SUMMONS IN THE WAYNE COUNTY CIRCUIT AND SUPERIOR COURT CENTER CITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. IN THE WAYNE COUNTY OURT Plaintiff, - vs. 000030 CITY OF RICHMOND BOARD OF ZONIN We ?v ?v APPEALS - Defendant. JUN i 6 201?} To: City of Richmond 1- JUN 8 201E Address: Presiden Secre' or erson Board of Zonin A eals 50 North Fifth Street mm . Richmond Indiana 47374 Clerk, Whine Comm You have been named as an interested party in the cause stated above. The nature of the suit is stated in the Complaint which is attached to this document. *It also states the demand which the Plaintiff has made. You must answer the Complaint within twenty (20) days, commencing the day after you receive this Summons (or twenty? three (23) days if this Summons was received by mail), or judgment may be entered against you for what the Plaintiff ham ?essica L. Richert, #3498589 Attorney for Plaintiff 710 East Main Street, Ste. 200 Richmond, IN 47374 (765)965-3330 6 i *If the Complaint is not attached, a copy is available for you in the Of?ce of the Clerk of Debra Betty, Clerk of Wayne Circuit andLSuperior Courts said Court. Dated: JUN 1 5 2018 PRAECIPE: I designate the following mode of service to be used by the Clerk: [3 1. By mailing a copy of summons and complaint and by certi?ed or registered mail with return receipt requested to above stated address. Postage money or stamps must be paid by attorney or plaintiff at time of ?ling. 2. By Sheriff of Wayne County delivering a copy of summons and complaint personally to defendant or by leaving a copy of summons and complaint, etc. at his dwelling, house, or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion residing therein. El" 3. By delivering a copy of summons and complaint personally to defendant or by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint, etc. at his dwelling, house or usual place of abode. Cl 4. By serving his agent as provided by rule, statute or valid agreement, to?wit: Signed: essica L. Richert, #34985?89 Attorney for Plaintiff RETURN OF SUMMONS This summons came to hand served the same follows: 1. By mailing a copy of summons and complaint and by certi?ed mail or registered mail with return receipt requested to address and if same was returned without acceptance did then deliver summons and complaint, etc., as described praecipe to Sheriff of County, Indiana. 2. By delivering a copy of summons and complaint personally to 3. By leaving a copy of summons and complaint at the dwelling house or usual place of abode by defendant, and by mailing ?rst class mail a copy of the summons his last known address. 4. By serving his agent as provided by rule, statute, or valid agreement, to wit- 5. Defendant cannot be found in my bailwick, and summons was not served. And I now return this writ this day of . by Sheriff Deputy Clerk (if return is by certi?ed mail) Signature of person serving summons if other than Sheriff or Clerk in which case signature must be subscribed and sworn to . Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 201 . My Commission Expires: Signature - Notary Public Printed Resident of County, Indiana STATE OF INDIANA IN THE EICOURT SS: COUNTY OF WAYNE CAUSE NO.: CENTER CITY DEVELOPNIENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff, V. CITY OF RICHMOND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, Defendant, JUN 08 2018 PETRA PROJECT, IN C., Variance Petitioner and Interested Party, Clerk, Wayne Superior Court IUDITH LADD, TERRY DEVERS, DAVID EALES, KENNY OAKS, KIM CASHMAN, BRIGET MICHAEL NOTTINGHAM, REGINE CLINTON, ANGELA CAMPUS, GEORGE MARINAKES, JUDY DELUCIO, CHERYL DELUCIO, ANDY DELUCIO, WHITNEY STOUT, HILLARY HEASTON, RONALD HUGHES, MICHAEL W. SCHANEY, and KIMBERLY HOPPE, Interested Parties. APPEARANCE 1. Party Information: Center City Development Corporation 2. Attorney Infomation: Jessica L. Richert, #34985?89 710 East Main Street, Ste. 200 Richmond, Indiana 47374 Phone: 765.965.3330 E?mail: jessica@dudaslaw.com 3. Case Type: 4. Party will accept service by email at: jessica@dudaslaw.c0m. 5. Related Cases: None known. 6. Additional Matters Required by Local Rule: None. Respectfully submitted, essica L. Richert STATE OF INDIANA IN THE ECOURT SS: COUNTY OF WAYNE CAUSE NO.: 89D02- 1806 - PL- 0000 30 CENTER CITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Plaintiff, V. JUN 8 2018 CITY OF RICHMOND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, Defendant, Clark WaynaSupsnorCowf? PETRA PROJECT, IN C., Variance Petitioner and Interested Party, JUDITH LADD, TERRY DEVERS, DAVID EALES, KENNY OAKS, KIM CASHMAN, BRIGET MICHAEL NOTTINGHAM, REGINE CLINTON, ANGELA CAMPOS, GEORGE MARINAKES, JUDY DELUCIO, CHERYL DELUCIO, ANDY DELUCIO, WHITNEY STOUT, HILLARY HEASTON, RONALD HUGHES, MICHAEL W. SCHANEY, and KIMBERLY HOPPE, Interested Parties.) PETITION FOR REVIEW AND STAY OF ZONING DECISION COMES NOW Plaintiff, CENTER CITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, (hereinafter by and with counsel, pursuant to IC 36?7-4-1600 et. seq., and ?les this Petition for the Court to review and stay the May 10, 2018 decision of the City of Richmond Board of Zoning Appeals (hereinafter in variance of use case number BZA 5-2018 (hereinafter the ?Variance?). In support of this Petition, the Plaintiff states as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATION . The City of Richmond Board of Zoning Appeals is an advisory board created pursuant to IC 36?7-4-900 and is located at 50 North 5th Street, Richmond, Wayne County, Indiana 473 74. . Interested party Petra Projects, Inc. is, and was at all times relevant to this action, an Indiana Domestic Nonpro?t Corporation. . Petra Project, Inc., owns the property located at 1032 East Main Street, Richmond, Wayne County, Indiana (hereinafter the ?Subject Property?). On-March 5, 2018, Petra Project, Inc. applied for a variance of use in order to convert the Subject Property into a women and children?s shelter, a transient housing facility. A true and correct copy of the Variance of Use Application is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. . The Subject Property is located in the downtown area of the City of Richmond, Wayne County, Indiana, and is in an area zoned for General Commercial use. . The Uni?ed Development Ordinance de?nes General Commercial use as ?[mjoderate intensity commercial and of?ce uses.? There are no permitted residential or transient housing uses for General Commercial properties. A true and correct copy of Section 2.29 of the Uni?ed Development Ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. . On May 10, 2018, the BZA held a hearing (hereinafter the ?Hearing?) and approved Petra Project, Inc?s Variance. . The evidence presented to the BZA at the Hearing consisted of public comments and a Planning Staff Report. A true and correct copy of the Planning Staff Report is attached 10. ll. l2. l3. l4. hereto as Exhibit 3. A DVD copy of the recording has been requested and will be supplied to the Court upon receipt. Additionally, the BZA received letters in support of and in opposition to the approval of the Variance. Copies of the letters received by the BZA are attached hereto as Exhibit 4. This Petition challenges the May 10, 2018 decision approving Petra Project, Inc?s Variance of Use application, BZA 5-2018, pursuant to IC 36-7-4-1600 er. Seq, and the City of Richmond, Uni?ed Development Ordinance Article Plaintiff, Center City Development Corporation, is, and was at all times relevant to this action an Indiana Domestic Nonpro?t Corporation located at 814 East Main Street, Richmond, Wayne County, Indiana 473 74. Joshua Russell is the Executive Director of CCDC. Mr. Russell personally attended in an agent capacity and presented relevant evidence at Hearing at which the decision to approve the Variance was made, therefore, CCDC is a party with prOper standing under IC mission is to further explore economic deveIOpment for the center city, promote and assist growth and development of businesses, and address concerns including those of small businesses that bene?t the community. CCDC is a Main Street America Accredited Program, through both The National Main Street Center and Indiana Main Street. The Indiana Main Street Program is established by IC 4?4?16~1, to: 1) Encourage the economic development, redevelopment, and improvement of downtown areas in Indiana cities and towns in all geographic regions of the state; 15. 16. 17. (2) Sponsor demonstration efforts in Indiana cities and towns in all geographic regions of the state; and (3) Provide technical assistance and sponsor seminars and other educational programs on downtown area revitalization, development, and redevelopment. accreditation with Indiana Main Street Program requires core competencies which include organization, promotion, design, and economic viability. The design element, ?involves improving the physical environment by renovating buildings, constructing compatible new buildings and ensuring that planning and zoning regulations support Main Street revitalization, all in service of enhancing place value.? Indiana Main Street Program Guide and Handbook, Page 26, available at A true and correct copy of the competencies section of the Indiana Main Street Program Guide and Handbook is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. CCDC was formerly known as Main Street Richmond Wayne County which is speci?cally named in the Richmond Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter the ?Plan?) as the ?driving organization for Downtown? and tasked with economic development responsibilities and ?to work diligently to manage and promote downtown.? Richmond Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 5: Downtown, Pages 114-127. A true and correct copy of Chapter 5 of the Richmond Comprehensive Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit 6. CCDC is prejudiced by the approval of the Variance because placing a transient shelter on Main Street, in the heart of downtown Richmond, will hamper economic development and downtown revitalization and greatly impede mission and ability to maintain its Indiana Main Street Program competencies. 18. CCDC is further prejudiced by the approval of the Variance because the Subject Property?s use as a transient shelter, and its tax exempt status, will negatively impact adjacent property values, including the value of the Innovation Center which is owned by CCDC. 19. There are no available administrative remedies for CCDC to exhaust before ?ling of this Petition, thus the exhaustion requirement of IC 36?7?4?1604(a) is satis?ed. 20. This Petition is being ?led within thirty (30) days of the May 10, 2018 BZA decision, and therefore is timely ?led pursuant to IC 36-7?4?1605. 21. A copy of the board record has been requested, but has not yet been received in full. A certi?ed copy of the Board Record will be provided upon receipt, within thirty (30) days of this Petition, or within an approved extension pursuant to IC 36-7-4? 1613. 22. IC sets forth the ?ndings that a BZA is required to make in order to approve a variance of use. The required written determinations are: 1) The approval is not injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community; (2) The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner; (3) The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property involved; (4) The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought; and . (5) The approval does not interfere substantially with the comprehensive plan adopted under the 500 series of this chapter. 23. IC 36-7-4-1614 provides that a court shall set aside a zoning decision and remand to the board for further proceedings or compel a decision, only if a plaintiff demonstrates that the zoning decision is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (3) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; (4) without observance of procedure required by law; or (5) unsupported by substantial evidence. 24. When reviewing a decision on a variance of use application, the reviewing court does not try the facts de novo, but rather accepts the facts as found by the board, but does review questions of law de novo without deference to the board. 1-465, LLC. v. Metro. Bd. of Zoning Appeals Div. II of Marion Cnty., Ind, 36 1094, 1098?99 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). COUNT I: ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, ABUSE OF DISCRETION 25. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 24 above as though set forth fully in this count. 26. The decision to grant the Variance was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion because it was not supported by a rational basis and ignored at least two of the statutory factors, namely, that approval of the variance would not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community, and that the use and value of the area adjacent to the Subject Property would not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. 27. The BZA Staff Planning Report includes a recommendation for approval and a recitation of the ?nding of fact for each of the determinations required by IC 36-7-4- 918.4. 28. As to the first element, the Staffs ?ndings of fact state, ?The approval of the variance WILL NOT be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the 6 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. community because: The property has been used for residential purposes in the past and the use as a homeless shelter is an extension of the residential use along with a by right institutional use as a community center.? The Staff?s ?ndings of fact on this element neither directly address the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, nor provide any rational basis for an af?rmative ?nding on this factor. The Staff?s ?ndings of fact as to Whether the Variance will have a substantially adverse affect on the value and use of adjacent properties, the ?ndings solely address the affect on value of adjacent properties and are devoid of any mention of how the Variance will affect the use of adjacent properties. There was no evidence offered at the Hearing to support this ?nding. As to the three remaining factors, the Staffs ?ndings of fact, though attempting to address the factors, do not provide a rational basis for af?rmative ?ndings. COUNT H: UNSUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 24 above as though set forth fully in this count. The decision to approve the Variance is clear error, because it was not supported by substantial evidence. None of the required ?ndings were supported by substantial evidence. The evidence presented consisted of a Planning Staff Report and public letters and comments. 35. The public comments in support of the Variance included statements of the need for a shelter for displaced women and children in Wayne County, and simple designations of support with no additional comments. 36. Each element for which the board must make a determination pursuant to IC 36?7-4- 918.4, the evidence provided for each, and the insuf?ciency of the evidence for each are as follows: A. ?The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community? i. ii. The Planning Staff Report recites the following ?ndings of fact for an af?rmative ?nding on this element, ?The property has been used for residential purposes in the past and the use as a homeless shelter is an extension of the residential use along with a by right institutional use as a community center.? During the Hearing, there were several public comments which raised safety concerns for adjacent business patrons, including young children. The only evidence introduced to address these concerns consisted of Petra Project, lnc.?s testimony regarding ?re safety, the installation of bright lights, the ability to call the police if problems occur, and other similar statements. One public commenter who spoke in support of the Variance discussed a personal experience with homelessness, particularly as a woman with children, and the issues which can be associated with it, such as prostitution and drug addiction. There were no studies conducted or offered, and no evidence offered at the Hearing by law enforcement which would address how the transient housing could a?ect the crime rate, or overall safety of the area. The af?rmative ?nding that approving the Subject Property for use as transient housing will not be injurious to the public health or safety is not supported by substantial evidence. B. ?The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.? i. ii. The Planning Staff Report recites the following ?ndings of fact for an af?rmative ?nding on this element, ?The property has been vacant for two years and will be renovated and improved in such a way that adjacent property values will not be negatively impacted.? During the Hearing, the only other evidence offered to support this fmding was that the building would undergo updates to bring it into compliance with fire-safety and other building codes. However, Jack Cruse, Director of Infrastructure and Development and acting interim City Planner, indicated that any use of the building would require the improvements to bring the building into code compliance. There was no evidence introduced to address how the use as a transient shelter would a?ect the values of adjacent properties. There was no evidence put before the BZA, or even a bare recitation of facts, that the use of adjacent properties would not be adversely affected. Several public comments and letters from adjacent business owners raised concerns of how the use of their adjacent properties would be adversely a??ected. The use portion of this element was entirely ignored. 9 iv. The af?rmative ?nding that approving the Subject Property for use as transient housing would not have a substantially adverse effect on the use and value of adjacent properties is not supported by substantial evidence. C. ?The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property involved.? i. ii. The Planning Staff Report recites the following ?ndings of fact for an af?rmative ?nding on this element, ?Homeless shelter is not de?ned by the Uniform Development Ordinance. This property has had residential use that have lost their legal nonconformance. A homeless shelter functions as both a residential and an institutional use.? When analyzing this element, the Court of Appeals of Indiana has dictated that ?[t]he peculiarity in question must relate to the speci?c features of the property such as unusual shape or relatively small acreage, not merely the owner?s desired use of the property.? L465, LLC. 12. Metro. Bd. of Zoning Appeals Div. II of Marion Cnty., Ind, 36 1094, 1100 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) The Subject Property previously had a variance to allow second story residential use; however, as noted in the Planning Staff Report, that variance has expired. Petra Project, Inc.?s proposed layout and its statements at the Hearing made clear that there is no intent to use the second story apartments at this time, and that the second story apartments are not the reason that the Variance is needed. The Variance in this case is needed because ?rst ?oor residential use is requested in a general 10 iv. commercial, non?residential district. The need for the Variance in this case solely arises out of the owner?s desired use of the Subject Property, not out of a condition peculiar to it. The af?rmative ?nding that the need for allowing the Subject Property to be used as transient housing arises from a condition peculiar to the Subject Property is not supported by substantial evidence. D. ?The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.? i. ii. The Planning Sta?~ Report recites the following ?ndings of fact for an af?rmative ?nding on this element, ?Having once had residential uses and still having intact apartments, this facility is unable to pair residential uses such as temporary/transitional housing and homeless shelter with their permitted institutional uses.? The Planning Staff Report provides the following de?nition of hardship: A dif?culty with regard to ones? ability to improve land stemming ?om the deveIOpment standards of this Uni?ed Development Ordinance, which may or may not be subject to relief by means of variance. In and of themselves, self-imposed situations and claims based on a perceived reduction of or restriction on economic gain shall not be considered hardships. Self-imposed situations include: the purchase of land with actual or constructive knowledge that, for reasons other than physical characteristics of the property, the deveIOpment standards herein will inhibit the desired improvement. .. During the Hearing, Petra Project, Inc. stated that the Subject Property was donated to it in November 2017. Petra Project, Inc., is the owner of the adjacent Rock Solid Ministries building, and as such bad at least 11 iv. constructive knowledge that the building could not be used for residential use when it obtained the building. Additionally, there is no plan to utilize the second story apartments currently, thus the existence of the apartments is not creating a hardship. There was no evidence presented to support a ?nding that the Subject Property could not be improved without the Variance. The af?rmative ?nding that the strict application of the zoning ordinance would constitute an unnecessary hardship on the Subject is not supported by substantial evidence. E. ?The approval does not interfere substantially with'the comprehensive plan adopted under the 500 series of this chapter.? i. ii. The Planning Sta? Report recites the following ?ndings of fact for an a?innative ?nding on this element, ?The Richmond Comprehensive Plan addresses building improvements downtown for aesthetics as well as addressing homelessness.? Chapter 5 of the Richmond Comprehensive Plan speci?cally addresses Downtown Richmond and a plan for the ?transition for Downtown into an exciting retail and entertainment destination in the heart of the city?s arts and entertainment district.? Richmond Comprehensive Plan, 111. Chapter 5 provides goals, objectives, and strategies for Downtown which include encouraging urban residential living and upper story housing. Furthermore, development of retail operations is noted as a way to enhance Downtown. To that end, the Comprehensive Plan states, ?[t]hat 12 iv. Vi. type of business will locate based on market demand which changes dramatically if new housing is developed and renovated. Demographics and consumer spending will dictate such private involvement decision.? Richmond Comprehensive Plan, 122. Section 4 of Chapter 5 outlines strategies for controlling the development of Downtown, and includes a statement that, ?[t]he city?s desire to embrace sustainability standards, downtown?s role as a cultural center for the community and encourage additional living opportunities downtown will all place concern in the minds of the private real estate development community regarding zoning compliance, marketability, and appeal of downtown and protection of one?s investment.? Richmond Comprehensive Plan, 122. Homelessness is addressed in Chapter 12 of the Richmond Comprehensive Plan; however, there is not one mention of homelessness or transient housing in Chapter 5 of the Plan. Residential use is encouraged in the Chapter 5 of the Plan, however, when viewing the Plan as a whole, it is clear that the residential use encouraged is that which would produce revenue and encourage business development in Downtown, neither of which would be accomplished by the presence of a transient shelter, a fact supported by numerous statements in the Plan itself. The Planning Staff Report also mentions that aesthetics are addressed in the Plan. Section of Chapter 5 is in?fact titled ?Aesthetics?. A review of this section reveals that it addresses items such as the need for additional 13 green space and guidelines for the City to use when reviewing new development and re-development; however, there is nothing in the section which negates the Variance approval?s signi?cant interference with the Richmond Comprehensive Plan. vii. The mere fact that aesthetics and homelessness are addressed in the Plan does not provide substantial evidence to support a ?nding that the approval of the Variance will not substantially interfere with the comprehensive plan. 37. During the Hearing, BZA member, Jeff Cook questioned Jack Cruse about the Staff?s basis for approval, Mr. Cruse?s response was, ?Within the characteristics of the building itself, and since homelessness is not addressed within the UDO, it does meet the general concept of that, without violating or going against the comprehensive plan. But I do like to state that that is purely the semantics of it, it?s looking at the box, not necessarily the area, environment around it.? 38. IC 36?74-9184 requires the BZA to consider more than just the ?box? of the Subject Property, but rather the community surrounding the Subject Property and the Comprehensive Plan which was adopted to promote community improvement and development; a requirement that the decision does not meet. 39. For all of the foregoing reasons, the approval of the Variance was unsupported by substantial evidence and should be set aside and remanded to the BZA for further proceedings. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Center City Development Corporation, being aggrieved by the decision of the BZA, respect?illy requests the following: 14 1. That the Court enter an Order staying the approval of Variance of Use Application BZA 5-2018, pending the ?nal Order of the Court; 2. that the Court review and set aside the BZA decision to approve the Variance and remand to the BZA for further proceedings; and 3. that the Court grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. I AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING REPRESENTATIONS ARE TRUE. 1 Joshua ussell, Executive Director of: Center City Development Corporation Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared the Within?named Joshua Russell, who, after being duly sworn upon his oath, acknowledged the execution of the foregoing to be his voluntary act and deed. WITNESS my hand and Notarial Seal this day of 223% 2018. 1:3" i-Il'l . 2 . 2., . 1,113Notary Public - Resident of County, Indiana 3 I. My Sion Expires: Respectfully submitted, (bylaw ?essica L. Richert, #3498589 Attorney for Plaintiff 710 East Main Street, Ste. 200 Richmond, Indiana 473 74 Phone: 765.965.3330 E?mail: jessica@dudaslaw.con1 15 32/4 57201? Variance of Use Property Information Preperty Address: /0 32 A 37?12% Q9467 933 330 400; 000 4730 ?Subdi?sion Name'afapplicabze); Overlay Dio?iot (zfapplicable): Zoning: 459 @3114 255?)? D) 0 Q?jf Pro?orty? Ow??r Information Name: 7157th TENC I Addfeos; PO Box 2(00 (0 City} ViCrFm'on/D 1 Zip: #7375? CONTACT INFORMATION 9?06? Home: Workz?7?st992 6290/9 Mommy- %3 $958 632%, E) Email: Ibc Mac? 7 (o c: @w 7&2; (PAsrmb) Contractor Information Name:_ Addre?sz . CityS-E - -. 1 Zip: Work: - - Mobile: Home: Email: Page I 3 Variance of Use Details of Variance Request Describe the variance requested (please list Uni?ed Development Ordinance section number[s]) 2 . Stigma /7ZweoaM/a ?eas/?owed Mews/Me Describe the reasons for this request, including both existing and proposed uses. (box/mt Se Ethan doMMinCv/tb??mavth?eswwi is f?l 7Z?Schw77prL lo HCUSI: Hermit/2655 womb?r?) The Board of Zoning Appeals shall assess this application based upon its adherence to Findings of Fact (per UDO 9. 17E): i The approval of the variance will not be injurious to the public health safety, morals and general welfare of the community. ii. The use and. value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected 111 a Substantially adverse manner. The need for the variance arises ?'om some condition peculiar to the property involved. iv. The strict application of the terms of the ordinance will constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought._ . v. The approval does not interfere substantially with the Richmond Comprehensive Plan. Before proposing Findings of Fact 011 the following page, consider these questions in relation to the property and variance request.- . How will enforcement of the Ordinance unreasonably inhibit the proposed use? Why should the standards in the Ordinance; not apply to the property? What are the unique characteristics of the property with respect to lot size, shape topography, and other physical limitations that make literal enforcement of the Ordinance impractical? Were any of these limitations created by the current or past property owners? What other options are available? Why were these options not chosen? How will approval of this variance protect the public interest? In particular, how it will impact sensitivepublic resources and/or adjacent properties? How is granting thisfvari?ance consistent With thezspitit and intent of the Ordinance? In particular, how will it meet the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which the propertyis located? Page 4 Variance of Use Proposed Findings of Fact 1) Approval of the variance W1LL . WILL NOT ?74 injurious to the public health safety, morals and general welfare of the community because: . Wt: Re Woes m/G Hon/14256 We? GLIOILLS ween: Ham Home'abape/7,77% I77 MIMI-1077 2.) The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance WILL WILL NOT be affected in a substantially adverse manner because: THFM 4m 0 ampetzm I9 3126 I Fas I or manna Mae; 9496 3794?: AIM 0 MI Games 1?9. YD IS VALAIQT A75 LS 2116 Emma/Mb ?Me 3.) The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property involved, because: A c?caaD re We F1436 Nor Parana I709 70 Howe) lo {c IN Sewn Prev Fever/q 9 II I 9 {Lest Dem LIL . 7. 4.) The strict application of the terms of the ordinance WILL WILL NOT I constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property becauSe: [He Peepam m5 Beet) Vacerev ?ee nee. :1 Ym? no 9774272 11/727257 wig 14m OWFIQ money 7b 77?e~ ?dlL?In/G 7b CODC )0 USC ?97 USE 5. The approval does not interfere substantially with the Richmond Comprehensive Plan because: 7/2/45 Dots I FEE 001771 7/7/57 Comp/ewea p04?; AD :DnPBOI/e?mem?s Down/Town) ?92 fl Sew/L77 CS Pr HeMeZES?n/ess A . Applicant Certi?cation Ihereby certify that the above information and accompanying documents are true and accurate to thevbest of my 4 knowledge. I. understand that any misrepresentation of submitted data may invalidate any approval of this document. I ?rrther understand that this completed application must be ?led and fees paid at least twenty?eight - (28) days prior to the next scheduled Board of 20 Appeals meeting. - .- - APPLICANT SIGNATURE: Law/I .6091,? DATE: ?g Sig/K Page 5 Variance of Use Owner Certi?cation This IS to that the undersigned is/are the owner(s) of the real estate described 111 said application, and hereby aClmowledge(s) and agree(s) $61115?. LNG.- is duly authorized to present said application before the City of Richmond, IN Board of Zoning Appeals I swear or af?rm under penalties for perjury that the above representations are true and correct. WiO?a/qa {aim/7 >evm?? Printed; Name mu LDI Area?s Printed Name STATE OF INDIANA, COUNTY or . . a Before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for CountyState of Indiana, personally appeared q. . and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument this coinrnission expires l? 7 Page i 6 PROPOSED CONFIGURATION General Commercial (GC) District 2.29 GC District intent, Permitted Uses, and Special Exception Uses - erate intensity commercial and of?ce uses Ap lication of GC District - isting and new development - Small to medium area zoning Development Standards - Requrre moderate development standards to minimize impacts on adjacent properties while encouraging economic vita ity - Minimize light. norse. water, and air pollution ro riate Ad'acentZonln' Districts G, l1.andl2 Plan Commission and carefully for new oommercral development Board of Zonin Appeals - Allow a ?a exception use only when it is compatib with the surroundin areas - 1rifle {i0 aesthetics Eng! epr?o?tenttial or I no on, norse on, as nan safe and vehicular saggy - Use the 60 District for existingldevelopments' District Intent Permitted Uses Special Exception Uses The GC (General Commercial) District is Accessory Permitted Uses Accessory Special Exception Uses intended to be used as follows: - small wind turbine system - large wind turbine system Use and Intensity Commercial Permitted Uses Commercial Special Exception Uses - amusement center - automobile oriented business - bank machine/aim - banquet hall - barltavem - barber/beauty shop - billiard/arcade room bowling alle - broadcasts udio - club or lodge - coffee shop - coin laundry - commercia training facility or school - dance/night club da care - de icatessen - ?tness center/health club - funeral home or mortuary - Igas station - ealth spa/day spa hotellmotel ice cream shop micro brewery micro distille miniature go movie theater of?ce, construction trade office, design services of?ce, ?nancial of?ce. general services of?ce. medical services paintball facility photography studio recreation center/play center restaurant restaurant with drive-up window retail gtype 1 very low intensity retail type 2 low intensity retail type 3 medium intensity skating rink complex (indoor) udio arts swimming pool - tailor/pressing shop tanning salon - tattoo/piercing parlor - winery institutional Permitted Uses - community center - government of?ce government operations (non-of?ce) - police or ?re station - rescue station - trade or business school . 2-30] The City of Richmond. Unified Development Ordinance - country club . - kenne (commercrai) - shooting range indoor) - sports complex outdoor) waterpark institutional Special Exception Uses - recycling collection point General Commercial (GC) District 2.30 GC District Development Standards ROW 6 2010, Bradley E. Johnson, AICP rBuilding Setback - 1 Envelope . i i i Side I . Side -- Setback! iSetback Row @2010, Bradiey E. Johnson. Arcs .ROW 2010. Bradley E, Johnson. Atop Minimum Lot Area - 5,000 square feet Minimum Lot Width - 50 feet Sewer and Water Sanitary sewer and water utility required Minimum Front Yard Setback - 25 feet for primary and accessory structures Minimum Side Yard Setback - 15 feet of aggregate setback for primary and accessory structures, with a 5 foot minimum setback for any one side yard Minimum Rear Yard Setback - 35 feet for primary and accessory structures Maximum Lot Coverage - 80% of lot area Minimum Main Floor Area - 1,000 square feet Maximum Primary Structures - no limit Fiat Roof Structures Pitched Roof Structures 1 . (from higher: (from highest point section af?at roof) on pitched roof) 2010. Bradley E. Johnson, Additional Development Standards that Apply Maximum Structure Height - 40 feet for primary structure . 25 feet for accessory structure Accessory Structure Landscaping Si$ns - A301 . LA-01 5?37 - Si 1 5?68 - 543 - LA02 5~38 - 5453 Architecture - LA-04 5?39 SEecial Exception - 5?14 - Lit-06 W540 - -01 59? Density and intensity - LA-OT 5?40 Storage Tank - Dl-01 5?16 - LA-OB 5?41 5~98 Drivew Structure 5.17 e43 ~sr~01 599 - DW-04 520 Loading Telecommunication Environmental LD-01 544 T001 5?100 - EN-01 521 Lot Tem rary Use and Wall 522 - 5-45 3:83 - Dis 18 - ?ll-06 5~24 I: my. 5?49 - TU-06 5404 Fireworks Perkin Trash Rece cie - FR-01 5?25 . 9. 553 - 5?105 Floodpiain - Pit-07 5-55 Vision Clearance 5?25 Pe?ormance 5-106 Floor Area - 5?61 Wind Turbine System 5-27 PuhIic improvement WT-01 5-107 Height - Pl-01 5?62 - WT-02 5-109 . HT 1 5?28 Setback Kennel - 5-64 5-35 Sewer and Water - 5-66 Article 2: Zoning Districts 12-31 PETITION: PETITION ER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING 8: USE: ZONING: NOTIFICATION: RICHMOND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PLANNING STAFF REPORT BZA 5-2018 Petra Project Inc, Owner; Terry Devers Dave Eales, Agent Variance of Use to allow a homeless shelter with temporary/transitional housing in a General Commercial (GC) District 1032 East Main Street Zoningzi General Commercial (GC) District Use of lot: Commercial North GC South GC East GC West GC Six (6) adjacent property owners were notified. RECOMMENDATION: The variance requested would allowthe owner to use the facility as Hardship: a homeless shelter and as a temporary/transitional housing facility. This [o'cation has intact apartments in the upper level but they have been out of use for more than a year and have therefore lost their legal 'nonconformance. The General Commercial district does not allow residential ?uses by right. The temporary/transitiona[housing would fit with the former residential use and the homeless shelter would be an expansion of residential use in conjunction with institutional use similar to the by right use of community center. Variances of Use must meet the following definition Of a hardship: A difficulty with regard to one?s-ability to improve land-stemming from the development standards of this Unified Development Ordinance, which may or may not be subject toirelief by means: of variance. In and of themselves, self-imposed situations and claims based on a perceived reduction of or restriction. on economic gain shall nOt be considered hardships. Self-imposed situations include: the purchase'ofland with actual or constructive knowledge that, for reasons other than physical characteristics of the property, the development standards herein Will inhibit the desired improvement; any im'provement'initiated in violation ofthe standards of this Unified Development Ordinance; any result of land division requiring variance-from the development standards ofthis Unified Development Ordinance in order to render that site buildable. The planning staff consulted with all city departments and utilities to determine any objections based on public health and safety. No objections were raised. Staff recommendation is for approval based on these findings: FINDINGS OF FACT Variance of Use for 1032 East Main Street. 1) The approval of the variance WILL NOT be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because: The property has been used for residential purposes in the past and the use as a homeless shelter is an extension of the residential use along with a by right institutional use as a community center. 2) The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the Variance WILL NOT be affected in a substantially adverse manner because: The pmperty has been vacant for two years and will be renovated and improved in such a way that adjacent property values will not be negatively impacted. 3) The need for the Variance of Use arises from some condition peculiar to the property involved. Homeless shelter is not defined by the Unified Development Ordinance. This property-has had residential use that have lost their legal nonconformance. A homeless shelter functIons as both a residential and an institutional use. 4) The strict application of the terms ofthe ordinanCe WILL constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought because: Having once had residential uses and still having intact apartments, this facility is unable to pair residential uses such as temporary/transitional housing and homeless shelter with their permitted institutional uses. 5) The approval does NOT interfere substantially with the Richmond Comprehensive Plan because: . . The Richmond Comprehensive Plan addresses building improvements downtown for aesthetics as well as addressing homelessness. WRITTEN COMMITMENTS None. CITY OF RICHMOND Department of Infrastructure and: Development" 50 NORTH 5m RICHMOND. IN 47374 PHONE (765) 983-7237 FAX (755) 952-7024 Richmond Board of Zoning Appeals Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held Thursday, April 12, 2018, at 7:00 P. M., in the Council Chambers of the Richmond Municipal Building. BZA 5?201 8 The petiIIon of Petra Project Inc. Owner; requesting a Variance of Use to operate ahomeless shelter with temporary/transitional housing in a Generai Commercial (GCI zoned district at 1032 East Main Street Richmond Indiana (Parcel No: 89163333090900.0030; Description: PT 18 FT MAIN ST LOT 130 PT 18 FT MAIN ST LOT 130 You have been identi?ed as an owner of propertya adiace ntto the parcel invoived In this petition All persons interested In or affected by this petition are invited to attend this public hearing to speak In favor of or in opposition to the request. .A copy of the petition is on the for examination before the hearing in the of?ce of the PIanning Department In the Richmond Municipal Building, 50 North 5th Street Richmond, Indiana. Or you may complete the questionnaire below and either return it to the address indicated; or reply by facsimile to the nUmber' listed below Either way, your comments must be received no? later than noon Thursday, April 12, 2018. If you have any questions, please call the Staff at 983-7237. PLEASE DETACH HERE AND RETURN TO THE ADDRESS INDICATED BELOW. TO: DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING BZA 5-2018 BUILDING RICHMOND, INDIANA 47374 FAX. NO. 962-7024 am in favor of the petition. I am opposed to the petition NAME 295* VIRNNRIY Reasons for opposing or approving this petition may be listed on the reverse side. Thank you. My name is Ron'Hughes, i am the owner of The Tin Lizzie Caf? 820 East Main Street. We have been in business for 7 years. When we started there were 6 retail establishments, and one bank on our block, there were 6 empty buildings, over time 8 new businesses opened. Unfortunately of them havecl05ed for various reasons. As you can see the survival rate is lbw, it is very difficult for someone to take their money, ideas, hopes, and sweat equity, put it into a dream and have it fail. This is not a hobby for any of us, it is our lively we Pay title. 99v star greens? and entertainment err were set a serpents paycheck. If we succeed oar families succeed, if we fail we become a statistic. A downtown depends on people coming to it spending their money and possibly seeing the opportunity to realize their own dream in a place they feel comfortable, safe, and confident in. They can see'the potential of a thriving downtown area. All of us business owners are being tested with all of the road construction going on, but we know that it will be over at some point and look forward to the new streets, lights, and landscaping that will bring the shoppers back to the downtown area. By allowing a halfway house or homeless shelter to be installed in the downtown area is Opening our streets to a questionable element in fact we are encouraging that element to make a home in the downtown. This alone will discourage shoppers and investors to question whether or not they want to take a risk by coming to downtown Richmond, be it to shop or invest We are a retail area, we already have 3 churches or missions in downtown, it is time to stop this trend and start encouraging more retail shops. We all realize that these organization are necessary but would like to suggest that there are many other options available for 'such a facility, not located in the heart of our downtown. Ron Hughes proprietor,. Tin Lizzie Cafe TO: OF CITY PLANNING BZA 5-2013 MUNICIPAL BUILDING . I RICHMOND, INDIANA 47.374 FAX. No. 962-7024 . . . I am in favor of the petition. I am opposed to the petition. NAME: ?a?gd/ 4/ ?62?ng P?'fox' ycoe?penreo ADDRESS: ?55? 57?2?? .771 H7375I Sea?/ Ila/H 517$de ADM/Emmet} I 147 3711! Reasons for opposing or approving this petition may be listed on the reverse side. Thank you. BZA 5?2018 04/09/2018 My name is Michael Schaney. I represent Ratox Incorporated. We own retail business properties and parking located at Main and 11th Street in the ?Enterprise Zone and Retail Business District also know as Up Town Richmond. This area through the City Of Richmond is the ?Up Town Redevelopment Project.? We currently lease to All American Pawn Incorporated and Enterprises Incorporated, DBA Roxxys Boutique. We purchased these properties based the many positive retail business moves made by the City Of Richmond, property and business owners in this area. We have invested heavily in the purchase and remodeling of these properties. Our tenants also have invested heavily in the improvements of their business and progressive business models. With increased prosperity they have added additional employees. Our tenants have received awards and positive recognition from the Richmond Chamber Of Commerce and the Better Business Bureau for these positive efforts and gains to the area Just recently the closed diner next to the Richmond Civic Theater has opened as Big Boys Pizza. We are happy to see the pizza chain investing in our business district. Recently the City Of Richmond has invested in radio advertising with Kicks 96.1 and G101.3 with its ?Go Downtown? radio ad. Encouraging people to experience the business district and all of the positive things we have to offer. We are currently working with Kicks 96.1 and G101.3 to come up with advertising that will make light Of road construction that is on going in the business district. Although a necessary evil, this is a large threat to retail business Up Town. One day the road construction will be ?nished and our area will be better and much improved all that work, shop and live here. We do not want patrons to forget about us. People are creatures of habit- We do not want them to get use tolgoing elsewhere as a result of the road construction. Other factors that contribute to people going elsewhere include loss of ambiance and security. The Richmond Police have their hands full and do a good job keeping the pan handlers, vagrants, thieves and prostitutes out of our business district. We encourage development that will bring people withdisposable income to spend in our business district. As it is said, a rising tide raises all boats. We view the impact brought by a homeless shelter located in or near the?retail, residential and business district as a negative. Regardless of the controls put in place or the lack there of, an in?ux of non? income generating peeple will add to the strain placed on property owners, business owners, residents and City resources. We agree with the studies. and information available from Montgomery County Ohio, City Of Dayton and ?ora Marion County Indiana, City Of Indianapolis. Homeless shelters do have a negative impact on property values and business. This must be why you do not ?nd homeless shelters located in malls, shopping centers or business and entertainment districts. Although we do agree homeless shelters, methadone clinics and half way houses for convicts are necessary for society, they are usually located in areas that are not dependant on the ambiance and security of the area for attracting business. We are opposed to. the petition. Michael W. Schaney 44/" Steven Hughes and Richmond Zoning Board Richmond, Indiana, 47374 Dear Steven Hughes and Richmond Zoning Board, 7 I am writing you today on behalf of myself and family for the concern of a homeless shelter that is being proposed by Rock Solid Ministries on East Main Street of Richmond. I believe that the idea of the shelter is great, but the location in question is not ideal. My concerns run deeper than having this in our downtown area where as a community we have been trying to build back up for so long. We have children and families who do not only feel uncomfortable with this beingso close to where are children take dance, theatre, piano/voice, and karate classes, but their safety is in question as well. As a parent of a child who spends most of their nights after school downtown at this general location, I-feel that it is our job as a community to protect them and speak up for them. I am mostly concerned for the response that Rock Solid has given when spoken with on numerous occasions about pe0p1e stopping our children on the side walk before they have had a chance to reach the door to their building. We have been told ?we are not re5ponsible for people outside our walls, once they leave they are not our responsibility.? I am now very concerned for the type of crowed that will now be sitting in wait for our children, staff, and families to walk outside our doors to our downtown area. I believe that we have a duty to our families ensure their safety not only within out walls but when they leave as well. I am not just asking you as a parent but as a community member, if not my family than whose family will it be? Do we have the right to ask families to keep coming to our local businesses where they not only feel uncomfortable but feel unsafe? As any parent I can say that my child?s safety and other children?s safety is 100% my concern and I will never put her in a situation that she does not feel comfortable. Thank you very much for your time and consideration on this zoning issue. Please feel free to contact me with any questions that you might have. Whitney Stout . Wstout0289@gmail.com 765-969?1380 Joyce Carr Cheryl DeLucio lFrom: Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 10:09 AM To: shughes@richmondindianagov; jcruse@richmondindianagov Cc: jcarr@richmondindiana.gov Subject: Re: Proposed Zoning Change Concern i sent the below email a few weeks ago but have to had a reply. Could someone please con?rm this email has been read and shared with the appropriate people? i know the meeting is tonight, Thank you, Cheryl DeLucio Sent from my iPhone . On Apr 29, 2018, at 4:59 PM, Cheryl DeLucio wrote: . Mr. Cruse, Mr. Hughes and zoning boa rd, My name is Cheryl DeLucio and i am the owner of Dance Techniques located at 1014 East Main. My business serves nearly 300 students on a weekly basis. Our students range in age from 2 to adults. My studio has been at the same location since 2006 and lam excited to say i am in the process of buying the building from my father?in~law and we are planning a big remodel and expansion this summer. . Although i commend my neighbor, Pastor David Eales? mission to offer services to a neglected segment of our community, i must question the decision to allow this in this particular area oftown. . . i was at the last Downtown Business Group meeting. Pastor Eaies spoke, but nothing he said eased my worries regarding the possible illegal activity that could increase. I am not concerned-about the women themselves. Drug activity, disgruntled/angry/abusive spouses, "Johns?sear'ching for a prostitute are all Very real and probable outcomes if this shelter is allowed. if we are desperately trying to clean up this area, why would we want to invite more illegal activity? How will Rock Solid be able to ensure the safety-of those in the neighborhood when they will not even have staff on hand at the shelternow, i havespoken to-Rock Solid on several occasions when they have the free meal on Tuesdays. We have had men make inappropriate comments to teen girls andmade them very uncomfortable. I have been told by Rock Solid that they have no authority to police what goes on outside on their sidewalk. Once the men leave their building, there?s nothing they can do. i can only assume this will be the case with the shelter. We also had little help from the RPD to police more. So this leavesme terribly concerned. - . . We must ?nd a better way to help thehomeless women in our community without sacri?cing our downtown. As i stated earlier, I am committed to staying in my location. ldon?t want tohave to rethink this decision, or regret-it later. The safety of the children and peace?of?mind of the parents in my studio must be my ?rst priority. i want to see the downtown flourish which will only strengthen the Richmond community. . - . I am busy! Thank?you for hearing my concerns. nfortunately unable to attend the May 10th meeting as that is our Picture Night at my studio and I?ll be quite Cheryl DeLucio Dance Techniques 765-914-6934 (ceif) 7659654440 Studio TO: DEPARTMENT OF CITY BZA 5?2013 MUNICIPAL BUILDING RICHMOND, INDIANA 47374 FAX- No 952-7024 i am in favor of the petition i am opposed to the petition. NAME LEW ?sh I ADDRESS: 27% 57? ?i4 . 7 Reasons for opposing or approving this pe ition may be listed on the reverseside. Thank you. To: shughes@richmondindiana.gov Cc/Bcc: jadelucio@parallax.ws Subject: Re: Rock Solid Women?s Shelter Dear Mr. HUghes My name is Judy DeLucio. My husband Raymond and are owner?s of the properties at 1014, 1016 and 1020 East Main Street. I have oWned the Dancewear Store on the upper level of this building since 2009' we also have music instruction on the upper level, "while my wonderful daughter-in~law owns Dance Techniques Up until recently Chango Noth had a martial arts busmess at 1020 Soon 1020 W111 be ?part of Dance Techniques but it Will remain a building that serves and teaches the young people While we have been busy trying to make iti a safe and clean area for these students we recently had to put up with the problems of the patrons cf Knucklehead?s bar- with adults throwing unwanted trash around our building, congregatmg on our steps, smoking, . . drinking and using vulgar language that made it difficult for these young people to ceme and go to and fr-Om their classes Shopping at my store and nav1gat1ng our limited parking areas Was .a chore. We were honestly thrilled to See that busmess come to an end It was our hope that another business would occupy that empty space and bring something that would help Richmond prosper, however Ewe now hear that it W111 beia women shelter and we can help but iwonder if these W111 be the women that we: were warned about during the remodeimg of McDonald 3 While we have-no problems with the church wanting to provide help we don?t see how this will bene?t our street. It will not bring money to the town and I feel that it will continue to run down the area. I am sure that this shelter will be tax exempt. Who will be expected to pay their taxes and the renovations to the building if it is a tax free establishment? I don?t think it would be fair for the rest of us to absorb this problem. Richmond does not?rdogmuch to.? help our area except put a traf?c enforcer out to make our area of the street look like ?no man7s land?, but that is another story. I think it would be better if they voted against this women? shelter. I am de?nitely not in favor of this women ?s shelter project. Please count me as a NO. Thanks, Judy DeLucio Uptown Dancewear TO: DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING - BZA 5-2018 MUNICIPAL BUILDING RICHMOND, INDIANA 47374 FAX. NO. 962-7024 - - ?/iam in favor of the petition. -I am opposed to the petition. NAME: ADDRESS: /c:33?3 WMM Q4 V7374 Reasons for opposing or approving this petition may be listed on the reverse side. Thank you. .. TO: DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING BZA 5-2018 MUNICIPAL BUILDING . . RICHMOND, INDIANA 47374 FAX. NO. 962-7024 I am in fairer of the petition. I am opposed to the petition. NAME: 7206;; Same MINr?rmes- EALE: ADDRESS: I024- EAST mm 51-, (17% mm Reasons for opposing or approving this petition may be listed on the reverse side. Thank you. CORE MAIN STREET PROGRAM COMPETENCIES To assist designated and selected Indiana Main Street communities in the incremental and comprehensive development of an active downtown revitalization program, the following list of core competencies has been developed. While individual projects and activities are unique to the community, there are some general tasks and types of projects that haVe been found to be vital to the progressive growth of a Main Street program and organization. These competencies are meant to be a base level of activity, and communities should strive to undertake more challenging projects as they build capacity. The core competencies are listed in the following pages and are categorized according to the Main Street Four-Point Approach?- in order to build a strong foundation for the program, a very active Organization Team is required to work on the numerous projects listed under this category. Although there are many important organizational tasks, it is necessary to remember that the Main Street Approach? is comprehensive, and activities in the areas of Promotion, Design and Economic Vitality, as well as Organization, are essential for an action~oriented program that achieves successful, ongoing revitalization of the central business district. Core competencies often build upon each other and are often related to competencies in other categories. While each community should complete the core competencies in their own time frame, ideally within a three to five year window, it is recommended that they be completed in the general sequence in which they are listed. The below activities are grouped by basic, intermediate, and advanced categories. In general, projects grouped in the basic category should be completed before the organization moves onto intermediate activities. Intermediate activities should be completed before tackling advanced projects. This progression will serve to build a strong foundation upon which the organization can buiid a long-term, successful program. ORGANIZATION This element of the Main Street Approach? focuses on building collaboration among a broad range of public and private sector groups, organizations, and constituencies, enhancing your district's civic value. The Organization Team plays a key role in keeping the board, teams, and staff functioning by attracting people and money to the Main Street program. To succeed, this team must take responsibility for managing these financial and logistical aspects of the nonprofit organization: 0 Raising money?for projects and administration, from donations and sponsorships; 0 Overseeing volunteer activities?by recruiting and supervising people and rewarding good work; 0 Promoting the program?to downtown interests and the public; 0 Managing finances-by developing good accounting procedures. ORGANIZATION CORE COMPETENCIES Basic Develop an organizational structure, Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws; 0 Formulate accounting systems (it is also suggested that all programs have an annual audit by a Bookkeeping system; 0 Payroll/employee number; 0 Registrations: state, county, city Bank/charge accounts; 0 Hire an executive director (if applicable); 0 Hold annual work planning sessions; 0 Set up Main Street office including: 24 Indiana Main Street 5 3 0 Permanent Location; 0 Equipment; 0 Furnishings. Develop a clear, shared mission and write it as a mission statement; Develop a written work plan. 0 Achieve Board approval; 0 Send to Intermediate Develop an organization logo (letterhead, etc). Decide on tax-exempt status and make application to Develop an annual budget. Achieve Board approval. Initiate an annual, signed agreement with local government. Create and regularly update job descriptions for both staff and volunteers. Compile and send board of directors list and contact information to Advanced Form teams and hold regular meetings. Develop and regularly publish a newsletter. Build a volunteer database. Develop a long-term fundraising plan including: 0 Developing various methods for communicating with donors throughout the year; 0 Producing an informational brochure about the organization; 0 Sustainable and diverse income base; 0 List of private contributors; 0 At least one annual fundraising event. Create a mailing list for the organization including: 0 Downtown business owners; 0 Downtown property owners; Local interest groups; Officials; 0 Supporters. '35. .M Photo courtesy of Main Street Pendleton, inc. Program Guide 8: Handbook 25 PROMOTION This element of the Main Street Approach? deals with marketing the district's assets to residents, visitors, investors and others through special events, retail promotion, and activities that improve the way the district is perceived, enhancing its social value. The Promotion Team has the job of promoting downtown as the center of commerce, culture, and community life for residents and visitors alike. To be effective this team must move beyond cookie cutter downtown promotion ideas. Specifically: Understanding the changing market?identifying both potential shoppers and the competition; identifying downtown assets?including people, buildings, heritage, and institutions; Defining Main Street's market niche?its unique position in the marketplace; Creating new image?campaigns, retail promotions, and special events to bring people back downtown. PROMOTION CORE COMPETENCIES Basic 0 Develop, approve, and publish a balanced annual calendar of promotional events that includes a mix of special events, retail, and image events. 0 Evaluate promotional events~including information on number of attendees and impact in reaching program goals. Develop a media resource list. 0 Conduct outreach/media relations activities including: Press releases; Print media columns; Press liaison; Feature articles; Radio/TV talk shows. - Create a downtown business directory. 00000 0 initiate and complete at least one special event. 0 lnitiate and complete at least one retail event. Intermediate/Advanced Conduct downtown image development activities including: 0 Conduct image advertising (Examples: newspaper, radio, TV, direct mail ads); 0 Develop coilateral materials (Examples: entrance signs, banners, shopping bags, buttons); 0 Develop media relations (Examples: media kits, press releases, press receptions for major projects, TV, radio and newspaper interviews); 0 Develop image-building events (Examples: downtown progress awards ceremonies, ribbon- cutting for new projects, "before and after" renovation displays). 0 Identify downtown?s assets. 0 Compile information about the marketplace. 0 Analyze data. 0 Match assets with market niches. 0 Write a positioning statement. 26 Indiana Main Street DESIGN This element of the Main Street Approach? involves improving the physical environment by renovating buiidings, constructing compatibie new buildings, improving signs and merchandise displays, creating attractive and usable public spaces, and ensuring that planning and zoning regulations support Main Street revitalization, all in service of enhancing place value. The Design Team plays a key role in shaping the physical image of Main Street as a place attractive to shoppers, investors, business owners, and visitors. To succeed, this team must persuade business owners, building owners, and civic leaders to adopt a specific approach for physical improvements to buildings, businesses and public improvements. Specifically: 0 Educating others about good design?enhancing the image of each business as well as that of the district. 0 Providing good design advicemencouraging quality improvements to private properties and public spaces. 0 Planning Main Street?s development?guiding future growth and shaping regulations. 0 Motivating others to make changes?creating incentives and targeting key projects. DESIGN CORE COMPETENCIES Basic - Develop and market improvement incentives and assistance including: 0 Design guidelines develop a design guidelines publication, 0 Design Assistance 0 Evaluate existing physical assets: buildings, streets, public signs, parking lots and open spaces. inventory conditions of physicai environment. 0 Facade improvements. Explore a formalized design review process with custom design guidelines. 0 Develop district identification signs. 0 Create a detailed and visually appeaiing map of downtown. 0 Develop, collect, and market improvement incentives and assistance including: 0 Real estate tax abatement; 0 Loan programs; 0 Grant programs; 0 Design assistance. 0 Photograph downtown extensively, including before, during and after photos of rehabilitation work and promotional events; use professional photographers when possible. 0 Streetscape improvements. 0 Mid-size rehabilitation projects. Advanced 0 Conduct a traffic study. 0 Conduct a parking study (if appropriate). Continue facade improvements. Large rehabilitation projects. 0 New development. Program Guide Handbook I 27 ECONOMIC VITALITY This element of the Main Street Approach? concentrates on strengthening the district?s existing economic base while finding ways to expand its economy and introduce compatible new uses, enhancing the economic value of the district. The Economic Vitality Team has the job of identifying new market opportunities for the traditional commercial district, finding new uses for historic commercial buildings, and stimulating investment in property. To succeed, this team must develop a thorough understanding of the community's economic condition and opportunities for incremental market growth. Specifically: 0 Building entrepreneurial economies. 0 Strengthening business?includes strengthening existing businesses and recruiting new ones. 0 infrastructure reuse?finding new economic uses for traditional Main Street buildings. 0 Development?financial incentives and capital for business development and retail operations layout Ascertaining progress?monitoring the economic performance of the district. ECONOMIC VITALITY CORE COMPETENCIES Basic 0 Complete and maintain building inventory for the downtown, including: Rental rates; Square footage; Age of building; Unique features; Condition; Ownership; Vacancy; Taxes; Current photograph. Photo courtesy of Town of Fremont 0 Complete and maintain a business inventory for the downtown, including: Cumulative number of businesses; Ownership; I Product/service; Customers; Amount of sales; Sales patterns; Lease conditions; Availability (date/ price). Photo courtesy of Heart of Sullivan 28 lndiana Main Street Track program impact, including: 0 0 0 Changes in property tax revenue; Net new jobs; Net new businesses; Amount of private investment; Number of volunteer hours. Create a new business owners? orientation kit. Develop a network of entrepreneur development partners to assist new entrepreneurs and existing businesses (microenterprise development organizations, Small Business Development Center (SBDC), SCORE (Service Corps of Retired Executives), Chamber of Commerce, etc.) intermediate Advanced Develop a downtown development vision and strategy. 0 ldentify target niche markets; 0 Develop a downtown clustering/leasing plan/strategy. Develop and market economic development incentives, including: 0 0 Business seminars; Loan pool programs; Grant programs; Complete market analysis, including: Surveys; Sales leakage assessment; Business recruitment plan; Business retention plan; Summary report. Develop a small, local business recruitment packet and procedures. Develop business retention programs- Expand organization's role to develop or be a partner in the deVelopment of property in downtown (act like a Community Development Corporation). Expand organization's role to provide microenterprise development services, including microfinancing, credit building, training for businesses, etc. Program Guide Handbook 29