HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-28-16 Zoning and AnnexationOFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
KAREEMAH FOWLER, CITY CLERK
ZONING & ANNEXATION NOVEMBER 28, 2016 4:09 P.M.
Committee Members Present:
Other Council Present:
Others Present:
Agenda:
Oliver Davis, John Voorde, Jo Broden
Karen White, Randy Kelly, Regina Williams -
Preston, Tim Scott, Dr. David Varner
Kareemah Fowler, Joseph Molnar, Michael
Passavoir, Kathleen Cekanski - Farrand, Adriana
Rodriguez
Bill No. 53 -16 – Bare Hands Brewery Rezoning at
331 Wayne Street
Substitute Bill No. 65 -16 – Lawrence and Corby
Rezoning
Bill No. 16 -90 – Requesting annual progress reports
on each neighborhood and development plan
Substitute Bill No. 41 -16 – Commerce Center PUD
Rezoning petition at 401 East Colfax (Update Only)
Committee Chair Oliver Davis called the meeting to order with four (4) item on the agenda.
Bill No. 53 -16 – Bare Hands Brewery Rezoning at 331 Wayne Street
Angela Smith, Area Plan Commission, with offices on the 11 `I' Floor of the County -City
Building served as presenter of this bill. Ms. Smith stated, The petitioner is seeking to rezone
from GB, General Business, to CBD, Central Business District and to get a special exception to
allow for a Manufacturing Retailer— that's the term we use for group hub, or a brewery in this
instance. In this case, they're manufacturing the beer and retailing it. The property is at the
corner of Wayne and William. To the north, across Wayne, is MU, Mixed -Use. To the east is the
Veteran's Clinic, which is zoned CBD. To the south is a parking lot zoned GB. To the west,
across William, is a lot zoned GB, General Business. She stated that they are proposing to rehab
the building in question and upgrade the facade. She stated, There aren't really any changes to
the site plan, other than the fact that the petitioner will need to redo some of the parking. The
455 County-City Building • 227 W. Jefferson Boulevard • South Bend, Indiana 46601
Phone 574- 235 -9221 • Fax 574- 235 -9173 • TDD 574- 235 -5567 • www.SouthBendFN.gov
JENNIFER M. COFFMAN ALKEYNA M. ALDRIDGE JOSEPH R. MOLNAR
CHIEF DEPUTY/ CHIEF OF STAFF DEPUTY/ DIRECTOR OF POLICY ORDINANCE VIOLATION CLERK
striping here that they are showing isn't a feasible layout. We have already been working with
them to determine how we might lay out the parking lot. They will need some landscaping here
as part of the project. So they are aware of that, and they will be continuing to develop the site.
The interior of the building will be remodeled... but he just planned the exterior. This comes to
you from the Area Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation. Rezoning this property
to allow for the Central Business District and granting the special exception will allow for a use
that is compatible with the existing Central Business District and will complement the
surrounding uses.
Councilmember Karen White stated, In your report, you gave mention that two (2) individuals
spoke in opposition. She explained that one concern was that the proposed rezoning would be
next to the VA clinic. Councilmember White asked, But isn't that closing?
Ms. Smith responded, The clinic is relocating.
Councilmember White responded, So, that's not our issue.
Ms. Smith responded, We don't see that as a concern. The other was a property owner that lives
further north of the property, and they were concerned about the alley access and everything, but
it's not this particular alley they were concerned about. Any lighting within this project would
have to meet the City ordinance which is full cutoff at the cropping lines.
Jim Priebe, 51260 Coveside Drive, South Bend, IN, served as petitioner of this bill. Mr. Priebe
stated, The original plan, to start off with, was to take one part of the building and turn it into our
brewing facilities. But we are running up against a lot of problems —a lot of space -cram in
Granger. So, we are going to end up moving the brewery in there. Also, we are hoping to
increase our packaging facility. We will start with a small group hub, or small tap room. Our
plan is to build out a whole side of it for an eating establishment group hub that maybe offers
some roasted coffees and some chocolates also in there.
Those wishing to speak in favor of the bill:
Steve Smith, 4404 Technology Drive, South Bend, IN, stated, I think that's fantastic, so thank
you for doing that. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in favor. We need more restaurant
options downtown, and it sounds like a great opportunity.
There were none wishing to speak in opposition to the bill.
Committeemember John Voorde made a motion to send Bill No. 53 -16 to the Common Council
with a favorable recommendation and Committeemember Jo Broden seconded the motion, which
carried by a voice vote of three (3) ayes.
Substitute Bill No. 65 -16 – Lawrence and Corby Rezoning
Angela Smith, Area Plan Commission, with offices on the 11th Floor of the County -City
Building served as presenter of this bill. Ms. Smith stated, This petition is at the corner of
2
Lawrence and Corby. The petitioner is seeking to rezone from SF2, Single - Family and Two (2)
Family, to NF I, Urban Corridor Multi- Family District. To the north, east, and west are Single -
Family homes zoned SF2, Single - Family and Two (2) Family. To the south you have a couple of
Single - Family homes zoned SF2 and then the portion of it zoned MU is actually the Marriott
building. There's a hotel there in the portion zoned MU, Mixed -Use. Ms. Smith presented an
image of the existing lot in its current state of vacancy to the Committee. She stated, The
petitioner is proposing three (3) buildings, each of which would contain three (3) townhomes.
The NF District is the district that would allow for the attached townhomes, in this instance.
They are two (2) story townhomes with an attached garage. The petitioner is proposing written
commitments associated with the project. They would be limited to a total of nine (9) Single -
Family Attached Dwelling Units. No Single - Family Attached Dwelling Unit in the described
project shall exceed the maximum height of forty (40) feet. No more than four (4) Single - Family
Attached Dwelling Units shall make up any single building mass. A minimum five (5) foot front
yard setback shall be required along any public street runnage and a minimum two (2) foot offset
shall be required between any Single - Family Attached Dwelling Units. Basically, one (1) unit
shall be set back two (2) feet from the one (1) next to it, to allow some variation in the building.
The other originally proposed written commitments are handled through other commitments in
the property, but these would be the only ones associated with the rezoning petition. This comes
to you from the Area Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation, subject to those
written commitments. Rezoning this to allow for the higher density —or medium density
residential —is consistent with the area of the plan. This will allow for a variety of housing
options in this area, in order to address the demands of the market.
Committeemember Jo Broden asked, Administratively, where are the commitments written?
Ms. Smith responded, The written commitments are a document that was recorded with the
property. So, what we would do is, if approved— subject to those written commitments —all
those written commitments would be prepared between the petitioner and our office, and it's
submitted to our office for review, and then they get recorded. So, they will be recorded with the
property.
Ms. Smith then clarified for Committeemember Broden that only the five (5) commitments she
read earlier would be recorded.
Committeemember Oliver Davis asked, But the ones you're doing just have something to do
with... ?
Ms. Smith responded, Right. We only want to build a land - use —once associated with a zoning—
that the Area Plan Commission doesn't want to be in a position to have to enforce their tax
revenues or their tax status and their homeowner living there, and we were strictly limiting them
to the land -use issued at hand.
Committeemember Broden stated, So, then that enforcement appears to be kicked to the NNRO
and NENC.
3
Mike Danch, Danch Hamer & Associates, 1643 Commerce Drive, South Bend, IN, confirmed
that that was correct.
Ms. Smith continued, explaining that some of it is being handled by the Area Plan Commission,
and the rest by NENC and NNRO.
Committeemember John Voorde walked up to the site plan and stated, You've got three (3) in a
tier, here and here. These are fourteen (14) foot alleys. Where are the garage places going to be?
Ms. Smith approached the site plan as well, pointing out where the garages would be and
showing Committeemember Voorde other aspects of the plan. There was discussion about the
fact that paving was required.
Committeemember Broden asked, And what about to the west, there's a Single - Family home —
what type of screening requirements are on that side of the lots?
Ms. Smith responded, Actually, to the north and to the west are both Single - Family homes. The
requirements along this area are type A or 1 in the city: one (1) tree every forty (40) feet. That's
required along the perimeter of any portion of the [ ?] that's not containing improvements.
Committeemember Voorde asked about paving on a particular corner of the site plan.
Mr. Danch responded, Yeah, we're going to have to have the site plan approved by the
Engineering Department and announced by the Billing Department. So what they'll end up doing
is, they're going to have like a forty -five (45) cut there, because if there's trash trucks or cars
going through there -
Committeemember Voorde interjected, Or if there are ambulances...
At this point, Committee Chair Oliver Davis asked Mr. Danch to introduce himself, and he did
so as well as introduce Anthony Zappia, the petitioner's attorney.
Mr. Danch returned to the discussion with Committeemember Voorde, stating, We have to
handle drainage and those issues with City Engineering as part of that. And that's the reason for
that requirement for the pavement for both of those alleys, so that cars would only access
pavement. So, between Corby and Lawrence into those alleys.
Committeemember Broden asked, That entire length of that alley that's to the north of the
property as well as the entire length to the west?
Mr. Danch responded, Anything that's adjacent to our property... would have to be paved. It
would be access for them to get out to Lawrence or down to Corby. If anybody wanted to go
farther north or to the west, that's up to either the City or any new development that would go
there, but then the City would require those people to do pavement and bring the ordinance up to
standard.
0
Anthony Zappia, Attorney -at -Law, with offices at 52582 State Road 933 North, South Bend, IN,
represented the petitioner. Mr. Zappia stated, The petitioner is seeking a zoning modification, as
was explained. The purpose is to build nine (9) (2 -) two -story townhouses with three (3) units in
each building. He stated that the bill appeared before the Area Plan Commission the previous
week and received unanimous favorable recommendation. Mr. Zappia stated, There was a
significant amount of dialogue between my clients and the Northeast Neighborhood folks as a
result of that dialogue. As a result of that positive communication, we've reached agreements on
all matters. In fact, Bill Stenz, from the Northeast Neighborhood group, spoke at Area Plan
Commission meetings supporting our project. Before that, Marco Mariani of the Northeast
Neighborhood Revitalization Organization wrote a very nice letter in support of the project.
We're talking about a $3,000,000 to $3,500,000 project here. We did get variances approved
previously at the Area Plan Commission. There's a total of ten (10) commitments: five (5) would
be enforceable by the governmental entities or the neighbors; the other five (5) through the
Northeast Neighborhood Association groups. The basis of that was negotiations through the
petitioner, and the Northeast Neighborhood through their attorney. We really came to an
agreement pretty quick on all matters. So, we're happy to be here and are excited about the
project. One of the things that we heard: we're in the price range for about $275,000 as a base
range. I don't consider that cheap and a lot of people want to get in this neighborhood but are
having a hard time getting within that price range, because you're hearing $400,000, $500,000,
$600,000 a home. We already have a commitment from a family that has given us a deposit, and
they're ready to go. You people are going to have a second one very shortly.
Committeemember Voorde asked, Any lighting issues there, behind the places?
Mr. Danch responded, Since we're NF 1 —same thing. It would just be the cutoff lighting at the
top so that you don't have any spillage onto the adjacent properties. And what I gave Council
were both sets of documents for the written commitments. So, the one that says "Exhibit A" on
it the top one — that's the one that the governmental agencies will be able to enforce, like
Angela was talking about with the land -use issues. The other one that says "Written
Commitments: Exhibit A' — that's the one that will be enforceable by the Neighborhood
Association. So, that's the one that deals with actually having the primary residences. That was
one of the concerns the neighborhood had.
Mr. Zappia recounted a previous experience with a project by Notre Dame wherein written
commitments limited use of the property to graduate students. Mr. Danch added that the project
at hand that evening would not house any students whatsoever.
Commiteemember Jo Broden asked, What about transferability —if there's an ownership trade?
Mr. Danch responded, Written commitments go with the land. Both sets.
Mr. Zappia and Mr. Danch explained that the previously mentioned property by Notre Dame had
changed hands a few times but the written commitments originally made were still in full force.
Mr. Danch further explained that the variance shown on the site plan was due to the fact that the
homes would be single - family units with zero (0) lot lines. He stated, That's one of the things
that people are looking for. From a standpoint of financing, it's a lot easier to finance a single-
5
family home than it is a condominium or some other type of ownership. That's why we did that,
and that's why we went through the variance. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to create a
subdivision after we get through this process.
Councilmember Dr. David Varner asked, Did you go with one (1) building and then you went for
more commitments, or are you going to construct...?
Steve Smith, Irish Realty, with offices at 4404 Technology Drive, South Bend, IN, came forward
to answer Councilmember Dr. Varner's question. He responded, If we only have one (1)
commitment, we will probably only build the first building, which is at the southwest portion of
the site. If we get a second commitment we will most likely move forward with the second
building immediately. It is also possible that we would build the second building to a shell, but
we would not do the interior until we have at least the second commitment.
Committeemember Davis asked, What do you do in your market to get those kinds of
commitments?
Mr. Smith responded, We put a sign up on the site. We have a little website that's already up
there, we put some stuff on social media just to attract people. We do have a listing ... to attract
people to the site. We are probably getting a call a week from people who are pretty serious
about it. He spoke about their first prospect, a couple who were empty- nesters looking to
downsize, who felt that this was a great place in which to spend the next phase of their life. In
talking about a second prospective couple, he stated, They were very, very interested in being
here. They said, "$275,000 is our ceiling." So, this is an example of a portal connect. Mr. Smith
stated that the first prospect agreed to $300,000. He stated, So, we now allow two (2) primary -
occupant, full -time buyers access to this neighborhood.
Committeemember Broden stated, Steve, you've done a great job working with the neighbors
and the neighborhood group. As the district rep from there, I really appreciate your sensitivity to
that and the consistency with the plans that have been put on the ground for this neighborhood,
and the overlay and all that. Very commendable that you've entered this neighborhood and
you've done it in such a responsible way. Thank you.
Committeemember Jo Broden made a motion to send Substitute Bill No. 65 -16 to the Common
Council with a favorable recommendation and Committeemember John Voorde seconded the
motion, which carried by a voice vote of three (3) ayes.
Bill No. 16 -90 — Requesting annual progress reports on each neighborhood and
development plan
Committeemember Oliver Davis, Zoning & Annexation Committee, with offices on the 4h Floor
of the County -City Building, served as presenter and petitioner of this bill. He stated, Over this
last year, especially over the last few months, we have been hearing a lot different plans, in terms
of neighborhood plans. We have a brand new Council this year and one of the things that I would
like for us to always be able to have is updates from what's going on with our various plans, like
the plans on the East Bank, Howard Park, Lincoln Park, the Southeast; and then of course, we
have the airport, Douglas, Washington, and Chapin. Throughout this last process that we are
dealing with, it has come to my attention that we need to be updated in a more proactive mode,
instead of people studying this in the middle of a situation. If we ourselves are regularly updated
about any particular changes —where it's going, what's been done in that plan —I would prefer
that we learn about this in that kind of a setting. Instead of getting updates when a developer
comes and says, "Well, this has not happened, this has not happened, this has not happened, " —if
something is not going on with the plan, and we haven't done it, and everybody's caught that
outside of us, then we should be the ones being up -to -date with different discrepancies and plans
ahead of time. As we monitor those things ahead of time, then we can stay up -to -date to see,
"Are they meeting their target dates? Who are the players? What's going on ?" So, we're not
caught by surprise by anything like that. During my time here on the Council, and on the Zoning
Boards and in other things, I would probably have been better able to understand a lot of things
much faster if we had had more up to this. Typically, we have the presentation, we pass it, and
[after time passes] everybody hears something new going on with it, everybody sees something
in the Tribune. I think it would be—on a regular basis, now, if we get regular updates and have a
process that we can review, be up -to -date, see if there are any changes necessary... I think it
would be great for the community, the neighborhoods involved with it, and all of those. And it
keeps everybody on their toes, to make sure that a plan that was implemented in 2018, 2012 is
still in place. Or, if there are adjustments that need to be made, we can suggest that, because
some things do change. We want to be able to flow with the wind of change and at the same time
respect what was put in place in yesteryear, too. Have a good balance of that. So, this is a
resolution that looks at everybody. It's not in particular one (1) different situation, but it's every
single thing for what's going on the west side, east side, north side, south side; for us to look at
that. It gives us a better understanding ahead of time. Community Investment is going to help us
with that. Area Plan, the City, all those —we can have a good guide and see where we are. I just
think that would be able to increase communication between the Administration and this
Council, so we'll be ahead of time.
Committeemember John Voorde stated, It might be good, so that it wouldn't provide any
surprises for developers.
Committeemember Davis responded, Yes. It's on the table. If the developer looks at a plan and
they can see that something down the road's coming, we can look at that ahead of time and work
with Area Plan.
Committee Chair Oliver Davis invited representatives of the Area Plan Commission to speak on
the bill.
Larry Magliozzi, Executive Director, Area Plan Commission, with offices on the 11' Floor of
the County -City Building, came forward to speak. Mr. Magliozzi began to address the challenge
of having many plans with which to deal, but he lost his train of thought. He moved on, stating,
Just to bring you an update, this is not a problem. We have to involve those in DCI, because they
deal with the redevelopment plans, which go through a City process... So there's redevelopment
plans, there's economic development plans, people with different animals that go to the [ ?]
Commission, and, of course, there's the neighborhood plans, for a lack of a better term, that go
through Area Plan Commission and of course the Council, too. Probably the first step is getting
7
an understanding of what each plan does. If you come to any of us, you're going to understand
what that means and what they do, and how does it affect your jobs down here, and then attach
the existing plans to each one of those three types of plans. Most of the plans are really initiated
by the City, rarely by us. We obviously participate in some of those plans, like the East Bank
Plan was something we participated in. But if you were actually looking for changes on a
regular basis, that becomes a different challenge, because that obviously requires dollars and
staff time. But the first step is to report back to you on whatever schedule you feel is comfortable
for you. That shouldn't be a problem at all.
Committeemember Davis stated, Whether I'm chairing this committee next year or somebody
else is, part of the opening plan should be able to have those kinds of meetings at the beginning
of the year.
Brian Pawlowski, Interim Executive Director, Department of Community Investment, with
offices on the 14th Floor of the County -City Building, stated that the earlier in the year, the
better. He stated, When we end up doing updates in the redevelopment plans, they usually have
to go before the RDC.
Committeemember Davis stated, So, if we could use this conversation in January or February,
regarding a summary of what's potentially coming down the road, it would help us to really
sharpen up all of our tools from all three (3) of our areas. Our Committees here from Zoning, and
the Department of Community Investment, and the Area Plan Commission. We can have that
coming into the year. If there are any major developments, we can make sure all of our processes
are together. I think that's going to help us flow. If we see some curves up the road, we can all
start preparing faster and not get caught out here in the storm.
Councilmember Tim Scott stated, One thing we have been doing is building a schedule —a
reminder on the calendar. I suggest that maybe we work out a time, if this passes favorably,
which I'm sure it will —put a time on the calendar, and we can have those updates.
Committeemember Broden asked, As a sponsor, had you considered something along the line of
joint - committee hearings, where this would sort of be Neighborhood and a Community
Investment... ?
Committemember Davis stated, I'm open to that.
Committeemember Broden stated, Looking at the charges for our committees that might be a fit,
and then writing it with the activities out in Community Investment. So, a Council's request to
schedule meetings and then they maybe -
Committeemember Davis interjected, asking Council Attorney Cekanski- Farrand, Is it still
possible that we can look on it in the documents —for between now and 7 o'clock?
Council Attorney Cekanski- Farrand responded, I would think that if we have a good record of
that request, that would be enough.
Committeemember Davis asked if that was okay for the rest of the Committee and Council. He
went on to restate that Council needed a clearer understanding of the details of development
projects.
Committeemember Broden stated, Maybe instead of a (1) one -off, do two (2) times per
year... incorporating it into the budget process and making some suggestions and
recommendations. So, if these are our priorities, which we have said as a Council —you can look
at plans all you want, but if there's no funding to have the staff to implement them, or the dollars
to march behind it, then it sits on a shelf.
Committeemember Davis stated, So, the first meeting will give us a guideline to see where we're
going. The second meeting is to look at budgetary options that we need to get ready for the
budget. I can see light in that.
The Committeemembers deliberated over when to hold these meetings. They mostly favored
earlier months in the year, though Committeemember Broden stated that she did not think they
needed to pick a specific date during this session. Councilmember Regina Williams- Preston also
favored an earlier date. She went on to ask why the West Side Main Streets Plan was not
referenced in the bill along with other similar plans and a brief discussion ensued. She expressed
that she would have liked to see that plan made visible along with the others listed, as it already
lacked visibility in general. It was pointed out that though the bill lists the names of specific
plans, it does not state that they are the only plans, there are. Committeemember Oliver Davis
agreed with Councilmember Williams- Preston's point, but said nothing about changes to the bill.
Mr. Magliozzi stated that all those plans are viewable on the DCI webpage.
Committeemember Davis stated, We will cover it all because, like you said, there are issues
going on on that side, there are issues that are coming up here. So, we just want to be proactive
and that's it.
Deliberation continued on how to amend the bill and when to decide on the amendments.
Committeemember Davis asked for Councilmember Tim Scott's thoughts on the matter.
Councilmember Scott stated that he thought there were some good ideas being proposed and that
continuing the discussion at the December 12, 2016 meeting would be better than rushing the
decision.
Committeemember Davis stated to Councilmember Williams- Preston that he was open to adding
things she saw a need to add to the bill.
Committeemember John Voorde made a motion to continue Bill No. 16 -90 until December 12,
2016 and Committeemember Jo Broden seconded the motion, which carried by a voice vote of
three (3) ayes.
Substitute Bill No. 41 -16 – Commerce Center PUD Rezoning petition at 401 East Colfax
(Update Only)
0J
Brian Pawlowski, Department of Community Investment, with offices on the 14th Floor of the
County -City Building, stated that the Department of Community Investment has engaged with an
outside local firm to work with Dave Matthews and look at his project again and propose
alternative design schemes or other adjustments to the project.
Councilmember Karen White asked, After the developer and others have met, are you confident
that by December 12, 2016 we'll be able to take action at that time?
Mr. Pawlowski responded, I think the short version is that we don't have a lot of choice. We're
going to be sure to be available. The one (1) thing I think could present a challenge would be just
actual cross - destinations of getting them to as specific a point as possible. That will be the key
part. But the quicker we can get an overall kind of design conception —or at least a meeting
between the developer and his folks, and the group the quicker that will come. I'm sure there
will be alternatives or at least there will be comments from this outside group that they can
present, both to Dave and to the Administration. Going through all that will encapsulate some of
the concerns I think that have been voiced. The key question then will be, "What do we do with
that information ?" Without knowing what they're going to end up proposing, I wouldn't want to
speak too much beyond that. But yes, short version: we're shooting to make sure that you have
an alternative that you can see prior to that meeting.
Committeemember Davis asked if the first meeting had already been scheduled.
Mr. Pawlowski responded, They'll be contacted today.
Committeemember Davis responded, I appreciate that. As soon you hear something, I would
request sending it to us– especially to Councilmember Broden —so we can look at what their
corrections are. I understand the whole thing about open -door law and everything else like that,
so we have to be careful about having any other kind of meetings prior to that. But if there's
some key issues that she has, you can have a contact number so that Councilmembers can call in
and get some better understanding maybe visually, or whatever, so we can come up with a clear
issue of where to go from this.
Mr. Pawlowski responded, I would anticipate, probably this week, for work to maybe bleed into
next week, but next week I would assume being able to contact you all. We're trying to give
them access to all the different documentation that you all compiled, which would include public
comment, all the letters, the different subs.
Committeemember Davis asked, Would you foresee any reason why they may come back and
say, "We can't make any kind of statement or anything like that? ' Do you see any reason why
they won't make any kind of recommendation?
Mr. Pawlowski responded, It's possible that they may say they don't see alternative options, but I
do not do that line of work, so I would hate to speculate on it. But I think there will be
suggestions, certainly. How far those go with the developers, that's going to be the key question.
10
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
marks. You're either in compliance with the plan or you're outside of plan. So, the questions that
we ask an outside consultant, I think, really should go into that level of specificity of the
questions of height. So, that's one (1) point.
Committeemember Broden continued, stating, And of course we could always trust the gut
reaction of the developer, or we can always trust the track record of the developer. Generally,
people are really good on those marks, but I think, with regards to our responsibility, that I want
to get to the point where it's not based on trust. It's a very central part of the district. It's situated
between —I would arguably say —some of the most beautiful parts of our city, in terms of its
proximity to the river and to the East Bank. The neighborhood is on the cusp —or actually in the
throes —of development, when you look at what's going on in Howard Park and you look at
what's going on north of the University of Notre Dame. This is the area where there's a lot of
activity. Obviously, there's plenty of questions with regards to this project. We need a marketing
analysis— feasibility; getting that back —but specifically, at the sixty (60), the ninety -six (96),
and the one - seventy -five (175). The other piece that I would like to request as part of that is a
traffic impact analysis. We have not had that. Again, sort of similarly, if this is a sixty (60) foot
building, if it's limited to sixty (60) feet, what would that impact be with regards to people
coming to and from the market, with residential individuals coming and going and that kind of
thing. I would assume that that could be extended out to a parking analysis, as well. I'm not
asking these things because I want to throw wrenches at stuff. I want data versus gut feeling. If
we are given a project of this magnitude— whether it's State dollars, whether it's tax abatements
that we'll be considering on this, or the direction that our good decision - making will foster for
future development —I want to get the data down here. This plan could potentially be a game -
changer for this neighborhood, when we talk about this height and what's before us as an active
petition.
Committeemember Broden continued, stating, The other piece is when I know the parking
garage is a big driver on expense and the developer himself has said, "This is a pretty big apple
to bite out of." But again, he's not asking for public dollars. I do think being able to substantiate
and confirm those construction numbers is important, whether it be related to the building or the
parking structure. Being able to get at that and to verify the matter. I think that while that might
be looked at as something onerous on our part to ask, I do think it is responsible to ask and I
think it is something that, whether it's a construction management firm or architecture firm,
some of them can stand and cover those sorts of number crunching things. But if we verify that,
that is only going to strengthen this particular individual's application for funding or financing
going forward. Sufficient parking in the Central Business District is a key consideration and it's
impacting, as the developer said, the height of this given building. So, I think that the things
writing out here would be common asks. I'm glad we're willing to offset the cost of those with
our own manpower to match it within the City. I think these are worthwhile things that would, I
think, bring along the community, which is important in this decision. It would bring along
future development —let them know that we are making fact -based decisions, that we're not just
trusting an outside developer's gut feelings that this can work and it can only work at these
numbers, and it can only work at these marks. I would refer everyone to the original Regional
Cities application of this. There are very specific marks that need to be hit, with regard to that.
Everybody around this table, everybody in the community they have talked to are looking to get
the elements of this development within our city, but it's how we do it and the smart way to do it,
and I do believe that's going to be based on facts and data. So, I would encourage that against the
variations of what has been proposed.
12
Committeemember Davis requested that Committeemember Broden summarized what she just
said in a letter to Mr. Pawlowski to make sure that the consultant has clarified all her questions
and comments.
With no further items on the agenda, Committee Chair Oliver Davis adjourned the meeting at
5:08 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
ON 'e a i, Committee Chair
13