02-13-17 Zoning and Annexation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

accessibility from the street. To move it back sixty-eight (68) feet will alleviate the concerns the Volcano has with respect to visibility coming southeast. A lot of our business comes from new traffic coming from the airport, hotels, and people not native to South Bend, and we rely on that. The proposal is mirrored and they want it back if you recall the last presentation they gave,they said their original business model was to have it farther away from the street anyway. The Area Plan Commission is pushing for the Mixed-Use requirements, but if there was ever a property a variance would be necessary and proper for,this is it. So if the Council is inclined to grant the zoning for Mixed-Use, I would ask it be done in a way that recommends a variance be requested and granted for the purposed of moving the building back sixty-eight(68) feet as opposed to where it is right now. It would improve visibility and accomplish a lot in terms of the amicability between the neighbors. We aren't here to say we are completely against,however if there's going to be working together we've expressed the willingness to do that and we just haven't been reciprocated it appears. I will say that Mr. Wojtila did indicate to me they were still willing to do the sixty-eight(68) foot setback and it looks like it is a struggle between the Volcano and the Area Plan Commission at this point. I appreciate the Council's time and certainly entertain questions. Kathie Bashke, 24440 Adams Rd., stated, I would like to support the position of the Volcano Restaurant which has a viable business, a long-time tax supporter of the County, and the idea that was brought up about the food dessert, that is hardly food offered in the Dollar General. I go there and the value is questionable, and an Aldi would be far better to serve the population there. Also, are they receiving an abatement? If they are,the benefit is negligible for a certain amount of years to the City and County and that is something that concerns all of us that are seeing so many of the districts handing out abatements left and right. With no other members of the public wishing to speak in opposition of this bill, Committee Chair Davis offered rebuttal for the petitioner. Mr. Wojtila stated, We are eager to move forward but we respect the process. We've worked back and forth with staff with the design and site planning. If the Council so chooses to approve the rezoning with a condition we apply for a variance to push the building back, we are ok with that as well. I requested a card from the attorney representing the Volcano last time and he said he would email me or call me and I only received a call this morning. I'm not opposed to working together but the way he portrayed it is accurate,we are ok with shifting the building over to the west, keeping in line with the way we previously laid it out. There has been no abatement requested, nor will there be. Committee Chair Davis opened the floor to discussion in the committee. Councilmember Williams-Preston asked the committee, Regardless of what is going there, does this make sense to make this Mixed-Use? If we make it Mixed-Use, what would the process be to grant a variance? Committeemember Broden stated, So before us is a rezoning question and there are four(4) criteria to look at, upfront and foremost being the plans that we have developed and that past councils have voted on. This hits a lot of the uses and it hits a lot of the development standards. 6