11-14-94 Zoning & Annexation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Committee Report Zoning and Annexation November 14, 1994 Page 2 Council Member Slavinskas requested that survey card information should be sent to the entire Council. Mr.Oxian stated that information was filed with the City Clerk with regard to structural reports and areal maps. As Chairperson, Council Member Slavinskas stated that he would follow up on that information to see why it was not included in the packet. Council Member Coleman apologized for not being able to attend the prior Historic Preservation update.He noted that he always concerned about the upkeep maintenance and repair costs especially when a non-for-profit entity is involved.He believes that such items should not create a financial hardship for such organizations. He also questioned whether there were any low interest loans programs for such properties which receive landmark status designation. Mr. Duval noted that local banks often help homeowners or those owners o f buildings uildin s which are listed on the National Resister however was unaware of any County sponsored program. Following further discussion, Council member Duda made a motion, seconded by Council Member Zakrzewski that Bill No. 91-94 be continued until the December 19, 1994 meeting of the Common Council and that the three groups namely the Redevelopment Commission,the Historic Preservation Commission, and the Church meet prior to that date to see if they can work out their differences. The motion passed. The Committee then reviewed Substitute Bill No. 89-94 which address wagering facilities as a special exception and seek Marshall and"D"light industrial zoning districts. Mr. John Borth noted that the Substitute Bill received a favorable recommendation from the Area Plan Commission. He then briefly reviewed the Bill. Council Member Luecke,the sponsor of the Bill,noted that on May 9, 1989 a new state law took effect addressing certain types of wagering within the State of Indiana. He noted that the state law did not permit municipalities to have as much input and control as it did on Riverboat Gambling through a referendum.He therefore believes that the substitute Bill is the best action which the City can take since an outright ban of such wagering activities would not be permissible. He noted that originally when discussion took place on this topic that a specific zoning district was considered however the substitute Bill sets forth the final proposal.He thanked the staff of the Area Plan Commission and the Council Attorney for their input and guidance on topic. He requested discussion specifically on whether the Downtown and the Eastbank could have facilities of this type located therein and noted the parking exceptions.He stated that overall he believes that this is appropriate legislation which best protects the interests of the residents and is good land use planning. Council President Puzzello noted that parking is an exception in the Eastbank and the Downtown district and voiced concern with regard to allowing such uses in these areas. Council Member Luecke stated that he would be willing to negotiate on this topic. •