Laserfiche WebLink
in <br />REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 13.2017 <br />this, as they have none like it. He stated that he w uld support t s bill, with conditions to be <br />listed when a motion was made. <br />Councilmember Oliver Davis stated that he appreciated hearing J,ioni everybody. <br />Councilmember Davis stated that County residents have to deal ith not only South Bend, but <br />Michigan. He asked, though, Do you really have a voice in Michigan, when Michigan is your <br />backyard? You never vote for anybody there at all, but their decisions in the State of Michigan <br />affect you more than anyone else in this whole area, because yoL r backyard is Michigan. When <br />you live on the border, you deal with a lot of these different things. That creates a huge <br />challenge. He stated that there was difficulty in trying to balance neighborhoods with business <br />development in the City. He stated that the changes to the propo ed project by the developer, in <br />response to comments from neighbors, was a sign that people arc! listening. He stated that if the <br />Council delays this for another thirty (30) days, the question he has is, "What are we going to <br />accomplish? What more have we not heard that we would heart en ?" He stated that it would be <br />good to hear input from the County commissioners on how to so ve the traffic problem in the <br />area and encouraged County residents to pressure their represent tives to engage in dialogue <br />with the City Council. j <br />Councilmember Gavin Ferlic stated that he was thankful for evei one who was present and that <br />he was especially thankful that everyone kept the conversation respectful. Councilmember Ferlic <br />stated that this was an opportunity to retain jobs in the communit y and add one - hundred and fifty <br />(15 0) well - paying jobs. He encouraged the developer to continue engaging with the <br />neighborhood and to continue to work through the traffic issues. <br />Councilmember Dr. David Varner stated, The dilemma we alwa <br />that, invariably, somebody leaves happy and somebody leaves u <br />yourself to the fact that that is going to happen. Councilmember <br />has been slated for this sort of development since 2005, and ther <br />anyone. He stated that the problem with the plan is that it does n <br />happens, and only once it happens, then the issues that come up <br />feel badly that we can't keep everybody happy. I feel badly that <br />evening, we had a zoning request where the parties managed to i <br />everyone walked away happy. When it happens like that: great. <br />benefit the City of South Bend to the extent that we can do that. <br />east of the bypass, within the City limits, as a benefit that we nee <br />Hopefully, this will get more like - development in the same area. <br />friends by sending business out of town and telling them to work <br />Councilmember Jo M. Broden stated that the rezoning of this pr( <br />consistent with the original plan from 2005, and that it was a log <br />going on to the south, across the road. Councilmember Broden s <br />something that the Council and City needs to work hard on, and <br />spent on infrastructure must be informed by studies. She stated,' <br />crossing issues from Dylan Drive to this property, and I think th, <br />to the northern area of the segment. Councilmember Broden add <br />Cleveland Road have been longstanding. She stated, I will coma <br />NACOG, and will work with City Administration to see what w( <br />traffic concerns and safety issues that this type of development b <br />Councilmember Randy Kelly stated, Had that PUD not expired, <br />The developer wouldn't have needed to have met with neighbor <br />offered these concessions. This Light Industrial zoning does not <br />not allowed before, but for a hotel. There is really very little cha <br />Perhaps this is why PUD's no longer expire. This was a PUD th <br />upon with community input in 2005. This, again, is nothing diff <br />s face with zoning issues is <br />set. So, you have to reconcile <br />)r. Varner stated that this area <br />fore was not a surprise to <br />t mean anything until it <br />an be dealt with. He stated, I <br />iere isn't an answer. Earlier this <br />nd a solution where it looks like <br />Then it doesn't, our charge is to <br />see the continued development <br />1 to foster and continue. <br />We don't make too many <br />somewhere else. <br />)erty to Light Industrial was <br />,al extension of the activity <br />ited that the traffic problem is <br />Zat decisions regarding money <br />here are certainly some <br />it would open up the potential <br />d that the problems with <br />I to my work as a member of <br />can do to alleviate some of the <br />e would not be here tonight. <br />would not have needed to have <br />rohibit anything there that was <br />,e with regard to this area. <br />was talked about and decided <br />-nt. I am in support. <br />Councilmember Regina Williams- Preston stated that she nearly ught a home in the County, <br />but turned away due to warnings about upcoming development iii the area. Councilmember <br />Williams- Preston stated that she sympathized with the concerns of County residents, and that <br />that would color her vote on the matter. She stated, I think what I'm noticing a lot in my short <br />18 <br />