Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Burkhart topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables Burkhart Road rezoning to allow more UDC refinements
Summary
Council tabled Ordinance R 20 24-36, a proposed rezoning to M1 for a multi-use business park on Burkhart Road, after council members asked for additional use-development commitments and protections because parts of the site lie in the 100-year flood plain.
The Evansville Common Council on Jan. 27 tabled Ordinance R 20 24-36 (amended), which would rezone land near Burkhart and Lynch Roads from C2 to M1 for a proposed multi-use facility, giving staff and the applicant two weeks to refine the use-development commitment (UDC).
Cassie Virgen of the Area Plan Commission summarized the request (APC docket REZ-2024-040) and noted the APC recommended approval 6-2 after the applicant filed an amended UDC on Jan. 21. The APC report said the site sits within the 100-year floodplain and that only a small portion of the parcel was recommended for mixed use in the 2035 plan. "The entirety of this site is within the 100 year flood plain or 1% annual chance," Virgen said, noting the low elevation increases development complexity.
Applicant project engineer Jim Morley Jr. told council the applicant had emulated use and development commitments from the Burkhart Lynch Business Park across the road and added about 40 prohibited uses, tree-buffer requirements and dumpster screening. Morley said the owner already purchased the property and the amended UDC limits certain intense uses and requires dedication of right of way for future Burkhart improvements.
Council members asked for tighter UDC language on permitted and prohibited M1 uses, sign and billboard limits, and buffering along Lynch Road. Joe Kiefer, the listing broker for the property, noted the parcel had been on the market for two decades and said a buyer willing to develop it should be supported. After discussion, a council member moved to table the ordinance to the Feb. 10 meeting to permit a small number of UDC refinements; the motion carried and the ordinance was tabled to Feb. 10. APC had forwarded the rezoning with 6 affirmative and 2 negative votes.
Key planning issues cited in the record: proximity to Interstate 69, floodplain/fill requirements and whether an M1 designation is necessary for unspecified future uses. Council asked the applicant to return by Feb. 10 with a revised UDC (deadline for filing with planning commission: Feb. 4 at noon).
