Zionsville planning commission continues Pittman Partners' Woodland Grove PUD after hours of public comment

The Zionsville Planning Commission on Feb. 17, 2026 continued consideration of a rezoning petition from Pittman Partners for a roughly 51‑acre site along U.S. 421, known as Woodland Grove, after extensive public comment and a petitioner rebuttal.

The petition would rezone the property from agricultural to a Planned Unit Development to allow a mixed‑use corridor along Michigan Road with up to 50,000 square feet of commercial frontage, a townhome area (now limited to 120 townhomes under the current concept) and a single‑family neighborhood on the eastern portion of the site. Kyle Reseteritz, attorney for the petitioner, told the commission that the team had reduced density since the prior submission: “Importantly, we have decreased the overall density of the site, removing 30 townhomes,” he said, and described added masonry requirements and expanded landscaping and pedestrian connections.

Why it matters: Residents and neighborhood organizations said the proposal risks changing the rural character of this part of Zionsville, would increase traffic on U.S. 421 and could set a development precedent along the corridor. Save Rural Zionsville, several long‑time residents and neighborhood leaders urged the commission to lower density and require tighter PUD controls. “This is irresponsible,” said Angela Juracek, a nearby resident, summarizing neighbors’ concerns about lot sizes and compatibility.

What commissioners focused on: Commissioners pressed the petitioner and staff for clarity on unit‑per‑acre calculations, how the proposal aligns with both the current and draft comprehensive plans, airport overlay considerations in the eastern portion of the site, and enforceability of PUD commitments. Staff and the petitioner offered technical responses and several potential text edits: reducing maximum commercial building height to 35 feet, stronger tree‑preservation language including protection within the dripline, more explicit buffer‑yard measurement rules, anti‑monotony façade and setback averages for townhomes, and dark‑sky lighting controls.

Public input and petitioner response: The meeting drew two dozen public speakers. Several neighbors who oppose the project argued it is denser than nearby approved developments and noted safety concerns at Michigan Road intersections; others who engaged with the developer said they appreciated the revisions and negotiations. Petitioner Steve Pittman said the team had met repeatedly with neighbors and staff and that they are willing to incorporate many of the commission’s suggested refinements.

Next step: The commission voted by voice to continue the PUD matter to its March 16, 2026 meeting to allow staff and the petitioner time to draft and agree on specific PUD text amendments for the commission to review. The commission chair noted that the March meeting would be for deliberation and that the public hearing on this particular docket would not reopen after this night unless the commission directs otherwise.

Details and context: The petition area lies within a mixed set of future‑land‑use designations under the town’s comprehensive plan and partially within airport overlay tiers that affect where residential uses are advisable. Throughout the hearing commissioners repeatedly raised enforcement language for PUDs, noting past examples where concept imagery and final build‑out diverged. The staff report accompanying the petition recommended a favorable recommendation to town council if the commission’s requested clarifications and commitments are adopted.

Outcome: Continued to the March 16, 2026 Planning Commission meeting for further text‑level refinements.