Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Planning staff, applicant outline East Bend Subdistrict plan with design controls and infrastructure questions
Loading...
Summary
Planning staff and the applicant described a proposal to create an East Bend Subdistrict in the downtown code to transform about 47 acres on the East Bank into a mixed-use neighborhood with a required promenade, greenway, design standards and a River Gateway policy that could allow a single site to reach up to 40 stories if it meets elevated design criteria; council members pressed on infrastructure timing, affordable housing incentives and financing.
Planning staff and the applicant presented a proposal to create an East Bend Subdistrict within the city’s downtown form-based code, saying the change would rezone roughly 47 acres on the East Bank to support a mixed‑use neighborhood with public river access, a 50‑foot promenade, a 75‑foot greenway and required publicly accessible open space.
At a committee meeting, a planning presenter summarized the downtown code’s review process and said the Metro Planning Commission has already recommended the East Bend amendment. "The current application is to amend the zoning code to establish the East Bend Subdistrict within the downtown code and to establish the development standards and permitted uses," the planning presenter said, describing subdistrict standards, general standards and signage rules that will guide future projects.
The staff presentation described a supplemental River Gateway policy that would allow, for certain sites that meet strict design criteria, additional height up to 40 stories. The presenter said such bonus height would require demonstration of "excellence in architecture and site design," as judged by the Downtown Code Design Review Committee using the DTC design guidelines. "If you meet certain criteria as reviewed and determined by the Downtown Code DRC, you are eligible for additional height," the planner said.
Council members focused questions on what uses would be allowed, how much of the land must remain public, affordable‑housing incentives and, repeatedly, infrastructure and timing. One council member asked whether projects could simply pull building permits and delay street and utility work; planning staff replied that projects inside the DTC would require a concept plan reviewed by the DRC, a final site plan review and project‑specific studies (including multimodal transportation analyses) before building permits are issued. "They wouldn't be able to just pull a building permit without going through the process that I outlined," the planner said.
Council members also asked whether the new district could become hotel‑heavy or primarily parking. Planning staff said the East Bend subdistrict would share the same use area as the existing Eastbank subdistrict and that options to narrow hotel prevalence include limiting uses by geographic area or square footage; the staff cautioned that regulating number of hotel keys would be harder to enforce.
The applicant’s representative, Doug Sloan, presented visuals and described required public elements the amendment would lock in: a minimum 50‑foot pedestrian promenade with active storefronts, a linear park, and a 75‑foot greenway dedication. He said the applicant intends to dedicate roughly one‑third of the district to public space in perpetuity where required by the DTC amendment and the regulating plan. "The promenade has to go where it's shown. It has to be a minimum of 50 feet wide," the applicant said.
Sloan and the applicant team described significant resilience and infrastructure work the site will require, including raising low‑lying parcels to meet floodplain requirements and reworking buried utilities. Sloan pointed to a relatively new state Infrastructure Development District (IDD) tool as a likely financing mechanism: property owners in an IDD can accept assessments that support a revenue bond to fund large horizontal infrastructure, he said, adding that the tool helps assemble financing without increasing general tax rates.
Council members pressed about the sequencing of entitlements and the Major and Collector Street Plan (MCSP). Planning staff said the subdistrict zoning should come first so that the MCSP can respond to entitlements, and that the city will not be ready to accept applications until the MCSP and related public‑realm work are completed or sufficiently advanced for project review. Several council members said they want clear commitments on what the public will receive and on whether required elements (for example an elevated promenade or a bridge) will be legally enforceable through the MCSP or other instruments.
No formal motions or votes were taken at the committee meeting. Staff and the applicant said they will provide additional materials (detailed parcel breakdowns, the community meeting deck) and will coordinate MCSP, public‑realm and resilience planning with NDOT, WeGo, East Bank Development Authority, Corps of Engineers and other agencies.
The committee adjourned after a final exchange about block sizes (planner: about 300–400 feet), parking policy and next steps for the planning and applicant teams.
