04-23-90 Zoning & Vacation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning and Vacation Committee April 23, 1990 Page 2 Council Member Voorde also suggested that the new "0" office designation be developed by the City. He did voice concern, however, with regard to signage that would be utilized in the area if the zoning was approved. Council Member Luecke stated that he was against the "C" commercial designation and also questioned the frequency of trucks that would be used from the facility. Council Member Coleman noted that there may be an issue of hardship in light of the misleading information given to the current owners at time of purchase. In questions raised by Council Member Coleman, the Council Attorney then briefly reviewed Indiana Code Section 36-7-4- 613 which addresses commitments under state law which took affect in 1986. She then questioned Mr. Peddycord as to whether the Commission had seen his proposed commitment and whether he had discussed the proposed commitment with the staff of the Area Plan Commission. Mr. Peddycord noted that he had not discussed with either the Commission or the staff. The Council Attorney noted that state law appears to require commitments to be approved by the Area Plan Commission as opposed to the Common Council. She then suggested that she be allowed time to contact the City Attorney's office to see if they have a position on this state law since it has been not used in the past. She also recommended that the Committee take no formal action and again discuss it at the time of the informal meeting at 6:45 PM this evening. Council Member Slavinskas stated that he has driven by the area on several occasions and would consider it a "spot zoning". He noted, however, that Elkhart uses a "P" professional zoning classification and would be supportive of investigating the Elkhart zoning and the "0" office proposed zoning as new classifications at a future date. He also noted that in light of the fact that the business is already in operation, that the Council should attempt to try to resolve this. Council Member Niezgodski then made a motion seconded by Council Member Slavinskas that Bill No. 4-90 be recommended favorably to Council. The motion died for lack of a majority with a 2-2 vote with Council Members Coleman and Luecke in the minority.