|
REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2017
<br />reason, and their insight is valuable. He stated, We have to look at what our plans are and respect
<br />tradition, but at the same time we have to make sure that we move forward.
<br />Councilmember Regina Williams- Preston stated, I think that it's important to remember —and
<br />people have said it tonight that this is not about the Commerce Center development; it's not
<br />about one (1) project. This is about a larger issue: about changing the height for the entire area. I
<br />think that makes it harder for me to vote for... Now, by saying, "Okay, we're just going to let
<br />everybody do it," that to me is even harder to say yes to. Councilmember Williams- Preston
<br />pointed out that the Council could not be too slow in making their decision because the Regional
<br />Cities grant of $5,000,000 is only available for a limited time. She stated that this is an issue
<br />where a deeper look at process is necessary. She stated, We could have done it —I don't know
<br />that we have time now to do that anymore —but we could have done it months ago, and we have
<br />just not gone that route. Councilmember Williams- Preston concluded by stating, I would like us
<br />to think about the possibility of maybe an amendment to this text amendment, and then maybe I
<br />could support it.
<br />Councilmember Randy Kelly stated, Unlike Ms. Williams- Preston, I like this in that it levels the
<br />playing field in that area so that everybody is working under the same set of criteria. I have a
<br />great deal of respect for Mr. Lykoudis and his work, and he certainly brought up some valid
<br />points, but at the same time -2008 was the East Bank Plan. One of the first lines in the East
<br />Bank Plan is that, "because there has been no development in this area for the past decade, we
<br />feel the need to do this plan." So, now we're talking about twenty (20) years where very little has
<br />been done. While this is big and different for that area, a nine (9) story building doesn't strike
<br />me, personally, as a monolith. To that end, I will be supporting this.
<br />Councilmember Jo M. Broden stated that she is glad that the discussion has finally concerned
<br />itself with the height limit for the area as a whole rather than for a single project. Councilmember
<br />Broden stated that the discussion is difficult to have because the issue has been undiscussed for
<br />months, not talked about effectively for years, nor has it been worked on for years. She stated
<br />that those involved in the making of the Comprehensive Plan looked at every conceivable angle
<br />while developing the plan. The plan was based on input, but not just opinions, nor simply
<br />academics. She stated, It's just got to work. Councilmember Broden stated that the plan should
<br />guide how the City spends money on infrastructure or how the City "tees -up" projects. She stated
<br />that the notion that nothing has developed in the East Bank Village is false. She stated that the
<br />area is in the middle of redevelopment, despite economic pressures left over from the Recession.
<br />Councilmember Broden pointed out that Councilmembers should know the acreage of the Island;
<br />that they should know that in 2014 there were problems with digging too deeply into the earth of
<br />the Island —which is surrounded by two (2) bodies of water; that they should know that if a
<br />developer digs more deeply into the ground to erect a taller building, "you are going to increase
<br />your cost of construction exponentially. And if the developer can't do it, the ticket is going to hit
<br />us as citizens of South Bend." Councilmember Broden then listed investments in the area: the
<br />Seitz Park expansion; the streetscape projects; the construction of townhomes and apartments;
<br />facade improvements on Jefferson Street; Smart Streets; the park bond; the Pokagon investment.
<br />She stated, All of these things, whether they are happening or whether they are soon to come
<br />online, they exist because of a vision and they exist because of a plan. She referenced a bill
<br />entitled `Adopting a Text Amendment to the South Bend Central Development Area Plan' from
<br />2013, on file with the Office of the City Clerk. She asked, You know what is talked about in this,
<br />signed by our Mayor and members of the Redevelopment Commission? "Protect this unique
<br />asset." "Don't build buildings up to the water's edge." We have water's edge on both sides, here.
<br />These are goals for my District and for this neighborhood and for the people that I am charged to
<br />represent. So, we cannot simply dismiss the 2008 plan and say that it's dead, because as recently
<br />as 2013, we reaffirmed the same visions that are in this plan. Councilmember Broden stated that
<br />there should be a desire to change the plan after many developers come to the Council asking for
<br />the same thing that the plan does not allow for, over and over. She stated, There is a case, there is
<br />a fact trail, there is a history of people asking you the same thing. There is not a fact trail here,
<br />there is not a history. There are four (4) projects that haven't even asked to go beyond the sixty
<br />(60) foot height limit. Where is the data? Where is the information that supports this change?
<br />Absent that, why would we ignore plan? Why would we ignore subsequent decisions by previous
<br />G�
<br />
|