|
REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14,201
<br />(9) stories work, absolutely. But when we've tried that in the past, if something happens and we
<br />don't build the entire complex, and we aren't paying those taxes, now the taxpayers are on the
<br />hook. From a developer standpoint, that's fantastic. It's less stress for me. It's a smaller
<br />commitment for us. I have to work things out with Rob at Martin's, but I'm sure he's going to be
<br />okay with that because I can probably lower his rent a little bit more, because I'm going to spend
<br />less money up front. But, from a citizen standpoint? The fact that the City would offer to spend
<br />$6,000,000 to get seventy -five (75) less people living in downtown is disgusting. That's almost a
<br />third (1/3) or fourth (1/4) of what we spent on Smart Streets. We just spent $25,000,000 making
<br />downtown more pedestrian friendly and walkable, and the concept of the City saying, If we give
<br />you $6,000,000, would you build less, take less risk, and have South Bend collect less tax
<br />revenue forever? That just seems wrong. This is where I stand. Absolutely, I'm happy to do it,
<br />and if that's what it takes to get it done, I'm game.
<br />Councilmember Randy Kelly had no questions for the presenters or petitioner.
<br />Councilmember Regina Williams- Preston stated that there was a concern that if this process is
<br />followed through, it will jeopardize future considerations regarding redevelopment; that it would
<br />become next to impossible to deny any sort of additional kinds of developments.
<br />Mr. Matthews responded, I think that's just height.
<br />Angela Smith responded, I think the difference between variances and PUD's setting precedence
<br />is that variances look at site - specific criteria, and they look at individual sites. Our concern with
<br />using the PUD process is that they don't look at site - specific things. So, the criteria doesn't say
<br />that this one site is unique. So, if a PUD is approved for this location, and somebody came with a
<br />project a block down the street and said that he wanted to do a PUD at this location, it would be
<br />difficult for the staff to tell them no, or for the Council to say that the City could not afford a
<br />PUD at the same kind of criteria, no matter what the site layout looked like.
<br />Mr. Matthews interjected, stating, But the way that this PUD was applied cannot be applied for
<br />again, because of that group residence situation.
<br />Ms. Smith responded, However, you could have applied for a Mixed -use Development, which
<br />you also chose not to do.
<br />Councilmember Williams- Preston stated, What I heard earlier as well was that back in June, the
<br />APC recommended that you think about going through the process of changing the East Bank
<br />Plan, which is something that has been talked about a little bit, because it's an issue. We have
<br />this plan, and it tells us that one of the four things we need to consider is whether or not this
<br />project matches any existing plans. What we've been told, and what we can see, is that this does
<br />not match the current plan that we have in place.
<br />Mr. Matthews responded, I disagree. I think it matches ninety -five percent (95 %) of everything
<br />in that plan. It matches the use, it matches the mixed -use zoning, it matches the type, it
<br />matches -
<br />Councilmember Williams- Preston interjected, stating, The big giant thing it doesn't match is the
<br />height.
<br />Mr. Matthews responded, If we look at the precedent, we've already changed the height limit
<br />sixty -eight percent (68 %) from sixty (60) feet to ninety -eight (98) feet. We're asking for a
<br />seventy -eight percent (78 %) increase from the ninety -eight (98) feet to one - hundred and seventy -
<br />five (175).
<br />Councilmember Williams- Preston responded, Right, and I think that's exactly my point. All of
<br />these changes don't match the plan. That height piece doesn't match the plan. One of the things
<br />you said earlier —which I think is a really important point —was that neighborhood plans are
<br />different from business plans. And so what we have to ask ourselves is whether or not we are
<br />going to allow the business community to determine or override what the people have said that
<br />they want. I think that that is a really important question. To that end, some of the data that you
<br />have presented tells us that in this neighborhood, eighty -four percent (84 %) of the people who
<br />live there now, give or take a few, make less than $50,000 a year. Seventy -two percent (72 %)
<br />15
<br />
|