|
REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2017
<br />for a project advisory team, where County and City officials come together with the petitioners
<br />and talk about the issues that might be in play for an opportunity such as this. What we learned
<br />was that there was effectively a void of zoning, at this time. The PUD that was approved in 2005
<br />had expired, and the best course of action that will protect the City, the petitioner, and the
<br />residents would be to seek approval from the Area Plan Commission and the Council to rezone
<br />to LI, Light Industrial. Why? Because the uses that are permitted in that zone included virtually
<br />all of the uses that were contemplated in the PUD that was approved in 2005. The only real
<br />exception was that a hotel is not permitted in the current LI zone and was contemplated as part of
<br />the PUD at the time. I want to make it clear, too, that this is simply a petition to rezone the
<br />property to apply certain zoning standards. Any approval by the Council would not be an
<br />automatic building permit. We are not able to put boots on the ground tomorrow morning if we
<br />have zoning standards in place. Any action by the Council to rezone these one - hundred and
<br />twenty (120) acres on the northeast quadrant does not automatically extend similar zoning to any
<br />of the other quadrants that are part of the petition.
<br />Mr. McMorrow presented a map to the Council and public depicting the entire Adams Road and
<br />St. Joseph Valley Parkway intersection. He stated, The property we are seeking to rezone is the
<br />one - hundred and twenty (120) acres of the northeast quadrant. The properties in the southeast
<br />quadrant have proceeded, in recent years, to be developed as envisioned by the PUD, but the
<br />lands in the northwest quadrant and the southwest quadrant would remain unchanged by any
<br />action that would be taken. In fact, the uses that were envisioned then included, in the northwest
<br />quadrant, Single - Family, Two (2)- Family, Multi- Family, Civic and Recreational Uses, and
<br />Lifestyle and Destination Retail. In the southwest quadrant there is Neighborhood Retail,
<br />Medical and Office Campus, and Assisted Living. The owner would not have the right to
<br />develop it exactly that way either, because I think the same void exists. With respect to concerns
<br />of traffic and safety at that intersection, we are still obligated to prepare site plans, road
<br />improvement plans, and work with the City Engineer to make sure the appropriate intersection
<br />controls are put in place. That is dialogue that has to happen. We would entertain —in
<br />consideration of the comments we have heard from the public, the Q &A we have had with the
<br />Council —to go through the PUD process on the balance of the property, beyond these twenty -
<br />eight (28) or twenty -nine (29) acres for the initial user. We would be open to that dialogue.
<br />Gordon Norquist, 17530 Stoney Point Drive, Granger, IN, continued the presentation. Mr.
<br />Norquist explained that the property has been owned by the Waggoner family for decades. Chet
<br />Waggoner, the current owner, is Mr. Norquist's father -in -law. The farm was originally purchased
<br />around 1948 and has since been in the Waggoner family. Mr. Norquist stated that the Waggoner
<br />Dairy Farm was happy to work with a local developer and the City, in 2005, to develop a master
<br />plan for the site, which was referred to as the Portage Prairie. The plan was to further build
<br />growth, investment, and jobs for the City. He stated that the rezoning would permit the
<br />continuation of the property and the development of the site. From 2005 to the present, the
<br />Waggoner Dairy Farm has worked closely with local businesses and developers, and intends to
<br />continue doing so. He stated, The plan will continue to be the cornerstone of this project.
<br />Jeff Smoke, Great Lakes Capital Portage Prairie III, LLC, 112 West Jefferson Boulevard, South
<br />Bend, IN, continued the presentation. Mr. Smoke stated, We are the local developer and local
<br />owner of the project. He explained that the previous PUD zoning on the east side of the site did
<br />not allow for LI zoning, unlike the PUD zoning on the west side. He stated, I know there was
<br />some concern about factories jumping over US -31, but the original PUD provisions don't allow
<br />for that. He explained that when the City annexed the land in 2005 to develop the land. He stated
<br />that many residents want more restaurants and retail locations like Toscana Park. He stated that
<br />Great Lakes Capital would love to do a development in the area with retail and restaurants, but it
<br />could not happen until more jobs and more homes came into that part of the City. He stated, It's
<br />not a twenty -four (24) hour facility. They have very limited truck traffic. It would probably be a
<br />tenth (1 /101h) of what FedEX sees right now —eight (8) or nine (9) trucks a day is what they have
<br />told me. We are willing to only proceed with Light zoning —it would be twenty -eight (28) acres
<br />for this particular tenant, and then go through the PUD process for the balance of the acreage. It
<br />is a time - sensitive matter. We are concerned that if we wait three (3) to five (5) more weeks, it
<br />could be too long.
<br />0
<br />
|