Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-14-16 Zoning and Annexationy OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK KAREEMAH FOWLER, CITY CLERK ZONING & ANNEXATION NOVEMBER 14, 2016 4:40 P.M. Committee Members Present: Other Council Present: Others Present: Agenda: Oliver Davis, John Voorde, Gavin Ferlic, Jo Broden Karen White, Regina Williams- Preston, Dr. David Varner, Randy Kelly, Tim Scott Kareemah Fowler, Joseph Molnar, Michael Passavoir, Kathleen Cekanski- Farrand Bill No. 54 -16 — 1037 Elmer St. Rezoning Substitute Bill No. 41 -16 — Commerce Center PUD Rezoning at 401 E. Colfax Committee Chair Oliver Davis called the meeting to order with two (2) item on the agenda. Bill No. 54 -16 —1037 Elmer St. Rezoning Bernard Feeney, surveyor at 715 S. Michigan St., South Bend, IN, served as petitioner on behalf of Betty Williams. He stated that she is asking for a rezoning on one's lot that she has recently purchased. The lot is adjacent and contiguous with her existing property. It is a lot that faces Elmer Street and sits immediately behind the Kidz Kompany Day Care Center, at the corner of Elmer and Lincoln Way. Ms. Williams has been at that location since around 2002, and has been flourishing at that location. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow construction of a forty-by- sixty (40X60) foot building on the rear of that property to accommodate the two (2) small buses that she uses to collect some of the daycare attendees. Ms. Williams services an area approximately as far north as Cleveland Road, sometimes even further; over as far as Hickory Road; rarely into Mishawaka city limits; down into areas south of Ewing, and on the west side of South Bend. He stated that she served nearly all of South Bend and has been doing so for quite some time. Keith Chapman, Area Plan Commission, with offices on the 11th Floor of the County -City Building, continued the presentation. He stated that the petitioner is looking to rezone from a SF2, Single - Family /Two (2) Family, to MU, Mixed -Use. The site is currently vacant land, and to the north and to the east are Single - Family residences zoned SF2, Single - Family /Two (2) Family. To the south and to the west are businesses zoned MU, Mixed -Use. He presented an 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.SouthBendIN.gov JENNIFER M. COFFMAN ALKEYNA M. ALDRIDGE JOSEPH MOLNAR CHIEF DEPUTY/ CHIEF OF STAFF DEPUTY/ DIRECTOR OF POLICY ORDINANCE VIOLATION CLERK image of a view looking north of the site, and another looking west across Elmer, looking east across the alley, and then the site plan. He stated that the bill came to Committee from the Area Plan Commission with a favorable recommendation. Rezoning of this property will allow for the expansion of an existing business, with appropriate buffering and appearance to the architecture. The proposed expansion will be a responsible asset to the neighborhood. Committeemember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to send Bill No. 54 -16 to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation and Committeemember Jo Broden seconded, which carried by a voice vote of four (4) ayes. Substitute Bill No. 41 -16 — Commerce Center PUD Rezoning at 401 E. Colfax 9 The Committee was handed papers by Committeemember Jo Broden composed by the Office of the City Clerk. Clerk Fowler explained that the paper listed all the items in the Dropbox relating to this bill that have been received by the Office of the City Clerk. Committemember Jo Broden stated, I had asked for this to be generated just as a reflection of what is in the record with regard to this particular development. As Councilmembers, we are obviously asked to make decisions based on the record and also in precedent. The uniqueness of the request of this petition, I think, merits a solid review of the documents in the history. Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski - Farrand stated, Under Indiana State Law, the Common Council has ninety (90) days from the date that the certification letter was heard. The Council's ninety (90) day period starts from September 21St, 2016. There was discussion regarding whether or not there were any other timelines to pay attention to. Council Attorney Cekanski- Farrand stated that there weren't. Committeemember Jo Broden stated that as this was a Regional Cities project, there were deadlines associated with it. Committeemember Oliver Davis stated that, given the fact that this request is different from the other ones they have to deal with —as they would be effectively setting a precedent if they vote in favor of the bill —the Committee wants to make sure that everything is in order. It is for that reason that the Committee has taken its time to clarify everything. He ensured that so long as he is Chair, that the Committee of Zoning and Annexation would do its due diligence. He urged the petitioner to not give the same presentation they did for Area Plan, or previously to the Committee. He requested that new information be presented to the Committee. Angela Smith, Area Plan Commission, with offices on the 11th Floor of the County -City Building, served as presenter of this bill. She stated that the only things she wanted to cover were items handled at the special meeting that the whole Council may not have been present for. She presented still images, generated by a computer simulation, that illustrated the sort of shadows cast by the proposed building —at a height of one - hundred and seventy -five (175) feet —at a given time of day. The days depicted were the vernal equinox, summer solstice, autumnal equinox, and winter solstice. She stated, The only other item we covered at the larger meeting had to do with the PUD district ordinance and the history of that. We have had a large number of PUDs come through the City of South Bend after the adoption of the 2004 zoning ordinance. The Plan Commission and the Council are kind of asking, "Why are there so many ?" We did an 11 evaluation of that. In 2015, we put forth an amendment to the PUD district and the standards that are established in the ordinance. We strengthened the intent, we removed the area requirement, added some procedural elements to it —but the main focus was that, if it could be achieved through the zoning district or variances or special exceptions through the Area Board of Zoning Appeals, it may not be appropriate for a PUD. Since we have passed that ordinance —we went back and looked at our records —this is the first PUD to be filed since then. We have a couple of PUDs that are in the packaged information that you have there: the Studebaker and Hickory Road PUD. Committeemember Jo Broden asked if Ms. Smith could detail the PUD process for the knowledge of the Committee and the public, as well as explain why the Council has changed from allowing them to making their criteria stricter. Ms. Smith responded, What makes a PUD, Planned Unit Development district different is that, essentially, they write their own zoning guidelines. So, they write their own development standards for their particular development. Because these are very expensive projects and require a lot of review time, prior to the change, there was a Concept Review. So, prior to filing, we asked petitioners to meet with the staff at least ten (10) days prior, to give us some lead time so we could start looking at the project, the development standards, what the issues might be, give us more time to review it— because they often require a much lengthier process compared to the typical rezoning. When they file, they file for a zoning map, as you would for any zoning. But then they're required to file an ordinance —which gives us all the development standards —and a site plan —which is just a tentative plan—and then any other information we ask for along the way. Sometimes we might ask for building elevations, or other such information. That all then gets presented to the Area Plan Commission, then comes before the Council for approval. The secondary portion of it is where it gets into the specific details. The first stage the preliminary phase, which is where we are right now —is all essentially conceptual. It's not until the secondary approval that we get into the specifics. Once the project has preliminary approval, and we finalize all those documents and capture anything that was presented in any public hearing, into that we have a final submittal in which they have to incorporate any changes that were presented at the public hearing into this district ordinance. So, if they agreed to a certain setback change or an area requirement, we make sure that those get incorporated into that secondary approval. Anything that gets presented at a public hearing becomes a part of their district ordinance. Then, we review any plans that are submitted to make sure they meet all the development standards that they have established for themselves. If they meet the standards, they can go across the street and apply for a building permit. If they don't meet the standards, then we have to go back and figure out if it's a major change or a minor change and, depending on what that is, it ends up back to the Council. That's part of why Council, over the years, has been very particular about what they're willing to see as a minor change. Anything that adds a use, changes a setback, increases parking requirements— there's a whole list of things that bump it into a major change. Then you have to apply for a whole new ordinance again. One of the thoughts of the changing PUD was not to make people continually do this process. With a PUD there's a lot more babysitting of the project. We have to do a lot more monitoring, back and forth. So that was one of the things that came up. The other was the Council's not wanting to be too detailed, I think. 3 Committeemember Jo Broden stated, And that's from an administrative process that's handled with Area Plan staff and the developer and contractors. Ms. Smith responded, Right. The secondary process is completely administratively done. They submit to us and we send it off to agencies for review and then would ultimately proof it and send on to everybody. Committeemember Oliver Davis stated, Or send it back to us. Ms. Smith responded, Only if it was a major change. If it's a major change, they have to start all over again. They have to go all the way back to the beginning. That's a major change. Committeemember Jo Broden asked, And if it's not in the written PUD that's been submitted, or that's made it to the secondary process, is there a default to the underlying plan or the underlying zone, at all? Ms. Smith explained, If there's something that's not mentioned —so, for instance, if they submitted a PUD and they don't talk about signage. It goes back to whatever signage is in the underlying district. If they don't talk about architectural standards, it would go back to whatever the underlying zoning district is. I believe the way the ordinance states it, it's the first place in which that use would appear. Larry Magliozzi, Director of the Area Plan Commission, with offices on the 11th Floor of the County -City Building, continued the presentation. He stated, What I want to do ... is direct you to page two (2) and three (3) of the staff report. He stated that in it are listed four (4) criteria outlining State law that both the Plan Commission and the Council have to give reasonable regard to when they consider zoning matters. The first is a reasonable regard to the Comprehensive Plan. The East Bank Plan is an integral part of the Comprehensive Plan, or City Plan. There must be reasonable regard paid to the current conditions and character of the area/neighborhood. There must be reasonable regard paid to the most desirable use of that particular site. There must be reasonable regard paid to the conservational property values. Mr. Magliozzi stated that the Council could be presented all the details of the case, and they could look over all those details, but the City and East Bank Plans must be adhered to after all of that. One of the basic criteria is the height of the building. He explained that the East Bank Plan is still active, viable, and in- place. The East Bank Plan was done in 2008, after an extensive public process. There was a two (2) day charrette; there were ten (10) stakeholder groups that were brought in at the end of the charrette, fifteen concept creators. The process led to one (1) preferred alternative: the plan cost roughly $50,000, give or take, for phase one (1). The East Bank Plan was therefore well vetted. Four (4) years before the adoption of the East Bank Plan in 2004, the City passed its current zoning ordinance. The Central Business District was established at that time. The standards in the CBD are the same on the East and West Bank, except for the height. Mr. Magliozzi explained that there was a conscious decision in 2004 to establish a height different between the two (2) banks: one - hundred and fifty (15 0) on the West Bank; sixty (60) feet on the East Bank. Mr. Magliozzi stated, I just want to make sure that you understand the history of why we're at this point, and the connection to the criteria of State law. He stated that he wanted to take this time to step away from the details of the project and instead provide M insight based on his experience in planning and zoning. He stated, This is one of the most important land -use decisions this Council will make. I have spoken with several of the Councilmembers— present and past Councilmembers —and zoning petitions are probably one of the most emotional and important decisions you ever make. This will determine the balance of the development on the East Bank, one way or the other. It will be almost impossible, if you want approval for this, for the ABZA or the Area Plan Commission or the Council to deny future height variance requests anywhere. So, pick a plot of land on the East Bank that you're familiar with ... just put a twelve (12) story building on there, and then determine —going back to the criteria — whether that affects the character of the neighborhood, and whether it affects property values in the neighborhood. Approval of this plan, as a final point, will cast public doubt on the ability of current and future planning efforts. We're always doing lots of plans. If approval is granted to this plan, which is a major plan—my opinion is that there will be public doubt on future efforts. Committee Chair Oliver Davis asked that all members of the Committee and Council comment or ask questions regarding the bill. Committee Chair Davis suggested that they go around the table in a counter - clockwise fashion, starting with Committeemember Gavin Ferlic. Committeemember Gavin Ferlic stated that the Council was used to getting a staff report for a PUD followed by a presenter giving a favorable, negative, or neutral recommendation from the APC. Committeemember Ferlic asked why this was so different. Ms. Smith clarified that that was because this bill came with no recommendation. She stated, And that was one of the options that they have, as the Plan Commission: to send it with no recommendation. Since this time our Plan Commission Executive Committee has gone a step further and are looking at changing their bylaws to —in all possibilities —a forced decision, they don't believe that they should be sending stuff to you with no recommendation. I think they had regrets for that. I think what happened was that they had a staff report and they had information, they had a large public hearing, and they had a situation where the Department of Community Investment had the offer of one recommendation and then changed it at the meeting, and they [unintelligible] or done something to get more information, but they didn't, so they just sent it with no recommendation and left it at that. She assured the Council that it would not happen again. Committeemember Davis stated that he made the recommendation to send the bill with no recommendation. He explained that Area Plan and he, as representative of Area Plan on the Council, received a packet from Community Investment outlining the reasons why they totally disagreed with the project being discussed. He stated, Then, at the last testimony, it was shared with us that there was a meeting held in the afternoon that changed everybody's thoughts, and I said, A meeting held in the afternoon changed everybody's thoughts? Really? On something this major? We had no documentation in front of us. It was embarrassing. He stated that he'd gotten in touch with the Mayor that afternoon and nothing came of it. He explained that the bill had to come with no recommendation, because there was no way to move forward with the issue after Community Investment had come to favor the project at the last minute. Committeemember Ferlic stated that he already knew why Committeemember Davis made his recommendation, and Committeemember Davis explained that he wanted the public to understand the reasoning behind his decision. He continued, stating that if so many bodies were going to change their minds at the last minute and he, along with the Council, was expected to make a decision that would set a precedent, then, he stated, Let's take all ninety (90) days' time, and we'll make sure that everybody who was part of this process from day one is going to send us a letter of where they stand on this issue and not just blame it on this Committee or this Council for making A or making B. We will have a clear understanding of why A or B was made. Councilmember Karen White asked for a clarification on the exact role of the Council in making a determination on this project. Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand responded, Like any zoning request that comes before the City Council, you have to be cognizant of both your State criteria, that Mr. Magliozzi laid out, and also your load of regulations. The fact that the staff report is very clear, with regard to why the staff recommended several areas of weakness if not noncompliance with the local ordinance, and in light of the history of the ordinance being changed —I would agree with what the Area Plan staff has said, that, indeed, this is going to be setting precedent. The fact that this one also has several concerns that have been raised not only verbally at the Zoning and Annexation meeting that was held in the Chambers, but also since then, as documented by the City Clerk's Office, there are many issues that have been raised. In order for this Council or any Council that would have a request that would have similar regulations that apply to a PUD —this Council has to be very cognizant of all of that so that you are not making an arbitrary and capricious decision, which would then open up the possibility for litigation. Your reasoning has to be sound. She stated, at the end, that the planning and zoning decision must be sound. Councilmember Karen White stated, I had some other comments —but it doesn't pertain to this — in regards to, as we move forward, the opportunity to pull individuals together and to reach some common ground. Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand responded, I believe in some of the information provided by the Area Plan, there's an affirmative duty of Area Plan to meet with the developer. There was a chart that Area Plan has made a part of the record, with regard to proposed changes or modifications for this project, in order to bring the overall plan into compliance with what the options would be under the ordinance and under the State law. Again, we didn't have any summary of that, but perhaps, in light of your question, a brief summary of that would take place. But it was on the chart that we've received at least twice. Ms. Smith responded, You're talking about our recommendation chart? Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand responded, Yes. Ms. Smith explained that they had prepared for Area Plan —and included in the Council packet a comparison between the standards that are within the Central Business District and the proposed PUD, and what their recommendations were. Those were what Area Plan thought would bring the project into compliance with the Plan. rAl Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand stated that that was to avoid any hint that the decision was arbitrary and capricious; that there is sound reasoning going into the decision based on sound legal and planning principles. Councilmember Dr. David Varner stated, Over the years, I've observed that when the written plan supports a project that someone proposes, everybody seems to be in favor it. When there's a question, we find ourselves in this dilemma. I recall when someone didn't think that a downtown Osco was important, and I think that decision was regretted. It wasn't a part of the plan at the time, as I recall. I have pretty much adopted the notion that a plan is an interesting academic exercise, that it involves a lot of people, it gets people involved —but in the future, there's always other questions that arises, that maybe it doesn't fit a plan. As a matter of fact, and maybe I don't have my facts right, the allowance of ninety -five (95) feet —if that's the correct number for the Cascade project —is in the East Bank area, but yet it exceeds the sixty (60) feet that seemed to be an absolute number that you used, Larry. I believe it's in the East Bank area, is it? Ms. Smith responded, It is. Councilmember Dr. Varner stated, Okay. Time sometimes morphs plans. Whether that happens tonight or not, I don't know, but I hear the absolutes; I know that everybody wants what they want at the moment that we adopt a plan, but I also think that as time passes sometimes there's things... I think, as another example, no one expected sixty -eight (68) townhouses out in Eddy Street Commons. It was supposed to be a garage and some other things, but it showed itself to be a viable outcome. He then confirmed with Area Plan that the Eddy Street project was a PUD. Councilmember Dr. Varner continued, So, they had the option of morphing the thing as they needed. I just wanted to make clear the point, as I look at it, that a plan is a plan and that's a great idea, and it's most accurate the moment it's adopted —after that, there may be some questions that we're all faced with, and tonight's case would be one of them. So, take that into consideration. Ms. Smith stated, If you look back at the Cascade project, we were not in favor of that project. We had used the Comprehensive Plan the way our departments were required to in response to any of the height requests along that way. But when we looked at the recommendation for this project, we looked at what the Area Board of Zoning Appeals had set precedence for, and the Cascade project and the Sycamore project, and what this Council had made precedence for in the Niles and Jefferson project, and that's where we came up with our recommendation. We considered it a morphed recommendation already from what the plan is. So, if we would look strictly at the plan, our recommendation would be that you have sixty (60) feet, because that's what it says. We took into consideration some of the development that had happened since then. Councilmember Dr. Varner responded, So you don't see ninety -five (95) feet for this project as a possible solution? Ms. Smith responded, No, that's what I put in the recommendation. My recommendation was actually to be consistent with the Department of Community Investment's policy that they adopted a couple of days ago. We kind of saw that as a morphing of the plan, which is exactly what you're talking about. 7 Mr. Magliozzi stated, It's really a validation of the process. You have the Area Board of Zoning Appeals and, obviously, they have the authority to grant variances. We as a staff approach it the same way. We have to essentially defend the processes that were put in place before that. There were three (3) decisions that essentially raised the height from sixty (60) feet to whatever. Ninety -six (96) was maybe the highest. Now this one's going to one - seventy -five (175) or one- sixty -eight (168). Councilmember Tim Scott asked when the East Bank Village Plan was adopted, and Councilmember Karen White responded that it was in 2008. He then asked when it expired. Ms. Smith explained that it does not expire. Comprehensive plans are generally a twenty (20) to thirty (30) year timeframe. There were some action items in there, but it does not expire until a new plan is adopted. Councilmember Tim Scott asked if there was a percentage of what had materialized out of the whole plan. Mr. Magliozzi responded, Well, the Seitz Park effort that's going on now —to expand Seitz Park —that was part of the plan. The streetscape, that was part of the plan. Some other elements — obviously, construction. All the townhomes —like the current projects that Dave Matthews has —were part of that. It encouraged that kind of thing a lot. Ms. Smith added, Some of the facade improvements that you've seen along Jefferson would be within that. The new general store that went up and those kinds of projects —the improvements of the village. Councilmember Tim Scott interjected, saying, Those little Smart Streets. Ms. Smith responded, Some of them Smart Streets, yes. Councilmember Tim Scott asked that the presenters pull up the shadow demonstration on their Powerpoint again. He stated, You have snapshots of these within a timeframe, but we all know that the Earth moves. So, in the winter solstice, how long is that shadow over that area? Ms. Smith explained that included in the packet given to the Council was a download link to see the shadow demonstration in real time. For the sake of the Powerpoint presentation, the presenters picked 3:30 p.m. as a time to snapshot on the two (2) solstices and two (2) equinoxes for fair comparison between those days. Councilmember Tim Scott clarified that he wanted to know how long the shadows would hang over the area for. Ms. Smith responded that that was dependent on a lot of factors. Councilmember Randy Kelly asked in what ways the project meets some of the criteria laid out by the East Bank Plan. Ms. Smith responded, One of the things identified in the East Bank Plan was for a public parking garage to be on the site. The use itself is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Kelly asked, What about in particular? Did they get into details like the grocery store, and those kinds of things? Ms. Smith responded, They do not. It just called for a Mixed -Use building. It showed a two (2) or three (3) story building wrapped around a parking garage, with the buildings kind of being on LaSalle then wrapping around Sycamore, and then a public parking garage in the center. Councilmember Kelly asked, Okay, but with regard to the East Bank Plan in general, it never talked about the grocery store or... ? Ms. Smith responded that a grocery store has been a goal for downtown in general. Mr. Magliozzi stated, Each block was identified with specific uses in the East Bank. Those are a guide. He stated, The East Bank Plan only mentions height in one (1) area, for one (1) particular aspect of it, but when you look at the language, the charrettes, the samples of what people were actually building on the tables and all of the illustrations, they are essentially three (3), four (4), maybe five (5) story buildings at the most. Councilmember Kelly stated, And obviously important to note that those are wish lists, because it comes down to what developers are willing and able to do. Mr. Magliozzi responded that it is very difficult to put specifics on any kind of plan. Councilmember Scott interrupted the proceedings briefly to inform the Council that food had been brought for the Council to eat before the Common Council meeting later in the evening. Committeemember Jo Broden stated, Planning is more than academic. It's more than wish lists. It drives, it gives predictability, it gives developers a template; a vision, in this case, to distinguish itself from the West Bank of our Central Business District. As a Fourth District Councilperson, I can speak to the benefits of strong and good planning. Committeemember Broden continued to make the case for planners, and for plans in general, crediting planners with successfully drawing developers into the city. She stated, Smart developers rely on planning. Smart investors rely on planning. She stated that the East Bank Plan has been looked at by the South Bend Common Council possibly over eight (8) times since its adoption. Each of those times, the Council had a chance to reevaluate the plan and "come down on one side or the other, to grant the variance or not." She stated, There are plans in place. There are routes to get to height variances, and you can see them in this neighborhood specifically. She clarified that she could not say enough how much she felt that this project should happen. She stated, It is an awesome project, in terms of concept. I'm not second - guessing the smart folks of the Regional Cities Plan or the money that is opening up for this project, but I am going to rely on some of the smart planning that goes behind that. We want to attract residences to downtown. One - hundred percent (100 %) agreement across that. There are two (2) really shiny cool things with this — they're long on South Bend's wish list: a drug store, and a grocery store. We can make this happen, but the PUD that this is riding on is not the way to go if we want smart development. I want a win for the 4th District, but even moreso I want a win for the City, and I want to do it in a 9 way that doesn't eviscerate our ability to plan. It's a difficult issue, and I think we can do better and I think we can be bigger. I'd like to see everybody come to the table on this in a better, more open way. This is a great opportunity —it's just the wrong horse to ride, and it is dangerous. Committeemember Davis asked Mr. Magliozzi if he had any comments on behalf of Area Plan, to which Mr. Magliozzi replied that he did not. Committeemember Davis then explained that the format they were currently engaged in was unusual, but that, after all the updates and changes to this proposed project, it was only fair to the public to hear what the members of the Committee and Council thought of the project. They continued around the table. Committeemember John Voorde stated, I think this is the toughest issue we've faced, in my brief tenure on the Council, and it is certainly one that is transformative for that area, whichever way it goes. I believe in planning —the importance of it as a guide. He stated that though he was not responsible for the passing of the East Bank Plan, as he was not yet a part of the Council, he did it up for display at the front desk of the Clerk's Office. He stated, A lot of other plans up there, too. Some of them aren't relevant anymore, because plans, once made, may no longer be relevant to the reality of what's going on in the marketplace. There was a plan to make South Bend a pedestrian mall, at one time, and that one ought to stay on the shelf, probably never should have been adopted. The hindsight is clear. He stated that it was obvious that there is a desire for things to happen in that area, that there is a desire to be developer - friendly, to bring in the market and drugstore. He stated, This particular proposal in this place is complicated by the fact that what we do here will affect everything around it in a positive or negative point of view. He stated that he wanted to make an informed decision, and noted that this was an important case, as it affects a public asset. He stated, When I was first on the Council in 1980, it wasn't long after we started that we voted for the park bond, which was the last park bond up until the most recent one that opened up the East Race, because the people had the vision that things could happen here. He explained that there had been a plan for a village concept on the East Bank back then, but that there was no one at the time who would step up to make it a reality. He stated, Now I think we're coming back full- circle to what the original East Bank vision was. I think I agree with Councilmember Broden. We're going to need more time. I think we can take more time, get a continuance here for not too long, as long as it's not just time to put off a decision. As long as all the principal parties —Area Plan, Matthews, other essential developers, Community Investment —come together, sit down, and say is this the best plan? I personally want to understand this to a greater degree. I don't want to lose development. I've been around too long and seen too much of that in downtown South Bend. I know of specific examples where things could have happened but didn't because somebody along the way said that it was not part of the plan. That's too bad, because we lost things to neighboring communities that we quite frankly shouldn't have. I just want to make sure that we do this one right, and we have a window of opportunity to do that in the next thirty (30) days while allowing Mr. Matthews to adhere to his timeline. Councilmember Regina Williams- Preston explained that this was a very interesting process, and that she was learning a great deal. She stated that it was important that this case would set a precedent. She stated, What I'm hearing is that if there is another way that doesn't impact our 10 ability to stick to a plan, that that is something we get to consider. I won't belabor the point, but I am also interested in learning more and seeing what we can do together. Committeemember Oliver Davis asked, If somebody wants to change the East Bank Plan to add height, to add changes —is that a very difficult process? Can that be done, and does it take forever —a year or two —or can it be done quickly? What's the plan? Ms. Smith stated, State law kind of outlines what the process has to be if you want to make an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. They set how many meetings you have to do. You need to have a stakeholder meeting again. You need to invite the public. It would have to go to the Area Plan Commission to have a public hearing, then you'd have to come back to the County to have a public hearing. At the very minimum, I would think it would be at least a three (3) month process. Committeemember Davis asked if —in the case of an administration and developers coming against these established plans with new ideas —Ms. Smith's counsel was to engage in that three (3) month process and then come back to the Council. Ms. Smith responded, Actually, it was either at the Project Advisory Team meeting or, if it was not that, the inceptional meeting, that we actually recommended that Mr. Matthews go talk to the Department of Community Investment and do just that: initiate a new process for the East Bank Village to kind of come into compliance with that. I think Dave had a meeting used to talk in general concept about whether or not that's going to happen. We did suggest that, actually. If it has in fact changed so much, maybe that process should be started. And that was in June. Committeemember Davis asked if that was the June of the past year. Ms. Smith responded, Yes. Committeemember Davis asked if this particular case could have conceivably gone through the process she outlined. Ms. Smith responded, Yes. Committeemember Davis responded, Then this makes this situation a different ball game. He stated, We do need to make it clear that everything in 2016 is not prevented just because of 2008's concepts; that there is a process to change that plan to get this ready to come here. He then asked Mr. Magliozzi if he wanted to comment. Mr. Magliozzi stated, I think three (3) is rather aggressive... Ms. Smith stated, Ambitious, yes. Mr. Magliozzi stated, If you wanted to hire someone to help you do this, it's probably two (2) months just to hire a consultant, and then it's maybe three (3) to four (4) months after that ... I can't remember how long it took the East Bank Plan, but it was lengthy. I'm thinking it's a year, 11 give or take. Now, if you do it in- house, you don't have to hire a consultant to do that. We have a plan in place, so it's possible to revisit that plan, get the same stakeholders. You can do that in- house, if the City so desires to do that. So this has to be City-led—the primary plan. Again, the process may result in what you have now. It may, again, validate what is there now. Committeemember Davis asked if the process was initiated, and stakeholders and the like were brought in, if there was a possibility of the amended plan being adopted. Mr. Magliozzi responded, Yes. Committeemember Davis asked Council Attorney Cekanski- Farrand if there was any way for the bill to be presented to the public at the Common Council meeting that night without the Council having to vote on it that night. Council Attorney Cekanski- Farrand responded, Yes. Committeemember Broden asked if Brian Pawlowski of Community Investment could explain to the Committee and Council what the policy is that allows for variances in height. Mr. Magliozzi responded, The staff policy, I think. Committeemember Broden stated, Staff policy, thank you. That's what I meant. When the Council was looked to —with the previous PUD that came through, that policy, I think, was a really significant factor. Mr. Magliozzi responded, Perhaps, in the Area Board of Zoning Appeals' decision... Ms. Smith interjected, It's really a policy by the Department of Community Investment on which projects they will support. So, they came up with criteria, and one of them involved public space or public art, and then if it had certain kinds of architectural elements, then they would come out and speak in favor of a project. It was during the 2013 petition for Niles and Jefferson that they developed that policy. So, when Mr. Matthews was in front of the ABZA for Niles and Jefferson, they came forward with that policy for when they would support a project in front of the ABZA. It's just a policy for when DCI would support a project in front of the ABZA. It's not an ABZA policy, it's not even an Area Plan staff policy. Councilmember White asked, Is it a policy, or is it a practice? A policy is actually written, versus a practice. Ms. Smith responded, It's actually a written document that says that if you meet these criteria, then the Department will support your project. Mr. Magliozzi explained, It was couched just for that site, that project. They could take that and say that we did this argument and policy for Niles and Jefferson and we're going to apply it to a policy practice. But I'm not sure we'd apply to it to all future projects. 12 Brian Pawlowski, Director of Community Investment, with offices on the 14`" Floor of the County -City Building, added to the discussion. He stated, The criteria used in that specific project I certainly think aspects of it are used in other projects as well throughout the city. Mr. Pawlowski then apologized on behalf of Community Investment for the last minute change in recommendation they offered to the Council, which Committeemember Oliver Davis had referenced earlier in the evening. He went on to explain the process by which Community Investment, through long deliberations with the petitioner, came to their decision. David Matthews, 215 East Colfax Avenue, South Bend, IN, served as petitioner of the bill. He explained that the East Bank Plan calls for a sixty (60) foot height limit, but that the ABZA raised that to ninety -eight (98) feet, a sixty -three percent (63 %) increase. The petitioner met with the ABZA to propose the project at that height and had it shot down. They presented another project, and the ABZA denied them again, at which point they discovered that they could go through the PUD process and so chose to do that. The South Bend Common Council approved of the PUD at ninety -eight (98) feet. He explained that he had been before the Committee that evening to ask for one - hundred and seventy -five (175) feet, which would be an additional seventy -eight percent (78 %) increase from the proposed ninety -eight (98) feet. He pointed to the Eddy Street Commons as a project that the City plan did not account for that was a successful PUD. He explained that his project met all the criteria for the East Bank, except for the height, and that he has received fifty (50) letters in support of the project. At this point, he moved on to the rest of his presentation. Mr. Matthews presented images of the Commerce Center in 2010, when development began on the site, and of it in 2016. He showed images of the townhomes that he built across from the Emporium, stating that that site used to be a half -dirt, half -paved parking lot. He then stated, We've done a great job of selling our successes, but the neighborhood is still really quite poor. He then presented a chart from the Indiana Economic Development Corporation showing demographics for the neighborhood. He stated, In 2015, 2,100 people lived in the neighborhood in 1,200 households. The median income —fifty percent (50 %) of the households' income make less than $16,000 a year. That's $1,400 a month, per household. You can see the breakdown: forty-seven percent (47 %) make less than $15,000; twelve percent (12 %) make between $15,000 and $25,000. And at the bottom, the $200,000 - plus —the $150,000 to $200,000: twenty -one (21) households who are in those brackets. He stated that a lot of those people were probably his customers. He stated that he has not torn any buildings down or evicted anyone in the area, and that in fact he has taken vacant land to build on so as to drive people and business into downtown South Bend. He stated, That's what we need as a city. Our city is based on people. As we look around the County, the new apartments that have been built in the past decade have almost all been focused toward student housing. South Bend is really well - positioned, because if you're not a student and you're living in an apartment, chances are it's twenty (20) to forty (40) years -old, and it's not that nice. So, as a city, if we can get new apartments coming into our downtown, we can get those people to move out of the County and into downtown South Bend. There's a good competitive opportunity for South Bend to see some rapid growth, and we want to be part of that. Mr. Matthews then presented a picture of the Commerce Center parking lot. He expressed his interest in making that area is pedestrian- friendly, comparing his efforts to the City's Smart Streets effort. He stated, The existing site is 90,000 square feet, two- point -nine (2.9) acres, with a 13 couple hundred (200) parking spots on the site. It's assessed at $2,000,000. We pay about $60,000 a year in taxes. He then presented an image of the site plan. He stated, We wanted a parking structure in the middle, which kind of keeps with the overall plan of the East Bank Plan. He explained that, instead of being on the corner, the parking garage would actually be hidden by a building that would wrap around it. The building would have ground -floor retail, in the form of a pharmacy and grocery store, which would accommodate a neighborhood whose nearest pharmacy is currently two (2) miles away at Edison and Ironwood. The grocery store would also have a deli on the side of the building facing the river. He stated that the East Bank Plan called for the site to have a public area, and that the site would have public space along the East Bank. He stated, This is us creating public space and really trying to do a development that is going to add and help build up the character of our neighborhood. Velvet Canada, Matthews LLC, 401 East Colfax Ave., South Bend, IN, continued the petitioner's presentation. Ms. Canada summarized the aesthetics of the mixed -use: a combination of the Commerce Center's arches with Chicago -style bay windows, which would bring in light for the units and allow one to look down Sycamore; a French style for the supermarket entrance, with a canopy adorned with delicate metalwork and equally delicate balconies where one can look out onto LaSalle; for the center building —the main portion of the store —a more classical inspiration, with recessed balconies as well as those protruding onto the street; and the industrial style already offered by the Commerce Center toward the East Race, relying on metal and brick construction. Ms. Canada showed pictures depicting the proposed building in- context with the East Bank Flats and other Matthews LLC townhomes. She also showed what it would look like from the fourteenth (14th) floor of the County -City Building in context with the rest of the city. Ms. Canada explained that the building is being proposed at twelve (12) stories, at one - hundred and sixty -two (162) feet in height, with an overall height of one - hundred and seventy -five (175) feet to get the elevator and other mechanical features in the building, and a footprint of 32,400 square feet. There would be two - hundred and forty (240) apartments, which would equal twenty - four (24) apartments per floor. The main parking will service the grocery store, with traffic coming in off LaSalle and Colfax. Main parking will have one - hundred and twenty -one (121) spaces, with eighty -four (84) covered, and thirty -seven (37) uncovered. The upper levels will be accessible via speed ramp from Sycamore. It will house spaces for employees and the current Commerce Center area, as well as the apartments. There will be six - hundred and twenty -one (621) spaces. A common green space is currently proposed for the roof deck. Committeemember Oliver Davis requested that the remainder of the petitioner's presentation be shortened to two (2) minutes, as there were few minutes left in the meeting in general. Jonathan Jones, Matthews LLC, 401 East Colfax Ave., South Bend, IN, continued the petitioner's presentation. Mr. Jones stated that the first questions he is often asked regarding market -rate demand is whether or not the multi - family construction taking place in the downtown area is outstripping demand. Mr. Jones contended that the answer to that question was "No." Mr. Jones stated that to elucidate that answer, he needed to delve more deeply into the context of the matter at hand. South Bend is the fourth (4th) largest city within the State. It sits at the center of a multi - county, bi -state region known as Michiana, home to well over 800,000 individuals. If Greater Michiana is accounted for, South Bend is then the cultural and economic hub of a region of nearly 1,000,000 people. It is within a three (3) hour drive of four (4) major 14 cities. South Bend is positioned to be a strong economic driver in the State, as well as a great incubator of business development. Mr. Jones stated that this was not only his view, but that of the State, as evidenced by the Regional Cities Initiative. Results of an IEDC study —which sought ways to research successful planning in other regions — reveal that regions that plan successfully are ideal places for individuals to live, work, and play. These are important considerations when acquiring talent, given that young professionals seek out not only cool places to live, but places of employment, recreation, and social connectivity that are within walking distance of where they live. 20,000 people make up the workday population of downtown South Bend, compared to the 3,000 who make up its resident population. The growth of this resident population is hindered by the availability of present developments. Less than sixteen percent (16 %) of housing is available within the downtown area. There is a strong, growing demand in the downtown area for opportunities to live close to work. National trends show a shift toward urban living and more temporary housing, due to factors like young professionals getting married later or young professionals taking on more mobile jobs. On the other hand, Baby Boomers are becoming empty- nesters looking for opportunities to downsize. Mr. Jones stated that these opportunities are not currently present. The downtown market is aging, and rental properties have mostly focused on student renting. This presents an opportunity for Matthews LLC to make a mark in the area. When Matthews first entered the neighborhood, his East Bank Flats were the first residential market -rate development that had been completed since the Pointe Apartments, which was finished over thirty (30) years prior. The current project will provide units ranging from one (1) to four (4) bedrooms for a wide range of individuals including young college students, growing young families needing more space, and Baby Boomers. He stated that the project would bring together people of diverse backgrounds, from many different economic statuses, and from a wide variety of stages of life. He also stated that the price range will be diverse, unlike previous projects that aimed for a higher price point. Matthews LLC is working on a pilot program for tenants to become volunteers in their neighborhood, in which hours of volunteer work count as credit toward a discount of up to fifty percent (50 %) of their monthly rent. Aside from the incentive of a discounted rental fee, this program seeks to build community through the establishment of relationships and the cooperative work of people of different walks of life. At this point, Committeemember Oliver Davis asked for the presentation to end, due to time constraints. Committeemember Gavin Ferlic made a motion to send Bill No. 41 -16 to the Common Council with no recommendation and Committeemember John Voorde seconded, which carried by a voice vote of four (4) ayes. With no further items on the agenda, Committee Chair Oliver Davis adjourned the meeting at 6:31 p.m. -'1 fully Submitted, �U\ Oliv i , ittee Chair 15