VANDERBURGH COUNTY

REZONING BOARD

AUGUST 16, 2005

The Vanderburgh County Rezoning Board met in session this 16^th day of August, 2005 at 5:00 p.m. in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex with President Suzanne Crouch presiding.

President Crouch: Good afternoon, and welcome to the Vanderburgh County August 16^th rezoning meeting.

President Crouch: We will start our rezoning meeting by approving the former minutes.

Commissioner Musgrave: So moved.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Crouch: All in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Crouch: So ordered.

President Crouch: First item on our agenda is a first reading, docket number 2005-31-PC VC-10-2005, petitioner is Sebrina Martin. I believe we just need to make a motion and a second in order to send this to Area Plan.

Commissioner Musgrave: So moved.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Crouch: All in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Crouch: So ordered. Our other first reading is docket number 2005-35-PC VC-11-2005, petitioner, SC Bodner Company, Inc.

Commissioner Musgrave: Move approval.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Crouch: All in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Crouch: So ordered.

President Crouch: Our final readings, first item on our agenda is docket number 2005-24-PC VC-7-2005, petitioner, Three I Properties LLC. The address is 535 Dixie Lane. They are requesting a change from agricultural to C-4 zone. We have here representing the client, Mr. Les Shively.

Les Shively: Madam President, member of the Board of Commissioners, for the record my name is Les Shively. I just briefly, this request takes a parcel that’s within this commercial subdivision known as Grant Hill, it’s an area that was granted a special use for parking. Back in 2000 when this was rezoned we were looking at a prospective buyer that just, and it already had a footprint in the area that we had rezoned that’s already marked there for you, it was an existing C-4, but it needed additional parking. So, we then just simply did this special use for the parking facility. That plan did not come to fruition. Three I is now presently marketing this property. They have several interested buyers, and the issue is you’ve got this little section in the middle of this commercial sub that’s not the same zoning classification as the rest. So, all we are wanting to do here is take this area and make it C-4, consistent with the area that was already rezoned back in 2000. I think the staff field report pretty well says it all. It says that;

“This rezoning is to allow the commercial use of all of lot three, eliminating the need for this special use.”

So, this will make it easier to market, and easier for a potential user to come in there and lay out their footprint. I’m more than happy to answer any questions.

Commissioner Musgrave: Move approval.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Crouch: Before we vote, is there anyone here in the audience who cares to speak against this rezoning?

Kenneth Rickard: I do.

President Crouch: Yes, sir, if you could please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record.

Kenneth Rickard: Kenneth Rickard, 601 East Boonville-New Harmony Road. It’s right across the street from this area. Mr. Shively and myself and his client have had a hate-love relationship over this property and mine for probably the past five or six years. But, why I’m here is that I noticed that some of the language had been changed from the original, originally this was denied C-4, probably back in about 2001 or 2002. Then it got a special use permit, and it was 600 East Boonville-New Harmony Road at the time. They got a special permit to put in the driveway and everything up to their property. The 1.1 acres is where 600 Boonville-New Harmony Road was. It was the Welch’s property. They couldn’t get that zoned C-4. But, in the language, the thing that bothers me most of all, on their report, the first time it says something about C-4 allows on premises signs 300 square foot, 50 foot high, and billboards 500 square foot at 50 foot height. The use and development commitment prohibits billboards on this site. On the new one, they have dropped that last sentence. There is nothing about saying that billboards can’t be put up on that site. I’ve had my property checked, and I’ve lost about $30,000 on the value of the property since they’ve moved in C-4 around there. So, I really don’t want billboards up in that property. I’m just concerned about that language that it’s not on the new one, on this report that I have here, and the fact that it was denied C-4, and that was probably before you guys’ term. So, back in 2001 or 2002.

President Crouch: Sir, so, your objection, your only objection is that billboards used to, there used to be language in there prohibiting billboards, and now there is not?

Kenneth Rickard: Yes. That, and also the special use, it was zoned special use, and now they’ve come back and are trying to get C-4 for the 1.1 acres. It was denied in the past.

President Crouch: Okay. Mr. Mills, were those issues addressed at the Area Plan Commission meeting? Or do you care to comment on them?

Brad Mills: Brad Mills, Area Plan Commission. No, this was not brought up. I don’t believe we had any remonstrators at that meeting. At this time, the billboards wouldn’t be allowed there because of the residential that’s immediately across the street to the east. It’s too close. So, it wouldn’t meet the set back requirements for the billboards. So, basically, at this time, the way the property is being used to the east it wouldn’t be allowed to have a billboard on that property anyway. The only way that that would be allowed would be for the properties, I’m not sure if it’s 300 or 500 feet from the billboard to a residential property. So, in his property...you’re across the street?

Kenneth Rickard: Right.

Brad Mills: With his property still there, it still would not be allowed to have the billboard.

Commissioner Musgrave: Mr. Shively, do you have a response to this?

Les Shively: First of all, Madam Commissioner, let me give you all the...the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey would say. Mr. Rickard sought to rezone his property to commercial back in 2002, and had it be rezoned, it was rezoned at the expense of my client. Had it been rezoned, my client would have purchased his property. My client is already, made him that offer, he was very happy to participate in this C-4 request back then. Unfortunately, the Commissioners at that particular point in time, despite the fact that all the neighbors were well satisfied with not only the use and development commitment and the private covenants, the rezoning was not approved. We also have purchased and put in place, at my client’s expense, city water to Mr. Rickard’s property. I’m really somewhat at a loss as to why Mr. Rickard would object, because he is trying to sell his property. He wants it to be commercial. We’ve extended water service to his property. I’m really at a loss as to what his concerns are. But, from a practical standpoint, I agree with what Mr. Mills said about the setback, but the important thing to note too is, to put most of what we’re rezoning is a roadway, and it would be very impractical to put a billboard there. Moreover putting a billboard there really messes things up if you’re trying to get a developer to come in there and put a grocery store, or a financial institution, or something of that nature. The billboard would just be inappropriate. The utilization of the property, we would have to be getting some pretty big bucks for billboards, and right now we have a glut of billboards in this particular market. My client has no present plans, no leases with any billboard companies. If they were going to lease any property for billboards, Ms. Musgrave, you know, this property has been, they’ve been trying to sell it since it was rezoned in 2000, the billboard locations that would be the most marketable would be the ones close to 41. You don’t see any billboards up there. There is no use and development commitment prohibiting billboards in the area that was rezoned in 2000.

Commissioner Nix: Why is that language in there about the billboards?

Les Shively: There is nothing about, that was in a rezoning request, sir, that would have involved property, part of this property, but moving further all the way to Old State Road. That’s not what we’re talking about here. That’s when the commercial development would have been carried all the way to Old State Road. We’re not doing that. It would include that property right there.

Commissioner Musgrave: So, that use and development commitment that he has with that language does not pertain to the property that you have outlined in yellow here today, or red?

Les Shively: It may have included part of that, but it was never approved. The area in red has no such restrictions.

Commissioner Musgrave: Okay.

Les Shively: That’s what we call Grant Hill. This would be a part of Grant Hill.

Commissioner Musgrave: You have no plans to put one up there–

Les Shively: No.

Commissioner Musgrave: –and Mr. Mills has testified that you couldn’t put one up there anyway–

Les Shively: Right.

Commissioner Musgrave: –due to proximity of the residential property, including his.

Les Shively: Right, because they’ve got pretty strict....what was it 500 feet?

Brad Mills: Five hundred feet.

Les Shively: Five hundred feet, and the only way we could do that is everything south of Boonville-New Harmony Road would have to become C-4, and that apparently isn’t going to happen for awhile.

President Crouch: So, we have a motion and a second. All in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Crouch: So ordered. Excuse me. Commissioner Musgrave?

Commissioner Musgrave: Yes.

President Crouch: Commissioner Nix?

Commissioner Nix: Yes.

President Crouch: And I vote yes. That does pass.

Les Shively: Thank you.

President Crouch: Thank you.

President Crouch: Next item, or next final reading is docket number 2005-26-PC VC-8-2005. The petitioner is West Evansville Rural King Supply, 2800 North St. Joe Avenue. Mr. Bohleber?

Steve Bohleber: Good afternoon, Madam President and members of the Commission, learned counsel, secretary. I am Steve Bohleber, and I do represent the owners of the old K-Mart building. The owners have petitioned to rezone this property to reopen it, and it will be a Rural King. The curious thing we found, I suppose, about this, is that it needed to be rezoned at all, because Rural King is going to be doing virtually the same thing K-Mart had done there for many years, selling many of the same merchandise, and marketing it and displaying it in the same way. We’re not sure of the history of K-Mart as to why it didn’t have a C-4 zoning at the time, but it’s obvious at this point that Rural King needs that C-4 classification to reopen. As you know, Rural King is a part of our community already in Evansville, and they sell a little bit of everything. In their advertisements they indicate they sell everything from (inaudible) supplies and clothing to tools and toys. To say that it’s a welcome addition to, not only my west side, but to the community is, I think an understatement, because it’s been 15 years that we’ve seen that old building deteriorate at that site since K-Mart left it. The neighbors that were notified and the ones that have contacted us have all been in significant support. Leisure Living, the retirement community adjacent to the property is ecstatic. The owner is happy to see this happening. I think some of the residents there are even going to be working at this location. I think Fred Padget, at least, unless he’s changed his mind since last week is welcoming this to the west side as well, on behalf of the West Side Improvement Association. If you have any questions, I do have Don Davis, who’s the president of Rural King Distributing here this evening, and the CFO for Rural King, and also Jack Ferguson, who’s the southern regional manager for Rural King in this part of Indiana. In this part of the country, I should say. They’re here to answer any questions about their business, the type of merchandise sold, the economic impact that those 100 new employees and all the customers that will come there will have on our community. Again, it comes with the exception of Ms. Crouch’s anticipated abstention at the Area Plan Commission, it comes with a unanimous do pass recommendation to this body. So, we’re here to answer any questions you might have.

President Crouch: Just a slight correction. It’s Commissioner Musgrave’s turn.

Steve Bohleber: Oh, I’m sorry.

President Crouch: I know we look alike.

Steve Bohleber: Yeah, one’s a blonde and one’s a brunette, but, otherwise, you’re exactly alike, right? You know, as I get older, I have problems with names, Suzanne. I apologize, and Cheryl too.

Commissioner Nix: As long as you don’t confuse me with those two.

Steve Bohleber: At least, Bill, I didn’t think you were there, Bill, okay?

Commissioner Nix: Thanks.

Steve Bohleber: I think Cheryl came in late, maybe.

Commissioner Musgrave: I was there. Or, at least I remember all the discussion. You know, sometimes I feel badly that people arrive at public hearings and they are just, you know, they’ve got all the answers to any conceivable question. So, if there are any answers that you want to give, if you feel so inclined, I invite you to the podium to do that. But, I really don’t have any questions. I don’t want to jump the gun again and make another motion before you ask for remonstrators though.

President Crouch: Are there any remonstrators to speak against this?

Fred Padget: We don’t want to speak against it.

President Crouch: To speak to it. Let me correct myself. Mr. Fred Padget?

Fred Padget: I’m Fred Padget, and I represent the West Side Improvement Association. I appreciate appearing here in front of you, Commissioners. This building has sat empty a long, long time, and as I said at Area Plan Commission, we are absolutely thrilled to see it put to good use. But, mainly I wanted to come down to thank Rural King for having the, I guess, the intelligence and knowledge and the desire to use a building that has been sitting idle. It answers our questions as far as (Inaudible), it helps in that regard. It takes a big asset that’s been sitting there idle and puts it to productive use. As I said, we couldn’t be more thrilled to have it. We just wanted to welcome Rural King to the west side and wish them the most best success in their venture. So, thank you.

President Crouch: I couldn’t agree with you more. We have such a discussion about empty buildings around town, and it’s very encouraging to see someone make the commitment that Rural King is. I agree. Welcome to the community. We thank you for your investment. Motion?

Commissioner Musgrave: I move–

Commissioner Nix: No, go ahead.

Commissioner Musgrave: Move approval.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Crouch: All in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Crouch: Commissioner Musgrave?

Commissioner Musgrave: Yes.

President Crouch: Commissioner Nix?

Commissioner Nix: Yes.

President Crouch: I vote yes. That passes. Thank you very much

Steve Bohleber: Thank you.

Commissioner Nix: Congratulations. Thank you guys.

President Crouch: Alright, do we have anything else on our agenda?

Commissioner Musgrave: Motion to adjourn.

Commissioner Nix: Second.

President Crouch: All in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Crouch: So ordered. Thank you very much.

(The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.)

         Those in Attendance:

         Suzanne Crouch             Cheryl Musgrave            Bill Nix

         Ted C. Ziemer, Jr.          Brad Mills                        Madelyn Grayson

         Les Shively                     Kenneth Rickard             Steve Bohleber

         Fred Padget                    Others Unidentified         Members of Media

VANDERBURGH COUNTY

REZONING BOARD

Suzanne M. Crouch, President

Cheryl A.W. Musgrave, Vice President

Bill Nix, Member

Recorded and transcribed by Madelyn Grayson.