Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-23-17 Zoning and Annexation O�SpII T8 4 O ■ s 1865 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK KAREEMAH FOWLER,CITY CLERK ZONING &ANNEXATION JANUARY 23, 2017 3:35 p.m. Committee Members Present: Oliver Davis, John Voorde, Gavin Ferlic, Jo M. Broden, Gerald Phipps (Citizen Committeemember) Other Council Present: Regina Williams-Preston, Dr. David Varner, Tim Scott, Randy Kelly Others Present: Kareemah Fowler, Graham Sparks, Aladean DeRose,Adriana Rodriguez Presenters: Angela Smith, John Wojtila, Brian McMorrow, Gordon Norquist, Jeff Smoke Agenda: Substitute Bill No. 77-16—Dollar General Rezoning at 3720 Lincoln Way West Bill No. 78-16—Waggoner Dairy Farm Rezoning at Adams &Mayflower Road Committee Chair Oliver Davis called the meeting to order with two (2) items on the agenda. Substitute Bill No. 77-16—Dollar General Rezoning at 3720 Lincoln Way West Angela Smith, Area Plan Commission, with offices on the l I 1 Floor of the County-City Building, served as the presenter of this bill. Ms. Smith stated that the petitioner is seeking to rezone the property on the south side of Lincoln Way, at 3720 Lincoln Way West. To the north, across the street, are single-family homes zoned SF2 and some businesses zoned LB, Local Business. To the east is a restaurant zoned LB, Local Business. To the south are single-family homes zoned SF1. To the west is a contractor yard zoned GB, General Business. She presented to the Committee and public the site plan of the proposed project. She stated, It extends south of the red line, but only the portion highlighted in red is seeking to be rezoned as MU, Mixed-Use. They are not extending the zoning south of that line. The site currently has a single-family home on the property. The proposed is a retail use that is 9,100 square feet. In the Mixed-Use District, buildings should be located towards the front of the street,which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for this area, which calls for more urban,pedestrian-friendly development along this street as it transitions into Sheridan. This comes to you from the Area Plan 455 County-City Building•227 W.Jefferson Boulevard•South Bend,Indiana 46601 Phone 574-235-9221 •Fax 574-235-9173•TDD 574-235-5567•www.SouthBendIN.gov JENNIFER M.COFFMAN ALKEYNA M.ALDRID6E JOSEPH MOLNAR CHIEF DEPUTY/DIRECTOR OF DEPUTY/DIRECTOR OF POLICY ORDINANCE VIOLATION CLERK OPERATIONS Commission with a favorable recommendation. Rezoning this property to MU, Mixed-Use, will allow for the continuation of retail development and infill development that complements the transition from the more intense commercial uses to the west and the single-family residential to the east. Committeemember Oliver Davis asked, In working with the new potential developers, was there any conversation about them needing to correspond or talk with their next-door neighbors? Ms. Smith responded, When we have petitioners that come into our property, we often encourage them to reach out to their neighbors. We also encourage them to reach out to their Councilpeople. It is not a requirement, but it is something we always encourage people to do, because we notify everybody within three-hundred(300) feet of the property. Committeemember Oliver Davis asked if the Area Plan Commission staff ever check back in with developers to see if they have spoken with neighbors or not. Ms. Smith explained that it is not a requirement but a suggestion, so the APC does not typically follow up with developers to see if they have met with anybody. Committeemember Jo M. Broden asked, With regard to the Department of Community Investment's agency comments,the building should be designed to create more active street frontage—is that included in the design? What are they aiming at with that?And then the other comment: a taller building element for the use. All these appear to be design-related. So, I'm just curious about how much detail there is in the plan for the Lincoln Way Corridor; how much detail that gets into, in terms of design standards. Ms. Smith responded, The Mixed-Use District calls for a pedestrian-oriented building because it pushes the building toward the front of the property. At least fifty percent (50%) of the building has to be located between the minimum setback and the maximum setback. Their positioning of the building addresses that. The Department of Community Investment was looking for a taller entryway to kind of help denote that. Committeemember Broden asked, So, is this above and beyond the Mixed-Use development standards? Ms. Smith responded, The architecture that they are showing on the building exceeds what was required by the ordinance. Committemember Broden asked, Are there any intended sidewalks that either the developer puts in themselves, or in partnership with the City? That would be in reference to pedestrian access issues. Ms. Smith responded, Any sidewalk requirements would come from the Engineering Department. If during the site plan review for the new construction they determine that they wanted them to build a sidewalk there,they can require that. I could not answer the question as to whether or not they required it,though. 2 Committeemember Broden asked, And there are not sidewalks in that whole one-hundred(100) or two-hundred (200), three-hundred(300) blocks? Ms. Smith responded,Not currently,no. Committeemember Broden asked, So, that would be out-of-character with the adjacent properties? Ms. Smith responded, Right. It's the kind of thing,though, that they have been known to do so that over time, as those properties develop,the sidewalk is already there. If you do not do it when the building is built, it's obviously difficult to get it after the fact. Committeemember Broden asked, Entry and exit from the property: if you could go over that, please? Ms. Smith responded, They are currently showing a curb-cut on the west side of the building. The exact location of the curb-cut would be, again, under review by the Engineering office at the time of building the brick walls. Committeemember Broden asked, And where would that be emptying out to? Is that an alleyway? Ms. Smith responded, It does not empty out to anywhere. If you are talking about the darker grey in the south part of the site plan, I think those are turnarounds for trash delivery, or delivery trucks. They don't connect to anything. Committeemember Broden asked, You have a big residential area to the north and this is midblock—is that an Engineering issue? Ms. Smith responded, That is typically an Engineering issue. It is not uncommon for us to have a commercial midblock. The crosswalks are where the street intersects—and where the stoplights are, usually, are where the crosswalks are. Councilmember Tim Scott asked Ms. Smith to return to the first image of her presentation. Councilmember Scott asked, When you said that this is the only portion that is being rezoned, what is the other portion that is not? Ms. Smith responded, This parcel right here actually extends all the way down to the south. When we originally talked with the petitioner,we encouraged them not to include that in the petition so that they were not asking to intrude into the residential zone to the south. Councilmember Scott asked, Because there is a house right to the west, right? Ms. Smith responded, There is a house right to the west. It opens up an opportunity where they can maybe in the future subdivide that, and sell it to stronger property owners. It keeps the 3 commercial zone from intruding into the neighborhood to the south. They will have to do the residential buffer yards and everything that is required along that boundary line,but we encouraged them not to zone more than they felt necessary. Councilmember Scott stated, My big concern is the buffer and the screening between the residential and commercial zones—and also on the Volcano Restaurant side. And you have a corner there that is adjacent to two (2) lots further to the west, towards Sheridan. There is probably going to be no screening on the west side? Ms. Smith responded, In the north, east, and west,they are required to have one shade tree every forty (40) feet as an open landscaping. In the south, they are required to have a full-screening, double-staggered row of evergreen trees. Councilmember Scott asked, So, the property east of the house will remain what zoning? Residential? Ms. Smith stated that that would remain residential. John Wojtila, Zaremba Group, 14600 Detroit Avenue, Lakewood, OH, served as the petitioner of this bill. Mr. Wojtila presented an image to the Committee and public showing the proposed project in the context of the surrounding neighborhood. Walking over to the projector screen, he pointed out the location of the proposed building and stated, These streets came with the building closer to the street, consistent with MU guidelines. We did locate the driveway on the west side of the building to be closer to the street across from us, but I know from the Area Plan Commission meeting last week that the restaurant owner to the east was concerned about visibility. We are certainly okay with mirroring the site, if Engineering is okay with that— indications were that Engineering was okay with that. There is ample room for buffering. We would be able to maintain all the mature trees along the east property line. Mr. Wojtila pointed out the area of the map that Committeemember Broden and Ms. Smith discussed, which resembled an alleyway. He stated, This really is just for maneuvering. Once a week, a Dollar General truck would come to the site and they would have to pull in, and there would be a little access without backing out onto Lincoln Way. That is strictly for maneuvering. All the shoppers would be parking up here through to the entry door and would be at the corner, facing Lincoln Way. Mr. Wojtila explained that this was not a deep development. He pointed out the rezoning limit for the Committee and public, as well as the development limit further north, and stated, The property that we have under contract extends all the way down here. Committeemember Davis asked, Basically, you will flip that around and put the driveway near to Volcano Restaurant? Mr. Wojtila responded, Yes, we are okay with that. Mr. Wojtila then explained how the site's orientation would be mirrored, pointing out where the entryways to the site would be, as well as where the building and parking area would be. He pointed out where the mature trees would be lined and stated, We don't think this is a bad plan 4 for visibility, but, again, we have no problem with mirroring it if that's something that the staff in Engineering feels is appropriate. Committeemember Scott asked, Would that building slide exactly parallel across, over to the west, or would you bring it up to the proximity to the street like what you have right now? So, would it slide up on an angle, in parallel to Portage Avenue, or would it slide directly over with more of a setback from Lincoln Way? Ms. Smith responded, Fifty percent(50%) of the building would still have to be within the minimum-maximum setback. If they flipped it,they would have to slide the building north. Committeemember Scott asked that Mr. Wojtila answer his question. Mr. Wojtila stated that there is plenty of depth to move the building south if necessary and that they could do it, though they would have to get a variance to get it done. Commiteemember Scott responded, My concern right now is how close it is to Lincoln Way, which is blocking a local business with the Volcano Restaurant. Mr. Wojtila reiterated that they had no problem with that. He stated, We did provide a slide that shows the visibility. Mr. Wojtila presented the aforementioned slide to the Committee and public. He stated, What we have shown here is a car, and the visibility limited by the corner of the building. Mr. Wojtila then pointed out where the trees would be lined. He stated, It's pretty similar,but, again,we don't have a problem with sliding it away and increasing that. Same thing with the signage. The sign would not be impaired by the location, as it is shown here. Likewise, coming from the west, heading towards the east,we generally don't think it is an issue because the trees are along here. He stated that they had no problem with that, especially if the tree line was pulled back, which might increase the visibility for the existing business to the east. Mr. Wojtila turned the subject to the design of the project. He passed out papers to the Committee and Councilmembers depicting the proposed building design. He stated, We put our effort into the design towards the front of the building, which is consistent with the MU design guidelines. He then described aspects of the project in relative detail, such as the stone aesthetic that would be employed for the front of the building, or the various arrangements of lights at different elevations of the building. He passed an image to Committee and Councilmembers of a previous project of his from Akron, OH that was completed in 2013. He stated, You can see that there is nice landscaping. The design is a durable design. Mr. Wojtila explained that the Akron site was smaller than the one in South Bend, stating, There is a lot more opportunity at Lincoln Way because of the larger site. Councilmember Dr. David Varner asked, On the image you gave us, are you bricked all the way on all four(4) sides? I noticed the one proposed here reduces itself to steel siding at about thirty (30) feet. Mr. Wojtila responded that the Akron site has a brick look on all four(4) sides. S Committeemember Davis asked why they had chosen to have that look all around the building. Mr. Wojtila responded that the site was at a corner with two streets and traffic driving all around it. The proposed plan does not anticipate traffic being behind the building. He stated that if this proved to be a problem, the stone look could be applied to all four(4) sides. Committeemember Broden asked, You will have foot traffic from the south, though, because it is a residential area? Mr. Wojtila stated that there was a vacant lot in the south but that that area was also heavily wooded, and therefore would not receive traffic. Councilmember Williams-Preston stated, At the Area Plan Commission meeting, I thought I heard that you all are building a building, but you're actually leasing to Dollar General. Mr. Wojtila responded, Yes. We do a lot of work with downtown. We would be owning the property. We do lease it. We do have a May Smith Dollar General, if this does not go forward. Councilmember Williams-Preston stated, So you're doing Dollar Generals all over. One of the big concerns that our community has—that I have,because I live not-too-far from exactly where this is going up—is that there are going to be three (3)Dollar-type stores within about ten(10) blocks to the next one or so, and then maybe another ten(10)blocks to that one. So,we are looking at quite a number of Dollar stores along this main corridor. We are looking to make this a nicer area, and a lot of the problems that we have had around the City is maintenance. Since it is not necessarily your job to make sure that the property is clean, and we would have Code Enforcement making sure that we are citing the property, I guess one of the questions that came up at the time was: are you affiliated with any of the Dollar stores in the City of South Bend, at this time? Mr. Wojtila stated that his company was not affiliated with any other Dollar stores in South Bend; that this was their first one. He further clarified for Councilmember Williams-Preston that this would be the first Dollar General in the South Bend area owned by Zaremba Group. He stated, We did hear concerns. Mr. Wojtila explained that they did look at existing Dollar Generals. He stated, I looked at the one on Hickory. There was trash—litter—but there were no things like delivery pallets, and things like that,that were cluttering up the site. Mr. Wojtila explained that that was the responsibility of the store manager. He stated, I can tell you from the one in Akron that we do a nice job of designing. It is set up to be a low-maintenance facility: we've got the dumpster with an enclosure... Councilmember Williams-Preston stated, One of my big concerns was that the dumpster would be in the back, but as it sits here—I kind of like the idea of flipping the site. But, as it stands here, where would the dumpsters be?Are they behind the store so that if it weren't for the trees the customers would be staring at garbage? Mr. Wojtila pointed out on the site plan where everything would be reoriented, adding that the dumpster would be visible from any side. 6 Councilmember Williams-Preston asked, So the trash—it would be like a privacy fence around it? Mr. Wojtila responded, Yes, it would be a solid thing. This being the time heretofore set for public comment on the above bill,proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. None from the public wished to speak in favor of this bill. Those wishing to speak in opposition to this bill: Jerry Barcevic, Volcano Restaurant, 3700 Lincoln Way West, South Bend, IN came up to the podium with Thomas Walz of the law firm Hahn Walz, PC, 509 West Washington Street, South Bend, IN. Mr. Walz listed the concerns of the Volcano Restaurant landowner, such as the fact that the mirroring suggestion would probably make visibility worse for Volcano Restaurant. He explained that much of the restaurant's business comes from newcomers to the City who have just landed at South Bend International Airport. He worried that that customer base would be lost if people unfamiliar with South Bend could not see the restaurant as they drove down Lincoln Way. He stated, I think Mr. Wojtila's photo from Akron really encompasses the issue, because that in itself shows the building on an angular street. It really shows you—from the angle that that picture was taken—the inability to see to the other side and the inability to see what would be around the corner. Mr. Walz took this time to read passages he had isolated himself from the 2014 West Side Main Streets Plan. He stated, It talks really about the history of what Lincoln Way West was and what it is being: which is a treeline street with pedestrian-friendly nodes that are separated by residential properties. In this case, this is not at the intersection of a main thoroughfare. This is right in the middle of the Sheridan and Bendix nodes: the exact thing that the West Side Main Streets Plan was intended to prevent. Furthermore, in terms of the areas between the nodes, the plan states, "It is equally important to ensure that development does not creep into these zones that are and should be predominantly residential between the nodes."If you permit the Dollar General, you are cutting against the intent that was in mind when the West Side Main Streets Plan was put in place. I know that the staff report for the Area Plan Commission talks about the fact that the petition is consistent with the West Side Main Streets Plan. For these reasons, I would respectfully submit that it isn't. The West Side Main Streets Plan was intended to protect and to nurture businesses like my client's. Mr. Walz warned that if the Council allows this project to go forward, it would not only go against the plan but it would open the door for other such developments in the future. Mr. Wojtila,responding to Mr. Walz, stated that the design that Zaremba put together is sensitive to the MU zoning classification that they were advised to follow. He stated that they were happy to mirror the site,to push the building a little further away from Lincoln Way, to not have parking at the front of the building, and to still maintain a pedestrian feel. He stated that pushing the building further west would improve visibility. He concluded his rebuttal by stating, I respectfully disagree with the comments that were made, because the plan that we put together was guided toward the MU zoning classification. 7 Committeemember Davis asked Mr. Wojtila if he had spoken with Volcano Restaurant or not. Mr. Wojtila responded that he did not realize it was an issue until the previous week. He called the restaurant on Friday, January 20th, 2017 and left a message for the owner. He did not receive a call back. Councilmember Scott asked, Why this spot versus everything and anything up and down Lincoln Way? There are plenty of spots to be repurposed; many spots within a commercial status, as far as zoning, versus a place that is residential right now. Did anybody from Community Investment help you look for a site? Mr. Wojtila responded, My role is not in site selection, but I can tell you that Dollar General, based on their market research, advised us where they would like to be located. As a developer for them, they will give us a location and then we will do the property research. This one was a site that was situated between a Light Industrial zone and a General Commercial zone, even though it sounds residential. The properties along the corridor belong predominantly to the Commercial zoning classification. Councilmember Scott asked, Is there any way that you would have that answered by 7:00 p.m. tonight? Mr. Wojtila responded, Sure. Committeemember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to send Substitute Bill No. 77-16 to the full Council with no recommendation. Committeemember John Voorde seconded the motion,which carried by four(4) ayes. Bill No. 78-16—Waggoner Dairy Farm Rezoning at Adams & Mayflower Road Angela Smith, Area Plan Commission, with offices on the 11th Floor of the County-City Building, served as the presenter of this bill. Ms. Smith stated that the petitioner is seeking to rezone a one-hundred and nineteen(119) acre tract on the east side of the bypass. It touches Adams Road on the south and carries over and touches Mayflower Road on the west. The site is currently zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. However,the PUD has expired, in terms of the preliminary approval. Ms. Smith stated, At the time that this was rezoned in 2005, we had an expiration. In 2010,their extensions expired. In 2013,the City made an amendment in the ordinance to no longer allow PUD's to expire, but they kind of fell into that gap, so they stay zoned PUD unless the property owner,the City Council, or the Area Plan Commission rezones them, or unless the developer were to go back through the process themselves. Ms. Smith presented images of the property and its surroundings to the Committee and public. She stated, The total area of the site to be rezoned is one-hundred and nineteen(119) acres. They are currently showing two (2) development lots, with Lot A on the southern portion containing a 315,000 square foot industrial facility with its associate parking and loading docks. There are plans for future expansion to the north, if this should carry forward. Ms. Smith presented to the Committee and public a close-up image of the proposed site that the petitioners were looking to 8 develop in the south. Ms. Smith stated, After discussion at the Area Plan Commission,they relocated the drive to be outside of the fifty (50)foot residential buffer yard that would be required along the east property line. This comes to you from the Area Plan Commission with no recommendation. As part of a staff recommendation, we had suggested two (2) written commitments to the property owner, both of which they agreed to and,they said, they would carry forward to this meeting. The commitments being: to not have access onto Mayflower Road and an increase of landscape and buffering along Mayflower consistent to the original PUD that was provided. Committeemember Davis asked if Ms. Smith could summarize what happened with the vote at the Area Plan Commission. Ms. Smith responded, We require eight(8)votes to pass a motion. We had twelve (12)members present. The motion was nay, descended, with an unfavorable recommendation that failed seven- five (7/5). Five (5)voted to send it unfavorably, seven(7)people voted against that. Then a motion was made to send it favorably. That also failed, seven-five (7/5). It failed to gain the eighth(8th)vote needed, so then it came with no recommendation. Committeemember Broden asked, Was there any thought to table this and to revisit it again at the Commission? Ms. Smith responded, There was a question as to whether or not to table it. At that point,the motion had already been made and seconded, so the vote was taken on the motion. That's pretty much what happened. There was a discussion about how there are two (2) options after failing to carry either motion, where basically you try again and try to sway somebody to go with the eighth(8th)person, or to table it or send it with no recommendation. Committeemember Broden asked, With regard to the PUD and it expiring prior to the secondary approval—it didn't get to that stage, right? Ms. Smith responded, Right. Committeemember Broden asked, So, it does not revert to the previous zone? Ms. Smith responded, It does not revert. In 2005, when they came forward, they had five (5) years to present a secondary plan on at least one (1)phase of the property. If they don't do that, that plan expires. Now that we have kind of changed the PUD requirements and everything that goes with that, when they came back in to discuss rezoning back to a PUD again, the recommendation was that all the uses they were requesting fit with the LI, Light Industrial District. That's what they should be requesting. Committeemember Voorde asked, Could you show me where the two (2)recommendations you made would come into play? Ms. Smith responded, The portion here to the north that extends all the way to Mayflower—you can see the red line that comes out—it would allow for no access at that point. They would not 9 be able to have trucks or cars go out onto Mayflower. That would force the cars back down Dylan Drive. The proposed written commitment is requesting Type B landscaping, which is a single row of evergreen trees. The ordinance only requires one (1) shade tree every forty (40) feet. This is asking for at least the single row of evergreen trees. If the building would get within three-hundred(300) feet of that line,to increase that even further would require full screening to protect any residentials. Committeemember Broden asked, So, it's just a portion of this entire area being developed, at this point? Ms. Smith responded, They are only proposing to develop a portion of the site at this time, yes. Committeemember Davis asked what the timeframe for action was. Ms. Smith responded,Ninety(90) days, unless requested to be tabled by the petitioner. Committeemember Davis asked, The ninety (90) days started when? Ms. Smith responded, When we sent the recommendation, we forwarded you our report on Wednesday of last week. Committeemember Davis asked, That is on both policies that we just did? Ms. Smith responded, On any of the zoning issues, yes. Committeemember Broden asked when the meeting minutes from the Area Plan Commission meeting would become available. Ms. Smith responded, They won't be approved until our next Area Plan Commission meeting. If requested, we have been known in the past to, when some petition is ahead,to do them out of order if we need to. Typically, it would take one (1) week or two (2), because we do them verbatim. Cittizen Committeemember Gerald Phipps stated, If I remember correctly, when this PUD was approved there was at least hope that there would be an interchange to add US-31 on Adams Road. It would appear from the proposed development that that interchange is no longer expected or being planned for—is that correct? Ms. Smith responded, From what I understand,there was a hope to put the interchange there. I don't think anyone wants to pay for it at this point. I believe the developers have tried over time to go back. They did try to make an effort in the layout of this lot. Ms. Smith explained that only a diamond interchange would work for that area. The buildings are already up. The State is not going to acquire a building and tear down a new building to get a Clover Leaf. Committeemember Phipps stated, But the reason for the PUD in this area was the mixed uses that would result from having an interchange. 10 Ms. Smith responded, I think there was hope that if they got an interchange, it would generate some off-traffic, off-the-bypass interest. Without that interchange,there is not that same demand there. Councilmember Dr. Varner stated, It was primarily a Light Industrial, Commercial-type intent. There might have been an older intersection that had some Commercial,Light Commercial, and restaurants. Ms. Smith stated, This was basically in four(4) quadrants, and this particular area, Area D, would have allowed for an office, hotel, and restaurant under CB uses; an office and research that fall under either O, Office, or LI, Light Industrial District; and then they had something called an"opportunity site,"which was basically a catch-all for anything that was anywhere in the PUD. Councilmember Scott stated that he had in the past participated in conversations regarding interchanges,truck traffic, and improvements on the road. Ms. Smith stated, I would think there would be significant improvements. Councilmember Scott added, Through the whole area. Ms. Smith continued, There would have to be a lot of cooperation between the City and the County and the developer to improve the roadways. None of those roads, other than Dylan, are really equipped to deal with truck traffic or even heavy car traffic. Brian McMorrow, Abonmarche Consultants Inc, 750 Lincoln Way East, South Bend, IN, served on behalf of the petitioner. He was joined at the podium by Jeff Smoke from Great Lakes Capital Portage Prairie III, LLC and Gordon Norquist, who is a member of the family that owns the property. Mr. McMorrow stated, This isn't so much a petition to change the zoning from PUD to LI—it is a petition to get out of limbo. The PUD in the voluntary annexation that was approved in 2005 set forth a vision for all four(4) quadrants of land by the intersection of Adams Road and St. Joseph Valley Parkway—I am told, over two-hundred and thirty(230) acres. The PUD was approved only after careful consideration by the Area Plan Commission staff and the Common Council of the Fiscal Impact. There was input by the Legal Department,the Department of Public Works,the Fire Department,the Police Department, Code Enforcement, Community Investment and Economic Development, Administration and Finance, and of course there was public participation in that process. The southeast quadrant has been developed recently, as it was envisioned at the time, primarily with Light Industrial users,warehouses and distribution centers. The other three (3) quadrants have not yet been developed. We have an opportunity to develop the first twenty-eight-and-a-half(28.5) acres of land,just north of Adams Road. It is for a company that is already doing business here in South Bend. Their business- remanufacturing and refurbishing of cell phones and modems and cable boxes and the like—is growing, and they want to grow it here in South Bend. If the PUD had not expired, we would not even be here today, because what we are proposing would have fit within the PUD that was in place at the time. We did approach the Area Plan Commission staff and took advantage of a 11 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 owner of the project. Mr. Smoke stated, I am pleased to say that we have worked with various landowners and governments in the pursuit of healthy, sustainable developments within our region and, specifically, in downtown South Bend. Our projects range from brown field development sites, like Ignition Park, to rehabbing one-hundred (100) year old buildings, like the JMS building downtown. We are proud to work with the Waggoner family to help facilitate our shared and comprehensive vision of a well-designed and attractive park for companies to call home. The first phase of this project will be home to a global company that has operations in South Bend, currently. They want to keep their three-hundred(300) employees here and then an additional one-hundred (100)jobs. Since the APC meeting, we have made several compromises to move it closer to the highway. This will allow for as much buffering in landscape screening as possible. In order to address any concerns about traffic we've also heard, we reached out to the City Engineer. I'm looking forward to working with them. Committeemember Broden asked, What is the company's current location? Mr. Smoke responded, They are near the airport. Committeemember Broden stated, A lot of concerns have been brought up about truck traffic on Mayflower and Adams. Has anyone actually looked at traffic studies, or conducted traffic studies—looking at Mayflower and Adams and whether or not the existing businesses to the south are complying with entering and exiting on Dylan versus Mayflower? In other words, minimizing the truck traffic. Mr. Smoke responded, Currently,truck traffic on Adams and Mayflower is not allowed. Our proposal is to only have truck traffic come south on the Dylan extension—over Adams, down south through Dylan. Committeemember Broden asked, So,no studies or tracking of trucks? Mr. Smoke responded, We have not done that. We have reached out to the City engineer and they are working with us on addressing that, but no formal study has been done. Committeemember Voorde asked, Lot B—further to the north: will that be accessible, if and when it is developed, by an extension of what looks like Dylan Drive? Mr. Smoke responded, Correct. There would be a plan for it to flow through the rest of the park. Mr. McMorrow added, The alignment we are showing here is consistent with the alignment that was in the PUD with one exception: it is fifty(50) feet further to the west than was anticipated before, so that north-south extension that extends Dylan is fifty (50) feet further west. Committeemember Davis asked for an update on developer communication with neighbors. Mr. Smoke responded, I reached out to several of the people who came to the initial meeting. I had lunch with Mr. Nicholas. We are working with him in either acquiring the parcel or, as an alternative, adding the extra layer of evergreen trees and a privacy screen going up 13 approximately two-hundred and fifty(250) feet. We reached out to the second landowner. He has written to the Council in support of this project. We reached out to approximately six (6) or seven(7) other property owners to address how we are practically offering more screening on Mayflower and working with the City to address the transportation and traffic issues. This being the time heretofore set for public comment on the above bill,proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. No one from the public wished to speak in favor of the bill. Those wishing to speak in opposition to the bill: Brandy Wolfe, 51180 Orange Road, South Bend, IN stated that she had one-hundred and thirty- nine (13 9) signatures for a petition against the proposed project. Ms. Wolfe was directed to hand the signatures to Clerk Kareemah Fowler, and so did. She stated that she, as well as those who signed the petition, would prefer the land in question remain farmland. She expressed frustration with the fact that County residents have no voice in comparison to those within City limits. She expressed concern that the Dylan extension would lead to biking accidents as bikers and semi- trucks potentially share the road. She stated that if there is to be development,that it should remain within the limits of the original PUD. She stated, We feel it will be able to embrace the community a little better. Ms. Wolfe went on to lament the fact that County residents don't seem to get any nice developments like those that other areas of town are getting. She felt that if the City chose to rezone the property to Light Industrial, it would be bailing on residents like her. She concluded by stating, We live here and we don't want to move, and we just want to be a part of what happens to our community. Tom Zmyslo, 51042 Prairie View Way, South Bend, IN, stated that he was a past president of the German Township Neighborhood Association. Mr. Zmyslo also develops property in St. Joseph County and German Township. Approximately three (3) months prior, he had gotten in contact with his County Councilperson in regards to the traffic that he had seen going on. He stated that since then, signs have been put up but the truck traffic is still substantial on Adams and Mayflower. He stated that he was shocked at what has gone on with the Portage Prairie project. In reference to the truck traffic on Cleveland, Adams, and Mayflower, he stated, It seems to me like we are getting the cart before the horse. Is Portage Prairie just a done thing? Are we just going to call the Ameriplex now? We're just going to do whatever, I guess, is what it looks like. He stated that many present that night were residents who were disappointed in the project. Mr. Zmyslo stated, What it started out to be and what it's turning out to be are two different things. He expressed frustration with diesel pollution from semi-trucks in the neighborhood. He urged the Council to turn the project down. Kathy Berzski, 24440 Adams Road, South Bend, IN, stated that she appreciated the citizens' questions as well as those of board and commission members. She expressed concern for the larger area of Waggoner properties west of the bypass. She stated that it was nice that they worked with a neighbor to help move the road over. She did not see what has been proposed as a solution to truck traffic. She disagreed with the notion that there were no available properties in the area, citing examples of the contrary. She stated, Once you start only putting these types of 14 industrial and distribution centers, without that PUD designation, you're not going to have the attraction. You are going to just spoil the area for any investors that would be interested in putting in that type of development. Ms. Berzski agreed with Ms. Wolfe's point about the danger of bikes and semi-trucks sharing the road. She stated that she would take exception to Holiday Corporation's suggestion to close Adams Road altogether. She also stated that the rezoning of the property in question would adversely affect property values in the area. She expressed the sentiment that there was no real plan in place, and also cited the existence of four(4) interchanges spanning 7.1 miles from US-20 to US-12 as wasteful. She concluded by stating, Our exceptions still remain the same, whether they move that road over or not. Matthew Buczolich 51807 North Mayflower Road, South Bend, IN, stated that people drive too quickly on Mayflower and Adams roads and that the traffic is terrible. Mr. Buczolich also noted large amounts of trash along Dylan Drive, which has several times blown onto his property. Thomas Groning, 23605 Adams Road, South Bend, IN, stated that when he moved to his current location in 2009, one could stand in the middle of the road all day and see maybe ten(10) or fifteen(15) cars go by. Mr. Groning stated,Now, you stand for ten(10) or fifteen (15) minutes and there's fifteen(15)to twenty(20) cars. He stated that when his wife takes their children to the bus, she has to stand approximately fifteen(15) feet off the road to avoid getting hit. He stated that given the amount of traffic, people would avoid Dylan Drive in an effort to avoid that traffic and just use Adams. He stated that he was completely against this project. Rodney Fields, 24460 Adams Road, South Bend, IN, stated that he is a co-owner of Carriage House Dining, Room, and Gardens. Mr. Fields stated that everything expressed by those who spoke before him was true—the traffic,the property values, and the love for community. Mr. Fields stated that his biggest concern was a lack of thoughtful development. He stated that he hopes that the property will not be rezoned to Light Industrial. He stated, Hopefully in the future, when the inevitable happens and this project does move west of the bypass, there is the chance that we can open that area up for other local businesses. I would welcome other restaurants, even though they are direct competition. I just hope that you remain thoughtful about the development that happens in the area, considering all the citizens here. There were no efforts to really contact the citizens affected by this. I hope to see a lot more people from our community this evening for the second meeting. Jill Kertzel, 50901 Mayflower Road, South Bend, IN, stated, We don't need that building there, because once you put that building there, they are not going to develop it in a nice way. It is going to be all industry. We would rather see something like a Toscana Park, or something that has some villas, or someplace for all these people to live that are coming into that industry part. There's tons of people coming out there to work. They need daycare—there are a lot of women workers, a lot of single people. They need daycare and stuff that we can actually utilize, like we were promised in the beginning. I think it is your job to uphold the promise to our community when all of this was annexed into the City. Let's make Portage Prairie, Portage Prairie on that side, and make Portage Industrial Park, Industrial Park on the other side. Ms. Kertzel stated there was an intersection at the top of the bypass by Cleveland where people do not pay attention to the traffic light. She stated, I can't tell you how many accidents have happened, because people somehow get confused. Now, since it's so backed up on that bridge,people go right, make a U- 15 turn in front of the people coming off,just to get off the ramp faster. I hope you make the right decision and just make our community our community again. Devon Vita, 51432 Righter Lane, South Bend, IN, asked why the property in question could not just be kept as farmland. Like the others, Mr. Vita pointed out the terrible traffic and how unsafe the roads are. He urged the Council to take this project elsewhere, like Nimtz Parkway where he said it belonged in the first place. Jeff Nicholas, 23821 Adams Road, South Bend, IN, stated that he has the property directly to the east of the proposed project. Mr. Nicholas stated that there was a time when the neighborhood was peaceful and pleasant,but no longer. He stated that he has two (2) cows and that he just bought ten(10)more, but he warned that he would be the first taxpayer to leave if the proposed project goes forward. He stated, They're putting a building onto me, I'm not putting agriculture onto them. We were the same, and now we're not. Mr. Nicholas explained that the fifty(50) feet of clearance was not enough. He stated, Their fifty (50) foot is from here to the hallway. You tell me how you're going to pass a thousand (1,000) vehicles,trucks, and cars, twenty-four(24) hours a day, in and out of that driveway passed my house, and you could live in it. You can't. There's no way. I don't know of a road like that that is within fifty(50) feet of somebody's bedroom. Mr.Nicholas insisted that this traffic problem would not be easily solved. He stated, Unless you get a traffic system out there for these people, it ain't going to work. Committeemember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to send Bill No. 78-16 to the full Council with no recommendation. Committeemember John Voorde seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of four(4) ayes. With no further business before the Committee, Committee Chair Oliver Davis adjourned the meeting at 5:17 p.m. spe '11 Subm'm'6 live avis, C�mmittee air 16