10-23-06 Council Meeting Minutes

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2006 corrections were noted after that. She again reiterated that most of those corrections are typographical or grammatical in nature. She stated that they cannot make a change to something that is called a draft and already been through Area Plan that has been sent to the Council as a recommendation until after that fact. Councilmember Varner stated that once that is done, the resolution does not come back before the Council. Council President Rouse called upon Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand for a legal advice. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand advised that State Law provides that the final version that the City Council would adopt if there are any corrections such as the three and half pages of amendments that have been proposed after the Area Plan Commission that it then goes back to the Area Plan Commission for final approval or disapproval. She believes that it is 60 days that the Area Plan has to take final action. It does not under State Law come back to the Common Council. Councilmember Varner stated that the final version is necessary because you can have much more public input and participation. Council President Rouse stated that the Council is not adopting a final version, but a draft version. If the Council is going to adopt a final version, this is the question in the Council’s mind, who is actually going to adopt this final version plan. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrard stated that State Law Indiana Code 36-7-4- 5-10 and it states that if the Common Council rejects or amends the comprehensive plan then it shall be returned to the plan commission for its consideration with a written statement for the reason for its rejection or amendment. The Area Plan Commission has 60 days to act and file its report with the Council. Mayor Luecke stated that the Resolution adopts the draft and incorporates the three pages of technical changes and amendments, so that what the Council would be adopting through the Resolution becomes the final version and then goes back to Area Plan, which also has its adoption process and they would accept or reject the amendments. Given the nature of the amendments the administration does not expect the commission to reject the Resolution. So for the Area Plan Commission’s purpose they would accept those amendments to revise what they have already accepted as the City Plan for the City of South Bend. Councilmember Varner’s concern is because the Council has recently sat through a process like this with the rezoning in a large document. By coincidence, it was Mr. Master’s with the result of some action, found out that there as a shortfall with regards to the absence of parking, it was an oversight, certainly not intentional. He stated that he would like to see a final draft with all the changes and amendments incorporated to avoid problems in the future. Councilmember Puzzello questioned a correction that might change the context of the subject. Pam Meyer stated that she personally went through all the changes to make sure what they were, just like the question has been asked. Ms. Meyer stated that she cannot tell that off the top of her head, but she does have her papers with her.It could be that that was a duplicate and that there were two words in the document. So that is the reason for it being taken out. It could be that the phraseology didn’t make sense so they changed it and took it out, there might have been a better way to say what was there or it wasn’t necessary in the line. She thinks that the assumption was that by sending those amendments, there might have been a review of those to make the Council comfortable. It that is not the case, then, she understands the hesitancy but, in her mind and in conversations with John Byorni, Area Plan Commission, those were non-substantive and did not think it would be an issue. 24