|
REGULAR MEETING
<br />December 12, 2016
<br />Mr. Matthews responded, They existed in Mixed -Use, they existed in Sing -Fro. The group
<br />residency existed in Mixed -Use.
<br />Councilmember Broden asked, Then why did you not pursue that route, please?
<br />Mr. Matthews responded, It also existed in Single - Family, it also existed in Multi- Family.
<br />There's other districts that would have allowed group residency. We had our choice to pick what
<br />makes the most sense for what we're applying for. And for us doing the PUD that's very similar
<br />to the Central Business District made more sense than getting a Mixed -Use zoning and then
<br />saying here's all the variances from Mixed -Use to make it more like the Central Business
<br />District. Either route would have been okay, but it seemed like the PUD was the right way to go,
<br />and it gives the City Council more discretion and more influence on the rezoning process. This is
<br />a big project. I think you guys deserve to have more influence and more say, if this goes forward.
<br />Especially, in hindsight, because the height issue became such a topic of conversation. I'm glad
<br />we went this route.
<br />Councilmember Broden responded, But, isn't that exactly the loophole that when Council had
<br />passed your previous project at Jefferson and Niles that went through the ABZA, and of course
<br />that was denied. Then, you brought it forth to the Council to make that decision. You brought it
<br />by way of a PUD request. And then after that process —and it was approved by Council —there
<br />was an intentional move by the Council to make this Planned Unit Development the exception
<br />rather than the rule, going forward. And it specifically listed two (2) criteria, with the help of
<br />Area Plan Staff. "The PUD District is not intended for developments seeking relief from
<br />development standards within a district in which the use is permitted," and then, "The PUD
<br />District is not intended for the development of residential subdivisions, Permitted Uses, or
<br />Special Exception Uses which are provided for within any district of this Ordinance." So, it
<br />seems to me that you are back again —are you not back again asking for a similar approval from
<br />us as a Council, having already closed this as an option for you? In other words, I'm trying to get
<br />at the validity of this as a PUD request.
<br />Mr. Matthews responded, I just want to make sure I understand. Is the question, "Is this a valid
<br />PUD request ?"
<br />Councilmember Broden responded, Yes.
<br />Mr. Matthews responded, Great. Yes, it is. Maybe I can bring in the attorney who is a State rep
<br />who helped draft legislation. Bryan, can you help answer this question for me? If you're asking if
<br />it is legally a request, I think it is. It made it through the process thus far, but Bryan can
<br />probably—
<br />Bryan Dvorak, 215 West North Shore Drive, South Bend, IN, stated that he has represented Mr.
<br />Matthews on various matters. Mr. Dvorak stated, We've worked on all sorts of building projects
<br />around town. We've had discussion with some of the planning people about when a PUD
<br />application is appropriate. Last year, I think it was August of 2015, the ordinance was updated,
<br />and it included the intents section that Councilmember Broden read. I think, as Mr. Matthews
<br />mentioned, his intent was not to circumvent one of the requirements in the zoning law. His intent
<br />was to present a Planned Unit Development. As a larger project, I think as Councilmember
<br />Broden mentioned, we talked about an exceptional type of project. This is a $50,000,000, Mixed -
<br />Use, two - hundred and forty (240) residential units on top of a grocery, pharmacy, along the East
<br />Race in the Central Business District. And with a parking garage. It is not a normal project. It's
<br />going to take a long time to construct. It's going to take a lot of money to pull together, and it
<br />will have a major impact on the town. That is the reason the State adopted the Planned Unit
<br />Development statute to begin with, to try to find an easier way to do planning for these types of
<br />major projects. We have general funds in place for the Renaissance District over in the
<br />Studebaker building. AmeriPlex was a PUD. Eddy Street Commons is a PUD. They could have
<br />been zoned in other ways as well. The PUD statute and the ordinance that the City adopted as
<br />well makes it an easier process, both for the developer —so they can make sure they have all their
<br />components in a line when they are going to get their financing done and when we're lining up
<br />contractors —but really also for the City. A major complex project like this, I think it's in the
<br />City's interest to basically have all these details spelled out ahead of time. The PUD gives you,
<br />as the Council, the ability to say that you want to know how every single component of this
<br />11
<br />
|