RM 04-18-75 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

10. BLOCK 6 DEVELOPMENT, R -66: Mr. Terry S. Miller, Common Council representative, inquired about tie Block 6 project, and said what he didn't quite understand is t at the proposed developer is suggesting building a motel and hous- i g. However, when Chuck Lennon came to the Common Council, he said the area had a negative value of "some beautiful amount" if it was used for housing, so we rezoned it for the necessary Service C mmercial /Residential involving the fire code and everything. How d es the new appraisal differ from the initial appraisal? Mr. Brownell a vised the last time we were before the Common Council was to .change tie fire district building code from Fire District No. 1, as basically tie determination was that the development plan for Block 6 is not a highly congested development and it is appropriate not to require t at type of construction in the district. The reason for the nega- tive value is that the Fire District No. 1 code required fireproof c nstruction and that type of construction is so much more expensive t at the land became negative value for housing purposes. Fire Code N). 1 has stringent requirements for construction and this makes development very expensive. The less the cost is, the easier it is t develop. Mr. Miller further asked about the original use and the change that was made, as at the time we thought we had two prospective developers w o wanted to build office spaces and a limited amount of housing on Block 6 -1. Our consultants made an updated LUM Study and found the n ed for new office space in South Bend. It was recommended that we c ange from the old use of not less than 20 -story building on the n rth end of this parcel and 1,000 housing units. This included the 230 units of low -cost elderly housing. It was recommended to the R development Commission to have the land -use changed to Service C mmercial /Residential -- limited to no more than 200 units of resi- d ntial apartments and other office buildings and parking. This was a proved by the Common Council, Area Plan Commission, and the Re- d velopment Commission, and was also approved by HUD. The potential d velopment did not materialize into actuality. The land was not put ulp for bid as no one was ready to bid. esident Nimtz said in order to permit these developers to build, need to request a change in land use. HUD would need to agree at it is a minor plan change, and it would then be before the mission with a public hearing. If the Common Council approves , we then would need approval from the Area Plan Commission and COG, and then it is submitted to HUD. C mmissioner Wiggins advised the developers have not completely finalized their plans at this time for the property. Mr. Brownell said they had agreed Wednesday in the meeting, and it will take the developers about four months to complete their plans. We will need a proximately this amount of time to make the land -use change. The developers will be given copies of the restrictions for the use of tie property. - 12 -