CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 16, 2003
The Honorable Council of the City of Evansville met on regular session at 6:30 pm on Monday, June 16, 2003 in the City Council Chambers, Room 301 Civic Center Complex, Evansville, Indiana with President John, presiding. The following business was conducted.
These minutes are not intended to be a verbatim transcript. Audiotapes of this meeting are on file in the City Clerk’s Office.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Kniese, Bagbey, Melcher, Robinson, Koehler Walden, Watts, Angermeier, Kiefer, John.
There being nine (9) members present and zero (0) members absent and nine (9) members representing a quorum, the President declared this session of the Common Council officially opened.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
City Clerk Alberta Matlock led the pledge of allegiance this evening.
President John: Thank you fellow Councilmen and those in the audience welcome to the June 16th meeting of the Common Council. Are there any students in the audience that would like to be recognized this evening?
COUNCIL ATTORNEY
John Hamilton is Council Attorney this evening.
READING AND AMENDMENT OF MINUTES OF PRECEDING MEETING
Is there a motion to approve the minutes of the June 9, 2003 meetings of the Common Council as written?
Councilman Bagbey moved and Councilman Angermeier seconded the motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of the Common Council held June 9, 2003 be approved as written. Voice vote. So ordered.
REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
IN YOUR JUNE 13TH PACKET:
*Agenda for the June 16, 2003 City Council meeting.
*Committee Meeting Schedule.
*Minutes of City Council Meetings held June 9, 2003.
*Minutes from Area Plan Commission Meeting held June 4, 2003.
*Area Plan Commission Staff Reports.
*Rezoning Ordinances R-2003-24 and R-2003-25.
*Rezoning Ordinance R-2003-17 as amended.
*Jacobsville Neighborhood Association Newsletter.
*A copy of a letter to Lieutenant Governor Joseph Kernan from City Council
Regarding Boeing 7E7 plant.
*A letter from Janet McCabe of IDEM.
*A letter from Robert Hayden of Ozanam F.S.
*An Important Notice from the Evansville Redevelopment Commission.
*A letter from Peggy Braun, Interim Director of Metropolitan Development.
*An Announcement from the Evansville Convention and Visitors Bureau regarding
The ORSANCO tank to arrive at the Pagoda on Saturday, June 14, 2003.
*Agenda for Board of Zoning Appeals June 19, 2003 meeting.
ON YOUR DESK THIS EVENING:
*Culver Neighborhood Association Newsletter.
*Financial Report dated May 31, 2003.
*Board of Park Commissioners Agenda for June 18, 2003 meeting.
*A memo from Lynn Buhr regarding skate parks.
*A copy of a letter from the Building Commission sent to Allen Bradford Bess.
*A memo from Peggy Braun, Interim Director of Metropolitan Development regarding
Code enforcement problems.
Councilman Melcher moved and Councilwoman Robinson seconded the motion to receive, file and make these reports and communications a part of the minutes of the meeting. Voice vote. So ordered.
CONSENT AGENDA
FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS
ORDINANCE R-2003-24 TO APC C-4 TO R-1
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 3134 N. FULTON AVENUE
PETITIONER: SHARMON FORD
OWNER: SAME
REP: STEVEN L. BOHLEBER
DISTRICT: ANGELA KOEHLER WALDEN, WARD 5
ORDINANCE R-2003-25 TO APC C-1 TO R-2
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1630 HARMONY WAY
PETITIONER: JAMES F. SHOPTAUGH II
OWNER: SAME
REP: SAME
DISTRICT: B.J. WATTS, WARD 6
Councilman Melcher moved and Councilman Kniese seconded the motion to adopt the Consent Agenda as written. Voice vote. So ordered.
CONSENT AGENDA
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS
ORDINANCE R-2003-7 FROM APC R-1 TO PUD
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 7600 NEWBURGH ROAD
PETITIONER: MAPLEWOOD DEVELOPMENT, LLC.
REP. MORLEY AND ASSOCIATES
DISTRICT: JEFF KNIESE, WARD 1
This petition was denied, having 6 affirmative votes and 7 negative votes.
ORDINANCE R-2003-18 FROM APC M-3 TO R-1
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1617 W. MISSOURI STREET
PETITIONER: DAVID P. BARTLETT
OWNER: B&S PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC
DISTRICT: B. J. WATTS, WARD 6
ORDINANCE R-2003-19 FROM APC M-3 TO M-2
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 512 AND 522-526 N.W. FIRST STREET
PETITIONER: AZTAR INDIANA GAMING, LLC OWNER: ALEXANDER REAL ESTATE, INC.
SINGER-OPTICAL COMPANY, INC.
REP: MARCO L. DeLUCIO
DISTRICT: B. J. WATTS, WARD 6
ORDINANCE R-2003-20 FROM APC R-4 TO M-2
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1141-1151 COURT, 1120 DIAMOND AVENUE
PETITIONER: NUNNING PROPERTIES, LLC
REP: MARCO L. DeLUCIO
DISTRICT: STEVE MELCHER, WARD 3
This petition was approved, having 12 affirmative votes and 1 negative vote.
ORDINANCE R-2003-21 FROM APC CO-2 TO C-1
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 651 S. ELLIOTT
PETITIONER: SHELLIE A. KEY
OWNER: JOHNNIE M. FYKES
DISTRICT: CONNIE ROBINSON, WARD 4
This petition was approved, having 13 affirmative votes
ORDINANCE R-2003-22 FROM APC C-4 & R-5 TO M-1
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 506 AND 516 FRANKLIN STREET, 201-205 EDGAR STREET, 202-226 MARY STREET
PETITIONER: BERRY PLASTICS CORPORATION
REP: STEVEN KROHN
DISTRICT: B.J. WATTS, WARD 6
This petition was approved, having 13 affirmative votes.
Is there a motion to adopt the Consent Agenda Second Reading of Zoning Ordinances and to accept the Area Plan Commission Report?
Councilman Melcher and Councilman Bagbey seconded the motion to Adopt the Consent Agenda Second Reading of Zoning Ordinances and to accept the Area Plan Commission Reports and send all this to Third Reading and final vote. Voice Vote. So ordered.
President John: I spoke with the petitioner and the representative of the remonstrators on our first request for rezoning this evening. And since this is the only one that’s going to take probably a substantial amount time I am going to move that with their consent to our last one. All others have received unanimous approval by the Area Plan Commission and I don’t anticipate spending over fifteen minutes on all of these combined. So with that Madam Clerk, I would like to skip over to R-2003-18 as our first rezoning, if there is no objection from Members of Council.
REGULAR AGENDA
THIRD READING OF ZONING ORDINANCES:
ORDINANCE R-2003-18 FROM APC M-3 TO R-1
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1617 W. MISSOURI STREET
PETITIONER: DAVID P. BARTLETT
President John: Is the representative for the petitioner here? Could you please come forward to the podium and state your name?
David P. Bartlett: David Patrick Bartlett.
President John: Could you give us a brief description of what you are requesting and why.
David P. Bartlett: We’ve got a house that’s zoned M-3 and we’re wanting to reduce it down to an R-1. It’s strictly for resale, and the Mortgage Company.
President John: A single family residential from M-3 so it’s quite a down zoning.
David P. Bartlett: Yes.
President John: We have another one this evening. Are there any questions by Members of Council? Is there anyone in the audience that will speak in favor of, or in opposition to, this specific request?
Councilman Bagbey moved and Councilman Kiefer seconded the motion to adopt
Ordinance R-2003-18 and call the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Kniese, Bagbey, Melcher, Robinson, Koehler Walden, Watts, Angermeier Kiefer, John.
There being nine (9) ayes and zero (0) nays, Ordinance R-2003-18 is hereby declared ADOPTED.
REGULAR AGENDA
THIRD READING OF ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS
ORDINANCE R-2003-19 FROM APC M-3 TO M-2
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 512 AND 522-526 N.W. FIRST STREET
PETITIONER: AZTAR INDIANA GAMING, LLC
President John: This will be our second down zoning correct?
Marco DeLucio: That is correct.
President John: Would you kindly state your name for the record.
Marco DeLucio: My name is Marco DeLucio and I’m here this evening on behalf of the petitioner Aztar Indiana Gaming Company. With me is Rich Ruden who’s the Director of Planning and Development for Aztar Corporation and Jim Brown who’s the President and General Manager of Aztar Indiana Gaming. This proposal is to down zone the property from M-3 to M-2 to allow Aztar to construct an executive meeting facility that will consist of approximately, or in excess of 11,000 square feet of quality meeting space. The typical room sizes that they propose to construct will be about 500 square feet to 2,300 square feet providing the ability to accommodate groups that range in size from five to one hundred people. Exterior elevations that they propose will be similar to the existing Casino Aztar Hotel. And so it’s going to provide kind of a seamless transition between the Aztar’s current facilities. The interior design of the meeting rooms will be similar to the rooms that are currently available in the hotel. There will be a lobby and concourse space available with a back out support to support catering for this type of facility. Finally, there is surplus parking available for the site at Aztar’s existing parking garage. As I indicated Mr. Brown and Mr. Ruden are here to answer any particular questions you may have. I would point out that both the Redevelopment Commission and the Area Plan Commission have approved this proposal for development by unanimous approval and we would ask that your approval this evening of this petition to rezone. Thank you.
President John: Are there any questions by Members of Council? Councilman.
Councilman Kniese: Marco is this the same proposal that came before (INAUDIBLE mic off).
Marco DeLucio: The exact same proposal, yes sir Mr. Kniese.
Councilman Kniese: Thank you.
President John: Are there any other questions by Members of Council? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to this request?
Councilman Watts moved and Councilwoman Robinson seconded the motion to adopt
Ordinance R-2003-19 and call the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Kniese, Bagbey, Melcher, Robinson, Koehler Walden, Watts, Angermeier, Kiefer,
John.
There being nine (9) ayes and zero (0) nays, Ordinance R-2003-19 is hereby declared ADOPTED.
ORDINANCE R-2003-20 FROM APC R-4 TO M-2
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1141-1151 COURT, 1120 DIAMOND AVENUE
PETITIONER: NUNNING PROPERTIES, LLC
Marco DeLucio: Again, my name is Marco DeLucio and I’m here this evening representing Nunning Properties. This petition seeks to zone the property from R-4 to M-2 to keep it for Nunning Properties. Mr. Nunning has bought this property that we are seeking to rezone this evening at Sheriffs sale. There were currently a couple of rent house….there were a couple of rent houses on the property. One of those has since been removed. The other one will probably be removed in the very near future. The purpose of this is to allow Nunning to expand its operation. It’s about a company that’s about six years old and is expanded from three to seventeen employees in roughly six years and they’re continuing expansion efforts. The purpose again is to allow Nunning to expand its facilities and its operations at the current location. I believe Mr. Nunning has spoken with the Neighborhood Association President Diamond and Stringtown Neighborhood Association who expressed his support for this rezoning petition. Unfortunately Mr. Nunning could not be here this evening, they are in the heating and air conditioning business and this is the hot day they had and they are just absolutely swamped. So if you have any questions I’ll do my best to answer then.
President John: Questions by Members of Council. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor of or in opposition. Councilman.
Councilman Bagbey: Noticing on the Area Plan Report it was reference 1141-1151 Joan Court, 1120 Diamond Avenue. On the Staff Field Report is it referred too as 1141-1151 Joan Avenue.
Marco DeLucio: The properties are on Joan Avenue. Mr. Nunnings….the Nunning Heating and Air property has a front’s on Diamond Avenue. It’s kind of right there and there’s a frontage road that’s right above the bridge and the underpass there. So that’s why….
Councilman Bagbey: The question is does the terminology Joan Court, Joan Avenue make any significance as far as the rezoning? And I ask that towards Mr. Hamilton.
John: Hamilton: As long as the legal is correct I don’t believe (INAUDIBLE).
Councilman Bagbey: Thank you.
President John: You may want to check with Area Plan. Have you checked the legal, is that sufficient?
Marco DeLucio: I think the legal is okay but I’ll confirm the addresses with them tomorrow.
President John: Any other questions by Members of Council? One second, is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to this petition? Okay.
Councilman Bagbey moved and Councilman Kiefer seconded the motion to adopt
Ordinance R-2003-20 and call the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Kniese, Bagbey, Melcher, Robinson Koehler Walden, Watts, Angermeier, Kiefer, John.
There being nine (9) ayes and zero (0) nays, Ordinance R-2003-20 is hereby declared ADOPTED.
REGULAR AGENDA
THIRD READING OF ZONING ORDINANCES
ORDINANCE R-2003-21 FROM APC CO-2 TO C-1
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 651 S. ELLIOTT
PETITIONER: SHELLIE A. KEY
President John: Good evening. State your name for the record please.
Shellie Key: My name is Shellie Key.
President John: Okay, give us a brief description of what your request is for today.
Shellie Key: Well, I’m requesting that the residence of 651 South Elliott be changed from a CO-2 to a C-1 so that I could open up a braid studio there. Salon, hair, and beauty supply. I think it will be good for the neighborhood.
President John: Questions by Members of Council.
Councilwoman Robinson: I’ve been in contact with Ms. Key and I haven’t heard any complaints from anyone in the area like we did once before when they tried to rezone that.
President John: I would point out that this comes forward with 13 affirmative votes from the Area Plan Commission. Any other comments from Members of Council? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor of or opposition to this request?
Councilwoman Robinson moved and Councilman Melcher seconded the motion to adopt Ordinance R-2003-21 and call the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Kniese, Bagbey, Melcher, Robinson, Koehler Walden, Watts, Angermeier, Kiefer,
John.
There being nine (9) ayes and zero (0) nays, Ordinance R-2003-21 is hereby declared ADOPTED.
REGULAR AGENDA
THIRD READING OF ZONING ORDINANCES
ORDINANCE R-2003-22 FROM APC C-4 & R-5 TO M-1
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 506 AND 516 FRANKLIN STREET, 201-205 EDGAR STREET, 202-226 MARY STREET
PETITIONER: BERRY PLASTICS CORPORATION
President John: Good evening.
Steve Krohn: Mr. President, Members of the Council I’m Steve Krohn, I’m the attorney for Berry Plastics. Berry has acquired the block in which the Schmitt Photo Store was located, or is still located. Bounded by Edgar Street, Franklin Street, Illinois Street, and Mary Street. And we are here tonight asking that this parcel be rezoned to M-1 for expansion of our facilities. I might point out that the drawing that you have that accompanies the petition is preliminary only. We can’t say with any assurance that the expansion will take exactly this form, but we are here asking that this rezoning be approved so that we can proceed with out plans. The petition was approved unanimously before the Area Plan Commission and we have notified the Redevelopment Commission and obtained that Commissions approval likewise. I’ll be glad to answer any questions.
President John: Thank you. Questions by Members of Council? Councilman.
Councilman Melcher: The only question I have is…it came up in a meeting I was in a couple of weeks ago. Did they get a variance on the green space?
Steve Krohn: We have applied for a variance on the set back lines along Franklin and Mary Street, yes.
Councilman Melcher: They were just….it was another group and they were just kind of questioning hopefully that you would give enough green space there on Franklin Street.
Steve Krohn: Right, we met with that group last week and I believe we’ve addressed their concerns.
Councilman Melcher: Okay, thank you.
President John: Other questions by Members of Council? If not is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor of or in opposition too this request?
Councilman Bagbey moved and Councilman Melcher seconded the motion to adopt Ordinance R-2003-22 and call the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Kniese, Bagbey, Melcher, Robinson, Koehler Walden, Watts, Angermeier, Kiefer,
John.
There being nine (9) ayes and zero (0) nays, Ordinance R-2003-22 is hereby declared ADOPTED.
President John: And thank you in the audience for allowing us to get these matters out of the way prior to getting into our next hearing. I anticipate this may take a little longer.
REGULAR AGENDA
THIRD READING OF ZONING ORDINANCES
ORDINANCE R-2003-7 (as amended) FROM APC R-1 TO PUD
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE, STATE OF INDIANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 7600 NEWBURGH ROAD
PETITIONER: MAPLEWOOD DEVELOPMENT, LLC.
President John: Good evening.
Tom Bodkin: Mr. President, Tom Bodkin, 20 Northwest Fourth Street here in Evansville representing the petitioner. If the Council has questions tonight I have David Matthews here with us on the issues of the impact of this proposed PUD on property values. Danny Leek is supposed to be here, I haven’t looked back to see if he is here. If he’s here he’s here to talk about the technical stuff, and of course I do the lawyer stuff. This is another down zoning from R-1 to PUD. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you. I got a laugh out of this better than I did at the Plan Commission, see? Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen of the Council, this is a 2.7, 2.6, 2.7 acre parcel located on Newburgh Road. Basically at the location where Fuquay Road dead ends this parcel had a single-family residence on it, that has been purchased, and actually been removed. There has been much consternation about that fact. I can tell you the back third of the property was riddled with termites, my client fell through the floor, that prompted them to remove the house from the site because it was going to go down anyway and it was time to do that. I would like the record to be clear the trees removed along the eastern boundary of this parcel were removed by SIGECO, it is in their easement, it is an electric transmission easement, and they removed those trees. My client did take the trees off the front. Now we got through all that and we’ll get down to the issues at hand. This is a PUD ladies and gentlemen. It is not a proposed change of use of the real estate. The real estate will still be used as single family residential parcel. Basically the effective need for the PUD here is because we wish to have a little larger lot coverage which is allowed in at PUD then will be allowed in R-1 platted parcel. This is R-1 zone ground now. Secondly, the front yard set back will be slightly different than would be allowed in an R-1. Those are the only two reasons for the PUD. We have proposed, as you know from your file, an eight lot PUD. We started out it seems like forever ago, but the month and a half ago with ten. We went through the City; the Planning Commission and we lost thirteen to nothing. We then revisited the parcel as best we could to reduce the number of lots we felt we would need and the system that we…with the development we want to build here, and we concluded, the client concluded, that economically eight was the smallest number they could work with. Consequently we went back, but I have to tell you that when we went back we did more than that. Remember the Area Plan Commission pointed out that we had not done the presentation of the PUD correctly. That was the Surveyor, he pointed out that we had not gone through all the processes that the ordinance says we should do before we come to you although I think we may be the first one that’s ever done it. But we did do that and I think if you….the staff will tell you that all of the paperwork has now been accomplished to their satisfaction to meet your Ordinance on a PUD. One of the things we did by the way was to establish all of the different sites on each lot where a house could go, that generated thirty-eight, or thirty-four drawings as I recall. With regard to the issues on this PUD you do have substantial remonstration. And since I’m the last rezoning and you can look out at the room behind me that tells you that there are a lot of folks interested. And I’d like to address some of these issues that I think you are going to hear about from the remonstrators. Number one: This is not a change of use, we are still going to use this ground for single family residential structures, which is an R-1 use, and that’s all we are going to do with it. A PUD is simply a classification in our code that allows a bit of relaxation of some of the technical requirements on the site itself but not use. Secondly: We have offered a use and development commitment with this rezoning because PUD’s are rezonings that would prohibit anyone from subdividing these eight lots into more lots. So it will always be eight lots and no more. Thirdly: We have a drainage plan that has gone through all the necessary folks for approval. And the drainage plan that we have submitted and which will…which has been constructed for this eight lots will also help deal with some of the drainage problems that exist on the subdivision immediately to our west at Kenyon Place. As you know, because your Ordinances require it and you adopted them, we have to deal with all the storm water that comes on our parcel, whether it comes on from an adjacent parcel or falls from the heavens. And we have to deal with that storm water not let it go off any quicker than it goes off now, and that’s exactly what our storm water plan will do. Because this is a PUD we are also required to have green space set aside that is not required in a typical R-1 platted parcel. This particular parcel does that and that green space is separate from the storm water detention. So we’ve accomplished that object of the PUD as well. There was much discussion about traffic on Newburgh Road, and about safety as a result of traffic on Newburgh Road. We commissioned Morley and Associates to conduct a study, a traffic analysis study, and you have a copy of that material in your packet. With regard to whatever impact these eight lots would have on Newburgh Road. Newburgh Road currently operates at a level of service C, which is standard garden normal variety. EUTS tells us, and our own engineers tell us, that this eight lot subdivision will not change that level of service, it’s not going to make it any worse or better than it would be now by adding seven more lots. I say seven more lots because there was a house there before so we’re really only talking about six or seven more parcels, if you will seven more houses, seven more families then would have existed had this house…..had David Wahl not moved to Indianapolis basically. Morley also noted in their report they were talking about I think fifty-one additional trips in and out a day from these lots. David Matthews who did a zoning analysis for us with regard to the impact of this proposed PUD on adjoining property values. I think in his report talked about eighty-four more trips a day. But either way anyway you cut it EUTS has indicated to us, and that’s your traffic planning agency that you all are very familiar with since you get to prove the claims for the dollars that go there, have indicated to us there is no further work that needs to be done on Newburgh Road as a result of eight lots. EUTS did give us some requests, which we are going to follow and that’s in the material as well, about how we’ll construct the entrance to this subdivision, or this PUD. This PUD will have a private street, it’ll be a gated community. You won’t need to worry about repairing and maintaining the street because it will remain private, but the gated part will be back far enough into the subdivision back and you can see it generally on the map. So we’ve got good stacking inside the subdivision for those eight lots for people coming and going so as to eliminate any potential problem with regard to Newburgh Road. As I indicated we also heard concerns from the neighbors and folks who are not neighbors but in the neighborhood that this eight lot subdivision, or PUD, would impact the property values negatively. We commissioned David Matthews of David Matthews & Associates to do a zoning impact study with regard to that very factor and you have a copy of that report in your file. Mr. Matthews is here with me this evening and will be pleased to answer any questions you have regarding that issue. You can read his report and I’m sure will and have, but let me just refer to his conclusion if I may. Mr. Matthews wrote in conclusion based upon the above analysis, and by the way his analysis covered pricing, set backs and privacy, density, and traffic, and he wrote it is my opinion the proposed eight unit residential development Parkridge, will have no negative value impact on the neighborhood. Any impact will be positive though minimal due to the average prices of the proposed homes being higher than the neighborhood average. It will enhance the perceived quality of the neighborhood just as Kenyon Place did when it was built resulting in the maintenance and possible benefit to surrounding neighborhood home values. In the back of the material that you received you will note that we have some restrictions that are placed on the PUD and those are like a plat in that sense those restrictions run with the land. And we’ve restricted minimum house size and maximum house size basically per floor per lot. And as a general rule we’re looking at houses not less than 2,500 square feet, generally not more than 4,200 square feet on each lot. I was curious because I know I’d heard people complaining that we were going to damage property values and that the houses here were not going to be like the houses in the neighborhood. And I was curious, so I pulled the property record cards from the surveyors office for at least the parcels immediately adjoining this proposed subdivision. The parcel immediately to its east is a larger plot of ground, it has one house on it, that house by the way has 4,221 square feet. Immediately north of this parcel as you’ll note from your map is the Gehlhausen Subdivision, which is small lot sub. The two lots, lots 34 and 35 which immediately adjoin our proposed PUD to the north. Each have houses on them now and lot 34, the one to the east, that house is 1,122 square feet and the next lot, lot 35 that house is 1,4094 square feet. The three lots in Kenyon Place that adjoin this parcel to the west, the first one lot #6, without the glasses it’s hard to see that, has a house on it of 6, 866 square feet. The next lot, lot #7, as we move south now toward Newburgh Road, the Assessor’s Office tells us that house is 5,259 square feet. And the third house, the one right on Newburgh Road, which would be adjacent to our entrance, which will be adjacent to our lot #1, has 3, 068 square feet. So I submit to you that the size homes that we’re proposing to build in this subdivision are very compatible with the two adjoining parcels east and west and substantially bigger than the two parcels that adjoin us to the north. And as Mr. Matthews indicated there should not be any negative impact on values on homes because of what we are doing here. Why not six lots? Why not five? We simply can’t make it work with six, it’s just simply a question of dollars. We’ve got to build roads, we have to build sewers, we have to build storm sewers, anybody dividing this property is going to have to do the same thing, and it simply won’t work with six lots. It will work with eight, it will work with twelve, we don’t want to build twelve we’d like to build eight. Now I’m going to get accused of threatening you and I’ll pop that balloon going in. Most of you folks I’ve known for some time and I’d be an idiot to think I could threaten any of you. This is R-1 zoned real estate; it’s 2.6, 2.7 acres. Under your zoning code this ground can be platted and can be platted certainly with twelve lots because we’ve already drawn that plat up and provided it to Mrs. Lockyear, Counsel for the remonstrators, just to demonstrate that it can be done. That does not require zoning change, does not require PUD, doesn’t require any action by you as a City Council at all, because you’ve given that power to the Planning Commission in your zoning code when you described what you want R-1 properties to be. You told all of us that a minimum lot size in R-1 is 6,000 square feet. The minimum lots we’re putting here in these eight was about 8 or 9,000 with a couple of them 11-14,000 so we are substantially bigger with these eight lots. This ground could be however many lots you can put on that acreage at 6,000 square feet and see how many lots your zoning code allows. That’s why I call it down, zone in a sense, because we’re going to lock in not more than eight, and there could be a lot more than that here if a developer chose to make the parcel smaller and therefore put more people on this parcel. So when we hear discussions about density I submit to you that really what we are talking about is a change in the way I’d like to see the land used. And I understand that, I really truly do. Everybody’s used to seeing that parcel sit there with one house on it and no one wanted to see that house go away. Nobody bought the land mind you except my client and it was for sale for a couple of years, but my client bought it with the idea that he could develop it. And, in fact this parcel can have legally more than eight lots on it. Now, there’s eight lots or those lots that would be on it without you having to intervene. Would have less lot coverage, that’s true, 30% of the lot is what could be covered under R-1, we’re asking for 45 under the PUD. The front yard setback would be a little bit more, more setback under R-1 then we’re asking for here. All other things being equal we can have far more lots than eight, and far smaller houses than we’re proposing to put here. One of the great advantages of your ordinance, under the PUD, is it actually gives you power, and it gives the Planning Commission power you do not have with regard to subdivisions. It allows you to know precisely how big the houses can be, no littler and no bigger. It required us to lay out for the staff before we came to see you. All the different ways on each lot that a structure could go in showing the coverage. And those are the only way structures could go there. Under an R-1 subdivision no such power, no such control exists. We’ve offered a use and development commitment that would limit the subdivision of this to no more than eight; there could never be any greater number of lots than eight. Under plats, as you know, there are no such thing as UDC for plats, that’s a zoning issue, and so that’s another advantage you have because use and development commitments can go with the land here where they do not have any place at all with regard to subdivisions. The bottom line is that is it has to be 12 lots then it’s not going to be as pretty quite frankly, because it’s simply a question of cost. We believe that the proposal we have on the table, Bill Badger is the builder, he’s going to build every house there, all eight of them will be built by Mr. Badger. He and Roger Lamping are the developers. Mr. Lamping is here with me this evening. I call him the developer he really isn’t, and he probably never will be after this, but at this point he’s got this tiger and he’s going to ride it until it’s done I guess. Mr. Badger will build all eight houses in this subdivision. Mr. Badger’s reputation I think is known to all of you, if it’s not those of you that know you can comment on it. They are going to be very substantial structures; they are going to be compatible with the neighborhood. We submit to you that the PUD is an excellent way to control the growth that’s going to happen on Newburgh Road with regards to these large single unit lots. I’ve talked to a number of folks on the phone in the last week and a half and some of them are lawyers and they were well-trained lawyers. They used the parade of horrible’s. This is the domino, this one falls and they are all going to fall. Now all of these parcels that have large lot single house are all going to be at risk unless you chose to change your ordinance, which of course you can do in the future, but right now all of them could be purchases and subdivided. This is an excellent way it seems to me to deal with the question of how we’re going to in-fill along Newburgh Road. If the Plan Commission….the President of the Planning Commission noted that you’re soon going to be hearing from them with regard to, I guess not changing the master plan, but focusing more on the in-fill portion of the master plan as opposed to going out and developing cornfields into subdivisions. And as he noted this is truly an in-fill. This is a two and a half, a little over two and half acre lot that actually can be in-filled with greater density but in keeping with your R-1 zone. Lastly, I know that the neighbors wish there was a way for you to have a zoning code that limited it to six lots, or limited it to four lots, that’s not the way your code is written, that’s not the way it was proposed, that’s not the way it was ever adopted. We have 1, R-1 zone that’s R-1. We don’t have R-1-A-B-C and D. Whether we should or not really doesn’t matter either because we don’t. And this parcel comes to you with what it is zoned R-1for proposing a use of this totally consistent with R-1, in fact it is an R-1 use, we simply want to use a PUD and limit the number of lots and provide greater coverage. If you have questions I’ll try to answer them, but if you have technical questions I got the people that know the answers better than I.
President John: Thank you Mr. Bodkin. Questions by Members of Council. Councilman Kniese.
Councilman Kniese: Mr. Bodkin, make sure (INAUDIBLE) what you’re stating tonight is tonight is you will not consider six lots on the proposed property.
Tom Bodkin: Six lots cannot…we can’t do it economically. So we will not consider six lots.
Councilman Kniese: Thank you.
President John: Questions by other Members of Council for Mr. Bodkin, or Mr. Leek, or Mr. Matthews. Do you have anyone else that would like to speak in favor of or on this petition?
Tom Bodkin: They better not, no I don’t think so.
President John: Okay, thank you. At this time Ms. Lockyear would you like to come forward?
Krista Lockyear: Good evening Members of Council, my name is Krista Lockyear. I’m here tonight representing Dr. Irvin and Marsha Heinberger who live immediately to the east of this property. In representing Mr. & Mrs. Heinberger I have met with many of their other neighbors and many of them are here tonight and are adamantly opposed to this rezoning. If I could I’d like to ask the neighbors that are here to stand up although since we are last it’s probably pretty obviously who’s left in the room. And…. thank you all. We did submit also to Area Plan Commission petitions that people in the area had signed in opposition to this rezoning and we have 85 plus signatures. I couldn’t count them exactly I got them at the last minute, but they are in sheets of ten so I’m sure we’re 85 plus. This rezoning really does request more density than what the R-1 zoning does, and it’s a matter of physical density, maybe not the numbers we’re talking eight and they have showed us a plat that appears to meet subdivision code that could be twelve lots. But what we’re talking here is a relaxation of the front yard setbacks from the standard to about 10 feet less in all the front yards. And we’re asking for a relaxation of the lot coverage from a maximum of 30% per lot to 45% per lot. In physical structure that’s considerably more dense than what the subdivision code requires. So it is a really is a density issue here and it’s been a difficult dilemma for myself and the neighbors, and the people I represent simply because we are faced with….it’s really not a threat it’s the reality that there’s a possibility that twelve lot subdivision could go onto this property and you wouldn’t have the PUD covenants and restrictions, or you may not, that we have in front of us at this point. So the neighbors have met, we’ve discussed it over and over the risk of opposing this rezoning. And at Planning Commission I argued two points principal and practicality. And we really felt that the twelve lot subdivision probably wasn’t practical for the developer, but they are moving forward stating that it is so, you know, that argument really doesn’t hold a whole lot of water I believe at this point. And so the neighbors have decided that we’re moving forward in opposition to this rezoning simply on principle. The principle is based on realities and fears of what this subdivision could do to this area, this rezoning could do to this area. Traffic concerns, you have the traffic study from Morley & Associates. From a laypersons point of view, if you have fifty-one new cars entering and fifty-one new cars leaving that subdivision per day, that sounds like a safety concern especially with the location of this property it would be an immediate jog leg off of coming….coming off of Fuquay onto Newburgh Road. And that’s…it just…if you think about that number of cars and if you’ve driven and tried to make that turn already it’s already difficult with traffic moving quickly on Newburgh Road. So there is a traffic concern for the neighbors. Drainage concerns, that’s a lot of impervious structure where there was a lot of grass and landscaping. And so the neighbors simply have a hard time believing that putting this much brick and concrete on the property can do anything by harm them from a drainage point of view. Quality of life issues are a concern for the neighbors. A minimum of sixteen adults with eight homes their children, their dogs, and the noise that they bring is going to be a drastic change from what this area has been at this point. In the history of Newburgh Road, I have to keep passing out these pictures because I love them. They are taken in the springtime so they are at the best time to make this area look beautiful, but it really is a beautiful area. If you drive down Newburgh Road you see the large lots and absolutely huge front yards in comparison to the size of the buildings. I’d like to pass these around for your consideration. Our subdivision laws allow those lots that you will see to be gobbled up and subdivided. And it is a question, maybe the subdivision laws should be changed, but at this point, as Mr. Bodkin pointed out, we’ve got what we are dealing with. And again, my clients and the neighbors principle and in there heart of hearts they say, we have to do what we can to protect this. And if the laws don’t allow us to protect it so be it. But right now this rezoning request is discretionary. And they can come in front of you and stand on their principles and ask you to help protect the integrity of that area, the large lots and the large front yards. The neighboring property values may or may not be an issue there is certainly a concern at this point. And the precedent of slippery slope is a concern to the neighbors. The petitioners had filed another PUD very similar to this one which they have withdrawn. It’s only reasonable to believe that if this does get approved that there will be more forthcoming. It looks like a beautiful development, it’s just not in keeping with the quality of this area. One of the neighbors at a meeting that we all had said that sometimes you just….it just comes down to a matter of what’s right. And we may be stuck with more than what we bargained for at this point. But, we need to do what’s right and what is right at this point is to ask you to deny this rezoning, and to help protect the neighbors and what their views of what is right for their area. If you have any questions I’d be happy to answer them.
President John: Thank you. Questions by Members of Council. Councilman.
Councilman Bagbey: I have a question for Mr. Hamilton. Would you take a look at this ordinance and give us a briefing on that. When it was proposed, talking about the density.
John Hamilton: You mean the entire ordinance?
Councilman Bagbey: Right, and because of….the one thing that I will agree with the neighbors is that it will be a domino effect. And, I would just like to take a look at and see when that was passed and I think we need to just be enlightened on it.
John Hamilton: I’ll look at it (INAUDIBLE).
Councilman Bagbey: Thank you.
President John: I assume that you mean to be brought up at a later meeting.
Councilman Bagbey: Yes sir.
President John: Any other questions? Councilman Kniese.
Councilman Kniese: I have a question for anybody. Were you retained as counsel prior to the developer purchasing this land?
Tom Bodkin: Quite frankly, and you’re going to take this wrong, but I will not answer that question that is privileged information.
Councilman Kniese: A lot of times as a City representative, City Council, we have developments that come before us that developers purchase a piece of land prior to it getting rezoned for what they want to use that land for. Hoping that it will come before City Council to get the correct go ahead to develop the land. It would be very nice to have the sale of the property contingent on the property being properly rezoned from what that proposed developer wants to put on that land. It would be much easier for us, it doesn’t always happen that way. So, a lot of times the cart does get put before the horse and we’re stuck in a position here to make the final say yes or no whether it makes sense or not. The reason why I asked if you were retained as counsel prior to your clients purchasing the land is I was hoping you would possibly make that suggestion to your client. But you don’t have to answer if you feel it’s a client privilege and I respect that. As far as the traffic study with Morley & Associates we had the same I believe people look at the traffic study for the new super Target, Target (INAUDIBLE). They had a traffic study there and to be honest with you they never really convinced me that there would not be increased traffic on Outer Lincoln once that development went in. But again, the traffic study that was done for the new Target said it would have no impact. And I happen to live on Outer Lincoln and getting in and out of my driveway I can attest that it does have an impact there. So, I think my common sense tells me that the traffic study although it serves a limited increase will have an effect on that area. One car has an….more cars than we have right now has an effect on that area. So the studies that have been done whether it be traffic, drainage, what have you, is concerned and everyone has this development and any of them. So I was very concerned with the traffic study what came back. It just didn’t convince me personally. I’m not an engineer by any stretch of the imagination, but I just wanted to make that clear.
Tom Bodkin: Krista can address that other issue for you because I think she knows about the traffic on Burkhardt Road from the Target development. I do wish that I had enough land that I could go out and get a Target developed than I’d agree with you will have a lot of traffic. I think that Mr. Kniese, the purpose of the traffic study was to determine whether or not under the standards that you’ve adopted, through EUTS, on what you want developers to do about the roads required us to do anything with Newburgh Road. One more car is probably more than the guy next door wants, but it also I guess the point of it too was this is what eight will generate. Twelve will generate 1/3 more I suppose. One further point, while I won’t tell you when the client hired me, because that truly is privileged, even had I been involved with a developer, not this one, but another who came to me and said: “I want to build an eight lot subdivision on Newburgh Road on 2.6 acres, should I include anything in my contract with the seller contingent upon anything. It’s zoned R-1 and he’s going to use it for R-1 purposes so typically, at least the ones I write we do contingencies when we’re going to go from R to M, or R to C typically. I don’t think I’ve ever written one that was contingent on going from R-1 to R-1 in essence. I think, in this case, that would not have been a typical provision to put in. By the way the other parcel my client owned that generated so much concern he cancelled the contract, he did not buy it, he does not own it, he cannot own it. Somebody else may be in here on that one but I won’t be Roger and Mr. Badger.
Councilman Kniese: I understand that, it’s still R-1, but again in my mind R-1 with A PUD attached to it I do see that as different than comparing R-1 to R-1 without the PUD. That’s just my opinion.
Tom Bodkin: I understand, I understand.
Councilman Kniese: Thank you.
Councilman Angermeier: Counselor, lets see you’ve been several times with Area Plan Commission and I think I represented the people and I haven’t changed. There’s a magazine now called Governing that every Member of the Council is a recipient of this magazine and I think it’s very fair, very good. And on the front of the page it says zoning laws revisited. On page 30 in which I told the Chairman of the Area Plan Commission, Brad, and it says: Land use unscrambling the City, RK zoning laws locks the City into growth pattern that hardly anybody wants. Changing the rules can help set them free. Very beautiful article, I’m sure the people would be tickled to death who reside in your area that we wish it were in force right now. The proposition of building eight or the threatening of twelve, or seventeen, or whatever the number is, I don’t think that it’s equal treatment to the remaining people that live in the area along Newburgh Road. They bought the property because they enjoyed the acreage the footage and everything else, thought that that would be in perpetuity, that protection, and they realize that this body here had changed the rules of the game allowing build as many as you can like the man did across from Memorial where I don’t think that anybody now believes that’s a good development. My point again is that I heard you say that the Area Plan Commission is going to review this PUD, is that what you said while ago?
Tom Bodkin: No. What I said was the President of the Plan Commission said they were reviewing in-filling, and dealing with in-fill, which he called this an in-fill as opposed to going out to Greenfield development.
Councilman Angermeier: Okay. I hope I have the length of time and the period of time to serve on the Council and serve on the Area Plan Commission of which I will ask the Council to review that and bring it back more in light what is reality. The kind of treatment that you want to do to the people who reside in the area and that could be again the domino effect as you indicated. I hope the Council sees fit to turn it down. And then have the Area Plan Commission come to reality that that should never come before the Plan Commission again in the name of a PUD and being brought back to the City Council for a vote. Because there are many people that relish their neighborhood just like I do mine and like you do yours and I think that’s a unfair number to be placed on that lot. And I appreciate your patience Counselor.
Tom Bodkin: My privilege Mr. Angermeier.
President John: Thank you. Councilman Bagbey:
Councilman Bagbey: Tom, what was the square footage of the eight homes again?
Tom Bodkin: It ranges from a fall of 2,500 as I recall. Hold on let me get the exact number. Mr. Bagbey the minimum home size is 2,500 the maximum will be controlled by the coverage, which is going to put it somewhere in the neighborhood of 4,200 to 4,300. That’s why we ask square relaxation in the PUD on lot coverage from 30% to 45%.
Councilman Bagbey: Okay, what would be your square footage of the twelve homes?
Tom Bodkin: Twelve homes, oh golly. Kris give me your zoning code I’ll look that up for you. It’s much smaller, the parcels immediately north are zoned R-1 and we’ve got a couple of houses there a little over 1,000 feet, 1,000 square feet, so it’s going to be whatever R-1 allows. My worthwhile friend here reminds me that basically the size of the house on an R-1 is not dictated by the code, it’s dictated by your setbacks and by your lot coverage. So if I have a 9,000 square foot….6,000 square foot lot, which is the minimum lot size for R-1, and I can cover that lot with 30% of a structure, that’s 6 X 30 which will be 1,800 square feet, if they were minimum lots. And assuming I meet the setbacks, that’s assuming I’ve got either a clean rectangle or a good square, it could vary some.
Councilman Bagbey: Thank you.
Tom Bodkin: That help?
President John: Are there any other….Councilman Kiefer.
Councilman Kiefer: Counselor.
Tom Bodkin: Yes sir.
Councilman Kiefer: I want to make sure I heard you correctly. Earlier you were talking about your financial your proform, or what ever that you performed on this and you said with either the way it’s currently set it make financial sense or with the eight homes it makes sense but not with the six homes.
Tom Bodkin: The client is…..this is not a new issue this six lot issue. It was five then it was six, but, we simply cannot cash out the cost of the land and the cost of the improvements on six lots.
Councilman Kiefer: Does it work out? Did you say it did or it didn’t work out for …..the current….currently the way it is. If you went in and put in 12 does it make financial sense?
Tom Bodkin: We believe we can make it work with twelve, we would prefer to have eight bigger lots than twelve smaller ones.
Councilman Kiefer: Okay, I just wanted to make sure I understood what you had said.
Tom Bodkin: The big issue Mr. Kiefer is that we’ve looked at…we truly did, to see if maybe was a way we could go to six lots. We just don’t believe we can make it work economically. The costs of development are just too high.
Councilman Kiefer: Thank you.
President John: Are there other questions for Mr. Bodkin? Mr. Bodkin would you like…
Tom Bodkin: Are there any other remonstrators? I’would like to sit down.
President John: First would you like to make any response to Ms. Lockyears?
Tom Bodkin: Just a couple of quick points if I could. The front yard setback issue, this is a private street. The only people who are going to see the front yard setbacks are the people inside the subdivision because the houses rears presumptively…you know fronts are going to face the street so the people in the two adjoining will….Heinbergers place over here, and the other three parcels over here won’t see the front yard. In fact they ought to like it if we are closer to the street because it gives it a bigger back yard I suppose. I would also note that EUTS tracks accident statistics. We specifically asked them if they had any documentation for us with regard to accidents at Fuquay and Lincoln, and Newburgh Road rather. They indicated to us that they track every year all intersections in the City and the County where there are five or more accidents. And, Fuquay and Newburgh Road have never been on their list. Now Burkhardt Road is down the way at Lincoln, but not this site. So, from that standpoint they didn’t view the proximity of Fuquay to the entrance to our sub to be a concern to them as your traffic planner. With regard to drainage, again you have an ordinance, you adopted it, you told us what we have to do, maybe you need to visit that one to make it real restrictive too, I don’t know. But that’s what exists today, and that’s what my client has to meet and is willing to meet. I guess it’s a little hard for me to figure out how I’m generating more water on eight lots then I do on twelve with twelve houses, but if that’s true then so be it. It doesn’t matter. We have to capture it all, it will not go off that site anymore quickly than it goes off now because your ordinance says that to us. We don’t have any choice. It’s not a matter of whether the neighbors trust us or not that’s why you are here as the government. And, I can tell you your government does a good job of enforcing those kinds of things. If we screw it up I flat guarantee you they will visit with us because they do it, that’s what they are here for. You can always spell principle two or three different ways and I can’t deal with one of them because it’s simply not an issue in your zoning code. You concluded whether you choose to change it that happens in the future. And I may well be that you ought too, as a matter of policy, review that. But that policy doesn’t exist today. And in fact, what we fact today is the opportunity to maybe do what you’d like to do in an Ordinance later. Say, we’ll have an R-1-B, or we’ll have no more that eight lots for 2 ½ acres. We can do that today with a PUD. You cannot do that today, which is a straight R-1 plat because that’s not the way the ordinance is written. I’ll sit down and see if there’s anybody else that wants to talk.
President John: We’ll give you an opportunity to respond to any other comments that are made by the potential remonstrators. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak either in favor of or in opposition to this request? Or as Ms. Lockyear represented. Please come forward and state your name.
Dr. Douglas Palmenter: I’m Dr. Douglas Palmenter, I’ve lived in Kenyon Place for over twenty years. I bought the lot, I’ve not done much remodeling, but I’ve kept the property the way it should be. We bought the lot because we wanted to be in a secluded area with large lots. Mr. Kniese, I thank you very much because what it appears is that a developer came in destroyed the house, destroyed the beautiful property. Beside it he had something he wanted to put down and found out that he had an awful lot of people that didn’t want their neighborhoods destroyed. For his indication for his use, perfect, because he’s a developer. For my use, by golly this is my house, I’ve lived there twenty years, I’ve paid taxes on it, I’ve watched it deteriorate while he’s destroyed the neighborhood. I don’t want any more of it, I don’t want a domino effect, and I would urge you to turn this down. Thank you. (applause).
President John: Yes sir. Please come forward and state your name.
John Wahnsiegler: I’m John Wahnsiegler I bought my house 49 years ago at 8400 Newburgh Road. I have three acres, I wanted to raise my seven kids out in some area that I had no neighbors within 50 feet. I have a setback from the sides a certain number of feet. He talks about these lots so many square feet. That doesn’t tell people anything. How many feet do you have from house to house? How many feet do you have from the back of the house to the property line? Are the neighbors going to be spitting in the back door at ya, or the front…you may not see the front yards, but if the houses are ten feet apart you’re still killing the neighborhood. We wanted property that we could live on. I’ve been there forth-nine years, I’m 80 years old and I mean to tell you our 300, 500 foot yards from the road, our 300 in the back, I had an acre and a half garden years ago. I tell you your going to ruin us all. We’ve got property we love. I looked for years to by this property. I was the first house out there next to the old farmhouse. And let me tell you if you ruin this for these people that wants some land to take and pass on, in other words, you’re going to ruin it for them. You cannot…I wish I had some ground to sell that guy he don’t even care what it’s going to do to it until he buys the ground then he worries about what he’s going to be able to put it on there or not. That’s damn poor business sounds like to me. I’ve got a lot in Florida that I’d like to sell you guys, but I can tell you it’s 108 X 108 feet, we don’t even know how big these lots are. He says setback, that don’t mean anything to common people. So many square foot of a house. I’ve got 3,500 square feet in my house, I’ve got a big house, I love it, by God you’re not going to take it away from me. Lower my taxes half way if your going to put those shanty’s next to it. (applause)
President John: Thank you. (applause). Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak either in favor of or in opposition to this request? If not Counselors do either one of you have anything that you would like to add?
Tom Bodkin: I won’t belabor it, but in your material, because we are required to do it as a PUD and not as a plat, there’s exactly the location of every house on all those lots and how big they are. I’ll tell you an example. In lot #1 the house…four different options for lot 1, the house will be 5,010 square feet. In two of the options the house will be 4,178 square feet.
President John: Mr. Bodkin could you hold one second. There we go, thank you.
Tom Bodkin: No problem. And on the document we prepared and submitted to Planning Commission, it shows setback, it shows lot coverage, it show where the front yard and the backyard is. That’s part of what a PUD does. Without a PUD basically is an R-1 zoned piece of ground. All that any developer has to do is meet the setback requirements in your ordinance. And frankly I ought to have those in my mind and I don’t. I know that there is a front yard and a side yard, backyard setback and they are not. We’ve got on the parcels that are over by the Heinberger parcel that setback in that backyard is huge because there’s a forty or fifty foot utility easement running through the backyards all the way through there. That’s going to be there in either kind of plat so that won’t change. So the advantage of the PUD is in fact you could require, and can require, more things than you can with an R-1 zone. But those documents were submitted to the Plan Commission pursuant to their requirement, pursuant to your code requirement showing the building site if you will on every lot what the setbacks would be and what the maximum coverage would be. So that data is available. I mean we can spend hours over it going through it but I don’t think you want to hear that from me. Any other questions I’ll be glad to answer them.
President John: Any other questions by Members of Council? I don’t want to leave anybody out if somebody would….yes sir. We are a Council of inclusion so anybody that wants to speak.
Steve Markwell: I wasn’t going to speak but I just compelled. I was one of the two developers at Kenyon Place. Pardon me.
President John: Name please.
Steve Markwell: I’m sorry, Steve Markwell. And I was one of the two developers of Kenyon Place. And when we originally set out the plots that was five acres. We could have put, falling within the guidelines of R-1, quite a few more homes in that area. Aesthetically, and doing what’s right, we didn’t. We laid out the lots because of the way we felt it should look if it’s going to have the look it should have and to blend with the other homes in the area. When you look at this development, and there’s been some other developments, you know, that have been existing properties, infrastructures if you will, that’s been developed and I give you two. The Oaks, Windsor Woods, drive through them, they are beautiful. They blend in with the surroundings, they’ve complimented the property values of the surrounding homes, and they fit in folks, they just fit in. This development here, I looked at the land sometime ago and I realistically if you wanted to do it the right way and to fit in with the property and the homes around it where it fit in, and do what’s right it had comparable lot sizes. You couldn’t do it and I know if off the get go. I wonder quite seriously if these guys did their homework. It doesn’t seem to me they have, and I might be wrong, or be corrected. But someway it looks like they made a mistake and then they are telling you well gee, we need eight homes and heck you’re going to have the deterioration of my opinion of property values, your going to have traffic problems, and your going to have drainage problems. And all these surveys have been done I’m sure that the people that did these surveys were paid by these gentlemen right here. And, I guess, if the survey didn’t work you’d pay the guy and toss the survey away. But, I seriously question what’s going on here. Six homes would work, I’m not against the development, but it has to be done right. And I agree that…I think you people need to look seriously at the existing laws. I’ve seen areas where they develop things and they were never done right in the first place. And it’s not like a piece of paper that you can wad up and throw in the wastebaskets, it’s there forever, and you can’t change it. If my home value drops in half or a third, well, I guess he appraised it wrong when we did the other development. And that’s a reality. But, for reasons I live where I live, we live there since 1983 and drive through there. It’s a beautiful area, all the homes are well kept, the lot sizes are approximately a half an acre, and to give you an idea, if you will. When we developed Kenyon Place were five acres. Ten homes on five acres. They are proposing on 2.6, 2.7 acres they originally wanted to put ten, now they are down to eight. If you visualize that in your mind, I’d ask as I called several of you Councilman to drive through and to take a look at the area, it’s going to look like a concrete jungle, it’s not going to look like a housing development. Don’t believe what they say, what it’s going to look like gentlemen and ladies it’s going look like an apartment complex back there. Do you realize you’re going to have a ten-foot house here? Five foot on one side of the house, five foot on the other. They wanted to put a development next door on the other side right off of Martin’s Lane, and do the same thing, they backed out when they found out there was opposition to this. Gee whiz, I was thinking I’ve got a nice backyard, I would have the person that lived across the…..in the new development, they would literally be able to look in my back yard. It would be like ten feet, there would be a ten-foot offset is all from my backyard line to theirs. It just doesn’t work, it’s not in tradition, or as far as the continuity of the homes that are built there and I would hope you would set a precedent here and turn this down. Thank you.
President John: Thank you. (applause) Any questions by Members of Council? If there’s no other comments at this time the Chair would entertain a motion.
Councilman Angermeier moved and Councilman Kniese seconded the motion to adopt Ordinance R-2003-7, as amended and call the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Nays: Kniese,
Bagbey: First of all I’d like to compliment both sides. Secondly, I’d like to complement the neighbors who were extremely professional in letters and telephone calls. Sometimes when one sees a rezoning in their backyard it can be extremely emotional. And what I saw were compassionate and very professional people. I really do believe we need to take a look as I stated earlier Mr. Hamilton on the record to look at the density requirements because I think on traffic alone this is a bad project. But, as I cast my vote I want the neighbors to realize that I do not think, or feel, that it will end here. I think this is only the beginning. So with that I will vote no. Melcher, Robinson, Koehler Walden, Watts,
Angermeier: Mr. President, I want to thank the people who have sent me the letters that have been calling me, I applaud them and I vote no.
Kiefer: I like Councilman Bagbey, I’d like to compliment both sides. Very valid arguments on both sides, but I think the compelling argument to me is still the concern about traffic because I travel up and down that road everyday. Actually jogged up and down that road and I know how dangerous it is. But anyway, you know, so that’s my primary concern is to jogging and so with that, I’m into jogging, with….(laughter) that’s a Freudian slip folks. Is the traffic that I vote nay.
John: I’m not taking jogging into consideration in my vote. (laughter). As you can probably tell. I hope that there is continued dialogue, you know it’s obvious that this petition as requested has been denied and that the petitioner does have other options. Hopefully you can get with the neighbors and we may see you back here at some point in time. I know that you’ve got interests that you have to look after, but the people that have lived there for a number of years also are trying to protect their investments in their homes and with that I’ll vote no.
There being zero (0) ayes and nine (9) nays, Ordinance R-2003-7, as amended is hereby declared DENIED.
President John: Yes sir.
Unknown: There’s been two accidents there at Fuquay and Lincoln and Newburgh Road in the past two months.
President John: Thank you. We have taken the vote the petition has been denied nine to nothing so…. You are welcome to stick around for the remainder of the meeting. We have a couple of other matters. You sure aren’t required to. We appreciate everyone’s attendance and you co-operation and your demeanor while you’ve been here.
Tom Bodkin: Mr. President thank you, City Council men and women. I do think that probably we ought to look at a jogging path though for Mr. Kiefer and I’ll be glad to lead that charge just as soon as he figures out where he can get the budget to pay for it.
President John: Well, he’s presented one about Wesselman Woods and we….
REGULAR AGENDA
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION C-2003-15 FINANCE ROBINSON
A PRELIMINARY RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EVANSVILLE DECLARING AN ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA FOR PROPERTY TAX PHASE-IN FOR THE ACQUISITION AND INSTALLATION OF NEW MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT, LOCATED AT 5410 HIGHWAY 41 NORTH (WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION)
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
FINANCE CHAIRWOMAN:______________________________________ ROBINSON
Mr. President your Finance Committee met tonight on Resolution C-2003-15 and it comes before you with a recommendation for a do-pass.
Councilman Melcher moved seconded by Councilman Angermeier to adopt the Committee Report and move the Resolution to Third Reading. Voice vote. So ordered.
There being no further motion this resolution hereby declared moved to Third Reading.
REGULAR AGENDA
THIRD READING OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION C-2003-15________FINANCE___________________________ROBINSON
A PRELIMINARY RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EVENASILLE DECLARING AN ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA FOR PROPERTY TAX PAHSE-IN FOR THE ACQUISITION AND INSTALLATION OF NEW MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT, LOCATED AT 5410 HIGHWAY 41 NORTH (WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION)
Is there a motion to adopt Resolution C-2003-15?
Councilman Angermeier moved and Councilwoman Robinson seconded the motion to adopt
Resolution C-2003-15 and call the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Bagbey, Melcher, Robinson, Koehler Walden, Watts, Angermeier, Kiefer, John.
Absent: Kniese
There being eight (8) ayes and zero (0) nays, Resolution C-2003-15 is hereby declared ADOPTED.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
President John: I don’t believe we have a meeting on the 23rd or the 30th, is that correct?
Clerk Matlock: That’s correct, at this point.
President John: I would like to explain that we have been informed by Joe Harrison that because of the problems discovered in Indianapolis we may have to call special meetings for our homestead credit and if so it would have to be done and voted on prior to July 1st. Now, as Members of Council know we can suspend our rules and if we vote unanimously, have one hearing and reading on it as opposed to the two week notice now. So, I would assume everybody would be in favor of trying to do that and in the event that we do have to have a meeting it would be either the 23rd or the 30th. Councilman.
Councilman Kniese: Is there a possibility of getting an answer on that pretty quickly or having it on the 23rd?
President John: I would hope to have it tomorrow or the next day. Our Counsel is aware of it now.
Councilman Kniese: Meet on the 30th is that correct?
President John: We were not scheduled to meet either of those days. Is there any other matter to come under Miscellaneous Business? Councilman.
Councilman Bagbey: Mr. President, on your desk it was just passed out just awhile ago is a letter dated June 16th from the Retired Police and Firefighters Association reference their ongoing difficulty dealing with widow pensions…..pensioners. I have suggested to them after they have gone through the State Legislature to meet with the Mayor. I gave them the date of the budget hearings with total fiscal impact I am told would be $75,000 to the thirteen women who would be recipient of this increase. Also, Peggy Braun while I was here, wanted me to advise from DMD that her agency has decided not to renew the 2003 Hope Housing Rehab. contract and they will send us a copy of said letter shortly. That’s all I have Mr. President.
President John: Thank you, Councilwoman?
Councilwoman Walden: Thank you. Councilman Bagbey, then would it be appropriate to send a copy of this memo to the Mayor and the Controller or has that already been done?
Councilman Bagbey: I suggested that to the ladies and gentlemen that were up here. I understand that the Fire Chief is going to take a copy of this memo to the Mayor.
Councilwoman Walden: Okay.
Councilman Bagbey: And I gave them some suggestions about the Police Department.
Councilwoman Walden: Thank you.
President John: Councilman.
Councilman Kiefer: Just that the resolution in regards to Wesselman’s, I’m not going to use that one word, is being postponed until the second Monday in July.
President John: Your jogging resolution?
Councilman Kiefer: Thank you for bringing that up. (laughter)
Councilwoman Walden: Mr. President. What is the date for that jogging resolution again?
President John: I think it’s the second Monday in July. Is that right?
Councilman Kiefer: Yes, thank you. And it’s been amended so I will circulate that around to everybody so they have a chance to preview that.
President John: Thank you.
Councilman Angermeier: Will Mike get a copy of that?
Councilman Kiefer: Yeah, I’m going to make sure Mike gets a copy.
Councilman Melcher: Have him sign for it.
President John: It’s my understanding they are going to bring it up at their next meeting and discuss it and it may not be necessary for you to even introduce it.
Councilman Kiefer: That would be fine. (laughter)
Councilman Bagbey: Your old coach is proud of you, son. (laughter)
President John: Councilman Kniese.
Councilman Kniese: Thank you Mr. President. Last week I erred in not making a comment when we had the President of the Evansville Chamber here and the delegation that was going to be going to Washington DC applying for the All American City designation. And, I notice that Evansville didn’t get it. I don’t know, but to be in my opinion just in the top thirty or thirty finalists says something for our community and the delegation that went there from the Chamber, Schools, the Administration. I think, I definitely applaud them for their efforts and hope they take it seriously about going back next year and vying for that title because just from a pure marketing standpoint and having pride in our City and it’s nice to be designated is an honor.
President John: Any other matter to come up under Miscellaneous Business? If not we’ll go to Committee Reports Finance Chairman.
FINANCE COMMITTEE CHAIRWOMAN____________________________ ROBINSON
Nothing at this time.
ASD CHAIRMAN______________________________________________ ANGERMEIER
Nothing at this time Mr. President.
PUBLIC WORKS CHAIRMAN_______________________________________ BAGBEY
Ordinance G-2003 on August 25, at 6:00 pm.
ADJOURNMENT:
Councilman Bagbey moved and Councilwoman Robinson seconded the motion to adjourn. Voice Vote. So Ordered. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
PRESIDING OFFICER
CITY CLERK