Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-13-17 Zoning and Annexation O�,,OUT 4 � ti x U d a a 1865 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK KAREEMAH FOWLER,CITY CLERK ZONING &ANNEXATION FEBRUARY 13, 2017 4:00 P.M. Committee Members Present: Oliver Davis, John Voorde, Gavin Ferlic, Jo M. Broden, Jerry Phipps (citizen member) Committee Members Absent: None Other Council Present: Regina Williams-Preston, Karen White, Dr. David Varner, Tim Scott, Randy Kelly Other Council Absent: None Others Present: Adriana Rodriguez, Aladean DeRose, Kareemah Fowler, Graham Sparks, Presenters: John Wojtila, Andrew Rossell, Tim Corcoran, Brian McMorrow, Jeff Smoke, Erin Canarecci, Corbitt Kerr Agenda: Substitute Bill No. 77-16- Dollar General Rezoning at 3720 Lincolnway West Bill No. 78-16- Waggoner Dairy Farm Rezoning at Adams &Mayflower Road Committee Chair Oliver Davis called the Zoning and Annexation Meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. He entertained a motion to recess and reconvene in the larger council chambers. Committeemember Gavin Ferlic moved the entertained motion which was seconded by Committeemember Jo M. Broden, which carried by a voice vote of four(4) ayes. Committee Chair Davis reconvened the Zoning and Annexation Committee in the Council Chambers at 4:06 p.m. He introduced the members of the committee. He then requested City Clerk Kareemah Fowler to update the committee and the public on where specifically in the process this business is. Substitute Bill No. 77-16-Dollar General Rezoning at 3720 Lincolnway West City Clerk Fowler informed the committee and public that Substitute Bill No. 77-16 was continued and,therefore, did not have the public portion. The petitioners presented but the Council moved to continue this bill before the public had an opportunity to speak for or against it. 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.SouthBend[N.gov JENNIFER M.COFFMAN ALKEYNA M.ALDRIDGE JOSEPH MOLNAR CHIEF DEPUTY/DIRECTOR OF DEPUTY/DIRECTOR OF POLICY ORDINANCE VIOLATION CLERK OPERATIONS Committee Chair Davis asked the petitioners and presenters to give a brief synopsis and update on any changes or amendments to the proposal. Angela Smith, Area Plan Commission, stated, The property in question is the property located at 3720 Lincolnway West. The petitioner is seeking to rezone from SF-1 (Single-Family)to MU (Mixed-Use.)The site plan has changed with the building shifting to the west side of the property, and all other parameters of the site fit within the MU standards. Committee Chair Davis asked Ms. Smith to show where the building was in the previous site plan,to which Ms. Smith used a laser pointer to highlight the boundary of the building from the previous site plan. Ms. Smith continued to state, It still meets the MU guidelines requiring that fifty percent(50%) of the facade be located within the maximum setback. This comes to you from the Area Plan Commission(APC)with a favorable recommendation. Allowing the property to be rezoned will help the transition from the more intense commercial uses west of the site to the Single-Family residential to the east, all in compliance with the comprehensive Westside Mainstreet Plan. John Wojtila, 14600 Detroit Ave., Lakewood, OH, introduced himself as the presenter and representative of Zaremba Group. He stated, What we have is a colored up version of the site plan. It does show the building placement on the west edge of the site,parking is to the east and south, with one entry to the building located at the northeast corner. We worked closely with staff on changes to the building and the site plan, the biggest one being the location of the building. We committed to constructing a public walkway along with a dumpster closure next to the building. We agreed to additional landscaping including shade trees, a hedge row along the parking lot, and seasonal plantings. Windows have been added on both side walls and added a nice cornish detail to the street-facing wall. One of the requests the staff came up with was to revise the awning above the entry doors, we are doing that and are fine with that. That summarizes all the major changes to the site design. We are indifferent to how far the setback is from the road. Andrew Rossell, 4664 Campus Dr., Kalamazoo, MI, introduced himself as a representative of AR Engineering that works with Zaremba Group. He stated, We have done several of these lay- outs to figure out what works best,both from a staff and surrounding standpoint. We've taken quite a bit of time to show these exhibits of existing and proposed sightlines from automobile traffic. The black line represents the cars traveling both east and west bound. Existing sightlines are two hundred thirty-seven(237) feet from the east. There is an already existing privacy fence that limits visibility to one hundred ninety-six (196) feet. From the west, the existing unobstructed view is two hundred thirty-one (23 1) feet. If we construct,we will actually be removing a bit of vegetation to make the new sightline approximately four hundred(400) feet, which is quite more than already there. Another point we would like to make is most people looking for business aren't necessarily looking for the building, but they are looking for the sign. The sign is located right next to the right-of-way and you can see the sign almost all the way down Lincolnway. 2 Committeemember Jo M. Broden asked, Were you able to find and provide any understanding to bus routes in that area? Mr. Wojtila answered, We have two (2)bike racks due to demand of the existing bike lane,there will be a bench with a trash receptacle as well. We did not specifically look at the bus routes but we are creating opportunity to be able to wait for the bus, were it to be on a route. Councilmember Regina Williams-Preston stated, A lot of residents have concerns with the back of the property. They are already having children cut through their yard so the question becomes, what on the back of the property are you planning to place so to deter people from coming through the back of the property? Mr. Wojtlia replied, I did speak with one neighbor that is facing that issue. It is already pretty heavily wooded in that area, what we are proposing is putting in a four(4) or six (6) foot privacy fence, whichever one is allowed by Code Enforcement. Councilmember Karen White asked, Could you share more on the gap between Lincolnway and the building and why that is the way it is? Mr. Wojtlia replied, Code Enforcement requires that fifty percent(50%) of the building be within a twenty (20) foot setback line so the plan is compliant with Code. Previously,the building was different. Volcano Restaurant preferred the building just slide over to the west, not move up to avoid inhibiting sight lines to the Volcano. Councilmember Tim Scott asked, If you put a fence on the back of the property, what is it going to connect to? Mr. Wojtlia replied, It's pretty heavily wooded in both areas so our intention was to extend it as far to the property line on both sides. Certainly we could come up but we rather not eliminate a lot of mature trees and vegetation. We currently have it stopping at the mature tree lines on both the east and west property lines. Councilmember Tim Scott replied, The neighbors have said they have foot traffic already, whether or not it's heavily wooded. Kids from the school down in that area are going through that and other people are going through that. That is a major concern with me. I'm going to ask Tim Corcoran to come and give explanation to the building placement. Tim Corcoran, Director of Planning, stated, The Westside Mainstreet Plan sets up a series of retail nodes along Lincolnway. This is at the Sheradon node, the site where the building is within the area identified for Mixed-Use development. In order to provide the walkable nature that we want to encourage at these nodes, a key element is to site the building close to the front property boundary. This is typical and classic retail and neighborhood development. This is in traditional areas and this is the type of stuff we are trying to promote in these nodes. We are setting a precedent for future development in the area. For example, if the property to the west were to redevelop, we would expect them to do the same. 3 Councilmember Scott directed another question to the presenter, If Dollar General decides that business isn't good, they can pull out of the lease and you have an empty shell building?And if this is zoned commercial, anything can go in there? Mr. Wojtlia replied, I don't know your specific zoning classification MU ordinance but with the rezoning to an MU, permitted use in the MU could be something else. We do have a fifteen(15) year lease with Dollar General and their credit rating is stellar. If they decide to pull out, they would still have to pay for fifteen(15) years. Committeemember Jerry Phipps asked Mr. Corcoran, It seems like we are locating the building with proximity to the sidewalk. Although this developer is putting a sidewalk in front of his property, it doesn't connect anywhere. You had mentioned some hope that the property to the west would eventually redevelop and build a sidewalk. Would the City have any plans of putting a sidewalk in? It seems to me that's a pretty unlikely situation. Mr. Corcoran replied, I wouldn't want to commit to that right now but it's definitely something that if the neighboring properties were to redevelop, we would be requiring them to do that. These types of plans are incremental and we don't have the ability to dictate which goes first. The visibility issue, four hundred (400) feet, is a city block. To me there is lots of visibility. With this development,we hope the Volcano will benefit from this type of development. Committee Chair Davis asked, In the spirit of understand our neighbors who may or may not have been a part of that plan, how can variances be used to bring peace to neighbors coming in? Why can't we work to do that in this situation?My hope in having this delayed was to bring some understanding when you heard everything being presented, and an option presented together where these two (2) groups can come together. I didn't hear that. It seems like it's becoming a conflict between the Area Plan Commission and the Volcano. Mr. Corcoran replied, I understand the petitioner is willing to move the building back. What we want to do is create successful places in the future. What this plan does is set up the principles for successful places. Pushing buildings back does not do that. I'm not talking about the specific project, I'm talking about the place. What we are trying to do, over time and incrementally as areas redevelop within this plan, is set and stick to the guiding principles. One of them being in this case where the building setback is in hope to create walkable retail and residential environments. This building does that,but what we want is to stick to the plan that creates that environment over time and into the future. We can't choose where the first development happens. Committeemember Gavin Ferlic stated, I look forward to hearing from the public. I think plans are great and adhering to plans is necessary but flexibility to some extent is a reasonable concession. Mr. Rossell stated, In my opinion, you pay your staff to make these plans at the city level. We are indifferent in moving it back and have gone through several revisions to comply with these requests of the plans. That's why Tim's office is supporting this because it fits in the plan. 4 Committee Chair Davis opened the floor to comments from the public whom are in favor of Substitute Bill No. 77-16. Paul Tipps, 1930 Ribourde Dr., stated, Besides the obvious, increasing the tax base going from vacant residential property to a commercial property and bringing in retail jobs, I think there's a broader picture here. I've been to meetings in the last three (3)months where there's been concerns of poverty on the west side of South Bend,particularly between Lincolnway and Western Avenue. A frequent term I hear is `food dessert.' For the few of you that are as old as I am, a quarter mile to the west of this site at one time was an Ernie's Supermarket where there's now a Candlewood Suites Hotel. A half mile to the east was a Wilt's Supermarket which is now an Advanced Auto Parts. A mile southwest was Kroger Department Store which is now a church. A mile further west was a Partman Shop which is now a roundabout. The only food around this area available to residents in the second district and the first district are fast foods like McDonalds, Arbys, Taco Bell and a Seven-Eleven. This Dollar General sells food stuffs, cleaning supplies and housing goods. I think helping to solve to the food dessert, albeit incrementally, is a plus for this project. I heard a couple negatives like kids walking through the property, I'm sure they do it now. There are three (3) schools within a quarter-mile, I don't care if you build a wall, there are going to be kids going through there. I heard about `Well,what if it's vacant?' You have a fortune five hundred (500) company with a fifteen(15) year triple-net lease with renewal options,they can't walk away. They are responsible for rent, taxes, maintenance, and trash pick-up on site. And ok, it becomes a liquor store? There's a liquor store across the street that's been there since I've been in South Bend for sixty(60) years. There's a mechanical contractor on the corner,there's a flower shop across the street, this fits, it helps the community and I greatly applaud the developers for what they've done in moving the building site. They've done everything the City has asked. If there's trash on site, we have Code Enforcement. I fully support this, I think it's good for the community and I hope the developer and the Volcano can work it out. With no other members of the public wishing to speak in favor of this bill, Committee Chair Davis opened the floor to those who wish to speak in opposition of this bill. Thomas Walz, 509 W. Washington St., stated, Mr. Davis was pretty spot on when he talked about the concessions we had hoped to present to the board today. I did reach out to Mr. Wojtila this morning and he indicated to me that they were moving forward per the Area Plan Commission's MU requirement of having at least fifty percent(50%) of the fagade in the twenty (20) foot maximum setback from the right-of-way. That was not an agreement that was discussed with the Volcano. It was something that, after tabling this matter,we had hoped there would have been dialogue between the Area Plan Commission,the developer and the Volcano but that didn't happen. We are simply asking that the mirrored image not reflect a sliding northwest but that it be given a sixty-eight(68) foot variance for a couple of reasons. If this was a, with all due respect to Mr. Corcoran, straight street block where you had equal visibility from a standpoint of driving down the street and every person had a lot perpendicular to the street, it's a different situation, but we have a diagonal street here. The proposal as it is planned cuts against the overall purpose of the Westside Mainstreet Plan. I think if you talk about wanting access from street level or perspective, we have about a thirty (30) foot entry way into a parking lot where everyone will park their cars and this is not the type of area at this point that will facilitate street-level 5 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 At the last meeting, we asked the gentlemen to reach out and the burden should be on both sides frankly, to try to make this the best possible petition. I would say there has been considerable work and effort. I see a lot of positives with this project. This is a developer looking to fill in a vacant lot in the City of South Bend and I'm very encouraged by all the effort made since we last met in terms of landscaping and access to the property. This is what we voted on and looked for when we approved these plans for our entry ways to the City. We're looking to up our game, up our presence, and I think there has been a lot of effort made, sensitive to the Volcano, and change is always different. We are trying to fit something into existing plans and guidelines and consistency to that vision are the benchmarks developers look for. Committeemember Ferlic stated, I completely support the project and want to show my appreciation to Area Plan staff and City Plan staff. There's a lot of hard work that goes into these things. At the same time with this particular project, you don't want to see development that adheres to a plan so much that it can potentially hurt existing businesses and you want to allow for some flexibility. I'm not making a motion now but I'd like to consider sending this to full council favorably with the condition of a possibly thirty (30) foot variance to allow some more visibility to the Volcano. Committee Chair Davis reiterated variances are a legal process. Committeemember Ferlic made a motion to accept the Substitute Bill No. 77-16, seconded by Committee Chair Davis. The motion carried unanimously by a voice vote of five (5) ayes. Committeemember Ferlic made a motion to send Substitute Bill No. 77-16 to the full Council with a favorable recommendation, and the condition the developer pursue a variance to setback the site thirty(30) feet, seconded by Committee Chair Davis. The motion carried with three (3) ayes (Committee Chair Davis, Committeemember Broden, and Committeemember Ferlic) and two (2) nays (Committeemember Broden and Committeemember John Voorde). Bill No. 78-16- Waggoner Dairy Farm Rezoning at Adams & Mayflower Road Committee Chair Davis requested that City Clerk Fowler update the committee and the public on where specifically in the process the second item of business is. City Clerk Fowler informed the committee and public that Bill No. 78-16 was continued and, therefore, did not have the public portion. The petitioners presented but the Council moved to continue this bill before the public had an opportunity to speak for or against it. Angela Smith, Area Plan Commission, stated, There hasn't been a change since the last presentation. This is the one hundred and nine (109) acres near the bypass, Adams and Mayflower. The property owner is seeking to rezone from PUD to LI (Light-Industrial) for the uses allowed within a Light Industrial district. Their site plan as it stands now shows development on the southern portion of the property and they will speak more to the plan itself. The rezoning is only to those properties east of the bypass, north of Adams Road. This comes before Council from the Area Plan Commission with no recommendation. 7 Committee Chair Davis opened the floor of the committee to questions for Ms. Smith. Councilmember Karen White asked, Why no recommendation? Ms. Smith answered, There were only twelve (12)members present at the Area Plan Commission out of the fifteen(15)total members on the Commission. There was a motion made to send the bill to the full Council with an unfavorable recommendation,that motion failed to carry by a five (5)to seven(7)vote. There was then a motion made to send it to full Council with a favorable recommendation,that motion failed to carry by a seven(7) to five (5)vote. It requires eight(8)votes to accept a motion and receive a recommendation. Brian McMorrow, 750 Lincolnway East, stated, We've met with the neighbors twice since the last time we met here. Once, representatives of the development team were invited to a meeting hosted by the neighbors, and we also hosted a meeting at the German Township Library on February Wh. I think both sides earned a deeper respect for each other and this presentation I have presents the facts of the matter and seeks to strip away a lot of emotion from this issue. This is Bill No. 78-16, the Waggoner Dairy Farm Rezoning at Adams and Mayflower. The owner is Waggoner Dairy Farm Inc., and it has been in possession of the family since the 1940s. The developer is GLC Portage Prairie Three (3), not the same developer that made the petition in 2005. What is a PUD? By definition cited by code it"is a site to be developed, operated, and maintained as a single entity and containing one (1) or more residential areas,public areas, quasi-public areas, commercial areas, or industrial areas and containing a range of uses as specified in the PU district ordinance." They are set up on a case by case basis, as was the case in 2005. It's a petition made by the owners working in concert with the professional staff and the City to put in an appropriate vision for the development and operation of the property. It's not automatically Eddy Street Commons, although it could be. It's not automatically Toscana Park, although it could be. It's certainly not agricultural, which is the present condition of the land. The Portage Prairie PUD in 2005 was a plan to develop all four (4) quadrants of the intersection of Adams Road which runs east/west and the St. Joe Valley Parkway which runs north/south. The quadrants A, B, C, and D each had different visions. Quadrant A, the northwest quadrant, in 2005 had all of the uses in the PUD. If this petition for LI (Light-industrial) zoning is approved, there is no change to any of that. There was a big fear that if this petition were approved, automatically there is a domino effect to the other side of the parkway and that is simply not true. The PUD of 2005 has expired so effectively,there is no zoning in place. For Quadrant B, the southwest quadrant, in 2005 the Portage Prairie PUD anticipated neighborhood retail, medical/office campus, and assisted living. If this petition is approved, it doesn't change any of that. In Quadrant C,the southeast quadrant, in 2005 what was anticipated was Light-Industrial, commercial or hotel, and office and flex space. If this petition is approved, it doesn't change any of that. In fact,the development has commenced exactly as approved. Quadrant D is the one hundred and twenty (120) acres which is the subject of our petition. In 2005 it allowed hotel/restaurant park, research and development, opportunity site, and/or residential buffer yards along Adams road. If this petition is approved,most of those things don't change. What's not permitted is a hotel or a restaurant park and that is the one exception. The uses that are listed in LI includes most exactly what the PUD listed in 2005 and would not take away any possibility from the plan in 2005. What we are looking to do is develop the first twenty-eight(28) acres of the one hundred and twenty(120) acres on the northeast quadrant. It features the extension of 8 Dylan Drive in a northerly fashion and that is exactly the alignment that Dylan Drive was to take in the 2005 Portage Prairie PUD. The only exception we are making, in large part by consideration by Area Plan and Council is to make the access road not within the buffer that is specified in the LI district. We are going to landscape that. We are taking the LI district standard and elevating it as suggested by the Area Plan staff to provide an appropriate buffer between the residents to the east and what we are proposing on site. Another written commitment is no access to Mayflower Road. This is a departure from what was approved in 2005. Mayflower Road isn't wide enough and doesn't have the structural capacity to encourage truck-traffic on Mayflower Road. Another written commitment is no billboard on property. It would be permitted in an LI zone as presently written but we want to take it to a higher standard. Lastly, there was a suggestion that if there was any building proposed within three hundred(300) feet of Mayflower Road,that an enhanced landscape standard Type B or Type C be put into place. Those are the facts I want to bring to the surface. The goal of the Council is to put in the appropriate zoning on this particular piece of property given that it has no zoning in place because the zoning expired. We are seeking your support of the LI district standard with the enhanced landscape standards as specified. Jeff Smoke, 112 W. Jefferson Blvd., stated, I want to thank the Council for the suggestion of tabling the petition for three (3) weeks. This has allowed us more time to reach out and have discussions with the neighbors and hear their concerns in more depth. We heard concerns about traffic, both car and truck traffic. We also heard concerns about buffering and we tried to reach resolutions on both of those. We have met with the City Engineer's Office to take a deeper look at the traffic issues out there which I think are not symbolic of just this building but the overall area due to growth. We have been to two (2) town hall meetings. We also held our own at the German Township Library, I thought we both came to a common ground at the second one. There are still concerns, obviously, but we have tried to listen to what the neighbors are concerned about and have addressed the buffering, and the City Engineer is going to talk about the traffic solutions they have proposed. We are a South Bend based developer,we are community minded, we want to be good neighbors,we want to work in partnership with the neighbors and have a good long term relationship with the City. I've also heard some concerns about public transit and I definitely agree to look at public transit options to get workers out there. Erin Canarecci, Branch Manager of CTDI, stated, CTDI opened up in 1975 in a garage. The CEO, his father and brother, opened it in their garage. The address for our current location is 2740 Viridian Dr. CTDI is committed to South Bend as we have been in the area for over twenty-five (25) years. With the merger of AT&T and DirecTV, it has opened up a potential of one hundred and twenty-five (125)plus jobs if this happens to go through. The location we are looking at is a perfect spot for CTDI as FedEX and AT&T are within a couple mile radius. We have looked in other areas but nothing fits like this location for us. Committee Chair Davis asked, What makes it fit so well for you? Ms. Canarecci replied, It is right off the bypass and AT&T is about two (2) miles away, and we make drops to AT&T about three(3)times a day. 9 Committee Chair Davis asked Mr. Smoke, In terms of working with the neighbors, what have been the key issues you think that have caused changes to be made to these plans? Mr. Smoke responded, I think listening to some of their concerns and educating them on the previous PUD and what was allowed. There was a lot of misconception early on. Also a lot of the concerns about traffic, and we are actively working with the City on that. Committee Chair Davis then opened the floor to questions from the committee members. Committeemember Jerry Phipps asked, Doesn't the no connection to Mayflower conflict with the requirement on how long a dead-end street can exist? Mr. McMorrow replied, Well, we could put in a cul-de-sac for sure and make sure the p p intersection is appropriate for the traffic in and out. Mr. Phipps rebutted, But a cul-de-sac wouldn't really alleviate the problem of the road being blocked at one point or another and a whole lot of people not having a way out. Mr. McMorrow replied, That can be solved by providing an emergency access connection only for emergency services. Committeemember Broden asked, Is someone going to address the traffic concerns with regard to this? Corbitt Kerr, Director of Redevelopment Engineering, stated, I know one of the concerns has been truck-traffic and also the generation of new vehicle traffic to surface the proposed development. MACOG has done a number of traffic counts so we have very good data in terms of what is currently traveling through those roads. I did print out some copies of what that is. The average annual traffic is relatively low. The majority of the truck traffic is not semi-truck, it is primarily just box trucks. The majority of the distribution centers in that area are serviced by semis. There certainly is some truck traffic in that area but it is relatively low in comparison to streets of like-classification. The City is committed to addressing any traffic concerns or congestion in that area. We are open to improvements in that area whether they be paving, or intersection improvements/signage. We will be working with the developer on the extension of Dylan Drive. On Adams Road,there are one thousand (1000) cars per day. Of those, eight and a half(8.5%) are trucks. However, the number of semi-trucks on the day it was counted was fourteen(14) on Adams Road. On Mayflower Road on the day this was counted in 2014,there were five hundred and seventeen(517)vehicles,thirty-seven(37)trucks,two (2) of which were semi-trucks on that single day. These numbers are relative to Ameritech Dr. where most of these semis are driving. Ameritech Dr. has five thousand five hundred (5,500) cars a day, and roughly eighteen hundred (1,800)trucks and nine hundred (900)plus semis a day. We do understand there is concern,but there are certain measures we are ready to take to reduce that. Commiteemember Broden asked, What about the bridge by the overpass? 10 Mr. Kerr replied, That is a state-owned bridge and I would presume the state is following their bridge inventory and are prepared to make improvements when necessary. Committee Chair Davis then opened the floor to questions from other council members present. Councilmember Scott asked, Are there any current plans for the City to do any paving on the roads surrounding this area? Secondly, are you doing a traffic study for Cleveland Road for the on and off ramps there? Mr. Kerr answered, Currently, there are no plans for this coming year. However, that is not to state there will not be a plan in the near future. Committee Chair Davis then opened the floor to the general public for those who wish to speak in favor of this bill. Ryan Mathis, 51210 Enchanted Oak Ct., stated, I'm speaking in favor of this tonight as a German Township resident. I've lived in South Bend my entire life. I've been in German Township for about fifteen (15) years now. I'm very familiar with the Portage Prairie concept some ten(10) years ago. I've been to one of the town hall meetings, couldn't make the other one, but I've looked at the maps and studied this entire development. I greatly appreciate the impact it has on folks that are very nearby and adjacent to where this is planned for. I understand the fact they can impose some unintended outcomes however, as I look at this, I go back to my days when I would hear about South Bend, Indiana being a leading area in the Midwest in terms of what can get shipped overnight as far as moving things. We were unprecedented. Years ago,the Portage Prairie concept looked fantastic and I was excited, yet skeptical, because I know how many people live out there. What's going on out there makes a lot of sense to me based on the toll road,the bypass and the infrastructure that's ready and in place. I like some of the things the developers have done in terms of trying to make this a little more amiable to the folks that are impacted the most. I'm very cognizant of the conditions of the roads out there, I drive them often, and I would love to see the City and County come together based on who owns what to figure out how this infrastructure can continue to be developed. We need more people and more jobs to have things happen on this side of town. It's been good growth. This will phase in more taxes and more jobs. This is a good idea. With no other members of the public wishing to speak in favor of this bill, Committee Chair Davis opened the floor to those who wish to speak in opposition of this bill. Tom Zmyslo, 51042 Prairie View Way, stated, The traffic studies the City has are from 2014 and there has been so much development since then, it's astronomical the difference between then and now. With the devaluation of the property, the traffic congestion, the tax abatement this company will get,the possible water contamination, noise and air pollution,there are so many reasons other than these why this is a bad idea. Where is the money going to come from to do your infrastructure improvements you said you wanted to do there? We didn't know about the AM General building that went up right across the street until we read it in the paper with another tax abatement. Who represents us in the County? You people don't,the County Council can't represent us because they are for the people of the County and they have nothing to do with 11 the City. The only thing I can ask you folks to do when you decide on this project is to think about it as if we were city residents and you were putting all this around our neighborhood. Randall Chrobot, 24554 Rolling Oak Dr., stated, My wife and I have lived in German Township for thirty-eight(38) years. I sent each council member an email that outlines what I saw as the negative effects and my objections to the proposed zoning, I hope you've had an opportunity to read that email. I will not reiterate those concerns but I would like to make a few additional points. I take objection to the traffic studies from the MACOG website, all of them were conducted before the completion of the development on the southeast side, so we have not seen all the potential traffic concerns and will make it worse by the proposed rezoning. Most of the German Township residents are not opposed to developing that area, what we are opposed to is rezoning to entirely Light-Industrial. There were a few individuals that spoke in favor of the rezoning, but neither the developer nor the landowner live in German Township. Both have an obvious self-serving interest and since neither of them live in German Township,they will be immune to the negative effects of the proposed rezoning. These individuals don't care about German Township residents. This is not about business. CTDI will not leave South Bend if this zoning is not approved,they will simply find another location to expand. This is about the residents of German Township, it's about their quality of life. I encourage the Council to have the good judgment, decency and courage to do the right thing and vote no on the proposed rezoning petition. Jeff Nicklas, 23821 Adams Rd., stated, I'm proposing that the three hundred and fifteen thousand (315,000) square foot building is too much for that area. I have a residential house there and the building just outweighs everything in that area. The picture is not updated at all. We have residential neighborhoods and it's devastating for everybody there. I don't want to live there. I called IDM in La Porte and they have no plans in place for the next couple years for that bridge over the bypass. You have potholes big enough to put a basketball in. FedEX, Pepsi, AM General are all there with semi-trucks. To cross Adams Road seems unbelievable. And the problem is only going to get bigger. It's just too much right now and there is no plan. FedEX said they wouldn't have fuel tanks underground but they do and we are concerned about run-off and contamination. That bridge won't handle that traffic and I don't see how you can make it happen like that at this time. Committee Chair Davis offered a chance of rebuttal from the petitioner of the bill. Mr. McMorrow stated, With respect to water and sewer, as was anticipated when the Portage Prairie plan was approved in 2005, the plan is to expand the public water and sewer from Dylan Drive northward. We are not proposing well and septic so there is not going to be an adverse impact on anyone that has well and septic in the neighborhood. With respect to storm water run- off, it is going to be directed to basins on site that will be maintained by property owners, not the City. We've scheduled geotechnical testing for later this week. We will have that conversation with the City with regard to the proper intersection to move not only trucks but pedestrians that cross. We are extending the walkway system on Dylan Drive northward into this project. This is not a warehouse and distribution business, it is a small parts plant and will only have about four (4) or five (5)trucks a day so the amount of truck traffic is far less with this particular user. 12 Mr. Kerr stated, With regard to the capacity of the roads, Adams Road has around four thousand nine hundred(4900) vehicles a day with only three percent (3%)trucks and Brick Road has seven thousand five hundred (7500) vehicles. There is certainly additional capacity left in that road and I recognize that additional traffic isn't exactly what the residents want but the City is very much looking to address both the immediate concerns of the intersection as well as regional concerns. Committee Chair Davis opened the floor to discussion within the committee. Committeemember Ferlic made a motion to send Bill No. 78-16 to the full Council with a favorable recommendation. Committeemember Voorde seconded the motion which carried unanimously by a voice vote of four(4) ayes. With no other business on the agenda, Committee Chair Davis adjourned the Zoning and Annexation Committee meeting at 5:50 p.m. Re e 1 Submitted, li r avis, Committee Chair 1,