11-14-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2016 grocery store; the uses in the building; the issue of shadows; assessed values of the building; and the number and quality of units. Mr. Magliozzi stressed that the project under discussion still needed to adhere to the overall goals of the East Bank Plan and the previously listed four criteria of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Magliozzi stated that the Council needed to take all the information and details they had acquired over the course of the lengthy deliberations over this project, as well as the comments to be offered that evening, and attempt to fit them within those four criteria. Mr. Magliozzi proceeded to recount the history of the East Bank Plan. The Plan was approved in 2008, with ten (10) stakeholder groups present who created fifteen (15) concepts over the course of a two (2) day charrette —the scene of very heated discussion. The Plan cost $50,000; it was thoroughly vetted. The process had the full inclusion of residents and businesses of the area, and at least one local developer. The Plan was approved and forwarded to the Council and the Council approved the East Bank Plan as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Magliozzi explained that in 2004, four (4) years prior to the adoption of the East Bank Plan, the City adopted its current version of the zoning ordinance. It replaced a several decades -old zoning ordinance that was overdue for improvement. Through the public process, the Central Business District was then established on the east and west sides of the river. The City did not have a zoning district called CBD prior to that. All of the development standards in the CBD are the same — except for the height. As a result, there was a conscious decision in 2004 to begin the establishment of a distinction in character between the East Bank and West Bank. One of the concepts was that the downtown is an important part of the City of South Bend. That is where higher density and greater heights should be located. The East Bank is still in the CBD, still adheres to the same development standards except for height, and it still allows for the mix of uses necessary for the two (2) to work together. The EBP essentially validated that. It did not suggest a change in height. Mr. Magliozzi stated that it is important to note that the Plan has history; that it had been brought about through public input. Mr. Magliozzi then clarified that the following was an opinion he offered to the Council. The decision tonight will determine the balance of the development in the East Bank Area. While many may disagree on whether this is good or bad, it will affect the overall development of the area. This decision could very well compromise the previously described public process that has taken place over the last twelve (12) years. If this project is approved at the proposed height, it will be practically impossible for the Area Board of Zoning Appeals, the Area Plan Commission, or the council to deny future height variance requests absolutely anywhere in the East Bank Area. Mr. Magliozzi stated that approval of this petition, will cast public doubt on the validity of current and future planning efforts. There is a great deal of money spent in the City. The Plan, as a guide, would be compromised. Dave Matthews, 215 E. Colfax Ave., South Bend, IN, served as the petitioner for this bill. Mr. Matthews explained that on the West Bank, the maximum building height was set at one- hundred and fifty (150) feet —which would keep the chase Tower Building, the Key Bank building, the County -City Building, the Tower Building next to the Courthouse, and the Hoffinan Hotel from being built today. On the East Bank, that height was set at sixty (60) feet in 2004. Afterward, a petition was submitted to the Area Board of Zoning Appeals to raise the height to ninety -eight (98) feet, and the ABZA approved. After failed attempts to get projects approved by the ABZA, Mr. Matthews presented a PUD proposing a ninety -five (95) foot project to the City Council, which was approved. Mr. Matthews stated that the difference between the sixty (60) foot height limit set for the East Bank and the height limit arbitrarily set by the ABZA was one of sixty -eight percent (68 %). Mr. Matthews further stated that Matthews LLC seeks to raise that height by another seventy -eight percent (78 %), but brings the project to the Council instead of the ABZA through the PUD process. Mr. Matthews stated that he finds the PUD process —in which a preponderance of details of the project must be presented to the Council —one that is ideal. The public — specifically those who live and own in the East Bank neighborhood —would be privy to the process and be able to comment on it. Mr. Matthews then presented images of sites in the East Bank neighborhood, on file with the City Clerk's Office, before and after the construction of Matthews' townhome properties. One slide depicted the corner of Colfax and Sycamore in 2009 or 2010 when Mr. Matthews first N.