|
REGULAR MEETING December 12, 2016
<br />Councilmember Williams- Preston, addressing Mr. Matthews, stated, You had mentioned that
<br />you would be willing to work with neighbors and have already been working with neighbors, and
<br />one of the big issues that neighbors were concerned about was the height. It is my understanding
<br />that several months ago, there was a recommendation by the Area Plan Commission, I think, that
<br />you look at possibly going back to that East Bank Plan. You and I have had this conversation,
<br />too. I have concerns about making a decision that goes so far outside a plan that was created by
<br />people in the community. The issue is that business plans, in my mind, should not trump or
<br />supersede neighborhood plans. Can you clarify for me, maybe again, what was your reasoning
<br />behind not pursuing that line per the recommendation? That line of —let's go back, let's talk to
<br />neighbors, let's get some other consensus at that time.
<br />Mr. Matthews responded, So, as a private developer, we met with the neighborhood organization
<br />for this area, the Howard Park Neighborhood Organization. We presented. We had dialogue.
<br />They gave a letter of support. We met with neighbors from the townhomes and row houses that
<br />have gone up. So, we worked with the homeowners associations of the new development, we
<br />worked the neighborhood organization for the entire neighborhood, and had a lot of conversation
<br />and dialogue as we were presenting and brought them through the design process. To update the
<br />East Bank Plan, I don't think as a private developer I can do that. I think that has to come from
<br />the City, probably via the Area Plan Commission or the Department of Community Investment.
<br />So, they have to do anew study. I'll be there, and I'm sure a lot of neighbors will be there, too.
<br />But, from a private developer standpoint, I think we went above and beyond and met with as
<br />many neighbors in the eight (8) or nine (9) blocks of the East Bank that we could.
<br />Councilmember Broden stated, So, Mr. Matthews, at the very start of this process, pursuant
<br />through the Planned Unit Development district ordinance that was passed by this Council in
<br />2015 —there are two criteria that get to whether or not this is the type of petition that we should
<br />be seeing as a Council. One (1) is Section A3, and it says, "The PUD District is not intended for
<br />developments seeking release from development standards within a district in which the use is
<br />permitted. The height that you're requesting, is that not a development standard for this district
<br />that you're trying to build in?
<br />Mr. Matthews responded, The intent of the PUD is that they don't want somebody using the
<br />PUD to, let's say, get to do a variance process instead of going through the ABZA. If we were
<br />just talking about height and nothing else, then yes, that would be wrong. But we're not talking
<br />about just height. We have a site plan, we have a Mixed -Use building, we have group
<br />residencies — that's an additional use. There's now a path that somebody could use to go through
<br />the ABZA to get a group residency, but when we did the original planning for this site, you could
<br />not have three (3) people living together in a three (3) bedroom apartment. There was no way to
<br />make it happen in the Central Business District. We knew that, down the road, the City Council
<br />might make a path for people to have two (2) or three (3) roommates in the downtown. But when
<br />we were doing our planning, when we submitted the application, that was talk —and there was
<br />dialogue going on —but no one had talked to me about it. I know that was a piece of legislation
<br />you actually worked on. But again, nobody talked to me. We just heard rumors that this was
<br />going to happen eventually. So, when we did the application, the only option we had was to do a
<br />Planned Unit Development and keep a lot of the stuff intact in the Central Business District, or
<br />do a Mixed -Use Development, which has more restrictive heights and —it's not really designed
<br />with part of the Central Business District. So, it made more sense for us to do the PUD.
<br />Honestly, Eddy Street Commons is a PUD. PUD's give the Council a lot more information and a
<br />lot more control about what's going to happen. So, for a $50,000,000 development, it seemed
<br />like the right path was to come to City Council and say, "Here's our cards, here's what we're
<br />thinking of doing, here's what it's going to look like, here's the site layout. What do you think ?"
<br />Because that was a portion that was changing, that gets thrown into whether or not you guys
<br />approve the PUD.
<br />Councilmember Broden responded, So if I could follow up on that. At the time that you
<br />presented this petition in the initial planning meeting with the Area Plan Commission staff, all of
<br />the uses that you sought then or that you are seeking now did exist by rezoning this to a Mixed -
<br />Use district. Is that true?
<br />10
<br />
|