THE AREA PLAN COMMISSION OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA MINUTES. 3:30 p.m. County-City Building, South Bend, IN

Transcription

1 THE AREA PLAN COMMISSION OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA MINUTES Tuesday, May 16, th Floor, Council Chambers 3:30 p.m. County-City Building, South Bend, IN MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Dan Brewer, Debra Davis, Oliver Davis, Adam DeVon, Robert Hawley, Martin Madigan, Elizabeth Maradik, John R. McNamara, Matthew Peterson, John Leszczynski, Dr. Jerry Thacker John DeLee, Jordan Richardson, Steve Vojtko Larry Magliozzi, Angela M. Smith, David M. Stanton, Jr., Jennifer S. Parcell, Staff Mitch Heppenheimer, Counsel PUBLIC HEARING - 3:30 P.M. DAN BREWER: We have a request to move agenda item B. to item A. After due consideration, the following action was taken: 1. REZONINGS: Upon a motion by Adam DeVon, being seconded by Elizabeth Maradik and unanimously carried Item B was moved to item A on the agenda. A. A proposed ordinance of Town of North Liberty to zone from R-8 Low Density Residential District to C General Commercial District, property located at 200 State Street, Town of North Liberty - APC# DAVID M. STANTON, JR.: The Petitioner is requesting a zone change from R-8 Residential to C General Commercial. On site is a former fire station. To the north is a parking lot and a church, zoned R-8 Low Density Residential District. To the east is a residence, zoned R-8 Low Density Residential District. To the south is a residence, zoned R-8 Low Density Residential District. To the west across South State Street (SR 23), is a residence, zoned R-8 Low Density Residential District. The C- General Commercial District is established to provide the full range of commercial activities, including amusements, automobile and other vehicle sales and service, drive-in establishments, general merchandising, hotels and motels, and outdoor advertising shall be permitted in this district. The area to be rezoned is approximately 0.21 acres. For Town initiated petitions, a site plan is not required. The site will need to meet all the development standards for the appropriate zoning district. There is no zoning history on this site. South State Street (SR 23) has 2 lanes. The site is connected to municipal water and sewer. INDOT commented that the site, when developing a driveway in the future, can apply for the proper permits. The petitioner is not proposing any written commitments. The petition is consistent with Town of North Liberty Comprehensive Plan, November, Goal 2: Provide safe, convenient, attractive and accessible commercial and industrial development that is viable and responsive to the needs of the community and surrounding market area. The future land use map identifies this area as institutional. There are no other plans in effect for this area. The site is near the intersection of State, Main and Center Street, which is a major node in the Town of North Liberty with commercial activities on five corners of the

2 intersection. The most desirable use for the land in one that strengthens the commercial node and promotes economic development for the town. With proper buffering, the use and value of adjacent properties should not be affected. It is responsible development and growth to encourage redevelopment of commercial buildings no longer in use. The staff has no additional comments. Based on information available prior to the public hearing, the staff recommends the petition be sent to the Town Council with a favorable recommendation. Rezoning the property to C General Commercial is in character with the neighboring commercial district and will allow for the redevelopment of this area in order to support and compliment the Town of North Liberty. MATT PETERSON: I reside at 211 S. William, North Liberty. The Town owns property that has been temporarily housing the Liberty Township Fire Department from 1955 to September Liberty Township built a new emergency facility and vacated this building in August We have a dilemma to either tear it down or sell it, putting it back on the property tax rolls. The Town paid for an architectural assessment to be done. We have had several inquiries about purchasing the land. We received a letter of intent recently of a purchase. We have included the building in the façade program, so it is going to get a new face lift. We are desiring more business in the Town, which is why we are excited about this. We are going to be able to use the income from the sale in our general fund. Most of all, we want to put the property back on the tax roll to benefit all entities in St. Joseph County. IN FAVOR There was no one present to speak in favor of this petition. REMONSTRANCE There was no one present to speak in remonstrance of this petition. After due consideration, the following action was taken: Upon a motion by John McNamara, being seconded by Oliver Davis and unanimously carried, a proposed ordinance of Town of North Liberty to zone from R-8 Low Density Residential District to C General Commercial District, property located at 200 State Street, Town of North Liberty, is sent to the Town Council with a FAVORABLE recommendation. Rezoning the property to C General Commercial is in character with the neighboring commercial district and will allow for the redevelopment of this area in order to support and compliment the Town of North Liberty. NOTE: Matt Peterson left at this time. B. A combined public hearing on a proposed ordinance of MAJCM, LLC to zone from SF1 Single Family & Two Family District to SF2 Single Family & Two Family District and seeking the following variance(s): 1) from the required minimum 25' lot frontage to no frontage for Lots 4-22; 2) from the required minimum 5' side yard to 0' for all lots and 3) from the required minimum 20' rear yard to 9' for Lot 4, property located at 1237 & 1303 N. Ironwood Drive, City of South Bend, As Tabled and Re-Advertised - APC# ANGELA SMITH: The petitioner is requesting a zone change from SF1 Single Family & Two Family District to SF2 Single Family & Two Family District and seeking 3 variances from the development standards. On site is a church and a single family home. To the north is a single-family MAY 16, 2017 AREA PLAN COMMISSION 2

3 home zoned SF1 Single Family & Two Family District and an office zoned O/B Office Buffer District. To the east, across Ironwood, are single-family homes zoned SF1 Single Family & Two Family District. To the south are single-family homes zoned SF1 Single Family & Two Family District. To the west, across Rosemary, are single family homes zoned SF1 Single Family & Two Family District. The SF2 District is established to protect, promote and maintain the development of single family dwellings and two family dwellings in the urban core of the City of South Bend as well as to provide for limited public and institutional uses that are compatible with an urban residential neighborhood. The availability of public facilities (e.g., public water, public sanitary sewer, storm sewer, natural gas, electricity, telephone, etc.) is required for development within this district. The proposed site plan includes a 22 lot single family residential subdivision. The development includes a basic footprint for homes of approximately 1,800 square feet. The proposed 1.5 story homes would utilize reduced setbacks on one side in order to provide a wider side entrance on one side of the building. Each home will include a two-car garage. In 2005, the southwest corner of Edison and Ironwood was rezoned to LB Local Business to accommodate a Walgreen's. In 2016, the property to the north was rezoned to OB Office Buffer District for an insurance office. Ironwood Drive has two lanes with room for on-street parking. Rosemary Lane has two lanes. The site will be served by municipal water and sewer. The Department of Community Investment offers a favorable recommendation on rezoning to SF2 and the associated variances, subject to the following suggestions: 1) The homes should be designed to include a front door look, especially along the Ironwood and Rosemary street frontages. A door should face the street and have a connecting service walk to the City sidewalk. Inclusion of a porch would be appropriate. Quality building design and materials should be used throughout the project; 2) The mature trees, throughout the site and particularly along its west edge, should be preserved to the greatest extent possible; 3) While the project could be developed more densely, especially along Ironwood, the proposal for the patio homes is fair in keeping with the neighborhood context. The City Engineer commented that the Department of Public Works recommends approval subject to completion of a utility verification form; approval of sidewalk, curb cut, lighting and overall site improvement to reflect the Master Plan for the surrounding area; approval of a draining plan; and verification of required (if any) waivers. They suggested investigating the potential to relocated the western approach to the south. The petitioner is not proposing any written commitments. The petition is consistent with City Plan, South Bend Comprehensive Plan (November 2006) Objective H 1: Ensure that an adequate supply of housing is available to meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of households now and in the future; and Objective H 4: Ensure well-designed, infill housing on vacant land in the city's neighborhoods. The future land use map identifies this area as low density residential. There are no other plans in effect for this area. The area is predominately single family residential with some offices to the north, which serve as a transition to the commercial node at the intersection of Ironwood and Edison. The most desirable use for the land is one that is compatible with the single-family neighborhood. The development of single family homes should not impact the use or value of the adjacent properties. It is responsible development and growth to allow for the development of infill housing in an established residential area. The staff has no additional comments. Based on information available prior to the public hearing, the staff recommends the rezoning petition be sent to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the variances. Rezoning the property to SF2 Single Family & Two Family District will allow for infill housing on a large residential lot in which services are already available. The urban residential lots will offer a variety of housing options compatible with the neighborhood. OLIVER DAVIS: You said they were aware of the written commitments and they were ok with them? ANGELA SMITH: They were made aware of the commitments yesterday. They are aware of the staff recommendation, so I will let Mr. Danch address any concerns. MAY 16, 2017 AREA PLAN COMMISSION 3

4 STEPHEN STUDER: I am with Krieg Devalt with offices located at 4101 Edison Lakes Parkway, Mishawaka, IN. We are asking this afternoon that you rezone this to SF2, which is essentially the same as SF1 with the exception of SF2 is for urban core. This is in the urban core of the city. In addition there are additional developmental standards that change. Otherwise the uses are consistent with SF1 and SF2. There is currently a vacant church on the property that will be demolished. As the map that Angela showed you earlier of the property shows, to the north is zoned office business or commercial with the Walgreen s there. I know there have been some questions regarding the scope of the project, and I know there have been some misinformation regarding how many units we are going to have. You each have been handed a book. If you look at the site plans, I have actually provided two site plans. One is an original site plan that we provided to the neighbors. We had two public meetings with the neighbors. One was prior to having the petition filed. We were proposing at the time 39 townhome units, which is a lot, but economically made sense. These townhomes are very nice, high-end townhomes. After meeting with the neighbors, if you look at the second site plan, we reduced that and not only made them not townhomes, but 22 single family homes. We have increased the open space from about 29% to 45% by doing single family homes. We looked and I know some of the comment letters have been received suggesting that we do this as commercial space. We don t think this area really deserves commercial space. So we rejected the idea of putting a commercial shopping center in there or strip mall. We think the best use for this property is single family homes. As the staff noted we have a favorable recommendation. It is consistent with the City Plan. It is also consistent with the South Bend Comprehensive Plan. Both H1 which is to ensure adequate housing needs preferences of households now and in the future. H4 which is ensure well designed infill housing on vacant land in city neighborhoods. I inserted little a comment here from the National League of Cities. Urban infill is encouraged by municipalities because of more efficient use of existing utilities that you have, sewer and water. Instead of the city going out adding sewer and water, they could use existing utilities and it is much more efficient and it reduces the number of vacant lots in the city. We are using sewer and water. I know there have been questions about the sewer use on Rosemary. Apparently there are some problems on Rosemary with the sewer. We are not going to Rosemary. We are going to Ironwood. We talked to the City staff about that, and they are comfortable about that. We are also going to keep onsite all of our storm water, which we are required to do. The staff also pointed out that this use is also compatible with the single family neighborhood. It is kind of obvious because we are putting single family homes in here. If you look at the last page, we have some elevations which show the type of single family homes we are building. These are high-end homes. Depending on how they are outfitted, it would be in the thousand plus range. There will be a homeowners association, by the way. The roads will be maintained privately. People can use them, but they will maintained by the homeowners association. We had two public meetings, both of which were very well attended. We listened to the neighbors. They were concerned that somehow these would become student housing. That is not what single family homes are dedicated to. It is no different than the rest of the neighborhood. We are putting in very nice single family homes that we think are compatible with the existing neighborhood. We listened to the neighbors and we reduced it by almost half. The footprint here is for single family homes. With respect to the written commitment, we had intended to add windows along those with some landscaping. But if the written commitment is to have a door there, which would be a door into a bedroom, we didn t like that for safety reasons. We would rather have the door on the other side, as the entrance door. We are willing to commit to a door on that side, but we did intend to put windows in on the units that face Rosemary and Ironwood and also do some heavy landscaping to provide some additional coverage in terms of the road. If having a doorway there is important, we can agree with that. Our concern was more with safety to have those doors leading to bedrooms off of Ironwood and Rosemary. We are willing to agree to that commitment if that is requested. MAY 16, 2017 AREA PLAN COMMISSION 4

5 ROBERT HAWLEY: On the homeowners association, would it be mandatory that the maintence of the landscaping be done by one company that would come in and do that. STEPHEN STUDER: Yes. ROBERT HAWLEY: So it would be taken care of automatically? STEPHEN STUDER: It is like any other building in the City of South Bend, we want to make sure these are maintained. The high level of the Homeowners Association would do that. They would take care of snowplowing, grass cutting, maintenance, that type of thing. OLIVER DAVIS: That was a significant change that you made to the site plan. What really led you to make that kind of a change? Lot of time people don t do that. (Directed to the staff). What are your thoughts on his last thoughts? ANGELA SMITH: We still feel there should be a functioning front door. There is nothing that says that the use that faces Rosemary can t be a traditional single family development. It doesn t have to be a door into a bedroom. It can be a living room. STEPHEN STUDER: Economically it made a lot of sense to have townhomes here. We think that is a good product and missing from South Bend. When we met with neighbors, it was at the church. It was very crowded. There seems to be a lot of concern with townhouses after listening to them and several Council members, as well, that were there in attendance. We went back and redesigned the project and most of the people say we want single family homes. We had balconies that overlooked their properties and they were fearful that someone would be up on the balcony and looking into their yard, or they would be throwing things from the balcony. We decided to get rid of all the balconies and make it one and a half story rather than two story. There are no balconies. They are all patio homes. There will be a fence. We listened to them and that is why we reduced it from 39 to 22. By increasing greenspace and by building single family homes, it would be much more acceptable to the neighborhood. That is why we did this. In terms of the doorway, I am not an architect, but the way these homes are designed to make them efficient and affordable they are pretty much the same plan for all of them. If you look at the one plan there, at the very back, you will see that there is a side door at the very last elevation and there is a garage and then some windows. We could have put the front door where the windows are. The issue was the fact that by doing it on the side, which we have done on other projects throughout the State. That room in front becomes a den or office. It was common back in the 30 s and 40 s that people had doors on the sides of their house rather than a front door. That is why we did that. With all these houses were lined up, it would be difficult to change architecturally to put a door on the other side, because you would have two blank walls on the inside. We will take a look at that. If a door is required we will put a door there. I just don t know how functional it will be. We will have to talk to the architects and see if that makes sense. But that is the reason we didn t want to put a door there, is wanted to just dress it up with windows and landscaping. Again, we will accept that commitment. ROBERT HAWLEY: Is this rendering pretty accurate? STEPHEN STUDER: It is pretty accurate. These are some homes that were developed originally. The style not the exact home, but the style of it in Carmel, that we have done. A little higher end, but same style. But that style with the side entrance and office/den on the front and a double garage. IN FAVOR MARK CATANZARITE: I reside at 2022 Oak Park Drive, South Bend. I live two housing lots north MAY 16, 2017 AREA PLAN COMMISSION 5

6 of this proposed development. Like many of my neighbors, I was concerned initially about the size and the density of the development. After the developer began having some neighborhood meetings, I think he was very thoughtful in the fact they came back with some alternative plans. We had originally heard that they had proposed a 69 multifamily unit development, which is pretty intense. They came to us originally for a 39 unit development and now are down to a 22 unit development, which we saw at the last neighborhood meeting. One of the good things about this development I can say is that most of the folks in the audience today are my neighbors and we have since formed a neighborhood organization, which is good. I think when a project comes along like this this neighborhood has been this way for over 50 years. My parent s built one of the first houses up there at the corner of Oak Park and Rosemary Lane in Since then, my wife and I and our four kids, and now my two elderly parents, live two lots north of where this development in going to be. I actually welcome this development. We live right across the street from Walgreen s, which is a pretty heavy commercial development. It was done quite sensitively though. They gave some consideration to the neighborhood and they screened it pretty well. Since then, we have had two office developments to our east and we had heard that the home that is part of this proposed project it is going to be demolished and also going to be an all office development down the road. That did not materialize, but personally, my wife and I and our kids and our family, we welcome development. We would like to have some neighbors. We like the idea that there will be 22 new persons, families living in our neighborhood. The developer did propose and showed he was going to add some additional sidewalks connecting the neighborhood to the north, which would be nice. Currently when my parents go for a walk in the afternoon or evenings, they are walking on the street on Rosemary Lane. He had proposed to extend the sidewalk to the north, which I think is great. In terms of the quality of the development, some of the concern that was brought up was that this will this raise our property values because of the cost of the unit. Most of our homes are not appraised at $350,000. I did speak to the County Assessor and she assured me that when this development comes to fruition, or if it comes to fruition, if you guys give a recommendation favorably to the City Council, it would be looked at individually. The stratification, is the word she used of the assessment of that, would be looked at in several other neighborhoods in other parts of the county or other parts of town and that wouldn t necessarily automatically increase the property values in terms of assessed value of the neighboring homes, which was a relief to us as property owners. All in all, I would like for you to give it some serious consideration. You are going to hear a lot of comments good and bad I am sure. REMONSTRANCE DON DOOMICH: I reside at 2015 Peachtree Lane, South Bend. I live at the third property from the left. My property adjoins the church property. I guess I take exception to the comment in the staff report where they say these proposed single family development should not have an adverse impact on the residential neighborhood in which it is located. I don t think those people have ever been in my backyard. I bought this house two years ago. My daughter and family live right next door. Today we look out on trees, grass and that is going to get replaced if this development gets approved with a six foot fence and housing. I realize that has always been a possibility. When I bought the house and I looked around and I said it has been that way since the house was built in It is zoned a certain way. That zoning was challenged a few years ago and that challenge was declined. To me that set a precedent. That original way to zone it the way it was and the challenge that was denied. It kind of set a precedent to have it stay the way it is. That is the way I would like it. I know it is going to impact my property values basically because I value the view out of the back of my house when I purchased my house. It affected the price I was willing to pay and my decision to buy. Ideally, that is what I would like to see happen. However, if it is approved, I would like to say that we have been misled by the developer and I say that with doe respect, but I really feel like they have been trying to appease us, take away our anger. They indicated in almost every correspondence, every meeting, every presentation that they were targeting empty nesters, retirees and alumni who want a place to stay when they visit campus. That MAY 16, 2017 AREA PLAN COMMISSION 6

7 sounded good. I am in that market. I am about to retire. I am an empty nester. I am a widower. If I were to spend over a quarter million dollars to buy a house it will probably be the last house I will ever buy. I would want to be surrounded by people in the same situation. Just the target market. What assurances would I want to indicate that would be the case? I would probably pick a neighborhood that was 55 and over. Pick a neighborhood that was owner occupied and as a worse case has a homeowners association. I would like to say the maximum number of rental units is 10%. That to me would indicate that there was some substance to that target market that we were being sold. Instead, at the last homeowners meeting at the church, we asked all three questions.would you consider this, this and this? In this case we were flat out denied that they wouldn t even consider it. That tells me a lot. That tells me what that target market meant. Nothing. The actual target market is people with money, who want no restrictions on how that property is going to be used. As a fall back position, I would like to see some consideration given to putting in some restrictions. I know this is not guaranteed, but this does open the door for an investor to come in and buy all 22 units, pack them with students and put them in my backyard. Nothing against students but, once a student moves in, that target market disappears because they are not going to want to live there. I think it is a concern that we worry about. The other thought that crossed my mind also is that as I look at the whole project and how it is being proposed, it appears to be spot zoning. Spot zoning as I understand it is when a development does not conform with the rest of the neighborhood in terms of density and style. We have a serene neighborhood and this is 22 homes on three acres surrounding by a six foot fence. I like the last comments of stratified it is going to be an us and them relationship, I believe. They are completely separate from us. If the builder builds it, takes his profits and goes back to Indianapolis, we could be left with some serious problems. That concerns me. If the original zoning can t be retained, I would like to see some restrictions put on and maybe some irrevocable covenants in the homeowners association by-laws. MARGE PINTER: I reside at 1323 Rosemary Lane. I have lived there for 45 years. Neighborhoods are localized communities within a large city in which face-to-face social interactions occur. They are personal settings when residents are set to realize common value. We all live in the Rosemary/Doorwood neighborhood, because we choose to live in a stable dwelling neighborhood. Strong neighborhoods are linked to a decrease in crime that are out comes for children and improve physical and mental health. My understanding of the current zoning is that it is restricted to single family use. Rezoning will include that use but on smaller lots with higher density. There will be no yard areas, places for people to just congregate. As has been stated, the lot frontage has been reduced to 0, the side lots to 5, feet and the rear lots from 20 to 9 feet. This is a concern. Another concern is that new zoning will pave the way to demolition or conversion of existing homes into similar patio homes or condominiums. There are a lot of homes that are up for sale on a regular basis because they are in-habited by Notre Dame students. As they graduate the homes go up for sale. If the rezoning takes place there is nothing to keep someone from buying up these homes and just keep on building, doing the same thing. It is obvious this will reduce the value of all homes in Rosemary/Dorwood neighborhood as well as homes nearby. The neighborhood in which the zoning is proposed is an area of stability, yet, the proposed change would be extremely disruptive from anywhere from two to five years, which is what they gave us would be the time it would take to build. They will build a few homes. They will excavate the whole place, then they will build a few homes. Then, as they sell them, they will build more. This is very disruptive to the neighborhood, both in construction a lot of dirt blowing around, a lot of noise. Lastly we are all very saddened about the loss of our beautiful trees that we love. We respectfully ask for no zoning change because we support planned development without changing the existing landscape. JIM GALVAS: I reside at 2101 Peachtree Lane. Directly in back of all of this. Two of my neighbors already brought up a lot of things but still when we met with the developers they had no answers as far as the sewer went. Then later on they said everything would go out on Ironwood. Well, then I asked about the I & M easement. Mr. Matthews said Oh we have no trouble with I & M. We will take care of MAY 16, 2017 AREA PLAN COMMISSION 7

8 that. We don t get definite answers from these people. We want stuff black on white on the paper to see what is going to go on over there. Like I said, my backyard is going to be facing a fence like a Berlin Wall as far as I am going to think of it. By having students move in there, that is eventually going to happen. I don t care what anyone says. Unless you set down rules, which we would like you to do, set down rules and regulations. If they have family that comes that stay overnight, that s it. No having parties and stuff like on Notre Dame games. Another thing I am going to see about doing is getting signs put up all up and down Peachtree Lane saying no parking on game day. There is none right now. Like I said this is just going to bring them all around when they have their company come over, they are going to be parking on Peachtree Lane and Rosemary Lane. Another thing is they are going to tear down this church. That church is in wonderful shape. I walked around it a few times. I don t know why it couldn t be made into a nursery school, or some offices or even a bed and breakfast. This is my feeling as to what is going on here today. KEVIN AND INDI DREYER: We reside at 1905 Dorwood Drive. INDI DREYER: We particularly want to address the impact of the traffic situation. What is existing, how we feel how the vehicle density will be impeding on our existing neighborhood travel and accessibility. KEVIN DREYER: One thing we are looking at over 20 units. They have already said two car garage, so that means we are introducing a traffic pattern of over 40 vehicles into a very congested neighborhood, particularly at peak traffic times. If you head north on Rosemary to turn left on Ironwood, you would be stuck at that stop sign frequently for five minutes. If you are turning right, only a minute or two, unless you are dealing with people who are really desperate to get home and they are not going to leave any room in the traffic flow. To the south we have the Ironwood/Corby five points intersection, which is very close by this. We understand there is a proposed round-about, which will increase the issues with traffic flow and entrance and exiting to this property to Ironwood because there will be very few breaks in the flow of traffic going north bound. This leads me to another issue which is that while there is an indication that there is no through street that has been added into this project. The minute that you remove the visual barrier of the church the two driveways line up and if you flip to their site plan you will see that the driveways and the through view is unimpeaded. That means there is going to be traffic on game day. It happens all the time. I don t want to deal with this. I am going to turn right on Rosemary and zip down Rosemary and then try to get out of the neighborhood. They are going to take the first viable left that they can. This is the second viable left, because if they look down the first one and see too much traffic, they are going to be driving through the neighborhood. I think something needs to be done to mitigate that issue. I would like to speak to the point about architecture as well. I am not an architect, but I work with the Department of Architecture at the University of Notre Dame and serve as the Theater consultant with many architects. What we are suggesting is not redesigning an entire property but create two floor plans. There are going to be nine or ten residents that are going to be impacted by the idea of having a front door. I think that is a very simple thing to fix. It doesn t address the issue of traffic congestion, which I think is our primary concern. The parking has already been pointed out. Rosemary has no parking restrictions on game days but I can tell you, we live almost a third of a mile south of Edison and our cul-de-sac, which has no other access other than to Ironwood or Rosemary is parked in on virtually every game day. That is without this kind of density of vehicles. INDI DREYER: The existing traffic problem is definitely the sports events. We really think that that will increase and we wanted to know what are the occupancy limitations and those parking provisions. There are driveways behind the units. So we think there will be a defecto through street, although it is not being presented to us as a through street. There is just no way to think that will not be utilized for transporting and short cuts or whatever. We also, again with the parking of the construction vehicles, the MAY 16, 2017 AREA PLAN COMMISSION 8

9 noise, the abatements, we would like to see that a guarantee that we will not have the noise after working hours and the dust and debris control and how we can voice our voices if we need to complain. To whom do we address those issues? SHEILA BEHR WALECKO: I reside at 1835 Peachtree Lane. I do want to thank Pat for revamping his idea because he has come down quite a bit. If we can turn back to that other picture, there are still too many units. Look at the land that we have. That doesn t quite look like the land that these people are going to have. It is not the same as our neighborhood. I could probably name off at least five or six people here that have been there a long time. I have been in my house 42 years. I could have moved out to Granger. I was going to, but we have a very peaceful loving neighborhood. It is low crime. It is just a very relaxing place to be. We have a multi mixture of people. We have families. We have older people. All the neighbors care for each other. I just don t see that this is going to help keep our neighborhood the way it is. I have a feeling a lot of people my age are going to move out with all this new building going on. I do appreciate Pat and I know he is a good builder. I think he has really worked with us, but that is still way too many units for that. I don t see why it can t be more land around there. The street is not going to be viable for anyone in that I don t think anyone is going to use that because it is going to be pretty narrow for one thing. I think the reason they had to open Rosemary is cause fire trucks can t get there. That is already in our neighborhood. They already put up signs for the Notre Dame games because a fire truck can t get down because they are parking on both sides of the street. Believe me, they will. Notre Dame has taken up all the land so they are moving into our neighborhood and parking on our streets for all the games. This isn t going to help that. Most of the people in that neighborhood moved out because they either passed away or couldn t take care of their houses. KATHERINE SOLLMANN: I reside at 2021 Peachtree Lane. I just want to echo what Sheila had to say about this being a wonderful neighborhood for families and we are seeing that shift again where there are older people there and now there are a lot more kids running around. My own children have kids right down the street and so we watch them cross and we send them down and they stay together. When we increase the density of our neighborhood that greatly, it is going to make me a lot more nervous of the safety of my children as they play outside in the front yards and kind of go back and forth between their friends houses. It opens us up to new problems other than just having neighbors behind us. I think this is going to create a different feel to our neighborhood. While we are grateful they are single family homes, I think the density is something that makes me fear a little bit for the safety of the children. JEANINE GOZDECKI: I reside at 1825 Ridgewood Circle. I am an attorney with Barnes and Thornburg, but I wanted to be clear that I am not here on any official capacity as a lawyer. I am here as a homeowner and a member of the Rosemary/Dorwood neighborhood. I am here also to support the statements of my neighbor and also to recognize and appreciate the comments of Mr. Studer and the efforts by Mr. Matthews and Mr. Troeger to make adjustments to the original site plan after their meeting with the neighborhood. I want to share a few observations that you don t have from what has been put in front of you. The neighborhood that you see from the original site plan is only a slice of our neighborhood. You can see on Rosemary it actually goes several streets south. There is Peachtree, Ridgewood Circle, Dorwood. There is another street in there. It is a lovely neighborhood. Of all the homes in the neighborhood most of them have this great frontage and setback and space. It is a safe place. It is a space where we feel safe and yet we are diverse and we appreciate each other. The prospect of changing this area, which is really at the gateway to the rest of the neighborhood which is only accessible from really two areas, one from Rosemary and Edison and at Dorwood at Ironwood. There isn t a light or any kind of traffic control at either one of those major intersections. This does increase some of the infrastructure challenges to the neighborhood and I am hopeful that the city will take that into consideration, as well as the developer. We also recognize that you can t stop development MAY 16, 2017 AREA PLAN COMMISSION 9

10 entirely. I want to encourage this group and the city to consider these proposals. One to require the developers to work actively with the homeowners and the homeowners association and the Rosemary/Dorwood neighborhood group that has been formed so that we can address issues that come up during construction and also with regard to general norms of the neighborhood. To make sure, secondly, that the infrastructure needs of the entire neighborhood are met. That includes the sidewalks that were mentioned earlier. It may include increased traffic control. It may include improvements of lighting along the way, as well as the sewer issues along the way, although it is my understanding that that has been addressed. It is also our hope that the arrangement/recommendation, should there be one, includes a requirement that there is sufficient green space as well as green landscaping. Perhaps instead of a six foot vinyl fence we should be looking at something that is more environmentally friendly and consistent with the neighborhood. You can t see the whole neighborhood but I have woods in my backyard. There was a fox there a couple of weeks ago. There are deer. There are raccoons. It is a lovely neighborhood. The peacefulness and the quiet is affected by the loss of the landscaping. We come up with a set of rules during construction. It doesn t make sense for major trucks to be accessing our neighborhood on the small streets that Rosemary is today. It just can t handle it. There are a lot of narrow streets and a lot of traffic that ends up clogging at the top of Rosemary and at Edison. If we could require construction vehicles to access the site through Ironwood, that would be an important improvement during the construction process. Whether that is two years or five years. That may be something that needs to be modified as a practical matter so you can get to the other homes. Unfortunately, I beg to differ with the staff s assessment that this neighborhood development is compatible with the existing neighborhood. If you look at the whole picture it really is not. If you spend any time in our neighborhood on an evening, people walking their dogs you will see that it is not. But we also recognize that development and good developers are a good thing. The way to manage it is to control it and place some additional restrictions so that we can have a controlled development and preserve as best as possible the peacefulness and the safety of our neighborhood. KAREN KENNEDY: I reside at 1902 Peachtree Lane. We bought the house five years ago, mainly because of the large lots. They were affordable houses that were really well maintained and largely owner occupied. We live on a cul-de-sac which is the next block down, there are actually a series of five cul-de-sacs that make up this neighborhood and this is the next block that you are seeing but not the cul-de-sac end. I think for the feel of the neighborhood, people out walking the sidewalks all of those things. I want to say that I certainly appreciate the developers efforts and I think they really have. I actually work at Notre Dame and I work with Tom on some projects so know and appreciate everything they have come along to, so I think if this goes it certainly looks a lot better than 39 townhomes. When I think about the neighborhood, I want to say that I think that the density of these is still off from the density from the rest of the neighborhood and to the point that it is sticking out from the rest of the neighborhood. I think that will still be the case. One specific question on the second variance is that the idea is to have ten feet between the lots, so the proposal is to change it from five feet to zero feet. Is there not a way for it just to be ten feet between house? I just wonder if there might be a different way to approach the problem, instead of going from five to zero, but saying ten between houses as is proposed but I think is not in the actually written variance. In terms of other things, if this were to move forward, something I would like to advocate for is to continue to look for those three lots that are proposed along Rosemary. I think when you are coming in from neighborhood, that is very residential and you are coming in from the front, having front doors there would certainly help. That is also where a lot of the beautiful trees are. Another reason why we moved into this neighborhood was for the mature trees. We are going to lose all of the mature trees in that lot, which is currently a very wooded lot. Is there any way we could look further at that end of the development? Which is sort of the interior part of the neighborhood to look at that plan again. To keep some of our trees and keep that looking more consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. MAY 16, 2017 AREA PLAN COMMISSION 10

11 BETSY HARRIMAN: I reside at 1916 E. Hartman Drive. I would just like to thank the Area Plan Commission staff for all the help they have given us. This is new to us and they have been extremely patient with all of us. Thank you for your consideration. REBUTTAL STEPHEN STUDER: I think we demonstrated that we tried to work with the neighbors and we do appreciate the feedback. Without their feedback we would still be coming here for 39 townhomes. This is a land-use issue. It is about the appropriate use of the land. No one likes change. We get that. We understand that You can t develop by committee unfortunately. One of the things I have been doing in development for a long, long time and that is everyone wants control of their neighbor s property. We understand that too. We are trying to be good neighbors here. We are trying to develop this in a responsible manner. We think the staff agrees with that. In terms of traffic, we could have done a less conservative use than SF2 in commercial. Trust me we have a lot more than 22 cars going in and out every day. You would have 22 an hour. We think we need to verify this, but we understand the traffic count on Ironwood is 13,000 cars a day. If we are adding 40 a day, that is not very much. In terms of game day parking, we have nothing to do with the neighborhood. These are single-family homes. They have parking. They have aprons in front of their garages. We can certainly control parking as a private street. As I said it is open to the public, we need to control that on game day. In terms of student housing, the other thing I always hear when I develop in this community is that it is going to turn into student housing. There are only 1,100 students who live off campus at any one time that are under grads. Not a lot, but here again the City has an ordinance that says not more than two unrelated parties may live in a home. If that ordinance needs to be strengthened, I think that is something the City ought to look at. We enforce that, and a homeowners association will enforce that. You cannot have more than two unrelated parties. These homes do not turn into student housing. If the neighborhood already has issues on student housing, then I would encourage them to talk to the City about why that is happening because that is not what the City intended by adopting that ordinance. There are also City ordinances on how we develop the property in terms of noise and traffic and everything else. This is a process. The first process is to get it zoned appropriately. When we develop properties like this, the groundwork is all done at one time and then the homes are added as they are sold. So much of the work is done when you are doing development is up front. It is not going to be a two year or five year process. It will be done in a matter of months to put in all the infrastructure in. We will work with the City, we have to go to the City to get permits, so the fact that we can t answer some of the questions yet in terms of I & M easements and things of that nature, that has to be done before we can build. We look at this and we understand that people are concerned that it is not going to remain as a church. It is not going to be maintained as a public playground. We are trying to build homes, but 45% free open space. We are trying to be sensible and try to build single family homes. It is compatible with existing neighborhoods. We are not trying to put townhomes in here. We are trying to be sensitive to that. The size of the houses are very compatible with the houses already there. We should not be dinged because we are building high end homes. People will not be renting homes like this to students, where you can only have 2 people in those homes. We understand that. We tried to be sensitive to the neighbors. We have worked with them. We appreciate their input. In fact, as a result of their input, we think we made a much better plan for this project and we would ask for your favorable recommendation. OLIVER DAVIS: Councilman Catanzarite talked about the sidewalk issue. Seemed like there was a lot of neighborhood support for that. Where are you with that? STEPHEN STUDER: I don t know if there are sidewalks there now, but MICHAEL DANCH: I am with Danch, Harner & Associates. Offices located at 1643 Commerce MAY 16, 2017 AREA PLAN COMMISSION 11

12 Drive. There were some discussions at the public hearing we had with the neighborhood group along Rosemary. They had asked weather or not we were going to extend the sidewalk further north up to Oak Park Drive. We would do that as part of this development. We are also going to have sidewalks within the interior of our development as well. Sidewalks are required by the City of South Bend so any frontage that we have either on Rosemary and/or on Ironwood, we are required to put public sidewalks there, but we are going to extend the one on Rosemary. OLIVER DAVIS: So everyone will be connected like he talked about? MICHAEL DANCH: Yes. That will go all the way up to Oak Park Drive. OLIVER DAVIS: There as a suggestion for the 55 and over issue. I just attended a friends place and they had something similar when they had to be 55 and over. STEPHEN STUDER: It is not limited to 55 and over. OLIVER DAVIS: I understand, but I prefer to consider that for that area. What were your thoughts? Do we have anywhere in the City that has that? STEPHEN STUDER: Suggesting that it be 55 and over? OLIVER DAVIS: Yes. STEPHEN STUDER: Well, here is the issue with that. Do we want to have an overlay district for an entire neighborhood that says everyone has to be at a certain age or they can t live in those homes or they can t sell them. When you talk about free amiability property. We are building these to be attractive to that group, but if someone is at 48 years old and wants to come in and buy a two bedroom home for whatever reason, I don t know that we want to say that you are not welcome here because you are not 55. We don t want to discriminate in terms of that age group. It should be people who want to be here and want to be a part of the neighborhood and that is what we are trying to encourage with this development. OLIVER DAVIS: There were a lot of concerns about the traffic issue. Can you address in terms of, I know you said you would only have 40 cars at that standpoint. Is there anything else you could give to help reassure people regarding the traffic that you could put in place? MICHAEL DANCH: The way this is probably going to end up developing is most of the traffic is going to go out to Ironwood. Some of the residents have said if they do the round-about at Corby and Ironwood that is going to create more of a traffic flow. One of the requirements anytime we do single family development in the City of South Bend and the County, we are required to interconnect residential development. That is the basics of planning. It is also a requirement not only for fire protection, but basically emergency protection. Any subdivision that is developed in the City of South Bend or the County, if there is an existing street that is adjacent to whatever we are developing or subdividing, we are required to connect to that. The whole point is that you are supposed to have an interconnection between different subdivisions to allow vehicle access between the different neighborhoods. That is a requirement. You do not want to have an isolated subdivision where you only have one way in or one way out of it. That is a major concern for emergency vehicles and or blocking a one way driveway into a subdivision or even a private development. OLIVER DAVIS: So you see any need for a stop light, speed bumps, anything like that? MAY 16, 2017 AREA PLAN COMMISSION 12