Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Evansville council approves series of rezoning measures and a zoning code update affecting neighborhoods across the city
Summary
On July 28 the council adopted multiple rezoning ordinances and a zoning code provision change. The Area Plan Commission recommended approval of each rezoning, often with Unified Development Commitments (UDCs) limiting future uses; votes were unanimous or near‑unanimous and most measures carried 8-0 in roll calls.
The Evansville Common Council on July 28 approved a package of zoning and land-use measures, including a municipal change affecting special uses for schools and several rezoning ordinances for specific parcels across the city. Area Plan Commission staff presented each rezoning, and council members adopted the measures after brief discussion and public comment.
Key actions approved: - Ordinance G 20 25-15: Amendments to Title 18 (Land Use and Zoning) to align the city code with a recent state change allowing schools to locate in any zoning district without a special-use permit; the ordinance also allows applicants to request an extended activation period for an approved special use (up to multiple years) at the time of application rather than the code’s prior one-year automatic expiration. Ron London, executive director of the plan commission, said the change implements state law and gives applicants more flexibility on special-use start dates.
- Ordinance R 20 25-05 (amended): Rezoning and a UDC for properties at 624 and 628 East Virginia Street to C2 to allow a laundromat and one apartment unit in addition to an existing market. APC staff said the request was consistent with historic use and would primarily serve surrounding residents; APC returned the petition with a unanimous recommendation for approval after the applicant revised the UDC.
- Ordinance R 20 25-08 (amended): Rezoning for 5001 Hirsch Road, with UDC prohibitions on certain intense commercial uses (for example, selling automobile parts, heavy equipment uses and certain service schools) and development commitments including a six-foot fence along residential edges; the UDC amendments become effective when the site’s indoor/outdoor storage use begins.
- Ordinance R 20 25-13: Downzoning of 1307 Cumberland Avenue from C4 to R2 to permit continued residential duplex use; APC recommended approval, citing consistency with the 2035 future land-use map and other recent downzoning in the corridor.
- Ordinance R 20 25-14 (amended): Downzoning of property at 5416 Washington Avenue from C2 back to R1 to remove a legal nonconforming commercial designation; APC recommended approval with UDC terms carried from earlier rezoning records.
- Ordinance R 20 25-16 (amended): Rezoning of 1908-1910 West Indiana to R4 to legalize an existing multifamily building; APC recommended approval conditioned on an applicant-filed UDC limiting the building to a maximum of four units and prohibiting signage.
- Ordinance R 20 25-17: Rezoning of 1601 South Kurth Avenue to R3 to allow conversion of a detached garage to a second duplex structure; the applicant committed to adding on-site parking to meet code requirements.
- Ordinance R 20 25-18: Rezoning of 1413 Covert Avenue to C1 to allow a proposed variety/discount store; APC recommended approval and advised that development commitments or buffering may be needed to mitigate adjacent residential impacts; several variances (setback and parking) will be required at the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Area Plan Commission staff Cassie Virgen presented the background, historical use and APC findings for each docket; applicants’ representatives — including Matt Layman of R. Layman & Son Consulting, Joe Harrison of Dentons Bingham Greenbaum and others — described plans and answered council questions about parking, hours and development commitments. Several applicants noted they will pursue variances or Board of Zoning Appeals relief where site conditions require it.
Council roll-call votes were held for each ordinance; councilors recorded "aye" votes in the roll calls reported in the meeting transcript. Most rezoning measures passed by an 8-0 recorded vote; APC recommendations were generally unanimous or near-unanimous and several rezoning approvals included UDCs restricting future uses or imposing conditions (for example, maximum unit counts, fencing, signage prohibitions and other development commitments).
Why it matters: the rezoning decisions will allow property owners to change use or formally legalize existing uses in predominantly residential neighborhoods, in some cases adding small commercial services (a laundromat, a discount store) intended to serve nearby residents. Several approvals included limits (UDCs) intended to reduce impacts on adjacent homes.
Votes "at a glance": each ordinance was moved, seconded and adopted by roll call. The meeting transcript records the APC docket numbers, addresses and APC vote recommendations for each item; individual ordinances include UDCs or development commitments as noted above.
