08-12-02 Zoning & Annexation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

/17w • Zoning and Annexation Committee August 12,2002 Page 3 Council Member Pfeifer inquired about the various adjustments in zoning which will be recommended by the comprehensive plan. She asked about the specific pluses and minuses of such developments and how they affect services and population growth. She also inquired into the pluses and minuses of St. Joseph County going first rather than the City of South Bend, and vice versa. Mr. Sante noted that in addition to South Bend and St. Joseph County,that the towns of Roseland, North Liberty, New Carlisle, Lakeville and Osecola will be asked to adopt a resolution adopting the comprehensive plan. Since the City of Mishawaka is not part of the Area Plan Commission of St. Joseph County, they will work on their own comprehensive plan thru their own City Plan Commission. He suggested that there is "no real order" of who should go first in adopting the comprehensive plan, and that St. Joe County may end up going first. Jon Hunt noted that the City of South Bend may be more"aggressive and take a deeper look at the plan than the county". He noted that there may be a problem if the county adopts it and then the city decides not to adopt it. Mr. Hunt said that the comprehensive plan will act as the"game plan" in planning for the city. It will provide the Community Development Department with direction. Council President Kelly suggested that the City of South Bend should be in a leadership role in this area. He suggested that the City take the advise of those who are experts in their fields. Council Member King noted that he has met with three (3) County Council Members who are on the Land Use Committee of the County Council. Council Member David Niezgodski was not there however, and he represents both the city and the county. Council Member King stated that Council Member Hank Keultjes will want to know if South Bend is going to adopt the proposed plan. The Council Attorney noted that she summarized the governing state law in Title 36 of the Indiana Code for the Council in her memorandum and attempted to provide as many pertinent attachments for background information. She noted that the resolution which the Council would adopt when considering the proposed comprehensive plan does not require the approval by the Mayor under Indiana law. She also noted that the Council may amend the proposed comprehensive plan and it then would be returned to the Area Plan Commission for its consideration, as provided by state law. Mrs. Cekanski-Farrand added that as part of the recent Appellate Court case, she filed an arnicus curiae brief on behalf of the Common Council. It included numerous references to how important the comprehensive plan is as a development and zoning tool. She concluded by noting that both she and Jon Hunt have recommended in their respective Memorandums, that all documents that are referenced in the proposed comprehensive plan be summarized to the Council so that they have knowledge of each of them and why they are referenced in the plan. Dr. Varner inquired about water treatment systems and county sewer and water districts and how they would be addressed in the proposed plan. Mr. Sante stated that they are briefly addressed but because they are themselves in a state of flux, that there is nothing definitive. Council Member King stressed that the proposed comprehensive plan is a"road map". Because of the timing of when formal action took place on the plan by the Area Plan Commission, the Capital Avenue Plan could not be addressed in it.