Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-28-98 Zoning & Annexation ti tommittlzt It port: The Zoning and Annexation Committee �o tbt Common Council of the Citj of *outf eu�: The September 28 1998 meeting of the Zoning and Annexation Committee was called to order by Council Member John Hosinski, Chairperson of the Committee at 4:00 p.m. in the Council informal meeting room. Persons in attendance included Council Members: Hosinski, Aranowski, Broden, Pfeifer, Varner, Kelly, Udjak and Coleman; Bob Hunt, John Byorni, James Voll, Terry Bland, Gita Patel, Edward W. Hardig, Eugenia Schwartz, John Peddycord, Don Fozo, Russ Waldschmidt, Hodge Patel, Tern A. Zeiger, Sandra Zeiger, Randy Zimmerman, Tom Harsh, Ken Fedder, Gretchen Kathun, Sharon Myers, Larry Magliozzi, Jack Young, Jeff Wells,Rich Coddens, Bernie Bauer and Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand. Councilmember Hosinski called upon Larry Magliozzi to review Substitute Res. No. 98- 142 which addresses the Fiscal Plan and Policy for services to the proposed annexed area commonly known as the U.S. 31 South Annexation (copy attached). Mr. Magliozzi noted that the proposed annexation/rezoning is a City of South Bend initiated matter. It among other things that the area contains 196.29 acres and showed the area on various maps to the Committee. He summarized the data set forth addressing municipal services and the fiscal impact to the city; and noted that if passed would become part of the Sixth Councilmanic District Councilmember Hosinski then called upon John Byorni for a report from Area Plan. Mr. Byorni noted that Substitute Bill No. 64-98 received a unfavorable recommendation from the Area Plan Commission meeting of September 15, 1998. The Area Plan staff gave a favorable recommendation subject to a final site plan and that there be: 1. a landscaping plan; 2. a dedicated road through the property to the site to the west; 3. buffering and landscaping for the residential land to the south, west,and north; 4. an access road system that moves traffic through the site; and a minimum of twenty-five feet (25') landscaped setback along U.S. 31 (copy of substitute bill and APC report attached). Mr. Russ Waldschmidt of Peoria, Illinois, then addressed the Committee. He noted that there is a need for retail stores on the south side of the city. He said it would be a good opportunity to provide"pride in the southside". He believed that the project would provide a catalyst for better traffic control to this area. Gita Patel of South Bend, Indiana, then addressed the Committee. She stated that she represents a local company which plans to develop two (2)hotels. She noted that there are no franchise hotels on the southside of the city. She believed that the development would address the traffic concerns and that city sewer and water would be provided to the development. Dr.Varner questioned whether there were any contractual obligations involved. Ms. Patel stated that the zoning and annexation matters must be resolved prior to any contracts being entered into by her company. Zoning and Annexation Committee September 28, 1998 Page 2 Councilmember Hosinski then asked for public comment. There were not persons present who spoke in favor of the proposed project. Those in opposition were then called upon by Councilmember Hosinski. Terri Zeiger stated that the City of South Bend has a low unemployment rate and questioned where employees for the proposed project would come from. She questioned who would build the project and whether they were from Arkansas. She questioned how many out-of-state contractors would be involved. She noted numerous empty stores currently at Scottsdale Mall and that Venture and Briteway have closed. She believed there would be light pollution from the 24-hour lighting for the project. She also noted safety concerns with regard to Roosevelt Hill which she said is called the"Death Zone". Lastly she questioned how many Walmarts and Lowe's could the community support in light of the fact that they are located in Elkhart,Mishawaka and Portage. Randy Zimmerman, General Manager of Scottsdale Mall,then spoke against the proposed annexation/rezoning. He provided a handout entitled "Scottsdale Mall 1997-2002 Projected Population Change and 1997 Population Density" and related data (14 pages attached); as well as the"South Gateway" Report (16 pages attached) which he briefly highlighted. He concluded that there is close to a negative population growth projected in the affected area. As a result the draw will have to come from exiting areas. Tom Harsh stated that he is in favor of southside growth but cannot support the proposed annexation/rezoning. He asked the Committee to listen to the southside residents. Sandra Zeiger noted that her property is across from the proposed stores. Lighting and traffic are real public safety concerns. She noted that Grape Road is not a major arterial like U.S. 31 and does not have the heavy truck traffic from the by-pass. She feared that the area would become a "mini-Kokomo". She voiced concern over the stores remaining in Scottsdale and Broadmoar. She also noted that the majority of the land in question is made up of corn fields. She voiced concern over an access road. She noted that a person is within fifteen minutes of any major retailer currently. Councilmember Hosinski then asked if the Petitioners had any rebuttal. Mr. Waldschmidt stated that the proposed project may help Scottsdale Mall. He stressed that goods and services must be properly supplied. He concluded that the project would put a focus on the southside. Ms. Patel stated that her company had looked at three(3) sights before focusing on the proposed area. The other sites were in the city limits but were restricted by the owners wanting the property to be leased instead of bought, or that they were too small. Council President Coleman questioned whether there were other sites away from U.S. 31 considered. Mr.Patel said that there were. Councilmember Udjak questioned Mr. Waldschmidt who advised the Committee that the tenants would construct their own buildings. Councilmember Hosinski called upon Sharon Myers from the public who questioned the impact of the project on police protection. Councilmember Hosinski noted that that question is addressed in the Fiscal Plan. Dr. Varner then provided a copy of the Fiscal Plan to Ms.Myers (copy of Fiscal Plan attached). The Council Attorney noted that pages 6-7 address police and fire concerns. Zoning and Annexation Committee September 28, 1998 Page 3 Dr. Varner noted among other things that he does not believe the time is right for the project as proposed. He noted that as the District Councilmember where the Scottsdale Mall is located he is concerned about how the project would impact it and the initiatives proposed by the South Gateway. Dr. Varner then made a motion that Substitute Bill No. 64-98 be recommended unfavorably to the Council. The motion failed for the lack of a second. Councilmember Broden then made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Pfeifer that Substitute Bill No. 64-98 be recommended favorably to Council. The motion passed by a 3-1 vote with Dr. Varner being in the minority. Councilmember Hosinski then called upon Mr. Magliozzi to review Res. No. 98-143 which addresses the written Fiscal Plan and Policy for the proposed annexed area commonly known as the Kidder II Annexation (copy attached). Mr. Magliozzi noted that this is also a City-initiated annexation/rezoning which involves 43.56 acres. He then reviewed the details of the report. He noted that this is a non-contiguous annexation which meets the criteria of state law. He then showed the area with the assistance of an aerial photo. The proposed area would be added to the 1st Councilmanic District if approved. John Byorni noted that both the staff and the Area Plan Commission gave favorable recommendations with regard to Substitute Bill No. 65-98 addressing the annexation and rezoning of the proposed site. Upon questioning by the Council Attorney, it was noted that the developer, Kenny Kent would be present at the 7:00 p.m. Council meeting to provide further detail and respond to questions. Doug Carpender, Citizen Member, then made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Pfeifer that Substitute Bill No. 65-98 be recommended favorably to Council. The motion passed. Councilmember Hosinski then called upon Mr. Magliozzi to review Substitute Res. No. 98-144 (attached) which addresses the written Fiscal Plan and Policy for the proposed annexed area commonly known as the Herrman & Goetz Annexation. Mr. Magliozzi showed aerial photos of the proposed area. and noted that it meets the state law requirements for a non-contiguous annexation. The area in question encompasses 62.53 acres and he reviewed detail from the Fiscal Plan. Councilmember Sniadecki then joined the Committee meeting. John Byorni noted that both the staff and the Area Plan Commission gave unfavorable recommendations with regard to Substitute Bill No. 66-98 addressing the annexation and rezoning of the proposed site. Mr. John Peddycord, the attorney for the Petitioner, then made a presentation. He noted that the area had been M-Manufacturing since the 1960's. He further noted that the Kernan Administration asked that his client Herrman & Goetz move their vehicles to this site, which was done. He noted that there are no roads to the mining site and that there are no governmental records for this area. He noted that mining would be an indirect use with "D" light industrial being the primary use for the majority of the property in question. He also noted that Mr.Herrman has agreed to continue the mining operation, that it would be limited only to his company's needs,and that it would not have standing water. All of Zoning and Annexation Committee September 28, 1998 Page 4 these concerns would be addressed in a written commitment. Mr. Herrman would eventually like to move the entire Herrman-Goetz operation to this location. Mr.Peddycord noted that his client has authorized him to state that there will be significant airport-related facilities in this area in the near future. He does not believe the area will ever be a residential neighborhood. He noted that vegetative matter would remain along the perimeters and would provide six-foot high mounds on the East side as a buffer. He further committed that his client would have operations only during the daylight hours. The project would be developed in three(3)phases dealing with the existing area 1st, and the west side second. He noted that they are planning on a fifty foot (50') setback on the south and west perimeters made up of existing vegetation. The ultimate goal would be to address the concerns and desires raised by the City Administration. Councilmember Pfeifer questioned whether the petitioner would be willing to provide reports on the mining operation to the Council on a regular basis. Mr. Peddycord stated his client would provide annual reports to the Council. Mr.Jeff Wells noted that he would be willing to provide pictures along with these reports. Mr. Peddycord also noted that his client must go before the Board of Zoning Appeals with regard to the industrial uses. In response to a question raised by the Council Attorney, he noted that he had had several contacts by telephone and facsimile with her prior to the filing of this request. He also responded that he is anticipated a fifteen (15) year period in response to her questions regarding the proposed written commitment requirements. He agreed to place the daylight only operation restriction and the reporting requirements in the written commitment when questioned by the Council Attorney. Mr.Jack Young stated that he agrees with ninety-five percent (95%)of what has been said on this proposal. He noted that his wife owns the real estate contingent to this city-driven annexation which is next on the agenda. He believes that additional concerns should be addressed in the written commitment and provided a copy of his concerns (copy attached). He stressed the need for proper screening to address both noise and dust from the mining operation. The Council Attorney suggested that language be added to current § IV of the ordinance addressing the fact that the final version of the written commitment must be acceptable to the City of South Bend and that she would have language for Mr. Peddycord to review prior to the 7 p.m. meeting. Councilmember Udjak questioned whether water tables would be affected. Mr. Peddycord noted that no reports are currently required by the governmental agencies on this topic. Following discussion, Councilmember Pfeifer made a motion, seconded by Dr. Varner that Substitute Bill No. 66-98 as to be amended on the floor be recommended favorably to Council. The motion passed. Councilmember Hosinski then called upon Mr. Magliozzi to review Res. No. 98-145 (attached) which addresses the written Fiscal Plan and Policy for the proposed annexed area commonly known as the Cornerstone L.P. Annexation. Mr. Magliozzi noted that the area in question encompasses 52.33 acres and he then reviewed detail from the Fiscal Plan. Zoning and Annexation Committee September 28, 1998 Page 5 Mr. Byorni reported that both the staff and the Area Plan Commission send Sub. Bill No. 67-98 addressing the annexation and rezoning of the subject property. Mr. Jack Young made the presentation. He stated that he would like to develop the land once adequate city-services are brought to the property. Councilmember Hosinski stated that a description regarding access should be addressed. Dr. Varner questioned whether the owners to the west were notified. Mr. Young stated that the Langs were in favor of the proposal. Following discussion, Councilmember Pfeifer made a motion, seconded by Dr. Varner that Substitute Bill No. 67-98 be recommended favorably to Council. The motion passed. Councilmember Hosinski noted that a letter dated September 24, 1998 (copy attached) had been received from Bruce R. Bancroft the attorney for the Madison Center requesting that Bill No. 60-98 be continued until the October 26, 1998 Council meeting. Councilmember Hosinski further noted that he had received a Memo from Edward C. Levy dated September 28, 1998 (copy attached) requesting that Substitute Bill No. 62-98 addressing the rezoning of 216 35th Street be withdrawn from further Council consideration. Councilmember Hosinski noted that the last item on the Committee's agenda was to review Bill No. 70-98 which is a rezoning request for the property located at the 4600 and 4700 block of New Cleveland Road. John Byorni noted that both the staff and the Area Plan Commission send this Bill to the Council with an unfavorable recommendation. Mr. Kenneth Fedder, the attorney for the Petitioner Target Leasing, Inc., made the presentation. He noted that this is a request to change the zoning from "BP" Business Park to "D" Light Industrial. Sharon Myers spoke against the proposed rezoning. She noted that she would give a petition signed by residents of the neighborhood at the 7 p.m. meeting. She showed an aerial view of the area and noted that the residents were assured that when the rezoning was changed to "BP"in 1994 that that would be the final change to the use of the property. John Byorni noted that "BP"requires a 100 foot buffer with no structures within it whereas Industrial requires only a 25 foot buffer. Grethen Kathun spoke against the rezoning. She said it would increase pollution and noise from a potential trucking company. Rich Coddens spoke against the rezoning. He stated that he is against what the ultimate use of the property may be under the"Industrial" classification. Bernie Bauer spoke against the rezoning. He noted that he was retired and a long-time resident of the area and believed it was not in the resident's best interests since the area is residential in character. A Zoning and Annexation Committee September 28, 1998 Page 6 Mr.Fedder stated that he was willing to commit to heavy buffering and berms. Councilmember Pfeifer questioned how high the berm would be. Mr. Fedder stated that he believed a ten to twelve foot buffer was being proposed. Councilmember Pfeifer noted that there is a great difference between a 25'and 100'buffer. She suggested that the parties get together to discuss their concerns further. Dr. Varner noted that the September 28, 1998 letter from Jon R. Hunt listing four (4) general principles was too vague. Mr. Byorni agreed with Dr. Varner's interpretation of the letter. He noted that it would put the Area Plan staff in a very difficult situation. Doug Carpender stated that he believes that fencing should also be considered as a type of buffering besides trees for the berm. Councilmember Kelly stated that he was concerned about the adequacy of the buffering proposed. He suggested that the Bill be continued until the Council meeting of October 12th. Councilmember Aranowski noted that the screening for Field Pointe is inadequate. Council President Coleman stated that the Committee must consider all matters raised by the residents,the petitioner and the letter from Mr. Hunt. Mr. Voll suggested that any conditions be placed in writing to assist the Area Plan staff. Mr.Fedder stated that he would attempt to contact his client and report back to the Council prior to its 7 p.m. meeting as to what action they would want to take this evening. Mr. Byorni reminded the Committee members of the joint Council meeting scheduled for October 1st to meet with the consultant working on the Master Plan. There being no further business to come before the Committee,the meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Council Member John Hosinski Chairperson,Zoning and Annexation Committee Attachments