Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council continues rezoning request for 5001 Hirsch Road after neighbor concerns; petitioner to revise UDC
Summary
The council continued the rezoning petition for 5001 Hirsch Road (proposed to rezone from R-1 to C-4 with a UDC) to the July 14 meeting after neighbors and the Area Plan Commission raised buffering, traffic and floodplain concerns and the petitioner agreed to work with neighbors and APC to refine development commitments.
A request to rezone 5.6 acres at 5001 Hirsch Road from R-1 to C-4 with an associated Use and Development Commitment (UDC) was continued by the Evansville Common Council on June 23 to allow the petitioner to refine the UDC following remonstration from a neighbor and a recommendation of denial by the Area Plan Commission.
Area Planning Commission staff told the council the 2035 future land use map recommends residential use for the parcel and described proximity to floodplain along the eastern property line. APC recommended denial (1 vote in favor, 5 votes against) and requested the applicant narrow proposed C-4 uses and add development commitments to address neighbor concerns, including buffering, traffic and drainage.
At the council meeting attorney Jeremy Schnepper, representing the petitioner, said the petitioner would be open to refining the UDC and had signed a private agreement with a neighbor to install an opaque fence if outdoor storage is used. Schnepper said a feasibility study would cost about $10,000 and that the petitioner had not completed development plans at this stage.
Council discussion focused on whether an enforceable UDC and buffering commitments could be crafted; several council members encouraged the petitioner to work with the remonstrator and APC. The council moved and seconded a continuance to the July 14 meeting so the petitioner could work with staff and neighbors and return with a revised UDC.
Why it matters: The petition would change a residential-designated parcel near the city boundary to commercial use; APC and neighbors cited floodplain proximity and residential character as reasons to limit high‑intensity commercial rezoning without specific development commitments.
Vote and procedure: The council voted to continue the matter to the July 14 meeting; staff will advise whether APC review will also be required before the council acts again.
Ending: The petitioner, APC staff and council agreed to work on a revised UDC and buffering commitments and return in July; the council emphasized enforceability of any development commitments.
