11-25-68 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 25, 1968 2. Congestion already exists on this arterial and can be expected to increase without any change in land use. When a parcel is ideally suited for certain land uses it is the responsibility of the appropriate govern- mental bodies to carry out the necessary improvements to facilitate its use. The traffic improvements presented to the Council, in our opinion, will facilitate traffic movements and result in lessening of congestion while at the, same time presenting an arterial and street system properly related to the overall development pattern for the area. The traffic arrangement presented to the Council was designed to separate school and shopper traffic. There appears to be a greater danger to children under the present arrangement as a result of traffic attempting to bypass the congestion along Ireland. 3. It is felt that the decrease in property values has already taken place as a result of the present pre- dominantly commercial land use pattern as well as the traffic: congestion. The addition of the Ayr -Way store under the conditions recommended should not have the effect of further decreasing property values. It should be pointed out that some consideration should be given to the effect of the negative decision on the property in question. When land is not suitable for the use permitted in the zoning district the property owners are deprived of the use of their property. Based on a study of existing land use and traffic conditions, this is the situation in this instance. The land is not suitable for single family use and will ultimately develop for non - residential uses. It may be, however, that as a result of this decision it may develop on a piecemeal basis and we will lose control of access which will further aggre- vate the present problem through the creation of a number of individual driveways. 4. Reference to the promotion of public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general public welfare appears to be a general statement. It is felt that to leave the situation the way it is presently produces conditions which are detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general public welfare.. It is felt the rezoning, on the basis of recommendations presented to the Council, will improve conditions relative to these points and at the same time produce a logical plan properly related to land use and transportation. In summary it is felt that based on a detailed study of existing land use, traffic volumes, turning movements and projected land use, the rezoning as requested is logical and feasible based on the recommended traffic improvement plan submitted to Council. The land is not suitable for uses permitted within the present zoning category and we can, therefore, expect rezoning requests on a piecemeal basis which will result in the loss of control of access and further increase turning movements and traffic conflicts. Normal increase in traffic volumes can be expected which will further increase the traffic problem which problem has already reached the point where immediate relief is necessary. The reasons for Council rejection of the petition verify the fact that the problems presently exist. The traffic improvement plan recommended addresses itself to the problem and at.the same time provides for the logical use of the land in question as well as the land to the west. The traffic improvements including widenings, channelization, signalization, and new street construction would greatly facilitate traffic movements and provide for a logical development pattern for the area. The present zoning on the property in question is not realistic and prevents the rightful use of the property. It is understood that the options on the land have now expired and that probably due to the rejection and thec elapsed time we do not now actually have an active petition before the Council. However, the above comments are still felt to be pertinent since thefuture land use pattern of the area will have to be faced in the near future. From a planning point of view the land in question gars well as land in the immediately surround- ing area will not become more desirable for single family use with the passing of time. On the basis of in- formation presently available, it is impossible to see other than office or commercial activity for the area in question as well as the area to the west out to U. S. 31. We are presently updating the City's planning program and in the area of land use cannot see how any updated land use plan for this area could justify single family zoning. Respectfully submitted. jsl John K. Wilson, Executive Director There being no objection, the report was accepted as read, and placed on file. Councilman Grounds made a motion that the action of the Common Council taken on the 9th day of September, 1968, in rejecting the adoption of a proposed ordinance amending Ordinance No. 4990 by rezoning the following described real estate in the City of South Bend, Indiana, to -wit: Lots 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, and the West fifty -three and eleven hundredths (53.11') feet of Lots 170 and 171, all as shown on the recorded Plat of Myers and Funk's Third Plat of Chippewa Heights Addition to the City South Bend from "A" Residential district use to "C" Commercial district use which ordinance was rejected by a vote of the Common Council (seven votes against passage and two votes abstaining on passage of said ordinance) be confirmed. Councilman Szymkowiak seconded the motion. The motion was passed by a roll call vote of 7 ayes, (Councilmen Allen, Craven, Grounds, Szymkowiak, Wise, Palmer and Zielinski) 2 nays, (Councilman Laven and Reinke) None absent. Councilman Reinke, at this time, said that he represents the Council with the Area Plan Commission and gave many reasons why he felt the Council wrong in their.decision. Attorney, F. Gerard Feeney wished to speak at this time. Councilman Laven said he felt the matter had been decided. Councilman Allen made a motion Mr. Feeney be given an opportunity to speak. Councilman Szymkowiak seconded the motion. Motion carried. Mr. Feeney then thanked the Council for their decision in the matter. PETITION We, the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana to amend the zoning Ordinance of the City of South Bend, Indiana as hereinafter requested, and in support of this application, the following .facts are shown: 1. The property sought to be rezoned is located at the Southwest corner of Logan Street and Marshall Street in the City of South Bend, Indiana. 2. The property is owned by Don M. Newman and Mary L. Newman Yeager Motor Co.