copy of the plan unit development statement that would become the ordinance, so they would not be variances, they are a part of this proposal.
[1:12:20] So the fact that they want their sign to be bigger and things like that is not a variance?
[1:12:26] It will not be a variance because this is a plan unit development.
[1:12:31] Oh, and they're allowed to do what they want.
[1:12:33] Well, they have to ask is part of what they're asking you to approve.
[1:12:39] This is part of what they're asking us to approve today.
[1:12:42] Correct.
[1:12:43] Good.
[1:12:47] All right.
[1:12:50] How many, do we know, do we know the nature of any of these trees that are on this outside?
[1:12:57] They're plantings.
[1:13:00] They have a landscape plan, but the specifics of that would be refuted at the development
[1:13:05] plan.
[1:13:07] Okay.
[1:13:09] And the loading docs back to the map,
[1:13:20] not that map.
[1:13:22] Yeah, that last map will work.
[1:13:27] Not this one.
[1:13:28] The one before.
[1:13:29] Okay.
[1:13:29] There you go.
[1:13:30] All right.
[1:13:32] I see where the trash compactor is.
[1:13:34] Is that where the loading docs are?
[1:13:38] The loading docks are where that red line is, they're just above that, where it's just above that.
[1:13:43] Okay, and I know that they said that they were going to have a trash
[1:13:51] compactor, but not a dumpster.
[1:13:54] There will be a dumpster at the fueling facility, but there's not a dumpster here because they keep the trash in the compactor, which is attached to the building, but there will be pickup from it.
[1:14:06] That was my question.
[1:14:08] If there's going to be pickup from it, wouldn't that be considered a dumpster?
[1:14:11] No, because it's pretty much inside the building, but I'm going to stop giving you any details, because that's a question for the applicant.
[1:14:21] Applicants, okay.
[1:14:30] Okay.
[1:14:33] They showed a couple of different things.
[1:14:35] They showed a monument with a sign on it, and then they showed the large big sign, like a big entrance sign.
[1:14:42] Which one were they leaning towards? Do you know?
[1:14:46] I believe one's going to be on green and one would be on north field.
[1:14:51] And they can do whatever they want with that?
[1:14:53] They can't do whatever they want with that.
[1:14:55] Okay, that way.
[1:14:56] They'd have to comply with what they've shown.
[1:14:58] Like this out this-
[1:15:00] Supply that's up right now, that wall sign that says croager is larger than what we would permit in the ordinance. But given the size of the building, it does not appear to be overstated or an abuse of signs. And if they had different tenants in there, they could have more square footages just couldn't be in one sign. Okay. So that's how we did the consideration.
[1:15:28] And the pharmacy drive up is on the south, correct?
[1:15:32] It's on the north.
[1:15:33] It's on the north.
[1:15:37] I think if you're looking at this, this, yeah, I think there was one drawing where they had flipped the labeling, but it's on the north.
[1:15:49] Okay.
[1:15:50] All right.
[1:15:51] That's all.
[1:15:52] That's all for me.
[1:15:53] Thank you.
[1:15:54] I'm taking up for Brett, by the way.
[1:15:56] Appreciate it.
[1:15:59] I have a few questions, I just want to confirm, I think I've got a little confused now.
[1:16:09] What is this site-zoned?
[1:16:11] It's PUD.
[1:16:13] Now, that PUD does not include any standards for a commercial development or grocery store
[1:16:20] currently.
[1:16:20] Is that accurate?
[1:16:22] It has very few standards, but it does have a list of permitted uses that include a grocery
[1:16:29] entry store for the Heritage Crossing is what it's called and it's labeled as Section 6 in the development statement.
[1:16:36] Okay, so if the applicant chose to just bring a development plan for this site as a grocery store, could they do that?
[1:16:49] We frown upon that, so that's why our direction was because there's so much
[1:16:55] on clarity in the history that they file both the tax amendment and the map amendment.
[1:17:02] Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify some understanding there.
[1:17:09] Quick question, all the added buffering described that is included in the tax amendment.
[1:17:16] Yes, sir. And these plans become a part of it as well.
[1:17:20] And then when you were discussing some of the property value and not anticipate it impacting is that is there a source that was pulled from or?
[1:17:31] No, that's just a general observation.
[1:17:34] In being in front of you multiple times, we know that people are always concerned about their property value.
[1:17:40] We also see what happens after something is built and look back into that and generally, I mean, it's a general statement.
[1:17:48] and it's not a hard fact that I can give you data on.
[1:17:56] Okay, thank you. I just wanted to clarify that.
[1:17:59] We had some recent updates to the fueling station in the UDO.
[1:18:07] Obviously this is a PUD and that doesn't apply.
[1:18:10] But if this was just a fueling station coming in,
[1:18:14] how would that fit in with the updates to the UDO?
[1:18:17] So if it were just the fueling station, it would not be allowed.
[1:18:21] But we put a caveat in the ordinance that if it were part of an anchor and like the
[1:18:29] mire, like Kroger, that it is allowed.
[1:18:32] Okay.
[1:18:32] And I guess to clarify, is it not allowed or is it a special exception, is it?
[1:18:36] It's a special exception, but there's also spacing and all of those things come into it to make
[1:18:41] it really difficult on Green Street and the other therapists that we included in that.
[1:18:47] And the spacing would that be due to proximate to residential,
[1:18:51] proximate to other fueling stations or both?
[1:18:54] Right, there's a spacing from residential, from an existing fueling station that are in the UDO for a normal zoning.
[1:19:05] Okay, would this location violate?
[1:19:10] It would probably with the residential to the north of the apartments.
[1:19:16] Okay, all right, thank you.
[1:19:17] I
[1:19:25] think those are all my questions for staff, thank you.
[1:19:28] All right, is the applicant present?
[1:19:32] Please step up and state your name and address for the record, please.
[1:19:42] My name is Macy Downey with McBridedale-Clarian.
[1:19:46] Addresses 5721, Dragonway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45227.
[1:19:56] I think I will try not to be repetitive, because Elizabeth did a great job of going over a lot of the details, but
[1:20:04] but we did prepare a short presentation.
[1:20:12] Yes, sorry, maybe I'll move this a little closer.
[1:20:15] Oh, maybe not.
[1:20:20] Perfect, thank you.
[1:20:25] So yes, as Elizabeth mentioned,
[1:20:28] we're requesting a map amendment
[1:20:30] and a text amendment to hopefully clear
[1:20:33] of some confusion and provide development standards
[1:20:36] for commercial uses within the Heritage Hill PUD
[1:20:41] as a product of that, this kind of exemplifies what those changes are.
[1:20:50] Carger is proposing a $99,982 square foot store with a fuel center.
[1:20:57] The fuel center has seven dispensers and roughly 200 square foot attendant kiosk out on green street.
[1:21:07] As you mentioned, grocery pickaberry is to the north as well as the pharmacy drive-through.
[1:21:14] Krugger is proposing outdoor merchandising at their fuel center and seasonal sales in
[1:21:20] front of the Krugger store, like you typically would see.
[1:21:26] Two full access movement driveways are proposed along Northfield with the right-in right out closest
[1:21:34] is to the intersection and then one full movement access on South Green Street.
[1:21:40] I think there was a question about that distance from the intersection.
[1:21:44] We are required to have 300 feet of spacing and are providing 320.
[1:21:52] This proposal has about 380 parking spaces, two free standing signs, one along each right
[1:21:58] of way.
[1:22:00] Again, this is not a development plan application but we wanted to provide as much information
[1:22:05] up front as possible at this stage since this is a PUD and we know that this location is important
[1:22:11] to the town in the surrounding community.
[1:22:17] So taking a zoom out real quick, I know there was
[1:22:20] a couple of questions about kind of the layout here. The Kruger parcel, Kruger subject parcel is
[1:22:29] highlighted in like a bolder black line there. There is a parcel to the west that's owned by the HOS
[1:22:37] way that accommodates a lot of wetland area. And then you have the apartments to the north
[1:22:46] and then some auto commercial uses to the east and then single family to the west and
[1:22:55] south. Before we submitted our application we did meet with staff multiple times and met
[1:23:02] with the neighborhood in April to kind of bring forward a proposal that's in line with
[1:23:08] the goals of the town and hopefully minimize any impacts to the surrounding area, gathering
[1:23:13] some feedback.
[1:23:17] So here's just a quick exhibit that was put together because there are a couple factors.
[1:23:23] I think that come and to play here that aren't necessarily on the Kroger site.
[1:23:28] You have that HOA parcel to the west.
[1:23:31] Yes, there's also a gas line easement that's located to the south.
[1:23:38] That is the red area that's kind of dashed there.
[1:23:43] That's 50 feet about half of it on Kerber's property.
[1:23:47] There are a lot of limitations on what you can do in that area.
[1:23:57] So looking at the southern property line, code requires that we provide that 25 foot landscape
[1:24:04] upford with the required plantings.
[1:24:07] We are providing that, we're also providing that six foot tall privacy fence along the
[1:24:14] stores side there.
[1:24:19] And then as I mentioned, there's a gas line easement there, that's providing another
[1:24:24] 18 to 21 feet of space that will be maintained with trees.
[1:24:32] Here's a quick look at the elevator, the sections again.
[1:24:37] I think we went over those already.
[1:24:41] The west side, the west buffer, we're providing the code required 25 foot landscape buffer.
[1:24:50] We are showing rather than the required proposed plantings, we are maintaining a strip of
[1:25:02] would it area that's approximately 80 to 90 feet in with, in lieu of that, we're providing
[1:25:12] the shrubs that are required. However, we are, we are writing into the ordinance that
[1:25:18] this be placed somewhere else on site just due to them not being visible back there and
[1:25:24] potentially some maintenance issues with the post fence and the grading back there.
[1:25:30] And then lastly, as I mentioned, there's that HOA property with the wetlands.
[1:25:39] That's about 94 to 135 feet and widths depending on where you're standing.
[1:25:50] Architecture was another big consideration.
[1:25:53] This design of the store and fuel center.
[1:25:56] We hope will complement existing architecture and adjacent neighborhood and across
[1:26:02] South Green Street, providing masonry and neutral warm material choices throughout the
[1:26:13] store and fuel center are designed to provide a more neighborhood grocery feel, which might
[1:26:19] contrast with some other large-scale groceries in the area that usually have like a more gray tone.
[1:26:32] Some other considerations that were made following, some conversations with staff in the
[1:26:38] neighborhood meeting, generally as the project progressed, we will be maintaining the existing
[1:26:46] railed fence that runs along the northern and eastern property lines along the right
[1:26:51] of way as much as possible.
[1:26:55] Obviously without interfering with the access proposed and visibility for those access points
[1:27:03] and for signage will also be maintaining the Heritage Hill neighborhood signage that's
[1:27:11] at that corner there.
[1:27:13] We are proposing signage for trucks to ensure that there will be no utilization of the neighborhood
[1:27:19] streets indicating that they're not supposed to pass a certain point at the North-Western
[1:27:29] corner of the property. And as discussed, we did complete a traffic study.
[1:27:38] So altogether,
[1:27:40] we believe it was the original intent that the Heritage Help UD provide some commercial
[1:27:45] uses within the overall development, this in addition to the future land use map, designation
[1:27:51] of commercial, we think reinforce the fact that the requested zone map amendment and the
[1:27:58] text amendment are aligned with the intent of the COP plan and the original PUD.
[1:28:05] Carger believes that the proposal provides the opportunity to execute plans that exceed
[1:28:11] the UDO landscaping requirements, incorporate quality materials, and offer a recommended land use while providing service to the surrounding community.
[1:28:24] We respectfully request the approval of the amendments and are happy to answer any questions.
[1:28:29] I also have some of our senators here tonight from Kroger, our civil team to help us if there's anything I can't answer.
[1:28:38] Okay.
[1:28:40] Okay.
[1:28:41] Thank you.
[1:28:42] Questions for the applicant.
[1:28:44] How many will go first?
[1:28:48] Sure.
[1:28:49] I keep turning it off, and then it's not on when I want to talk.
[1:28:53] First of all, what kind of hours are you looking at for the Kruger and for the fuel station?
[1:28:59] Typically they will run six to ten or six to eleven, and the store and the fuel kind of coincide
[1:29:07] with their hours.
[1:29:08] Same hours.
[1:29:08] Okay.
[1:29:14] Hold on.
[1:29:17] You said how close the structure was or the property line was to
[1:29:23] a the people's homes. How far away is it to their property line?
[1:29:31] Generally like either property line or both the building to the property line.
[1:29:37] I think that is show the building to the property line. Let me see.
[1:29:50] See if I have a plan that shows that.
[1:30:00] I did look a little bit that on the west property line from, I look from the wall, the privacy wall, to the property line for the residential properties. It was approximately 176 feet to 206 feet. That's not from the building, that's from the price. That's on the west side, right? We don't know on the south side though. I didn't have the property line. If I could do some quick move.
[1:30:27] It's approximately 23 plus 30 plus 42, which would be 53, 44.
[1:30:41] 97.
[1:30:42] Thank you.
[1:30:43] This is free Ramsey with Crowder.
[1:30:47] Free Ramsey with Crowder.
[1:30:49] Do you need my address?
[1:30:50] Yes, please.
[1:30:50] Five, nine, six, zero, Kesselay, West Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana.
[1:30:57] Thank you.
[1:31:04] I think that's those are all my questions.
[1:31:06] Thank you.
[1:31:07] Mr. Claude?
[1:31:09] Certainly.
[1:31:09] I have three questions.
[1:31:10] The first one is around the need for this.
[1:31:12] When I read through the comments, there was a lot of concern that this property
[1:31:15] will be underutilized and eventually become vacant and white.
[1:31:19] So you talk about like what process you go through to determine the need for a building
[1:31:24] of the size and the choice of this location.
[1:31:27] Yeah, Croger does a lot of behind-the-scenes market research to select their sites.
[1:31:34] They also take into account things like your comp plan to find sites that best suit their
[1:31:42] use,
[1:31:45] but ultimately, yeah, just the market research that Croger completes on their end provides
[1:31:53] provides them with, you know, the gaps in services.
[1:31:59] Okay, so there was a plan somewhere that exists that says that the town of Brownsburg,
[1:32:03] or at least the surrounding community excited, this is very close to the AVE Online,
[1:32:07] does have a need for an additional grocery store even though I know we just added a
[1:32:11] mire here recently.
[1:32:12] Yeah, I mean, when we make in this sort of investment,
[1:32:16] if they didn't believe in the project for sure.
[1:32:19] Okay, perfect.
[1:32:20] My second question was, there were concerns about the six foot fence, and if I had two concerns
[1:32:25] I read in the comments, one, and I share these concerns.
[1:32:28] One is, you know, six feet, maybe not behind enough, to address things like light trespass
[1:32:33] from primarily headlights.
[1:32:35] I know that the other downward lights are not going to be an issue.
[1:32:39] And then also the aging of a vinyl fence versus a masonry fence.
[1:32:44] Is that something that Craig would be open to, a taller and potentially a different structure
[1:32:49] or such as a masonry fence to sort of address light and sound trespass?
[1:32:55] We believe that the fence proposed in addition to all the landscaping proposed will be sufficient.
[1:33:04] I think the landscaping itself is kind of designed to block the headlights.
[1:33:10] It's curfews used to do performing maintenance on the vinyl fences as necessary.
[1:33:19] So it's something they're accustomed to, I think, right
[1:33:27] now we don't foresee a need for a
[1:33:29] Masonry fence or a Masonry wall, I guess, are you referring to the south or the west side?
[1:33:36] Actually, both.
[1:33:37] Because I think that's a both that were concerns about the obviously the semi-traffic coming into
[1:33:41] the loading dock, shining into the back of people's windows, and then that would also
[1:33:45] those trucks would come into the west and then head down and hit the south as well.
[1:33:49] Yeah.
[1:33:49] I don't think we have looked into the option of a taller fence, but I do believe that
[1:33:58] a privacy fence could offer the same benefits as a masonry wall, in that regard.
[1:34:06] Okay.
[1:34:07] My third question relates to the size of the science.
[1:34:09] So we're questioning the variance here.
[1:34:11] So I assume this sign, and maybe apologize,
[1:34:13] this might have been a better question for staff.
[1:34:16] Is this larger than the sign on the existing croger
[1:34:20] that's located north on Green Street close to the interstate?
[1:34:24] And you're referring to the front croger wall sign?
[1:34:27] Yes, yes.
[1:34:28] It shouldn't be, I'm not super familiar with how big that sign is,
[1:34:32] but this is pretty typical for a croger marketplace.
[1:34:36] place, and we feel that it is proportional for the size of the facade and something that
[1:34:44] is going to be readable from Green Street, which, you know, this sits kind of far back
[1:34:50] from that.
[1:34:51] So.
[1:34:52] Okay.
[1:34:54] Can I piggyback on something he said?
[1:34:57] Looking at this picture that's up right now, see where the fence is?
[1:35:03] The vinyl fence?
[1:35:04] Correct.
[1:35:05] You see how it's downhill yeah, and I think so it's only got about two feet of coverage
[1:35:10] From any light going straight across the property, right, and I think staff made the comment
[1:35:17] In future development plans if this were to move forward that we would
[1:35:22] relocate that privacy fence
[1:35:25] Up on top of the hill per say to meet up with the pavement line, right. Okay. Thank you
[1:35:33] No further questions.
[1:35:35] Thank you, Mr. Humphrey.
[1:35:36] Yep.
[1:35:37] Macy you said that you met with the community and took their information and feedback.
[1:35:43] What changes were made as a result of you?
[1:35:45] We did extend the fence on the southern side of the property.
[1:35:53] We included those truck signs to not pass the cargo property.
[1:36:03] We completed further traffic study and
[1:36:11] we
[1:36:16] extended the extent of our maintenance of the
[1:36:24] railed fence.
[1:36:25] Initially, we had it at the corner as like a gateway feature with the neighborhood
[1:36:31] but we have extended it to maintain it the full length of the property with the exception of the access drives and those visibility areas.
[1:36:43] Two fence adjustments, or what came out of that meeting, those are the changes.
[1:36:48] Those are the changes that were made, the two fence.
[1:36:50] Yes.
[1:36:51] Okay.
[1:36:52] All right.
[1:36:52] Next question is the zoning, the local First Corridor Regional, when, when corroborates
[1:36:59] their, their marketing, their advertising, would that just be for Brownsburg, would they
[1:37:03] market for outside of the community?
[1:37:08] We are very close to the community's edge, I think, Avon is a couple feet down the road.
[1:37:16] So I would imagine, and I can't speak on behalf of marketing.
[1:37:21] But I would imagine that some folks from Avon would be included in any marketing efforts as well.
[1:37:30] Okay, would you be looking to bring in folks from farther away than that?
[1:37:35] Is your marketing intended, or are you intending to get customers from further away?
[1:37:40] I don't know that that would be necessary.
[1:37:45] I would assume they would visit their local Krugger stores rather than travel out of the way to visit this one.
[1:37:51] Okay.
[1:37:54] Noise wise, so I noticed a lot of the truck access dump trash, all that is in the back corner.
[1:38:01] Why is that?
[1:38:02] Why would you put it in the back corner of the building?
[1:38:05] But that was the best kind of layout for the site, otherwise if you turned it, the loading
[1:38:15] docs would still be facing residential and then you'd kind of have a split parking lot.
[1:38:20] So customers wouldn't have direct access to the storefront.
[1:38:24] And then anywhere from there, you'd be putting your truck docs on right of way, which is not
[1:38:31] the most sightly, nor do I know if it's allowed by code.
[1:38:36] We do feel that the, you know, we were able to provide the most buffer in this area as
[1:38:42] well, just given the shape of the property.
[1:38:46] And yeah, the loading docs were put back there, I think intentionally, as well as the trash
[1:38:54] compactor which is I think there were some questions about that. It's internally
[1:39:00] fed from the store and then the compactor truck will come and pick it up and
[1:39:09] take it away. There's no slamming of dumpsters associated with that. It's a
[1:39:13] pretty seamless operation. Right, so it's not something you want in front of your
[1:39:24] Noise-wise, you would have refrigerator trucks that would be left back there overnight, right, with refrigeration units.
[1:39:31] It's my understanding that croggers, refrigeration trucks will come and drop their trailers and leave,
[1:39:39] not necessarily stall out in the back of the store for extended periods of time.
[1:39:45] It's common for the trailer to sit there with the conditioner running, though, correct?
[1:39:49] I mean, they're offloaded as soon as they arrive, so I'm not sure the duration of that process, or how long they keep that refrigeration on, but how was the HVAC for the space conducted? Is it rooftop units?
[1:40:05] Yes, it will be rooftop in screened with a pair of pitfalls.
[1:40:10] Okay, and those are on 24-7.
[1:40:12] Yes, I believe so.
[1:40:13] Okay. Got it. Okay. That's a question to have. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Dolan.
[1:40:20] Um, this question maybe should be for staff. Do you know where the, if the green street
[1:40:26] entrance where that lines up across from Christian brothers?
[1:40:35] Um, I don't know if that's shown
[1:40:37] on. Currently it's pretty close, but they're wanting to close that entrance and move it, so
[1:40:43] they're moving that one. They're going to move it closer and they are not going to have full
[1:40:48] access. It's limited in. Okay. Okay.
[1:40:55] Anything else? Yeah, it's perhaps. I have a two for
[1:41:01] now. According to the gas pipeline that we spoke of, I looked it up on the National
[1:41:07] Pipeline Mapping System. Does Krugger have concerns that this is considered a hazardous
[1:41:16] just liquid.
[1:41:19] No concerns. We'll obviously take the appropriate measures with the development
[1:41:27] and we're aware that there's very restricted activities that can happen in that area,
[1:41:33] but no, no concerns. Okay, so no concerns on the hazardous liquid
[1:41:38] pipelines. What about the retired landfills that are to the west and north, northwest?
[1:41:44] Yeah, there's no concerns there.
[1:41:49] I believe that we are outside the IDAM notification area, however, that works out, but yeah, we're aware of the concerns.
[1:42:03] Those are my questions for now.
[1:42:05] Okay. Thank you. A couple questions. The the six foot wall on the west property line in the retaining wall.
[1:42:17] Are those I don't know if we saw a cut are those on top of each other or they in front and if so, how tall is the retaining wall compared to the six foot.
[1:42:32] fire is looking for the site plan which is first um see yeah there's two walls shown one along the
[1:42:40] rear pavement edge and then there is also a section um closer to the side of the store kind
[1:42:47] of near the entrance there um I don't know that we have established an exact height for that retaining
[1:43:07] I mean, I don't know what it ranges from, but if we're getting a five foot retaining
[1:43:11] wall and you're putting a six foot fence in front of it, that doesn't make sense.
[1:43:15] So I just want to kind of clarify how that looks.
[1:43:18] Yeah, and I think the intent is for the fence to be on top of the wall.
[1:43:24] Okay.
[1:43:24] That's what my question is.
[1:43:26] Okay. Do you want the high? I can provide the height.
[1:43:31] Yes, please, if you have it. Could you state your name and address for the record?
[1:43:35] Patrick Sawinsky, address 500 East 96th Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46240.
[1:43:41] Thank you.
[1:43:42] The wall would range from zero up to the maximum 12 feet based on preliminary design.
[1:43:47] Okay, and that is the retaining wall by itself.
[1:43:49] That is correct.
[1:43:50] All right. Thank you.
[1:43:55] And then may have needed him to stay up here.
[1:43:57] What is the plan for drainage detention retention?
[1:44:03] I think I can, yeah, if you want to come up here.
[1:44:06] I do know we are planning for on-site detention, but...
[1:44:11] Yes, so all stormwater management measures will be designed in accordance with Tana Brown's
[1:44:16] Verrigan-Hendrick's County standards.
[1:44:18] As part of their requirements, we anticipate that an underground detention system will be provided
[1:44:23] it on site to limit discharge rates from the proposed development.
[1:44:28] Okay, and just to clarify, that would capture all impervious surfaces from this.
[1:44:33] Yeah, obviously there is some small amount outside the impervious area that may continue to drain onto the other properties.
[1:44:43] Yes, the full impervious development would be captured by the system.
[1:44:46] All right, thank you.
[1:44:48] All right, I think that's all I have for the civil.
[1:44:51] Thank you.
[1:44:51] I will also note that we have started conversations with the drainage folks, the drainage board as well.
[1:44:58] Okay.
[1:45:00] And then, I think just last question, this facility is 99,000 square feet. You know, I, Kroger has multiple stores, multiple brands. Are there other smaller facilities that Kroger has been developing lately? Or is this a standard? What, what kind of range and models have been developed in an area similar to this? This is typical for what Kroger is providing now.
[1:45:27] They were developing 123 square feet for a short time there, but this is obviously smaller
[1:45:39] than that.
[1:45:40] The area provided kind of provides all the amenities that people expect with crocker nowadays,
[1:45:49] the pick up, the pharmacy, usually they have a coffee tenant inside.
[1:45:55] the offering within the store, so the 99 is pretty standard for CROGR.
[1:46:04] All right, thank you. Any last questions for the applicant?
[1:46:10] All right, thank you.
[1:46:11] Thank you.
[1:46:15] All right, staff and we received numerous written comments for this and we had those in our packet.
[1:46:23] Let's say do we have a quick summary of some of the topics that were presented.
[1:46:34] All of the comments were submitted for your review and laser fish along with a synopsis of each one of those.
[1:46:42] There was one more received today which I placed a hard copy in front of your places.
[1:46:48] All in all we had 38 citizens send 58 written comments in opposition.
[1:46:54] There were two petitions submitted, one with 56 signers and one with 354 signers.
[1:47:02] The concerns ranged from traffic, safety, lighting, pollution, crime, infrastructure process,
[1:47:09] wildlife compatibility, and need for this facility.
[1:47:13] There were also five letters from citizens in support.
[1:47:18] For another store on the south side, the convenience, the tax base, and
[1:47:23] in the investment in Brownsburg.
[1:47:27] All right, thank you.
[1:47:31] And then prior to getting to the public comment,
[1:47:36] I'm going to propose that we take a five minute recess.
[1:47:40] That would be fine, just a reminder of commissioners
[1:47:43] that please not discuss any matters pertaining
[1:47:45] to the agenda this evening during the recess.
[1:47:51] All right, thank you, everyone.
[1:47:53] Now continue with the public comment.
[1:48:00] So we'll start with statements against.
[1:48:04] will have 20 minutes allocated, individuals will be permitted 3 minutes, and those representing
[1:48:10] 3 or more people will be permitted 5 minutes.
[1:48:15] We would ask that you keep your statements
[1:48:18] to the 5 criteria we have to consider for rezoning. If staff could put those criteria on the screens
[1:48:27] please.
[1:48:31] And just want to ask that due to the number of people here would like to comment
[1:48:36] if you could avoid repetition for items that have already been presented, that would allow us to get to more people.
[1:48:43] All right, Steph, do we have anyone signed up for a statement against?
[1:49:02] Yes, Reverend Jim said.
[1:49:06] Just to please state your name and address for the record, please.
[1:49:10] The Reverend Jim said 6742 Fox Club Lane.
[1:49:14] I respectfully ask the advisory plan commission in town attorney to clarify whether the proposed
[1:49:20] program PUD amendment has satisfied the procedural requirements of the Brownsburg Unified
[1:49:26] Development Ordinance. It requires property owners signatures, UDO section 8.3.b.1 appears
[1:49:33] to require signatures from at least 50% of the property owners affected by the proposed PUD
[1:49:38] the UDO amendment has the required 50% support been obtained and documented.
[1:49:43] And if so, where is that documentation in the public hearing materials?
[1:49:47] If not, on what basis can the petition proceed?
[1:49:50] If the town believes this requirement does not apply, what UDO provision provides that exemption?
[1:49:56] The authority to file the amendment was not in the public file as we were, as we heard today, but
[1:50:03] But the UDO section 8.3.b, it says proposals to amend the PUD ordinance text must be filed
[1:50:10] by the owners of the property to which the amendment applies.
[1:50:15] We were able to look up the meeting minutes from the Camargo Club meeting when they were
[1:50:20] creating the pub, and it originally, the original intent was for a small scale grocery store,
[1:50:26] not a super market as is being proposed, so the legal sufficiency of the petition is in question.
[1:50:36] Neighborhood Liaison's contact to the town attorney on July 24th, 2026, and followed up on August 5th, 2026,
[1:50:44] seeking clarification of these requirements, and until today we got nothing until we heard the presentation today.
[1:50:52] Given these questions were unanswered at the time regarding ownership, authority,
[1:50:57] to file, and the required property owner support, we respectfully request that the APC not
[1:51:03] proceed to the merits of the proposed development until the town attorney confirms
[1:51:07] on the record that the petition is legally and procedurally sufficient.
[1:51:11] The central question is very straightforward.
[1:51:14] How can the APC properly consider and act upon this HUD amendment if compliance
[1:51:19] With the UDO requirements governing who may file the amendment and the required property owner support has not been demonstrated.
[1:51:26] We're asking that the town to follow its adopted procedures and establish publicly that the petition is legally eligible for consideration.
[1:51:34] Before proceeding, we respectfully request that the APC and town attorney address these questions on the record and identify the specific UDO provisions supporting the town's decision to accept and hear this petition.
[1:51:46] And is this proposal even legal to be considered tonight?
[1:51:51] Thank you.
[1:51:53] Thank you.
[1:51:58] As I will address questions at the end of the applicant or
[1:52:02] the staff can answer the questions that are presented after the public comment session.
[1:52:17] I'm not sure how the APC wants to handle this.
[1:52:21] My plan was to read through the list of folks to.
[1:52:25] Correct, we'll go with the next person signed up.
[1:52:27] Thank you.
[1:52:29] It is Ms. Stephanie Manor.
[1:52:32] All right, thank you.
[1:52:33] I have an item for the projector.
[1:52:34] I've submitted.
[1:52:36] Would anybody like a paper copy?
[1:52:38] For ease of looking.
[1:52:40] Okay.
[1:52:41] Yeah, I'm sure.
[1:52:42] Yeah, sure, sure.
[1:52:46] Yeah.
[1:52:50] Thank you very much.
[1:52:58] Stephanie Manor, I live in our custom bill,
[1:53:01] home 43 feet south of the proposed change in land use.
[1:53:04] at 6830 Brigham Bay Drive.
[1:53:07] Most importantly, I am mom to our eight, five, and three-year-old,
[1:53:12] who have always been told they grow up in our home.
[1:53:14] That is proposed now to be unsafe and unfit for them.
[1:53:20] Please look at the images projected on the screen,
[1:53:22] and take note of the vast difference
[1:53:24] from what Kroger has submitted.
[1:53:26] This is the true plan, not just a building.
[1:53:29] See, the proposal isn't about a building or a strip of brick.
[1:53:32] Even Deb Cook and Council members were taken aback at what they saw touching our home when they looked at this.
[1:53:40] We reviewed the lots allowed uses upon buying our land and trusted that as a place to build our lives.
[1:53:46] Per experts this will devalue our experience and our home value greatly but we may not even have a choice but to abandon our forever home because it may no longer be safe.
[1:53:56] You see, in the plan, Kroger is directing semis to exit the doc facing our home, 43 feet
[1:54:04] from where my children play animal rescuer in the backyard.
[1:54:07] But for your benefit, they move the line from the original drawing, instead of the distance
[1:54:13] from my yard, now they show the distance from my house to the concrete where those semis
[1:54:19] will drive.
[1:54:20] So that doesn't change the design, but it does indicate we don't have the right to proper
[1:54:25] for use and value of our lot, which is part of our home.
[1:54:30] Kroger's own engineer said in the neighborhood meeting that their drainage system won't catch everything,
[1:54:35] so truck chemicals, toxins, and other waste will drain from that elevated lot into yards.
[1:54:41] But it's not just my kids.
[1:54:43] My neighbor trusted this neighborhood as a safe space for his son Aiden,
[1:54:48] who has severe disabilities and incredible sensitivities.
[1:54:51] With constant sporadic loud noises, Aiden will probably not be able to play outdoors anymore.
[1:54:57] He also will likely struggle just to be in his own home.
[1:55:02] Why would we give privileges to a company who has fallen short on promises in the past
[1:55:06] holding the Marsh Bacon for years so that a competitor couldn't move in?
[1:55:10] The council spoke out on this then, and now, this same company is asking the town to reward
[1:55:17] or that behavior at the expense of ruining family homes.
[1:55:21] There is no doubt that this will ruin our peaceful enjoyment of our homes and
[1:55:26] the feel of our neighborhoods.
[1:55:28] This proposal not only places heavy commercial in our neighborhood,
[1:55:33] but also in the spot that is the worst impactful,
[1:55:39] the most negatively impactful on direct neighbors who live there now.
[1:55:43] Please ask yourself, would you want this in your backyard?
[1:55:46] loud noises, banging, lights, beepers, trash, mayhem.
[1:55:51] If you say no, I wouldn't want this in my backyard.
[1:55:53] Please vote no today.
[1:55:55] I thank you for considering making a true difference
[1:55:57] for all of us here tonight and those who can't be here.
[1:56:00] Thank you, please vote no.
[1:56:02] Thank you.
[1:56:12] The next speaker is Chad Duda.
[1:56:17] Good evening.
[1:56:18] My name is Chad Duda, I live at 3329 Walnut Drive,
[1:56:21] and I'm speaking in opposition.
[1:56:22] My job is to set the framework because of this law,
[1:56:25] This commission weighs this amendment against five principles and neighbors after me will speak to each in depth one the
[1:56:31] Comprehensive plan the applicants own narrative admits the plan designates this parcel this parcel is local commercial
[1:56:37] But the plan defines that category of small scale retail goods and services that do not notably exceed the surrounding residents and also minimize impact on neighbors a
[1:56:47] 99,000 square foot store supermarket with a seven dispenser fuel centers neither small scale nor low impact
[1:56:53] In fact, its regional retail and the plan never put this on this corner.
[1:56:59] 2. The character conditions of the area.
[1:57:03] By the applicant's own narrative, the trash compactor, the loading berth sit on the western residential side.
[1:57:09] While the canopy runs, roughly 45 candles and runoff drains towards whitelit creek for pollution.
[1:57:15] 3. The most desirable use. The applicant's narrative calls this a transitional use of the land.
[1:57:20] A regional store and full gas station is not transitional towards the neighborhood.
[1:57:26] It intensifies the edge next to the nearby homes and threatens the normalcy of their neighborhoods.
[1:57:32] For the conservation of property values, the applicant's narrative claims the project will not negatively impact the area.
[1:57:39] Real estate professionals in your own pre-meeting comments say the opposite.
[1:57:43] A home backing up to the supermarket, a fuel center, and delivery trucks sell for less and
[1:57:48] to far fewer buyers.
[1:57:50] Five, responsible development and growth.
[1:57:53] This is a planning body, and this is where planning matters most.
[1:57:57] The town's own stormwater reviewers deferred the drainage report flood routing,
[1:58:01] detention design, and SWPPP to future development plan.
[1:58:05] So you're asked to rewrite the PUD grant 10 waivers tonight
[1:58:09] before anyone has proven the site can handle its own runoff and flooding.
[1:58:13] Approving the promise and engineering it later is exactly backwards
[1:58:16] in not how planning works.
[1:58:17] five principles on everyone that's proposed a false short of the standard you're asked to uphold I'm not opposed to growth
[1:58:24] I'm asking you to hold the project to plant to the planet promises residential's relied on our respectfully ask you to
[1:58:31] recommend no on this putt amendment. Thank you, please
[1:58:40] hold a pause. Thank you.
[1:58:41] Richie Crawford. Thank you. Yes, my name is Richie Crawford 6760 Brigham Bay Drive as you can tell I work
[1:58:49] FAT&T, I am the Brownsburg Inspector for all, everything you guys do here, for anything
[1:58:55] going to AT&T.
[1:58:56] So, I've been on a lot of job sites.
[1:59:00] All the work and infrastructures and roads and utilities that would be needed, who's
[1:59:05] paying for that?
[1:59:06] The draft studies that provided does not show future growth, but shows already struggling
[1:59:11] roads with D grades.
[1:59:13] Some people are forced on the fact that this may bring funds to the town that would cost.
[1:59:20] Road improvements, stormwater, runoffs, electrical wires move.
[1:59:24] There's two houses to the south that are on well waters.
[1:59:28] How's that going to affect those people right there?
[1:59:32] I didn't see any proposal for croggers offering any funds for infrastructure needs.
[1:59:38] So we need to know what is going to cost the neighbors.
[1:59:41] But I ask, will this finitely benefit the town or cost the town?
[1:59:47] Plus, Brownsburg's are paying a six-figure installment for development on Main Street per town council meeting.
[1:59:55] So that's their cost right there.
[1:59:57] What incentives will be given with tax abatement?
[2:00:13] So, that's basically what I have. I also noticed that since I'm on all the sites all the time, you do have a lot of stuff that has to change infrastructure-wise. You have a fire hygienic when you travel in south that has to move. You also have a storm drain to start.
[2:00:29] are you sticking out? You have both of those entrances that are going to have to change.
[2:00:35] So you can't have two lights close together for traffic for the Christian brothers and
[2:00:40] the traffic coming out.
[2:00:42] Semitraphics not going to be able to turn coming southbound because the median school buses
[2:00:49] are a struggling just to make that turn. So there's no way no semi is going to ever make
[2:00:53] that turn. And most of all, I have a box, a PFP box that's feeding eight hundred and
[2:01:00] 164 people fiber in the corner of that lot right there when you turn it's behind that brick wall that will have to be moved
[2:01:12] Definitely I've already talked to Henry's power. You're gonna need a three-phase system in there right now
[2:01:16] It's a one-phase. There's a lot of variables on this the
[2:01:20] Cons outweigh all the pros
[2:01:23] That's all I have. Thank you
[2:01:25] Thank you
[2:01:27] Hello,
[2:01:31] my name is Autumn Soika.
[2:01:33] I'm the managing broker of Heroes Property Group.
[2:01:36] Our address is 410 West Oak Street,
[2:01:39] Suite 3, Scienceville, Indiana, 46077.
[2:01:43] I'm here tonight in support of the many property owners
[2:01:46] in this room and the many more that have reached out to you.
[2:01:49] I'm coming to you tonight as a real estate professional
[2:01:52] who's represented both buyers and sellers
[2:01:55] in the neighboring subdivision,
[2:01:56] and I share in their concerns.
[2:01:58] I can absolutely tell you this will impact property values.
[2:02:03] It will impact their right to quiet enjoyment and it will impact their resaleability mostly for the people that are closest to this development.
[2:02:12] Last month I tuned into the meeting and after the continuance I thought that I would just keep listening in to hear what was happening in this part of Hendricks County.
[2:02:20] And I was really happily pleased just with the way you guys took the time to flesh out.
[2:02:26] something as simple as definitions to make sure that you had clarity as you
[2:02:31] approach development in your community. I'm on the wrong side of some bad
[2:02:35] development where I live and that was very refreshing to see. And that is
[2:02:40] exactly how this body should function. Our neighbors in place for the people, not
[2:02:45] for not for private interest. The truth is no one will care as much about this
[2:02:50] community as the people that live here and I want to remind you that these are
[2:02:54] They share your kids' sports teams, and they are your neighbors that don't mind driving 2.6 miles to the other croaker down the street.
[2:03:02] Should you come to the conclusion that the additional grocery store, just a few miles from all of the others, is a greater benefit than protecting these property owners.
[2:03:13] I ask you to require a few things.
[2:03:16] Hold them to their proposed buffers, but also include masonry, sound mitigation, not vinyl fencing,
[2:03:22] and require a minimum eight-foot berm.
[2:03:25] Assist the neighborhood with closing their residential streets to stop outside traffic
[2:03:29] from kind of through.
[2:03:31] Common sense will tell us that semis get lost and people don't know where to go.
[2:03:35] Require limited delivery and operation hours from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.
[2:03:39] to eliminate noise and additional hazards.
[2:03:42] Require all downward facing non-glare lighting.
[2:03:45] Don't allow any outside storage or running vehicles to stay in the lot.
[2:03:49] require that the building be placed in a less injurious location on the lot or better yet something smaller, as was mentioned, do not allow them to place the loading document next to residential homes and certainly not under 50 feet from a tax paying citizen, require law enforcement and security to mitigate crime and lastly add a clause to this put amendment that the changes void of this proposal does not come to fruition.
[2:04:17] This is not about being anti-development.
[2:04:20] This is about smart development.
[2:04:22] In this area, these property owners would love to see you as their board stand up and protect them.
[2:04:29] They didn't move to Main Street.
[2:04:31] They moved to call the SACS.
[2:04:35] Thank you.
[2:04:41] Brian Hickman.
[2:04:55] And they're finding the fact that they're going to go to the
[2:05:01] hospital with all of them in the group.
[2:05:02] The people in the market, up to the side of the detached gas station, would not represent the hospital with all of them already in one statement.
[2:05:09] The Commission staff are going on page 58, and they report that the accidental points have been located without direct access to that incident.
[2:05:18] That's not true.
[2:05:20] The intersection of 227 North Road is this access point to the home road rather than the NAMCO campus, the Marvel Club, and the Renegative Park Department.
[2:05:28] And it's the secondary access point to the residents moving away.
[2:05:31] If approved, residents in these neighborhoods would then have to continue with so much our effort to use the North Road Drive Access Point to make sure that they are there.
[2:05:39] as well as current delivery vehicles, instacart drivers, and current customers all using that same
[2:05:45] intersection. As a big incident that an order to avoid this thing is an intersection,
[2:05:50] residents of these neighborhoods will then help the youth to grow to do in a way at their
[2:05:54] plant house. The increased traffic in an already poorly rated intersection through a neighborhood
[2:05:59] without pre-designed bridge streets has not been considered.
[2:06:04] Children play in the neighborhood directly adjacent to the site and they write their bikes along the bike path and run along with a little data.
[2:06:11] What about the two brown-gray school buses that are dedicated so much more to our neighborhoods?
[2:06:17] What happens when the library drivers are so much more smart because they're in a rush?
[2:06:22] The draft traffic setting simply does not account for the sheer increased volume traffic that will now run through the intersection with the 99,000-4,500 people.
[2:06:32] as well as a new apartment in the title being built on the App 2.67.
[2:06:37] The Brownford PD, out of conditional resources to ensure the safety of residents in our neighborhood
[2:06:42] will increase traffic and never increase traffic.
[2:06:46] And finally, what happened with the Walmart?
[2:06:49] It was a very preferred site, a quarter mile north of 322.67.
[2:06:53] The curb was decided to have a nearly 300,000 square feet of supermarket,
[2:06:57] along the same 6 mile stretch of 267, there's no water profitable and they cut
[2:07:03] they can close this new market. The tower would then be left with a vacant 99,000 square foot
[2:07:08] of supermarket gas station with 380 parking spaces, 100 feet north of the local
[2:07:14] frontward side. That vacant building, which at the put chain, just passed, it would only ever be a
[2:07:21] supermarket gas station, but then be the first thing people see when they drive into the
[2:07:26] How was that responsible development group?
[2:07:32] There are four in household assigned to condition.
[2:07:36] You submit to you to say it's not.
[2:07:38] Thank you, as you vote no.
[2:07:41] Thank you.
[2:07:45] Steph Duda.
[2:07:47] Can you make sure your mic's on as a little green light on?
[2:07:50] Yeah.
[2:07:50] OK.
[2:07:50] Thank you.
[2:07:52] Hi.
[2:07:58] I'm from Fresno, a parent in an agency.
[2:08:01] I serve a state of innovation for a neighbor.
[2:08:03] As an educator, I believe the communities teach values through the places they make.
[2:08:08] No one is asking this land to remain untouched.
[2:08:12] There are better possibilities to buy by the current cut.
[2:08:14] A community park, walking past, gathering space, a play area,
[2:08:19] or an outdoor learning center to look at that in A-Bon.
[2:08:22] That local public schools use.
[2:08:25] I've witnessed outdoor learning spaces and help students understand and experience
[2:08:28] watershed, wildlife, and environmental science in a way that's not being taught.
[2:08:33] That kind of resource was that that browns were children and families for generation.
[2:08:38] My family and I moved to Brownsburg because I felt like a neighborhood, a community in the home.
[2:08:45] We have lived in a neighborhood when it used to feel this way.
[2:08:49] And we sadly watched it, it comes up in more than a quarter or a track and business.
[2:08:53] It no longer resembles the community which we chose to reside.
[2:08:58] What is that community feeling with characters, green spaces, and places where families could feel at home?
[2:09:03] That's making you move around through it.
[2:09:05] If you want to move directly in touch with this property, make that same investment.
[2:09:10] Has anyone visit the site for the new project?
[2:09:14] Also, 50 June now.
[2:09:16] This is not an abstract personal land on a map.
[2:09:19] It is a part of the daily surroundings of real families.
[2:09:22] The mission has her with this proposal we need today.
[2:09:25] More than 350 residents signed our petition in only a few days.
[2:09:30] That does not mean residents opposed all the road.
[2:09:33] It simply means that they are asking the town to please them before making a permanent change.
[2:09:38] I've listened carefully to the residents who spoke before me.
[2:09:41] They've addressed the project's technical, environmental, safety, and planning concerns.
[2:09:45] I do not wish for a few close points, so, in closing, I'm asking the commission to consider
[2:09:50] what this decision made for people to make here and for the future of Brownsburg.
[2:09:55] The question before he is not whether this property can be developed is whether this proposal
[2:10:00] is amendment is the right choice for this location and this community.
[2:10:04] They respectfully ask you to honor the residents who trust you Brownsburg
[2:10:08] but they're far from investment.
[2:10:10] They're home and to recommend against this cut amendment.
[2:10:14] Thank you for your time and service for our community.
[2:10:17] Thank you.
[2:10:20] Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Vice President, staff has informed me that the 20-minute time limit has been reached.
[2:10:27] How many names remain on the list?
[2:10:43] Nine people to speak against and three to speak for.
[2:10:50] Just for confirmation, the statements in support have a additional 20 minutes.
[2:11:01] So nine by three would be another 27 minutes.
[2:11:04] And I think I like what we did last time where we asked if anyone had something different
[2:11:11] than the items that have been discussed so far.
[2:11:15] And if anyone had those, but understand, if you start going into the things we already
[2:11:20] covered, we will need to stop because we want to give everybody a chance to just give make
[2:11:23] their points if they are different from the ones that have been made previously, right?
[2:11:27] So obviously you have any, does anyone else have the other nine that are signed up?
[2:11:31] Well continue any other nine have different points that they are wanting to make than that have not already been made
[2:11:41] So we're early asking for one additional speaker
[2:11:45] Okay, so I would propose to suspend our rules for one additional speaker give them three minutes and just to confirm
[2:11:51] in
[2:11:53] Fairness to the rebuttal that the applicant would also receive additional time on top of their five minute rebuttal
[2:11:59] Certainly, would that be one extra minute, would that be sufficient for the applicant, they give a thumbs up.
[2:12:07] We have a thumbs up, yeah.
[2:12:09] So there's a motion to permit three additional minutes for statements against, I think will allow three additional minutes for statements for.
[2:12:20] And then one additional minute for the applicant rebuttal, is that your motion.
[2:12:28] Okay, there's a motion, is there a second?
[2:12:29] Second all those in favor please vote aye aye those opposed nay
[2:12:36] Motion passes. All right. Thank you.
[2:12:57] Okay. Thank you. Thank you for when please state your name for the record
[2:13:53] already have it. When it rains, our coffee floods and we actually have a creep, because that is our property.
[2:14:00] And the engineer has already said that that will not stop.
[2:14:05] Can you speak into the mic please?
[2:14:09] Could you speak into the mic please?
[2:14:11] This is not the development, we are a problem. I was there for that original health pills,
[2:14:16] and I guarantee you they did not say that there would be any commercial as a matter of fact they promise
[2:14:27] to a house way bigger than this in plain field that there would be no commercial on that area.
[2:14:34] None periods the last part would be a residential facility for seniors.
[2:14:41] Many people that fight property and have a built in five on the promise that it would be
[2:14:50] no commercial and the last step of the property would be the senior system property.
[2:14:56] My husband likes to kid everybody and say it's complete.
[2:15:00] Because it would be right next to our property, we could look over, we're old. And I had had an eight
[2:15:07] foot, we've been at 25 years, I started with an eight foot gross garden, I now have a hundred
[2:15:14] and fifty gross garden. We started with a house that was one store, it is now two stores.
[2:15:22] We would not put all that money into our property if we knew there was going to be commercial
[2:15:29] at school. And the last thing I would like to say, if you put a gas station, that's to my
[2:15:34] bedroom window, I have a chronic cough. I am old, I'm over the 60 range, and I am a
[2:15:42] high risk. Please don't know.
[2:15:46] That's right. Thank you.
[2:15:56] Scott Smith. And this is the statements for support.
[2:15:59] These are support statements. Thank you.
[2:16:00] I
[2:16:10] bring in Bay's Drive and the Heritage Hills of the Bay.
[2:16:12] Many of my neighbors here are, many of my neighbors
[2:16:14] and here tonight speak against the broker development.
[2:16:17] Although it goes against my own personal interest
[2:16:19] as a homeowner, I'm not here to do that.
[2:16:21] I think you should allow the broker to proceed.
[2:16:23] I do worry about the traffic and the listen
[2:16:25] with potential for my own property values
[2:16:27] to be diminished.
[2:16:28] But they also worry about the devastating effects
[2:16:30] of sign bill ones, the terrible amount
[2:16:32] of the residential and commercial property in Brunsburg
[2:16:35] and the brutal impact of 30 years of tips
[2:16:37] if citing money and legal schools.
[2:16:39] This development would be a commercial taxpayer
[2:16:42] outside of the Brownsburg tip.
[2:16:44] There's far too little of that kind of land remaining,
[2:16:47] and we cannot miss commercial development opportunities
[2:16:49] like this one.
[2:16:51] I can't personally go on chatter to smile about you
[2:16:53] when the Brownsburg Town Council regarding tip
[2:16:55] and residential commercial imbalance
[2:16:57] and then come here and say, but not in my backyard.
[2:17:00] I got inconsistent, so I think you should allow
[2:17:02] a program to proceed.
[2:17:04] To be clear, I think this is bad for me and my neighbors,
[2:17:06] but I think that Senate Bill 1, TIP, and the residential
[2:17:09] and the mountains in our community are worse.
[2:17:11] This is the lesser of four evils.
[2:17:14] My neighbors have all have well-reasoned
[2:17:17] the legitimate concerns of traffic, noise,
[2:17:19] light pollution, and property values.
[2:17:21] I hope that you listen to them and you take steps
[2:17:23] to address their concerns.
[2:17:24] I want to talk about something different.
[2:17:27] There used to be a large grocery store on Main Street.
[2:17:30] It closed in 2017.
[2:17:32] Crunker bought that land and sat on it for five years,
[2:17:34] before selling it to the current occupants.
[2:17:36] they should be motor sports.
[2:17:38] During that five years, the building site vacates and unused.
[2:17:41] Crobert deliberately held that property
[2:17:43] for the sole purpose of preventing any would-be competitor
[2:17:46] from buying a term-keep grocery store
[2:17:48] and competing against it.
[2:17:50] Crobert decided that only an empty building in the middle of town
[2:17:52] was better for their bottom line than the fair competition.
[2:17:55] That probably made sense to a crobert accountant,
[2:17:58] but the loss of a large anchor store was very hard
[2:18:00] in the other small businesses on the south side
[2:18:02] that depended on the traffic
[2:18:03] at the back brochure store brought to the area.
[2:18:06] It was an entirely legal, but purely selfish business decision
[2:18:09] that curved the South Side businesses.
[2:18:11] And I haven't forgotten, many of the people here tonight
[2:18:14] don't want a croaker in the new location.
[2:18:17] But even more than that, all of us collectively
[2:18:19] don't want an abandoned croaker in that new location.
[2:18:22] So it would be my hope, but if this development is approved,
[2:18:26] the town government does everything in their power
[2:18:28] to require croaker to either operate or sell the property
[2:18:31] and the events of the store fails.
[2:18:34] I wish Crobert good luck in long life on this new location,
[2:18:37] but the store fails, the town's governing lobbies,
[2:18:40] can't ensure it's a lot of Crobert to hold
[2:18:42] the property vacant, simply to bring a quality
[2:18:45] or some other competitor from bringing a foothold
[2:18:47] to compete against their remaining stores.
[2:18:49] Crobert has already proven the vehicle structure
[2:18:51] of their landholdies to put their own interests
[2:18:53] to get ahead of the communities.
[2:18:55] Please take steps to ensure that they can't do that again.
[2:18:58] And if you do not have the power to hold the accountable in that way, you have to vote
[2:19:04] no, even though I think you're probably out of vote.
[2:19:11] Eric Stemshorn?
[2:19:26] I'm a registered road.
[2:19:29] I live in the proper complex of sports across from this.
[2:19:33] I think when these find a criteria, I think I'm in sports distance.
[2:19:39] I'm incredibly low.
[2:19:40] I really don't enjoy the gas station.
[2:19:43] I really want to drive a gas station at all.
[2:19:48] But, it's outside of browser and hasn't had a grocery store at least a decade now, and I know the part of that is kind of a crore-ers fault.
[2:19:58] But, we need some kind of grocery store in that compound, and it's not the most ideal thing in this world, but I think that it would be awful.
[2:20:06] Well, according to the USDA, it also knows supermarkets that are in a mile at a home, so it's going to be quite important.
[2:20:13] It's almost like we don't have any diet.
[2:20:15] It's true that a lot of people think it's not about the direction of town in the north or south, too.
[2:20:21] Well, they haven't, but a grocery store that's, you know, it's close to people,
[2:20:25] that's kind of making easier quicker and often cheaper to get fresh produce.
[2:20:30] And all of the groceries.
[2:20:32] The other reason is that the good expert in this location is walk building and white
[2:20:39] building.
[2:20:39] I used to live in my house for over a year and in front of me I used to live in white
[2:20:43] building.
[2:20:44] It was quite a bundle of exercise.
[2:20:46] It was a necessary activity.
[2:20:47] Let me fight for it as I needed it and not waste as much on the pole.
[2:20:51] That one I moved.
[2:20:52] It sounds like a town.
[2:20:53] It definitely was only a car.
[2:20:55] It's just one way to be in it.
[2:20:58] The rest of the aim I've heard is very safe and the rest of the drone around me is nice, but it's pretty far from me.
[2:21:06] So I usually stick to the car.
[2:21:07] The book's location is right across from there.
[2:21:09] I'll give you a couple more days.
[2:21:11] It's only a mile from being up through now.
[2:21:13] It'd be very easy to bike to aim in a few over close to the potential of watching the circuit so as well.
[2:21:23] It would keep money in brownsburg, it's locations in South-East, and I don't know if it goes this way or this way.
[2:21:29] I don't think, I'm not sure the only, I'm not the only one on that side.
[2:21:35] I don't know if it goes the eight-long grade or three, it's just keep money in brownsburg.
[2:21:41] It's also the job aspect, so it takes a lot of people to work at, I don't know, any of some work at the good home.
[2:21:46] I don't know if you're going to answer it and there's a lot of scope that we're asking about the security of the day.
[2:21:52] Press a good ranking level.
[2:21:56] Once we're mentioning the people who have been affected.
[2:22:00] I'm really going to show up this meeting on the 8th or 8th.
[2:22:03] I've been here to have my hours.
[2:22:05] A lot of people have been affected.
[2:22:09] I'm going to suggest a reason this is not appropriate for anything that would need to be credible.
[2:22:18] But as far as the reason goes, I would need a phone.
[2:22:23] Thank you.
[2:22:25] John Rapele.
[2:22:29] Can we make sure everyone else's mics are off or getting feedback and can't have this one as loud as we need it?
[2:22:41] Before you start my time, I want to tell you something is wrong with your system.
[2:22:45] so I can't hear it even through the headphones.
[2:22:47] So there's something wrong with the system.
[2:22:50] Maybe the mic wasn't close enough.
[2:22:51] Yeah, I think the mic was inadvertently turned off.
[2:22:54] Green light wasn't on, okay.
[2:22:56] Okay, because I couldn't hear the last four or five speakers.
[2:22:59] You can start time now.
[2:23:01] This is about obviously the zoning text amendment.
[2:23:06] I like to keep this to zoning only.
[2:23:08] All the other things we've talked about
[2:23:10] are something that usually happens in the plan review
[2:23:13] even so on, even though I understand why Kroger brought it here, point is we're deciding
[2:23:17] what the zoning should be for this parcel, whether it be Kroger or any other commercial entity.
[2:23:23] So that's really what we should focus on.
[2:23:26] So a brief review of this parcel for this kind of chronologically would be that in 2010
[2:23:32] this PUD was started and the diagram of that PUD did show the parcel as commercial, didn't
[2:23:38] find low impact, high impact, it just said commercial and the 12th plus acre parcel was split
[2:23:45] off from the larger parcel and created in 2012 and was placed in the commercial class code by
[2:23:52] Henders County and the parcel has been classed and taxed accordingly as commercial vacant land.
[2:23:59] Now some of this has already been discussed by staff and other people but I kind of want to review it.
[2:24:03] The commercial parcel was sold by the developer in 2016 as an investment to a trust in California for over a million dollars.
[2:24:13] That amount back then 10 years ago was commercial pricing.
[2:24:17] They didn't buy it to just have sit-around.
[2:24:20] I mean, it's commercial pricing at that time.
[2:24:22] So the developer sold it to a commercial entity and the trust bought it as a commercial entity.
[2:24:29] They wanted it to be commercial.
[2:24:31] They paid taxes on it since that time as commercial.
[2:24:35] The comp plan dated 2019 shows it commercial.
[2:24:39] The future land use of 2021 shows it commercial.
[2:24:44] All these things are not specifically designed, I'm going to define, but they are commercial.
[2:24:51] I think this thing is more of a housekeeping thing.
[2:24:54] You're just trying to clean up the paperwork so it matches the current UDO of the zoning
[2:25:01] for the town of Brownsburg.
[2:25:02] Now, as far as 267 goes, I lived on 267, just south of that property for 20 years.
[2:25:11] From 1966 to 1986, and I knew, and it was all vacant land, both ways, just houses along
[2:25:17] the 267, beyond that, nothing but farm fields.
[2:25:22] All these residential developments have come in, wants to be expected to follow commercial
[2:25:28] development.
[2:25:29] I knew all along it was going to be commercial.
[2:25:31] So this is the same thing passed right up the street into Brownsburg, of course they
[2:25:35] are on.
[2:25:37] And so basically on this documentation, I say this is administrative exercise for you guys
[2:25:44] and it should be passed for that very reason.
[2:25:47] Thank you.
[2:25:49] Thank you.
[2:25:56] That is all.
[2:25:57] All right.
[2:25:58] Thank you.
[2:26:02] Would the applicant like to step up and rebutt?
[2:26:06] I
[2:26:19] would just like to reiterate the efforts that we are providing for buffering along the residential properties, and just reiterate that.
[2:26:31] I just want to say, is the mic on?
[2:26:33] It shows green.
[2:26:35] Yeah, could you stay a little closer?
[2:26:37] That's better, thank you.
[2:26:38] And I just like to reiterate that in addition to what the code deems appropriate for residential against
[2:26:48] commercial buffering we are providing that additional area on both sides that will have mature trees that are tall and have been there a while, they're pretty substantial in addition to what the code requires.
[2:27:07] I'll also highlight that, I think I forgot to mention this in my answer to you, but we have reduced light pole heights since the neighborhood meeting as well, I think originally they were about 40 feet and we have lowered those to 25.
[2:27:27] Also just like to hit back on the fact that couriers willing to facilitate the roadway
[2:27:34] improvements that were outlined in the traffic study to alleviate any existing and future
[2:27:41] traffic concerns.
[2:27:43] We have a long process ahead of us.
[2:27:46] We still have to go through our development plan review so we could take this back and assess
[2:27:53] some things as far as the buffer is concerned but we do think we have a good proposal here to
[2:28:00] shield the neighborhood and I do have Bri Ramsey with me from Kroger who'd like to say a couple of
[2:28:06] things.
[2:28:09] Hello again. First off I just wanted to come up to thank you all for your time as well as
[2:28:15] the time of everybody here today and I wanted to make sure that you heard from me directly not just
[2:28:21] that we were 97 feet off of where you're asking from.
[2:28:25] So I have worked either for Kroger or Kroger adjacent as a consultant for my entire real
[2:28:37] state career.
[2:28:38] One of the reasons that's the case is because I believe that Kroger strives to be a good
[2:28:46] corporate citizen.
[2:28:47] And the way that we are going about that here is a couple ways.
[2:28:53] One of the things, one fellow brought up is the question about incentives.
[2:29:00] Kroger is not asking for any incentives here.
[2:29:03] We are not asking for any tax abatements.
[2:29:08] I understood that Brownsburg is a vibrant community and taxes are important for your schools.
[2:29:16] And so we are not asking for any abatement of those.
[2:29:20] The other thing that Macy commented on, and I'll just point out, is when designing this site,
[2:29:28] one of the things that we tried to make sure that we could accommodate is keeping as many of the existing trees as we could.
[2:29:37] So we've done a tree survey, which basically had our consultants go out and
[2:29:44] and review what trees were in good condition
[2:29:48] and therefore what could be saved during the development phase.
[2:29:54] We did this for twofold, buffering.
[2:30:00] That is a big one as well as the line of sight for the neighbors, right? And so we want to obviously we're wanting to build this neighborhood's grocery store. As part of that is working with the neighbors and meeting with them and coming away, trying to make concessions like the lowering of the lights, adding additional fencing that wasn't required.
[2:30:30] and various things like that to make this their neighborhood grocery store and your new neighborhood grocery store.
[2:30:38] The last thing I just want to touch on is a question that was brought up by the board, which was basically by Brownsburg.
[2:30:48] why here, when why us, and Macy did a good job in explaining that, you know, part of my job
[2:30:57] as a progress manager is to review neighborhoods and review trade areas to see where we should
[2:31:06] go next, right? That's what I'm hired for. And Brownsburg, you're growing community. You guys are
[2:31:14] We're doing a bunch of good things here, and we want to be a part of that.
[2:31:18] And as part of this investment, we'll be putting $30 million into this piece of land in order to try to be that neighborhood market for you.
[2:31:31] So that's all I have to say, thank you all.
[2:31:35] Thank you for
[2:31:43] staff and council.
[2:31:45] So we did have a question about procedure.
[2:31:49] Would anyone like to address that?
[2:31:51] Thank you, Mr. Vice President of members of the commission.
[2:31:54] In section 8.2 E1 of the UDO regarding application requirements for PUD ordinances,
[2:32:00] it provides that if an application is filed by a property owner's authorized agent,
[2:32:04] a consent form signed by the property owner must accompany the application.
[2:32:08] Earlier this evening, Ms. Williams confirmed that consent form was received when the application was filed.
[2:32:12] The required approvals for PUD ordinance amendments under Section 8.2G of the UDO provides
[2:32:18] that an amendment to a PUD ordinance follows the same process as re-zones for map amendments
[2:32:23] and text amendments.
[2:32:25] Under Section 8.3B1 of the UDO, for amendments to planned unit development text signatures
[2:32:30] of at least 50% of the owners in the sub-district or applicable area impacted by the text change
[2:32:37] must be included in the application as owners authorizing the request.
[2:32:41] That's similarly under section 8.1A of the UDO, proposals to amend the zoning map may be initiated by the Plan Commission, the town council, or through an application signed by property owners of at least 50% of the land involved.
[2:32:54] As Miss Williams summarized in her staff report, staff determined that this is a separate sub-district and that the 50% threshold was met.
[2:33:02] Finally, I'm not aware of the outreach reference in August by the first remonstrator but Ms. Williams mentioned to me this evening that perhaps the remonstrator had an incorrect email address for me based on correspondence that she saw throughout the written comments that the remonstrator had an incorrect email address to the extent that was used to attempt to reach me.
[2:33:18] If staff has anything further add in that regard, I welcome your perspective.
[2:33:21] Thank you.
[2:33:22] All
[2:33:25] right, thank you.
[2:33:38] So at this point, I think we'd have any discussion with the commission.
[2:33:48] Do we have a round of questions first, and is there a rebuttal allowed again for community, or is it just one round?
[2:33:56] Yes, so at this point pursuant to your rules of procedure, you're at the commissioners questioning.
[2:34:00] You can ask questions of staff, the applicant, other commissioners for any clarifications made by a person, or from the public.
[2:34:07] And does the public get another round of rebuttal after hearing these answers?
[2:34:11] No, it's just an exchange of questions. It's not necessarily a time limitation.
[2:34:15] Okay.
[2:34:18] Let me ask these questions for you first.
[2:34:20] Let me make sure I'm not jumping ahead of where these questions should be asked.
[2:34:23] There was a question of semi entry points. Is that something that is addressed in future?
[2:34:29] Or would that be an applicable question in the stage of where they expect semis to enter?
[2:34:35] I think that's a good question for the applicant we did discuss it at Tech Review and to the extent that they were also asked for the semis that would be entering off north field on the westernmost entrance for the supplies for Kruger that they would place signs that said beyond that point local traffic only to try to avoid any of the trucks going into the neighborhood.
[2:35:04] Okay, should you think I should confirm, or are you saying you already know that the entry point is anticipated to be off Northfield?
[2:35:11] Yes.
[2:35:13] The money for infrastructure was asked to, are they required to make a contribution to infrastructure upgrades?
[2:35:21] They're required to build and provide all the funding for the identified transportation improvements in the traffic study.
[2:35:30] Okay, would anything determine later after this is approved is on the town?
[2:35:38] Yeah, that's accurate just like any other subdivision or commercial property once it's on the tax rolls
[2:35:44] It's the public right away for the town to maintain no matter what it is. Thanks, Sean.
[2:35:48] I guess you just follow up on that. Yeah, infrastructure
[2:35:53] In, you know, existing utilities different things are impacted by this development that would be the responsibility of the developer at the time of construction to
[2:36:01] Yes, when they do the reviews of, you know, all of the utilities if there's something extraordinary at a lift station or anything, they would need that's on them.
[2:36:12] Thank you.
[2:36:15] As far as writing anything in to ensure that we don't have another vacant crowbar on our hands, I don't believe that's legal, correct?
[2:36:23] I would caution the commission against getting involved with private property owners and their ability to contract relative to their real estate, to the extent that is going to be discussed, I would strongly encourage it to be one with the applicant, to the extent that they would voluntarily agree to such a restriction, but I would not unilaterally impose it at this point without further discussion.
[2:36:42] Okay. Also, if the PUD is approved, can it only be a grocery store going forward without?
[2:36:53] Yes.
[2:36:55] Okay. And that's another PUD is approved.
[2:36:58] If it's approved, it would be approved for a grocery.
[2:37:00] And if something changed, they either didn't build or something happened, there'd be another PUD amendment if a different use came in.
[2:37:09] Okay, discussion of wells was brought up.
[2:37:19] How do we protect the residents from wells being contamination?
[2:37:24] What's the typical process to ensure that a new business did not impact the health of the local wells?
[2:37:33] Is that part of the SWPPP?
[2:37:35] That's correct.
[2:37:36] So with any development, even the subdivision, they have to do certain practices during construction.
[2:37:41] And then they also have to have the water's essentially cleaner leaving than was when it arrived
[2:37:48] So there's separators and things like that for the storm sewers and any any potential spills
[2:38:00] Sorry, just make sure they got everything
[2:38:13] I think I got everything
[2:38:17] Miss Oman, do you have any additional questions for the applicant staff or now anyone who spoke mr. Cleley?
[2:38:25] I have a couple items
[2:38:27] This is for Elizabeth, going back to for staff, going back to the sign amendment.
[2:38:33] Is this consistent with I would handle other amendments, and is this signage consistent
[2:38:38] with the other Croger that was built a few years ago farther up north?
[2:38:45] I can't tell you exactly, but I would tell you that I do think it's consistent with the existing Croger.
[2:38:51] What makes that sign on the front edge of the building larger that is the way we calculate signs?
[2:38:58] we take a rectangle around the outer limits of the sign, and because of those hooks that they have on the K and the G, it puts it beyond there.
[2:39:09] We don't calculate signs by individual little squares, but if we did it would make it.
[2:39:14] Okay, thank you. And then I wanted to clarify around the 50% ruling.
[2:39:19] And so I just want to understand, we said a subsection, it's really just the property that is being developed is the applicable subsection.
[2:39:26] And therefore, there's a single owner, so their agreement to this satisfies the 50% of my understanding that correctly.
[2:39:34] Correct.
[2:39:35] Okay, thank you.
[2:39:36] And then my last question is, I know I asked earlier about the Masonry wall.
[2:39:40] I assume that if that's a topic, if we go forward and that's a topic I'm still interested in, that could be addressed later.
[2:39:46] Correct?
[2:39:46] That's part of the development plan.
[2:39:48] There would be another opportunity during the development plan if this were to be approved.
[2:39:52] Okay, thank you.
[2:39:55] Anything additional?
[2:39:56] A couple other things, just notes, comments.
[2:39:59] So one, we don't have it.
[2:40:01] None of the other grocery stations, grocery stores, are in a local commercial zoned area.
[2:40:08] Two, careful what you wish for, because some is going to get built here, and we've seen this before where something bad is coming back after this too.
[2:40:15] So, not only the other thing, another point that everybody has crowdies to understand too.
[2:40:19] We're going to send a recommendation, the town council can't overrule that recommendation.
[2:40:24] as we saw in the last week's council meeting.
[2:40:27] So you need to understand that that is something you need to pay as much attention to as tonight's meeting.
[2:40:32] So thank you.
[2:40:35] Mr. Domin.
[2:40:36] This was for the applicant, and I think Mrs. Ramsey, you mentioned that a tree survey was done.
[2:40:43] Do you know how many trees were going to survive the number?
[2:41:11] Okay,
[2:41:16] we surveyed approximately 300 and based on our estimate, just sitting back there, we believe approximately 100 will be staying.
[2:41:25] Okay, and none of those are going to take the place of the required.
[2:41:30] No, and then we're adding the required traces.
[2:41:32] Yeah. Yeah. Then also I think you guys mentioned that you were going to maintain the
[2:41:40] Heritage Hill signage for the subdivision. So there's a existing fence there and we're
[2:41:49] keeping as much of that as we can in order to but we have to cut some of it down to allow for
[2:41:56] sight triangles. As for the sign, I need double check with Macy on that, but there we go,
[2:42:03] perfect.
[2:42:06] As part of the fence aesthetic, I suppose there is a, I think it's like kind of like a
[2:42:15] masonry wall entrance sign at the corner of green in Northfield. That's attached to that
[2:42:25] Fencing that I think we're looking to maintain it will stay
[2:42:32] had you discussed that with the homeowners association to see if they wanted that sign there or if it could be moved down to where their streets are
[2:42:43] We didn't ask that in the neighborhood meeting. I believe the fence was brought up
[2:42:50] You know at least one question during that meeting
[2:42:52] And we said that we were going to try and keep as much as possible and out of that we kept more, basically.
[2:43:01] But we did not speak to the science specifically or if they would like it moved.
[2:43:06] I would just think moving it further down past the Kroger.
[2:43:11] I mean, whether they want to keep that one or not, but then people would know of now you're entering into a subdivision.
[2:43:18] I
[2:43:24] have a question on the tree survey, has that been submitted to the town and if not could
[2:43:31] a copy of that be submitted in time for the town council meeting when this comes up again?
[2:43:36] Yes, it was not submitted but we can.
[2:43:39] Okay.
[2:43:40] I think it'd be helpful to see, you know, specifically for residents which trees would be stained and
[2:43:45] going.
[2:43:45] I think we can maybe get that exact number of trees too.
[2:43:50] That'd be good information.
[2:43:51] Thank you.
[2:43:51] I don't go far, but I think speaking to the entrance that whole area is what that signs for work is that road was designed to connect to the other north field drive eventually.
[2:44:05] So it will be our own little 465 one day.
[2:44:10] Thank you.
[2:44:13] I gave Jeff a hard time earlier.
[2:44:15] Mr. Dorman, you have any other questions or comments?
[2:44:20] The fence?
[2:44:22] Yes.
[2:44:22] The privacy fence.
[2:44:23] Is there any willingness to extend that along the Western boundary?
[2:44:28] I know you've already done it further.
[2:44:31] Yeah, I mean, to your point, we have extended it further based on conversations with the neighbors as well as staff.
[2:44:40] And I think that it's part of the development plan approval process that we'll have to go through that is something that we could discuss for sure
[2:44:47] So that could be discussed further maybe not even continuous, but maybe to protect the other owners view
[2:44:53] Are you talking about the south sorry just to clarify the south elevation or the west yes next
[2:45:01] Okay.
[2:45:06] I think I already know the answer to this is the whole parking lot going to be curbed on the south side also for stormwater retention and capture. Yes. Okay.
[2:45:26] The rest are just kind of comments. Similar to Mr. Humphries. I already spoke about Norfield Drive going all the way around eventually. So that is a not necessarily a neighborhood street.
[2:45:42] I'd like to speak to the park comment in the UDO, excuse me, that the PD, the neighborhood
[2:45:50] supposed to maintain hundreds of makers of park land that were sold at tax sale.
[2:45:57] So obviously it was not important to keep it so I'm not sure that argument for the park
[2:46:01] is relevant for this parcel.
[2:46:10] Tax exempt, what was that note for?
[2:46:15] I should say open space, not Parkland, but it was required by their 2010 documentation
[2:46:20] that 110 acres be reserved as open space by the HOA, and
[2:46:27] that is all that I have at the
[2:46:29] moment.
[2:46:32] All right.
[2:46:32] Thank you.
[2:46:32] I don't have any questions remaining for the applicant.
[2:46:35] Thank you.
[2:46:35] Thank you.
[2:46:37] I think at this time, I think, probably discussion among the commission.
[2:46:45] Mr. Honest President, just to confirm, as you're discussing one thing that I think we would like some clarification on to the extent of motion is brought forward.
[2:46:53] No matter which side that is, if it is one to send a favorable recommendation on either the text and or the map, to make sure that the commitments that you're going to require are very clear.
[2:47:03] We have a few notes, but just wanted to mention that before you actually get to a motion.
[2:47:08] That was one of my questions.
[2:47:10] So if we could maybe run through that current list, because the items I had were just what
[2:47:15] Mr. Pat's brought up about extending the fence and then getting the tree survey submitted.
[2:47:21] I think they should be attached to both the map amendment and the text amendment.
[2:47:30] Yeah, so if we can just go through those for the record.
[2:47:33] If you go through the current list that you have and we can discuss.
[2:47:38] What I have if the applicant agrees is the hours of operation that they stated from
[2:47:43] six to ten and moving the fence, which we will address during development plan review to
[2:47:51] the top of the embankment on both the south and the west sides,
[2:48:00] that's what I have.
[2:48:04] Okay,
[2:48:06] I guess for clarification, maybe from the applicant, the business hours would typically be 6 to 10, but, you know, typically, gas, you know, are 24-7. I guess you could speak to that, please.
[2:48:28] Should have gotten a seat at the front.
[2:48:32] Yes, so normally our fuel centers operate manned hours, 6 to 10, and then 24-7 with overnight
[2:48:42] card-only uses.
[2:48:44] I will say that if there's a condition that modifies that card sales, then that could
[2:48:55] be something that could be agreed to.
[2:48:58] Okay, so you're open to the the man's hours of 6 to 10 and would discuss the 24, 7 card hours.
[2:49:07] Yes, thank you.
[2:49:08] Yep.
[2:49:09] I'll stay up here this time.
[2:49:10] Okay.
[2:49:16] Mr. Humphries, anything you'd like to discuss?
[2:49:19] Yeah.
[2:49:20] I just the reason why we have differences zoning and criterion for those is because we want different things at different places, obviously.
[2:49:31] And I feel to see that local commercial is intent was for this large of
[2:49:39] a grocery store, a smaller one maybe, one that would be able to be on the road and
[2:49:43] have the parking of the back so you don't have as much impact to the residential
[2:49:46] behind it. Those kind of things make sense to me why this was zoned differently than
[2:49:52] other properties that we have the same type of grocery store that. So that's the
[2:49:58] The one that I had the hardest time getting passed is there certainly was an intent for the zoning and the comp plan on this and this does not feel like a fit for that for that zoning.
[2:50:09] So that's the one that sticks out glaringly to me the most anytime we put in a business, it's going to have impact to the neighbors.
[2:50:16] A lot of those can be addressed through requirements such as we're going over now, but that one seems to be the one that you can't overcome because that building is not getting smaller.
[2:50:26] Yeah, I'd say I share the same concerns kind of looking at should this be if we look at a zoning should it be C3 or C2, I do think C2 fits better, which going by this being a grocery store large is permitted in the C2, but if you look at retail, that's capped out at 50,000 square feet but there is as you've mentioned earlier, you know, this may not be preferred, but something.
[2:50:55] I mean, else could come in and I think, you know, as a comprehensive plan shows, this is a commercial property, I think it, the question really becomes is this the intensity that should be a wild on it.
[2:51:09] That's kind of the question that I have.
[2:51:11] This would be any other commissioners having any other items to address.
[2:51:15] We had so much call for our grocery store on the south side and here we are with this.
[2:51:20] So it's interesting how that has changed and such a short amount of time.
[2:51:25] Well, I think the town has grown since 2010 and the need.
[2:51:30] We are, we keep complaining about all the traffic that keeps head north.
[2:51:36] Here's an opportunity to help that with providing a grocery store on the south side
[2:51:44] You know, we say oh, well we gave them myer. Well myers on the northeast side of town. I
[2:51:51] Mean it's not the south side. We're losing all these
[2:51:54] commercial dollars to
[2:51:55] quite please
[2:51:57] I mean if I'm in the south side of Brownsburg, I'm heading to Avon
[2:52:03] you know
[2:52:04] Well, why are we not capturing that?
[2:52:08] I will say that Wal-Mart has brought a property at the intersection of 2.67 and 300 for a neighborhood store.
[2:52:20] But they haven't brought anything to the town yet.
[2:52:27] If two stores are looking, then that means there's got to be the need.
[2:52:31] Yeah, and just for clear for confirmation, I believe the property mishomans referring to is currently zone C3.
[2:52:42] I can look it up.
[2:52:43] Yeah, let him look it up. I'm not sure.
[2:52:56] Yes, it's zone to C3.
[2:52:58] Thank you.
[2:53:05] Is there any additional discussion?
[2:53:08] I recognize the concerns of the residents and what we have up here.
[2:53:13] And we all know that the people that are happy with what we're doing aren't here.
[2:53:19] So that's 30,000 people, we've got 350, I don't know what that percentage is but it's I mean I think I think you and I know that the people that are happy are aren't coming.
[2:53:40] If there's no other discussion, I'll entertain a motion.
[2:53:46] No, we have to vote on two different things, right?
[2:53:49] Correct.
[2:53:50] Thank you.
[2:53:52] Does the order...
[2:53:54] You're
[2:53:59] going to have two separate votes.
[2:54:00] The first is going to be on PCZT-26-2.
[2:54:05] That's the zoning text amendment.
[2:54:11] All right, thank you.
[2:54:13] All right, is there a motion for PCZT-26-2
[2:54:18] Kroger zoning text amendment?
[2:54:20] Mr.
[2:54:30] Miller, I would like to propose a unfavorable recommendation for PCZT-26-2, zoning tax amendment.
[2:54:43] Typically provide a criteria for an unfavorable recommendation.
[2:54:47] It was a criteria one, was a comp plan.
[2:54:50] I don't feel it meets the comprehensive plan.
[2:54:55] What was intended for local commercial.
[2:55:02] Second.
[2:55:02] And we have a motion for an unfavorable recommendation for PC, ZT-26-2, Kroger, Zoning Text Amendment.
[2:55:15] All those in favourable, in favour of an unfavorable recommendation, please state I, I, those opposed with nay.
[2:55:25] Nay.
[2:55:25] All right, roll call, Ms. Homan.
[2:55:28] In favourable?
[2:55:30] Unfavorable.
[2:55:31] Unfavorable.
[2:55:32] Unfavorable.
[2:55:36] Sorry, let's redo that.
[2:55:38] Are you in favor of an unfavorable recommendation?
[2:55:44] In favor.
[2:55:46] In favor.
[2:55:47] In favor.
[2:55:48] In favor.
[2:55:49] Opposed.
[2:55:50] Opposed.
[2:55:51] Thank you.
[2:55:52] So we have a vote of 4-2 for an unfavorable recommendation for PCZT-26-2, Kroger's
[2:55:59] Do we have a motion for PCMA-26-4, Kroger-Rizone?
[2:56:08] Commissioner, I would like to make an unfavorable recommendation for PCMA-26-4, the Rizone.
[2:56:16] Second.
[2:56:17] Same criteria.
[2:56:19] Same criteria.
[2:56:19] Thank you.
[2:56:20] All right, we have a motion and a second for an unfavorable recommendation for PCMA-26-4, Kroger-Rizone.
[2:56:27] And all those unfavorable recommendations, please state aye.
[2:56:36] Those opposed with nay?
[2:56:38] Aye.
[2:56:39] Roll call.
[2:56:40] Ms. Homan, are you unfavorable?
[2:56:41] In favor.
[2:56:43] In favor.
[2:56:44] In favor.
[2:56:45] Opposed.
[2:56:46] Opposed.
[2:56:46] Thank you.
[2:56:47] We have unfavorable recommendations by vote of 4 to 2 for PCMA-26-4.
[2:56:59] I will now close the public hearing at the time of 903.
[2:57:21] All right.
[2:57:21] Next item is new public hearings.
[2:57:23] We have none.
[2:57:25] Communication and committee reports.
[2:57:27] We have none.
[2:57:28] Miscellaneous business.
[2:57:29] We have none.
[2:57:30] Administrative filings.
[2:57:31] We have none.
[2:57:32] Cases filed for future meetings.
[2:57:36] So we have three cases filed for next month.
[2:57:39] plus the Lions Transincorporated that was continued this evening.
[2:57:44] The first being PCMA 26-5, it's for Woodland Reserve, Fisher Alms is wanting to re-zone
[2:57:51] institutional zone land to R2 for a single family subdivision.
[2:57:55] This is just east of the Calvary Christian Church on Northfield Drive.
[2:58:00] Then PCVA 26-3 is the Arcanoff Street Vacation.
[2:58:05] The track to the south will be vacated and the track to the east will be dedicated right
[2:58:09] right away. This is at the corner of Enderly and Grant Street.
[2:58:13] And then finally we have CPSP, 26-10.
[2:58:17] It's for Arburn Ridge, West, Section 1, the Secondary Plot.
[2:58:21] This will have 34 of the ADA approved lots shown for Section 1.
[2:58:25] More Secondary Plots will follow in the future to accommodate the rest of the lots.
[2:58:30] This is over on 450 North and 500 East.
[2:58:36] All right, thank you. Do we have anything else for today?
[2:58:39] We have a motion for adjournment.
[2:58:44] So, film moved.
[2:58:46] Thank you.
[2:58:48] We're adjourned.