|
Rezoning Board May 15, 2000
The Rezoning Meeting was called to order at 6:48 p.m. President Jerrel: I'd like to call
the Board of Zoning to order and apologize to you for being late. We're
working with people that are working on a compromise or an agreement together
so we are giving them that time to have this discussion and so I'm going
to start at least with the perfunctory business to move ahead so we can
get to the other items.
President Jerrel: The first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the previous meeting. Commissioner Mourdock: I would move approval of the minutes of the April Rezoning Meeting as filed. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered.
President Jerrel: The next item on the agenda, we received a letter from Mr. Shively. Is he here tonight? I don't believe he is. Commissioner Tuley: He is not here. President Jerrel: Are you representing? Unidentified: Yes. President Jerrel: Would you want to verify the request that we have before us? Chris Wischer: Chris Wischer with Fine & Hatfield. Mr. Shively is out of town this week and he and Mr. Sterchi, the petitioner, have requested that it be continued...their meeting on...the agenda be continued until the next County Commissioners' meeting. President Jerrel: Okay, is there a motion? Commissioner Tuley: I don't know if you meant County Commissioners. Commissioner Mourdock: You don't mean...yeah, right. President Jerrel: The next zoning meeting. Commissioner Mourdock: You mean the next zoning meeting next month? Chris Wischer: Right. Commissioner Mourdock: In that case I would move postponement of the rezoning hearing for 900 East Mount Pleasant Road until the scheduled rezoning meeting in the month of June. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered. Thank
you.
President Jerrel: The first item on the agenda, we will...they're still talking. Commissioner Mourdock: No, we've got one before that. Commissioner Tuley: Got a first reading. President Jerrel: Okay. First reading. Commissioner Mourdock: On first reading I would move approval of VC-10-2000, the petitioner Civitas Bank as Trustee of the Hirsch Trust located at 601 North Burkhardt Road. The request from AG to C-4 and on first reading I would move approval of that. Commissioner Tuley: I'll second on first reading. President Jerrel: So ordered. Commissioner Mourdock: And less that seemed very perfunctory that simply puts it in the process to go forward with other hearings. President Jerrel: What do you think? Joe Harrison, Jr.: Hang on a second. Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, why don't you stop the recorder. Joe Harrison, Jr.: If we can hang
on one second.
President Jerrel: The next item on the agenda is the petitioner, Baseline Properties. Do we have a comment from the attorney, please? Tom Bodkin: Thank you, Madam President. Tom Bodkin, 700 Hulman Building in Evansville, counsel for the petitioner. In conjunction with an agreement we have just reached with counsel for some of the remonstrators at least we would request that the County Commissioners postpone this matter until June 5th at 6:30. Joe Harrison, Jr.: At 6:30 p.m. Tom Bodkin: As a special meeting so that we have the opportunity to meet and attempt to resolve as many issues as we can and get it down to as few as we can get for you to have to choose. My clients are willing to do that with the understanding that we would like then at your meeting on that date to reach a conclusion with regard to the matter. The petitioner...the remonstrators have agreed, I think, to our request that they limit their numbers to five so that we can have a working group as opposed to such a large group. We have requested that and they have agreed to that. Commissioner Mourdock: I would move approval of deferring then the rezoning hearing for VC-1-2000 until we have a special meeting on June 5th at 6:30. Commissioner Tuley: I will second and say thanks to both the petitioners and the neighbors. President Jerrel: So ordered. Thank you very much. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Richard, could you make a motion for Charlene to- President Jerrel: Advertise? Joe Harrison, Jr.: -put an advertisement in the paper for a special meeting specifically for that item? Commissioner Mourdock: Okay, I move then that we advertise the special meeting for the rezoning on Baseline Road. The date? Joe Harrison, Jr.: June 5th at 6:30. Commissioner Mourdock: For June 5th at 6:30. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Thanks.
President Jerrel: The next item on the agenda is the Red Bank Road development. Is there a- Barbara Cunningham: Chris Wischer. President Jerrel: This is a final reading, is there a spokesman? We'll wait until they close the door. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Hang on a second. Barbara Cunningham: Does she want me to do this? Joe Harrison, Jr.: I need to swear you in. Barbara Cunningham: Oh, okay. Joe Harrison, Jr.: This is VC-2-2000, petitioner Red Bank Development, LLC. The address for the rezoning petition is 525 South Boehne Camp Road. The request is from AG to C-4. All those wishing to speak with respect to this petition please raise their right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is true and accurate so help you God? Response: I do. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Thank you. Barbara Cunningham: She has forgotten. Does she want me...Mrs. Jerrel, do you want me to start? President Jerrel: Yes. Barbara Cunningham: I'm sorry. Chris Wischer is the representative for this rezoning for this property. The petition was initially filed as a request to rezone an 8.6 acre site located south and west of the Lloyd Expressway/Boehne Camp Road intersection. It was continued at the petitioner's request and has been amended in size to a request to rezone 6.02 acres. The western end of the site was limited in use by a severe slope has been eliminated and the two acres that were deleted from the petition was a wooded hillside. The site is south and west of the Boehne Camp/Lloyd Expressway intersection. County Engineer John Stoll states that INDOT has control over access to the site and the petitioner did install substantial transportation improvements with the adjacent Eagle Plaza Subdivision. As part of the approval process at that time the developer committed to construct off-site improvements as referenced in a traffic impact study, agreed to provide documentation of INDOT approval, agreed to construct additional southbound lane on Boehne Camp Road from Lloyd Expressway/Boehne Camp intersection to the access drive for the lot at the southwest corner of the intersection. However, additional improvements such as the southbound right turn lane from the existing commercial lot to the north may be necessary depending on the uses that would locate on this site. The proposed six plus acre C-4 site has the potential to generate significant traffic volumes. According to the Comprehensive Plan it is essential for development proposals along major arterials to be accompanied with commitments to construct the infrastructure improvements necessary to accommodate site generated traffic. The 1996 Comp Plan Future Land Use Map 2015 indicates that the south side of Lloyd Expressway is projected to be commercial. It projects the south side of Lloyd, Boehne Camp west to USI and the county line for residential development. The only deviation to date from this adopted plan was rezoning of the small three plus acre site at the southwest corner of Boehne Camp and Lloyd which was requested by the applicant to enable safe and efficient development of the Lloyd/Boehne Camp intersection eliminating a 30 foot visual obstruction which then existed on that site. The zoning classification requested is C-4. Due to the intensity of the potential uses C-4 adjacent to residential must utilize extensive buffering. The Park's 2001 Vision Plan proposes a greenway trail along the south side of the Lloyd Expressway from Carpenter Creek to USI. Developers are encouraged to talk with the Greenway Advisory Committee and to integrate the Greenway into their site design. The Area Plan Commission met on this...well, I've got the wrong thing. I'm trying to look for the action that was given on this one. Red Bank, okay. They met and recommended approval by a vote of seven yes, two no and one abstention. Chris Wischer: Good evening. Chris Wischer here for the petitioner, Red Bank Development. Excuse me. Again, Mr. Shively sends his apologies. He couldn't be here this week and I am presenting this petition to you in his stead. Here with me as well is Mr. Gene Hahn, principal of Red Bank Development, and Jim Farney, of Bernardin Lochmueller Associates who will be available for any questions specific to this property after I have finished with my, excuse me, presentation. As Ms. Cunningham stated, we are requesting that this property be zoned from agriculture to C-4. It did receive recommendation for approval by the Area Plan Commission at the last meeting. First of all I'm going to pass out a couple of maps which illustrate the location of the property. President Jerrel: You want to move that so the audience...if you could go over by the door with it and kind of turn it so the audience can also see the map. Yeah, thank you. Chris Wischer: I'm not sure I can see it now. Excuse me. As you can see from the maps first off it's a location map that we filed along with the petition. It has been color coded for your convenience. The yellow is the commercial property in the area and the orange is multi family just so you can see the extent of the development that is out in that area and where that is located. In particular is the C-4 property that you see adjacent to the subject property which is located in the upper corner of the map that I have on the easel and colored in yellow. On that property currently is being constructed a convenience store up on the north side on what is shown on that drawing as Pearl Court, which is the road there with the cul-de-sac. This property...on the other map you can see this property as it relates to the rest of the Eagle Plaza Subdivision development which is currently going on and it also demonstrates to you the size, relative smallness, if you will, of this particular property in relation to the area. This particular site, as was stated by Ms. Cunningham, we originally petitioned the entire site as you will see. Again, the yellow property as it is shown on the map is already zoned to C-4. The green in the far corner of that property was originally included in the legal description of the property. That was amended and taken off the legal description and will remain as it is. That's the area that if you've been out to the property you'll notice is currently covered in trees. The remainder of the property has been cleared. Also, I might add that Mr. Hahn, on behalf of Red Bank Development, has executed a restrictive covenant which I have a copy here and I will submit for the record of this restrictive covenant and I quote restricts the property: "No part of the real estate shall be used for commercial or industrial purposes except this restrictive covenant shall not prohibit the use thereof for residential, single or multi family or office uses or any uses incidental to residential or offices uses." This restrictive covenant has a duration of 20 years. So we've taken the property off the board from the zoning. We've added a restriction not to allow commercial or industrial development to that property. If there was residential, it's currently zoned AG, if there was a change in use it would have to come before this body for a change in use classification. Mr. Hahn feels and we feel that is significant protection for that property. Also, I might add, and Mr. Farney can illustrate this more effectively, but that property the way it is graded and the layout of that property really makes it unsuitable for development anyway, but as a compromise we understand that was a concern by many of the neighbors and West Side Improvement. We have taken that off the board. I might add also on the site plan there you'll see the brown area not to confuse you. That is part of this rezoning to C-4, but we've colored it in as brown because it too as demonstrated by the arrows on the...the lines on the drawing is undevelopable due to the grade. It's terraced. That's where the property drops off. You might ask why then are we including it in the rezoning if we can't use it, but that is because it will be usable, so to speak, by the commercial lots as we illustrate on the lot there as a runoff and there is a storm retention basin on the bottom of that grading which will be utilized by those lots so it makes sense to include it in the rezoning even though we don't foresee it being developed per se. I might add also as to the improvements, Mr. Hahn has already made significant improvements to the Boehne Camp/Lloyd Expressway intersection including the traffic light there you see at that intersection. Boehne Camp Road has been widened and as we show on the (inaudible), I wish I could reach it to point it out, but I think you can tell that it is also shown on the drawing that there will be additional widening for this additional property as well as in addition to the cul-de-sac which is already there an extension of what is Pearl Drive on the south end of the property which will also access those lots. Basically, what you see there is one, two, three, four lots including a lot which is really three additional lots and one which will be increased in a little bit of size. You can see that we're really only talking about three additional lots to this current development as it sits on Boehne Camp Road. There were some issues, I think, addressing the Staff Field Report as to traffic. A traffic study and maybe some other issues that Mr. Farney could address if you have any questions. I think what I have outlined for you basically addresses the nature of our request and I'll open it up for any questions unless Mr. Hahn has any additional remarks. He doesn't at this time, so at this point I'll open it for any questions. President Jerrel: Are there any questions? Commissioner Tuley: I'm going to go to the map just to make sure I understand it. President Jerrel: Sure. Commissioner Tuley: Basically, your request even though it includes this area is for building on these lots and this is the terraced area that has the trees and the very steep slopes. Is that...okay, I see the retention pond down here and it's these trees that you've excluded. Chris Wischer: Right. Actually, the terraced area that we show in brown does not have trees on it. President Jerrel: No trees on there. Commissioner Tuley: Okay, there are no trees on it. Chris Wischer: We planted some trees. I might want to say it wasn't the original trees, right? Commissioner Tuley: No, no. They're planted. They've been- Chris Wischer: Up on the top of that terraced area I know there has been some things planted and down along it, but as far as what was taken off was the timber area that has always been there. Commissioner Tuley: I just wanted to make sure I understood what we were doing. Chris Wischer: Right. Commissioner Tuley: Or what was requested. Chris Wischer: As Mr. Farney said in the APC meeting, when this comes for subdivision that could potentially be shown as an out lot or an undeveloped lot on the subdivision plat, but it would service to some extent those commercial lots as we show them. Shirley James: Serve as what type? Chris Wischer: What I was saying, I mean serve us from a commercial standpoint the commercial lots as they are shown on the drawing. The terraced portion will serve as runoff and because of the need maybe with the dirt and so on would need to part of that commercial zoning, but not serve us from a standpoint of being developed. Shirley James: May I ask a question? President Jerrel: Well, wait just a minute until they get through with their presentation and then everybody can speak. You don't have any questions? You want to ask him a question, Shirley? Shirley James: My turn? President Jerrel: Yes, go ahead, but you need to come up to the mike. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Come up to the mike. State your name. Shirley James: I was wondering...I'm Shirley James and I am representing my neighborhood. I was wondering why if you intended to leave that brown section for drainage why you removed the trees because the trees would have helped retain soil and erosion. Why in that case were they removed? That seems like an additional expense to me and it's detrimental to the whole drainage system. Jim Farney: Let me explain what is being proposed and what has happened a little more, for a little more clarity. Joe Harrison, Jr.: State your name, too. Jim Farney: Jim Farney, with Bernardin Lochmueller. President Jerrel: Could you turn those two mikes toward him, he's going to go over there. Jim Farney: What we've got here is the yellow section is what was previously rezoned. It was the original Story property. At the time Gene first purchased the property that's all that he had purchased. At that time he had asked for permission to have a cul-de-sac and a drive cut into this piece of property to service it. That was asked for in a permit and granted. Then as time went on some other of the neighbors showed interest in selling their property to him. He obliged them and he then purchased the rest of...everything you see here which comprised of two more parcels. One owned by Orman, which is down here directly below the Story, and the one back here that was owned by Fisher. Okay, then once those properties were secured the intent was then to take a bunch of this dirt and move it on to the big project because it needed dirt to improve the site distance and also to end up with another area here, a small area here, that could be developed. So what he did is he filed an erosion control plan that addressed the removal of this dirt or the regarding of this dirt. Before he started this was a great big hill and a large valley in here with a lot of ravines. In order to maximize without going to a great expenditure the amount of area that was usable what he had to do was this was like gullies and hills, so what he had to do was go down and clear to the woods and then create a straight slope up from this point in order to maximize this plateau area. So that's why it was necessary to remove those trees because the ground was full of ravines and holes and if he would have left those trees then he would have started here and virtually ended up with something only this big because this slope would have been moved into here and he would have only had a small piece like this. So what it was decided to do and what seemed to be the optimal use of the land would be to go to the creek and not any further because this hole is so large to fill this would be totally uneconomical on his standpoint, so what he did is he cleared to the creek or the ditch and he began to prepare this straight slope and create this flat area. Now during the process of doing that there was also a drainage plan that was presented to you and approved for this top area. It included two retention facilities. One which is shown at the top here which drains the south half and the other retention basin here which drains the north half. This basin is at the bottom of the hill. This slope has been cleared, has been graded, it has been reseeded. It's even terraced. It's got down drains in it. It just seemed practical since this has been improved to include it in the rezoning. There won't...it's not practical to build anything on here. There won't be anything built on here. It's going to remain as it is which is a grass slope with terraces on it. The only development...additional development that would occur if this zoning is approved would be this lighter orange area and as Chris pointed out there is potentially four sites at best. It could be that these are combined and you only end up with three sites. The intent is to utilize or make usable this section up here of which the yellow has already been used and is under construction. Now the other thing since I am up here real quickly, at the Area Plan when we went there were questions asked about a new traffic impact study to address access to this parcel. It was agreed on then and it's currently we're in the initial stages of it. We are amending the original traffic study that was prepared for the big subdivision. One thing we had showed at the rezoning ahead of that traffic study is what we believe will come out of it and that is the widening of Boehne Camp Road, which is this dark gray, and the interjection of this frontage road which was another earlier commitment that Gene said that originally the local government wanted this Pearl Drive to have the potential to run through to extend the frontage road system. So he agreed. He talked to EUTS and Area Plan and he agreed that he would be willing to make this commitment to serve this because there was some concerns about all this traffic going out this one drive. So I think I've tried to address drainage and how it pertains to this. I think I have addressed traffic. As Chris said, there are not plans to do anything with this. It is not being asked for rezoning. This is basically the ditch to give a point of reference to those who have seen the site. Unidentified: Jim, how many acres in the brown area and how much in the orange area? Jim Farney: The brown area has 2.4 acres in it. The orange area is about three and a half acres, roughly. That includes a little bit of this yellow. About three acres. There is about three acres of orange, about two and a half of brown. The green area back here, the wooded area, is about 2.6 acres. As pointed out earlier, these improvements have already been made. This turn lane has already been constructed. Boehne Camp Road has already been widened. A new signal was installed with Eagle Plaza Subdivision that is in place. Are there any other questions I can try to answer? President Jerrel: Is there anyone else now that would like to speak to this issue? Shirley James: Some of the neighbors who aren't here this evening couldn't because their homes had been damaged pretty badly in the West Terrace area. I'm Shirley James and I represent my neighborhood which is small but we like it. I would like to also give to the Commissioners this petition that is 852 signatures and I'm sure we could have gotten a couple of thousand. When we looked for those petitions and got those petitions only one person refused to sign. Most of the people who signed the petition as it is written and presented there signed it even before I got through the explanation that is written on the front. In regard to the posters here, I'll explain that this whole area is part of a vast watershed that starts along Koring Road, Kasson, New Harmony Way. It drains, and it drains all down into Carpenter Creek even effecting Burdette Park. Two creeks now drain the area. There is the one the that runs from behind my home and Carpenter Creek. These two creeks, this one here and this one here, Carpenter Creek is totally blocked and its mouth has no outlet to the river at all. It's made a vast wetland- President Jerrel: Shirley, do you think you could get the mike? These are verbatim minutes, so if you could speak to the- Shirley James: Sorry, excuse me. These two creeks have made a vast wetland out of large areas of the west side. Paul Kleinknecht's farm has been inundated time after time with water. The whole area along Carpenter Creek on the other side of Tekoppel opposite the wetlands is now a vast wetland. It really could be included in the wetland park. The other little creek is now also blocked with sediment and with debris and garbage. Lots of garbage. Also, these creeks are contaminated creeks. They carry a lot of (inaudible) because of illegal septic systems and a lot of garbage. Because of lack of enforcement of the law, I guess, or because we're an old city and since we are an old city we have some old ways of doing things that do need to be changed eventually. Anyway, I would like to say that the West Side Improvement Association and Vanderburgh County residents request the rezoning application submitted by Red Bank Development asking for a change in zoning from agricultural to C-4 be denied for the following reasons. The zoning request is in violation of the Comprehensive Plan. This plan was approved by the West Side Improvement Association, the general public, the Area Plan Commission board and the County Commissioners. The reasons for having a Comprehensive Plan are to prevent urban sprawl, preserve neighborhoods, preserve natural resources and prevent environmental problems caused by improper development. Presently existing west side commercial centers have land that is not fully developed or utilized. In fact West Side Improvement is concerned how this development will affect our West Franklin business district. We don't want to see West Franklin become another downtown. Also, we're concerned because we're seeing already some businesses going out. Taco John's has gone down. Kentucky Fried Chicken has gone down. We understand from Denny's that they have a lot less patronage, so some of the businesses that are already in that area are seeing some hard...some competition and some hard times. At the Area Plan Commission meeting Mr. Shively stated that the land in question was not good for anything but development. Well, in our opinion the opposite is true. The topography and the soil composition of this area is totally unsuited to this type of development. As you can see by the gentleman's description of the area, I mean, the hills, the ravines, the holes, that makes it unsuitable for a commercial development. The leveling of west side hills not only destroys the natural beauty of the area but also causes tremendous soil erosion difficulties and drainage problems. People in Howell and Union Township have increased flooding problems because of the water that is diverted into the blocked Carpenter Creek. This water is also contaminated with (inaudible) which I have already said. Now we had people down on Rollett Lane take some of these petitions. The reason they did is because in the past two and three years they have not been able to mow their lawns because of the water. Reverend Schroeder stated that he now has a basement that is continually full of water. We know for a fact that Paul Kleinknecht's farm has been under water a good amount of time and other farms also have been affected. We also wanted to point out that when Mr. Hahn in doing his development...of course it was such a massive development probably nobody really realized the effect it would have upon our environment and I don't think we have totally all of the laws or ordinances in place that would deal with such a vast development, however, he did have...we do have this erosion and sediment control law now. I do want to point out that Mr. Hahn was in violation twice of this control...erosion and control...sediment control law. Also, what I would like to do is point out if you've read in the paper recently even Congress is moving against destruction of ecosystems. This is an ecosystem that sustains diverse plant and animal species as well as serves as a major watershed. The last development created such destructions animals with no place to go rampaged through people's yards, devastated gardens, and mine was one of them. Ate every rose bush. Ate every hydrangea. Ate every azalea that I had planted. Baby animals left without mothers were killed en masse in the road. Residents with respiratory problems ended up in the hospital because of the burning. We had several people from the Howell area whose children were asthmatic calling to complain of that. The mayor wants Evansville to be a tree city. The Greenway Advisory Board is trying to rebuild our forestry industries and resources by planting huge areas with trees indigenous to Indiana. We just planted 4,500 trees. It takes a long time to grow a tree. Each tree gives off five pounds of oxygen a day. With our poor health statistics and ozone difficulties which prevents new industry from coming in can we afford to lose these trees? The traffic conditions on Indiana 62 are already worsening and to add to them at this time will only repeat the poor planning that made Green River Road and the east Lloyd Expressway a disaster. Considering the adverse impact of development on the east and north sides of town it is time to learn from mistakes of the past and not continue to repeat them. The Pigeon Creek Greenway Passage has been planned, and that was covered by Barbara so I won't go into that, but I will go down and cite that this type of development adversely affects the quality of life of several west side neighborhoods and it lowers property values. According to this Mathews report that was done...I admit this report is old, but it was done and it's interesting to note that the conclusions of this report...by the way, David Mathews is a general certified appraiser. Based on this study it was their opinion that the market value of a single family home is always, almost always, diminished to some extent by the presence of developed or developing commercial properties abutting the residence. Eight of the nine properties studied suffered probable loss and market value. The impact ranged from no loss to an 18 percent loss with the average indicated loss of 6.4 percent. This type of development is 40 years outdated and contributes to urban sprawl. It's simply not done in progressive communities. West Side Improvement is not adverse to development, but feel it should be comparable to the landscape and environment and government should protect resident's property rights. We do not want another Green River, Burkhardt Road on the west side. We would like you to stick to your plan. I want to show you some developments. I could wish that we would have these kinds of developments here. This is a shopping center. This shopping center is open from 10:00 in the morning until 10:00 at night. It is constantly packed. You will note they built the shopping center around the existing trees. They shielded the road and the cars from the road with trees. They landscaped beautifully. The extent of their sign is on their building and yet this place was crowded. My husband and I went there every night for entertainment. Note how beautiful the old trees added to that shopping center. See the palm trees? Beautiful shopping center. Now I want to show you a Wal-Mart. This is Wal-Mart. We have to peer through the trees to see the store. This was from the main highway. Note the crowded parking lot with the simple sign covered by trees. Note how beautifully the front of it is. Note also this beautiful drainage system. Do we have any drainage system like that here? Finally, people found it so enjoyable to come to this Wal-Mart store with its beautiful trees in the parking that they picnic under the trees in the parking lot of Wal-Mart. That's all I have to say. President Jerrel: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this issue? Yes. Paul Farmer: My name is Paul Farmer, President of the West Side Improvement Association, and I live at 3716 Koring Road on the west side of town. Shirley puts things into perspective and a history that are always intriguing to me so I always like to hear her make her presentations because she puts all the pieces together. I do want to say officially from the West Side Improvement Association that we have looked carefully and studied carefully the Area Plan Commission Staff Report, the Comprehensive Plan and know that you have over 800 neighborhood signatures opposing the rezoning of this property at this time and after a lot of study and discussion the Board of Directors have advised me that they are voting unanimously to oppose the rezoning of this property to C-4 status at this time. It also appears to those living in the immediate areas and even those visiting the areas that this land development request may be sort of kind of a game. I'll just show you what I can do and what I can't do. There has been no public meetings that we are aware of with the neighbors and no indications of the plans for the use of this particular piece of property. We have seen the three acres that adjoin the acreage that you're talking about this evening that have the high hill that you couldn't see over and now has a large one story building, thank goodness, that we hear by rumor will be a 24 hour convenience store with a gas station and fast food restaurant. There is no reason to believe that we won't have the same sort of thing in the rest of that property which butts up against the folks who live on Middle Mount Vernon Road and we think it's important that it does have a bearing on their quality of life. We ask that you deny the rezoning request at this time. Perhaps that would give time for the developer to complete the larger project that is going up on the Red Bank Road side. We also need to look at the quality of businesses that are being placed. At this particular point in time we see none. We see some restaurants. We will now on the west side the third Old National Bank which means at least one will be closed and maybe two. That's all we've seen other than restaurants at this particular point in time. We read in the paper that there are some other things happening, but we really are concerned about the quality. Some of the argument is that we have facilities on the west side of town and that people don't have to drive to the east side and for probably 90 percent of the time that's it. We still don't have the quality stores of a Lazarus, Kohl's and those kinds of things. I understand the problem in bringing those to this side of town, but I think it's important that we continue to work on that to see if we can get some quality in addition to the things that are there at this particular point in time. Also, I think that there is going to be some traffic problems. As we know, there may be some other directions in and out of USI that would help the situation on Highway 62. Perhaps we need to take a good hard look at what is necessary for some infrastructure before we go on and expand across to this address on Boehne Camp Road. It also could be kind of interesting and the developer may be interested there has been recently established a Dale Owen Land Trust and if some time in the future something happens on Middle Mount Vernon Road and places are purchased and condominiums are developed or whatever happens to be back in that area eventually would still be kind of nice to have an area that is kind of blocked off and can be sure that even 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, 50 years down the pike this area of that two acres would be there as part of the land trust and would be there forever for people to enjoy and it would separate whatever happens in that area on both sides. So those are just some considerations that we would like for you to consider this evening. We thank you for your consideration of it and the consideration and desires of the neighbors and the quality of life that is included in that area and also, again, the West Side Improvement as an association agrees that we would like to see the rejection at this time. Thank you. President Jerrel: Is there any comment from anyone else? Chris Wischer: I have just two comments. We're being hailed in the city meeting. We have another one, but they're finished with everything except ours, so I'll keep my comment brief. I just wanted to respond to a couple of points made that actually pertain to this particular property. I think we can all share the feelings and opinions stated about the ecosystem out there and we all want to do what we can to preserve that. I think if you look at this map which I handed out in the beginning we can see that the extent of the creeks in the area there and then looking at the red portion we're asking to rezone and I think you can see that we're only talking about three acres in that ecosystem and I think the impact isn't going to be as dramatic as has been stated. Then one statement that Mr. Farmer suggested, he alluded to this property abutting the properties on Middle Mount Vernon Road and I think you'll also be able to see from that map that I don't believe that is exactly correct. This property does not exactly adjoin or abut those properties on Middle Mount Vernon Road. They're a little ways from there. I'll leave my comments to that and I think Mr. Hahn has some comments to make about the statement by Mr. Farmer. Gene Hahn: Thanks. I'm Gene Hahn. I'm the developer on the west side. First of all let me say that I greatly resent the comments that it's a gain for me. I think that's horrible. A terrible thing to even say in a situation of this nature. When it's a personal attack on somebody it's something else. Attacking the project, that's one thing. When they attack me, that's something else. Secondly, I think it was brought up there was no public hearing, no public talk on this situation. I attended the West Side Improvement Association meeting. I stood up at that meeting and said I am here. Shirley James held up a petition against what was happening up there. I said I will be here after the meeting or during this meeting and talk about this whole situation as long as you want to. Commissioner Mourdock, did I not do that? Commissioner Mourdock: Yes, sir, you did. Gene Hahn: Thank you. Commissioner Mourdock: The meeting that was about a month ago on a Wednesday night. I was going to mention that, Gene, but you beat me to it. Gene Hahn: Thank you. They also mentioned we took down what they call a knoll in their letter here which was about a 30 foot hill that we took down. We had moved the building, the new construction of the Wendy's and convenience store 100 yards off of the interchange so it retains a good clear image or visibility for that interchange there. They mentioned Old National Bank, we're going to have some closed banks. Again, they don't know what they're talking about. They keep making comments that they know nothing about. Old National Bank has already sold their other location. They have to be out by December 1st, so there will not be a closed bank over there and they will have a new bank in our location. I think if you look at the quality of the things we have done out there they are first class. O'Charley's has done a great job. Bob Evans is the nicest Bob Evans I have ever seen anywhere. So the things that we have done, except for two times when we had extensive rains, one time was a five inch rainfall, that when we had some erosion that ran off the property and Mike Wathen came out to see me and said, Gene, the law said if you put sediment on somebody else's property you get fined and I'm here to fine you because of that reason. You and I looked at it and I know you tried to do it right, but it didn't hold so you've got to be fined. I did not argue with him and we did that. It happened the second time. If you'll remember last year in December it rained the whole month of December and on the Boehne Camp Road it just broke down everything. That, again, now we have grass established and our holding pond is established. We have that done and I think we have that under control. So those things are items, I think, that you need to know about that we've done and we've done right. I am very proud of what we've done out there. The neighbors are...none of them...I don't think there is one neighbor here that doesn't like what we're doing. I don't think there are any neighbors here that are adjacent neighbors, close neighbors. Now if you go out a mile or two you can find people that don't like anything changing on the west side, but what we've done has been first class and I am very proud of it. Thank you. Commissioner Tuley: Hey, Gene, before you leave. I'm trying to think in my mind, O'Charley's, Bob Evans- Gene Hahn: Golden Corral. Commissioner Tuley: I'm sorry, Golden Corral. None of those have tall pole signs like the development to the east of you, right? Gene Hahn: No. Commissioner Tuley: Is that by your requirement. Gene Hahn: I restricted that out myself. Commissioner Tuley: Okay. That's what I thought. Gene Hahn: I restricted a lot of things out. I mean, (inaudible) showing. I mean, we've got a lot of restrictions on our people. Commissioner Tuley: Yeah, I was just trying to think. I know there was a big old...I don't know if it's Taco Bell or Taco John's or something like that, a big sign, and several of the others have big signs, but I didn't notice on any of yours. They have buildings and I don't know if you call them monument, but they are low to the ground signs. Gene Hahn: Yes. We did not restrict them on the south side of Pearl Drive because they are so far up the road the people out there cannot see who is back there, although the theater elected not to do anything I think Hacienda did put up a sign that is higher than normal, but that's the only one. President Jerrel: Is there anyone else that would like to speak? The gentleman behind you asked to speak. Unidentified: I've been holding my hand- President Jerrel: Yeah, I see you. Commissioner Tuley: He hasn't been sworn in is what he is saying. President Jerrel: Oh, okay. You want to swear him in, Joe? Joe Harrison, Jr.: Come on up, sir. Would you please state your name. John Habermel: John Habermel. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is true and accurate so help you God? John Habermel: I do. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Thank you. John Habermel: My name is John Habermel. I work with Hahn Realty so my opinion may be a bit tainted or prejudice, but I don't...I sincerely don't believe it is. I've watched what has gone on out there and I know what goes through Gene's mind when this project is done and he has two or three things that are uppermost in his mind and that is to do it right, to do what is best for the west side. Oftentimes decisions are made to keep the project first class that costs money to him. So I just...I kind of feel like he does. A personal attack is not...because the west side has been uppermost in his mind when he has done this. That's all I have to say. President Jerrel: Thank you. Shirley. Shirley James: I would like to say a couple of things. One is I really question whether that area just drains three acres because I live in that area and I watch these gully washers come down from the back, the creek that is in back of my house, and I have eight acres there and I'll tell you something, without those ravines and, uh, we would be in deep trouble. It washes out trees and everything else as it rushes down through there, so I really can't say that I think it just drains three acres. That's one thing. I'll also point out, I never attack anyone personally, but I will say one thing, Mr. Hahn came to the West Side Improvement Association and presented what he wanted to do there. We had no opposition with the 85 acres, none at all. That was already zoned and we also pointed out to him a survey that we had done years ago of 200...it was a sampling of 250 people. What we did is we are a coalition agency of about 33 different agencies. What we did was we sent this kind of sampling or a little survey to each of these agencies and they reported and we ended up with a sampling of about 250 people all toll. From that people said that they wanted a movie theater, which is there and we're happy to have. They wanted to have a bookstore. They wanted to have a Lazarus type store and they wanted a restaurant. They didn't feel that we needed any more fast foods because they were afraid it would take away from the West Franklin area. They wanted a large restaurant that could be utilized for weddings and brunches on Sunday and we pointed that out to Mr. Hahn that those were the things that we wanted. When it came to the pieces of property on the west side of Boehne Camp and we discovered that they were going to purchase that and cut down the hill we asked at that time why are you purchasing that because we knew that it was not in the Comprehensive Plan to develop west of Boehne Camp. Mr. Hahn at that time said that he only wanted to do it for visual reasons so people could see his property, that it was a block. He said nothing about developing that at that time and I feel that was a misrepresentation. I also rather resent the fact that one of my neighbors contacted me the other day and said I've asked Mr. Hahn what his plans are for the area. She said his plans are to take these 12 houses, which of course includes mine, and have this entire area in condos in the next five to seven years. Now that was told to me by another individual. Now I think that is somewhat presumptuous, you know. Then also it has been indicated that they want development all of the way to the university. Do we want all of this type of development right up to the university? It's a beautiful university and half of the university campus is devoted to keeping a beautiful ecosystem in that campus. Do we want it surrounded by a bunch of fast food restaurants and things of that nature? That might be good for the students, but the students aren't the taxpayers. President Jerrel: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak to this? Yes. Gene Hahn: I need to address that. Let me say that's totally false what she just said again. Shirley James: It's not. Gene Hahn: It is totally false again. Richard Mourdock was there when I stood up and some lady asked me in theory what do you see else happening on the west side? Richard, you will recall I said it won't be by me, but the infrastructure is here to have commercial development from where we are out to USI because the utilities are there and the infrastructure is there. I said, it won't be by me so don't go jumping on me. Now if you remember I told them that that night. Shirley James: I don't remember that. Commissioner Mourdock: Let me clarify and we're all dealing from memory here, okay. My memory is not photographic and it is even harder to photograph words when they are hanging in the air, but I remember, Gene, you made the comment, and this is the way I remember it, I don't remember you saying whether it would be by you or someone else, but to me that is not really material. I do remember the comment though that you just said that you were saying that some day from Boehne Camp to USI it would be basically commercial because the infrastructure was there. Gene Hahn: Then they said, what else do you see down the road and I said if I-69 comes down between here and Mount Vernon, remember, I also said around that interchange there would probably be commercial development. They asked me in theory what do you have? I probably should never talk in theory, but they asked me a honest question and I gave them an honest answer. President Jerrel: Okay, is there anyone else that wishes to speak? Are there any questions from member of the board? Okay, is there a motion? Commissioner Mourdock: I will move approval of VC-2000-...I'm looking at two different numbers. On here it is 2000-17, but we have it here as 2000-02. I'll move approval of VC-2-2000, the request from AG to C-4 for 525 South Boehne Camp Road. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: And this is a final reading and I'll call for a roll call vote. Commissioner Tuley? Commissioner Tuley: Yes. President Jerrel: Commissioner Mourdock? Commissioner Mourdock: Being put in the position here of trying to remember everyone's words and to shift through all the comments that are made, you know, I understand when these petitions come before us people will make their argument sometimes verbally and it goes on both sides. As I said a moment ago, Mr. Hahn, if you had not mentioned the fact that you were at that meeting and did stand up and make those statements I was going to do it because I know I have seen you somewhere since that meeting and I took you aside then and I said I appreciated the fact you were there. That took guts because not many people, not many developers, do that. I was also there at the occasion you referred to, and I don't know if you remember this, when Mike Wathen was with you and he asked me to go out there and we both had six inches of mud on our boots as you were trying to address that issue and I think given the situation, I know the construction business, I know when you want to get a building project going time is money, you have to get going, and the season worked against you and you had to fight some heavy, heavy material there, heavy weather. But I also know that we have sat at this board before and spoken of plans and as Barb said at the beginning of this meeting the only exception west of Boehne Camp is that one small tract that is kind of the center of the donut here tonight. At said at the time when that came through that strategic plans, master plans don't loose in great battles, they loose in small skirmishes, and I thought that was one and I can't help but see even though this is a very small piece of acreage it's another small skirmish. I do agree with the Master Plan regarding that green zone, if you will, from Boehne Camp West and to be consistent with what I have done before which is what I always strive to do, I'm not voting against Gene Hahn here, I'm not voting against your project per se because I think you do a good job and I think you're an honorable person when you go about doing them, but I have to be consistent with what I see is the plan here so I vote no. President Jerrel: Thank you. The part of the plan...do you mind moving that - Gene Hahn: You going to vote? President Jerrel: -front, yeah. The
reason part of the acreage that is green is green because I think that's
intended to be the end of development. The part that is brown is brown
because it's going to be used as a drainage project. I don't see the orange
portion, I don't see any one wishing to build a home on that. I don't think
it's reasonable to expect anyone to build a home there. I do expect the
advancement. I don't agree with you Gene that it will advance. I think
the property that is brown and green will stop the advancement. I think
that's the end of the commercialization at that point and I do vote yes.
President Jerrel: If you're ready to move to item number three that motion has passed. Barbara Cunningham: Are you ready for me? President Jerrel: Yes. Barbara Cunningham: Greg Gorman is requesting a change in zoning for a 12 acre site located on North Green River Road. In addition to the petition Mr. Gorman also has a subdivision that he brought to Plan Commission and that will be coming back to Plan Commission next month. The northern seven acres of this 12 acre site was rezoned in February of 1999. At that time there was no sewer to the property and the approval was conditioned upon a use and development commitment that limited commercial use of this site to the existing structures which were two houses and allowed the pest control business that was petitioning to rezone this site as the only commercial use to be permitted. The use and development commitment, as I said, was deemed necessary because the site was served only by septic. No sewers were available to the site at that time. Mr. Gorman has decided that he will be able to extend sewer to the site so he is petitioning to again rezone the seven acre site and an additional five acres south of the site and with that the use and development commitment will be removed because sewer will be extended to the site. This site is north of the designated commercial corridor identified on the Year 2015 Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan does designate a limited strip of commercial development along the east side of Green River Road at this location. Adjacent to this location to the north is an apartment complex, Tall Timbers, I believe is what it is called. South and west is agricultural and residential and really undeveloped. I think part of the reason it has been undeveloped is because sewer has not been available to the site. The applicant has indicated the sewers will be extended and if this is passed we'll make sure that sewers will be extended to the site. A portion of the site lies within the flood plain and the flood boundary contours delineated on the subdivision plat. So what we were going to do is Richard wants us to do is add a note to the plat that notifies potential owners of the placement of fill materials on those sites where fill is utilized. Green River Road at this location has been widened to accommodate four lanes of traffic with a center turning lane. The plat that was submitted shows street access and no access onto Green River Road except by street access and all lots will access internally. A note will be added to the plat stating that. Both the County Engineer and EUTS indicate that a decel lane may possibly be warranted if there are no substantial obstructions to providing the lane and this will be determined at the time of street plan approval. Joe Harrison, Jr.: All those wishing to speak with respect to this petition, VC-6-2000, please raise their right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is true and accurate so help you God? Response: Yes. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Thank you. Greg Gorman: My name is Greg Gorman. I'm the property owner. I'm really not a developer. I'm a property owner. I moved my business to this location last year and was before you and got a rezoning. It was AG, the northern seven acres. I was lucky enough to purchase the property next door which is five acres and at that time started beginning to think about well this is more land than I really could need or could use and maybe I could make a commercial development, a small business park, nicely done. Have a street with a cul-de-sac. Have a few lots. A few friends of mine were looking for business sites. It was a terrific east side location. We've worked with Mrs. Cunningham and her office in working out things with Mrs. Zigenfus, Rose Zigenfus, and the EUTS people on the interconnect. From what I understand it is really not in place and there is a meeting on it in June, but in the spirit of cooperation, yes, we want to do that. I understand the interconnect. It's a good thing and I think it originated with your body much like the one on Burkhardt Road and I think there is one on 41. Instead of going out to Green River and down a couple of blocks and coming back in, use the interconnect. It makes sense. I think I like that as well. It is working well on Burkhardt. It is lessening the traffic there and we're doing that and meeting everything we need to do. We're putting in a road basically down the center, where the dotted line is down the center. There will be basically lots on each side. They will be roughly from a half an acre to an acre lots. There will be nine lots. I'm going to build a building on that site. My business will remain there, so I will be on the site. I have talked to the church across the street. Last year when I bought the property and rezoned it they had a little concern, well, what are you doing there and what is going on? I assured them that it's a family business and there is only three or four people. There won't be all kinds of traffic coming in and out. We're going to utilize the buildings that are there. We're not going to be demolishing anything at this time. We're going to use what is there. Well, when I purchased the property next door that has changed a little bit. I went across and talked to the Associate Pastor. I laid down...well, at that time I didn't have the subdivision plan, but I basically told him what we're going to do. He said, well, what's it going to look like, is it going to be well done? I said, yes, trust me, it will. I'm not a developer, I'm the business owner and I'm going to remain on the site so it will be well done. We have some prospective people now looking at lots. We have a sign up on Green River Road if you've been down there, you know, about the development. We were at the Area Plan Commission two weeks ago and we had a six, two, two vote, but there were three people missing and Mr. Mourdock abstained because he votes here first. So we'll be going back there in June and first we want to get the zoning and then get things passed and then go forward with our development. As you can see, it is commercial all around. The only residential is behind us and as you can see our property only comes to a point back there at that one spot. There is a buffer, a natural buffer, that is even there anyway. There is a six foot privacy fence all the way down the back of that subdivision. There is a tree stand and we are going to have a retention basin at that corner, at that point, so there will be nothing built back there that will interfere with any homeowner and there has never been any homeowner as far as demonstrators at any of the meetings. So everything as far as the residential is no problem and I've talked to Bill Spurling catty-corner the street. Greg, what's going in? What are you going to do? I said, well, I'm not competing with you. I said this is just going to be a small little commercial development. I have talked with an insurance person about putting an office in, so it is going to be very low key. It's not going to be a Super Target. It's just going to be my retirement and my business and a few other small businesses as well. Commissioner Mourdock: If it was Super Target we could send you to the room down the hall. Greg Gorman: Now, my engineer is here if you have any question of a technical nature. President Jerrel: Okay, is there anyone that would like to ask a question of Mr. Gorman? Is there anyone else here that would like to speak to this? Hearing none, no questions? Commissioner Mourdock: No. President Jerrel: Is there a motion? Commissioner Mourdock: I would then move on approval VC-6-2000, which has an address of 3016, 3020 and 3030 North Green River Road, Tracts 1 and 2 from C-4 with a use and development commitment and Tracts 3 and 4 from AG to C-4. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: This is a final, so 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.
Thank you.
President Jerrel: The next item on the agenda is VC-8-2000. Barbara Cunningham: Tom Bodkin and Doug Welp are representing Charleston Square, LLC in the request for the property located at 8300 East Lloyd Expressway. A previous petition to rezone this site to C-4 was withdrawn by the petitioner in January, 1999. This site was subsequently rezoned by Mercury Investment to R-4 in July of `99 for the stated proposed uses of an assisted living facility or apartments. This agricultural site is located on the east side of I-164 north of Lloyd Expressway and they are proposing to rezone this site to C-4 for unspecified commercial development. The proposed 50 plus acre commercial site has the potential to generate significant traffic volumes. There is no access available to the site from roads within Vanderburgh County. The only access available to the site is from Epworth Road in Warrick County to the western end of Stahl Road at the Vanderburgh County line. Development of the site will increase traffic at the Epworth Road/Lloyd Expressway intersection which is a high accident intersection. County Engineer John Stoll states that the petitioner will have to work with Warrick County to obtain access to Stahl Road since Stahl Road is maintained by Warrick County. INDOT states that any diversion of surface water or increase in the rate of runoff from this site into highway right-of-way will require INDOT review. INDOT requires that the 50 year developed property runoff rate shall not exceed the ten year undeveloped property runoff rate. Ms. Zigenfus is here to speak...to give the EUTS' remarks. This site is essentially cut off from any access to Vanderburgh County by the Expressway interchange. It contains a large, very large, borrow pit, a lake that was created with the construction of I-164. The Comprehensive Plan encourages development in those areas best suited for growth due to their location availability and adequacy of public facilities, services and utilities. According to the Comprehensive Plan development proposals along major arterials must be accompanied with commitments, but then we also said at the Area Plan Commission meeting that those commitments would need to be made with Warrick County since they would need to be road commitments and I believe Mr. Bodkin told us that the sewer was going to be coming from Warrick County also. I think that's all. Joe Harrison, Jr.: All those who wish to speak concerning this rezoning petition please raise their right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is true and accurate so help you God? Response: I do. Joe Harrison, Jr.: Thank you. Tom Bodkin: Tom Bodkin, 700 Hulman Building, Evansville, counsel for the petitioner. Lady and gentlemen, you have on the easel here what I have marked as petitioner's exhibit...Commissioners' Exhibit, actually, D. I want to come back to that. There is a bit of an order I think we need to review this material in to make it clear. We have one controversy and only one and that is whether or not 30 feet, or 60 feet, or 200, or 300 feet off the north side of this parcel has to be dedicated to get it zoned to extend Columbia. I believe that is the only issue. Plan Commission vote, I believe, was six, two, two. As one gentleman indicated there were three folks not there and Commissioner Mourdock abstained, correctly I think because he has to vote here and I have forgotten who the other abstainer was. It doesn't matter, I guess, at this point. Let me first hand you what I have got three copies of which is a map that generally shows you, if you could, Mr. Tuley, there is one for each of you. Please, if you would sir. The purpose for this map is just to refresh your memory as if you probably needed it, but refresh your memory about what is going on from the interstate highway back to the west in terms of development and where we are and where things are along the Lloyd Expressway and Interstate 164. If you'll notice the parcel of real estate at issue here still says Koester Contracting. Koester does not own that, Mr. Mourdock. Commissioner Mourdock: Thank you for clarifying that. Tom Bodkin: That's the parcel at issue and on your Exhibit A it shows it, where it is, right up against the Vanderburgh/Warrick County line. The ground in Warrick County adjoining this parcel is zoned C-4, C-3 and M-1. The M-1 starts about half way up the line. This is a section line here, I believe. Actually, it is not. The section line is a little further north. The M-1 starts about here and goes up to this line and it is C-3 and C-4 along Stahl Road. The ground in Warrick County south of that is also zoned C-4, so it is a commercial area from Warrick County's standpoint right on your line and I think within our Master Plan we say this area can go commercial. We have water available to the site from two different sources, potentially three. City of Evansville has water on this side of the interstate can be reached by going under the interstate. The Town of Chandler has water sitting right outside the site. Indiana American Water Company has indicated it can extend water there as well. The sewer is available from either Newburgh or Evansville, for that matter. It could be brought under the interstate if that was the developer's desire. Newburgh has sewer just literally outside the front door. So the infrastructure issue with regard to the subdivision is, I think, not a big issue. The only road that serves the parcel as you can see from Exhibit A is indeed a road call Stahl Road. Stahl Road is a road built by the State of Indiana when Interstate 164 and the Lloyd Expressway were built. Over here in Warrick County just south of Stahl and east up a little ways is a small 10, 12, 14 lot subdivision that was built in the 1950s that accessed onto old Division Street and when they widened the Lloyd the cut its access off so the state came in and built Stahl Road to get that subdivision access plus the parcel at issue here was then cut off from its access from Division Street and instead of buying the 50 acres the state built Stahl Road and gave it that access, so from your perspective as a county you have no road currently that reaches this parcel that anybody can get off of onto the parcel. Interstate 164 is not accessible. It's not your road, but it is not accessible because it's a limited access highway. This parcel does not touch the Lloyd, but it is limited access as well, so it's only location to get to it is off Stahl Road and that is all in Warrick County. The issue as I indicated I believe that creates the issue is the question of whether or not Columbia on EUTS' map is required to be...right-of-way is required to be given on this parcel for an extension of Columbia Avenue. First let me hand you what we have marked as Commissioners' Exhibit B, and there is one each for you, which is a map that Mr. Morley acquired for me which basically shows the area between Burkhardt Road and Green River Road with regard to that part of Columbia that has been acquired and dedicated. Not built, but that the land has been acquired or dedicated so that Columbia could be built pursuant to EUTS' desire. As you'll see there are two pieces in that entire stretch that have been acquired to date. One of them just immediately south of Carriage House Apartments, or immediately north of Normandy Arms, and by the way if Columbia extended to the west through Eastland Place to get to Green River it would go right through the Shoe Carnival. There are those who would probably cheer you if you made that happen, but that today is where it would have to go. The other parcel as you can see is over off Burkhardt Road just south of Waterford Place. It's where the Oncology Center is at on Burkhardt Road or was. That's the two sections of Columbia that have been dedicated to date. Columbia, as reflected by this map, lies on a quarter section line, at least these two parcels do. If you extend the quarter section line all the way to my client's parcel you'll find our north line is not the quarter section line, we're south of that. The quarter section line is north of us over into the other county. Secondly, with regard to where Columbia is or was supposed to be I'm sure Mrs. Zigenfus will have her map and show you where her lines were at, but there have been at least two iterations of it, I believe. The first one, which I'll give you, and there are several copies if we could, shows where Columbia first sort of fell on the map and it would appear initially it might well have fallen right across the north end of the borrow pit on this site. The current iteration, it's my understanding, which I am handing you now shows that it is north of that which, again, would be in keeping with it being on the quarter section line not necessarily across the north line of this parcel. The third issue that I think is important...I'm sorry. Commissioner Mourdock: I'm lost on something, Tom. You're saying that the north line of this is not the quarter section line? Tom Bodkin: No, the north line of where...not of my parcel is not, no. Correct, Jim? Jim Morley: No, no. That, no...I'm sorry. No, you've got it backwards. The north line of the parcel is the quarter section line. The line of Columbia as drawn is not on the quarter section. Tom Bodkin: I got it backwards. Our north line is the quarter line, but the Columbia line is north of the quarter line as reflected by the little pieces of paper not the big blue one I gave you. It becomes somewhat academic, but I think it is important to walk through this progression. If in fact Columbia were built on my client's real estate as you can see from what we've marked as Exhibit D, we are called Charlestown Square on the Lake on this exhibit, it would be right here and would stop at the interstate highway. It's got to go over the interstate, so the question becomes how do we get it there and how wide does it really have to be? At my request the engineers have taken a look at the only other overpass in this neck of the woods that's not a cloverleaf and that is Oak Grove Road, which you may recall is just north of this, that goes over Interstate 164 with Oak Grove coming into Burkhardt Road south of 62. That right-of-way for Oak Grove Road overpass is 350 feet wide, 350 feet wide. Now if in fact we're going to put an overpass over 164 here at my client's property logically we're going to have to give you 150...say 175 minimum, not 30 and arguably the whole 350. If we do that you basically come down to about the words Charlestown Square on this parcel. That's how much land, at least on this side, would be dedicated, if you would, for an overpass. You as County Commissioners to my understanding have no plan to build such an overpass. The engineers tell me that cost would be about $4 million. We also were concerned with regard to...let me hand you what we have marked as Exhibit G which would show you- Commissioner Mourdock: While you're looking let me clarify, Jim Morley, is this one inch to 1000? Jim Morley: Yes, is the scale not on there? Commissioner Mourdock: No. Jim Morley: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: Yes, it does. I'm sorry, it does show us. Jim Morley: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: But it's showing it as one to five. Tom Bodkin: Let me hand you Exhibit C which Mr. Morley has prepared for me which shows you the area that would be impacted by dedication for building an overpass at this location which is the contour lines you will see and we've again tailored that based upon the Oak Grove Road overpass which is a two lane overpass over the interstate for Oak Grove Road coming in to Vanderburgh County. The purpose for all this is to point out two or three points. Number one, we have in fact had development back to the west of this parcel that has not dedicated real estate for Columbia. From the first map you can see there are several C-4 parcels that exist that do not have a dedication for Columbia which would be sort of within the tract and I would suggest to you that they appear to be Ryan's Commercial Park, Carriage House Apartments, Vogel Road Commercial Park, Korressel Court. Those are all C-4 zoned pieces of real estate or R-3 in the case of Carriage House, who have not given any ground to anybody for the extension of Columbia between Burkhardt and Green River. With regard to Columbia Street as it may or may not ever exist from Burkhardt to the interstate there have been no dedications to my knowledge, and Rose can confirm that and if that's not correct I'm sure she'll tell us, for anyone...from anyone for Columbia. So the statement you'll hear is, well, that may be true, but we've got to start somewhere. The difficulty with the dedication on this parcel is finally shown to you by my last exhibit which actually is labeled E, echo. This is the piece of real estate, ladies and gentlemen, that I have marked as apartment complex right there, that's it on the other side of the interstate. That is physically under construction today. It's north line and our north line coincide. It has got a 20 foot green space setback to the first building, not 175 feet for the extension of Columbia. No dedication of any land for an overpass. Not 30 feet for widening of a road. It's a 20 foot green space setback. We have two buildings, Buildings 7 and 9, which if in fact you ever decided to condemn the land to extend Columbia you would have to take at a fairly good price, I suspect, in order to bring the road through here. This lake is currently under construction now and if you measure based on the scale on this map which is one to 50, if you measure 175 feet from the property line down you're in this lake, pretty close to being in that lake. So in fact on the west side of I-164 there is already a development which impedes and prevents Columbia from being extended into my client's parcel on the other side of the interstate. It's an apartment building and a lake. In fact, if we had to condemn it to build it in the future you conceivably would have to take seven buildings out of there depending on how wide you condemned. Then we have the issue of Warrick County. This is one of those unique pieces that lies on the county line. As we know the only access to this parcel currently is from Warrick County. The only access is likely to be from Warrick County because that is where the dedicated roadway is called Stahl Road right here. In Warrick County a week ago tonight, right now, the Warrick County Commissioners approved the road plan for Charlestown Square Subdivision. It did not include a dedication for any land to extend Columbia into Warrick County. A week ago this coming Wednesday the Warrick County Area Plan Commission granted primary plat approval for that subdivision and it did not include dedication of any land for extension of Columbia Street in Warrick County. Two of the three Warrick County Commissioners have stated they have no intention of extending Columbia Street into Warrick County. One of them now says in writing, and you probably have, that he doesn't agree with that. That's fine. Two to one happens sometimes. But Warrick County has a brand new plan they just adopted a little over 40 days ago now, a roadway plan, that did not include an extension of Columbia in Warrick County, so my client when asked to dedicate real estate in Charlestown Square on the Lake to extend Columbia says why? It can't be built over here because we're now allowing apartments to be built right smack where the road would go if in fact it were ever built on my ground and it won't go to Warrick County because it can't. Warrick County doesn't plan to extend it. They have now approved a road plan in this subdivision and a plat, primary plat, which does not take the road into Warrick County at all. We would end up then if we dedicated 30 feet basically eliminating 30 feet of real estate for no purpose on the north line. If we dedicated 175 feet, which is what the engineers tell us we would have to dedicate at least here at the interstate in order to have the width necessary to put an overpass over it if we had a plan to build one, which we don't, then we're basically cutting out substantially more of this parcel and, again, it doesn't go anywhere. It stops at the county line. It doesn't provide access to this parcel or any other parcel by going over the interstate and it simply solves no problem. Consequently, my client declined to dedicate land on the north side of his ground for the extension of Columbia. It's become a cause celebre and I am sorry about that, but that is simply what happens sometimes with these. The Plan Commission vote was six, two, two. There were two abstainers, two against and six for. We were short three people that night. My client would request that you grant the zoning so that this development can move forward. You will, by the way, gain the benefit of this development because the development is in Vanderburgh County. The access road basically is in Warrick County and by the way the way the (inaudible) this is now going to be a public street in Warrick County and those lots will access that street, so you get the property taxes on the increased lot value, but you don't have to worry about the street itself. As the County Engineer indicated we have to deal with Warrick County and we have with the Commissioners in terms of what they want done to Stahl Road. They have already reached that agreement with the Commissioners in Warrick County as to what to do about Stahl Road and one final point, there was a traffic study done on this parcel last summer by Morley and Associates at the request of the current owner who is not doing anything with this ground any more. At the request of the current buyer, Mr. Biggerstaff and Mr. Bussing are the buyers, by the way in case you wanted to know that, we have requested that they update the traffic study that was done to tell us if there was anything further that we needed to do, and this is absolutely irrelevant to you because it's all got to be done in Warrick County, but I thought you might have to have it anyway, with regard to the traffic study done last summer. What they basically conclude as you'll see at the end is that one of the conclusions in the study done last summer is probably not valid anymore and that was with regard to, I think, Oak Grove Road and Epworth Road. There was some concern as to the quantity of traffic through that four way stop when this was conceivably going to be residential use, heavy residential. They have indicated that the balance of the conclusions in that study are still probably valid and the conclusion with regard to that study other than Oak Grove Road was that the intersection of Epworth and 66 needed another turn lane and the State of Indiana is building that as part of widening I-60...State Road 66. I almost said 164. Now that's part of the project, I understand, that they are doing on Epworth Road. Epworth Road, obviously, is the parcel to which Stahl Road goes. More importantly, the Warrick County Commissioners have not required the developer to widen Epworth Road. I would suggest to you that this subdivision or this plat...I'll get it right yet, it is late. This rezoning request meets your master plan. We have all the utilities necessary to develop this ground, they are available to the site. We have access and the only access there is is in Warrick County. There is no purpose served in dedicating real estate for extension of a road that cannot be extended in your county or in Warrick County and we request that you vote yes to rezone the ground C-4. Charlene Timmons: Can I change the tape, please. Commissioner Tuley: Change the tape. President Jerrel: Sure. Tape change President Jerrel: Rose, do you want...? Rose Zigenfus: I'm Rose Zigenfus. I'm the Executive Director of EUTS. I do have a few comments. I have prepared some remarks that I have given to you earlier. The main issue is the extension of Columbia Street and I feel very strongly from a transportation perspective both in Vanderburgh and Warrick County that that is an artery that needs to be completed. It's not my plan. It's rather your plan that we are looking for you to adopt...to complete. I'm just here to remind you of that fact and to give you some basis for which that road is needed. When the plan was adopted there really wasn't any discussion of Columbia Street nor was there discussion of Cross Pointe Boulevard or a few other roads in that plan, but this one is important, I think, for a lot of reasons. Mr. Bodkin alluded to the fact...not alluded, but stated a fact that this was going to impact Warrick County's roads and that there is no plan over there, but I'll tell you if this road is not completed it's going to impact the Lloyd at Epworth, it's going to impact the Lloyd at Cross Pointe, it's going to impact the Lloyd at Burkhardt, Burkhardt and Virginia and a few other intersections that are in Vanderburgh County and that you need to be prepared to accommodate. Mr. Bodkin compared Columbia to Vogel...to Oak Grove. Just for comparison Oak Grove Road west of Epworth when we took a traffic count in 1996 there were 447 cars a...vehicles a day, trucks or cars. We took a count in 1998 and that number increased fourfold. There were 1,676 cars there. In 1999, keep in mind we had Burkhardt Road under construction and we had Lloyd under construction, there were 4,080 cars on Oak Grove Road. We don't see that dropping. We see that staying pretty high and continuing to increase as developments continue to occur in this whole area. Mr. Bodkin also says that east of Burkhardt Columbia doesn't go anywhere and he is right. From the plan it was never our intent for this road to intersect with Green River Road. It was the area between Epworth and Burkhardt that we were mainly concerned with and the vast amount of vacant land that is out there and what the impacts of development will do to the network in that area. Three hundred and fifty feet of right-of-way, as Mr. Bodkin referred to, for the Oak Grove Road overpass is probably...was probably built because there wasn't the restrictions of borrow pits and a few other things, but there are other overpasses that can be built and have been built with less right-of-way. There are earth filled support bridge supports and there are retaining walls and there are all sorts of engineering technics that can be accomplished in less right-of-way than 350 feet. Not having dedicated right-of-way has not ever stopped us from doing a road project. We go and get the right-of-way. The alignment of Columbia can change. When we put it on the map and I guess it's on there in two different forms, but when we put it on a map we put it down as a conceptual plan, not a designed this is where it has to go. It's a concept. So we can shift the road, we can put an S curve in it. We can build an overpass with less right-of-way. It's necessary for traffic and it is necessary for the development of that whole area. There is property to the north to allow that shift in alignment to occur. Having right-of-way has never impeded us before so I hope it doesn't do that tonight. I think that we should get the right-of-way. Whether we do it in ten years or twenty years as that development out there continues to occur you're going to find that you need that and you're going to have to go back and buy it and then it is going to be even more costly. We talked about that same concept with Theatre Drive. We wanted to extend Theater Drive from Green River to Boonville-New...Old Boonville Highway and it was in our plan for 13 years. We first identified it in 1987. This week we finally reached an agreement with right-of-way being dedicated, people giving up right-of-way to allow the curve to tie into Old Boonville Highway. Planning doesn't happen overnight. If it takes five years, ten years or 20 years that's what planning is all about and that's what we're about. So we need the right-of-way for the extension. The other issue that we are concerned a little bit about is the traffic impact study. We're saying that the...and I'll read this because it gets a little cumbersome and I probably don't remember all of it. "The additional improvements to the system may be warranted should the proposed rezoning be C-4. An addendum to the previous traffic impact study does not adequately address the impacts of C-4 zoning. The information submitted to date analyzes the impacts of a light industrial development. However, a commitment to restrict the development from containing a higher volume uses permitted in a C-4 zoning has not been provided. The applicant should provide a traffic impact study discussing the potential impacts of a C-4 and how the applicant might mitigate those impacts. An impact study was submitted when the property was rezoned from R-4 to assisted living. An addendum to the traffic impact study was received by EUTS on May 11, 2000 analyzing the impacts of a light industrial development on this site. However, the proposed C-4 rezoning permit uses that would generate significantly higher volumes of traffic the impacts of which could warrant improvements to Stahl Road and Epworth Road intersections with Stahl, 66 and Oak Grove. Without a commitment to restrict the development to light industrial uses only and addendum to the original impact study should consider the potential impacts of a C-4 or higher use development. Additionally, the addendum assumed the distribution of traffic for the proposed development would be the same as that for the assisted living. This would not necessarily be the case since residential distributions are determined based on employment opportunities. Residential driving to and from this site where commercial distributions are based on market area or the distribution of residential developments employees and customers driving to and from the site. So documentation supporting the trip distribution assumption should be included with the addendum and the addendum should also include updated capacity analysis for the intersections previously reviewed. A site plan submitted with the addendum, and I think you've seen that everywhere, shows how the site will be divided into 25 lots and it's not clear where access for lots one through nine will be located." I would really like to know how they are going to access lots one to nine. That's all I have. If you have any questions. Tom Bodkin: Let me start with the last one first because I think lots one through nine are the ones on the county line. They're going to access Citadel Circle which is on the county line in Warrick County. You don't have to maintain Citadel Circle. Warrick County does, but that is where the access for those lots will be. The traffic impact study was done by Morley and Associates and I'll let Jim address that if you want to hear it, but it is interesting. The traffic impact study that was done last summer was requested by EUTS, not the Warrick County Commissioners. Warrick County Commissioners didn't ask for the update, I did. Warrick County Commissioners have never asked for a traffic impact study with regard to that 50 acre site for any purpose. Now, if in fact we've now moved around where Columbia is going to be and I guess we're now going to move it north. Is it going to take a big dive right across the interstate to make sure it gets on my parcel? I don't understand this. If we wanted Columbia to be on this ground why didn't we make it get on this ground, too? In fact, I think Rose just indicated Columbia, the concept, is north of here, not on this site and more importantly why would you build a road that stops here at a $4 million overpass if you have the money to build it? Which you don't, nor do you have a plan to do it. Your counsel will tell you that if you decided you wanted to condemn this ground to build that overpass you would have to have a current plan to do it. Not something in the next 30 years because the judge would never let you do that from a standpoint of condemning real estate. You have to have a current present use. Columbia is not in the Warrick County plan. They got a plan, they just don't have Columbia in it and they just adopted it about four or five weeks ago. That material has been the source of some debate over there I might add in the most recent Commissioners' meeting. Oak Grove Road is in fact a major east/west artery for Warrick County when it's not under water. Part of their plan is to improve Oak Grove Road, get it up above the flood plain so it is passable all year long. They spent almost $700,000 on it year before last, it's my understanding from talking to two of the Commissioners and it's their plan to continue to do that so people can in fact use Oak Grove when it rains and floods. The farm fields along Oak Grove Road in Warrick County are higher than the road and when the side ditch fills up the road gets covered before the farm fields do, so they are working on it. It happens to be their plan, but that is their plan. There is no plan for an overpass at this site. We have allowed, we the county, Vanderburgh County, have issued building permits. They are building buildings right here today and dug up a lake for drainage which I presume you approved as the Drainage Board and there is not one dedication of real estate on this side of the interstate. I submit to you that if dedication is required in the future then those people north of here who are getting ready to develop can do that where you've got it on both sides of the road, but this 1,320 feet long and if it's 50 feet, 100 feet or 30 feet it doesn't really make much difference, it's useless to you as Commissioners to require it because you can't build it. It won't go anywhere. I would request that you vote yes on the rezoning. Mr. Morley might like to address the traffic impact issue if you would like to hear that briefly. Jim Morley: I'll be very brief. I think as Rose said to you in a C-4 zoning there could be many uses there. You can imagine a C-4, you know, you could have like American General where you have a great number of employees. I mean, it's possible to have things. What we did on the traffic impact study that we submitted was take for instance Woodward's Burkhardt/Lynch Industrial Park, that kind of thing that you see. You see it's not right on a main heavily traveled thoroughfare so what we assumed was that the kind of person that would locate there would be the person, Xerox, or some company that wants...you know, has these regional distributions. They want presence on an interstate, but they don't need a lot of traveling public and so it becomes not a real high traffic user. So that was our assumption and I would be the...you know, I'm certainly going to be the first to admit as Rose says, a C-4 allows other uses. It could allow it, we just didn't think it was reasonable. You know, we felt we had picked what would probably be there. This is not to say if they were to come in with a, you know, building that employed 1,000 people that it wouldn't have a significantly different traffic impact than we had judged. We took our best judgement. Tom Bodkin: We need to remember that C-4 uses are allowed in M-1, so an industrial use like M-1 includes C-4, C-2, C-1, C-0, and there may be another one or two. So basically you pick the highest use beyond what this one could be used for which includes all the uses that a C-4 would allow. Rose Zigenfus: I'm glad Mr. Bodkin brought up Warrick County again because I want to bring you up-to-date. Warrick County officials, Mr. Rector and I had a conversation after the Plan Commission meeting and he indicated to me that Warrick County was not...let me see if I can get this right. When I said to him that Mr. Bodkin stated that Warrick County had no intention of building Columbia Street he indicated to me that that was not the case. That they didn't know about it, but that they were willing to look at it. He also said that we would meet and I got a phone message from him today saying we'll meet next week to discuss it, so I don't really know exactly where Warrick County officials are with their plan. I haven't seen their transportation plan which I think is really too bad because they are in our study area. We have monthly meetings and I haven't seen it. Commissioner Mourdock: Just to further muddle the issue I would make the point that at Area Plan Commission Mr. Bodkin gave us some what I presume are verbatim minutes from the Warrick County meeting and in that Mr. Rector said that the Warrick County Commissioners had no plans at this time, so whatever that means. I say that to muddle the issue for both sides. I don't know what that means either. Rose Zigenfus: That was last August. They had no plans at that time. That was August (inaudible). Commissioner Mourdock: Is that what the date was on the one you had? Tom Bodkin: But the letter you have signed by the County Administrator says they currently have no plan. Jack Pike took great umbrage at that letter and sent you one, sent the Plan Commission one, pointing out that he had a plan even though the other two Commissioners didn't. Last I heard it still takes two of you in both counties to act as Commissioners and you know, whether Rose has seen their plan or not that is unfortunate, but they did something last week that tells you what their plan is, didn't they? They approved that subdivision by primary plat at the Plan Commission and they approved that road plan and drainage plan for that subdivision by the Commissioners. Now if they had a current plan to extend Columbia Street through there I don't think they would have approved the road plan unless Columbia Street was extended through there and they didn't do that. That vote was two to one, Jack Pike voting no, and Larry Barr and David Rector voting yes for whatever that is worth. So I submit to you that whatever Warrick County's future plan may be their current plan does not include extending Columbia at that location or requiring us to dedicate the ground to do it because they approved the road plan without it and the Plan Commission approved the plat without it. That's a primary plan. All the developer has got to do now is either bond or build and he can record it. I would request that you grant approval of this zoning. President Jerrel: Is there...are there any questions? Commissioner Mourdock: I have just one question for Rose. Rose, you made the comment at the outset of your remarks that this isn't your plan, it's our plan. You are simply here tonight to remind us of what that plan is. How does that fit in with Mr. Bodkin's observation about the apartment complex that is out there right now? The one on the west side. Rose Zigenfus: The one on the west side? Commissioner Mourdock: Yeah, with the apartments. Rose Zigenfus: We asked. We asked for right-of-way at that time as well and were unsuccessful in getting it. You know, I still think that Columbia Street can overpass the interstate. I think there is room to get it through those two borrow pits on the west...on the east side. I think there is federal money available to do that if you want to do it. President Jerrel: What federal money? Rose Zigenfus: The STP money that is available. President Jerrel: That's something all of us...yeah, see I...that is not realistic. Rose Zigenfus: You don't think so? President Jerrel: I'm not going to say any more than that's not realistic. Rose Zigenfus: Okay. Commissioner Mourdock: How far north of the north line of this property does the borrow pit that is on further north extend? Does it show on this map? Rose Zigenfus: I don't know. Jim Morley: Isn't this at a scale of one inch equals 500 feet? That's about a quarter inch, so that would make it about 125 feet north of that quarter section line. Commissioner Tuley: (Inaudible.) Jim Morley: That's three-sixteenths, so a little less than a quarter of an inch so that would make it about 90 feet or so. You know, at the end of it that doesn't mean that you couldn't fill it in. You know, it isn't like it's a hundred feet deep. In fact, I guess the drawing that is available at the Plan Commission essentially shows that. It shows it coming into that borrow pit. Tom Bodkin: We think that ground may be owned by the Buente Trust. We don't own it, we know that, but we think it may be the Buente Trust. Barbara Cunningham: The Buente Trust on the other side? Tom Bodkin: On the east side north of us. Yeah, Jim thinks it may be the Buente Trust as well. Barbara Cunningham: That could be because they could have bisected, they were trying to get signs on both sides and we said it didn't count. That's right, it is. Tom Bodkin: There is a City Council member gawking at us, waving at us, teasing us. Commissioner Tuley: They come in later than us and are already going. President Jerrel: Are there any other questions? Commissioner Mourdock: I'll move on approval then VC-8-2000, Charlestown Square, address 8300 East Lloyd Expressway from R-4 to C-4. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: This is a final vote. I would like to call for a roll call vote. Commissioner Tuley? Commissioner Tuley: I got 29 more meetings to go. President Jerrel: That isn't a vote. Commissioner Tuley: That's not a vote, no, but it is setting up my vote. We don't have it in our plan. Warrick County obviously doesn't have it in their plan. They just voted to grant it on the other side. If we force them or ask them or make it appear that this thing is predicated on a dedication of right-of-way to me it is paramount to taking. I've only got 29 more meetings. I don't want to be sued between now and the time I get out of here. I haven't been sued here in eight years and I'm not going to start tonight, so I am voting yes. President Jerrel: Commissioner Mourdock? Commissioner Mourdock: This one is a difficult one and, Pat, the reasoning that you just used has gone through my mind sitting here this evening. I also have the curse of consistency that I place on myself as far as sticking with our plans and sometimes that is a curse. Sometimes it's an easy excuse to do the controversial thing. As I look at this one I want to kick myself real hard for what is west of I-164. I believe passionately the plan that is on this map. In fact, most of it started off this pencil. It's hard to disagree with it for that reason. I look at that straight line that is a quarter section line for Columbia Street and I think that was the right thing to do. When I look to see though where that pond is on Buente and where the pond is that I know a little bit about south of there it's hard to imagine the road going anywhere other than on that. You're right, the Warrick County Commissioners just did something there that would seem to fly in the face of this. If we vote no to our road plan we never give them the chance to change their mind and join with us in putting that road in, but I have to say in dealing with Warrick County Commissioners I don't know that they're necessarily of the bent to change their mind much either. It sounds like I'm confused. Maybe that's the case because in the heart of me I want to vote no for this because it goes against our plan. But as I see common sense and logic here I think I am forced to vote yes, but I will add this caveat to it. You've got 29 meetings and I've got 104 plus 29 and the next time anything comes in here on the north properties, Rose, I hope you come in here and remind us what our plan regardless of what the ponds are on the other side because we are going to have cross the interstate. Oak Grove is not going to be enough and the day will come if we all use just a little bit of vision to know that the city of Evansville and the city of Newburgh are all going to basically merge together and people are going to wonder why there wasn't enough planning to have that road go across there in more locations than just Oak Grove Road, so I still want to support the plan and whatever development comes down the road at us I hope we have the courage to muster or whoever is in these chairs has the courage to muster to stick with the plans and not let things sneak in behind us like this one apartment complex did that otherwise screwed up the plan. So with great hesitation, nothing to the builders and developers, please don't take it personally, but with great hesitation I will vote yes. President Jerrel: I vote yes. I'm voting yes because I was not aware of Columbia. I'm not voting against our plan. I really wasn't aware of Columbia and its role. My feeling was to get this transportation going from Vanderburgh County into Warrick County we need to get something done with Telephone Road and build that interchange, get the interchange at the Lloyd and complete Morgan Avenue's improvements and that's what we're doing, but we have already seen Kimber Lane stopped and to try to go through a wall doesn't make any sense to me. I don't think you're going to see any STP money in the next 25 years devoted to a bridge for Columbia Street. If we're going to get the rest of this done it's going to take every nickel of that. But at any rate I vote yes (inaudible). Tom Bodkin: Thank you ladies and gentlemen. President Jerrel: is there a motion to adjourn? Commissioner Mourdock: So moved. Commissioner Tuley: Second. President Jerrel: So ordered. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Those in attendance:
Vanderburgh County
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
|
