Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 27, 2007 <br />buildings, that's over 200'. He would like to see a plan that is going to work here, how is <br />this plan going to work when you have more footage than what is accountable for. Of <br />course those buildings are on an angle, and if you angle them enough you could possible <br />get them in there, but it doesn't look like it is on a very sharp angle. In the packet, there <br />are minutes from the Area Plan Commission Meetings dated March 15, 2005 and July 19, <br />2005. Additionally, you will find a list of assurances from the petitioner and a flood plain <br />map in that packet. He reiterated that he has spoken in opposition to this proposal on a <br />number of occasion and at various meetings. He has sent many e-mails which he hoped <br />the Council received them regarding his concerns on this rezoning and how it will affect <br />the neighborhood and himself He will not comment further except that again he has to <br />respectfully disagree with Chris DressePs assessment that more multi-family housing is a <br />good thing for the River Park area. He read from the July, 19, 2005 meeting of the Area <br />Plan Commission and stated that in the 1997 River Park Neighborhood Preservation and <br />Improvement plan report concerns were mentioned about the increased number of multi- <br />family and rental units in the River Park areas. This is important to note that this was a <br />trend back in 1997 and as far back as 1960. Is this something that this trend is associated <br />with some of the problems that have occurred in River Park? He did commend the <br />petitioner for bring new housing and new dollars to the River Park area. However, in his <br />heart he believes that more multi-family housing is not a good thing for the <br />neighborhood. They surveyed south of Pleasant Street when they got signatures for their <br />petition and found that approximately '/4 of the housing is already multi-family housing in <br />that area. He believes that single-family homes would improve the neighborhood more <br />and help better anchor revitalization in the River Park area. Rationally however, any <br />development dollars are good dollars, the size of the project has diminished in scale and <br />has evolved into a project that would not significantly impact traffic in the area and he <br />applauded the petitioner for his previous good work in the neighborhood. Hemet with <br />Mr. Mihalache on three separate occasions to help write the commitments that have been <br />presented tonight. Again in the July 19, 2005 meeting minutes from the Area Plan <br />Commission he mentioned the idea of 20' setbacks. Mr. Danch quotes that one of the <br />requirements that the staff recommends is to make a written commitment that the <br />maximum number of residences on this property be limited to 28' and the setback line <br />along the east property line and west property line would be 20' and make that <br />commitment and have no trouble with that. His point is that for two years the <br />commitment has been for 20' along the west side and the east side of the property line all <br />the way down the property line and asked the Council to honor those commitments that <br />were made at the Area Plan Commission meetings. He stated that if these commitments <br />cannot be given in writing he urged the Council to vote unfavorably on this bill. <br />Ms. Lisa Ferris, 3401 Northside Blvd., South Bend, Indiana stated that she lives directly <br />across from the proposed project. She stated that it has been more than 2 '/z years since <br />they began this journey with Mr. Mihalache. It has been a battle that at times has been <br />very tiring. Mr. Mihalache has postponed numerous hearings only to find the neighbors <br />back here again looking at the same site plans over and over again, of course with the <br />reduction on the number of units he plan to build. His current site plans are the same <br />footprint as his original In his current plan he proposes to build two story townhomes at <br />street level and one story villa townhomes at the lower level. As with past plans she has <br />concerns with the current one. Floodway: the lower level of the site plans is once again <br />proposed to be built in the floodway. Safety: with the same footprint as the original plan <br />there is still the concern of not being in compliance with the 2000 International Fire Code <br />Handbook. During the last presentation at the March 15, 2005 meeting it was stated that <br />the proposed plan does not comply with the 2000 International Fire Code Handbook <br />regarding the ingress and egress slope of less than 10 percent. The proposed plan is not <br />in compliance with the 2000 International Fire Code regarding the maximum depth and <br />length of 96' for backup and turn around of fire apparatus for emergency vehicles. Since <br />the cancellation of the July 2007 rezoning meeting, Mr. Mihalache met with several <br />neighbors to come to an agreement for the property. She reluctantly gives her acceptance <br />to this, why, it is either this agreement which gives the residence some sort of protection <br />or it is nothing. She is not even certain that Mr. Mihalache will even fulfill his <br />commitment to this agreement. He says he will but she is not certain if that this will <br />come to terms that he will. If this property becomes multi-family there will be more tax <br />dollars for South Bend. River Park will not prosper from this project, it needs families to <br />