10-23-17 Zoning and Annexation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Committee Chair Davis reconvened the Zoning and Annexation Committee meeting at 3:28 p.m. Councilmember Randy Kelly arrived at the meeting at 3:28 p.m. Committee Chair Davis gave the floor to the presenters. Ms. Smith stated, The petitioner is seeking to rezone from SF-2—Single-Family and Two (2)- Family to OB—Office Buffer. This is an amended ordinance. The original petition was to MU— Mixed-Use but he amended it in front of the Plan Commission. To the north of the site is a residential property zoned MF—Multi-Family. To the east of the site is a vacant lot that is used by a nearby association also zoned MF—Multi-Family. There is a church to the south and to the west zoned SF-1 —Single-Family. It is an existing home that the petitioner would like to convert to law offices. It is a very small lot. There are a few variances,pending the rezoning, for parking reduction and landscaping for the site. This comes to you from the Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation. Committeemember Ferlic made a motion to accept the substitute version of Bill No. 55-17. Committeemember Voorde seconded this motion which carried unanimously by a voice vote of four(4) ayes. Robert Bottorff, Law PC with offices at 705 E Court Avenue, Jeffersonville, Indiana, stated, We are looking to rehabilitate the property. I have owned it for a little more than ten(10)years. I actually lived here for some time. Since then I have rented it as a residence. It went vacant for a while but my wife and I have recently started renovating it. We hope to put a law office in there. Committee Chair Davis opened the floor to questions from the Committee and Councilmembers. Councilmember Karen White asked, Is the house connected to the church? Mr. Bottorff replied, The roof is inches away from the side of the church. When the house was built, zoning and building restrictions did not exist for that type of thing. Committeemember Broden asked, Will this be ADA compliant? And why the change from a proposed MU—Mixed-Use to the OB—Office Buffer? Mr. Bottorff replied, I intend to start a law office. I pursued Mixed-Use for the intent in case someone wants to buy the property later on. But for my use, Office Buffer seems more logical. I'm not sure what the ADA compliance requirements are for this small of a plot. I've been in discussion with the Historic Preservation Commission with my renovations. If there is any ADA compliance I need to do, I'll do it. Committee Chair Davis then opened the floor to members of the public wishing to speak in favor of or in opposition to the legislation. There were none. He then turned the floor back to the Committee for further comment or main motions. Committeemember Ferlic made a motion to send Substitute Bill No. 55-17 to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Committeemember Broden seconded this motion which carried unanimously by a voice vote of four(4) ayes. 5