The meeting was called to order at 6:37 p.m.

President Jerrel: I'd like to call the Board of Commissioners Rezoning Committee to order.
 

Approval of minutes

President Jerrel: The first item on the agenda is to approve the minutes of our previous meeting.

Commissioner Mourdock: And I'll move the approval of last month's zoning minutes as filed.

Commissioner Tuley: Second.

President Jerrel: So ordered.
 

First reading VC-01-2000 Baseline Properties, Inc.

President Jerrel: Under first reading we have VC-01-2000, petitioner Baseline Properties, Inc. 

Commissioner Mourdock: And on first reading I would move approval of VC-01-2000 for Baseline Properties. 

Commissioner Tuley: On first reading, second.

President Jerrel: So ordered.
 

Final reading VC-24-99 Dean Brinker

President Jerrel: Under final readings the first item on the final reading is VC-24-99. The petitioner is Dean Brinker. 

Joe Harrison, Jr.: You ready? This regards address 1510 North Burkhardt Road a request from AG to C-4. All those wishing to speak concerning this petition please raise their right hand. Do you swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is true and accurate so help you God?

Response: I do.

Joe Harrison, Jr.: Thank you.

Barbara Cunningham: Ms. Jerrel, do you want me to start? Mike Mitchell is the representative for petitioner Dean Brinker in this request to rezone the property located at 1510 North Burkhardt Road from Agricultural to C-4. This is a one acre site located at the southwest corner of Burkhardt and Oak Grove Road. Current owners are Ronnie and Cherrel Underwood. The petition was heard at the December 1st Area Plan Commission hearing and was recommended for approval with nine yes, one no and one abstention. The site is one of the few remaining residential locations south of Morgan and west of Burkhardt. The area on North Burkhardt Road is experiencing increased traffic due to rapid commercialization. This proposed change in zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the commercial use is designed to minimize the number of access points be sure that those access points are safe access points and eliminate access onto Burkhardt Road. Tonight we are addressing land use, we are not addressing access. However, the submitted site plan indicates a desire for a commercial access drive onto Burkhardt Road and both EUTS and County Engineer John Stoll agree that there shall be no access onto Burkhardt Road. Alternative access such as frontage roads or shared access should be pursued. That...if you'll recall last month, and I don't have last month's minutes so I can't tell exactly what was said, but last month this was continued for the purpose of allowing the petitioner to work out a solution that would comply with the Commissioners' adopted plan for the Burkhardt Road corridor and behind me I brought the drawing of the plan, I'll pass this around, of the Burkhardt Road corridor that was adopted. You'll notice that on this plan is it...what's it...?

Mike Mitchell: Oak Grove.

Barbara Cunningham: To go to Oak Grove, right here, Oak Grove and...Joe, help me. What's that street, Kimber Lane?

President Jerrel: Tutor.

Barbara Cunningham: Tutor Lane. We had called for the extension of Tutor Lane if you would also recall what we were concerned about last month when it was continued was the safety issue with the closeness of the access point on this property to Oak Grove and Burkhardt Road. That was probably one of the main issues and that is why Mr. Mitchell has continued it for his client so that they may work out a compromise and work out a compromise that utilizes the plan that was adopted by the County Commissioners. 

Unidentified: Your name and address.

Dean Brinker: Dean Brinker, 2131 Boonville-New Harmony Road. One of the points I would like to make is the access point on Oak Grove Road is no closer to Burkhardt Road then it is down on, I think, it's Virginia Street at the Amoco station. There is a zoning there and they are off of Burkhardt Road the same entryway down there at the end. There are 15 curb cuts on Burkhardt at the present time and I don't know when they were passed or when they weren't passed on there, but I've got a feeling if we go back to Amoco again or the Bigfoot station down on Virginia did get a curb cut on Burkhardt Road within the last two years that building has been put up. I understand the Burkhardt Road extension and what we're asking for is right out only like Florida Street is on Burkhardt Road. As far as Tutor Lane I have some confusion about that because my property don't even touch Tutor Lane. There is no access to Tutor Lane from my property. There is no right-of-way, so I am not sure how you're...I don't understand why I have to worry about Tutor Lane. 

Mike Mitchell: You stole all my thunder.

Dean Brinker: Okay, go ahead.

Mike Mitchell: My name is Mike Mitchell and I represent the owners and the petitioners for the rezoning at 1510 North Burkhardt Road who are Dean Brinker, who just spoke, and his brother, Dirk Brinker. Dean just spoke and out there in the crowd somewhere if you want to hear from them is his wife Cherrel and her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Norman Claymeier. Preliminarily I want to set the record straight concerning the ownership of my client's property and that property which abuts to the west. The property subject to this rezoning is owned by Dean R. Brinker and Dirk B. Brinker by deed dated October 22, 1999 recorded in Deed Drawer 13 Card 716. I have given you a copy of that deed. The abutting property to the west is owned in two separate undivided one half interest. One half is owned by Dean and his wife Cherrel. The other half is owned by Mrs. Brinker's parents, Norman W. Claymeier and Judith A. Claymeier. The Brinkers and the Claymeiers acquired this property by deed dated January 22, 1994 and I have given...furnished you with a copy of that deed. Hopefully this will clarify any rumors of ownership of this parcel to the contrary. Mrs. Claymeier and Mrs. Brinker own and operate the Farmhouse Charm, a high end gift shop handling home accessories and quality antique furniture located at 6301 Oak Grove Road. The subject property to the zoning petition is surrounded by M-2 to the north, C-4 to the south, C-4 along with C-2 to the west. Across the street to the east is still agricultural. However, this is in the process of being developed commercially. Immediately across the street to the north from the proposed rezoned property is A-Asphalt Ready Mix. Going to the west is a body shop, then a pump and supply business and then IMI Concrete Ready Mix operation. With this informational background I will remind the Commission that the Area Plan Commission on December 1, 1999 recommended to you that the zoning be approved by a vote of nine affirmative, one negative and one abstention who was Mr. Tuley. I respectfully request that my client's property be zoned C-4 which is in conformity with all the surrounding property in this commercial area. I would also ask that the existing curb cut on Oak Grove Road be permitted. This curb cut is at the westernmost part of my client's property. I would also ask that the Commission refer the closing of Burkhardt Road curb cut to the County Engineer John Stoll. As I stated in the previous meeting we asked that this curb cut be considered to remain open subject only to the exit right out on the curb cut going south. This request is not so much for the convenience of my clients, but would help the traffic flow in this area. My clients realize that the Commission desires Tutor Lane to extend to the north onto Oak Grove Road. This would cut the Claymeier/Brinker property in half. Mrs. Claymeier and her daughter, Cherrel, Dean's wife, plan to continue to operate Farmhouse Charm. Their parking is on the western portion of their real estate. Many of their customers are elderly. The extension of Tutor Lane as proposed would hinder those customers access to the shop. The Claymeiers and Mrs. Brinker are not being stubborn or unreasonable. They merely want to protect the integrity of their existing business. I am handing you a plat, a copy of the plat of the area, and please excuse my non professional engineering drawings. However many copies you want. Do you need some more? This is a proposal to have a Tutor Lane cul-de-sac to the rear of Claymeier/Brinker property, yellow. You already have a cul-de-sac on Mortensen Lane, green, and a proposed terminus cul-de-sac, Florida Street, orange. Referring to the copy of the plat just handed to you that which has been colored blue is the parking area of the gift shop. It actually extends over into the...I didn't put it over across Tutor Lane, but it extends into Tutor Lane. I'm just showing you how it would separate the parking from the shop. The extension of Tutor Lane as platted to Oak Grove Road would utterly destroy the access from the existing parking to the business. I would also point out concerning the exit only right out curb cut at the south end of the property subject to the proposed rezoning is in the same traffic flow as Florida Street, which Mr. Brinker eluded to, which is a right only exit heading south. Section 153.002 of the County Zoning Code states and I quote:

"The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the city to enhance the use and enjoyment of the property and to provide for regulation of land use in the community while preserving the right of the individual owner to use and enjoy his property." 

Two other purposes deal with the general police power of the local government namely to promote public health, safety and general welfare as well as providing regulation of land use. The other two of the four purposes enumerated are for the protection of the individual which is to enhance the use and the enjoyment of the property and preserving the right of the individual to use and enjoy his property. The zoning ordinance must create a reasonable balance between the two. In conclusion, it is my opinion that the failure to rezone this property, I'm not talking about the curb cut on Burkhardt, but I am talking about the rezoning could result in an unconstitutional taking since it prevents the reasonable use of the land in conformity with the surrounding properties and their uses. The closing of Burkhardt Road curb cut would, again this is just my opinion, exasperate the traffic situation rather than helping it, but that is for the professionals to determine, not for me. We're ready for any questions you may have. 

President Jerrel: Is there...do you want to go on and hear from anyone else that wishes to and then see if there are any questions? Would that be appropriate?

Mike Mitchell: However you want to do it.

President Jerrel: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak? 

Joe Ream: My name is Joe Ream, I'm the developer for Waterford Plaza, a property owner in the area and adjoins Mr. Brinker's property and Claymeier's property. We would like to go on record as stating that we don't object to anyone using their land and developing it. We're all for development and we don't want to hold up Mr. Brinker and any plans he may have. The reason I am here is if there is a way that everyone could have good access with safety and ease of entry we would do whatever we could to support that and to accommodate Mr. Brinker and the Claymeiers. So we're just here to cooperate if something could be worked out. 

President Jerrel: Now are there any questions from Commissioners?

Commissioner Mourdock: I have one for Mr. Brinker or Mr. Mitchell. As I look at the map you have given us there are several properties labeled. One is Brinker and the other one to the east of it is Underwood.

Mike Mitchell: That is now Brinker.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, how about the one that is south of that one that is also labeled Underwood?

Dean Brinker: That is now Brinker.

Commissioner Mourdock: And the one that is labeled Hirsch?

Dean Brinker: That is Hirsch.

Commissioner Mourdock: That is Hirsch, okay.

Mike Mitchell: Correction, the one you are looking at that is labeled Brinker, that should be Claymeier.

Dean Brinker: Claymeier and Brinker. 

Mike Mitchell: That's really Mr. Claymeier and that's not an issue at this zoning as Mr. Ream wanted to point out that he would cooperate with the Claymeiers, that's fine, but this has no bearing on this zoning at all. That property extends all the way across where the blue is is owned one half by Mr. and Mrs. Norman Claymeier, who is Dean's in-laws, and his wife and he own the other one half. If you want to look at it technically Dean has one-fourth, he's got 25 percent of the vote if there is to be a vote on anything. 

President Jerrel: Go ahead.

Dean Brinker: I agree with Mr. Ream as far as the safety of the properties and everything. I think that's my point. Right now my wife has been out there for five years. She has a parking lot. She does her business. She goes about her daily routine and there are no problems. What I am asking is for the right-of-way or the zoning for the next property to be able to pull into a parking lot and do our business daily with no problems. As far as Tutor Lane I can't answer that because my property doesn't touch Tutor Lane, I have no access to Tutor Lane. If at the point that Tutor Lane wants to come through the Claymeier/Brinker property I agree with Ms. Cunningham, the developer will either have to make some amends or the county will have to make some amends to purchase that right-of-way to bring Tutor Lane on through. I have no problem with that. I don't think my in-laws would have any problem with that, but at that point I don't think it's up to...you know, I don't think it is up to any of us. We don't know how long that is going to be when the county is ready or when the developers are ready to do that, so what we're saying is we just want to leave the parking lot go there and as far as that half, but really what I am down here for is to get the corner property zoned C-4 and go on with business. 

President Jerrel: I have a question, Barbara. This is first reading--

Joe Harrison, Jr.: No, final.

President Mourdock: It's final.

Barbara Cunningham: Final reading.

President Jerrel: If we move on this and we don't address the right turn only, let's just say the zoning is all we're dealing with and if, Dean, in the future this issue arises that in fact we do have a plan to move Tutor Lane all the way to Oak Grove so that there is a flow of traffic you're willing to cooperate with that? We're not asking that issue now, we're just saying from the beginning that was one of the issues we were interested in was to stay with our plan. Is there any other question about--

Commissioner Mourdock: I just want to clarify you are asking for cooperation but that is not an opposition to the zoning?

President Jerrel: No, it isn't.

Dean Brinker: That particular portion of that question really I don't think...again, what does that have to do with the zoning of the corner property?

President Jerrel: It doesn't.

Dean Brinker: Because it does not touch it. At the time that the county or the developer would want to talk to the Claymeiers and talk about that road right-of-way they are there every day from 8:00 to 5:00 and they are more than willing to sit down and listen. The problem with that particular...somebody...is when they do that they are going to separate that property in half and there is no room for parking. At that point it destroys their business, so she just wants to wait until the time comes when development comes, yes, that can buy her land. At that point she'll hopefully have the money to choose to go elsewhere or put a different building up or whatever, but again that wouldn't do anything for the zoning of the property we are asking for tonight. 

Commissioner Mourdock: Again, just to clarify, Mr. Mitchell, when you were here last month I was just reviewing my notes from that meeting, did you have a different understanding as far as how the ownership was established?

Mike Mitchell: No. Somebody on the Commission had a different understanding. 

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay.

Mike Mitchell: On the County Commissioners and I wanted to clarify that.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, well--

Mike Mitchell: Which I did tonight.

Commissioner Mourdock: Alright, when we adjourned last time it was to, I thought, see if there was some understanding there and from that I took it that there was misunderstanding, I guess, on both sides of the microphone here. 

Mike Mitchell: No, there was some misunderstanding as to what the ownership of the Claymeier/Brinker property actually was. That's why I wanted to clarify. That didn't come out in the meeting that you're referring to, no. 

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay. 

President Jerrel: Do you have any questions?

Commissioner Tuley: No, it's one of those situations where, you know, I wish we could have the road, but obviously we're not going to get the road. It doesn't touch his property and I don't see where we have much choice but to grant the rezoning. It's unfortunate because I know of all the other developers who have controlled large parcels, but because they controlled them we were able to get the ground for building the road. In this case, if I am understanding what you said, Dean and his brother own the property in question--

Mike Mitchell: That is correct.

Commissioner Tuley: The other property is owned by your in-laws, you and your wife.

Dean Brinker: Correct. 

Commissioner Tuley: I don't like it, but I don't see where we've got any choice but to grant it.

Commissioner Mourdock: Well, we put a lot of effort and planning into our Burkhardt Road plan and certainly in every way that we deal with that we certainly want to see the right turn only and those types of things, but I tend to concur with you where we are right now.

President Jerrel: Okay, is there a motion?

Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move on final reading the approval from AG to C-4 for VC-24-99. 

Commissioner Tuley: Second.

President Jerrel: I'll call for a roll call vote. Commissioner Tuley?

Commissioner Tuley: Yes.

President Jerrel: Commissioner Mourdock?

Commissioner Mourdock: Yes.

President Jerrel: And I vote yes.

Mike Mitchell: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. 
 

Final reading VC-26-99 Jacob's Village, Inc.

President Jerrel: The next item on the agenda is VC-26-99, Jacob's Village, Inc. 

Barbara Cunningham: Commissioners--

President Jerrel: Will you speak into the mike so everyone--

Barbara Cunningham: Sure.

President Jerrel: And as loud as you can so everyone can hear?

Barbara Cunningham: Since the next two are planned unit developments I have a little bit of clarification of what exactly a planned unit development is so everyone understands in the room and outside really what a planned unit development is. A planned unit...PUD as we call it is a zoning classification to allow for more flexible regulations. State and local laws allow for single use developments or for any combination of uses. It really is a more restrictive classification than a pure zoning would be as it requires commitments, time tables, specifics on setbacks, height, density and many development standards which may not be the standards established by the zoning code for a specific residential, commercial or industrial district. That is the purpose of a planned unit development. It's to allow creative or innovative approaches to development. A planned unit development is first heard by the Area Plan Commission at a public meeting and they make recommendations to the legislative body which tonight is the County Commissioners. The legislative body has the final say on approval or denial of the petition to change the zoning classification of the site to planned unit development. If the petition is approved, if the zoning is approved, the next step is to present a site development plan to the Area Plan Commission. The Area Plan Commission board reviews the site development plan and determines if it complies with the restrictions, commitments and standards set forth and adopted as part of the rezoning. This may be done in phases, but changes to any component of the plan cannot be made except in public hearing. Now, then I will start...that deals with both the Jagoe property and this property. As far as VC-26-99, Kent Brasseale and Mark Samila are the representatives for petitioner Jacob's Village, Inc. and owners, the beacon group, in this petition to rezone 132 acre site on Vienna Road just north of Diamond Avenue from Agricultural to Planned Unit Development with a Use and Development Commitment. The common address for the site for the purpose of this rezoning is 7400 Vienna Road. The petition was heard at the January 5th Area Plan Commission meeting and went forward to the County Commissioners with a no action no recommendation vote, five yes and six no votes. The ordinance that was voted on by the Area Plan Commission as a planned zoning classification included the conceptual master plan for Jacob's Village, a time table for phasing in the development, and a Use and Development Commitment that addressed uses that would be prohibited on the site and further addressed such development standards such as limits on size, height and number of buildings. The ordinance that was voted on by the Area Plan Commission is the same document that the County Commissioners will hear tonight. Any changes to the Use and Development Commitment including the time table would necessitate the return to the Area Plan Commission. Because there was some confusion at the Area Plan Commission hearing regarding size and numbers of buildings and uses I'm going to try to clarify this matter and go through the Use and Development Commitment. I will address exactly what the presented ordinance includes and perhaps Mr. Brasseale and Mr. Samila can correct me if I am misinterpreting the intent of your petition. The ordinance that was voted on by the Area Plan Commission included the following limitations. Light industrial. Under the light industrial classification light industrial is limited to a total of 80,000 square foot gross floor area and this area may be divided into no more than eight buildings. There will be no one building that is bigger than 40,000 square foot. The conference research and training buildings are limited to a total of 428,291 square foot gross floor area. This maximum square footage may be divided into more than one building, but no building will have more than five wings and no wing shall be larger than 50,000 square feet each. The height limit is five stories and no building taller than 88 foot high. The commercial is limited to 366,250 square foot gross floor area and this area may be divided into no more than 15 buildings. There will be no one building that is bigger than 15,000 square feet on the ground floor. The height limit is three and a half stories with no buildings higher than 60 foot tall. The high density residential is limited to 132 residential units. The density is limited to 50 units per acre. The footprint, which is the first floor outline of the building, the footprint is always the first floor like a footprint of the building, is limited to 4,500 square foot if it is one story and it is limited to 3,500 square foot if it is one and a half or more stories in height. The maximum height of assisted living or Alzheimer buildings would be four stories and no taller than 66 feet. All other residential units are limited to three and a half stories and no building is taller than 60 foot high. The low density residential is limited to 326 residential units. The density is limited to 25 units per acre. The footprint of each building is limited to 4,500 square foot if one story and limited to 3,500 square foot if multi stories. Residential structures are limited to two and a half stories and no building shall be taller than 42 foot high. The conceptual master plan also identified those areas which were to be utilized for parking, recreation, maintenance and sewer treatment. Due to the absence of sewer and the existing agricultural land in the area the Comprehensive Plan designated this area to remain agricultural and undeveloped with scattered residential uses. The surrounding area is completely agricultural and residential with the exception of a C-4 motorcycle shop rezoned in 1981 adjacent east across Vienna Road from this site. Section 20 of the Comprehensive Plan talks of planned implementation and evaluation criteria to evaluate proposals that do not conform to the plan and I passed that out to you this evening, a piece from the Comprehensive Plan since we talk about the Comprehensive Plan all the time and that shows you this section of the Comprehensive Plan has been copied and is on your desk this evening for review. Vienna Road is a narrow residential street. Evansville Urban Transportation recommends a traffic impact study. Applicant's conceptual site plan indicates that two access points are planned onto Vienna Road for the 132 plus acre site. An interior network of private drives will move traffic inside the site. Given the size and scope of the proposed plan unit development site it is likely depending on the specific uses developed that improvements will be required at the entrances to the property on Vienna Road. County Engineer John Stoll has stated that since Vienna Road is only approximately 20 foot wide this additional traffic will necessitate improvements to Vienna Road. A private sewage treatment facility is planned as part of this development. Indiana...IDEM, which is for the Indiana Board will determine if it is necessary to install a treatment plant or if they will require lift stations and connection to the sewer that is approximately four and a half miles away. The sewer is approximately four and a half miles. It is generally the policy of IDEM that what they try to do is if you can at all connect to a sewer they would rather you do that because if you have a private treatment plant others cannot tap into it and if you would connect the four and a half miles with lift stations there could be a connection with others. So petitioners, I think, should inform the board about the plans and commitments for this facility. Now what I told you, the numbers I gave you tonight, are the numbers taken from the information that was submitted and reviewed as part of the Plan Commission.

President Jerrel: County Attorney.

Joe Harrison, Jr.: All those who...this is going to be difficult. All those who wish to speak with respect to this petition will need to raise their right hand if they can hear me. All those who wish to speak with respect to this petition please raise their right hand. Do you swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is true and accurate so help you God? 

Response: I do.

Joe Harrison, Jr.: Thank you.

Kent Brasseale: Good evening. My name is Kent Brasseale. I'm an attorney with Kahn Dees Donovan and Kahn in Evansville at 501 Main Street.

President Jerrel: Kent?

Kent Brasseale: Yes?

President Jerrel: May I ask just a moment if you could speak more directly into the microphone. I have asked the people outside if they can just listen. He'll speak as loudly as he can.

Kent Brasseale: I will try to do that. Before I talk about this Barbara Cunningham explained that the numbers that she was summarizing there were according to the materials that were initially submitted with the petition for this. You're right, but as I am going to explain I wanted to make it clear that some of those numbers are inaccurate, they are typos and errors that we did not intend. We will address those with some materials tonight. We also have some other numbers that we would like to place some additional restriction on this that I think will address many of the neighbor's concerns on this project. As I said, my name is Kent Brasseale. I am here on behalf of Jacob's Village, Inc. It is a 501(c)3 non profit organization that has filed a petition for this matter. Also here this evening to explain the project and answer questions are Barry Graves, who is the President and CEO of Jacob's Village, Inc. Also here is Roger Winstead, who is the landscape architect working in conjunction with the architect on this project, Veazey Parrott & Shoulders. Jim Coy and Andy Guagenti are here with the beacon group. Jim Farney is here, an engineer with Bernardin Lochmueller & Associates to answer questions and finally Mark Samila also with Kahn Dees Donovan & Kahn. In addition to those there are several people here in the audience and in the hallway that are also attending this evening to express their support for and illustrate the need for a facility such as Jacob's Village. Before I explain too much about Jacob's Village I want to expand on some of the information that Barbara Cunningham talked about about the type of zoning that is being sought for this project. The primary thrust and the overriding plan for Jacob's Village is a residential community development for people with disabilities. However, because of some integrated activities and services to Jacob's Village the typical R, the residential zoning, alone is not available. To seek the county's approval for this residential community of Jacob's Village together with those integrated activities and services our petition asks you for approval for a planned unit development, or a PUD. This is precisely the type of project and it's a perfect example of the reason that the Vanderburgh County ordinances contemplate and allow for PUD zoning. With the planning flexibility and the opportunity to integrate the necessary services and activities into the residential development of Jacob's Village PUD zoning also requires an explanation of the long-term vision of this project so that the planned end product can be verified. While this requirement to look forward into the future is an important safeguard for PUD zoning it also poses some unique challenges which are not faced by other developers seeking more common zoning classifications. First, we must remember that Jacob's Village is a project plan which will develop over no fewer than six phases over a period of 30 to 35 years. That is the...this is the entire layout, the entire conceptual plan of what is intended to happen over a 30 to 35 year period. The entirety of what we consider tonight is not going to occur in the next year or two. In fact, even after this PUD zoning is approved still not one bit of construction on Jacob's Village will be able to commence. We only consider tonight the PUD rezoning for the plan of Jacob's Village. In order for work to begin a detailed engineered plan for any and every phase of work must be presented for final approval by the Area Plan Commission. This final approval requirement is important and necessary to be sure that all aspects of any development work are consistent with the approved plan and fully comply with all zoning, engineering, utility and traffic requirements of the county. We have to remember that the consideration this evening is only for the overall project plan of Jacob's Village. A second challenge of the forward looking plan requirements for PUD rezoning is that it is extremely difficult to project and determine what anything or anybody for that matter is going to be when they grow up in 30 years, but our team of management staff, architects and engineers have worked very hard to create a project plan that maintains compatibility with the Vanderburgh County master plan, commits to very low intensive use of the Jacob's Village land, results in absolutely minimal impact to surrounding property owners, provides a beautiful and relaxing area not only for the people in Jacob's Village, but also available to be shared by others in the area while still allowing some flexibility as this project progresses over the long-term. The Vanderburgh County Comprehensive Plan indicates that agricultural and residential uses are appropriate for the Jacob's Village property and surrounding properties in the county. As mentioned previously, Jacob's Village will be a residential community geared to people with disabilities. Some services and activities will be integrated to assist and teach the people in Jacob's Village. Other areas will provide recreational activities and some parts are necessary for the maintenance, the utility services and the management of this community. Again, the primary function will be a residential community. This coincides with the county's Comprehensive Plan. An objective of the Comprehensive Plan's general land use action plan is to efficiently utilize and to preserve land and environmental resources. One policy for fulfilling this objective provides that alternative means of development including PUDs should be examined to protect green space and environment. As a primarily residential planned unit development which commits to preserve and not develop not more than half of it's land area Jacob's Village squarely fulfills this policy of the Comprehensive Plan and meets that stated objective. Other policies of the general land use action plan are to encourage natural resource corridor protection to preserve wildlife habitat, strengthen and create focal points for variety and community landscape and protect environmental features. Again, with a plan to preserve more than 50 percent of its area and a plan which works around and leaves untouched virtually all existing trees on the property Jacob's Village is consistent with these policies in the master plan. This undeveloped green space in Jacob's Village is envisioned to include ADA accessible bicycle paths and walking trails so that people can enjoy this beauty and tranquility. Never, never does a developer come before you with a commitment for such an extensive park like area within their development. This infrequency of commitment to preserve natural resources such as the commitment Jacob's Village makes is likely a primary reason that the master plan states:

"Vanderburgh County is severely lacking in park facilities."

By incorporating this natural recreational area into this residential development Jacob's Village is right on track with the master plan's preferred solution to this park area deficiency. Indeed a policy of the Comprehensive Plan's recreation action plan contemplates, and I again quote:

"Mandatory dedication of desirable park open space in subdivisions."

Another section of the Comprehensive Plan suggests that developments are well designed when perception of environment stimulates positive human thought and emotions through attractive appearance. Jacob's Village is designed to be a very low intensive use and natural surrounding for its residential community will not only offer a beautiful and nurturing place for the people in Jacob's Village to live, but is consistent with the residential use called for in Vanderburgh County's Comprehensive Plan for this area as well as the aesthetic preferences and environmental preservation sought generally for the county by the Comprehensive Plan. I mentioned the Jacob's Village architects, management staff, engineers and landscape architect have worked very hard to plan a community that will be acceptable to the neighbors, unobtrusive and even an asset to the area. This effort to seek and address neighbor's concerns about Jacob's Village design began with a meeting with neighboring property at a neighboring property owner's home even last July. With about 25 neighbors and area residents attending that meeting some good comments and concerns were heard. Jacob's Village planners also met later with members of the West Side Development Association and a follow-up meeting was held with the neighbors again. I would like to show the initial plan, the conceptual drawing, that was considered at that time. We have heard comments that this plan has changed over time. That's part of the concern. That is true. This plan has changed, but it has been downsized and the changes that have been made are for the benefit...to the benefit of the neighbors in the area. It is even less light industrial and it is even less commercial areas. Just some of the changes that are made from this working draft that we had in July include if you'll notice here along Vienna Road there was initially contemplation that there would be two industrial buildings, if you will. If I could just kind of step to the side here for a moment, we use the term light industrial building and we use the term light industrial activities because that is what the zoning code calls for. The activities that are intended to occur at these places are going to be essentially vocational training for the people that live in this community. We cannot say vocational training because they are going to be earning wages when they do this work. We can't say that, but we are forced to keep saying light industrial and I think it gives a more negative connotation than is really fair for the type of training jobs that would be present on the site. But as I said, we've got two of those buildings that were initially planned. The concept was initially that those two buildings were going to be along Vienna Road and that they might be 80,000 square feet each. Another part of the plan was that there was going to be an amphitheater in the back. Another part of the plan, as you can see, is that the project is much closer to Vienna Road. Those are three changes that were made as a result of concerns raised by the neighbors as this project has gone on. You can see from this plan which is an enlargement of what has been submitted that we have one light industrial area designated and the one that we kept is the one that is closer to Diamond Avenue. We've done that to minimize the amount of traffic that needs to come onto Vienna Road and how far it needs to go. Secondly, we've done that to keep it as far away from the neighbors as possible. You can also see that the amphitheater is gone. There were concerns that might result in late night concerts and things of that nature. We didn't want that, the amphitheater is gone. Thirdly, you can see this project as a whole has been shifted back on the property as much as possible. The lack of negative comments prior to the APC hearing led us to believe that the project plan was okay with the neighbors. From the APC hearing we know that other area residents were concerned about the project. Again, wanting to work with the neighbors and explore solutions to their concerns we held an open meeting a week ago Saturday at the Holiday Inn. Though more than 30 letters were mailed and calls were made to residents not only adjoining the property but also in the area of the Jacob's Village project site only three people attended. Follow-up information was mailed to those people to address some of the information requests that they had given and with that we gave another invitation for them to call us and allow us to talk with them and hear any other comments or concerns. We heard nothing. Even though our efforts to meet and work with the residents were virtually ignored we have continued to listen and we've tried to glean the neighbors' concerns so that we can respond with appropriate changes while still maintaining a good community plan for Jacob's Village. For every concern received from neighbors we have come up with an appropriate change in commitment. Understanding that our filed Use and Development Commitment cannot be altered from the form considered during the APC hearing our changes and commitments are tendered tonight in the form of a restrictive covenant. This is a copy of that restrictive covenant agreement. For your advance review we provided copies to the Commissioners' office Friday morning as soon as this agreement was completed. We also, again, worked to keep neighbors fully informed as possible...as fully informed as possible by hand delivering copies of this restrictive covenant agreement to more than 30 neighbors over the weekend. Once we received a letter on Saturday indicating that some of the neighbors were represented by attorney Steve Bohleber materials were promptly faxed to Steve's office the same day. I have extra copies of this agreement if anybody would like. Let me summarize the concerns that have been raised by the neighbors and the commitments this restrictive covenant agreement makes in return. Number one, we know that area residents are concerned about the filed petition materials making reference to 457 residential dwelling units. While this count refers only to the maximum number of bedrooms which might be in the project many residents interpreted dwelling units to be residential dwelling structures, ie homes. To clarify this potential ambiguity and to provide further assurance to the very low intensiveness of this project's development plan the restrictive covenants stipulate that there will be no more than 100 group homes. It also allows for no more than four high density residential buildings which can consist of no more than 123 living units in total among those four buildings. I'm sorry, 132. Accepting the average potential of two homes per acre Jacob's Village is a far less intensive use of the real estate than the more than 260 homes together with roads that the developer might otherwise be permitted to build also in compliance with the county's Comprehensive Plan. No doubt area residents have been concerned with the light industrial of the plan. Many of these concern arise from a typographical error by which the Use and Development Commitment provides for as many as eight light industrial buildings. This was not ever truly the intention of this project. Other concerns stem from how quickly the light industrial area might be developed, the types of operations that might be at the site, how big the buildings will be and rightfully so how the processed sewage will be disposed of. Section three of the restrictive covenant agreement makes several commitments to address these concerns. First, it provides that no industrial activity which is defined according to the zoning ordinance use groups will occur on the light industrial parcel prior to January 1, 2005. Being mindful of not only area residents but also the people that will live in Jacob's Village this postponing of activity remains...this postponing of activities remains complimented by the six pages of prohibited industrial activities that are set forth in the Use and Development Commitment. Second, consistent with Jacob's Village intentions and to correct the typographical error in the Use and Development Commitment the restrictive covenants stipulate a maximum of two light industrial buildings with a cumulative limit of no more than 80,000 square feet total. To eliminate any opportunity for misinterpretation the restrictive covenants dictate that no light industrial building may be constructed prior to January 1 of 2005. Finally and perhaps even longer impacting is a provision that all industrial process waste must be disposed through the municipal sewer systems. We cannot...we want to make clear our stated assurances that industrial waste will not be disposed into the planned septic system. Like all homes in that area Jacob's Village contemplates initially a septic system with a below ground disposal field to accommodate its first phases of development and the resulting domestic sewage. Cost, design requirements, regulatory concerns and the concerns for neighbors in Jacob's...people in Jacob's Village makes it impossible to dispose of industrial process waste in a septic system. The restrictive covenants now make this a firm commitment and depending on the time frame for extension of municipal sewer to Jacob's Village potentially forestalls any industrial processes to well beyond the January 1, 2005 limitation. Neighbor's comments illustrates concern also about the varying and perhaps difficult to understand height restrictions for the various planned buildings in Jacob's Village. As a concise expression of a more restrictive and a uniform limit this restrictive covenant agreement simply places limits of three and a half stories and no higher than 66 feet in height from the ground to the tip of the roof for all buildings throughout the entire Jacob's Village project. To the extent the Use and Development Commitment is more restrictive than that, of course, the Use and Development Commitment will apply. Finally, a neighbor expressed concerns about being able to view much of Jacob's Village from the roads. While we are confident that this residential community development will be well designed and visually pleasing we at the same time do want to be a good neighbor. As the project plan illustrates preservation of existing wooded areas completely block the north and the south boundaries of the property. The west side is comprised also of woods, lakes and other expanses of green space. The east side along Vienna Road has an existing six foot embankment to block much of the view from Vienna Road. However, to further satisfy the neighbor's concerns the covenant provides for landscaping to screen the views from the eastern boundary from Vienna Road. But the landscape architect has discouraged use of simply a row planting of white pines. Instead to maintain consistency with the preserved green spaces and the woods on this property the covenant provides a naturalized screen of varying trees and land forms so that it will blend. This naturalized screen will be more consistent with the existing wooded areas and it is also going to be a more costly commitment by Jacob's Village then simply planting a row of pines. We believe this is just another example of the planning and concern for aesthetics that is going in to making this a quality and desirable residential community for the people living in Jacob's Village and also its neighbors. Other concerns that are not specifically addressed by the Use and Development Commitment but I wanted to take a moment to talk about first have to do with the fire concerns, the ability to respond to a fire. It is recognized that the area is serviced by a volunteer fire department. That in and of itself is not a problem. That area is already serviced by a volunteer fire department and it seems to be doing alright. There are other areas in the county, there are areas in other counties surrounding. For example Newburgh is serviced...Newburgh and its surrounding areas. An area of approximately 8,000 in a much higher...much more densely developed area is serviced by volunteer fire department. There haven't been any problems in that respect. The benefit that we've got going on this project is that every building in this project is going to have sprinklers. If the volunteer fire department is called out to respond to a fire effectively they are going to be a clean up crew because the sprinklers will address the fire already. Another concern has to do with the safety and the emergency responsibilities for this property. The three things I want to mention about that is that all of the staff working at Jacob's Village will be required to receive CPR and first aid training. If and when Alzheimer units are built on this property it will be staffed with nurses. Thirdly, this is a residential community just like all the other people living in that area if there is a medical problem that requires medical treatment the people will go to a hospital. The nearest hospital is less than eight and a half miles away and it is accessible by major thoroughfares of Diamond Avenue and First Avenue. As you can see, this is a good plan for a residential community development that is consistent with the objectives and the policies of Vanderburgh County's Comprehensive Plan. It's a well developed plan with a comprehensive Use and Development Commitment that illustrates the end result potentials of a project that will phase in over 30 to 35 years. Further, commitments are also now made to address the resident's concerns by a restrictive covenant agreement which is for the benefit of and enforceable by any person owning land within a two mile diameter circle surrounding Jacob's Village residential community. The petition before you seeking PUD designation for Jacob's Village should be approved. At this time I would like to give...in order to give an explanation of Jacob's Village, its operational plans and its principles, I would like to ask Barry Graves to talk a bit. Again, Barry Graves is the President and CEO of Jacob's Village, Inc.

President Jerrel: And if you could, Barry, I know if we could begin to move along because I know there are people that want to speak and we want all the correct information that we can have.

Barry Graves: Certainly. My name is Barry Graves, President and CEO of Jacob's Village. What I am going to try to clarify here is some of the language, some of the issues.

President Jerrel: Could you speak--

Commissioner Mourdock: Could you move, yeah, a little closer to the mike?

President Jerrel: You're going to have to get closer to the mike.

Barry Graves: Okay. Is that better?

President Jerrel: No. Take it out and hold it maybe. 

Barry Graves: Okay.

President Jerrel: May I ask perhaps this map could be turned around so that the people in the audience can see it?

Barry Graves: I would like to point out first for your indulgence here. North is to your right on the map and I wanted to make that clear because it is not typically done that way and the same on this. Jacob's Village is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit corporation whose purpose is to provide services for individuals who are developmentally or physically disabled in a residential environment. Jacob's Village has applied for a PUD for 132 acres on the northwest intersection of Diamond Avenue and Vienna Road. This property is approximately 200 yards north of Diamond and is completely bordered by woods on the north and south. The Posey County line forms the western boundary. The current zoning is agricultural and the zoning properties are zoned residential...the surrounding properties are zoned residential except for a business located at the northeast corner on the east side of Vienna Road which is zoned C-4, commercial. Jacob's Village is requesting a zoning classification as PUD in order to provide for the long-term development of a predominantly residential community. The owners have purposely designed the overall plan to be non evasive and a very low impact to nature and environment in the current neighborhood. More than 50 percent of the land will remain in woodland and open green space. It is our intention to work with the oil lease operator of the oil wells on the property to cease production and cap the wells consistent with Department of Natural Resources' guidelines and to remove the water injection system and storage tanks servicing those wells. Nature trails will be included throughout the facility and landscaping will be installed to not only buffer the development from the line of sight of the road, but also provide for wildlife habitat. There have been several meetings with the adjoining landowners beginning in July of `99 and as recently as January 15th of this year. Information as to the planning and refinement of design has been shared and concerns raised have been addressed to the best of our ability. Many of the concerns have generated new design and direction as the development progressed from a dream to shared thoughts and finally to specific commitments. The village is committed to providing residential opportunities to individuals 21 years of age and above who are developmentally and physically disabled. The design will resemble a relaxed campus setting and provide a neighborhood consisting of individuals who share common desires and experiences. Living, training and work opportunities will be designed to promote the growth of each individual to his or her potential for independence and self-sufficiency. Support programs and services will be provided to assure for health and safety of the residents. There have been several concerns brought forth over the past two weeks. Several of which have been addressed in a separate covenant provided by Jacob's Village to all neighbors within a two mile diameter of the property. They sent the response it is our belief that other concerns are based on either misinformation or misstatements of fact. Again, I will point out that the PUD requires Jacob's Village to establish upper limits which can never be exceeded on all of the developmental areas. One of our major concerns is the atmosphere within the village and the best interest of the residents. We have been lead to believe the following are major concerns which we have addressed in the application for rezoning, the private covenants with the neighbors or by clarification here. The number of residential units, information provided at the July `99 meeting suggested approximately 40 houses provided for four residents each. This meeting was held to provide information as to the project. At that time there had been no surveys done on the property and a conceptual drawing was used to give a general overview. The development plan commitment provides for 12 area parcels of low density housing. Current ideas are to build only 64 residences within these parcels during the next 30 to 35 years, with the land area designed as low density it can support up to 100 such residential buildings. Building heights. It may have been discussed at the July meeting that no building would exceed two stories in height, but at that time there had been very little discussion as to the design of actual buildings, the best use of the land area or aesthetics of mixed height buildings. In the development plan commitment some buildings were listed as being up to five stories. Again, this was intended to establish an extremely long-term upper limit. Jacob's Village has committed in the private covenants with the neighbors to limit all buildings to three and one half stories. Number three, the light industrial facilities. During the July meeting the light industrial facilities were discussed and again the conceptual drawing displayed depicted two buildings each consisting of approximately 80,000 square feet.

President Jerrel: Barry, may I ask a question?

Barry Graves: Certainly.

President Jerrel: This is repeating a lot of what Mr. Brasseale said and we are going to make an attempt to move to the City Council Chambers because they are through and that room is larger, but I would urge you when we get there if you could because we want to give everyone an opportunity to speak, so if you could bring to a close you are repeating much of what he has said.

Barry Graves: Okay.

Commissioner Mourdock: Let me just add to that if I may, Barry. By the way, before people start packing we have not yet gotten word that City Council Chambers is open so don't go packing your bag.

Commissioner Tuley: Don't give up your seat.

Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, don't give up your seat, that's right.

President Jerrel: Fifteen minutes.

Commissioner Mourdock: Barry, my point was with a lot of the information that you stated in the last couple of minutes I understand you are correcting the misperceptions, the miscommunications of the past. For the purpose of this board tonight let me state for all three of us what I think is true, we understand that as this is developed your plans have somewhat been presented and changed and all we need to deal with right now is the here and now which is where your plan is today.

Barry Graves: Okay, I am going to skip the other points that have been raised and addressed. Additional questions that have been raised are as follows. Funding for the project, and at this time we have commitments of approximately ten percent...or in fact more than ten percent of the total projected cost of the project. We have in hand contributions from Lilly Endowment of $200,000 for the conference center and a grant from Scripps Howard for $10,000. Concerns on the traffic and roads, I've had a meeting with John Stoll and discussed the potential problems and remedies that we would be willing to assume. We have agreed that we would do a traffic impact study and address the additional information that is brought from that. Safety issues, and I've met with John Buckman, the Chief of the German Township Fire Department. We discussed the building codes and the fact that all buildings on the property will be equipped with sprinkler systems and also the availability of putting in an auxiliary fire pump with the lagoons or retention ponds as water supplies. I've been informed tonight that the response time to the village is approximately three minutes. Additionally, I spoke with Ron Gold concerning the design incorporation of disaster preparedness features for the building to address the threats of tornados and earthquakes. The last area that I will address is the concern which has been raised as to the appropriate social or philosophical issues concerning the segregation of the residents. It is our opinion each and every individual has the right to determine how and where they will live. No one should assume they know what is best for everyone because each case has its own set of circumstances and each person has their own desires and abilities. I personally believe the best alternative is to have individuals living within their family units with all the support and care that may entail. I also believe that there are many individuals who cannot live on their own and many families that are not capable of providing for their loved one's needs. What Jacob's Village is offering is a choice to those that have determined their own individual plan for service and their own service provider. No one will be committed to the village rather they will come here by their choice. Thank you. 

Kent Brasseale: If I can make just two real quick points of clarification. One has to do with the numbers that Barbara Cunningham had mentioned and one does require some addressing. She had mentioned some limitations on the square footage of the ground floor area of the high density residential buildings saying that they wouldn't be more than 4,500 square feet in the case of one story and 3,500 in the case of multiple stories. While that is true I wanted to clarify that is with respect to group homes that would be in that area as that paragraph in the restrictive covenant provides. The second thing...I'm sorry, in the Use and Development Commitment.

Barbara Cunningham: Okay.

Kent Brasseale: Page 8, Section 5, Paragraph B, those limitation that you stated are specific to group homes on that property. The second point has to do with the restrictive covenant agreement that I talked about tonight to address the neighbor's concerns. That is a private agreement that is for the benefit of and to the...for the enforcement by the neighbors in the area, but I wanted to point out that it is not less restrictive than the Use and Development Commitment to the extent that the Use and Development Commitment is more restrictive the Use and Development Commitment will still apply and be binding.

Commissioner Mourdock: As a point of law, and as you know I am not a lawyer and I'll stop right there, will the Use and Development Commitment when it is less restrictive than what you've offered apply? For instance, I noticed in one you were giving basically the right of enforcement to anyone within a quarter mile and in the other it says one mile. 

Kent Brasseale: That's been changed, it's a mile.

Commissioner Mourdock: So it is a mile?

Kent Brasseale: For the Use and Development Commitment and the private covenants. 

Commissioner Mourdock: And then the second question and maybe this takes care of it, in your first submitted restrictive covenants you had a number, as you said six pages, of specific things you were not going to do.

Kent Brasseale: Right.

Commissioner Mourdock: And in the new document that came out on Saturday it does not specifically include all those things.

Kent Brasseale: Right.

Commissioner Mourdock: But if I understand it correctly you're saying that in this document all those still apply?

Kent Brasseale: Exactly. The Use and Development Commitment is not being amended or modified or weakened by the restrictive covenant agreement. The restrictive covenant agreements are complimentary and additional restrictions on the facility. Again, to the extent that the Use and Development Commitment, the initial document filed to the extent that that is more restrictive than any of the numbers or the limitations in the restrictive covenant they will still apply.

Unidentified: In fact, if you look at the restrictive covenants--

Commissioner Mourdock: Sir, I don't know who you are and neither does she when she does the tape.

Unidentified: I'm sorry.

Commissioner Mourdock: Please--

Unidentified: Excuse me. I'm Mark Samila with Kahn Dees Donovan & Kahn. I was going to point out in the private covenants the third whereas provides that the private covenants are entered into as additional restrictive covenants in addition to and in further restriction of the provisions contained in the Use and Development Commitment. So, again, we're trying to make it clear the private covenants are more restrictive.

Barbara Cunningham: Mr. Mourdock, the only thing I would say is all I can enforce is the Use and Development Commitment that is on file and that was done by Plan Commission. I cannot enforce the private commitments.

Commissioner Mourdock: Right, but that private commitment, again, if I understood the reading of it correctly you are offering that private basically to all those within one mile?

Mark Samila: Within a one mile radius.

Commissioner Mourdock: And if they should bring suit against something you are in fact saying you would also cover their legal fees.

Kent Brasseale: That is correct.

Mark Samila: That is correct. Yes, section six. To the extent that they prevail.

Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, we do read that stuff. 

President Jerrel: How much time do you think we have? Another five or ten minutes?

Barbara Cunningham: She just said they are doing bicycle paths tonight.

President Jerrel: Okay, then who at this time...yes.

Kent Brasseale: I heard the mention of bicycle paths and we have one other person that I think could add some information on that.

Barbara Cunningham: They're doing bicycle paths in City Council.

Kent Brasseale: Oh, well, what a coincidence because we can address them here, too.

President Jerrel: Let us move now. Is there anyone else from your group? Okay. Is this something that is pertinent to the--

Kent Brasseale: This is pertinent and it is new.

President Jerrel: Okay, if it is pertinent and new then let's hear it.

Kent Brasseale: Right now?

President Jerrel: Yeah.

Commissioner Mourdock: We didn't say it at the outset, but for all of those who will be speaking it is very important as Bettye Lou said Charlene takes every note verbatim. When you come to the microphone you must state your name and address and if there is any question please spell your name so it is simpler. And the people in the press would like that, too, I'm sure. 

Roger Winstead: Good evening. My name is Roger W. Winstead with Roger W. Winstead, Inc., planning and landscape architecture. I live at 7922 Oak Grove Road in Newburgh, Indiana. I'm representing Jacob's Village and I am one of the planners and landscape architect on the project. I'm going to explain a little bit about this land at first so you can understand with why we came up with what we did. I'm going to take this microphone out so people can hear me. Okay, north is basically to the right here. Diamond Avenue is here. Vienna Road runs along here. Again, it's wooded. Wooded here and wooded here. This is open area. This is open area. There is a ridge line that runs along here, a ridge that runs here. 

Unidentified: Hey, let's move over so that we can see that. Can't nobody see what's going on. (Inaudible.)

President Jerrel: That sounds fine. I really...I think they want to be able to view that.

Roger Winstead: That's fine. 

President Jerrel: Because that is why I had it turned around.

Commissioner Mourdock: Shall we adjourn until we get to the other room?

President Jerrel: I think we just need to adjourn for a couple of minutes.

Joe Harrison, Jr.: Recess.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay.

President Jerrel: It's to your right. It's the last room.

The meeting was recessed.

The meeting was reopened.

Tape change

President Jerrel: Would you please tell the audience now that is in the room what they're viewing and if you would explain the landscaping.

Roger Winstead: Okay, my name is Roger Winstead. I'm a planning and landscape architect on Jacob's Village. What we have here is a conceptual master plan for the entire development and I'm going to go through a few things first to explain how the plan got formed the way it did because of the existing landscape. There is a tree line on this side. There is Diamond Avenue, Vienna Road that comes down here, this is the Posey County line and that is north. Everybody oriented? Okay. So, again, there is a wooded area to the south, a wooded area to the north and on this ridge line here there is an existing wooded area through this area. It slopes downhill to the southwest here and downhill to the west here. There are also intermittent feeders here. The hills go like this and where you see the box of trees that are preserved on here that is where the watersheds are. So the existing open space that was in this area that's where we decided to put all of our development and to try and preserve as much as the existing vegetation as possible. Not do any grading in it, not do anything that would disturb the existing vegetation. The concept for this is a true walking village. Everything is within walking distance of each other on this site. What you see down here is a light industrial, conference center, Alzheimer units in here and then a spine road that looks towards the west, towards the sunset, over park land here, here and here. The yellow you'll see residential that is all around the outside of this hub. This whole thing has been geared toward the pedestrian and bicycle traffic and that kind of modes of transportation since none of the people in here that will be residents will be able to drive, so that will be their primary modes of transportation. There will also be nature trails throughout all of the wooded areas. It will be a campus atmosphere, village character, a New England architectural style that will be very pleasing to the eye. Even the light industrial vocational centers down here will have a facade that will be pleasing to look at. We preserved woodlands on the edge here to screen that and, again, we're talking about a visual buffer along here of native and ornamental plants that are non evasive and compatible with the existing habitat and the existing animals and will actually draw some animals to this site. Anywhere from this development green space is readily accessible and you'll be able to get to it very easily. All of the paths and all of the roadways for people to walk on will be ADA compliant and you'll be able to get to anywhere from anywhere in a wheelchair, on crutches or any kind of mode of transportation you would be taking. As I mentioned, there are park areas scattered in throughout the village and, let's see, we'll talk about the watershed protection. Water will run down through the center of these valleys that we have preserved and saving the existing vegetation in that will protect the watershed, will reduce soil erosion and that is something that is very paramount on our developer's mind was to protect the environment. To the north we've got an area that is going to be preserved in green space. It will be available for passive and active recreation. We're looking at a pond. The same down here. This is all passive recreation. To this west side is a drain field for the sewer system, for the septic system, and that again will be below ground so this entire area will be green space. The village plan calls for small cottage homes that are very comparable to the size homes that are in the area. If you think of them as single family homes there will be five residents in each one of them and they will be just like single family homes and they will be no different. It will be in a very nice architectural style that will be complimentary to development. There are no buildings closer than 100 feet to Vienna Road. There are no buildings closer than 250 feet from any of the other property boundaries. There again, they are going to be visually screened on the north and the south and from Vienna Road. I think that's about the end of that. This development is a non institutional residential community development that has peers that residents can relate to in a peaceful environment that is harmonious with the surrounding land use for wildlife and for humans.

President Jerrel: Thank you. At this time, you know, those of you in the audience if you have a direct question that you would like to ask any of the individuals that are speaking for the developers if you have a question. Well, I think we need to move, Kent, to the representatives for the homeowners and the other people that wish to speak in the room, but I think it is appropriate now if there are any homeowners or landowners in the area that have any questions about any of the covenants, any misunderstanding about any of those issues I would appreciate it if you would raise your hand, come up, give your name and ask the question. We'll get to everyone else on the speakers list, but if you have something specific that you want to ask these individuals. Yes, ma'am. You want to come up and give your name? 

Doris Peerman: My name is Doris Peerman. I live at 7003 Vienna Road directly across from what is going in. What I don't understand you keep talking about the green space and all the natural surroundings and everything yet you have parking spaces for 1,250 cars and the mode of transportation is going to be wheelchair, bicycle paths and so forth, why the need for all this parking space?

President Jerrel: That's a good question.

Commissioner Mourdock: That's a great question.

President Jerrel: And I don't know if Mrs. Cunningham needs to respond to that. I think that is where it originates.

Barbara Cunningham: Our code specifically states how many parking places are needed for each type use and it states how many are needed for residential use, how many would be needed for a nursing home type facility or a Alzheimer use. How many would be utilized for any industrial or commercial use and so I think these are spread out throughout and maybe Keith can tell you exactly...I think the plan shows what it is, but I think it is for all the variety of uses that they are asking for on the 132 acres. 

Doris Peerman: This is certainly different than the...I attended the first meeting in July and also the zoning meeting. These plans have been changed several times since then. They're nothing like they originally started out because I was told there would be five cars in and out on any given day by Mr. Coy. The fact is I have it on tape and the Commissioners have a copy of that tape and also that there would be 100 cars on a conference day and that is nothing like what is proposed. That's all I have to say. 

President Jerrel: Thank you.

Kent Brasseale: Barbara is correct. The amount of parking that is provided for in this plan is according to the zoning code requirements. Frankly, we don't see this much parking being necessary to fulfill the needs. Again, this is a PUD that is looking out over a long period of time. As this thing develops in phases that parking is in phases as well. It is not going to be there overnight. The reason we keep talking about the green space because even with those parking spaces, even with the retention ponds and even with the park areas that are designated here still more than 55 percent of this property is green space, is untouched green space development. As far as the comment that changes have been made along the way, yes, during the meeting in July this was a conceptual plan that the people of Jacob's Village were working on and were talking about from a conceptual basis with the neighbors. Things have changed from there. As I illustrated many, many of those changes have been positive to the neighbors and have caused this to be a much less intensive use. I believe I heard a comment or an insinuation that changes have been made since APC. That simply is not true. There have been no changes to this plan since then.

Commissioner Mourdock: Let me clarify the parking lot question if I may because it certainly jumps off the page when you look at this and do see 1,250 spots. When Mr. Winstead was at the microphone a moment ago he said that there would be five residents in each home. They'll look like single family homes, but then he went on to say...my screen just went blank, excuse me. Where did it go? He then went on to say:

"None of the residents would be able to drive."

Now, did I understand the code statement that those residences require parking spots even though none of the people will drive? Is that right, Barbara?

Barbara Cunningham: That's correct because what we do is with the code...now the alternative to that is to seek a variance. If there is a...and that is what you may ask for. You always have that alternative is to seek a variance. All except a PUD cannot have a variance, Beverly just reminded me. We're talking code requirements. 

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, but the point is there are five residents in each of these houses in theory. Their code is saying there are five spots.

Kent Brasseale: Yes, that is correct. 

Commissioner Mourdock: That's what you figured.

Kent Brasseale: The one thing I do want to clarify. There is going to be five people there and one of those will be the chaperone and in all likelihood they will drive and I don't know that it is really fair to say none of the other residents will drive. I think it will be a vast minority, but you know there may be some and we don't want to give the indication that there is not going to be any.

Commissioner Mourdock: Okay.

President Jerrel: At this time I would like to read the speakers the way they have signed up. Mr. Bohleber will speak representing...I'm going to just give six and then we'll go with the next six. The first six will be Mr. Bohleber, Gary May, Vince Bernardin, Paul Farmer, Nancy Lee and Stacy Stevens. I'm going on down the list as they appear, so Mr. Bohleber.

Steve Bohleber: Thank you, Mrs. Jerrel. Is the mike on?

President Jerrel: Yes, it's on. 

Steve Bohleber: I normally can hear myself better than that. Maybe that is advancing age. My name is Steve Bohleber. I have been retained by a large number, but I am not going to say all of the residents that are here this evening, to oppose the plans submitted for this rezoning. Rather than having each of them speak to you the folks that hired me agreed that I would be the sole spokesperson for those individuals and in that regard I am not going to hash over many of the issues that may have been contained in letters received by the Commissioners, letters to the editor in the newspaper or even detail many of the comments that were made at the Plan Commission meeting. I would like for proposes of the record however to simply incorporate the comments of the neighbors from the Plan Commission meeting into the comments here this evening in an attempt to make this as simple as possible. A few points to make about what I am about to say. My clients want to emphasize that they are not opposed to the mission and the dream of Jacob's Village. In fact, I think almost to a person they applaud those dreams and in many ways wish there were other people such as Mr. Guagenti and the beacon group board members in our community. That is not why they're here this evening. In fact if the plans were as presented in July as one of the speakers has already mentioned I doubt there would be very many remonstrators here today. If the plans were this evening presented as totally residential but with the same goals I have been told by Stan Newingham who is sitting behind me, the leader for want of a better term of the neighbors who first contacted me, I've been told by him that he doubts that many of his constituents would be here this evening. It's not a residential community for the purposes outlined by the Jacob's Village supporters that is the concern. What the concern is is that this project is far, far more than a residential community. To characterize it again and again and again as a residential community is not telling the full story. As I understand the current level of possible development when we look at the use commitment, the restrictive covenants that were filed in the last couple of days, Mrs. Cunningham's presentation, there still is the potential at this site as I read it of almost one million square feet under roof of non residential uses be they for a conference, be they for commercial, or be they for light industrial. To me that is a massive, massive non residential component part of this that can't be sloughed off under the guise that this is a residential community. That's what brings us here this evening. I'll be quite honest with you, I think the fact, and the neighbors have said this time and time again, they're not certain what is going to be there. That's a great concern and you might say that, well, everybody fears the unknown. Well, that's true and none of us really like change, but to this day these neighbors don't know, don't have any idea, what might be developed in this PUD with the potential of nine hundred thousand to a million square feet of non residential uses. So those are the things that...general concerns that thread throughout all the comments that I am about to make. I'm not here to speak on behalf of Gary May or West Side Improvement Association because I am not empowered to do that. I'm not an expert in the social implications of this and quite frankly there is a question as to whether or not those even address what we're here for this evening and that is what is proper land use. I won't address the West Side Improvement Association representations were made that they support this. I've been told they don't and they have changed their position after the full plan was revealed to them, but I think someone is here to speak to that this evening as well. The problem my clients have is the site selected by this group of dreamers, this group of good people in this community, is totally inappropriate for the intended uses if they include this massive commercial and industrial undertaking. As Mrs. Cunningham pointed out both at the Plan Commission meeting and this evening it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Totally different than anything else in that neighborhood. There aren't any PUDs there. There aren't any commercial there save that one small C-4 that slipped in in 1981, was attempted to be rezoned sometime after that to industrial and was solidly defeated by the County Commission unanimously in the face of all of these neighbors again interposing this concern about something of an industrial nature coming into their area. So save that one C-4 zoning that is adjacent and used in conjunction with a person who lives there this is also spot zoning. That sounds like a real commonplace term but it is sort of a term (inaudible) in this business of land use regulations. Spot zoning is something that is inconsistent, something that is contrary to the plan, something that is contrary to the neighborhood. Historically we see spot zoning particularly when it is incongruous with the Comprehensive Plan often encouraging additional commercial adventures, additional industrial adventures. That potential exists. We can call this a PUD, but it is really a residential, commercial and industrial development that could just as easily have been developed with a residential zoning component, a commercial zoning component and an industrial zoning component. I suspect if that were the case this Commission wouldn't even be considering it sticking industrial and commercial out there. That's in reality what we've got. The primary concern of commercial and industrial development of that location from a practical and from an economic standpoint is that it lacks the necessary infrastructure to serve such a tremendous potential complex. Some of those issues have been tangentially addressed here this evening, but I would like to go over them briefly with you. The traffic and traffic congestion issue are certainly valid concerns. Evansville Urban Transportation Study, as Mrs. Cunningham pointed out, recommends a traffic impact study. It has not been done yet, don't know what that will say. Don't know what that will entail. Don't know what that will require. Another unanswered question. Your County Engineer states in the Staff Field Report that due to the type of land uses proposed a large volume of traffic will be generated on that 20 foot wide roadway. Well, that is going to mean that someone is going to have to improve the infrastructure along Vienna Road to the entrance. Somebody is going to have to build a better road. Someone is going to have to maybe have excel and decel lanes maybe on Diamond Avenue, too. All these things are uncertain, but they are reality when you have an intensive commercial and industrial development or even a significant residential development that is going to happen, so that is one infrastructure concern. Another infrastructure concern is the impact that this increased traffic, commercial activity, industrial activity, conference activity, and residents to a lesser degree what burden this is going to place on the emergency response time and the ability to provide those services that this Commission and this community must supply. As pointed out during the principal presentation from the petitioners there is a volunteer fire department involved. I haven't spoken to Mr. Buckman, but I think he realizes his responsibilities are to take care of any problem that arises within his district, but that is going to tax them. Response time is somewhat curious because that requires them, as I understand it at least, to primary come down Number 6 School Road to Vienna to get there from their principal location at St. Joe Road and Number 6. That is not a wide road. That may create all sorts of problems and cut down the response time. I will point out one thing in the APC meeting, and again this is something that was pointed out by Brad Grisby who is a neighbor and also is involved in providing some...works in a related health care area, he says it has been his experience that there is a 22 minute response time for emergency vehicles. That is far beyond the county's contracted 13 minutes out there so any way you cut it there is going to be a significant impact on police served by the County Sheriff, fire served by the volunteer fire department and emergency medical response if we're having hundreds of people living there, maybe hundreds of people at a convention there, lots of people working there and people coming to and from it's going to be a problem. Those are infrastructure concerns that are legitimate land use questions as this is developed and they haven't been answered as to how they are going to be addressed by the taxpayers or by the developer. However, I think the biggest land or biggest infrastructure concern of all is the sewer service. There is no sewer service. Now, I have spoken to some folks at the Water & Sewer Utility and, again, I was just engaged a few days ago in connection with this, it's unclear in my mind as to where the closest sewer line is. I think in the paper it was reported by the petitioners as four and a half miles, by Mrs. Cunningham as four and a half miles. I have also received information that perhaps the only usable sewer line is at Diamond and St. Joe, the old K-Mart complex and that is over six miles away. Who is going to provide that ultimate sewer service? As you know commercial septic systems are generally disfavored by the Health Department. IDEM and everyone else would really like to see this hooked up to a sewer system. In fact, I think the petitioners at least today even realize by the commitments that they've made that they will not be able to even develop the industrial portion without sewer. Who is going to address those infrastructure concerns? If it's in a subdivision often the developer does, he has got the cash. Is this not-for-profit that has currently failed to demonstrate an ability to even fund its own project going to be able to help with infrastructure? Probably not. In fact, Mr. Hatfield at the Plan Commission, and this is in the minutes, asked Mr. Guagenti about that. What about your financial situation? The quote was from Andy:

"We haven't started to raise any funds at all. We feel the time isn't right yet."

There are some assets available, a $200,000 grant, a $10,000 grant, but we've got an estimated dollar cost today to develop this project at $35 million. I don't think that if sewers have to be extended four point five or six point one miles that the $35 million would even touch the cost of that. That's not anything that they are budgeting for, that's not anything that they are thinking about, but yet it is going to be a necessary result if this PUD creates all these residences. That could probably be handled by septic, but all this commercial and all this industrial, 900,000 to one million square feet. In the long run this project can only fly with sewers and who is going to pay that? The taxpayers of Vanderburgh County in all probability, not a not-for-profit. As we know, this is a planned unit development. It's a creative type of land use regulation. It's on the cutting edge of planning. Mrs. Cunningham pointed that out. My experience locally however with PUDs has been that they are very, very specific in both what is going to happen at the site often even limiting by design the footprint of a building and all the questions are asked. This comes with a Use and Development Commitment and in recent days a clarification of the many typos and, I guess, misstatements in that by a private covenant, but it still does not define in any way the parameters of the commercial and industrial development that are going to be there in such a way to give any comfort to these neighbors. Now, I asked Mr. Newingham to do something for me so I didn't have to do it because I'm not very good with numbers and I am not a very good proofreader. I asked him to take a look at the Use and Development Commitment and I gave him a copy of all the defined uses possible in the use groups that encompass this project and asked him to make me a list. In his own word what he did was he highlighted in yellow those things that are prohibited by the Use and Development Commitment and highlighted those things in green that are allowed and I want to make that a part of the record right now and I want to talk about the way I counted the numbers up. If my math is correct, and keep in mind I'm a lawyer and not a biologist because I can't do math very well, there appears to be the potential for 144 different types of commercial uses at that site. There appears to be industrial use potential in excess of 50 different types of industries and of course all the agricultural and residential uses remain a possibility. This is hardly any comfort to the neighbors. This hardly defines a strict PUD. It allows hundreds, literally hundreds of possibilities. Every time I come in with a commercial rezoning request or an industrial rezoning request I find that this body and the City Council wants limitation, limitation, limitation because that makes everyone comfortable, but yet we have almost 200 remaining uses of a commercial and industrial nature that appear to be revealed by an analysis of the Use and Development Commitment and its preclusions against all the possible uses defined by our code. I wonder if this Commission if this were a request for industrial or commercial rezoning in this part of the county would even consider the request for industrial or commercial much less consider it with almost two hundred possibilities. I also am concerned about something I read in the paper and this is by way of a question, I guess, to the Jacob's Village folks, it is my understanding from talking to the people with that July meeting they were talking about a little ice cream operation, I guess, since we know Mr. Guagenti can make some very good ice cream at G.D. Ritzy's, I'm sort of a testament to that unfortunately, that type of operation was suggested. That's one use. What about those other 144 or those 194 that, you know, my clients have interpreted the intent of this plan to allow. This is not a small operation. This is not a residential operation. If in fact this came as a commercial and residential rezoning request it would be defeated out of hand because it's contrary the Comprehensive Plan, it's spot zoning. It's all sorts of bad things that this Commission in fact has said is inappropriate in prior votes throughout this part of the county. I would hate...I would hate to think that the thin veneer of a PUD can change the practicality and the reality of that situation. There is another land use issue that is on the cutting edge. PUDs are in the cutting edge and there is another land use issue that is on the cutting edge in all planner's minds and that is the distance of this far-flung and vast development for the core of our community. Now all of us including probably a lot of my clients went out there to get away from the city, but getting away from the city has been creating increasingly greater burdens on all of us as taxpayers and has developed a whole line of new land use philosophy that I want to talk about a little bit because I think this is a good example of it. We have a development now that is ten miles from the heart of the city, six miles or thereabouts from its western boundaries. It's totally isolated, totally contrary to the Comprehensive Plan and totally incongruous and inconsistent with everything around it. It's a village. I'm not playing on a word from Hillary Clinton here either, but it is a village, it's a community, it's an extension of Evansville that is going to provide all the services of this city. I mean, there can be shopping centers, bowling alleys, a myriad of businesses, grocery stores, all sorts of support are possible for this community under that Use and Development Commitment. We're moving away from that now. As our population has grown it has created problems. A new term of art has even cropped up in the land use planning industry that I believe may even be a part of our national political scene this year. I know at least from the Democrat perspective there is a growing concern to encourage communities not to do this very thing. It's been labeled urban sprawl. We're abandoning our cities and creating new cities as satellites. The cost of sprawl are becoming immense to communities. Road costs go up. Air pollution goes up as we travel to and from those areas. Emergency response time goes up. Sewer costs go up. Environmental degradation occurs. So cities and states are now encouraging growth in town and discouraging sprawl and discouraging the disintegration of the community out into the suburbs and are promoting the implementation of model acts and ordinances all around to contain this. In fact, the American Planning Association has a model plan that it is encouraging many people to adopt. Let me read you a couple of comments from some publications talking about sprawl. First of all, US News and World Report back in April of 1988 had an article, Who Pays for Sprawl? Let me read a quote from it:

"Time was when only nature lovers and urban sophisticates would get worked up about suburban sprawl, but no more. Growth moratoriums have sprung up around the country. Conservative think tanks and even institutions like the Bank of America, which has a huge stake in construction loans, sponsors reports attacking the economic costs of continuing to convert undeveloped land into low density tract housing and strip malls."

I'm not saying that is what is going to happen here, but the possibility exists for that type of commercial development currently. 

"According to a recent market research (it goes on) most ordinary Americans who are still favoring detached single family homes are increasingly fed up with the congestion and sprawling commercial development that is all too often come as part of the package. Today's consumers say they are annoyed by commercialization and in principle would prefer neighborhoods clustered around the downtown or the center of town."

American Farming Trust in the same article says:

"In a report issued last year (which would have been 1997) American Farmland Trust estimated that the United States is losing 50 acres an hour of farm land to suburban and exurban development. At this rate the United States will lose 13 percent of its prime farm land by the middle of the next century." 

And the report says:

"Could conceivably become a net food importer."

President Jerrel: Mr. Bohleber?

Steve Bohleber: Yes? 

President Jerrel: Could you, please.

Steve Bohleber: A couple of statistic, I think this is important as it deals with infrastructure. New Jersey has adopted a statewide plan right now for managed growth it is going to save $700 million in road costs, $562 million in sewer and water costs, $178 million in school costs and up to $380 million in operating costs per year. Again, stopping urban sprawl and moving things back into town. 

Barbara Cunningham: The mike quit.

Steve Bohleber: It did? Maybe that is telling me something. I didn't touch it. 

Barbara Cunningham: Hit it and see. You need the mike on to tape it.

President Jerrel: Say something.

Steve Bohleber: Hello. 

President Jerrel: You're off.

Steve Bohleber: That won't work and I suspect I am not being recorded then either.

Unidentified: Now it is working.

Barbara Cunningham: Can anything else go? 

Steve Bohleber: I won't belabor the point out of deference to the hour, but I want to leave with you a list of articles that have been published in learned land use development journals put out again by the American Planning Association talking about the problems with urban sprawl, how costly it is to infrastructure, how costly it is to everything that we hold dear. How we're seeing everything, people that are businesses moved to the fringes of the community. I submit to you that's a greater problem and probably why the Comprehensive Plan intended to reserve this for residential use. Again, if this were residential my clients would have no problem. They have a big problem right now however, and I asked Stan to get a petition signed by individuals along the Vienna Road area, in that general area, that are opposed to the potential of this and there are over 1,100 signatures on this petition. How many of those people are here tonight? Would you stand up? These people are concerned about the issues. They're concerned about the potential. They ask that you look at this as what it really is. Not a quiet residential area, but a residential community that has a tremendous capacity to build commercial and industrial activities that are going to stretch and strain and create difficulties for our city to pay for. I thank you very much for your time. I would like to make a copy of the US News article and the references that I read a couple of a part of the record as well. 

President Jerrel: Thank you. Okay, the next speaker on the roster is Gary May. You need to change tape?

Commissioner Mourdock: One second. 

Tape change

President Jerrel: Okay.

Gary May: Thank you. My name is Gary May. I live at 2699 Briarcliff Drive, Newburgh, Indiana. I'm here as a representative of Indiana Governor's Planning Council for People with Disabilities. The late hour has sort of taken my vocabulary. We oppose the planned use of the land that is in the proposal that is currently being considered. In 1998 the Governor's Planning Council passed a resolution opposing this plan mostly because it is at great odds, great variance, it's diametrically opposed with the direction of services for people with disabilities. That has been codified and pursued both through public policy and public funding. The trend overwhelmingly has been in favor of providing support services for people in their own communities, even people with disabilities. We already have our villages. They are called Evansville, Indiana, and Darmstadt, Indiana, and St. Joe, Indiana, and Haubstadt, and Fort Branch. We're out there. It's not as if we don't exist and suddenly there is going to be this separate place that is going to see to our needs. We do need however additional support services to maintain a chosen lifestyle in our own communities and with people with whom we choose to live. For many of us our major link to independence is our automobile and I was shocked to hear this evening that the planners don't expect that residents there will use automobiles. That compounds the isolation that will already be begun by the separate residential enclave that is being proposed. We think that this idea is an idea that has been tried, has failed and it is time to move on. Mr. Winstead made reference to that main spine road heading to the sunset. We believe that the sun has set on this idea. It doesn't work. It's not what most people with disabilities want. It's not what we feel serves our interests best and we think for all of those reasons the council, the Commission, should vote against the planned use of this land. The advocates for this have something of an alliance of convenience with the homeowners who have understandable, expected and even predictable concerns about the location. We don't disagree with the location, we disagree with the whole concept. We think this would be a bad idea no matter where it would be located, so we urge you to vote against the zoning request. Thank you very much.

President Jerrel: Thank you. Vince Bernardin.

Vince Bernardin: President, members of the Board of Commissioners, I'm Vince Bernardin. I promise to keep my remarks very short. I am a lifelong resident of Vanderburgh County. I am a principal of Bernardin Lochmueller & Associates. We are a firm that does a lot of transportation and land use planning as well as civil engineering, but I am here primarily as a resident of Vanderburgh County who really believes that this is a valuable asset. First though, given all the discussion about what is considered to be good planning practice I would like to establish that I have a few credentials of my own. Twenty five years ago I received a master's degree in urban planning and I have been practicing urban planning ever since. That's my profession, that's my career, particularly land use and transportation planning. I'm a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. I'm a member of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. I'm here to address really just a couple of issues. First, the question of whether or not the proposal constitutes good land use. Second, the question of whether or not the development is in conformance with the spirit of the Vanderburgh County Comprehensive Plan. Only those two issues and then I'll stop. Regarding the first issue there is a great deal of discussion in professional planning circles and in the literature about neoclassical urban village design. This concept applies to large scale developments. It advances the idea of mixing land uses in a pleasant human scale that promotes such human behavior as walking and bicycle riding and separates these activities from heavy highway traffic by providing a mix of house types as well as opportunities for employment and essential commercial and community facilities in the same development. The residents are provided options to private automobiles for many of their transportation needs. In the big picture this results in reductions in vehicle miles of travel throughout the transportation system and at least in a small way reduces associated air pollution. Jacob's Village is a perfect example of neoclassical urban village design and it embodies all of these characteristics of good land use planning. Regarding the issue of conformity to the Comprehensive Plan there have been assertions in letters to the editor that this is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and I would like to point out a couple of things. Enabling legislation for comprehensive planning in Indiana requires three elements in the comprehensive plan. First, a statement of objectives for the future development of the jurisdiction. Second, a statement of policy for the land development...the land use development in the jurisdiction. Third, a statement of policy for the development of public ways, public places, public lands, public structures and public utilities. Interesting that the statute does not require the future land use map. I'm not suggesting that it shouldn't, most comprehensive plans do and it certainly is a permissible element in a comprehensive plan, but it is not required. I think that is actually very wise and the reason for that is because none of us has a crystal clear ball wherein we're able to forecast with great precision exactly where proposals for good land use are going to occur. This is recognized in the following quote from the 1996-2015 Comprehensive Plan for Vanderburgh County. I quote:

"Development proposals must be evaluated for consistency with the land use plan. However, the plan is conceptual and is meant to be flexible. There may be development proposals which will arise during the planning period which do not conform to this land use plan. The justification and rationale supporting such proposals that are responsible and beneficial to the community, but not conforming to the land use plan must be carefully evaluated."

That's on page 6-2. One of the land use policies in the general action land use component of the Comprehensive Plan reads and I quote:

"Examine alternative means of development including cluster development and planned unit developments as a means of protecting green space and environmentally sensitive areas."

That's on page 6-7 of the Comprehensive Plan. It's as though that policy was written with Jacob's Village in mind. How many residential developers in Vanderburgh County would be willing to commit to preserve better than 50 percent of the land area for open space? I would submit very few. Two more policies stated in the residential action plan component of the Comprehensive Plan:

"Continue to encourage and support non-profit, religious, private and government entities in providing affordable housing."

That's on page 7-9. On the same page:

"Promote creative subdivision design that is sensitive to and minimizes the impact on natural features and provides for common open space, bicycle and pedestrian ways."

I would submit that Jacob's Village accomplishes all of those aspects of our Comprehensive Plan and is very much consistent with the policies stated there. In my estimation this represents good land use planning and will be an asset to this community. Thank you.

President Jerrel: Nancy Lee. Nancy has gone. Stacy Stevens.

Stacy Stevens: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight.

Commissioner Mourdock: Excuse me, Stacy.

Stacy Stevens: Uh-huh.

Commissioner Mourdock: They are indicating the mike is off. Could we try that other mike? 

President Jerrel: It's on.

Commissioner Mourdock: Is it on? Can you folks in the back here? Someone was pointing. 

Stacy Stevens: Is there a volume? I can get close.

President Jerrel: Your volume is you.

Stacy Stevens: I'll get close. My name is Stacy Stevens and I thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you tonight. Vanderburgh County is fortunate to have a project like Jacob's Village coming before the County Commissioners. It promises to be a natural park like environment for mentally and physically challenged people to live, work and play. Many have tried to make the issues here tonight social in nature. Everything I have heard and seen regarding the planning and development of Jacob's Village has been done with the residents and the community in mind. This facility is light years away from the institutions that may be driving the fear of those opposing this project, both from a social standpoint and a neighbor's standpoint. Every effort has been made to date and will be made in the future to ensure the quality and integrity of the facilities as well as the property. I have had the great fortune of working with mentally challenged individuals and have found them to be a great blessing. Jacob's Village will not be the right fit for everyone, but will certainly offer an excellent option for those who want a choice. The land use is the issue here tonight. It is your responsibility as County Commissioners to protect our county as well as embrace projects that will benefit our community for years to come. This is such a project, one we can all be proud to say is in our county. The property in question is ideal for this type of project. I ask you to issue Jacob's Village the land use needed to make this dream for so many a reality. Thanks.

President Jerrel: Paul Farmer.

Paul Farmer: My name is Paul Farmer. I live at 3716 Koring Road which is on the west side of Evansville just a stone's throw from the land that we're talking about this evening. I want to read to you from our West Side Improvement Association is in favor of the Jacob's Village project. We know the philosophical arguments against the concept, but feel that the need is there for many persons and that the proposed project will eventually provide additional information through its research and study facilities and adjustments would be made accordingly. The West Side Improvement Association believes strongly in the integrity of Mr. Andrew Guagenti, the former land owners and the beacon group. They have all proven themselves over the years. We submit that there could not be a better combination of persons to develop such a quality project with up-to-date facilities, potentials for improving the lives of human beings, research and study facilities, a beautiful campus and much, much more. However, the issue for you this evening as you know in your decision is the appropriate use of the land on the Vienna Road site. The long-term planning and development of this area and the immediate area around it having to do with sewers, the sealed pipes underneath the land, the pumping of oil currently at that particular point and other considerations that you've heard this evening from Mr. Bohleber and others. We realize that emotions run high when it "is in our backyard", but the preservation of the land area for scattered residences would be much more suitable for the use of the land area in question. This is the last of the prime residential area in Vanderburgh County. We see what has happened on Highway 62. The West Side Improvement Association requests that you, the County Commissioners, deny the PUD zoning for this project at the Vienna Road site. However, there may be other locations in the west side and other parts of our county and city that would be more appropriate than the Vienna Road site. Since the project is projected to develop over several years there appears to be adequate time to explore other locations and explore with other neighbors and other neighborhoods in many areas of our city to secure the prime and appropriate location. I think we see a project that is developed well, carefully planned and executed and has a need...meets a need for many folks in our community now and into the future so we hate to see that momentum drop, but we need to be willing to assist in any way possible to make sure that our community has such a project, but we feel that the location in question this evening is inappropriate. Thank you.

President Jerrel: I'm going to read the next four names and if you would raise your hands if you're here so we don't stay with an empty seat. Steve Weitzel. Okay, you're next. Peggy Graul. Peggy follows him. Pat Greubel. Okay, she is not here. Okay, Todd, I think it's Lucy. Todd, okay you follow Peggy. Nonnie Robison. Is she here? Do you wish to speak? Okay, you want to speak? 

Nonnie Robison: No.

President Jerrel: Okay, Rhonda Webber. Is Rhonda here? Okay, do you want to speak. Jim Coy and Norb Woolley, then we'll finish the list. So you want to begin with Mr. Weitzel.

Steven Weitzel: Good evening members of the Commission. My name is Steven Weitzel. I am counsel for Mr. & Mrs Steve Chancellor whose residence and undeveloped property is near the vicinity to this project. This first became known to us very recently. My client had, I would summarize, two areas of concern. One being site specific and infrastructure specific to the project and the other being an issue before your Commission generally. We have spent a considerable amount of time and have engaged in considerable dialogue with counsel for the developers, with principals of the developers and I believe most of my client's site specific concerns have been addressed and assuaged. Should this body however pass this petition my clients do have considerable concerns about the precedential value of the industrial and commercial components of the project. They are not insubstantial, but they are also supportive of this very laudable project, so in that context my clients would be hopeful that this body would set some precedent through its commitment on the record that this not be considered precedent for additional commercial and industrial developments that are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. That's the extent of my remarks. Thank you for your time.

President Jerrel: Thank you. Peggy.

Peggy Graul: Commissioners, I thank you for the opportunity to speak before you tonight. My name is Peggy Graul and I am the Coordinator of Continuing Education for the School of Nursing Health Professions at the University of Southern Indiana. I'm also the mother of 20 year old twins who have multiple disabilities and reside at the Wendell Foster Center in Owensboro, Kentucky. Seventeen years ago my husband Ron and I embarked on a search for assistance for our children. The search would cover at lea