|
REGULAR MEETING
<br />NOVEMBER 14, 2016
<br />I would consider an aggressive tax abatement would be what the City Council gave to the Chase
<br />Tower project to abate more money.
<br />Councilmember Dr. Varner interjected that it is constrained by a ten (10) year limitation.
<br />Mr. Matthews continued, stating, It is still constrained by ten (10) years, but instead of doing
<br />nine (9) from an abated seventy (70), sixty (60), fifty (50), forty (40), twenty (20), it stays in the
<br />higher nineties (90's) longer, abated-
<br />Councilmember Dr. Varner interjected, stating, If that happened, I wasn't aware of that. My
<br />understanding of the abatements is that by statute they had to decrease annually.
<br />Councilmember Jo M. Broden asked, How do we go from sixty (60) feet, allowable by the Plan,
<br />or ninety -six (96) by precedent — variances within this particular neighborhood —to one - hundred
<br />and seventy -five (175) feet? If it is so incremental of a change, why did you not go for a variance
<br />through ABZA?
<br />Mr. Matthews responded that he was talking about the history of how the height limit went from
<br />Frank Perri's proposal of sixty (60) feet to ninety (90) or (100) feet, and subsequent application
<br />to the ABZA to get the same deal. The ABZA turned us down. We applied for a different parcel
<br />across the street, continuous and adjacent. We got turned down. So then we went back to the City
<br />and did a PUD, because there's politics to be played with the County, having so many seats
<br />appointed to an ABZA board and then deciding what happens in our Central Business District. I
<br />applied twice. I was turned down each time. I applied to the City Council through a PUD and
<br />was approved. It was a contentious rezoning meeting, but I think seventy (70) people got up and
<br />spoke in favor of it. People who actually live in the neighborhood. But when we went before the
<br />Area Board of Zoning Appeals, the representative from Mishawaka was against it and shot it
<br />down. This is a board that has no influence over Mishawaka. Then, when we went for the PUD,
<br />that same gentleman showed up at the rezoning meeting and spoke against it again. There are
<br />politics to be played by going through the County. I think our zoning is broken, in that regard. I
<br />think it's a major defect that politics from throughout the County Lakeville, Walkerton,
<br />Mishawaka —have an impact on how we choose to build in downtown South Bend. So, if I have
<br />the opportunity to do a project this way, I have to do a variance. But if I want to expand the
<br />project and do it this way instead, I can apply for a PUD rezoning and have the City
<br />Councilmembers —you who live in the City, deciding how our city grows— that's absolutely my
<br />choice. But to do that, what do I have to do? Well, I have to spend ten (10) times as much on the
<br />application fees. I have to spend a lot more on architecture, renderings, site layout, engineering
<br />studies to make sure that the plan fits, because I'm tied to the site plan. I have to present the site
<br />plan and elevations in public, so that it's part of the record that I'm tied to the site plan. If I
<br />deviate from it and try to cheapen the building, then you can deny me my permit. So, I'm coming
<br />and putting handcuffs on and saying we're deviating from the norm. But instead of going to this
<br />County -wide council and saying they get to choose, I'd rather you choose. We elected you.
<br />You're our city representatives. These are the people who voted you in, and a lot of them live in
<br />the neighborhood. Let it be our influence and your choice to make this change. If you make this
<br />change, yes, it will set a precedent. And that change can be picked up and carried out by the
<br />ABZA, but for the initial change of raising the height limit, I think that's your responsibility.
<br />Councilmember Broden asked, If the City funded or bonded the garage, would you need the
<br />height? In a related question to that, the gentleman who kindly came up and shared such terrific
<br />information from Indianapolis —would his analysis change at nine (9) stories?
<br />Mr. Matthews responded, If we drop from twelve (12) stories to nine (9), what happens? We lose
<br />three (3) stories. That's seventy -five (75) units, give or take.
<br />Councilmember Davis asked, Why do the units have to be lost?
<br />Mr. Matthews responded, I have a fixed footprint, but we've laid out twenty -four (24) units per
<br />floor. If you take three (3) floors off, we drop down to nine (9) stories, then we've given up
<br />$300,000 a year of taxes we're going to pay. We did the math, just in case this question came up.
<br />We're looking for about $1,900,000 per floor. So, the City said if you wanted to go to nine (9),
<br />stories, you wouldn't even have to pay for the whole garage. If you paid just under $6,000,000,
<br />up front with a TIF bond and tax abatement, we could fund the rest of the garage and make nine
<br />14
<br />
|