Oh, yeah, you know.

Yeah, I think so.

I didn't like to do that.

Well, you know, I think that's a very good time.

I don't know.

I just thought the speaker might want to be able to see what I do.

But if they go fast, you can do that.

Yeah.

So we can talk about the question.

So I remember that.

So I think I guess something like that.

I should show you.

Yeah, it's just a little bit of a piece of pretty good.

Yeah, that's a good idea.

So I think we expect to also do it.

So I think that's what I just have to do.

I have to do it.

I start to get it, I think.

So you know, it just doesn't show all the information, but it's a little bit more.

I'm not sure.

I just think that's a great one.

I think it's going to be a second one.

I have to do that.

So we're going to go to the other one.

I think that's something that we don't need to do.

So I need to go.

So I started to still have a thing.

Okay, thank you.

Dirk, let's see what we need to do now.

I know registered here too.

Okay, it's three o'clock.

We ready?

And here she comes.

Okay.

It wasn't your fault.

It wasn't your fault.

Okay.

Everybody ready?

Is Joel here?

No.

We got Megan, you got it right.

Ready to go?

Okay.

I would like to call the May 7th, 2026 meeting of the Area Plan Commission of Evansville and Bannerburg County to order.

Will the secretary please call the roll?

Miss Cabill?

Here.

Miss Freeman?

Here.

Mr.

Hieronymous.

Mr.

Hooper.

Here.

Mr.

Nix?

Here.

Mr.

Petke?

Here.

Mr.

Shetler?

Here.

Mr.

Walters?

Here.

Ms.

Stevens.

Here.

Thank you.

Is there a motion to approve the April memorandum?

So moved.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Would you please call the roll on that?

Ms.

Cabell?

Yes.

Ms.

Freeman?

Yes.

Mr.

Hooper.

Yep.

Mr.

Nick?

Yes.

Mr.

Peggy?

Yes.

Mr.

Shetler?

Yes.

Mr.

Walters?

Yes.

Miss Stevens.

Yes.

Please let the record show that the April memorandum is approved.

For rezonings, it takes five affirmative votes to recommend approval of a petition or five negative votes to recommend denial of a petition.

In the event that there are not five votes, it still goes forward to the city council or county commission with no recommendation.

The area plan commission has established the following guidelines to be followed for both rezonings and subdivisions.

Mr.

London will begin each presentation as each case is called the petitioner or and the remonstrators who intend to testify will please stand and be sworn in at the beginning of the process.

Then there will be a total of ten minutes for the remonstrators.

This testimony will be followed by a five-minute rebuttal period for the petitioner as a summation of the case.

Any request for additional time must be voted on by the board.

A timer will be used to help enforce the time limits.

Both petitioners and remonstrators should organize their testimony to adhere to these guidelines.

Where when there is a group of individuals remonstrating against a petition, we strongly encourage the group to designate a spokesperson.

If it is necessary for more than one remonstrator to speak, the group should meet out in the hall before the area plan commission discussion of the agenda item to coordinate the information presented so that each speaker addresses a different issue of concern.

In order to expedite the meeting, remonstrators should refrain from repeating the same concerns already expressed by another speaker about a particular development proposal.

The plan commission appreciates the cooperation of all participants with these guidelines.

If the commissioners have questions about issues we feel have not been sufficiently addressed by the applicant, we have the option to request a continuance until the information needed to sufficiently answer our concerns is available or provided by the applicant or technical staff.

Okay, the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Area Plan Commission will be Thursday, June 4th, 2026 at 3 p.m.

in room 301 of the Civic Center Complex.

The city rezonings considered today will be heard at the City Council meeting on Monday, May 18, 2026 at 5 30 p.m.

The county rezoning considered today will be heard at the county commission meeting on Tuesday, May 19th, 2026 at 9 30 a.m.

The following petitions will not be heard this evening.

Docket number REZ-2026-003 R-2026-02 2713 Jeanette Avenue Ronald Straw and Docket number REZ-2026 and 004 R-2026-03 2708 and 2712 Jeanette Avenue Robert Straw.

These petitions will be continued to the June 4th, 2026 meeting.

So now we'll move on to our first agenda item.

Alright, as to all matters before the commission today, do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give is true and accurate to help you guide?

I do.

Thank you.

Okay.

First up we have docket number REZ-2026-010.

Proposed ordinance number R-2026-08 at 1810 and 1814 Hicks Drive.

Wendell McKinney, on behalf of Gary McKinney Trust is requesting to rezone property located on the on the west side of Green River Road between Covert and Public Avenues from R1 to R3 for single-family residential property that we live in, brought into compliance and stated on the application.

No UDC was attached to this request.

This site is located in a solid residential neighborhood south of Covert Avenue, almost exclusively zoned R1.

The county assessor's records indicate that the three existing residences on this site were constructed at different times.

The home at 1810 Hicks Drive was built around 1927 and the home at 1814 around 1940.

The existing residents crossing the property line at the rear of these two lots was built around 1977 and is shown in the city directory as 1812 Hicks Drive.

A large outbuilding also crosses the dividing property line, originally constructed around 1937.

The directory shows a commercial business operating from the building as early as 1960, max upholstery shop.

The county assessor regularly combines parcels for tax purposes when buildings are observed to cross property lines.

The additional residents crossing the dividing line at the rear of these properties was noted during that combination process.

The applicant is now requesting to rezone both lots to R3 to legally establish the three residential homes and allow combination of the lots into one tax parcel.

The 2035 future land use map recommends this site for residential uses.

The request to rezone to R3 to legally establish the existing homes would remain consistent with the comprehensive plan.

This is a request to rezone the property located at 1810 and 1814 Hicks Drive from R1 to R3 to legally establish three existing single family homes across two lots.

All right.

Well, everyone who's here to speak on this petition for it or against it.

Please raise your right hand and you can come on up while you're while you're raising your hand.

Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give is true and accurate?

So if you got can you please state your name and address for the record?

Wendell McKinney, 1814 Hicks Drive.

Okay.

And um, do you have anything to add to uh the report?

No, staff report.

Okay.

Are there questions on this petition?

Basically a compliance issue, right?

Okay.

All right.

I didn't see any remonstrators, but are there remonstrators in this petition?

Okay.

Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to approve.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Freeman?

Yes.

Mr.

Hooper?

Yes.

Mr.

Nix?

Yes.

Mr.

Pegke?

Yes.

Mr.

Shetler?

Yes.

Mr.

Walters.

Yes.

Ms.

Cabill?

Yes.

Miss Stevens.

I vote yes as well, so show that eight yes zero no and it will move forward with a recommendation for approval to city council.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, next up we have docket number REZ-2026-011.

Proposed ordinance R-2026-09 at 6600 Old Boonville Highway.

Steve Bolieber on behalf of Alan Mosby is requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Burkhart Road between Morgan Avenue and Lynch Road from R1 to R5 for an apartment community as stated on the application.

The UDC submitted at filing prohibits group residential facilities and sorority or fraternity houses.

Regarding development, the UDC lists the following commitments.

Apartment dwellings will not exceed a height of 50 foot.

Trash collection will be during normal business daytime hours, and lighting in the parking area must be downlit.

This site is located in a mixed residential and agricultural area.

The immediate vicinity includes both single and multifamily uses, zoned R1 and R3.

The nearest non-residential uses are located in a platted industrial park zoned M1 directly to the north.

The property in this request was zoned AG prior to annexation of the area into the city in 2009, at which time the zoning was automatically changed to R1.

Development in this area has gradually moved northward since annexation in a piecemeal fashion.

Newer development has most often been for residential uses.

However, several larger parcels have remained undeveloped agricultural ground.

There are two existing multifamily developments and a recently platted single family subdivision, all adjacent to this small segment of old Boonville Highway between Burkhart Road and I-69.

Although this site is within the I-69 corridor, there is no immediate interstate access from old Boonville Highway.

The applicant has retained ownership of the property since 1995 and is now requesting to rezone to R5 for a proposed multifamily residential development.

The conceptual site plan shows an apartment complex with five buildings, which the application estimates will house 216 total units.

Information regarding the developer has not been provided at this time.

The UDC attached to this request includes some development commitments, but none that are specific to the conceptual site plan.

A nearby property across Burkhart Road to the west was recently rezoned to R5 for a similar multifamily development.

The UDC attached to that site included additional protections for neighboring residential properties, such as tree buffers and dumpster placement, which may also be necessary for the current request.

Additionally, a commitment regarding a traffic impact study is also recommended due to the proposed increase in residential density.

The 2035 future land use map recommends this site for mixed uses, which includes both residential and commercial, typically combined in a single development.

The request to rezone the property to R5 for the proposed multifamily development would remain consistent with the comprehensive plan.

The layout of access and on-site circulation for this development should be determined by the results of a traffic impact study.

As reiterated in comments from EMPO, they're read as follows.

Access should be designed and installed in accordance with the access management manual and development guide.

Because of the trips, this development is projected to generate a traffic impact study is required.

This is a request to rezone the property located at 6600 Old Boombow Highway from R1 to R5 with a UDC to allow a new multifamily residential development with a total of 216 units.

Alright, well, everyone who's here to speak on this petition for it or against it.

Please raise your right hand.

And I'm just gonna ask this of all of you who have your hand up, okay?

Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give is true and accurate, so help you God?

I do.

Okay.

I'm gonna trust that everybody said yes.

I said I do.

Yeah.

Oh, except for Steve who said I do.

What's that guy?

I have to be different.

I'm a lot different than I've ever been before.

I broke my leg earlier this year.

Oh gosh.

Sort of hobbling and I'm progressing well, but when I come out in public in a place like this, I need my friend.

Sure.

Good afternoon.

My name is Steve Bole.

I'm an attorney.

My office is at 123 Northwest 4th Street, suite 503 here in downtown Evansville.

I'm representing the petitioner and developer, which is an Indiana corporation known as Elite Properties Inc.

Elite has assigned real estate purchase agreement with the owner of the property, and we're acting in an agency capacity for the owner here today since my client does not yet own the property.

Elite is owned by Kenny Reinbrecht.

He's back here.

And his two sons, Phil and Stephen.

He's here today to answer any questions about the project because he knows more far more about the construction of these things than I do.

Elite is located in Hobstadt.

They've been active in building quality, affordable single family and multifamily residential housing throughout Southwest Indiana.

In Vanderburg County, for instance, they have created a Kinway Park subdivision on Heckle Road and Willow Crossing under construction on Green River Road.

Vandenberg County subdivisions and multifamily have been developed or under construction for others by Elite as well.

Projects on Peck Road and Bombgoat Road, as well as Kinway apartments on Colt Lane, 138 units, brickyard apartments on the west side, 36 units, and water stone at Green River, 130 units.

Elite and its owners have developed over 2500 residential dwellings as well as many storage units.

There's seven alone in Evansville.

From Carmel to Vincennes to Bloomington and many places in between.

Now the project.

I believe that the plan is presented as compliant with all building codes.

Green space requirements, heightened parking requirements, and can be constructed without the need for variances.

Not all of the 15.87 acres is needed for the project as planned, as you can see.

The southern uh southern portion is going to be a couple acres of open space right now, only providing access.

So there's a significant wiggle room to accommodate full compliance with all codes.

As the staff field reports says the intended use is consistent with the comprehensive plan for this area.

This is a mixed-use neighborhood with M1 industrial to the north, multifamily R3 residential to the south.

Hick Ray Utrecht's condos being among those.

Single-family residences to the west and single-family residence residence in agricultural to the east.

There will be five buildings.

Situated the way you see it on the conceptual plan.

216 dwelling units with 108 two-bedroom, 541 bedroom, and 54 three bedroom.

Since it's hard to count all those parking spaces they have on there, I ask how many are there?

And there are 300 on this conceptual plan.

There's indicated space for 350 parking spaces total, 75 of which are covered one-car garages.

That's more than I calculate, 313 required.

That would be for residents, visitors, and other uses.

There's plenty of space to add additional parking if needed, so we don't think that's a problem.

We're happy to comply with site reviews analysis of that when the time comes.

The multifamily buildings will surround a lake with a central fountain.

To the south of the apartments will be an office, swimming pool, and pool house.

The east and west green spaces will include tree buffers.

That would ultimately have a living barrier of sorts between their neighbors and them.

We submitted this with the use and development commitment to limit buildings to 50 feet.

The code allows 150 feet in an hour or five of zoning.

There's going to be a single site near the northern boundary of the property near the industrial section with a compact compaction unit in fenced in.

So the tenants are going to have to take all their stuff down there.

It's not going to be spread out throughout the area.

As well, that's the commitment.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Bo Lieber.

Are there questions for the petitioner?

So are you willing to put like the tree buffers and things like that in your UDC?

Or is that already included?

Mr.

Reinbreck, come on up.

What's those are not specifically included?

Megan, you're running a UDC for the other.

That's for Burkhart.

Burkhart.

This is the one that was about five or six months ago.

Yes.

Okay.

So that one's not on this.

That's what I was trying to figure out.

Yeah, that's an example of that.

We can go through later.

This is Kenny Reinbreck, by the way.

Okay, yeah.

Mr.

Reinbreck, will you introduce yourself and um state your name and address for the record?

Kenny Reinbrecht, 407 Bradley Hopstadt.

Um, we'll we'll commit to those things first.

Okay.

Did you see?

I don't know if you could see on the screen that what was going up, the use and development commitment for the Burkhart apartments.

Did you it was scrolling?

There it is.

It's it's up there on the screen.

It has height restrictions, landscaping, fencing.

Um if you want to take a look at that.

There's a second pitch, too.

Yeah.

Have you not seen that before?

Okay.

Um, was that including the statue report?

No.

That's what's to um a recent rebounding.

That was a crop for part close by.

If it's well, you you don't have to decide it right now.

In all fairness, if we're gonna bring those to the meeting, we probably need to put them in the staff field report.

This was just a discussion to have as an example, it wasn't a guide for them.

Oh, it it could the discussion would be better if they saw that up front.

Right.

Is all I'm saying.

Well, anyway, it's a good idea to bring it up.

I think what uh Ms.

Freeman, you can go ahead and finish your basically I was the only UDC things in here are the the height restrictions, no group homes, fraternities, or sororities, and I know R5 has a lot of other types of um things that could go there.

No, no, okay.

Well, I mean, like on this UDC from the one we did five or six months ago.

They put things on there that are not allowed.

Okay, just kind of five, yeah.

Okay, so kind of a uh we're putting in in writing that these types of things aren't gonna go here, but it wasn't something that could have gone there.

Right, okay.

But yeah, I'm like kind of on the fence on the buffers and fencing.

Right.

I I they said they're gonna put fencing to the south, but you've got people over here with their homes, um, and with the parking um, they're gonna be pulling in a lot of times, and that means those lights, headlights are gonna be right in the backs of these homes.

Right.

So that was a concern that I was I had that same concern.

And and just to be clear, we're not saying you have to adopt what they did.

It was just an example, because I had the same concern Ms.

Freeman had is that you know you say we're gonna put trees, but you don't you're not committing to putting trees.

So we'll just wanna talk some of that through, and I'm sure the remonstrators, you know, you guys will have a chance to come back up and um do a summation and maybe uh address some of those things too.

You're not opposed to put mending these development, not included a tree buffer.

No, no, or the policeman.

Right, our fencing, etc., okay, other questions?

There was reference to a uh a traffic study, it was unclear to me.

Was that um a traffic study that has been conducted or was that a suggestion that a traffic study be conducted?

A suggestion that was also in the Burkhart Road, one that they committed that they would follow the recommendations from the traffic study.

Uh and that they would conduct one.

So there has not yet been a traffic study.

No.

Okay.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

We assume that would come and we're willing to commit to that as well.

Okay, sure.

You're committing to that too.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, um, other questions?

Because I know there are a lot of remonstrators.

And we'll you guys will be able to um kind of get your thoughts together as you're listening to the remonstrators and come back up and give a summation.

Thank you.

Commit, of course.

Um, do you there are a lot of hands?

Do you guys have a spokesperson?

Oh, you do have a spokesperson.

Okay.

And you and you're all you're all welcome to come up, but it's so much better if you have a spokesperson and we don't cover the same things.

So um, who wants who's the spokesperson?

Whoever it is, come on up and here she comes.

All right, state your name and address for the record, please.

Hi, good afternoon, members of the area.

And would you drag that mic backwards?

There you go.

And I reside at 2537 Pecan Trace in Hickory Trace condominiums.

And I'm hoping that you all got the.

And did you say Kathy Tooley?

Cathy Tooley.

Okay.

And just as a note, that was one of the emails that is sitting here with floor.

Yeah, and I was gonna read these into the record, so this is okay, great.

So we did have your email here too.

But we but we'll let you cover it.

Okay.

Yeah.

I'm here to formally oppose the rezoning of 6600 Old Boonville Highway.

This 216 unit proposal represents an oversaturation of this area and proposes several critical risks.

Infrastructure and water pressure crisis.

Our community is already struggling with low water pressure.

This is a direct result of existing high density housing, like the Westcott Apartment straining the current Evansville water sewer utility infrastructure.

Adding 216 more units to an already tax system isn't just utility inconvenience.

It is a serious concern for our fire protection and safety.

With existing inventory with an within a third of a mile and another 264 units being built in the same area, although a need may exist, the planned development on Old Boonville Highway, we don't feel it's the solution because of its poor location.

The traffic flow and safety hazards, which is the most important to us.

The road narrows considerably as it heads east, and the complete lack of sidewalks, despite the high volume of pedestrians uh already walking from the nearby apartments, poses a severe ongoing safety hazard.

This danger is further compounding by the total absence of street lighting along the stretch, which creates extremely hazardous conditions for both drivers and pestered pedestrians after dark.

With many children that already reside at Westcott and the potential for hundreds of more in this new development, placing a high density entrance directly across from our subdivision will force families into direct proximity with high speed traffic without adequate pedestrian protection.

This road was not designed for this level of density.

We believe it is important to pause additional development in this area until our infrastructure is better equipped to support it, until our current projects are occupied and our water and traffic issues are resolved.

This rezoning is a risk we feel we cannot afford to take.

We respectfully ask that the area plan commission vote against recommending this zoning for the per proposed development.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Are there questions from Ms.

Tooley?

The only thing I wanted to mention, I'm not really clear, is the UDC.

Will the restrictions will the restrictions be in place or will they be able to change if the development owners change, or will that be something that will stay with the land?

It runs with the land unless it's rezoned later again.

Okay, okay, thank you.

Right.

The UDC is not here for us to review now.

It is.

So there's UDC is your report.

Yeah, it's in the report.

The other was an example to provide discussion points here today of things that they could add before they get to city council.

This is theirs.

But they're contemplating there's discussion of expanding theirs, right?

Correct.

And we don't have an expanded one.

Okay.

Correct.

And they'll have an opportunity to commit to that at the at the end of the remonstration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other questions for Ms.

Tooley?

Um, would access, I don't think this would solve a water pressure problem, which has not been illuminated to me or quantified how real that is.

Um, but would access off of Burkhart waylay some nearby resident concerns in terms of it being over here.

I definitely think it would, but I don't know that that's an option.

Right next to them too.

It appears to be a vacant parcel, but I don't know the ownership of that.

There is a 264 unit apartment complex going in now within a third of a mile that is off Burkhart now that intersects with O Boomville Highway.

So with that complex and then this one, I mean it's already a racetrack out there.

That's just our concerns.

The road basically the speeding traffic, and we just don't feel like the roads can accommodate.

If it was just the water pressure, that wouldn't, you know, we would lay down on that, but it's a safety concern because, and maybe after the traffic study, those things will show up where we don't have access to those, of course.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions from Ms.

Tooley before we okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is there somebody else, another remonstrator from the group who has something?

Okay, you concur?

Okay.

Now you can.

All right, great.

And we really appreciate that because you know sometimes people get up and say the same thing, and we and we we recognize it, and this uh your email was also great with the highlights.

So appreciate that.

And did everyone that was supporting the papery trace?

I don't know if they screw that, but we just kind of wanted to see.

We saw the hands, but yeah, if you want to stand up, yeah.

Yeah, okay, yes.

Great.

You try to bring everybody with.

Yeah, good good job.

Um, okay, so Mr.

Bullybert would you like to come up and give us summation and we'll talk about the options.

And actually, before you do that, I have one more uh I want to read in one more remonstration on on this petition.

Uh, dear commissioners, uh, due to babysitting grandkids and husband's work schedule, we're not unable to attend this first meeting, but are serious serious about voicing our concerns in regards to development at 6600 Old Boom Highway.

Um OBH, I guess is what she's saying.

We, as neighbors to the direct east of proposed building project, would like to give our opinion that we are not in favor of R5 rezoning.

We have lived here for over 30 years and know this was an established single family home neighborhood um along the old Boomboa Highway until Section 8 housing apartment complex.

Uh mostly seen from and along I 69 was built with the main entrance and exit emptying onto old Bilbo Highway several years ago in the same vicinity.

We would rather it stay R1 and would compromise to be in favor of a single family home development that would add many less cars and pedestrian traffic than a 216 unit apartment uh complex.

We would like to bring to the city council county planners' attention that this already heavy traffic area is an accident waiting to happen due to the fact that there are no paved shoulders, sidewalks, or street lighting along Old Boombo Highway for the numerous pedestrians that walkslash push strollers day and night from those apartments to the Mets bus stop at the intersection of Burkhart Road and Old Boomba Highway.

We feel the added traffic will only make this area more dangerous because there have been no lane additions, turn lanes, or other road improvements to Obova Highway since the increased apartment traffic and many heavy working beverage company trucks that travel it daily from their location on telephone road.

We don't like to dictate what other owners want to do with their property and hope to come to a compromise since we live nearby.

We know it will be detrimental to ours and our neighbors' property values.

We know we can't stop progress and we need more east side housing.

However, we would rather zoning state R1 and see a single family home development go into that open acreage and apartment complexes go up in the remaining open fields along Burkhart Road where road upgrades have already been made to handle the traffic.

Thank you for your consideration sincerely the Lasher family.

Okay, for the record.

Come on up, Kenny.

Can I come back up?

Are you willing to commit to uh placement of that compactor back near the commercial the industrial portion of the property?

Yeah, are you willing to commit to tree lines along the eastern and western boundaries?

Yes.

How about the traffic study?

Yes.

Willing to commit to that?

And you already had, did you write fences in your use and development commitment?

No.

Um fences along the like but but uh backing up to the single family.

Well, we had we had I think you would come in to put trees there.

Okay.

I want to do both, if I don't know what I'm saying.

If you put a fence, I can put a fence.

I'm just asking because fences was part of the other one.

I'm just I mean it's whatever you're willing to commit to, and and what we're also asking is that you commit to that and then have that in place before you get to city council.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Other Cassie?

Question in regards to uh traffic study.

So if they commit to traffic study and it yields something, then is whose responsibility is it to make improvements to the road or do something different turn, some type of turning or light, or is that their responsibility?

So if they committed put in their commitment that they would follow the recommendations of the traffic study, like your access needs to go here, you need more than one, you need on-site circulation in this area.

Um, then if they put that in UDC, then they would have to follow the recommendations there.

Um but as far as the volume they're going to produce, it wouldn't be a yay or a nay as to whether the development could go in after it's been rezoned already.

So it would tell them what the volume would be, and according to the volume, here's what needs to be done in order to make it safe.

Um I feel like I'm the new guy here, but uh with our job to trying to take all this into consideration.

I don't feel like it's a practical difficulty or some sort of unnecessary hardship to have a traffic study that we keep talking about before we would make a decision.

I don't think that seems outlandish.

That like the staff report reads development in a piecemeal fashion, and it seems like we're headed towards that with well, we'll we'll comply with whatever you want us to, and and I I I I don't know why we couldn't have some of that in writing and in place and a traffic study done before we make a recommendation.

It's just as effective, fellow.

I mean, if you have the traffic study as part of the uh conditions, and he's accepting it to meet that.

He has to have that in place, he has to have that in writing that he commits that.

And uh, but why does the traffic study matter if we're approving it regardless?

Hang on.

I think I might be able to answer this.

There sometimes there's a misunderstanding.

When someone says that we agree to a traffic study, what it means is exactly what Bill said, which is you're not just agreeing that you have one.

You're agreeing to abide by what the traffic study recommends, and so sometimes that takes the form of as you know was explained, moving the access drive drives or or something like that configuration.

Um I think we've probably had them before where they'll they'll uh require a deceleration lane.

D cell XL and deceleration lanes, acceleration lanes, basically.

Like a right turn lane in there to take the traffic off of the main road.

Uh and those uh obviously the traffic impact studies don't typically, I'm not saying they never, but don't typically require the owners to do something that's out in the right of way like existing like travel like they're not going to put up a stoplight typically but you know just last time on Burkhart the other apartments that went in we asked for the traffic impact study uh to decide uh where that entrance should go and it came back and said they have to have two entrances I believe and so that's what they ended up doing so I think his question is why why are you voting on it before you have the traffic impact I think it I think his question was uh is it equally binding like what are we doing what was your question Mr.

Hooper what's the harm in waiting until we have more information because he doesn't want to pay for a traffic agree to pay for a traffic study if he's not if it's not going to get rezoned exactly so there's a chicken and the egg right you know and there's a lot of concerns and I just don't I'm not quite sure how we're answering those concerns other than ignoring them.

We're not ignoring them that's what we're trying we're trying to address them right now.

Okay.

Yeah I personally like to see similar UDCs so that like from the one on Burkhart that protects um and uh a little more uniformity with the different developments you know I think since we've they were able to do the UDC I think that if this this particular development does the UDC as well then like said it's more of a what additional UDCs did they have on that one that just holds most of I mean these committing to the tree buffer John look at look at the screen here's all the other UDC back up the one that says UDC.

There you go.

There you goboards traffic impact study construction times and when equipment can be brought in what hours of the day apartment rules so this was if you remember this is next to those condos that are down there across Barkhart and they were very concerned about knowing what certain rules would be about noise and pets and occupancy limits at the apartments and so they wanted those in writing this was formed like in partnership with the condo residents they had a meeting with the applicant and came to this agreement and so they came to us I think two or three different meetings to talk about this and then they finally came to an agreement and then the residents came and said that they were on board with it.

So that's how this was formed as really the apartment rules because I mean he's already agreed to the trees and dumpsters.

That's up to them whatever they would agree to this is just an example of of what they formulated.

There's a little more detail on a mr stall no billboard should be good too guys well and then I'm okay with a monument I mean if I lived across the street or over here I wouldn't want construction like like this says between 7 and 7 p.m 7 to 7 those vacant lots to the uh west they're building single family homes there right now that back up right to this property so there's more homes than that there right now.

Okay Mr Stahl had something I think it there's also a little more detail and I'm just we're we're commending this to you to review and they can give you a copy of it as ideas for when you submit the the beefed up UDC to you know prior to city council meeting Megan can you uh move to the previous page there's a little bit more okay so on um the there's mention of uh landscaping and that's the sort of a landscape buffer using uh green giants and it it puts a little more detail, spacing detail in it, and that is helpful.

I think the city council members might appreciate that.

Um these are again just thoughts uh that but that's how it differs from what we've just talked about.

Right.

Well, and for us on the problem okay, good.

Well, for for us to vote on it, we need to know that you're gonna take that seriously because there are those are concerns of ours.

Right.

And so and again, you're not you're only committing to us, but then city council will know that this is what we are voting on.

Yeah, we're voting on it with the uh understanding that you're going to develop a use and development commitment that will work with your neighbors.

So is that stuff on the local staff on?

Yeah.

Yeah, we can get you that for me.

For sure.

Yeah, and you may I have you already had a meeting with the neighbors?

Yeah.

Okay.

Um well that that might be across the street.

He didn't say he said no.

He said no.

He said no.

He has not had a meeting with the neighbors.

And again, that may be something that you would like to do between now to get this to get this.

If you know, if it moves forward, you know, it's gonna move forward to city council one way or the other.

So um okay.

Other questions?

I so comment.

I have a question.

I appreciate Ms.

Linda saying you know, doing this with more uniformity.

So is that something that we can look at regardless of who the applicant is for any future what's left kind of moving that way or the city as a county as a whole?

It's a good thought to be able to show uh a petitioner, you know, an applicant.

Here's what they did on Burkhart, here's what they did on Old Google Highway.

I don't think that's a I don't know.

But I mean, are we able or is staff able to kind of put that in place or have that template or guide available?

So, hey, you know, company ABC's coming in and we want to do this.

Yes, that's fine, but the APC body recommends that if you're going to do this in this at this level of development, here's the recommended use and development commitment.

I think that's gonna be uniformly.

So then we don't have to kind of have this.

I think to Phillip's point, have this conversation at the meeting asking the the applicant to do it on the spot and go back and change, and then we hope that they do it between now and city council.

Right.

Typically staff would not interfere with the applicant's decision making unless they had a pre-meeting with us and they wanted to wanted our opinion on look at this site plan or look at this UDC.

What do you think?

What have you seen in the area?

But sometimes people file things and we had no idea it was coming down the pipeline, right?

Um, but there in 97 I believe was the last one, there was a plan for Burkhart Road that included uh circulation and different lot sizes and what would need to be developed where and it was approved by city council.

So um in the future going forward, I know they've done resolutions like in the um in the promise neighborhood, they did a resolution saying we don't want rezonings that are for these things.

So they could always do a resolution for this area of the Burkhart Road corridor.

If there is multifamily developments, we would like them to have this landscaping, this fencing, this height restriction going forward.

That would be city council is what you're saying.

Yeah, they could do a resolution to that effect.

I don't want to put more work on you guys, but I think if we can be proactive, then it kind of lessens some of the reactivity that we're having here in these meetings.

Definitely.

Um, if they did a resolution like that, then we would have that on hand anytime anyone applies.

Here's what you're gonna be asked about when you get to city council, so you might want to follow this guideline because if they don't, when they do get there, they would say, well, we passed this resolution.

So we're not gonna approve this.

Yeah, and building on that, every property, every application is gonna be different.

But if it occurs to staff are really good smart staff that we might need this at a meeting, then that's probably should be the trigger.

We better pre-send it to the applicant.

Right.

All right, okay.

Thank you.

Other questions?

I I have a question.

Yes.

There's a lot of things to do between now and Tuesday of next week at noon.

That's when the deadline is for the for the use and development commitment.

Yeah, they have to file it a week beforehand with the clerk's office.

Yeah.

Well, if you use that as a guideline, I you know, again, quick one more quick question.

Are you applying for any type of tax credit or any application that's due soon?

Since we're talking about deadline?

This will be strictly marketing.

Gotcha.

Right.

Well, I've got a question.

It really doesn't pertain to this exactly, but you had retention system in.

Is that is that the area that's that's blank in front there?

Or is it in the middle?

It's that it's a lake.

Oh, okay, okay.

It's hard to tell on that.

I can't tell you what size that'll actually be.

That's fine.

No, capsule to take care of all of it.

Yep.

That's not it's gonna be a fountain.

I'm welcome.

Okay.

Other questions.

Okay.

I have a question of staff.

Can you send me that UDC?

Yeah, email.

Yeah, I'll send it to you, Steve.

But then I have bet that you you have a list of the demonstrators here and addresses that I can't.

No, we do not.

Well, I what I would do I is just meet out in the hall after this and have a conversation.

So we meet with them at right after the meeting or whatever to kind of get that.

I have one more question.

Yeah.

Um I, in general, am for development and more rooftops and more residents in the city limits is good for paying for police and fire, et cetera, et cetera.

But I I do see these understandable questions and concerns.

Question Do we have a schedule of capital improvements on expanding old boonville?

Uh expanding the road to make it more conducive for more development because it is a it is a pretty narrow old country road.

Um do we have a capital budget timeline on when that is being expanded, or is that a is that just a giant unknown?

Well, if we do, there'll be a lot more property taxes to help pay for it.

Yeah.

Well, and I understand.

No, I bet I it's a it's a conundrum.

Well, there's a process in place.

If you know they're gonna have to go through site review, they're gonna have to jump through a lot of hoops to make sure that this is gonna work for these guys who are already taxpayers.

Right.

I mean, there's a process in place.

So, you know, just because we rezone this doesn't mean they're gonna go out there and slap five big buildings, two hundred and something apartments.

So the traffic study, the you know, the water, the the you know, the improvements, all that is gonna be has to be part of it for water and sewer.

That would be in site review.

Yeah, site review includes uh representatives from water and sewer as well as the city engineers' office, and the city engineer's office is who would d does the planning for future road improvements, so that's part of their review is looking at this in light of both existing and potentially uh future stuff.

But even if they had a plan in place, it's not anything that's com it's not a commitment, it's not a legally enforceable thing, it's just good information.

Or the easy part of this process.

Well, this is why we offer the pre-meetings so that people can come in and they can meet with every department before they do a rezoning, before they start drawing up their plan so they know like if they can't get sewer service out there or whatever the case may be, they might not want to look at that property anymore.

But this one did not come to us in a pre-meeting.

Yeah, okay.

Well, and this is not Mr.

Reinbrick's first development.

So we're yeah, okay.

It's if there are no mu no more comments or questions, I'll entertain a motion for approval.

Yeah.

Oh, motion to approve.

Okay.

Um you can't really put conditions on it because they're not binding on city council.

Yeah, but I mean, well, I think the record will reflect the expectations.

The expectation that the right that the developer has committed to.

I would agree.

Uh beefing up the UDC.

I'll second the motion.

I agree.

Yeah.

So we have a motion and a second.

Mr.

Hooper.

I just think it sounds really gray and piecemeal and unclear, so I'm gonna vote no at this point, and I could vote yes in the future, but at this point I'm a no.

No, sure.

Mr.

Nix?

Yes.

Mr.

Petke, yes, Mr.

Shetler?

Yes, Mr.

Walters?

Yes, Ms.

Cabill?

Yes.

Ms.

Freeman?

I'm kind of with Phil on this that they kind of I don't know what it's like Cassie said there's that pre pre-planning meeting that they might have alleviated a lot of this if they would have met with the neighbors because we've had so many of those that they've, you know, they met with neighbors and they were all able to kind of throw stuff and come to a conclusion that was satisfactory.

So I'm on the no side.

Okay.

And Miss Stevens.

Um I am going to vote yes because I do think this is a good use.

It's our job is to is to um is to vote on zoning and what can go there, and I trust the process, and I know you know it's no nobody wants an apartment building in their backyard.

It won't be in many of your backyards, it'll be in your across the street.

But um, but I vote yes, so it will be six yes, two no, no abstentions.

We'll move forward with recommendation for approval with ideally a very good use and development commitment to city council.

Okay.

Okay, thank you guys.

Okay.

Next one is docket number REZ-2026-012 proposed ordinance VC-5-2026.

Address is 5925 6001 Covert Avenue and adjacent parcels.

Cash Wagner and Associates on behalf of Chow Corporation is requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Covert Avenue between Green River Road and I 69 from PUD R1, C2 with UDC to R3 for residential subdivision as stated on the application.

No UDC was included at filing.

This site is located in a solid area of residential uses just outside city limits.

The immediate vicinity is predominantly zoned R1, with the exception of a large mixed residential PUD directly adjacent to the south.

This PUD was originally zoned in 1978 and included the westernmost lot in the current request reserved for commercial development.

The large parcel was then divided into multiple residential subdivisions, completed over a period of about 10 years.

However, the 5.9 acres of land designated as commercial was never platted.

The applicant then sold most of that acreage to EBSC as a proposed site for a new school.

That property is now used for high school athletic fields across Shoshone Lane to the west.

The remaining portion of the PUD that is part of the current request has always remained undeveloped.

The easternmost lot in the current request was rezoned to C2 in 1994 as a backup area for commercial development to replace the portion of the PUD that had been conveyed to EVSC.

The UDC attached to this property only placed limitations on the commercial uses allowed in C2.

No development commitments were included.

The C2 lot has also remained undeveloped.

This may be due in part to the cold ditch, a regulated drain that cuts across the northeast side of the property.

The applicant is now requesting to rezone these lots to R3 to allow a residential subdivision.

Details regarding the residential density or proposed number of lots in the subdivision have not been provided.

A UDC that would otherwise identify the type of residential development was not attached to this request.

The 2035 future land use map recommends this site for residential uses.

So the request to rezone the property to R 3 would remain consistent with the comprehensive plan.

This is a request to rezone the property located at 5925 6001 Covert Avenue and adjacent parcels from PD R1 and C2 with a UDC to R3 to allow a proposed residential subdivision.

Well, everyone who's here to uh speak on this petition for order against it, please raise your right hand.

Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give is true and accurate scalping God?

I do.

Okay.

Um Scott Beadle with Kash Wagner and Associates 414 Citadel Circle Evansville here with Aaron Miller.

He is the develop developer of the property and is actually the current owner of the property.

So from the meantime of filing the rezoning when Chow Corporation owned it and Alan Braun signed off on it.

Aaron has actually taken possession of the property, so uh so he is now the current owner and petitioner for the property.

Uh what we've, I guess I do want to start off since it came up in the last meeting.

We did have a pre-development meeting at Plan Commission and kind of sat down and talked about some of the things that are going on with the property just to kind of make sure we were going in the right path and try to get some feedback from the city.

One of the things that came up with the rezoning, you know, it does have multiple zonings on it, so we knew we were gonna have to go for a rezoning.

The only thing that Aaron really wanted to make sure happened was that the front yard setback was reduced for his single family houses.

So to get to a 20-foot front yard setback instead of a 25-foot front yard setback, we we opted for the R3 zoning.

So for the most part, that's why we're requesting an R3 zoning.

We had looked at other options of doing a PUD and some other types of rezoning, but PUDs require a lot of work up front.

So they're you know, of course, the combination of subdivision and rezoning wrapped up into one.

Aaron just kind of wanted to get the ball rolling and get the rezoning started while we were working on layouts and dealing with any issues that may be coming up for the subdivision design.

Since we had that initial meeting, of course, we filed for the zoning, and I know there's a lot of remonstrators or some petitions that came to Area Plan Commission.

So this exhibit that I've handed out, you can see that right now, and the layouts subject to change.

We're still working on the layout.

Not that the layout itself is gonna change, but the number of lots, the size of the basin, and so forth could change.

But right now we have 34 single family residences planned.

The blue numbers above the uh there's so there's a row of lots 16 through 34 on the south side of our proposed road, and the blue numbers are the square footages of what we are proposing for our lots just to get just to kind of put it into perspective.

So our lots range from 8,175 square feet up to 10,745 square feet, and when you drop down to the neighboring properties that we will adjoin, uh the ones in season ridge on the east side the red numbers, you can see the square footages of those.

The lot at the east end and the west end that are uh 10,800 and 12,250.

I mean, those are just some odd-shaped properties that are larger because of curves in the roads, corner lots, setbacks, and so forth.

But basically, the typical lots in the seasons are that 6600 square feet.

So our smaller lots, 8175 are larger than all of those by 2,000 square feet or not 1,500 to 2,000.

There's a section of lots that are in the middle that adjoin us to join us, and those are those zero setback lots that uh Jago had built in the past.

The square footage of those lots are also noted, and then on the west end, those are like 11, 10, 11plex units, where they're all built as one building, but they're separate condominium units, and those the square footages that I have there, those are the actual platted lots that each condominium owner owns.

So their units a little bit smaller that fits on that, but that's basically their lot that they own, which are 1500 square feet.

So for us coming into the neighborhood with 8,000 square foot lots, I feel like we're at or above anything that's in our immediate vicinity, and then from the standpoint of the site itself, you can see it's a pretty simple layout.

There's not a whole lot we can do with it, but it would just be a through road from Shoshone to Seasons Ridge.

Uh again, the size of the basin up in the northeast corner is gonna vary and depend on our stormwater calculations of how big it needs to be to hold back the design storm.

And one other thing during the process, you know, Cob Ditch is a legal drain that runs through the property.

We have met Linda.

We've come to her office, talk to Linda and Mike about what we can do with that portion of the property, Cob Ditch and so forth.

And we've got a lot of feedback from Linda from the standpoint of issues that the county currently has with that ditch as far as how flat it is and so forth, and maybe some improvements that we could make to it because as it sits right now, it's just kind of a low area that holds water.

So we're hoping to uh kind of reconfigure that, put parts of it underground, pipe it so it's not just a visible standing bottle body of water, even though we will have a lake that will retain our stormwater on the property, it'll be a larger body that'll be a little more aesthetically pleasing than just a uh a water-filled ditch that uh runs across the property right now.

So anyway, I'm hoping that the uh you know that the exhibit and our proposed layout for what we're wanting to do on the property uh alleviates some of the concerns of the neighbors that I realize you know they're thinking R3 apartment complex, which I understand, but also back in the eastern third of the property is zone C2 now, so I'm kind of looking at R3 as we're down zoning, yeah, and then the western third of the property is part of a PUD, which was planned to be originally planned to be commercial, granted it's in a PUD right now, but it was also kind of looked at as as a down zone too.

So the only thing we're changing the zoning on or upzoning would be the middle portions of the property where the R1 currently exists going to the R3.

So what I'm hearing is that you're committing to single family, not duplex, not yeah.

I mean, that's that's what Aaron's uh building is the single family.

The only reason I mean I would want to make sure that the I would think that the duplexes would still be allowed.

I just know that the um I just know that there's a lot of those type of developments that go on where you can put a duplex in, and I mean there's still look like a single family house, but an apartment complex or anything like that, any multi-family beyond that, that's that's not what's being.

Yeah, but the intention, I'm I mean, again, I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just trying to clarify because I never heard you say single family.

So I just wanted to.

No, that's what yeah, that's what Aaron's and maybe I missed it, but proposing to build that's what we're creating the lots for.

So Scott, um it's uh you you're really looking at R3 just for the setback?

Yes, yes, yeah.

I think we allow that with R2.

I mean, we have to get a variant, okay.

Well, and even if and if it was R2, they could still do a duplex.

So right.

Well, the only concern I have is if it's if this thing falls flat and which I'm not saying it will, but if it does, then if you sell this thing, you it you you could build apartments on that.

Well, unless you unless they do a UDC that says that they are only gonna do single family.

I think that's the that's gonna be the ask.

Yeah, and to clarify that that shorter setback then get you a more marketable backyard, correct?

Correct.

And Aaron's done other developments that he just knows by experience that that 20-foot setback from his standpoint and his product, it it makes a big difference for him.

So you will commit to um single family or duplex.

And please, yes, please.

Aaron Miller 1080 stall road.

Um, I uh I'm looking at developing this as a single family.

I would like to have the stipulation of duplex uh included into that, and I would be willing to do that in uh UDC.

Yeah, UDC.

Yes.

Okay, super, thank you.

Where have you developed that elsewhere?

Uh I've developed under several different companies.

Uh Hawthorne Development on Side Road, uh Huntington Creek on Pollock Avenue, uh, Copper's Edge in Newburgh, Wingate and Newburgh.

You got the experience locally, thank you.

A couple times you've been there done it.

Yeah.

Okay.

Are there questions for the petitioner?

No.

And I just would like to make a comment that yes, he that we are working with them trying to figure out what to do with cold ditch, relocate, pipe it, because by statute we are, you know, there's certain things that we can and can't do.

Uh if they pipe it, we can go 15 feet from the center line either side.

If it's open ditch, it's 25 feet from the top of the bank is the minimum that we can relax it to.

So our we've my deputy and I, and Aaron and uh Scott have been looking at this, and yeah, and it is very flat out there, and it is kind of a little swampish in that area.

Closer to the river.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, and it's just flat.

I know.

We don't have a lot of fall.

I mean, I think there's only like a foot of fall from Covert Avenue to Pollock Avenue.

They'll find it.

And I'm not even sure if we've got that much.

Yeah.

It's just so thank thank you for that.

Go ahead.

So are you guys uh agreeable to the R3 with uh UDC that limits it to single family or duplexes?

Yeah, yes.

Yeah, they said that.

Yeah, yes, thank you.

Okay, other questions.

All right, um, I see remonstrators held up your hand.

Do you guys have a spokesperson?

Okay.

Here comes our spokesperson.

Hello.

Go ahead and state your name and address.1715 Green Castle Drive.

And say your name again.

Combs, C O O M E S.

Okay, your first name.

Uh Katie.

Kate Combs, okay.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

All right.

So the flood, you know, this is definitely a dry bed reservoir.

Um, it's used to hold water temporarily, kind of like a big sponge, um, to prevent surging and damage the infrastructure of the area.

Um, it does fill during the uh rain seasons.

Um, it is an eco-friendly way to protect our homes and then all that that's a concern.

Um, and everything.

So when they come in to build their, you know, our homes are gonna be, you know, possibly made, you know, like a floodplain.

We're gonna, you know, we don't want that.

Um, we don't want to uh suffer the consequences of the new uh building.

Um there's a we do have a concern for traffic.

Um we have a lot of bicyclists and people who walk their dogs and you know, push strollers, that sort of thing.

Uh there's a bike lane down on covert that is used uh quite a bit.

Um, the soccer fields.

Uh there are a lot of kids out there.

Um, and so there will be an increase in traffic.

Um, you had one more thing.

Something about the park.

Do you have that?

No, come on.

Sorry.

We got now.

You're kind of come all the way and sit state your name and address for the record.

That's all right.

That's okay.

That's okay.

We want to hear what you all have to say.

Hi.

Aubrey Wellman and I live at 1726 Green Castle.

Okay.

Um we live right across the street from each other, so we're right in the thick of this.

Um the development would mean dust and debris coming directly into our area.

Um, not only that, but we are concerned about we host a lot of soccer tournaments over there, traveling soccer tournaments, school soccer tournaments.

Our streets are filled every single week and every single weekend, up and down with cars.

Those cars aren't gonna have anywhere to go if we develop on this portion of land because they park all along there, and that increase in traffic is not gonna help.

And then we also are noting this basin over here.

That's 75 feet within the park.

So the park is less than 75 feet away from this basin that they're gonna be building, right?

Is that correct?

Well, currently, cold ditch runs through the park as well.

Correct, but it does not hold water, it does not hold standing water that children can drown in.

No.

This is the drainage plan and those things would be addressed.

I know, but I'm talking about the basin that's on this plan right here.

Okay, what and so the basin would hold water, correct?

Standing water at all times.

It's what you're looking at.

Yes.

Correct.

And you have that, right?

And so that basin would be holding standing water and directly across the street from it is Price Park.

So there would be less water outside the basin.

No, I'm saying we're gonna have a small creek, a small bed of water, right?

Like what what do we want to call it?

A pond?

It's retention pond.

A retention pond.

So we're gonna have a retention pond right next to a public park.

Currently there's one down here.

And there's no not gonna be any fencing around it or anything.

Well, it's kind of like Garvin Park has a lake in it.

You know what I'm saying?

It's like it won't even it won't be a lake like that.

It'll be more of uh, you know, probably have you know cat cattails growing up in it, and yeah, I'm just concerned that there's going to be a small body of water where there wasn't next to a public park.

Gotcha.

And covert has been changed quite a bit.

It is now two, it's a single-lane road with that middle lane.

Um speed has increased drastically on it as a result.

So I don't see how developing more is gonna help that.

Okay.

Was that the other thing you were wanting to add?

Yeah, you've thought of it.

Okay, all right.

Thank you very much.

Um, the there is a tree line behind um our neighborhood that we would like to retain.

Um, it's uh you know, maybe if we were granted an easement.

And the preparations for the planning, um, you know, some sort of dividing.

Is that the tree line that's to the south?

Is that what you're doing?

Yeah, on the far behind that part.

Yeah, there's yeah.

Okay, I see the trees.

Yeah, I see the shadows.

Okay, okay.

So what you're saying is you'd like to keep those trees.

Okay.

All right.

Anything else?

Any questions?

Okay, thank you very much.

All right, any other remonstrators?

Sure.

Come on up and state your name and address for the record, please.

My name is uh Casey Burns.

I live at 6046 Summer Valley Cove.

Um, I'll try not to spend too much time on this topics that are already been addressed, but this uh I will add that this retention pond, uh the does not I don't know what the depth of it is there, but it's uh definitely not gonna be big enough to contain the amount of water that we see stand out in this field.

It it exceeds the uh boundaries that are or the flood zone boundaries that are uh illustrated on this drawing, and that's at least annually that we have a lot of water standing out there.

Um I've got a petition that my wife had uh the neighborhood took around the neighborhood the last two evenings and got a hundred or got ninety-five signatures opposing this zoning, um one of the reasons is uh the R3 high density residential zoning would be our fear of someday being able to have an apartment complexes that would greatly uh affect our property value and our privacy in our backyards with our six-foot privacy fences and stuff.

Um the other issues, um, would be the traffic and road safety with all these soccer events that we have going on.

We do have a lot of traffic, big lines of traffic waiting, trying to get out on a covert and stuff, and uh then also the compatibility with the existing neighborhoods surrounding it, that it would uh maybe affecting our property value, I guess is the main concern with that.

Um and then also there are several apartment apartment complexes nearby and stuff, so I don't I can't imagine that there would be a big need for another apartment complex in the area.

I it's nice to hear that the the plan is to um for it to just be more single family residential.

Right, that would be ideal.

Um I'm sorry, um but just the idea of it being potentially being able to be some apartment complexes would we'd like to avoid that.

Right.

Whoever develops a property, uh they'd have to come back to that SN if uh if they wanted to build apartments and okay.

If they do a UDC, if yeah, if they add the UDC that says it's gonna be R1 like single family or duplex, that runs with the property.

Okay.

So in if somebody would want to build an apartment complex, say this this particular development doesn't go to fruition, they would have to come back to this body for a rezoning for apartments, okay.

Yeah, until we get our hands back on.

Go ahead.

I think you mentioned earlier, Linda.

Um uh about the how flat it is and and the lack of fall in the elevation.

Um I can't imagine that, you know, if they were to raise the elevation to be able to accommodate these lots in this low area, which would pretty much be the uh eastern third of this property, I think.

Um if they were to raise the elevation and put some kind of you know below the surface tile or something in there to contain the water.

I I can't imagine where it would go.

Basically the pre-development can't exceed post-development, so that all those types of things will come in the drainage plan.

We currently don't know how deep or big the lake will be um the retention basin, and they're probably gonna need some of that dirt to build up some of the pads.

I'm not sure.

I don't remember.

Are we in the do we need to hit a FPG?

No, okay.

So I mean, there's all those things are gonna come into play.

Um basically we've on the southern end of Colb Ditch, we rerouted it for um a subdivision.

There's a very large lake there that's actually larger than they needed for the development, but they needed the dirt, they needed you know that's the way it went down.

But so this would be something that would be really looked at because we don't want to take a chance on having that particular drain cause any problems for the city on the other side of Covert Avenue.

And raising the elevation of that area too, would then could make our property being low lower, you know, and well it transfer some of the water standing water or whatever our direction, you know.

But they can't ballpark it, you know.

They have to hire a professional licensed engineer to show the math how it won't do what you just said, and it will take care of the water that's on that project.

She's the surveyor, and they're their plan has to be approved by the drainage board with our guidance.

Okay, right.

Well, and then the county engineer will be looking at it as well for the drainage off the streets and things like that.

So I mean, and then like everyone else has said, it's got to go through all the site review processes.

Okay.

So yeah, I think there'll be a lot of people looking at it.

And um, I think we were just lacking a lot of information.

We got this notice uh about two weeks ago, you know, finding us of this, and and we just looked up what R3 means, you know.

Right, yeah, yeah.

Well, we've we've already asked for the UDC to, you know, for a single single family or uh single family or duplexes only, and then that will stay with the property.

Okay.

Um can I leave this petition with somebody?

You can, oh, you can actually give it to Megan over here.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Burns.

Are there other questions for Mr.

Burns?

Okay, anybody else?

All right, thank you so much.

Um okay, Mr.

Beadle, if you want to give your summation.

Um so from the comments, I mean the only thing that I guess I'm getting from this is as far as the pond itself goes.

I mean, the pond is required by ordinance.

We have to detain a certain amount of water.

We you know, our post-development runoff for the site cannot exceed what it is today in a 10-year event.

Uh so I mean we're we're bound to meet all those uh criteria for stormwater runoff from the standpoint of elevating the site and changing the shape of the ground a little bit, that will of course happen because if you drive by and see it, I mean there's definitely a low point that kind of goes down to cold ditch and it rises up on both sides.

I mean, we would we would fill that property so it's a nice for the most part level road that runs through there so there's no up or down, no chance of flooding or anything for that for the new road or the adjacent roads, uh as far as the tree line along the south side of the property.

I mean, I think if there's a way to save a tree, we would we would look at that, but from the standpoint of where our swales will be in the backyard, all the water from this site pretty well is gonna flow uh from west to east down towards the basin and the low area of the property, and so if we've got to put a if we have to put a swale, and I think there are some back there already that we could maybe utilize or maybe have to reconstruct, but there's probably gonna be a little bit of clearing that's gonna happen along those lines to make sure that the ditches are at the right slope and will come convey the amount of water that's needed to be conveyed to get it to the storm basins.

So everything uh, you know, a lot of the concerns you know that I've heard, I think those get addressed during the design process, and once a subdivision gets developed and built, the conditions in the neighboring area for the property itself change, but they always change for the better.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions for um Mr.

Beadle?

So you're saying due to some elevation changes that might need to happen, it may not be possible to save those trees if you're doing a swale.

Would you be willing to commit to replace a tree along that rear that southern boundary if you did remove them?

Would that help the neighborhood feel better?

I don't know if that's I mean it's I'm gonna I'm just gonna say that's kind of a tough deal because when the houses are being under you know under construction, and then you might plant a tree that they don't like.

I mean, they might be in the way of the swales.

It might be in the way of the swales because we do have that a lot.

People think, oh, I'm just gonna throw my firewood in this area.

I've had firewood.

Yes, we had firewood, well, and yard barns, yeah, and probably in this case drainage is gonna take priority over whether tree speed there or not.

So okay, I'd like to read in um a couple more.

We had um, and I sorry I didn't do this before your uh summation.

But if there's something that we're gonna do, I just have a couple questions.

Okay, because I am still kind of new on it.

Uh huh.

Um C2 includes use group four, correct?

This is uh our this is a no no, I know I'm talking about it.

Oh, it's three different things right now.

Yeah, it's a great, but one of them is C2, which is which does include apartments and all the family dwellings.

Yes, right.

So if someone if they he said forget it and sold it, they could someone else could put an apartment complex there and not even have to come up here for rezoning and just go as they want.

That's a good point.

We might have some difficulty because that area of the property is where most of the floodplain is, and where the ditch is, but they can work over here and look Linda and get it worked out to make it so it's not just sitting water with mosquitoes.

They can get it worked out to have better drainage.

They could potentially re-if if they were gonna put in a high density um type of thing, then that would be more income than they could probably afford to reroute the ditch around it.

And we've we've done that before.

I mean, we haven't, but we've allowed developers to do that.

Okay, but that's a great point, Mr.

Shuttler.

It's it's right now following your logo.

Right now the apartments are are on for somebody if they wanted to develop it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Currently, yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

Or commercial, or commercial, or commercial.

I know.

I get that.

You're receiving restrictions in the UTC for commercial.

Yeah, but no, I don't think there's any restrictions for residential.

Yeah.

There were currently uh think restrictions on commercial.

Yeah, there's some things that it didn't allow, but on this UDC that in the current the current current, yeah.

Yeah.

Okay, let me read then these um these emails that we got in.

So one is from um is from uh Katie Coombs, who has already spoken.

But um to Area Plan Commission, adjoining a nearby property owners, uh APC Docket REZ-2026-012.

Proposed amendment um zoning from PUD R1 C2 to R3.

Collectively, we the property owners adjacent to and nearby the current referenced uh area oppose the proposed amendment to rezone the area for the following reasons: the potential for surrounding areas to be reassessed as a floodplain area, traffic congestion, compromise safety measures already in place in the area, increase in crime due to increase in population, decrease of property values for the existing homeowners, adding another property to the area that would accept Section 8 low-income vouchers in the future.

And that's sincerely RK Coombs, Ruth Colbert, uh Jerry Garrett, Diana Whitney, Chuck Fry, Carol Fry, Brandy Burns, William Pate, Tom Rick, Patricia Fisher, Janice Green, Marnie uh Cooster, uh Nancy Holstein, and Cheryl Yarishef Jarashevsky.

Thank you, Mel.

Okay, and the next one is from Michelle Rummage, to whom it may concern.

I'm a very concerned citizen and resident of the season season subdivision off of Cobert Avenue.

I've been informed that uh 55925 and 6001 Covert Avenue and adjacent is looking to rezone PUD R1 C2 to R3, and I strongly oppose this change.

I moved to the area almost 10 years ago.

What drew me to move to the seasons was the feel of the family, kids with their parents playing at Price Park, the screams of families cheering on their children at the soccer field adjacent to the subdivision, watching neighbors talking to each other in their front yards with a mix of all ethnicities, the feel of being in the countryside but still the city.

I put an offer on one house, but the homeowners got a higher bid, but I kept watching for homes for sale in the seasons because I knew I wanted to live here.

This is a community that family matters, a place of safety and security where young families can raise their children and the elderly living out their remaining years, do not worry about any harm coming to them because we have neighbors that look out for each other and they are trusted.

I also knew I wanted to live here because being a single woman, I had learned that this area was one of the safest to live in Evansville.

An area that has a low crime, but one of the lowest in Evansville, I learned.

This is where children and adults go for a run, take walks, and ride their bikes.

The residents would now be at a higher risk for potential accidents to happen to them.

That would bring a strain to this area infrastructure with more demand on the water and sewer system.

We're in the area we have already seen some issues.

Also, that the potential for an apartment complex, which is suggested would take away from the family environment, the safety and security that is felt here currently at the season subdivision, along with other local subdivisions.

I'm concerned that if this rezoning moves forward, that I will no longer as an elderly single woman feel safe.

I employ you implore you to please do not rezone this wonderful part of Evansville.

Thank you for your time in this matter regards Michelle D.

Rummage, 1917, Seasons Ridge Boulevard.

Okay, and now Kelly Williams.

Um hello, I'm reaching out regarding APC Docket number REZ-26-012 for the child rezone project 6832 at the corner of Cobert Avenue and Shoshone Lane, as I am unable to attend the hearings.

I would like to express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning directly behind my home.

I'm concerned that building multifamily dwelling units there could increase noise levels significantly impact my home's privacy and solely the natural views that were important factors in my decision to purchase here.

Additionally, I worry about the potential negative effects on the local wildlife.

Thank you, Kelly Williams.

And then uh last is Linda Weirsma at uh wait, this is I think it's on a different one.

Um yeah, this was old highway.

So we'll make this part of the record.

Uh okay.

With all that read in the spectrum, but the with the understanding that the UDC is coming to uh limit it, the single family duplexes as it goes forward to final approval for zonings.

I would make a motion to approve.

I'll second that.

Okay, well, we have a motion and a second.

Cassie, will you please call the room?

Mr.

Nick.

Yes, Mr.

Pecky?

Yes.

Mr.

Shatler?

Yes, Mr.

Walters?

Yes.

Ms.

Cabill.

Yes.

And I hope for the people out there that most of your questions have been and your concerns have been addressed today.

And I vote yes.

Ms.

Freeman?

Yes.

Mr.

Hooper?

Yes.

Miss Steven.

And I vote yes as well because of the use and development commitment, because big difference between R3 and use and development commitment of single family duplex.

So it will be eight yes, zero, no, and it will move forward with recommendation for approval to city council.

Yeah.

Thank you, guys.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, next up.

Next is the ordinance.

Right.

Do you want me to take this or you want to go right ahead?

You've got permission.

Shortly after.

And it's not that it's not I'm not suggesting that Cassie is not capable of doing this.

No.

Oh no.

Of course, she found my analysis of it to be sufficient.

Quote sufficient unquote.

So shortly after, shortly after this body uh unanimously approved the city version, and it went forward to city council where they unanimously approved it, uh planning commission was contacted by county attorney Craig Emig and asked if we could do the same for the county.

And so we have put together the county version, which is essentially identical to the city version.

Um it does have a couple of differences from the um to the existing county parking requirements, but I also want to mention that a few years ago, I think in 2023 or so, the Board of Commissioners that was in place at that time voted to basically cut in half just arbitrarily all of the parking requirements for all of the uses and all the use groups.

So that was I think something that people have struggled with, and so this goes back and uses the analysis that we had used in the city version to determine the appropriate the really the appropriate parking numbers for each either use group or use the way that it really had been where it was thoughtfully considered and rather than just sort of hacked, yeah, chainsawed.

So the all of the the uh the new features that were in the uh city version that we discussed back in whatever month that was, um, are in this one, including the credits.

Um there are uh some modern features, including credits for uh EV charging stations and and things like that.

Um but that's I mean it's basically the same thing.

Cassie, are there any significant differences variations from the city version that you know of?

Okay, well, I I might have missed it in here, but is well if it's the same, it has um like if it's uh if it's a parking lot let's just say somebody's redoing something they don't have to change their parking lot and put in the trees and all that is that is that correct they don't have to okay right so they don't have as long as they're as long as it's a legal parking lot is that how I read that as far as green space yes they don't have to go back and rip up concrete and then also if it's a change of use and it has existing permitted parking right change they don't have to okay go above and beyond to make it meet up.

The section here Stacey's on page 24 where it's E on existing parking lots.

Okay.

And number two I think is the well two and three but if a developer's not changing the dimensions or configuration of the existing lot that's been legally permitted no landscape islands will be required even when the use has changed.

Okay.

So well because again I'm I mean we're we're trying so hard to make our county um developmentally friendly right.

So I just you know I'm not an expert on this so I'm trusting that this has been vetted.

Yeah this is something that um well it was it's now been twice.

Right well I guess where I'm coming from too is the city the city is different than the county and if this is exactly the same is I'm just making sure that we're asking I'd like to comment on that if I could so when this came to us uh for the city version of it um I asked for some time to look to review it and my I'm houses and subdivisions right residential so I had my committees look at it and I sent it out to a lot of people for their in ink uh input and I came back the following month and said our guys really appreciate uh it the ordinance is better and we voted to approve it since then um some things have happened some state bills have been passed uh we've had a chance to have some people use it on the commercial side in the city and so I I don't know that we have vetted it for the commercial users yet so I mean I had a good talk with Ron about the need for this ordinance I'm not trying to get in its way or anything like that but I think that it probably needs to be looked at as far as from the commercial use the people that build sub I'm sorry build uh parking lots so I mean like what do you mean like for shopping centers or what okay yeah strip I guess well strip I guess all commercial use like whatever so I I mean it's kind of sounds funny to say it but I I would vote no to move it forward today but I'm not against improving the parking ordinance overall I just think it needs more input from the commission we're just well what and I would I'd be willing to try to chase that down too.

Can it change between now and the time that it goes to county commissioners.

Yes I suppose that's Dirk's question but it's a little different than rezonings.

But it would I mean that the county commissioners have the right to amend it to to approve an amended version.

But then the amendments come back to you just to say we're okay with that or no.

And even if you say no we're not okay with that.

Then they can still say thank you very much duly noted yeah do whatever they want we got elected well I'm I'm just talking about keeping the process moving right you know if we say no now right and then who's really working on it I mean obviously Bill might be working well I would I would do my best to reach out to commercial developers and consultants and think people that use this kind of right well that's why I asked the question is when I said vetted by you know, as they call it stakeholders, who are the commercial developers, you know, and we did this with the sign ordinance.

We come from out of town.

Yeah, well, that's what I was going to say.

With the sign ordinance, you know, we saw issues where people didn't want to come here because it was so onerous that you know they couldn't put you know, all the signs they needed to say in out here, you know, oil change, whatever their thing was.

So I just want to make sure that I'm just because I don't know.

What if we just I mean, like last time, I think we just tabled it.

Does that keep it?

Well, the question I have is could could it go out a little bit far further to build the commissioners instead of the next meeting?

Could we could could be two, three meetings from that?

Is that is it have to go to the next our next meeting?

Good question.

I think there's people waiting in the wings.

Right.

Yeah, and that's the thing.

They're they're expecting this type of um this wording, this type of thing, and I think overall that the you know, it's like like it's stated that if you already have permitted parking, you're good to go.

You don't have to come back.

So I honestly, I mean, so when you say there are people waiting in the wings, developers that are waiting in the wings?

Yeah, and they can't move forward because there's not a.

Because if they continued with the process, they would have to meet today's code.

Yes, this is the way's way better.

They don't want to do that.

This is able to use this.

That makes sense.

This code is less restrictive than what the current county code is.

So, which means that means that it works for them.

It's induced.

In some ways it is, in some ways it's not.

So in that respect, it they are vetting it.

The commercial developers who are waiting for us to go.

Okay, Mr.

Shuttler.

So I say um you said that they could go through and do amendments.

Mm-hmm.

So what's wrong with I find going forward and if we want to keep doing studies and then we can make recommendations to the county council, commissioners, and saying, hey, we did some more research and think that this should be amended to this.

Yeah.

Are you aware of it?

I guess that that allows the people that are waiting in the wings to be going.

Yeah.

Well, it's not they can't until the county commissioners but then can't you amend it after that?

Oh, yeah, yeah.

But it would just go through this process again from the beginning.

Right.

Just to tweak, well, that's what I'm saying.

Just to tweak it and and to, you know, to if Bill does a little more research and finds out it's right.

You know, again, I this is not my expertise, so I don't.

I I don't really care.

But at the same time, I don't want developers waiting.

Yeah.

Right.

And and the city's already passed this, which we passed it.

It's in the right.

Well, and the city did too.

Right.

The city council.

I mean, that's all.

It also makes it easier when they are similar and set up.

I'm totally, I'm totally good with that.

I think it sounds like a good idea.

Yeah, exactly.

And then there, I don't know if we how many parcels we still have, but I know at one point there was city city parcel.

It was like, okay, this is on the city side, and this is on the county side, but it's the whole like split before.

Yeah, but we did look at the map.

It's right.

Walmart, uh, you know.

City county, different things.

All right, well, if there's any other comments, is key in this.

Okay, I I'll entertain a motion for approval just to keep the process moving with the I think second.

We have a motion of second.

And I and now, and now how about my comment?

I guess just to keep things moving and but at the same time knowing that we can continue to try to make it as good as it can be.

So we can put this off taking going to the commissioners till we feel better about your concerns.

No, that's not what we're doing.

We're voting either for it, and the thing about the commissioners is the meeting's Tuesday.

Yeah, I just want to get into the timing.

Oh, it won't go to that one.

No, this one is later in the month.

So there is more time.

Like the city council meeting is May 18th, but the commissioners meeting is not until May 26th.

Well, I don't disagree with you know keeping them the same.

And that way if there is a study, that you can you can take it to city council and the commissioner at the same time to say, right, here's some things that came up.

So that way we can keep it uniform and keep going forward.

That would be really smart.

Well, and that's my point is I think we should keep it moving with the idea that that there are that there's still some unknowns.

So we don't want to hold people up, but we know we can amend it, and if if you're willing to put it in, but they won't have they won't benefit from the from they won't benefit from the new ordinance until all that stuff is worked out.

No, she's that's not what she's saying.

Oh, I'm sorry.

She's saying if the county commissioners enact this, yeah, then we can do what we always do and go back and tweak and send through some little bitty amendments.

I gotcha.

Okay.

Well, and and it what will happen is if it doesn't work, people will complain.

Oh yeah.

So we're gonna know, we're gonna know you think we're gonna know what they don't like about it.

Right.

Well, it will it will prove itself out.

So okay, we have a motion and a second.

Any other discussion besides mine?

Okay, Cassie, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Peggy.

Uh for the reasons I said, I'm voting no.

Mr.

Shetler.

Yes.

Mr.

Walters.

Yes.

Miss Cabill?

Yes.

Miss Freeman?

Yes.

Mr.

Hooper?

Yes.

Mr.

Nix?

Yes.

And Miss Stevens.

Um I will also vote yes just for the with the idea of keeping it moving.

But as I said, I'm on the record.

I think we need to make sure that we make it as good as it can be for the future development of our county and city.

Well, and sometimes things just it's like until you're actually in the midst of it, you don't see.

Yeah.

You know, um, so that's uh there's always exceptions to the rule.

So that this is approved by us.

Um it'll move forward to county commissioners, seven to one.

Okay, anything else?

Motion to adjourn.

So moved to motion and a second.

I vote yes.

I signify by saying I.

Unfortunately, it's doubling up with uh.

Thunderbolts do or die game, they've got a win tonight to go back and beat the Oriat home and then the president's cut.

Oh wow.

That's pretty good.

And some of the staff at Vossy Field also work at the Ford Center, so it's actually kind of a conundrum for both those.