My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-12-16
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Minutes
>
Common Council Meeting Minutes
>
2016
>
12-12-16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2017 10:35:19 AM
Creation date
1/11/2017 4:00:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
REGULAR MEETING December 12, 2016 <br />and revisit that plan through the process, but until that plan is actually replaced, these are still <br />those policy and guideline and land -use policies and zoning issues that we have to look at when <br />we have to evaluate them for that area plan. The underlying Comprehensive Plan itself, without <br />going back through the process, is still the underlying plan until it's replaced. <br />Councilmember Davis asked, No matter how much it has met financial obligations or not? <br />Ms. Smith reiterated that the plan is what APC considers, not financial goals. <br />Councilmember Davis asked what APC's initial counsel to Mr. Matthews was, and what the <br />rationale for that counsel was. <br />Ms. Smith responded that APC, in May or June, did not believe that the PUD was the appropriate <br />avenue for this project. They also felt that the project was very complex and so they <br />recommended that Mr. Matthews go to the Project Advisory team, which allows the project to be <br />reviewed by several departments, including Engineering, or the Department of Community <br />Investment. APC recommended to Mr. Matthews to remain zoned in Central Business District <br />and to seek a variance. Another recommendation was to rezone to Mixed -Use and seek <br />variances. Once the PUD had been reviewed, APC's recommendation came out. She stated, We <br />gave him those options, and he chose to follow the PUD option. She also stated that APC <br />recommended that Mr. Matthews have a discussion with the Department of Community <br />Investment to look at reevaluating the East Bank Plan if he thought it was out -of -date. <br />Councilmember Davis asked why that last bit of counsel was given to Mr. Matthews. <br />Ms. Smith responded that Mr. Matthews had expressed that enough had changed in the <br />neighborhood that the plan had become out -of -date. She stated that if anyone thinks the plan is <br />so out -of -line, the best way to determine if it is or not is to revisit the plan. <br />Councilmember Davis asked how long the plan amendment process would take. <br />Ms. Smith explained that though the actual process itself is a forty -five (45) day process, the <br />development of the plan by the Department of Community Investment is very lengthy. <br />Councilmember Davis asked Mark Robinson to share with the Council updates on where AEP <br />Indiana Michigan Power was regarding a promissory letter on the subject of Mr. Matthews <br />potentially acquiring the property. <br />Mark Robinson, Indiana Michigan Power, 2929 Lathrop Street, South Bend, IN 46628 stated that <br />two substations were being mandated: the old Drewry Station and the Colfax Station. He stated <br />that the stations are old, and that they were going to rebuild the stations as they connected them. <br />He explained that the Colfax station was not a great place for a substation. He and Mr. Matthews <br />had had conversations about moving that station to another property that Mr. Matthews owns. He <br />stated, That is still very much a line of conversation. The mandate would be put in place in mid - <br />to -late 2019. Mr. Robinson stated that the promissory letter referenced by Councilmember Davis <br />was a letter of intent from AEP and it stated that they were still very much interested in moving <br />the substation. He stated, We are very much interested in having the conversation about the land - <br />swap, because although it doesn't really impose a lot of potential benefit to us as a company, if <br />we are going to do it, we might as well do it in the best interest of the community at large. We <br />have been speaking with the City quite a bit. Mr. Robinson stated that his team had been in <br />contact with Jitin Kain, the Department of Community Investment, as well as their Organization, <br />Transmission, and Planning group. He stated, The timing is the key, and unfortunately we're not <br />a year earlier on the timing. He explained that they would have to put everything in place in <br />2019 —and 2019 is the latest they could get the work done —but that it may be possible to <br />piecemeal the project and move certain pieces ahead of others. <br />Councilmember Davis asked, So that's what's going to be in your letter of intent? <br />Mr. Robinson responded that they had not even had a feasibility study done on the land. He <br />stated, There are several different options for the transmission line, including working with Notre <br />Dame. There are a lot of moving parts to that project. It is not a simple project. The letter would <br />be an intent letter —it would not be any type of a guarantee that could be put on the project, <br />18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.