01-23-17 Zoning and Annexation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

project advisory team meeting, early in December, 2016. We got input from a lot of people on City and County levels. The most appropriate approach to take under the circumstances was to petition to put some zoning and development standards in place. In this case, LI District standards. Why?Because the LI District standards would allow for this particular development to occur as we envision it. It also allows for the balance of the property the balance of a one- hundred and twenty (120) acres—to be developed, more or less, as it was considered in the PUD. It allows for restaurants, it allows for government-type facilities, offices, and other similar uses. I think the only exception would be a hotel, which is not permitted in the LI zone. The plan which was submitted provides a detailed account of how our plan complies with the LI District standards. What we are proposing to do with this particular building is to design it and build it in a manner consistent with the PUD standards. On the other side of the street, we have enhanced landscaping that we are providing along the easterly edge of our property, where there is an abutting resident. We have prepared this rendered version of the landscape plan for the benefit of the public and Councilmembers, to show that we have a dense evergreen buffer along that easterly edge;we have the shade trees all around the perimeter; we will have landscaping within the parking lot. We are providing parking for three-hundred and twenty (320) spaces,because this particular user is as much about refurbishing and remanufacturing small devices as it is warehousing. We are proposing no access to Mayflower Road. We will make that written commitment. We agree with staff that Mayflower Road, in its present condition, could accommodate additional truck traffic. We would agree with the written commitment to an enhanced landscape standard along Mayflower Road. Another suggestion made at the Area Plan Commission was that we would also make a written commitment not to allow billboards on the property,which might otherwise be permitted in the LI zone. Mr. McMorrow turned to the topic of the diamond interchange. He stated, Our site plan does allow for a diamond-shaped interchange, should it ever happen. We are making that provision in our plan. We will continue to work with the City and their staff on the design of the project. The utilities that are necessary to serve the project can be extended from City utilities that are in place. There is no adverse effect on well water and septic, as a result,because we are not relying upon any of our own. The LI zoning is squarely in line with the City's Comprehensive Plan for development on the northern edge of the City. Gordon Norquist, 17530 Stoney Point Drive, Granger, IN, continued the presentation. Mr. Norquist stated that he is the son-in-law of Chet Wagner and that he represented the family. Chet Waggoner,the current owner, is Mr. Norquist's father-in-law. The farm was originally purchased around 1948 and has since been in the Waggoner family. Mr.Norquist stated that the Waggoner Dairy Farm was happy to work with a local developer and the City, in 2005, to develop a master plan for the site, which was referred to as the Portage Prairie. The plan was to further build growth, investment, and jobs for the City. He stated that the rezoning would permit the continuation of the property and the development of the site. From 2005 to the present,the Waggoner Dairy Farm has worked closely with local businesses and developers. He stated, We have agreed to sell a portion of the one-hundred and twenty (120) acres to Great Lakes corporation that they can continue to build on the site. Jeff Smoke, Great Lakes Capital Portage Prairie III, LLC, 112 West Jefferson Boulevard, South Bend, IN, continued the presentation. Mr. Smoke stated, We are the local developer and local 12