11-28-16 Zoning and Annexation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilmember White stated, I wanted to make mention that, based on the meeting that we had with Dan and Mr. Horvath, there were various options —I think it was three (3) —that was presented in regards to actions that we could take. So, I would want Councilmembers to go back and review those as well, so that we are aware of the options we have as a Council as pertains to this particular project. I think that the biggest concerns that I heard —I think this goes back to Councilman Oliver Davis' resolution —that there's so many different entities, and the need to communicate so you are on the same page. Even with the terminology that we're using, it's just very, very critical as well. And then there is the whole process in zoning. Councilmember White stated that she heard a lot of statements, directed toward the Council, saying that these decisions were the Council's to make. She stated, And that was said very strongly. Before Councilmember White could go on, she asked if minutes had been taken of that meeting, to which Clerk Fowler responded that minutes had not been taken. Committeemember Davis stated that after talking to several commissions, he had come to the conclusion that recommendations coming from Area Plan and DCI that made things were actual policies. He stated that Attorney Marcellus Lebbin made the point strongly that this was a South Bend City Council issue, and that future recommendations from Area Plan or DCI will hinge on the decisions made by Council. Mr. Magliozzi stated that a consultant was going to be contracted to go over the Area Plan Commission, ABZA, and Council's planning process. The session was planned for January. Committeemember Davis asked, If I was invited to that —we have an open -door model here — what happens? Council Attorney Cekanski- Farrand explained that training sessions were fine, so long as Council was not initiating them. Mr. Magliozzi established the date as falling on the third Tuesday of January, assuring the Committee and Council that they would receive a letter with details on the matter. Committeemember Broden stated, So, I'll take a stab at this: height, mass, affordability, the context of the neighborhood, the plans that are on the ground —all those things are intermixed with this. I want to express my gratitude for drilling down at some numbers and bringing in a third -party consultant, but I want to make sure —as the Councilmember from this district —that we are asking the right questions and that we're tasking this independent consultant with the right asks. A couple of things that I would like to assert, for the record. The market feasibility — if we could get that analyzed. Obviously, the height on this is the elephant in the room and we've got the base plan of sixty (60) feet established by the Comprehensive Plan. We've got the alternative heights that have kind of morphed and come through all different pathways for this particular district —a unique area of our city —and that's at the ninety -six (96), plus or minus a foot or two (2). And then we have this proposed one - hundred and seventy -five (175) foot project. Looking at that, actually crunching the numbers for all of those is important because it recognizes the history— whether it would be in the planning, or the neighborhood groups, or past developers and current developers or future developers who are looking to hit within those 11