Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Zionsville Mayor John Stehr is looking to step back from a plan to set development standards for areas south of the town’s quaint, historic downtown.
Stehr told IBJ on Tuesday that he asked the Zionsville Town Council to delay a vote on the South Village Planned Unit Development and said he wants to withdraw it from consideration because he does not believe there is currently enough consensus among council members.
“I think we’re going to have to come up with a new strategy,” Stehr said. “We’re not quite there yet. Unless we can build more of a consensus, it wouldn’t be good for the town.”
The South Village PUD received a favorable recommendation on July 15 from the Zionsville Plan Commission. The Town Council’s agenda for Monday’s meeting includes the PUD ordinance and a letter with Stehr’s request.
At his first State of the Town address in March, Stehr unveiled the masterplan for the 120-acre South Village that would be developed on both sides of Zionsville Road/South Main Street. South Village would be bordered by Sycamore Street to the north, Creekside Corporate Park to the east, Old 106th Street to the south and Eagle Creek to the west.
Stehr does not have a timeline for when he would reintroduce the South Village PUD, but council members will need to vote on the PUD within 90 days of the Plan Commission’s recommendation, otherwise the ordinance will go into effect. A PUD is a zoning tool that defines and regulates proposed development and guides developers on permitted uses and design standards.
In his letter to town council members, Stehr wrote that he thinks “we all agree that success in the South Village is fundamental to Zionsville’s future.”
“As this is our first signature project together, I was hoping to achieve common ground upon which we could all stand, but it has become clear to me that a close vote (either way) is not a win for our town,” he wrote.
Town Council President Jason Plunkett said the council is procedurally required to keep the South Village PUD on the agenda because it was a petition voted on by the Plan Commission, and he expects a vote could happen Monday.
“We’re still required to take action just as we normally would have, and inaction after 90 days would would essentially be an approval of the PUD,” Plunkett said. “We’re required to vote this petition either up or down, so I would anticipate the council will take action on Monday.”
Plunkett said he thinks the South Village PUD addresses concerns that council members and residents have had, and that it is “something that will impact our community for the next two or three decades, so it’s important that we get it right.”
“I think everybody on the council has voiced a desire for something to take place in South Village,” Plunkett said. “I think that we’ve all just talked about how we get one chance to get this right, and we want to make sure we do it.”
Stehr said about 70% of the property in the proposed South Village area is owned by private landowners who want to develop their properties. By not setting development standards, he said growth in the area could become piecemeal.
He would like the town to use the South Village PUD as informal guidance for the Plan Commission, Redevelopment Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals as property owners begin coming forward with development proposals.
“They want to develop it, and they’re going to develop it. We need to recognize that,” Stehr said. “I think that having as much control over what develops there as possible is probably to our advantage, and having a vision for the whole area was what we were trying to achieve. We just didn’t quite get there.”
Stehr has held 35 “South Village chats” to discuss his plan for the South Village with residents, stakeholders and town staff.
Stehr asked councilors in his letter “to not give outsized consideration to a very small, but overly vocal, group of people who speak out against well-considered and sensible development plans without offering any alternatives or valid ideas.”
Zionsville grew from about 8,700 residents in 2000 to more than 30,000 people in 2020, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
A petition on the website Change.org has 443 signatures and says South Village would put the town’s historic Village on “a fast track to [becoming] a crowded, overpopulated area and change the character of Zionsville forever.”
Nearly two dozen residents spoke during a two-hour public comment period at the Plan Commission’s July 15 meeting. While some argued the South Village would support local businesses and add to the town’s tax base, others said the project would cause Zionsville to lose its character.
“People come to Zionsville because it is unique and quaint. It is historic and special,” Erica Carpenter told Plan Commission members. “The South Village PUD … based on the sample buildings, will change the look of Zionsville to something quite a lot like many other Indianapolis northern suburbs. When we cease to lean into what makes Zionsville stand out, we risk losing our status as a destination.”
Stehr said he thinks most people in Zionsville want development to happen in the South Village area.
“We had opposition here that was very loud, but I think it was very small,” he said. “I think, generally speaking, that the majority of people here are in favor of good movement in that area of town.”
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
At first glance I thought it was Hogsett
A true dilemma for the new mayor. A republic rule has to respond to a democracy of citizens requests, opinions and demands. Good luck John, don’t ruin what you already have.
The quaint village is more important than maximizing land owners desires to get rich along with the developers who really don’t care of the long term effect.
Good point. When profit is a substitute for quality of life, quality of life is often left behind. The culture of capitalism rarely lifts enough boats!
As the article points out, Stehr’s idea is/was to ‘get ahead’ of irregular individual development…which would definitely change Z’ville’s character. Putting size and style guidelines in place would provide a template for what/what wouldn’t be built and serve as a continuation of the existing size and architecture in place. The streets, sidewalks, lighting and green space could be required to reflect the existing commercial area while limiting construction that residents fear.
As a Zionsville resident for 30 years, I can say that I am sick and tired of the “do nothings” holding so much sway. Keeping the small town feeling, while developing the south end of Main Street are not mutually exclusive. I think a lot of the opposition comes from people who have property interests in existing buildings, and who charge very high rents to their tenants, trying to keep there monopolistic power over Main. Zoning rules can be used to require that any development have a look that compliments the current feel of the town.
Brad R. Is right. This not a development proposal, but a big picture overview of how to choreograph the inevitable.
Change.org and its backers need to better understand the South Village PUD and the advantage of having one.
If you asked 100 remonstrators what they wouldn’t say no to, 35 of them would tell you that no development is acceptable, 25 would give you the nebulous “smart” development response, 15 would insist that the timing is wrong and the remaining 25 would have 25 different solutions, exactly zero of which are economically viable.
just don’t turn Zionsville into what fishers turned into.
Unless a well thought out comprehensive plan is instituted, Ryan, that’s exactly what will happen. It may be far worse than anything Fishers has seen. Naysayers need a wake-up call before it’s too late. ⏰