OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Evansville, Indiana/City Council
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Design Review Committee Meeting - September 22, 2026

City Council — Tuesday, September 22, 2026
BodyEvansville, Indiana
SessionCity Council
DateTuesday, September 22, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 34:12

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it
0:01

Good morning, everyone.

0:02

We'll go ahead and call this design review committee meeting to order.

0:05

We have three applications in the downtown or in the arts district area.

0:11

The first that we'll see is 1407 Howard by Casey Spivey.

0:15

It's a signage application.

0:17

If you would come up, state your name and explain the project.

0:27

Hold it down.

0:27

There we go.

0:28

KC Spivy, and this is just a rebranding of 1407 Howard.

0:34

Same sign, same size, just uh an overlay over the current sign.

0:38

We're not moving it, we're not making it bigger, not smaller, not adding lights or anything to it.

0:44

Just the rebrand and more in tune with the historic side of things.

1:00

I'd like to make a motion to approve the signage application for 1407 Howard.

1:07

I'll second that.

1:10

All in favor say aye.

1:15

With that I've got a release for you that you can bring to permits.

1:18

Uh and yeah.

1:43

The next we will see is 605, 607 Washington.

1:46

Uh if you could state your name, your business with the project.

1:51

Isaac Warren are presenting Lamar Architecture and Design.

1:56

Then if you'd like to tell us about it.

1:58

Uh it'll be the design of two duplexes.

2:01

We are seeking approval for the project so that the client could purchase the property, and then they will hire us for full services to design the building in its entirety.

2:13

And I have the picture, the updated rendering pulled up.

2:17

Um those are that's consistent with um setbacks that were required for the 36-foot lot.

2:23

Um then we also have elevations at you see those.

2:42

Do we have a site plan that matches the I'd like to make sure that the houses are slid to match the existing facade of the street.

3:01

Do you think that uh your client would be interested in uh bringing the facades up so that it's consistent with like the rest of the homes on Washington?

3:13

Um in the rendering it shows that they're pretty close.

3:16

Um but then in the site plan it's set back some more.

3:19

Yeah, they're they have no issue moving it forward more because I would give more um options to do different parking designs in the back.

3:27

I know the the smaller site, Joel Wigan was saying we'd have to double stack the parking in order to fit cars back there.

3:33

We can't do four across, so I think that'll be more convenient for the client.

3:37

I see no issue.

3:46

The fabric of the neighborhood around the parcels around.

3:51

So I think asking for the for the frontage uh setback to be consistent with the houses on that block face.

4:01

That's a consistent viewpoint with the design review guidelines.

4:05

Is that a standard setback that the rest of the houses are currently at, or we're just matching what's existing?

4:11

This would be a match in existing.

4:13

Um, that part of the town was built in the 1800s when there was no zoning requirements per se back in that day.

4:22

So um, you know, this area is a little bit unique, the arts district area, so um, you know, it's not like when you're building in a subdivision and and you have control over every single lot.

4:34

So it's it's a unique situation down in the arts district.

4:38

Understood.

4:42

Um on the 26-foot white house.

4:45

Are there two doors on front on on the front or one door on the front?

4:49

The r there would be two doors on the front.

4:51

The rendering does not reflect that.

4:55

Okay.

5:01

Or that's the intention.

5:03

The client was hoping for two duplexes, did not expect that the site plan would have these struggles with a smaller property on the left and a larger property on the right.

5:13

So we've decreased the overall width of that property on the left to be 26 feet in width.

5:19

We're going to do our best to design a duplex with that space.

5:27

But that's what we have to work with.

5:30

I will say that oftentimes folks will come here, this will be their first stop on the approval processes and such.

5:38

And then when construction starts six, eight, nine, ten months later, things change during that time.

5:45

So for the record, anything that's changed from this application as you go into construction, if it's a significant change, which would be pretty much any changes on the exterior that you need to come back and get at least email us for us to review that to see if it needs to come back through this body.

6:05

So approval today with these designs means these designs are what needs to be constructed.

6:12

So if if they're varied in any way, it needs to come back for reapproval.

6:17

Understood.

6:20

With there being two uh front doors planned, would that be that uh they're both um there are also two windows, um, a window on either side of the doors in the middle.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Signage Regulations█████████████████████████████████████37%
Design Review████████████████████████24%
Zoning Variance████████████████16%
Land Use Planning███████████████15%
Procedural████████8%
Summary of Proceedings

Design Review Committee Meeting - September 22, 2026

The Design Review Committee met on September 22, 2026, at 8:30 AM in Room 307 of the Civic Center Complex. The meeting addressed three applications under the Arts District Redevelopment Area Committee: a signage application, a new build proposal, and a pause work order appeal. The committee approved the signage request, tabled the new build application pending resolution of inconsistencies, and tabled the appeal until complete, consistent drawings are submitted.

Consent Calendar

  • No items were considered under a consent calendar.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • No public comments or testimony were provided outside of the applicant presentations.

Discussion Items

1407 Howard – Signage Application (Casey Spivey)

  • Applicant KC Spivey requested approval for a rebranding of an existing sign at 1407 Howard. The sign would remain the same size, location, and lighting; only an overlay would be applied to match the historic character.
  • The committee unanimously approved the application.

605-607 Washington – New Build (Lamar Architecture and Design, presented by Isaac Warren)

  • The proposal involved constructing two duplexes on two lots (26 feet and 45 feet wide). The committee discussed setbacks, noting the need for the frontage to align with existing homes on the block to comply with design guidelines.
  • The committee noted inconsistencies between the rendering, elevations, and site plan, particularly regarding the setback, window placement, and overall dimensions. The committee expressed support for the design direction but required a consistent set of documents.
  • The applicant indicated that the client needed design approval to purchase the property from the land bank; the committee clarified that approval applies to the final design and that any significant changes would require re-approval.
  • The committee recommended that the two structures use complementary but contrasting color schemes and different massing to avoid an apartment-like appearance. These were advisory recommendations.
  • A motion to table the application passed unanimously. The committee will provide a list of required revisions via email, and the application may be approved administratively once documents are consistent.

1 E. Powell (Piazza De Oro) – Pause Work Order Appeal (represented by Ross Shaitz, Goodwine Law)

  • The appeal concerned previously approved work that was paused due to non-compliance with design review approvals. The applicant presented a revised rendering and sought guidance on window grid patterns and a small kitchen window.
  • The committee noted significant inconsistencies between the rendering, elevations, and construction drawings (e.g., window sizes, trim dimensions, missing brackets, roof lines). The committee rejected email-based approvals and required all details to be clearly annotated on drawings.
  • The committee indicated preference for four-over-four window grids and agreed to keep the 36×36 kitchen window provided it matches the trim and style of other windows. Window dimensions should match the original historic openings as depicted in the initial renderings.
  • A motion to table the application until all documents (elevations, renderings, notes) are consistent passed unanimously. The committee declined to produce a list of inconsistencies, placing the burden on the applicant to submit a complete, consistent package.

Key Outcomes

  • 1407 Howard Signage: Approved unanimously. Applicant may proceed to permits.
  • 605-607 Washington New Build: Tabled unanimously. Applicant must submit corrected documents matching elevations, rendering, and site plan for administrative review.
  • 1 E. Powell Appeal: Tabled unanimously. Applicant must submit a complete set of architectural drawings with dimensions, notes, and call-outs consistent with the approved rendering; no more piecemeal approvals via email.

Meeting Transcript

Good morning, everyone. We'll go ahead and call this design review committee meeting to order. We have three applications in the downtown or in the arts district area. The first that we'll see is 1407 Howard by Casey Spivey. It's a signage application. If you would come up, state your name and explain the project. Hold it down. There we go. KC Spivy, and this is just a rebranding of 1407 Howard. Same sign, same size, just uh an overlay over the current sign. We're not moving it, we're not making it bigger, not smaller, not adding lights or anything to it. Just the rebrand and more in tune with the historic side of things. I'd like to make a motion to approve the signage application for 1407 Howard. I'll second that. All in favor say aye. With that I've got a release for you that you can bring to permits. Uh and yeah. The next we will see is 605, 607 Washington. Uh if you could state your name, your business with the project. Isaac Warren are presenting Lamar Architecture and Design. Then if you'd like to tell us about it. Uh it'll be the design of two duplexes. We are seeking approval for the project so that the client could purchase the property, and then they will hire us for full services to design the building in its entirety. And I have the picture, the updated rendering pulled up. Um those are that's consistent with um setbacks that were required for the 36-foot lot. Um then we also have elevations at you see those. Do we have a site plan that matches the I'd like to make sure that the houses are slid to match the existing facade of the street. Do you think that uh your client would be interested in uh bringing the facades up so that it's consistent with like the rest of the homes on Washington? Um in the rendering it shows that they're pretty close. Um but then in the site plan it's set back some more. Yeah, they're they have no issue moving it forward more because I would give more um options to do different parking designs in the back. I know the the smaller site, Joel Wigan was saying we'd have to double stack the parking in order to fit cars back there. We can't do four across, so I think that'll be more convenient for the client. I see no issue. The fabric of the neighborhood around the parcels around. So I think asking for the for the frontage uh setback to be consistent with the houses on that block face. That's a consistent viewpoint with the design review guidelines. Is that a standard setback that the rest of the houses are currently at, or we're just matching what's existing? This would be a match in existing. Um, that part of the town was built in the 1800s when there was no zoning requirements per se back in that day. So um, you know, this area is a little bit unique, the arts district area, so um, you know, it's not like when you're building in a subdivision and and you have control over every single lot. So it's it's a unique situation down in the arts district. Understood. Um on the 26-foot white house. Are there two doors on front on on the front or one door on the front? The r there would be two doors on the front. The rendering does not reflect that. Okay. Or that's the intention. The client was hoping for two duplexes, did not expect that the site plan would have these struggles with a smaller property on the left and a larger property on the right.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com