|
REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2016
<br />Central Business District. Within that Central Business District, we have buildings —such as the
<br />Chase Tower at twenty (20) stories —that are tall, and that is great for the area. This is actually
<br />on an islet that is west of the East Race. So, I do agree that there are some areas, probably on the
<br />very far eastern portion of the East Bank Village, where this might not fit quite as well, but this
<br />is the Central Business District. So, yes, I absolutely think it fits with the character. And, finally,
<br />conservation of property values. Again, having a grocery store and a pharmacy that's walkable —
<br />I think all that does is increase property value. Judging on what we're supposed to judge this on,
<br />I think this fulfills all criteria and, as other people come to us with propositions, if it's in a
<br />residential district or doesn't fit that criteria I will vote no for a PUD. But guess what? We're
<br />talking about precedent. If someone else, like Dr. Varner said, comes to us next month and wants
<br />to build a thirteen (13) story building in the Central Business District, I'm going to say yes. I
<br />think that's awesome. So, I hope this does set a precedent that within our Central Business
<br />District, we are welcoming to development. Also, it is so important to note that the City is not
<br />being asked to subsidize this project with direct tax dollars. Not to say that I oppose that in some
<br />scenarios, because we do support some development with tax dollars, but the great thing about
<br />this project is that the City is not being asked to put any tax dollars in. The developer went out
<br />and got State grant money that, without his efforts, would not be coming to downtown South
<br />Bend. So, again, think about how positive that is. If this project was going to Mishawaka, or
<br />Dave, after he won the Regional Cities grant, decided to build this in Mishawaka, I'd be jealous.
<br />I would want this in downtown South Bend, within our Central Business District. So, I'm
<br />thankful he brought it. With that being said, I would hope the Council would approve this
<br />tonight. However, as I have expressed to all of you, if it is continued, I do ask that it is continued
<br />to the December meeting, as I will not be present for the late November meeting. But again, if
<br />we do approve, I will continue to encourage the developer —and I think he's done a good job and
<br />that he can continue to do a good jobto engage with the neighbors, to engage with other
<br />developers in the area. I think this is a good framework, but I think as we continue on, I think
<br />you can work with those developers, work with the neighbors, to finalize a plan that I think
<br />works for everyone. This has my full support.
<br />Councilmember Oliver Davis thanked Chairperson Ferlic. Councilmember Davis stated that
<br />when he reviewed this information, as he sits on Area Plan and the Council, he quickly realized
<br />that this was going to take a lot of time. When the different changes came in that day —when first
<br />Community Investment said that they were against it, and then said they were for it, then Area
<br />Plan made their recommendation and communicated their concerns —one of the things I quickly
<br />knew that I needed —when one department of the City, who we look to, shares another thought
<br />and, even though they quickly change it up at the last minute and still they left it out there —
<br />when two (2) different departments of the same administration say two (2) different things, I
<br />needed to receive a letter from the Mayor, which I have not received, yet. And I've requested
<br />that, because I think automatically that when two (2) of these departments share different things,
<br />then the Mayor has to speak for that part of it, because that doesn't make sense. If you have two
<br />different people speaking, somebody else has to break the tie. That's why we've elected the
<br />Mayor. I do agree with Mr. Matthews. He said, "Do you want the elected officials of the City of
<br />South Bend to be here ?" Nine (9) of us ... well, five (5) of us are here tonight. One's missing, on a
<br />major matter that you want to be heard tonight. Area Plan, I agree with you. We have all the
<br />people from all over the place. But you wanted the City of South Bend leadership to be here
<br />tonight. I did, too. That's why I don't mind taking this to the last meeting of December 12t}',
<br />because I have requested our Mayor to be here. I want him to weigh in on it. Whether it goes one
<br />way or whether it goes the other way. I think his voice needs to be heard, because he had two (2)
<br />significant departments to share with us two (2) significant different ways of how to do it like
<br />when we do our due diligence.
<br />We have to do our due diligence. I was on this Council, in 2008. I was one of the ones who was
<br />here, and I thank the voters of South Bend for allowing me to be here for nine (9) years. I do
<br />clearly remember going to Officer Rex and everything else of the East Bank, and the amount of
<br />time it took us to do that. I wasn't on the Council at the time. The one thing that I have to make
<br />sure of on the Zoning Committee, is that I have to be very careful when I pivot. And the reason I
<br />say that is we had a situation where we got called into the Department of Justice. One person
<br />said we did not treat her fair. They appealed all the way up to the United States Department of
<br />27
<br />
|