12-12-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING December 12, 2016 and revisit that plan through the process, but until that plan is actually replaced, these are still those policy and guideline and land -use policies and zoning issues that we have to look at when we have to evaluate them for that area plan. The underlying Comprehensive Plan itself, without going back through the process, is still the underlying plan until it's replaced. Councilmember Davis asked, No matter how much it has met financial obligations or not? Ms. Smith reiterated that the plan is what APC considers, not financial goals. Councilmember Davis asked what APC's initial counsel to Mr. Matthews was, and what the rationale for that counsel was. Ms. Smith responded that APC, in May or June, did not believe that the PUD was the appropriate avenue for this project. They also felt that the project was very complex and so they recommended that Mr. Matthews go to the Project Advisory team, which allows the project to be reviewed by several departments, including Engineering, or the Department of Community Investment. APC recommended to Mr. Matthews to remain zoned in Central Business District and to seek a variance. Another recommendation was to rezone to Mixed -Use and seek variances. Once the PUD had been reviewed, APC's recommendation came out. She stated, We gave him those options, and he chose to follow the PUD option. She also stated that APC recommended that Mr. Matthews have a discussion with the Department of Community Investment to look at reevaluating the East Bank Plan if he thought it was out -of -date. Councilmember Davis asked why that last bit of counsel was given to Mr. Matthews. Ms. Smith responded that Mr. Matthews had expressed that enough had changed in the neighborhood that the plan had become out -of -date. She stated that if anyone thinks the plan is so out -of -line, the best way to determine if it is or not is to revisit the plan. Councilmember Davis asked how long the plan amendment process would take. Ms. Smith explained that though the actual process itself is a forty -five (45) day process, the development of the plan by the Department of Community Investment is very lengthy. Councilmember Davis asked Mark Robinson to share with the Council updates on where AEP Indiana Michigan Power was regarding a promissory letter on the subject of Mr. Matthews potentially acquiring the property. Mark Robinson, Indiana Michigan Power, 2929 Lathrop Street, South Bend, IN 46628 stated that two substations were being mandated: the old Drewry Station and the Colfax Station. He stated that the stations are old, and that they were going to rebuild the stations as they connected them. He explained that the Colfax station was not a great place for a substation. He and Mr. Matthews had had conversations about moving that station to another property that Mr. Matthews owns. He stated, That is still very much a line of conversation. The mandate would be put in place in mid - to -late 2019. Mr. Robinson stated that the promissory letter referenced by Councilmember Davis was a letter of intent from AEP and it stated that they were still very much interested in moving the substation. He stated, We are very much interested in having the conversation about the land - swap, because although it doesn't really impose a lot of potential benefit to us as a company, if we are going to do it, we might as well do it in the best interest of the community at large. We have been speaking with the City quite a bit. Mr. Robinson stated that his team had been in contact with Jitin Kain, the Department of Community Investment, as well as their Organization, Transmission, and Planning group. He stated, The timing is the key, and unfortunately we're not a year earlier on the timing. He explained that they would have to put everything in place in 2019 —and 2019 is the latest they could get the work done —but that it may be possible to piecemeal the project and move certain pieces ahead of others. Councilmember Davis asked, So that's what's going to be in your letter of intent? Mr. Robinson responded that they had not even had a feasibility study done on the land. He stated, There are several different options for the transmission line, including working with Notre Dame. There are a lot of moving parts to that project. It is not a simple project. The letter would be an intent letter —it would not be any type of a guarantee that could be put on the project, 18