Plan Commission again takes no action on storefront ordinances

The Ripley County Area Plan Commission again took no action on proposed zoning changes for Milan, Osgood and Versailles during its Tuesday, Aug. 4 meeting, leaving the towns with additional questions to address before the proposals return for consideration.

The ordinances, aimed at preserving commercial use of street-facing storefronts within designated areas of the three towns, returned to the commission with several significant revisions following lengthy discussion at the commission’s July 7 meeting.

During the July meeting, a large crowd filled the Commissioner’s Room at the Ripley County Annex Building as residents, property owners, business owners and town representatives discussed the proposals for more than three hours. Several motions were considered regarding the individual towns, but none received the majority votes required for an official recommendation.

When the proposals returned Aug. 4, several revisions that had drawn questions and concerns the previous month had been changed.

One of the most significant revisions involved the amount of time an existing nonconforming residential use could remain vacant before it could no longer return to that use.

The original proposals set that period at 60 days. The revised language increases the period to 180 days and removes a provision stating that a property could no longer return to a nonconforming use following a sale or deed transfer.

The revised ordinances also establish when the 180-day period would begin. Upon discovery of the nonconforming use or vacancy, the respective town council would issue notice to the property owner, with that notice beginning the 180-day period.
In cases involving extenuating circumstances, a property owner could request an additional 180-day extension from the town council by submitting an extension request form and supporting documentation. The previous proposals provided for a 60-day extension.

The removal of the deed-transfer provision addresses an issue specifically raised during the July meeting. Commission member Todd Ault questioned at the time what would happen if he deeded a property containing rentals to his son. Under the language presented in July, the deed transfer could have prevented the property from continuing to be used for residential rentals.

Another substantial revision provides more flexibility for residential use on the first floor of mixed-use buildings.

The revised language requires building frontage facing a public street within the designated overlay districts to be devoted to commercial, office, service, retail, restaurant, civic or other permitted non-residential uses.

Residential dwelling units could, however, be located elsewhere on the first floor if they are accessed exclusively from the rear or side of the building and do not occupy street-facing storefront frontage.

Milan and Osgood would allow residential units to occupy no more than 60 percent of the gross first-floor area, while Versailles’ proposal allows up to 70 percent.

Versailles also added language allowing buildings originally designed as single-family dwellings but currently used for another purpose to be converted back to single-family residences.
D

espite the revisions, questions remained about how portions of the ordinances would be interpreted and applied.

TJ Jacobs, who owns property on Carr Street, questioned what would qualify as a commercial or mixed-use building within the proposed overlay district. He also asked how the ordinance would affect a building damaged or destroyed by fire and whether property owners would have an avenue to seek a variance from the restrictions.

Area Plan Commission board member Jeff French also expressed concerns about the proposal, stating, “I don’t think we have a balanced ordinance.”

Osgood’s proposal drew additional discussion over Section 4, which addresses multi-family housing in Local Business and General Business zoning districts.

Under the revised language, multi-family dwellings established after the ordinance takes effect would not be permitted within those districts. The provision would not prohibit the continued operation, maintenance, repair, renovation, reconstruction or transfer of lawful multi-family residential uses already in existence.

Travis Neal of Osgood said the ordinance had not been on the agenda at the town’s previous meeting. Neal also requested Section 4 be removed.

Ultimately, no motions were made on any of the three towns’ zone change proposals allowing additional time for the towns to address the questions and make further clarifications.

The proposals are expected to return to the Area Plan Commission at the September meeting on Tuesday, September 1 at 7 p.m. following further clarification and revisions.