Laserfiche WebLink
CITY OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK <br /> people like to use PUDs because they feel there is an extra sense of control in there which, in <br /> reality, it could go either way. It gives an extra bit. Before development would occur, we require <br /> a letter from that Architectural Review Committee stating that the development would meet those <br /> standards and requirements. <br /> Mr. McMorrow replied, At the present time, it is Mark Tamer because he is the SBCC <br /> Development Corp. and they are the sole owner of the property. There could be a point in time <br /> where he would sell off a parcel to a hotel operator and, for example, they would likely then be <br /> part of that Architectural Review Board to make sure that the future development happens in a <br /> way that is cohesive. <br /> Committeemember Broden followed up, Then I also saw a maximum number of signage and that <br /> was unlimited. Can someone explain that? <br /> Ms. Smith replied, So right now in the City of South Bend,roof signs aren't a permitted sign type. <br /> We have worked those into this particular PUD because of some of the drawings they showed us. <br /> The wall signs, however, in the City of South Bend are unlimited as well. It all goes back to a <br /> percentage. So, it is based on a percentage of the fagade and other factors. It is pretty consistent <br /> with what the current City of South Bend sign regulations permit. <br /> Mr. McMorrow stated, Additionally,these will not be public streets. All of these streets and roads <br /> will be maintained privately. There is text about that. <br /> Ms. Smith stated, And the whole PUD is kind of designed to focus our attention on the edges of <br /> the development as it interacts with the public right-of-way and the adjacent neighbors. How it <br /> develops internally is not as critical to manage as the edges are. <br /> Committeemember Broden then asked, The PUD ordinance includes five (5) amendments, could <br /> you address those? <br /> Ms. Smith replied, So because of how extensive the PUD is, we were reviewing it right up to the <br /> Area Plan Commission meeting. So essentially those items highlighted are things that changed <br /> between the time we legally advertised the petition and the actual meeting. They are all things that <br /> 'Have been agreed upon by both parties. They have to do with some clarification on the edges. The <br /> first (1St) one (1) allows for setback adjustments. We added a setback for the agricultural district. <br /> We referenced the existing written commitments in allowing for the airport review because this is <br /> in a flight path so we added items specifically so that was very well known. We also added some <br /> language that would help cover the existing uses on the site. <br /> Committee Chair Davis asked, Could you talk about the expense of the developers with regard to <br /> the written commitment on the property? <br /> Ms. Smith replied, That has to do with the traffic study. <br /> Mr. McMorrow stated, We were well aware that the written commitments that are attached to the <br /> property obligated the developer to do a study of traffic impacts on Pine Road and to make any <br /> improvements that would be needed. Our plan, specifically, is looking to not have any new access <br /> points on Pine Road. All the traffic is intended to come through Lincoln Highway opposite Olive <br /> EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT <br /> 455 County-City Building 1 227 W.Jefferson Bvld I South Bend,Indiana 466011 p 574.235.9221 If 574.235.9173 1 TTD 574.235.5567 I www_southbendin.gov <br /> 6 <br />