Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mills On Main development plan approved after PUD text amendment cleared council
Summary
The commission approved the Mills On Main development plan, a 15.59‑acre mixed‑use, multifamily project that includes 17 buildings (10 three‑story apartment buildings), 396 parking spaces and a commercial area; the PUD text amendment referenced in the project cleared Town Council second reading the prior week.
The Whitestown Planning Commission approved the development plan for Mills On Main, a multifamily mixed‑use project east of South Main Street that includes apartment buildings, garages and a small commercial component.
Chad Mays of Kimberly Horn & Associates presented the plan, saying the project covers 15.59 acres (with 0.69 acres to be dedicated to public right‑of‑way) and contains 17 buildings: 10 three‑story apartment buildings, one one‑story amenity building and six one‑story garage buildings. Mays said the site plan provides 396 parking spaces.
Staff noted the project had returned several times to the commission for concept plan, primary plat and a PUD text amendment. The town council completed second reading of the PUD text amendment on July 9, which staff said made the project consistent with the amended PUD language. Staff reported tech review comments had been addressed and recommended approval of the development plan (PC 25‑040‑DP).
A public speaker who said he lives at 3745 South Main Street expressed opposition, stating concerns about building height, loss of privacy and increased traffic and noise. He described the project as too dense adjacent to existing single‑family homes and urged limits on building height adjacent to houses and additional landscaping buffers. The petitioner clarified to the audience that the project includes three‑story buildings (not a single ten‑story building) and offered to meet with the resident to discuss mitigation measures such as screening and lighting concessions (petitioner said councilor Smock had pressed for no backlit signage to reduce light pollution).
The commission approved the development plan by voice vote (6‑0 recorded). Staff and the petitioner indicated willingness to meet with affected residents to explore landscaping or other mitigations though no specific conditions were added during the commission vote.
Next steps: the petitioner will proceed with implementation per the approved development plan and PUD text; the petitioner and staff offered to meet with residents to discuss buffering and light mitigation.
