01-25-99 Zoning & Annexation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(otnmttitft Ort: Zoning and Annexation Committee 0 tbt Common {t0untiU of tit CA/ 0f '01ttij .�tnti: The January 25, 1999 joint meeting of the Zoning and Annexation Committee was called to order by its Vice-Chairperson, Council Member Charlotte Pfeifer at 4:25 p.m. in the Council informal meeting room. Persons in attendance included Council Members: Pfeifer, Kelly, Aranowski, Varner, Ujdak, Coleman, Sniadecki and King; Jon Hunt, Terry Bland, Bernie Kish, John Penny, Pierre Smith, Ed Talley,James Voll and Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand. The first item on the agenda was to review Substitute Bill No. 94-98 which would amend Article 6.5 of Chapter 21 of the South Bend Municipal Code by the inclusion of new section 21-117.3 entitled"Annexed Landmarks". Ed Talley of the Historic Preservation Commission made the presentation. Mr. Talley noted that there are several historic landmarks throughout St. Joseph County. However if an area is annexed into the city and contains an historic landmark, there is no procedure to assure that this designation continues once annexed. The proposed ordinance addresses this concern and clarifies that such historic landmarks retain such designations upon annexation. Mr. James Voll of the Area Plan Staff noted that both the staff and the Commission gave favorable recommendations to the proposed ordinance. Council Member Varner voiced concern about the awareness of historic landmarks at the time of annexation. Mr. Talley noted that currently the Recorder's Office is not required to research the applicable field screens which contains such information. Council Member Pfeifer also voiced concern about notice of such designations and urged that this item be further addressed. The Council Attorney noted that since state law prohibits any annexations taking effect during a local election year, that an amendment could be prepared to address the concerns raised by Dr. Varner and Council Member Pfeifer. She further noted that in her opinion such an amendment would be a major change to the proposed ordinance and therefore it would have to be sent back to the Area Plan Commission. Mr. Voll concurred. At this point, Council Member Hosinski joined the meeting. Following discussion, Council Member Hosinski made a motion, seconded by Council Member Kelly that Substitute Bill No. 94-98 as to be amended be recommended favorably to Council. The motion passed. Mr. Voll noted that two(2) proposals are being considered by the Area PIan staff. The first would address mixed use developments. Currently there is a problem with having a mixed used on the 2d floor. Discussion on this topic may result in a proposal to allow such uses as a special exception subject to the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Common Council approval. The second area addresses offsite parking for churches and schools. The discussion on this topic may result in a proposal to allow such uses to be treated like other