Laserfiche WebLink
C.)CITY OF SOUTH BEND I OFFICE OF THE CLERK <br /> the City for doing that. I don't one hundred percent (100%) like every single aspect of this but <br /> there is nothing in these changes that would dissuade me from doing continued development and <br /> in fact, I particularly like the riverfront aspects because I remember conversations I've had on the <br /> Wharf Site and the Cascade Development where we actually gave ten (10) more feet and we are <br /> setback twenty-two (22) feet from the water. If it's ever practical to put public space to use in a <br /> way in which outsiders visit and then say this is great and invigorating,how many times have we <br /> heard about San Antonio, Texas, for example? Although it's a whole different thing, that is what <br /> they've done. So, I really want to applaud, again, the cohesiveness in which they did it because I <br /> believe it's proactive. It is fairly succinct for what it is. It has to be somewhat lengthy. I'm assured <br /> there is a path forward even on the issues I don't like,for example,to maybe change and or modify <br /> them. There is still the variance process if we don't like them. And, they are practical. All those <br /> things said, I think it's a kudos to the City for doing this. I'm glad it's done, and I only hope we <br /> can all take advantage of it and have more development. <br /> Tom Panzica, 416 East Monroe Street, stated, Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'm with <br /> Panzica Building Corporation.We are the architects and builders of the 320 at the Cascade project. <br /> When I first (1st) heard of this ordinance and looked at it, I thought, "Oh great, more regulations. <br /> Just what we need." That is our normal reaction to ordinances. But on looking through it, and <br /> having some of the details explained to me, and drilling things down, I've come to understand the <br /> wisdom and the utility of it. I think, primarily, we are most supportive of the river setback <br /> requirements because we do believe access to the river is the key to maintaining and improving <br /> the property values downtown. I also have to say that I've been a six (6) year member of the St. <br /> Joseph County Parks Board. We are instrumental in taking the riverfront trails of South Bend and <br /> Mishawaka and extend that all the way up into Michigan. The dream is to get all the way to Lake <br /> Michigan. So, I believe as a Board Member of the County Parks and as a downtown builder and <br /> developer, access to the river is of primary importance and I think that particular clause is of <br /> particular importance. I want to speak in support of it. Thank you. <br /> Mark Neal, 321 South Main Street, stated, I am speaking in support of the ordinance. Hats off to <br /> the Department of Community Investment and Councilmember Broden mentioned this has been <br /> an effort that has been going on for quite some time. I think it even predates 2016. I feel there was <br /> even some discussion in 2013 and 2014 of what we could do to make sure we are improving the <br /> aesthetic of our downtown. We want to make sure future development encourages other great <br /> development that certainly take advantage of the real estate. I speak as a member of the Parks <br /> Board and I also echo Mr. Panzica's comments. I think access to the river is important. I think this <br /> enhances it. I speak in support of what has been proposed. I appreciate the simplicity of it,actually, <br /> in many cases, and as a very small developer downtown, I look forward to doing other things in <br /> the community that we think will also enhance the aesthetic, the economic value, and the <br /> opportunities in our community. <br /> Vice Committee Chair Voorde then gave the floor back to the Committee for questions,comments <br /> or main motions. <br /> Committeemember Matthews stated, I have a couple of questions. Looking at the slide with the <br /> river setback, type one(1) and type two (2), to me, seem to be the same. It doesn't matter if there <br /> is an easement or not. Type three (3), it says City-owned property, but could the land owner do a <br /> one(1) inch subdivision and now exempt themselves from this fifteen(15) foot setback? <br /> EXCELLENCE I ACCOUNTABILITY I INNOVATION I INCLUSION I EMPOWERMENT <br /> 455 County-City Building 1227 W.Jefferson Bvld South Bend,Indiana 46601 j p 574.235.9221 f 574.235.9173 TTD574.235.5567 wnnv.southbendin.gov <br /> 15 <br />