VANDERBURGH COUNTY

REZONING BOARD

NOVEMBER 20, 2007

The Vanderburgh County Rezoning Board met in session this 20^th day of November, 2007 at 4:50 p.m. in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex with President Bill Nix presiding.

President Nix: Good afternoon. I would like to call to order the Vanderburgh County Commissioners rezoning, November 20, 2007. It’s about 3:48 p.m.

President Nix: I will entertain a motion to approve the rezoning minutes from the previous meeting.

Commissioner Tornatta: So moved.

Commissioner Korb: Second.

President Nix: All in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Nix: Opposed same sign. Thank you.

President Nix: Janet, good afternoon.

Janet Greenwell: Good afternoon. I’m Janet Greenwell with the Area Plan Commission. I’m bringing forward one petition for first reading. Docket number 2007-43-PC VC-17-2007. The petitioner is Brandolyn Jacqueline Johnston. That was change that was made yesterday. I believe the agenda reads a little different, but it was a change that was filed yesterday. That’s for the property at 3816 through 4016 and 4032 Heckel Road. I would ask that you assign that to Plan Commission for hearing.

President Nix: I’ll entertain a motion.

Commissioner Tornatta: So moved.

Commissioner Korb: Second.

President Nix: All in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Nix: Opposed same sign. I believe we need a roll call vote for this. Is this on first reading?

Janet Greenwell: It’s first reading.

President Nix: Yeah. Commissioner Tornatta?

Commissioner Tornatta: Yes.

President Nix: Commissioner Korb?

Commissioner Korb: Yes.

President Nix: And I vote yes. It passes.

Janet Greenwell: The first petition that we have for final hearings tonight is your docket number VC-7-2007. Aaron Kendalls representing Dr. Lotfi Hadad appeared before Plan Commission on November 8, 2007 with a request to rezone the properties at 700 and 720 Kimber Lane from agricultural to C-2 with a use and development commitment. This is a 1.99 acre site located on the west side of Kimber Lane between Virginia and Columbia Streets. The petition was continued a number of months and was amended twice by the petitioner to address concerns raised by County Engineer John Stoll concerning the width of the county section of Kimber Lane, which is insufficient for large truck deliveries. John Stoll has indicated that the current use and development commitment does satisfactorily eliminate those uses that utilize large trucks from being developed on the property so that his office no longer has any objection to the rezoning. The comprehensive plan does project this area as an area of commercial development. The change in zoning from AG to C-2 is consistent with the overall development plan for the area. The petition was recommended by Plan Commission for approval with nine yes votes, zero no votes, and one abstention. Do you have any questions?

President Nix: Thank you, Janet. Is there someone here to speak to this? Aaron Kendall?

Aaron Kendall: I’m Aaron Kendall.

President Nix: Okay. Any comments at all?

Aaron Kendall: I think that pretty much summed it up.

President Nix: Okay, thank you. Are there any remonstrators? Questions from the Commissioners? I guess, there’s no summation. So, I will entertain a motion.

Commissioner Korb: So moved.

Commissioner Tornatta: Second.

President Nix: All in favor?

All Commissioners: Aye.

President Nix: Opposed same sign. This requires a roll call vote, Janet, is that correct? Commissioner Tornatta?

Commissioner Tornatta: Yes.

President Nix: Commissioner Korb?

Commissioner Korb: Yes.

President Nix: And, I vote yes. Thank you.

Janet Greenwell: This, if I’m, I will check with Madelyn, but we switched the order in the packet.

Madelyn Grayson: Yeah, VC-14 should be next.

Janet Greenwell: Okay, the next petition that we’re bringing is VC-14-2007, 7235 North Green River Road. Craig Kendall of Kendall Development is requesting to rezone a portion of his property located at 7235 North Green River Road from agricultural to C-4 with a use and development commitment, which prohibits adult entertainment uses on the site. This is a 20 acre site located on the east side of Green River Road between Heckel and Millersburg, across Green River from the Goebel Soccer Complex. The comprehensive plan future land use map designates the land east of Green River Road for agricultural use due to the generally low elevations. However, this particular site has a ridge of higher ground through the middle that is not in the 100 year flood plain, making development on this site fronting on Green River Road appropriate. The North Green River Road corridor is expected to continue to develop, public sewers have been added and extended to the area, and with the widening of the Green River Road, the infrastructure will be in place to support development. County Engineer John Stoll has indicated that an additional right-of-way will have to be acquired from this property in order for the county to construct the Green River Road widening project. The petition received a no recommendation vote from the Area Plan Commission at their meeting November 8, 2007 with four yes votes, five no votes and one abstention. The minutes of our Plan Commission meeting, I believe will reflect concerns raised by some of the members regarding the adequacy of the proposed use and development commitment.

President Nix: Is the petitioner here for the Craig Kendall development?

Mark Miller: Good afternoon. I’m Mark Miller. I’m the attorney for Kendall Development. Mr. Kendall is here, and Mr. Dauby who owns some property to the north of the subject property is also here to speak in connection with this matter. That is significant, gentlemen, because the property which is to the north shown on the slide was zoned, rezoned C-4 just two or three months ago, without any use and development commitments. One of the concerns is noted in the staff report, or the Commission, Area Plan Commission report is that some commissioners raised a question about whether the use and development commitment was sufficient. So, Mr. Dauby and Mr. Kendall have sat down and discussed that issue between themselves, and have reached a tentative agreement that will restrict certain uses on the property. I would like to briefly summarize that. The parties have agreed that there would be no “package liquor stores” on the property, stores that sell liquor items, but not exclusively, would be permitted. The parties have agreed there would be no bars on the property. We’re talking both Mr. Dauby and Mr. Kendall’s property now. There would be no true bars on the property, although establishments that allow the sale of alcohol, but are primarily restaurants would be allowed. There would be no off-track betting facilities, although establishments that sell lottery tickets would be allowed. There would be no truck or vehicle repair or maintenance facilities for trucks 11,000 pounds or greater. So, no large trucks, no large vehicle repair. There would be no tire recapping or retreading facilities, and in use group 19 which is primarily amusement parks and rather large types of facilities like that, there would be no permitted uses in use group 19 at all, except a child care facility would be allowed and a miniature golf facility would be allowed. The parties, it was mentioned about the development along Green River Road, and there was a lift station required in Mr. Dauby’s development of his property. Mr. Kendall and Mr. Dauby have also been discussing easements that would allow this, the parcel that’s before you today, to access that lift station, and a re-design of that lift station that would be subject to approval of the sewer department as to its adequacy of design. There are some other issues that they’ve been working together on. So, in summary, the concern that the commissioners raised, or that the Area Plan Commission raised about restricting some uses out there, they were not specific about it, but Mr. Kendall was proactive, went to the neighbor, was the only person who showed up at the Area Plan Commission, and they’ve reached some agreements as I’ve just summarized them. I understand that there may be a question about the road improvements within the right-of-way and about the grading work that’s going on. Rather than, I’ll summarize, but Mr. Dauby and Mr. Kendall are here, they can answer any questions that you might have about that, but my understanding is that Mr. Dauby is doing some significant grading work out there, and is filling the property in up to the level that is required for the road expansion at this time, and consistent with the access plans that he understands that the county has requested. Mr. Kendall does not intend to begin any work at this time. There’s no plan to begin scraping dirt, but would understand and agree that when that does occur that similar improvements would need to be made in order to maintain proper and safe access to the property.

Commissioner Korb: Mr. Miller, I understand what you’re saying and that Mr. Dauby and Mr. Kendall have gotten together on this, is there anything in writing with regards to those limitations?

Mark Miller: I have a document that I just got from Mr. Dauby’s attorney. I believe it’s acceptable.

Commissioner Korb: Okay.

Mark Miller: It is subject to, the way it’s written, it presumes that the zoning has been granted.

Commissioner Korb: Got it.

Mark Miller: So, if the zoning is granted, we’ll walk outside and execute and proceed.

Commissioner Korb: Super, can you bring that document forward, does our County Attorney need to look at that?

Mark Miller: Probably not.

Commissioner Korb: No?

Mark Miller: These are private covenants, Mr. Korb.

Commissioner Tornatta: That would be between them.

Commissioner Korb: Okay. For the other two Commissioners, I was at that meeting and the concern was that it was an unfettered C-4, but then the greater concern was, as was indicated by Mr. Miller, that previous, less than three months before, C-4 was granted with absolutely no restrictions. Mr. Dauby came forward and said he wished he would do that. Mr. Kendall called me at my office as well, and at the time, in all fairness to Mr. Kendall, he had acted upon the instructions of the Area Planning Commission, and they had said no adult entertainment. So, as you’re looking at this, that’s why it says that. He wasn’t trying to be cute or funny, it’s just what it was. So, for the fact, and the only reason why there were no votes that evening is because it was so broad in scope. The fact that they have come back with these restrictions I think is positive step forward, and I’m more comfortable with that. So, Mr. Kendall, thank you for that effort on your behalf, and Mr. Miller, thank you for coming.

Mark Miller: Thank you, Mr. Korb.

Commissioner Korb: You’re welcome.

Commissioner Tornatta: Well, I would just like to say that I’ve talked to Mr. Dauby, and wanted to make sure that he had the covenants in tow, and he knew that that was going to happen. By executing this, if we were to approve this, we would like to see that signed expeditiously and make sure that that’s handled in good faith. I also talked to Mr. Jeffers, who was a no vote, our County Surveyor, and essentially he explained some of the terms that he would like to see. One of them was the grading and the grade leveling at time of the purchase of the easement, and I think that we’ve kind of addressed that. So, that was another big point. Then, he thought, after that, he could go along with something, not speaking for him, but he would feel more comfortable. So, he feels comfortable with Mr. Dauby’s covenants that they have together and the grading increase. So, if we could just make sure that we have your client on the record saying that he’s going to do that, I would feel very comfortable.

Mark Miller: Okay, great.

Commissioner Korb: Mr. Miller, one more quick question, if you can? So, the private covenants, they would not be placed of record and wouldn’t be covenants running with the land?

Mark Miller: No, they would be covenants that ran with the land, Mr. Korb.

Commissioner Korb: Got it.

Mark Miller: Absolutely, and they would be placed of record.

Commissioner Korb: Okay. Super.

Mark Miller: But, the agreement was, essentially, Mr. Kendall was willing to commit to that if the rezoning occurred.

Commissioner Korb: Sure. No, I understand that.

Mark Miller: Okay, thank you.

Craig Kendall: I’m Craig Kendall, and as your request, or you wanted me to state.

Commissioner Tornatta: I mean, I think, I’ve talked to your attorney–

Craig Kendall: Right.

Commissioner Tornatta: –and I think we even had a comment over the phone, and maybe this is, this whole thing, I know at the time that you came in here and maybe didn’t have an attorney present with you at the time, maybe that threw somebody for a loop and just the things that Mr. Dauby had that you didn’t because you haven’t got all the ducks in a row on your property. So, I’m sure there were some incidents there, that’s when I went back and checked, nobody really had a problem with you or your property. So, I don’t think that was anything big, just that you didn’t have anybody in place at the time, and Mr. Dauby did on most of his property that was probably more assuring to them at that point. So, as far as that goes, I think we’ve, I’ve satisfied all of my questions.

Craig Kendall: Alright, thank you.

President Nix: Mr. Dauby, do you have any comments at all?

Ronald Dauby: No, as long as this agreement is met, I have no problems with it at all. I would love to see you zone it that way.

President Nix: Thank you. Okay, at this time I would ask for remonstrators to come forward. Any remonstrators? Seeing none. Is there any additional questions from the Commissioners?

Commissioner Korb: None.

President Nix: Commissioner Tornatta?

Commissioner Tornatta: No. With respect to our board that goes through these, although they voted five-four, as I’ve talked to them, I think they feel comfortable with the new findings, so I vote to approve.

President Nix: Before we do that, Mr. Miller, do you have a summation at all? Anything else you would like to say?

Mark Miller: No, Mr. Nix, thank you.

Commissioner Korb: I move to approve.

Commissioner Tornatta: Hold on, we do have a question back here.

Debbie Schwent: Hi, I just have–

President Nix: Please step up to the mic. Please say your name for the record also.

Debbie Schwent: Hi, my name is Debbie Schwent, and I live at 6431 Green River Road. I actually just, I don’t know why I came to this meeting, actually because of the Green River Road widening, but are we, I didn’t know, are we getting sewers out there?

President Nix: From, it’s my understanding from Pigeon Creek, or from the creek south there is no plans for sewers at this time. Are you talking about sanitary sewers?

Debbie Schwent: Yeah.

President Nix: No. Do you live south of the creek?

Debbie Schwent: I live south of that property, yes.

President Nix: Yeah, at this time there’s no plans for that.

Debbie Schwent: But there’s going to be sewers there?

President Nix: I believe Mr. Dauby can address that. You’re installing the sewers?

Ronald Dauby: Yes.

President Nix: Yes, he’s doing that. Mr. Miller?

Mark Miller: My understanding, Ma’am.

President Nix: Please step up to the microphone, if you would, Mark, or Mr. Miller.

Mark Miller: My understanding is that there is a creek that runs just to the south of Mr. Kendall’s property, and from speaking with the sewer department, that creek is a boundary line in terms of the sewer development. So, if you’re north of the creek, you’re going to flow toward the subdivisions that are to the north and existing where there are lift stations and other facilities. If you’re to the south of the creek it goes all the way to Lynch Road, I believe, before the next lift station.

President Nix: Correct me if I’m wrong, because we don’t do sewers here.

Debbie Schwent: I just was–

President Nix: No, correct me if I’m wrong though, this is a private development and you’re paying for all the improvements, the sewer lines on your property, is that correct?

Ronald Dauby: Right.

President Nix: So, this isn’t part of–

Debbie Schwent: I just wanted to know, yeah.

President Nix: Just to make sure we’re clear.

Debbie Schwent: Like I said, I just happened–

President Nix: Just to make sure we’re clear on that.

Debbie Schwent: Okay.

Commissioner Tornatta: He’s got a pump station, Mr. Dauby has a pump station on his property and then that would have to be worked out with Craig on his property. So, that’s an inter-agreement between the two of them.

Debbie Schwent: So, okay, so, he’s going to build up this property and that little creek, which is just little right now, does have a tendency to flood. Because I have been flooded out of my home, as other people have.

President Nix: Ma’am, Ma’am, and–

Debbie Schwent: Yeah, I just, like I said, I just found out about all of this and it’s just kind of a shock to your system.

President Nix: Typically what happens, and this comes through another meeting that we have here. We have a lot of meetings in this place. It’s crazy, but typically what happens is the Drainage Board comes to us with developments and the developers have to prove that they are improving, they have to prove that they are improving the drainage around an area before we will let them develop. So, if there’s a development that takes place here and there’s hard surfaces, pavement, and all that, they’ve got to prove that they’re making the situation better, not worse for the surrounding area. So, as that takes place down the road you may want to come back to Drainage Board meetings and that, so.

Commissioner Tornatta: And, this is a rezoning, not approval for drainage.

Debbie Schwent: I just, when I heard, I just, I’m curious about what’s going on, because unless you’re right, unless you come to every meeting, you don’t know everything.

Commissioner Tornatta: Sure, and they will actually send you a letter to tell you if he’s planning on doing some development. They would send you a letter and let you know that there will be a meeting and when the meeting will be.

Debbie Schwent: Okay, so we’ll be sent a letter–

President Nix: Well, that’s not necessarily true, because once this rezoning takes place, you basically are at liberty to do the developments. I don’t know if she would be notified after that point.

Debbie Schwent: Was I supposed to be notified that he was rezoning this?

President Nix: If you’re an adjacent property owner, yes.

Debbie Schwent: I live just a few houses down, yeah.

President Nix: Okay, if you live a few houses, no.

Debbie Schwent: So, you’re not?

President Nix: You have to be an adjacent property owner.

Debbie Schwent: Okay.

President Nix: Your property has to abut that piece of property.

Debbie Schwent: Okay. There’s just, you know, a lot I don’t know. So, I just wanted to ask. Thank you.

President Nix: Thank you. Okay, Mr. Miller, a summation at all?

Mark Miller: No, Mr. Nix, thank you.

President Nix: Thank you. A motion has been made and seconded. It’s been awhile, I forgot. All in favor?

Commissioner Tornatta: Yes.

Commissioner Korb: Aye.

President Nix: Aye. Opposed same sign. Roll call vote. Commissioner Tornatta?

Commissioner Tornatta: Yes.

President Nix: Commissioner Korb?

Commissioner Korb: Yes.

President Nix: And I vote yes. It passes. Thank you.

Mark Miller: Gentleman, thank you very much.

Janet Greenwell: The final petition that we’re bringing tonight for a hearing is your docket number VC-13-2007, Three I Properties LLC. They are requesting to rezone the properties located at 601 and 630 Boonville-New Harmony Road and 12900 and 12920 Old State Road from agricultural to R-1, from agricultural and R-1 to C-4 with a use and development commitment. The proposed rezoning area is west of the intersection of Boonville-New Harmony and Old State Roads. It includes seven and a half acres north of Boonville-New Harmony, which is being proposed for the development of a new Schnuck’s supermarket, and 1.8 acres south of Boonville-New Harmony Road. These sites are located along the 41 North corridor, which is planned for commercial and industrial development. They are within and adjacent to an area specifically designated by the comprehensive plan for commercial development. They are surrounded on three sides by rural, agricultural and low density residential uses. In December 2000, a C-4 zoning was approved for an eight acre site at the northeast corner of 41, and a two acre site at the south east corner. Three I Properties is proposing to enlarge both these existing C-4 sites, extending the commercial development to the east. That will go to Old State Road on the north side. A use and development commitment is included as part of this rezoning petition, which prohibits billboards and some commercial, recreational service and storage uses. The commitment also addresses lighting, increases the required green setback adjacent to residential, provides for buffering along the north property line, and part of the eastern property line along Old State Road, and prohibits truck access on Old State, for deliveries. A copy of the use and development commitment was included with our staff report. The petition was recommended by Plan Commission for approval with seven yes votes, one no vote and two abstentions.

President Nix: Thank you, Janet. Is the petitioner here today?

Gene Hahn: Les is not here yet. Do you want us to go ahead?

President Nix: If you could please step up. For the record, if you would, please state your name.

Gene Hahn: Gene Hahn. Our attorney, Les Shively, is not here yet, who was supposed to be presenting this. Unless he shows quickly, I can go ahead.

President Nix: If you could just walk us through this?

Gene Hahn: Sure. We, as they said, own part of the property out there that’s been zoned C-4 since, about seven years now. We want to expand that area to include what she shows here on the map. We have been working with Dave Fontana here with Schnucks now for several months to put a Schnucks store at that location, along with a couple additional....what do you call them?

Dave Fontana: Retail spaces.

Gene Hahn: Retail spaces that adjoins, very similar to the one at Green River Road and Lodge, or Green River Road and Lynch Road. It will look similar to that. There will be about three out lots for other uses that compliment what Schnucks does. We are looking to put a, by the request of the County Engineer, a driveway on to Old State Road. It will be....point to it.

President Nix: There’s a pointer up there.

Gene Hahn: Oh, okay.

President Nix: Here you go. Mr. Hahn?

Janet Greenwell: There’s one up there.

President Nix: Oh, is there? Oh, okay.

Gene Hahn: Okay, the driveway will be about in this general area here.

President Nix: Mr. Hahn, if you could, point that out again for me?

Gene Hahn: Sure.

President Nix: Okay, thank you.

Gene Hahn: Okay.

President Nix: Before we go any further, how current is this shot here? Janet?

Janet Greenwell: 2005, I believe, October of 2005.

President Nix: Okay, thank you.

Gene Hahn: The other corner, of course, that’s C-4 as well on the southeast corner, and the additional land next to that compliments what else is being done out there. We have agreed to run a berm along Old State Road, along with some trees and etcetera to help as a buffer there. The property to the north and adjacent to this property, the property owner has given us a letter stating that they are indifferent. They’re not going to support us, and they’re not going to be against us on doing that. So, they’re okay with that rezoning.

Commissioner Tornatta: That’s a berm?

President Nix: That’s across this north end here?

Gene Hahn: The berm will be all the way down through here. They requested actually a fence up there, rather than a berm. We’ll do either one, but that’s the neighbors requested a fence. So, we would give what’s required from us, and, of course we have to go before site review anyway. So, as we get to site review and if they want us to do a berm, we’ll be glad to do a berm. If the fence is satisfactory, we’ll do a fence.

Commissioner Korb: Could you do both?

Gene Hahn: Pardon me?

Commissioner Korb: Would you do both?

Gene Hahn: I’m sure.

Commissioner Korb: The reason I’m asking, I’m looking at what they’ve done at Target on the east side.

Gene Hahn: Yeah, right. I’m familiar with that.

Commissioner Korb: But, you’ll commit that to writing, right, Mr. Hahn?

Gene Hahn: Absolutely.

Commissioner Korb: Great. Thank you.

Gene Hahn: Absolutely. The berm, I mean, Dave’s brought a picture of one of them they’ve done at other places. It will be very similar to the one that he has with him here today. I think all of you are aware that we have improved the New Harmony, Boonville-New Harmony Road to six lanes, with a new left hand turn lane. That made it not only safer for everybody out there, but, of course, the school busses used to have to get out in the middle and hope nobody hit them until they finally got through there. Now, they do have an arrow that can get them safely across the highway. We also had to, they extended the acceleration lane. The acceleration lane from here over to there, we changed the stop lights, we improved the road down through here as far as we could, till we ran out of area where we didn’t own it anymore. We extended that left turn lane here that turns into the property. So, that pretty well covers everything. There is some concern I know over the past about this road here, that you get some people that run that stop sign. I don’t know how we’ll either contribute or hurt that. I think that’s a police matter to get that under control. I don’t think we can do that. But, that pretty well sums it up, I think.

Commissioner Korb: Mr. Hahn, is there some, if I remember correctly at the Area Planning Commission, you’re also planning on extending the improvements to the corner?

Gene Hahn: Are you talking about here?

Commissioner Korb: Yes. Not there, but go there, come down, come down, come down, come down, keep coming, go left. That area right now is not improved.

Gene Hahn: That is not improved, that’s correct.

Commissioner Korb: I’m sorry, about the roads, I’m talking about the road.

Gene Hahn: Oh, the road, yes. Yes, we’ll do some improvements there as we acquire property to where we can do it.

Commissioner Korb: Got it.

Gene Hahn: Okay.

Commissioner Tornatta: Then, where would a truck drive in, if there was a truck?

Gene Hahn: Okay, all truck traffic, or at least anything that’s above 30,000 pounds will be coming in using this driveway. They’ll come in here to unload, and coming back out the same way. You know, you’ll get pick up trucks and so forth that will use that, and your smaller delivery trucks that you might have, like a Frito Lays and some of those you’ll see around, the little vans. Anything that’s larger will be using this street here that extends and goes back to the Schnucks store. Did you want to say anything?

President Nix: Mr. Shively, you’re going to get docked today.

Dave Fontana: He can pay me.

President Nix: You might as well just go on home.

Les Shively: (Inaudible. Not at microphone.)

Dave Fontana: My name is Dave Fontana, I’m Director of Real Estate Development for Schnuck Markets, based in St. Louis. I’ll just, if you don’t mind, I’ll just briefly walk you through the conceptual plan. We were asked to come up with a conceptual plan when we met with the neighboring residents to this property. I guess, that was back maybe in August was when we first met with them. As Gene said, we have the property under contract, contingent upon, I guess, about half of the property being rezoned, which is in front of you tonight. The frontage, as you call it on Highway 41 is already zoned commercial, and, basically what we’re looking to do is to square off the piece so that we would have 15 acres, which would allow us to develop here. I can just briefly talk about this, this is New Harmony Road here, Boonville Road, Highway 41 out there. What we’re talking about is having the supermarket facing Highway 41 with out parcels out on 41. The corner, which I’m sure you’re aware of is the Bank of Evansville, I guess, has just recently opened on the corner. So, while they’ll be integrated into the rest of the development of the shopping center. That property, obviously, is not something we’re going to purchase. In addition to the supermarket, which the one we show on this plan, the 63,000 square feet, which is similar to the store, as Gene mentioned, that we opened, the most recent one in this market on Green River Road, just south of Lynch. Then we’re also going to be building a similar store in Newburgh, replacing the store that we have there now. That store and then an additional small shop retail space of about 15,000 square feet. I should have mentioned, in addition to being in the supermarket business, our company also is in the shopping center development business. So, we have about, we have developed over 50 of the shopping centers that our stores, or the anchor tenant of our shopping center. So, we’ll be doing the development/management of the shopping center and the leasing as well, assuming we go forward with this in the future. The trucks, as Gene said, comes in off of Riley and circle around the perimeter of the shopping center, so that we don’t cut across the front of the store. We try to avoid that, if possible. Our docks are back over here, and they would exit back out that way. We would sign the driveway on Old State, it’s simply there, two reasons, probably the most important is for emergency vehicle purposes. We really, I can’t think of a shopping center where we don’t have multiple entrances, at least two entrances. You know, if something were to happen at the main entrance where an emergency vehicle couldn’t get in, we would have to have access for that vehicle. Also, for the traffic coming off of Old State. It allows people to get into the shopping center without having to go through the intersection and down off of New Harmony to get access. So, it’s a more convenient access for them. So, that’s why we have proposed that entrance there. But, the large trucks need the large, the width lanes on Riley, the main entrance, and New Harmony in order to come and go, that’s the way they’ll come and go. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.

President Nix: You had mentioned something about retail space. Is that that light color there just south of the building?

Dave Fontana: Yeah, uh-huh.

President Nix: It’s not typical, you usually have a whole lot more retail space in your stores. What is there, two or three, how many?

Dave Fontana: That’s about 12,000 square feet.

President Nix: Okay, it just looks small compared to the rest of it.

Dave Fontana: That’s about average for what we would do. It just depends on the market, but that’s a good amount that we lease with tenants that are compatible with the supermarket.

Commissioner Tornatta: Is there a retention pond that we have to displace?

Dave Fontana: Yes.

Commissioner Tornatta: What are the thoughts on that?

Dave Fontana: Well, there is a small, we’re showing detention here, there is a small pond that would be, obviously, taken out, and it sits right about here. But, we’ll have full on-site detention for this site.

Gene Hahn: I guess, the other thing that’s notable is, of course, there will be at least about 120 employees out there, just in the Schnucks development, not including the out lots and what, I think, Bank of Evansville now has, and things of that nature. So, it will be a nice project for Evansville. We have the opportunity to sell off the front lots and just leave a bunch of the, three buildings sit out in front. David and I elected not to do that. We waited until we had a nice project that was comfortable for other things in Evansville that people could be proud of, and I think we’ll do a great job for that community.

Commissioner Tornatta: How many other locations have you had, have you had a lot of remonstrance from a lot of the other locations that you’ve seen? Or what have you normally come across from the Schnucks locations?

Gene Hahn: I have not seen any. I mean, David, you can probably answer that better than I can.

Dave Fontana: I’m sorry, I’m not–

Commissioner Tornatta: I’m just kind of curious, now that you kind of have a track record, you have 50 or so developments that you’ve done. Do you find that people are pretty comfortable now with your set up? Or do you find that you’re still banging heads?

Dave Fontana: Well, every development’s different. Sometimes folks, and a lot of times we maybe have residential even in closer proximity than here. In other words, around more than one property line like we have here. We could have it two or three sides of us. It just depends. I mean, usually, at the end of the day, folks are happy with what we’ve developed. We think we do quality development. We have, I think there’s a real benefit to having the owners of the shopping center also being the owners of the anchor tenant in the shopping center. Because when somebody, if there’s trash that needs to be picked up, or whatever the issue is, you go in and find the store manager and he has to respond to his customers. We’re very cognizant of those customers and want to keep our property in good shape. But, you know, there obviously are developments where we have folks who would prefer that we not be there. It’s just kind of the way it is sometimes when you’re suggesting change. I do think this corner is, with Highway 41 being the main access that it is, and with the development on the other corners, I think certainly is one that we would consider prime for commercial development. Obviously, we’re following the growth, the housing growth in that area, and we, our market studies have shown, and based on the additional housing that we expect to see up there based on what’s been zoned and approved.

President Nix: Thank you. Mr. Shively, good afternoon.

Les Shively: I’m sorry. I guess, my message didn’t get to the Commissioners. I was at a jury trial. I’m sorry about that. Okay, thank you. I would just add the following to what has already been presented, and, I think Mr. Fontana said it very well, this is a map that was done back in the ‘90's by Morley and Associates Engineering. It identified all the new lots that have gone on line since the early ‘90's, at that time it was roughly maybe 1,500 lots. I’ve updated it a little bit, with the help of staff, trying to fill in lots that have gone on line in the last four or five years. We’re now up to over 3,000 new lots out there. I think this is one of Mr. Fontana’s favorite lines, Schnucks follows the rooftops. This is precisely what we’re doing. If we can focus on the area, at least of close proximity, Carrington Meadows, Creekside Meadows, Asbury Point, that’s over 500 lots just clustered right here. What I’ve done, it’s a little hard to see from there, I’ve made a copy of the center of this map which is where the Schnucks store would want to be, to give you a better idea of the multitude of lots and residents that will be served. I’m sure they already pointed out to you that there’s commercial already, of course, across the street. There’s also commercial up at Inglefield Road and 41 on the east side. You can also see from the map that I’ve given you and this map, almost all of these new homes are east of 41, which means that whatever traffic is generated is there. It exists, and people are wanting to go to commercial locations that are over here (Inaudible. Stepped away from microphone). So, really, the traffic situation is already there. It’s because that’s the new (Inaudible) residential in Vanderburgh County.

President Nix: Mr. Shively?

Les Shively: Yes, sir?

President Nix: Are you through for right now?

Les Shively: Yes.

President Nix: Okay, thank you. Okay, at this time I would like to ask if there are any remonstrators?

Commissioner Korb: That’s a joke, right?

President Nix: I’m teasing. Please state your name for the record.

Steve Bohleber: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I’m Steve Bohleber, and I’m an attorney representing the group of citizens in the neighborhood, many of whom are here this evening who are opposed to this proposed rezoning and encroachment upon what has been a quiet, rural lifestyle for many of them for the past 50 years. There’s a confusing record in this case, but this is, in fact, the third attempt to rezone substantially the same area since 2001. The area that’s depicted by this rezoning and properties between U.S. 41 and Old State along Boonville-New Harmony. The first two, which were voted on by this Commission in April and December of 2001 respectively, were rejected by this Commission. A law suit entailed and went to the Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this Commission’s ability to regulate land and enact zoning ordinances and change them within a broad range of discretionary powers. To understand the history of these–

President Nix: Mr. Bohleber? If you could hold just one second, we need to change the tape here.

(Tape change)

President Nix: Okay, go ahead.

Steve Bohleber: To understand the history of these various attempts, I think it’s appropriate to peruse the Commission meeting minutes of April 19, 2001 and December 17, 2001. I think those have been provided to you by both Mr. Shively and myself, either through the Plan Commission minutes or through direct mailings. I would like to incorporate all those into the record, and I hope you’ve had an opportunity to examine them, because I do think they show you the history behind all of this. The April 2001 meeting contained detailed reasons why the neighbors opposed this rezoning at that time. My neighbors belief is that most of those reasons are just as valid today, despite the intervening passage of time and changes that have occurred. This first attempt was defeated by the Commission by a unanimous vote. Later in 2001, the petitioner was allowed to refile a different plan. Input was sought from the remonstrating neighbors. I will point out that throughout this process Mr. Hahn and Mr. Shively have been very open and candid and have always spoken to the neighbors in an attempt to resolve this matter amicably. The neighbors were contacted in that second attempt in 2001, and an understanding was reached. I don’t want this Commission to think, however, that simply because an accord was reached in 2001 that that somehow makes their objections today suspect. Nonetheless, despite the agreement, the Commission still voted to deny this rezoning by a two to one vote. In 2001 there were an active group of neighbors, the most (Inaudible) of which was fellow named Ron Grover who has since left the area. He was able through lots of debate and argument to convince the neighbors that compromise was good. So, that did take us to a situation where there was a plan that was agreed upon with a lot of stipulations and restrictions in 2001. Nonetheless defeated by the Commission. The 2007 plan was suggested by the petitioner at the Plan Commission to be a better plan than the 2001 plan. My clients disagree. That’s why 105 of them signed a petition in opposition to this plan that was presented to the Area Plan Commission. I think that will become a part of your record by operation of law. To compare the plans, you’ll see there were many differences that we think provide less protection to the neighborhood. As is pointed out in the staff field report and revealed by the ordinance itself, there are 174 possible uses in a C-4 zoning. That means once zoned C-4, unless restricted by a use and development commitment, any one of those uses could be changed without further input from this Commission, or any neighbors. The 2001 use and development commitment, excluding use group 19, as I count it, prohibited close to 50 of those 174 uses. The one presented here today only prohibits 22, excluding those in use group 19, which includes circuses and a variety of other unusual things. The 2001 plan also preserved an agriculturally zoned buffer along Old State Road. It required that a traffic impact study be done, and which was in fact done by the petitioner at that time. It prohibited outside storage and/or dumpsters that could be seen, visually seen by adjoining neighbors. It provided 50 foot of green space, a 12 foot berm, a solid line of trees. Now, while some of these issues are addressed here, they’re not nearly as extensive or as protective as in 2001. On top of the use and development commitment in 2001, the petitioner agreed to a private covenant prohibiting changes in the zoning for 35 years along the northern portion of the property, and 15 years along the south. That was a commitment that they, a covenant that they would have recorded in the chain of title, had the rezoning been approved in 2001. I think that’s significant because, as you all are aware, once this use and development commitment is adopted it can be amended by a new rezoning process, and other uses can be added. The significance of the restrictive covenant would have prevented that for a period of time. So, this is a different plan, with different neighbors, with, while many of the same concerns, there’s also some different concerns. I think, if you categorize my clients opposition to this rezoning, there are six compelling reasons, and six compelling concerns they have for their opposition. One of the most significant, and I think that’s already been mentioned by many people is traffic and safety concerns. There’s no question that Mr. Hahn has made some improvements along Boonville-New Harmony between U.S. 41 and Old State, but the remaining arterial roads, to the north and south and east, being Old State Road and Boonville-New Harmony, remain rural, two lane roads. U.S. 41 and Boonville-New Harmony Road remain among the more dangerous intersections in our county. A concern the neighbors have is in addition to additional traffic along these two lane roads, is the ability to access the site off of Old State. I understand the petitioner is going to attempt to restrict truck traffic, but they are not police officers. That will be used. It’s certainly not going to address the hundreds of non-commercial vehicles that will probably be accessing that site off the Old State Road entrance. County Engineer John Stoll, in the staff field report did note this strain on the infrastructure. He says, “It is obvious the development of this land could require additional improvements on Boonville-New Harmony and/or Old State. The extent of the improvements would depend upon the type of land uses constructed on this site.” So, it’s an uncertain that exists as to what type of infrastructure improvements might be necessary to accommodate this increased traffic. But, I think it’s obvious to all concerned, including the petitioner, because they’re good business people and I love Schnucks a lot myself, they want traffic to increase, they want business. So, it’s obvious to everyone concerned, the traffic patterns are going to be changed. Safety issues will need to be addressed. In the absence of careful planning, I think this is not only going to be a burden on the neighbors, but also a burden on the taxpayers to improve the roadways to accommodate this increased traffic. A second concern is one of pure aesthetics, and, you know, everybody is concerned about things changing, not being the way they are, but, as I’ve pointed out before, and I think that some of the neighbors that are going to follow me and address this Commission will tell you that this area has long been a quiet, rural neighborhood along Old State. It’s mixed agricultural and residential uses. This incursion this far away from 41 is going to create some problems for them from a purely aesthetic standpoint. There are drainage concerns. I realize that this body sits as the Drainage Board, and one of your responsibilities anytime there is a development is to make sure that the drainage issues are addressed. The petitioner is employed, you know, great people to deal with drainage issues. But, nonetheless, there’s going to be a lot of pavement out there. Pavement causes runoff. We’ve already established that an existing body of water on the property is going to be displaced. The natural detention capacity of that is going to be eliminated, and if not properly replaced, is going to create some drainage difficulties. If you look back in the minutes of 2001, some of the long time neighbors talked about flooding issues out there in that area. I think those are omnipresent, if, in fact, we have some deluges down the line. Another concern, or number four is light and noise pollution concerns that the neighbors have. Pushing vehicular traffic off of U.S. 41, on to Old State at this site will degrade their quality of life. There’s no restriction on the hours of operations at Schnucks, and I know, since I shop at Schnucks that locally they open at 6:00 a.m. and close at 12:00 midnight, and I think that’s their immediate plan here. Without restrictions there’s nothing to prevent a 24 hour a day operation. As good business people, I’m sure they want to leave that option open. But, that’s a concern to the neighbors. A 24 hour a day operation is going to bring noise and light and other intrusive things into this neighborhood that have never been here before. I guess, if you try to summarize all of this under one concept, what is going on here and what is planned here is something that land use regulators have called urban sprawl in recent years. That’s become one of the big problems for land use planners as we approach this new century, as people want to get out of the downtown areas, they want to get out of the center cities, and they want to move out into the suburbs. You know what, my clients did that 50 years ago. So, you know, but realizing now that we lose a lot in the process. If you define urban sprawl as dispersed development outside of compact, urban and village centers along highways and the rural countryside, that’s exactly what we have here. This is nine miles from the center of Evansville, a mile and a half from the historic town of Darmstadt. The problems with urban sprawl is they create infrastructure problems. The need for infrastructure improvements at tax payer expense is increased. We’re seeing infrastructure problems in our center city now. Sewers are crumbling, roads are degraded, difficulties are everywhere. To ignore those when you have to expand those infrastructures out far away from the center of town is not considered good planning at this point. You know, as I’ve mentioned I think in my correspondence to you, and at the Plan Commission meeting, if there was an issue occasions last election, it was the sewer issue. We all are addressing a crumbling sewer situation in Evansville, particularly in the downtown areas. It’s not a time to start, as a community, be it city or county, to address additional needs nine miles away. Tax bases are shrinking because of restructuring at the state level. Local government is having trouble keeping up with its existing infrastructure. To expand the taxpayers burden of providing infrastructure to remote areas is not good business, it’s not good government, and one reason that urban sprawl is a great concern for land use planners in the 21^st century. So, you know, I guess if you summarize the whole area, the whole situation, it can be capsulized with the concept of urban sprawl. I think these were addressed by the comprehensive plan as well. In the executive summary of the comprehensive plan warns against this type of stuff. A commercial action plan in that executive summary says that the objective of the plan is, “To ensure efficient and appealing commercial development in appropriate areas at minimized, adverse impacts on surrounding property, the road network, and utility systems.” The policies of that action plan include mandates “To direct new, commercial development into existing commercial areas before rezoning new land. To encourage compact commercial areas, and where possible avoid newer, expanded, inefficient development. To discourage spot zonings of property for higher intensity volume commercial uses in residential areas.” It goes on to say, “That when new commercial sites are developed adjacent to residential areas, schools, churches, public parks and the proposed greenway, we should encourage expanded landscape buffers that exceed the minimum setback requirements of the code.” We think this proposal is not good for the neighborhood, and it’s not good for the county either, not good for the taxpayers. We think it’s bad zoning. We think that the increased taxes of this development, the increased employment will cost far more when we come to infrastructure improvements for roads, for sewers, for law enforcement, for other things that are going to have to be shifted out in that area. For that reason, my clients have respectfully asked you to consider voting no, as the Commission did in 2001 on two different occasions. I would like to turn the podium over to a couple of the affected neighbors who have a far more eloquent approach to this than I do. Thank you very much.

President Nix: Thank you, Mr. Bohleber. Good afternoon. Do you want to pull the mic down to you there? There you go.

Mrs. Earl Wilson: Before I start this is a letter that I sent.

President Nix: We should have a copy of that. Okay.

Mrs. Earl Wilson: And then here are some pictures that I will talk about (Inaudible).

President Nix: Okay, if you could go back to the microphone and state your name and your address please for us. Thank you.

Mrs. Earl Wilson: I am Mrs. Earl Wilson. I live at 13250 Woodland Lane in rural Vanderburgh County. I have given the Commissioners a couple of photos that I took this afternoon, and I took these photos from the backyard of my neighbor, Nancy McCormick, who will speak next. I say from her backyard, and that’s across Old State Road. As you look at the photos, notice that I’ve put an arrow in that small lake there, that’s where Schnucks would like to build there store. Then to the north of that you can see the subdivision called Golden Hill. Mr. Shively sort of represented that the people in Golden Hill didn’t mind this rezoning, and he’s wrong about that. They all signed our petition against it, and I have two representatives of that neighborhood, Mabel and Jim Blythe, here tonight to represent Golden Hill. Right back here. So, I would like to remind you that the comprehensive plan for 2004 to 2025 did mention the 41 corridor as an area for commercial development, but at no point does it mention that that should go to Old State Road. That’s where the sticking point is for us. When in 2001 we had the agreement with them, this area, if you can see what must be a lake in that area, and it’s the one that I have pointed out there will be drained and filled in for Schnucks to build the store there. So, our agreement was going to be that just the very tip of that lake, if you can picture this, would be in the commercial area, and they would leave the rest of it from that, and I say the tip, I mean the tip going this way. Just the very corner of it was going to be included in the commercial development. That means, as you can see, there would still be a lot of green area, and that was the agreement that we agreed to, that was supposed to run with the land if they got the rezoning at that time. So, you can see it’s quite a bit different.

Commissioner Korb: Are you referring back to the 2001–

Mrs. Earl Wilson: 2001.

Commissioner Korb: –Mrs. Wilson?

Mrs. Earl Wilson: In December, uh-huh. Most of that land, except that very corner, which is not included this time in their wanting to rezone, was to, if they were successful in rezoning that would be left green and would not be, you know, commercial for 35 years. You know, that was going to be way after I was dead, but it didn’t, well, that was 2001. Now, people who regularly use these intersections, both the four way stop at Boonville-New Harmony and Old State and the Highway 41 and Boonville-New Harmony intersections know how crowded these are. Especially during the work week as people from Toyota and PPG and other plants up there go to work and then when they come home again. We have already spoken about the traffic impact study that was done by Bernardin Lochmueller in 2001, and they projected that by 2005, all of the turn lanes on Highway 41 and Boonville-New Harmony Road would be, and this is a quote “marginally acceptable”. That would have been by 2005. Now, when there’s a lot of traffic on the Highway and on Boonville-New Harmony Road, the turn lanes are filled up and people have to wait in the regular traffic lanes. That’s already true. So, we really don’t need more traffic out there. I would like to say that at this intersection, within a half mile of the intersection of 41 and Boonville-New Harmony Road, there are seven crosses where seven fatalities, four right at the intersection of Boonville-New Harmony and 41, and the other two on either side with, as I say, all within a half mile. So, it really has been, in the past, a dangerous intersection. When we have big events out at the 4-H Center, you all know the Frog Follies, and that’s a whole weekend, and the Vanderburgh County Fair lasts a whole week, and traffic is truly horrific then. I would like for you to look at the diagram or the picture up there and picture all these Frog Follies people and the people going over to the Vanderburgh Fair coming from the east, going through the four way stop, and as they would be going, people would be coming from the west and trying to turn in, trying to turn left into this development, if it should be allowed. That is going to make it truly dangerous. So, we always talk about the school busses, and this is mainly a residential area, so, you know, more traffic really is bad for that reason also. I’ve given you twice the traffic counts on both Boonville-New Harmony and Old State Road, and that’s now, and that was in August not on a special day, just a day in August. So, I would like to close by saying again what the comprehensive plan tells us would be a good thing, and that is when there is already land available and rezoned properly in an area, that that should be used first before they try to rezone. That’s what the comprehensive plan says, and within a half mile of where we live there is land available, it’s zoned commercial, it is way more than any shopping center would need for a number of stores. So, we say, you know, use that first. It also would be in an area of less traffic, because it doesn’t have the 4-H Center, it doesn’t have Buehler’s, and it would, as I say, it’s there, so, really we wonder why they want to cram this shopping center in an area that’s already dangerous. Thank you.

President Nix: Thank you, Mrs. Wilson.

Mrs. Earl Wilson: I would like to introduce my neighbor, Nancy McCormick, just for her to say what she thinks.

Nancy McCormick: Ditto. Is that good enough?

President Nix: Couldn’t have said it better, huh?

Nancy McCormick: We all feel the same way. I e-mailed each of you just yesterday I think it was, and I did in intentionally, had it late. This is not needed out here. It’s not needed. I can understand the money and what it will mean for Schnucks and all, and guess what, I shop Schnucks. Say that five times real fast. I go over to Green River Road for this. I’ll go where I need to go, but we have a Buehler’s, we have all the banks now, but you’ve got to understand, on these roads out here, on Old State Road watch the school busses in the morning and the afternoon people. I’m telling you, and it’s a narrow road, there is plenty of room like Jo said, up 41. Since everything is moving north, move Schnucks up. You’ll get Haubstadt and what are all of those little towns, Poseyville, you’ll get a whole bunch of them up there. You really would. But, I just have to say that my husband built his home, well, our home now in ‘54 on Woodland Lane. We’re still there. You would need to come out and see our area, it’s a lovely area, we don’t want all this mess out there. Thank you very much, but first Tom Blythe has a few things he would like to say.

President Nix: Thank you.

Tom Blythe: Did she say a few? My name is Tom Blythe. I’m an architect, licensed 21 years in the state of Indiana. I’m here speaking basically on behalf of my parents, James and Mabel Blythe, they live in Golden Hill Estates. They’re the second house north of this proposed development. We respectfully ask that each of you deny this rezoning petition. We appreciate the use and development commitment and that the developer, Schnucks, has pledged to be sensitive to good design, but it’s our sincere belief that if this rezoning is approved and the property is developed as proposed, now, I’ve got an aerial photograph that’s maybe a little bit wider range than what we have on the board there. So, as it was, somewhat (Inaudible), it will have severely negative consequences for our neighborhood. We are opposed for the obvious reasons of increased noise, light pollution, increased traffic, heat island effect of buildings, parking lots, decrease in property values. We are also opposed for less obvious reasons, but I’ve tried to kind of take some notes here. I don’t want to hit on things that you gentlemen have already heard. But let me start out, the first item would be increased noise. Semi truck deliveries, day and night, dumpsters being emptied, back up warning signals, a 407 vehicle parking lot, horns, public address systems, and snow removal operations. These sources of additional noise combined with hard paving, building and roofing systems which reflect and amplify these noises will greatly increase the noise in our quiet neighborhood. There should be no challenge to this fact, it will be noisier. This is a far cry from the sounds of the current zoned compliant use, a country meadow in the life of a rural pond with its sounds of frogs, crickets, ducks, geese and wildlife. I had to add that in there. Light pollution. Observe the nighttime glow of any area of recent development, the pale amber nighttime sky that marks commercial development like a halo. Commercial development needs to be seen, both day and night. It’s part of their marketing and advertising. Signs are lit, parking lots are lighted, buildings are illuminated, their current and prospective customers need to know they are there, they are open for business, how to find them and what they’re hours of operations are. Commercial development to be successful must call attention to itself, both day and night. This is done by lighting. Illuminated signage and message boards. Just two weeks ago I went outside with my 13 year old daughter as we, for extra credit, to find comet P17, a (Inaudible) which exploded in October and is now visible as a faint fuzzball. This is homework. We could not have completed this assignment next to an illuminated 400 space parking lot and shopping center. We would have had to drive further out into the country, which is where we were. Commercial developments also have a need for another type of lighting, it’s called security lighting, which allows, which lights a facility all night long. This property does not require extensive security lighting now. Think of it, I mean, just the term security lighting somewhat entails that there is an increased risk for security. I’m going to skip the increased traffic notes that I had here, because I think that’s been talked about. But, I did want to bring up something to your attention, traffic entry and egress is being proposed from this area right here off of Boonville-New Harmony Road, plus we have an entrance that’s going to be off of Old State Road right there. So, and that’s going to be limited, there’s no truck traffic on that one. So, we can say they have two, maybe realistically one and a half. You know, just kind of looking at some of the other Schnucks developments there, the north side store has six points of egress into their site, the west side store has four, the east side store has five, the Green River store has five. You know, so this one has two. I guess, the point there is that 407 parking spaces only from the Schnucks development is actually being funneled down to Boonville-New Harmony Road, which is at the low point between Highway 41 and Old State. We’re not only recreating the problem that we have with the Buehler’s grocery store, which is across 41 from this, we’re actually making any even worse problem, because we’ve got a larger store, we’ve got more cars, and we’ve got development here and a parking lot that hasn’t even been considered in the parking number. Heat island effect, this is a well published fact, when you replace ponds, grassland and trees with brick, mortar, pavement and roof, the microclimate of the surrounding area is affected. The term for this occurrence is referred to as heat island effect. The local effect of this development will be hotter temperatures in summer, as the buildings soak up and reflect heat during the day, and as the heat gained during this day is radiated back into the neighborhood sky at night. To the neighborhood and the sky at night. We are, however, concerned also that the loss of trees, shrubs and rolling hills will increase the openness factor, and that winds may actually increase also. That’s a published fact also. So, the wind, the heat island effect is another thing that will be an impact on the neighborhood that we have here. There’s been mention about the comprehensive plan, I don’t know if you can see that right here, but this is the property that is in the petition right now. There is a corridor along this neighborhood that is not proposed to be in the commercial development 2025 (Inaudible). I can pass that around, but it essentially reiterates what Mrs. Wilson said is that that corridor along Old State Road was not proposed to be part of any commercial development. We applaud the foresight of the planners who initially planned that to say that there would not be and that there should not be any commercial development there, and we ask this board to confirm the previous planning decisions and simply follow that plan as submitted and approved, without modification. Another thing that has been mentioned, but I think needs probably needs to be reiterated is increased runoff. Hard surfaces such as pavement and roofs that increase the flow rate and discharge of storm water are indicated on the development plan from setback to setback. A small detention area of questionable size is also shown. I guess, the point there is we’ve got just about setback to setback pavement. Field that was there, green space is now paved. The Golden Hill, oh, this development will increase storm water flow and discharge. The Golden Hill lake overflows into the existing lower lake and ditch along an existing drainage easement that actually comes from the spillway here, underneath the drive and down into the lake right there. That’s an existing, established drainage easement that we have there. Careful planning and detention will need to be implemented. Site drainage is currently in check with the pond and the green space and ditch that currently exists. The one main concern though is, what I’ve pointed out on the board here is our development is right here, the flood plain, of course, we’re high and dry up here on this development, but two major ditches to the east and to the west of our proposed site both flow into the community of Hillsdale. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the community of Hillsdale, most of that is within the flood plain. Now, this site (Inaudible) won’t cause extra flooding down there, but I think it’s something that needs to be addressed that the detention, the retention of the water flowing off of that site is something that will need to be contended with down here in Hillsdale. That’s a low lying area, and that’s where the creek actually levels off. We don’t have as much drop in elevation starting at Hillsdale. Want me to stop? I’ll keep going. The plan, I want to talk a little bit, maybe more just about the plan, which we’ve taken their plan and that’s on the aerial photograph up there.

President Nix: Mr. Blythe, before you continue, could we get a show of hands of how many more people would like to speak? Is there anyone else? Okay, maybe if you could, I didn’t want to try to limit anybody, but if we can keep this thing moving please.

Tom Blythe: I’m getting there. The plan far exceeds the minimum lot coverage of 75 percent. If you would look at the plan, there is new hard surface, as I said, pretty much from setback to setback. We’ve determined the lot coverage of about 85 percent on the conservative side. It may be closer to 87 percent. That’s with the plan that’s been submitted with the packet. That plan barely meets the minimum parking requirements for a commercial building of 74,900 square feet. The 407 parking spaces is right there. So, it’s as if the desire was, and I know we’re talking about, you know, it’s a very preliminary plan, but to pave almost everything and show a detention basin on the plan so that we know it’s thought of, but to put the biggest building possible that we’ve got here. I think Mrs. Wilson said it right, we’re trying to cram a lot building, a lot of parking lot into a small site that’s very hard, really, to get into. You know, it would be wonderful if it was a much smaller building that didn’t have the parking requirement. We could back it off of Old State Road and not have to worry about a 407 space parking lot. Now, the final thing that I wanted to talk about, the building which is 74,900 square feet is being built over this lake, that has been superimposed, I mean, the building pretty much is right in the middle of the lake. To accomplish this there will be significant earth work expense and/or significant foundation expense. Natural earth cannot be put back as dense and compact as Mother Nature has put it there. You can use piles, or piers under the columns, but the floor still typically bears on grade. A geo-technical report–

President Nix: Mr. Blythe?

Tom Blythe: Yes?

President Nix: Could you hold just a second please? We need to change the tape again.

(Tape change)

President Nix: Okay, sir.

Tom Blythe: The geo-technical report should state how much settlement you could expect in slabs and foundations. Probably the least desirable situation is to have the building sited on a combination of natural soils and engineered fill, creating a greater probability of what’s called differential settlement, where parts of the building settle more than others. So, it’s expensive to build over a lake. If I may just add a, you know, just a couple of comments that, I mean, really that corridor, that corner is very important to the neighborhood. It’s something that should be addressed. The drainage off of the upper lake, through this site, you know, into a retention pond that’s down here probably needs to be, I mean, very well thought out, because where they’re putting the detention pond right here is actually kind of on the high end of the site. It’s not right here at the low end, which would be right there. So, and I know you had probably gotten a letter from my parents also, and they failed to mention in there, I believe, that I said you probably should invite each of the Commissioners to come over and sit on the front porch and drink a cold beer in an evening and enjoy the neighborhood as it is right now, and kind of see what they cherish. So, I apologize for going long on you here, but it is something that we do wish and hope that you would vote this petition no.

President Nix: Thank you, Mr. Blythe.

Carol McClintock: Good afternoon. I’m Carol McClintock. I am a broker/associate with F.C. Tucker/Emge Realtors. I am speaking on behalf of the petition. I couldn’t tell on your agenda where I should come. So, I’ll just take a couple minutes of your time. I was asked to come here by some of my clients that live out in this area. Their concern is their inability to get quickly to, in their opinion, places that they would like to shop, the North Green River Road Schnucks, in a timely fashion and with gasoline being three dollars a gallon. Last year, as a realtor, I relocated 41 families to Southwest Indiana. Just one realtor. Thirty seven of those families moved to Warrick County. The reason that they moved to Warrick County is because they go out, they see the shopping along 261, along the Lloyd, they know that they will have easy access to shopping. There are some of the same great neighborhoods on the north side that are out in Warrick County, and we’re really putting our current homeowners that are trying to sell their homes, builders that would like to continue to develop the north side in a really bad position, because they are competing against more convenience in Warrick County. So, we’re sending all those taxpayers to Warrick County. So, I’m not great at math, but I did a little bit of math, so, if those 37 people had all purchased a home in Vanderburgh County, and they paid an average of $3,000 a year in taxes, that’s $111,000 a year times ten years, there’s another million dollars to spend on schools, on road improvements, on parks, and all the things that all the taxpayers want in Vanderburgh County. We all know the taxpayers in Vanderburgh County want to make sure that their individual taxes, you know, do not increase. A couple of other things that I did want to mention, I’m reminded of the target rezoning when I was sitting in that spot, and heard many of the same concerns. Just two weeks ago I was out in the neighborhood that adjoins Target showing a home, and those property values have stayed the same, increased at the same rate as any other properties in Vanderburgh County, and those kinds of problems that individuals felt that they would have, just have not come to fruition. The other thing that I did want to mention, and I know traffic is a major concern, I can’t visualize the individuals that I’m talking about driving up north on 41 and going on Old State and around and going in that other entrance. They are going to come up 41, turn right, turn left into the store and come back out the same way. They’re not going to use that other path. It was mentioned that that was a very dangerous intersection. I’m sure you are all aware that the most dangerous intersection in Vanderburgh County, as reported on television and in the newspapers, is the intersection at Boonville-New Harmony Road and 57. We are absolutely pushing all this traffic over there to Green River Road, to go down Green River Road to go to the existing Schnucks and other shopping along there. Clearly, this should improve traffic in other parts of the county. So, I just wanted to share that with you. As many of you know, I used to work for Mr. Hahn, and now have moved to another company, but, I can say that one thing that I absolutely know about Gene Hahn is that if he says that he’s going to do something, he is a man of his word, and he’ll do what he promises. Thank you for your time.

President Nix: Thank you. Before, Mr. Shively–

Les Shively: Yes, sir?

President Nix: –any other remonstrators? Okay, thank you. Do you want to close, Mr. Shively?

Les Shively: I’ll do my best.

President Nix: You know what, before that, let me just do this.

Les Shively: Sure.

President Nix: Are there any questions from the Commissioners right now to anyone about this?

Commissioner Tornatta: I did have just a couple. Do we know what the tax base is now on that property?

Les Shively: I can’t tell you what the tax base is. I can tell you according to the current rate and the calculations provided by the Assessors Office that the proposed initial improvements will generate about $241,000 a year in annual taxes.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay.

Les Shively: If that’s a response to your question.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay, yeah, I mean, it, I was trying to get what that initial tax base–

Gene Hahn: I can help a little bit on this. Gerald, if I can remember right, yours are about five or six hundred a year. 450? So, there in that range, about $450 to $600 a year. For each one of them.

Commissioner Tornatta: Okay. So, at that point we would see a pretty significant tally. Okay, and then if you can, when you’re talking about some of the things, if you can address just the ingress and egress and what were some of the thoughts from the developers about having the one entrance and the secondary entrance, but mainly the one entrance and maybe explaining how some of the other facilities have more entrances, and how they’ve developed around that.

Les Shively: Well–

President Nix: And, Mr. Shively, before you start your summation–

Les Shively: Yes, sir?

President Nix: –I would like to ask Commissioner Korb if he had any questions of anyone at all?

Commissioner Korb: And, really, just of Mr. Hahn, if I can. I heard a repeating theme through the remonstrators that the ‘07 plan is not as sweet as the ‘01 plan. The differences, Mr. Hahn, would be because of why? Just because the ‘01 plan wasn’t considering a grocery store of this size?

Gene Hahn: That’s primarily the biggest reason, yes.

Commissioner Korb: Got it.

Les Shively: Can I also add–

Commissioner Korb: Well, sure.

Les Shively: –in ‘01, six years ago, in fairness to the situation at that time and to the neighbors, we had no idea what was going to go there.

Commissioner Korb: Right.

Les Shively: Okay? We now know, and we’re tailoring this development to that anchor, user and owner. I don’t know if they made this clear in the beginning, I was kind of a little late, but, as you know, everything north, not only of what we’re going to rezone, but also, it’s already zoned C-4, everything north will be owned, that will be a Schnucks commercial/retail development. So, we know who the end user is going to be.

President Nix: Do we know, and maybe, Janet, you could tell me, the corner where the, the opposite corner, when that was rezoned and what the zoning was on that? Is there anyway to tell that without a whole lot of? Does anyone know that?

Les Shively: Which corner are you talking about?

President Nix: The opposite corner where Buehler’s is right now. When was that rezoned? I’m just curious in my mind.

Commissioner Tornatta: ‘97.

Janet Greenwell: We can do that.

Commissioner Tornatta: Yeah, I think that was ‘97. You guys actually did that, correct?

President Nix: I wasn’t involved in that. If there was a way we could tell before we go on, I would like to know that.

Commissioner Tornatta: October 20, 1997. It went from Ag to C-4.

Janet Greenwell: ‘97.

Commissioner Tornatta: Boy, I tell you what (Inaudible), pretty good.

President Nix: And, that’s that whole corner, which would encompass, is there two banks right now? Two banks and Buehler’s then? Okay, okay.

Commissioner Korb: So, that’s the Buehler’s there?

President Nix: And, at that time that was agricultural? In ‘97?

Commissioner Korb: Got it.

Janet Greenwell: Yes.

President Nix: Okay, thank you.

Les Shively: Before I sum up, there was a question, I don’t know if it was Mr. Tornatta, or maybe Mr. Nix, or Mr. Korb, one of you three asked about the other locations and ingress and egress. Someone asked that question.

Commissioner Korb: Troy.

President Nix: Commissioner Tornatta.

Les Shively: Mr. Fontana can explain that, because I don’t think that was accurately described a moment ago. He can be a little more accurate.

Dave Fontana: The locations there, we do have some of our other locations in town do have additional access points. For instance, the one on Green River Road, that shopping center is, has, I think about, that’s not ours, we didn’t develop it, Mr. Spurling did, has about 30,000 square feet, at least of retail, and has additional ground on the north end that he has the ability under our arrangement for additional retail to be built there. Then he has four or five out parcels out there along, so it’s a bigger development. As is the one in the north and the west. So, it’s substantially bigger. East, we share those entrances with some other properties. Here we’re sitting on New Harmony is a five lane road, basically, so we think that it will handle the traffic coming out and in for the development. But, as the point taken because there were concerns about the access on to Old State, in fact, you know, folks didn’t feel that we should have an access point there. We do believe, for proper dispersal of traffic that it is important that we have that access on Old State for, not for trucks, but for cars and customer traffic. We think that will adequately handle the traffic there.

President Nix: Okay, are there any other questions from the Commissioners at this time? Okay, Mr. Shively, if you would, in your summation, I would like to, if we could limit this to three minutes, and I’ll also give the other counsel a three minute summation.

Les Shively: Well, normally, Mr. Nix–

President Nix: Well, how about, is five alright, guys?

Les Shively: Mr. Nix, their remonstrance exceeded our presentation.

President Nix: You didn’t get here on time either.

Les Shively: Well, sir–

President Nix: It would have went a lot longer, I’m sure if you had showed up.

Les Shively: I think we would have had it covered pretty well, sir. Also, if you get the, normally the remonstrators don’t get the, we have the burden.

President Nix: If you would like, you have the time you need.

Les Shively: Thank you. I will not try to repeat things that have already been said.

President Nix: Thank you.

Les Shively: But, I think we need to put to rest this fiction of urban sprawl, because that’s exactly what it is is fiction. In the 1970's I was an intern for Mayor Russell Lloyd. Russell Lloyd did something back in those days that everybody thought was somewhat peculiar. He ran sewer and water all the way up Highway 41, beyond the corporate limits to what is now I-64. He did that in anticipation that this would be, you talk about, someone was talking about applauding those who have vision, this was a person with vision. He saw this was the new frontier. This was where Evansville was going to grow, and it grew with PPG, it grew with Ameriqual. As you move closer to this property you have the plastics, Matrixx Plastics. In fact, for many, many years there was a section of C-4 at Inglefield Road just north of here that extends all the way from 41 to Old State Road. It also stimulated the new frontier for residential development. This is the fastest growing area. The population of the City of Evansville may be going down, but Vanderburgh County is not. I’m sure, I don’t have to tell you something, you know that already. With that, 3,000 new homes out here. Schnucks follows the rooftops. The sewer’s already in place. Old State is already carrying traffic for those new subdivisions, those new home sites, 90 percent of which are east of 41. So, the fact that Schnucks is going to create a traffic situation is not logical when you think of it this way. Again, I’m borrowing Mr. Fontana’s line, they’re coming to the rooftops. The people that will come to this store are the people that live in the area, in the neighborhood. That’s why they’re building there. They’re not building out in the middle of nowhere. They’re building there to serve those people, most of which live east of 41. Now, as far as traffic is concerned, Mrs. Wilson read to you the traffic impact study, and I don’t think she did it intentionally, but she read that part of the report where BLA, Bernardin Lochmueller Associates, described the before condition, the before condition. That’s not the way it is today. In fact, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Remmert, at their expense, have improved Boonville-New Harmony Road all the way from 41 to the east part of their property line. They’ve also improved, with the direction and the permission and the blessing of the Indiana Department of Transportation, Highway 41, in particular the turn blisters north and south. Now, just because this rezoning is approved, it’s not over yet. We’ll have to go to site review. John Stoll has already informally started to vet this particular project, and no doubt there will probably be another traffic impact study required. John Stoll will have the last word. We’ve put it in our use and development commitment we’re going to be at his mercy, so to speak, we think John’s a reasonable guy, but he’s, whatever he tells us we’re going to have to do. It’s probably going to end up being extending those improvements along Boonville-New Harmony Road to Old State, or as far as we can, and improving Old State where we’re going to have our access point. There’s no question about that. Mr. Stoll is already doing the preliminary studies on that, and we’ll have to build it to his specifications. Now, with regard to the petitions that were signed, I doubt if you’ll look at those 105 names you’re going to find any names from Windemere Farms, or Covington Heights, or Cambridge, or Brentwood, or C