|
seRve. Strip and spot zoning, with their social and economic waste and lessening of the
<br />amenities of residential neighborhoomd, will be discouraged within the primary trade area
<br />of such a consolidated shopping center.
<br />4. The basic items for a successful shopping center are present in subject proposal, to -wit:
<br />a. The Economic Analysis is sound in method and substantiates the sales
<br />volume potential. On the basis of the market analysis, a shopping
<br />center of proposed size on subject property is feasible.
<br />b. The shopping facility will have adequate accessibility and be adequately
<br />served by mass transit.
<br />c. Adequate off- street parking will be available and agress and ingress con-
<br />trolled.
<br />S. Existing streets and thoroughfares in vicinity of subject property will deaand certain
<br />street and traffic improvements. To this end the Commission adopted the following resolution:
<br />WHEREAS, the Commission found that the creation of the proposed
<br />Light's Jefferson Plaza Shopping center would create
<br />under existing conditions, a traffic problem in the
<br />vicinity of subject property, particularly on Jefferson
<br />Boulevard and McKinley Highway, and that said problem
<br />would not exist in kind and degree in the absence of
<br />said shopping center;
<br />THEREFORE, BE
<br />IT RESOLVED that the improvement, channelization, storage, acceleration and
<br />deceleration lanes, and all and any traffic con.tro.l.dev.idew
<br />designs, and arrangements that in the opinion of the City
<br />Planning Commission, the City Engineer, and the City Traffic
<br />Engineer are necessary in the general vicinity of subject
<br />property, particularly on Jefferson Boulevard and McKinley
<br />Highway, be considered as part of the Development Plan for
<br />proposed shopping center; and
<br />BE IT FURTHER
<br />RESOLVED, that the petitioner sha111.cause the design and specifications for
<br />said traffic control to be made for such improvement at no cost
<br />to the City of South Bend, and that such design and specifications
<br />shall conform to any and all standards of the Board of Public Works
<br />and Safety, the City Traffic Engineer, and the City Planning
<br />Commission, and be subject to acceptance and approval, thereof; and
<br />BE IT FURTHER
<br />RESOLVED, that said plans and specifications shall be prepared and presented to
<br />the above- mentioned offices and commission of the City of South Bend,
<br />Indiana, after the passage and adoption by the Common Council of the
<br />City of South Bend, Indiana, its approval by the Mayor and legal
<br />publication of the ordinance zoning the subject land of the proposed
<br />shopping center to "C -2" Planned Shopping Center District;
<br />BE IT FURTHER
<br />RESOLVED, that said plans and specificatioon, after approval as herein prescribed shall
<br />be carried out in full by the petitioner at the earliest pppottunity, at no
<br />cost to the City of South Bend, Indiana;
<br />BE IT FURTHER
<br />RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Board of Public Works and
<br />safety, the City Engineer, the City Traffic Engineer, and the Building
<br />Commissioner of the City of South Bend, Indiana.
<br />6. Because of required and proposed front, side, and rear yard setbacks and planting screen barriers
<br />on subject property, an adverse effect on properties immediately adjacent to the center would be
<br />minimized while properties beyond those immediately adjacent would become more desirable due to
<br />the existence of convenient and accesible shopping facilities.
<br />7. City sewers adjacent to the site are adequate in present and future capacity-to accommodate the
<br />proposed center. Adequate city water is likewise available.
<br />8. The Real Estate Research Corporation, authors of the Economic Analysis, presented as required by
<br />Section 4 -B, of Ordinance No. 3702, are a recognized, reputable, authoritative and qualified-cor-
<br />poration in the field of economic analysis; and their analysis is acceptable. The Traffic Analysis
<br />is likewise acceptable and the authors, Associated Consultants, Traffic and Transportation Engineers,
<br />fully qualified to make such studies.
<br />9. Subject petition complies with the intent of and meets the conditions of Section 4 -B, Sub - section C -2
<br />of Ordinance No. 3702, as required before a zoning change is granted. Therefore, the proposed center
<br />as presented in the architect's preliminary sketch, meets the conditions imposed on it by Ordinance
<br />No. 3702, as above, and conforms to the recommendations and conclusions presented in the Traffic
<br />Survey Report and the Economic Analysis.
<br />10. Relative to the River Park Business and Professional Men's Association, the Commission found that the
<br />purpose of zoning is not to restrict competition; the limiting of competition would be an unlawful,
<br />arbitrary, and unreasonable use of the zoning ordinance.
<br />11. Finally, the Commission found that the proponents have shown sufficient financial responsibility to
<br />carry the proposal to completion.
<br />It was, therefore, duly moved, seconded and unanimously carried tkkt the petition. -be favorably recommended to
<br />the Common Council.
<br />Very truly yours,
<br />CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
<br />RLH:aed Robert L. Huf6irector- Secretary
<br />
|