|
Rezoning Board July 15, 2002
President Fanello: Are we all ready? We'll call to order Board of Rezoning. Thank you. I need approval of the minutes of the previous meeting. Did we- Commissioner Mosby: So moved. Commissioner Mourdock: Were we all here? President Fanello: I was going to say, were we? Commissioner Mourdock: Second. President Fanello: So ordered.
President Fanello: No first readings.
President Fanello: We do have one final rezoning this evening, VC-8-2002, 4510 Heckel Road, R-3 to C-4. Commissioner Mosby: We're listening, Mike. Go ahead. Brad Mills: Go ahead? This is, has received ten affirmative votes from APC. It's to rezone area off of Heckel Road, west of Greenriver from R-3 to C-4. Mike Shopmeyer: My name is Mike Shopmeyer with Kahn Dees Donovan and Kahn, here on behalf of the petitioner. Also with me is Keith Poff from Sitecon, the engineer involved with this. As you heard it was a 10-0 vote. I won't take a lot of your time. The commitment at that hearing was to provide a protective covenant. That's what I've given to you, the protective covenant. It protects the three remonstrating neighbors from billboards, and from a screening of trees to be planted that are consistent with the trees on the commercial zoned area in the subdivision they live in. This is necessitated by the Greenriver corridor plan that provides for a frontage road. So, that moves this property back, and, of course, the road takes a good portion of the previous commercial property that was in this residential development. This is an R-3, versus an R-1 development. So, in many cases it mirrors what is next door in the subdivision that has a mixed C/R use. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Jackie and Jim Johnston, our clients, with J.J. Brodi are principals in the company are here to answer any questions as well. President Fanello: Does anyone have any questions? Commissioner Mourdock: Mike, this is heavily labeled a draft protective covenant agreement. Have you gotten response back from the people who would be the benefactors of this? Mike Shopmeyer: I think I'll let one of the gentleman speak here. The other two I know Monica's talked to today, and I think they're comfortable with it. We will certainly sign it, and as I committed at the Plan Commission, and as we commit in this letter, and I'll commit today, we will sign and see that it's recorded. They will, of course, have to sign it as well. Commissioner Mourdock: Right. Mike Shopmeyer: Okay. James Ehrsam: Good evening. My name is James Ehrsam. I live at 5901 Winnett Drive, Evansville. I'm in the Keystone Subdivision. I moved down here a year ago from Indianapolis. As I stated in the meeting on the 3rd, I seriously looked at the surrounding area, and to the Keystone Subdivision. Yes, I knew the, knew there was something in that corner. I didn't know what it was, but now it's a C-2. Doing research, with the C-4 zoning, that allows for a lot more heavier industrial type warehousing and such. There are nice houses to the north in the Greenriver Estates, as well as the Keystone Subdivision. I don't see that having this zoned as a C-4 is prevalent to the neighborhood setting that is there. I could see a C-2, keeping it, that would restrict the zoning down to more of a, a standard that would meet the surrounding area. I hope that you may send this back and have them rezone C-2. At that point, I wouldn't have any problem with that. I know there is already a section already zoned C-4, and if I was down here, living down here at that point when that came up, I would have stood up and tried not to have that. The area is totally residential. North on Greenriver, about a mile or so, they have the C-4, the industrial sites, and there is other sites on Lynch off Mills Road, between Lynch and Mills Road that's for that type of business. So, I'm just stating that I would rather see a less, a lower zone than C-4. The lists between C-2 and C-4 is just a little bit extensive. Thank you. President Fanello: Thank you. Commissioner Mourdock: Mr. Ehrsam? A couple of questions for you. Have you seen, then, this draft covenant? James Ehrsam: Yes, I have read it, and there is a couple of things that I'm not too fond of. One, that if just one of the three residents move from that area, for whatever reason, within that 30 year time frame, that covenant is null and void. So, that means once we three move out of the Keystone Subdivision, they can throw that covenant away, and put in there the large billboards, or other things like that. That would be a disservice to the people that would move into that subdivision with the streets or the houses that haven't even been built yet. That whole section that is in reference, there aren't any, there aren't even any houses there yet. So, those people that may buy that will be affected by it. Yes, there's a small section, but you have, you would have to look, you can look from your backyard in these lots, to both ways, and you see that commercial building. I suggest, asked if they could line the whole section with landscaping to hide whatever, you know, to make it appeasing to the eye, because it is a country setting. Similar to, you know, Keystone they did the whole street of Greenriver down through Heckel, and landscaped that with pine trees, and did a very good job. As keeping the, in that aspect, traveling Heckel Road, you want to see a country, residential setting, and not a heavy commercial, as they're requesting. Thank you. Commissioner Mourdock: At Area Plan you asked the question what was going to be built on this property, and I don't know that there was an answer given that night. I don't know that you had an answer, but do you, Mike? James Ehrsam: The response, I asked that question today of Monica Edwards, who is with the attorneys, and they said that the owners are just wanting it C-4, so they can sell it later. You know, they are not planning on developing it themselves, they are planning on selling it. So, they want to get it C-4 so they can sell it. To me, if that's the situation, why not, for that situation, why not leave it as it is, and let whoever buys it deal with that, or whatever they want to do with it at that point. Commissioner Mosby: Mike, I would give you a chance to answer that question. Mike Shopmeyer: Yeah, I would like to. First of all, right now, and I mentioned this at Plan Commission, it's zoned R-3. So, do understand, in most circles, certainly in my neighborhood, I would rather be next to C than an R-3. There is little difference between C-2 and C-4. The C-2 is in the subdivision. His own developers have C-2 in their sub. This is C-4. A billboard can go there right now. We are offering, on all the property, okay, all of it, not just what we are rezoning today, but on all of it, to put this restriction in place on the billboard. On the buffer there is a sewage treatment lift station, excuse me, there is a lift station there in this very area. So, their own developers put the lift station and have commercial there. The reason we are C-4 is because our property that is being taken by the frontage road as part of the corridor plan is C-4. So, we're staying consistent with the zoning we have in the area. The frontage road will serve the interests of the corridor plan, because, as you know, it takes the access and moves it away from what they are anticipating. The corridor plan will be a pretty substantial intersection. In terms of planning, the entire roadway, as it's been suggested, there is no reason for a buffer between an R-3 and an R-1. We're not here today on that issue, which still remains a majority of the property. So, I would say, first of all, this is what we said to the Plan Commission, there were lots of questions, and the vote was 10-0. We've offered a protective covenant to cover the issues involved, provided for the buffer in the area in question. The zoning is consistent. There is not that much difference between C-2 and C-4. We picked C-4 to be consistent with what had, which seems only fair in light of the fact that we're accommodating the, and I wish John were here, John Stoll, would probably have helped us, to accommodate that frontage road moving further up north, and then also providing to take that traffic, which would be, oh, we would probably have about the same number of lots. Now, you will lots on both sides of the frontage road. So, that serves, those frontage roads serve to the interest of the county as a whole. As to the question of the time limitation on covenants, I think Kevin can certainly address that for you, but that's pretty common today. We all realize that we used to do restrictive covenants that had no limit, and we leave a terrible legacy as lawyers for the people that follow us. 30 years is certainly, for most of us, a lifetime. So, I would point out that Mr. Jensen was all of my children and my wife's swim coach. Been in this city forever, and he's not here tonight. So, I'm, obviously, he's pleased with it. With what we've sent out. As I understand, the head of the neighborhood association, I think, is Mr. Hutchins, and he's not, doesn't have a problem with it either. So, I think we've fulfilled our promise. So, Jim. Jim Johnston: One statement. I'm Jim Johnston, and this is not under my name, this is under J.J. Brodi. J.J. Brodi is my children. This ground is for my children. It's not speculation. It will come. Probably the multi-family will go first. The commercial at that point in Greenriver Road right now is not worth anything. At some point it will be worth something, but it will be maybe in my lifetime, maybe not. What we are trying to look, we bought this ground the day that they announced Toyota was coming to Evansville. So, what's that been, five, six years ago? So, we're not in a hurry. We're doing this because we have to. Not for speculative purposes. The R-3 will be more valuable sooner, but at some point that Greenriver Road frontage, like I said, not in my lifetime, but at some point it will be valuable. We address that now, or we address it down the road. We're forced to address this issue today, not down the road. If it gets down the road, then it's like the target situation where everybody suffers. President Fanello: Are there any other questions? Commissioner Mosby: Mr. Mills? How many uses in a C-2? Brad Mills: I don't have it in front of me. I don't know. 175 in a C-4. It would be somewhere much less than that for the C-2. Commissioner Mourdock: I think 72. Brad Mills: Is it 72? Commissioner Mourdock: Don't ask me why I remember that, but I think it's 72. Mike Shopmeyer: I don't think it's that great. In all due respect, I think it's, I don't think it's that great a difference. You may be right, I may be, but that sounds more than what I thought. I've been on both sides of these. Commissioner Mourdock: Well, my recollection from the City Council was like 100 in a C-2, and 200 and something in a C-4. Brad Mills: C-4 is 175 I know. So, C-2 is somewhere less than that. Commissioner Mosby: Then they cut it down. I used to carry it in my briefcase. I beg to differ when you say there is not that much of a difference. Mike Shopmeyer: There are uses that one can look to, but the C-4 is already there. I mean, I hope it's understood that we have a large tract here that is already C-4. That use is already there. It's already zoned. Commissioner Mosby: I realize that, but you're coming back into a residential area. Mike Shopmeyer: A large part of that area, the adjoining sub has their lift station, and, as you can tell from the map that is in front of you, a large part of that is commercial. Now, I suspect the developer, you know, looks at it a little differently than we did, but, nontheless, they still, the very developer of that sub put C in there. Brad Mills: David, another one from the city was, we had in our staff field of 110 uses. Commissioner Mosby: In what? Brad Mills: 110 in a C-2. Commissioner Mosby: I was going to say, it was right around 100. Now did you say a C-4 was only 175? Brad Mills: That's correct. Commissioner Mosby: Hmmm. President Fanello: Are there any other questions? Commissioner Mourdock: I was going to make sure, there are a couple of ladies, if you wish to say anything. Okay. Madelyn Grayson: Mr. Shopmeyer, do you have an additional copy of the covenant for the record? Mike Shopmeyer: Yes, I do. Commissioner Mosby: I guess, I'll ask you one question before we vote, are you willing to take this covenant back, and work with this gentleman on some of these uses in this C-4? Mike Shopmeyer: Well, there are clearly some of those C-4's that we might work with them on, but- Commissioner Mosby: Well, and then that's- Mike Shopmeyer: Okay, we would like to talk to Wayne Hutchins, who's in a position of a little, the association for out there. So, we would probably talk to him. Commissioner Mourdock: When you spoke to Mr. Hutchins before, were there some uses that you were specifically drawing out of it? Mike Shopmeyer: No, he was happy. Commissioner Mosby: They haven't drawn none of them. Mike Shopmeyer: The main thing they wanted was the buffer- Commissioner Mourdock: Right. Mike Shopmeyer: -which we've provided for. Commissioner Mourdock: The reason I ask the question is my notes from the APC meeting had Wayne Hutchins, remonstrator, he did not know it was zoned to be a small strip. He represents the homeowners association of Keystone. Then says spoke well about taking out the welding shops and probably limiting what they would have to work from. He apparently said something about, you know, he realized there wasn't going to be welding shops, or something like that, and hence my comment. Those are not verbatim minutes. Mike Shopmeyer: There was comments in the record industrial, which is out of line. Welding shops, don't get me wrong, but you can't put a welding shop in C-4. Commissioner Mosby: You can weld in a mechanical shop. You can have a mechanical shop in a C-4. I used to own one. You can have a radiator shop in C-4. You can't have a body shop. Mike Shopmeyer: Okay. Commissioner Mosby: You can have a mechanical shop. You can have a gas station. Mike Shopmeyer: You can have a gas station. I know that. Commissioner Mosby: You can have a radiator shop. You can have, you know, that's why I say C-4 is heavier than you're saying. C-4 allows go-cart tracks, motorcycle tracks, you name it. Mike Shopmeyer: We would certainly, as I've said in the record, we would work with them on, but Mr. Hutchins has had this. It was hand delivered to his house on Friday. Commissioner Mosby: Mr. Hutchins is, what, the president of the association? Then I would advise Mr. Hutchins to get with him, because he is going to be the one here next month when you come back. I mean, he is the remonstrator here. That's what I'm concerned with. I mean, if you have to meet with him or whoever. I mean, that's not a problem, but, you know, my philosophy is if we get the two parties together and you can come to an agreement, and you can write out a tavern, or a liquor store, or a radiator shop, or whatever. I mean, I would be concerned of what his concerns are. I, I, and I'll be honest with you, 14 years in the city, I don't like passing a zoning that is vacant. I don't know what's going there, and I can't tell any neighbor out there what's going to happen. Mike Shopmeyer: There's two schools of thought, of course, on that. As you know, on any zoning, if you zone it, and somebody's saying, you know, they are going to put something in, as long as it's in that use, it can change next week. As we've all discovered on the riverfront here in Evansville. Commissioner Mosby: The use can change. Mike Shopmeyer: Right. There's two schools of thought, one is that the type of zoning we're doing here allows for people to know in advance what's happening. Certainly, it was in the record, and I think Mr. Mourdock can speak to that, this gentleman didn't read his restrictive covenants, didn't look at anything. He admitted that in the record. Yet today we're going to take long time residents, we're going to, you know, all these folks here who have no complaints, a 10-0 vote, and you're talking about delaying this for a month. I don't see- Commissioner Mosby: We don't have to delay it. You want me to make a motion? I'll make a motion to call the roll. President Fanello: I would just add one resident is just as important as ten other residents, and you know that, Mr. Shopmeyer. James Ehrsam: May I make a statement? Commissioner Mosby: There's a motion on the floor. President Fanello: Go ahead. James Ehrsam: The statement I have is that my mother-in-law lives in that same addition. I'm also in contact with my neighbor, who's husband works in Chicago, she just had twin babies, so she has to stay home and take care of the babies. The neighbor across the street has an 18 month old child that doesn't, that is special handicapped. Her husband is, right now, in Fort Knox in the Army doing Reserve work. So, I'm also trying to represent my neighbors in this, as well as my family. President Fanello: Thank you. Commissioner Mourdock: Let me just ask the question, David, since there is a motion on the floor. Two minutes ago, three minutes ago you were, certainly, giving indications that you wanted both parties to work together on this. I think the motion that you put on the floor would kind of put an end to what, hopefully, might be resolved, if the two parties work together. Commissioner Mosby: I was going off of a lead. Commissioner Mourdock: I understand. Commissioner Mosby: I mean, I can read leads. Commissioner Mourdock: You can what? Commissioner Mosby: I can read leads. Commissioner Mourdock: Oh, okay. So can I, and I just want to make sure we give both sides full opportunity to review what their total options might be here. So, I'm not going to second the motion, and might even respectfully ask that you rescind it, to see if, in fact, the petitioner would want to take a month to talk to other folks about this. President Fanello: Mr. Shopmeyer. Mike Shopmeyer: Sure, we'll take another month to talk to other folks about it. President Fanello: Would you like to rescind your motion, Mr. Mosby? Mike Shopmeyer: I would appreciate it if the motion would be rescinded. Commissioner Mosby: I will rescind the motion, if they will get with the perspective parties involved. I don't know if it's just this gentleman, or whoever else that you might be representing that you are talking about. Commissioner Mourdock: For what it's worth, from the APC, and I don't have the minutes in front of me, maybe Brad does, but there were a number of people who spoke to this at APC, and tonight I see only Mr. Erickson. James Ehrsam: Ehrsam. Commissioner Mourdock: I'm sorry. James Ehrsam: Ehrsam. Commissioner Mourdock: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, alright, I apologize. I don't know if these two ladies, which side of this they're on. Okay, so we've gone from having a room of a number of remonstrators, apparently, to one. So, there has been some progress. Commissioner Mosby: That's fine. Unidentified: (Inaudible. Not at mike.) people in Keystone. (Inaudible.) Commissioner Mourdock: Right. Commissioner Mosby: I guess, my only thought is that if there is some things that you don't have to have, and there's some things that you don't want that....I'm not going to say that you're going to come to an agreement. I've listened to these for 14 years, and you're probably not going to come to an agreement on everything. I'm sure this body will be reasonable enough, both ways, to look at what the end result is. I mean, if there is a protection there for the neighborhood of some type, and their concerns, and you don't need it, I mean, if you intend to put a go-cart track in there, then don't strike it, but if you don't intend to put a go-cart track in there, strike it out. It's one less use. Jim Johnston: Well, we could put a go-cart track in the existing section, and not in the next section. That's the problem. Commissioner Mosby: And that would be- Jim Johnston: The C-4 is already there, so we'll talk...we would like to talk to the association, but we'll do it. President Fanello: Thank you. Kevin Winternheimer: We'll need a motion then to- Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, I'll move that we defer this until next month's meeting. Commissioner Mosby: Second. President Fanello: So ordered. Commissioner Mourdock: Motion to- President Fanello: Go ahead. Commissioner Mourdock: I was going to adjourn. Are you ready? Motion to adjourn. Commissioner Mosby: Thank you. Did you say motion to adjourn? Huh? Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah. President Fanello: He said motion to adjourn. Commissioner Mosby: Second. Okay, I didn't hear him. President Fanello: So ordered. Meeting was adjourned at 7:51 p.m.
Those in Attendance:
APPROVAL:
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
|
