Laserfiche WebLink
Staff Report <br />Plan Implementation /Other Plans: <br />9/9/2016 <br />The petition is not consistent with City Plan, South Bend Comprehensive Plan (November <br />2006) Objective UD 1.1 Require developments to utilize design techniques that create an <br />attractive, urban character for the Central Business District, corridors, and commercial <br />areas; UD 1.6 Respect the scale, design, and aesthetic quality of established neighborhoods <br />when undertaking infill development projects; UD 1.7 Promote urban design elements in <br />new developments that are appropriately scaled and conducive to pedestrians, including <br />pedestrian safety considerations. <br />2. Current Conditions and Character: <br />The Central Business District east of the river has a mixture of commercial, office, and <br />residential uses. The low and mid -rise buildings emphasize pedestrian scale, public <br />amenities, and lower density mixed -use buildings. The Commerce Center building is the <br />tallest structure in the area with the majority of the surrounding properties in the 30' - 45' <br />range. <br />3. Most Desirable Use: <br />The most desirable use is one that fits into the character of the East Bank Village <br />neighborhood. <br />4. Conservation of Property Values: <br />Due to the height and size of the proposed building surrounding property values may be <br />negatively affected. Developing a site that exceeds the general standards for the area by <br />two to three times what is allowed for other properties in the district could have a <br />significant impact on adjacent property values. If constructed at the proposed 175' height, <br />the building will cast significant shadows that will have an adverse impact on the <br />surrounding properties. <br />5. Responsible Development And Growth: <br />It is not responsible development and growth to develop a site that does not fit with the <br />character and approved plan of the surrounding neighborhood. <br />Staff Comments: <br />The petitioner failed to provide a statement of how the proposed PUD meets the 5 items of <br />Intent for Planned Unit Developments as required by the South Bend Zoning Ordinance <br />Section 21 -05 (a) (1). It is the staffs opinion that the petitioner failed to m1pet the Intent as <br />follows: <br />(A) Establish a compatible and efficient mix of land uses and open spaces; <br />While the proposed PUD provides for a compatible mix of land uses, the site layout as <br />shown does not convincingly address or identify the open space and its interaction with the <br />public spaces of the East Race, as should be appropriate for a development in this location. <br />(B) Ensure compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, surrounding developments and <br />future development needs; <br />The extreme variation from the allowed development standards established for the <br />Central Business District east of the River and the high rise approach vs. village approach <br />to the building design make the proposed PUD incompatible with the Comprehensive <br />Plan, the East Bank Plan and the existing and proposed surrounding developments. <br />(C) Establish a creative approach in building design through architectural compatibility <br />APC 4 2794 -16 Page 3 of 4 <br />