Laserfiche WebLink
Area Board of Zoning Appeals—October 5, 2011 <br /> MR. URBANSKI: If I could answer that before we go on. From about 1993 until January of this year, I <br /> built probably 150 to 180 homes in the City of South Bend and a lot of them on 40' lots. Some on, maybe <br /> 36' was the smallest I've done, but we do a lot with designing homes to fit the older neighborhoods. And if <br /> you go down west Colfax Street in South Bend, there's two or three when we got done people asked if we <br /> remodeled the homes that were there. So I'm not going against-what you said but there have been a lot, a lot <br /> of homes built in the City of South Bend on 40' lots. <br /> MS. URBACKE: Yeah and Monroe Park is a hard sell no matter what. And again the one lot on Rush <br /> ,Street, I believe 30' wide, seriously? And there is a vacant lot next to it and I understand that's not owned as <br /> part of this but I believe that lot was even up for a tax sale a couple years ago. I guess he did address, not <br /> being privy to the plans, but just the variances as far as the access to the parking lot would essentially be <br /> where it is right now. Again on Rush Street where they're talking about and on the vacant lot that's not part <br /> of the parking lot right now so that would even have to be shortened so it would be like a 30 x 65 foot lot <br /> once the parking lot, I think that's what you were asking for on that. So I was concerned that that was not <br /> going to be attractive to anyone but an investor. There was a small duplex across the street from me, a nice <br /> two bedroom home nothing wrong with but no yard, they had trouble selling it for$12,000, 1 guess just no <br /> interest. I guess just as a homeowner in the neighborhood I'd like to see something more attractive done <br /> with those vacant lots. So that would be my concern. <br /> MR. PHIPPS: Just because it is platted into two lots wouldn't prevent someone from buying both of them <br /> and building one house. It just makes it possible to put two separate houses. <br /> MR. URBANSKI: Anyone else wishing to speak in favor of? <br /> MR. REYNALDO HERNANDEZ. Residing at 702 E. South Street. My questions and my concerns are not <br /> so much about way of either support or opposition but trying to put some clarification. Can we translate this <br /> into everyday English enough to be able to say whether off street parking will be preserved for the parcels in <br /> question? <br /> MR. URBANSKI: That will be answered, Mike Danch will come up after the public hearing and respond to <br /> all the questions. <br /> MR. HERNANDEZ: My other question is connected with what Ms. Urbacke was talking about with respect <br /> to three, well two lots that are part of the area in question and a third lot which is adjacent and if you'll look <br /> at the aerial view you will see that there are actually three adjacent lots there and I do concur with her <br /> observation that any one of those lots would provide insufficient frontage for any acceptable new <br /> construction there. And what ever we end up with either the two lots which are currently apart of the area in <br /> question being combined into one lot with no consideration being given to the vacant lot or changing"those <br /> three lots and having what is now that vacant lot, so that the three lots would become two lots. That would <br /> provide some fairly decent frontage for the construction of not one but two homes in that area. So I would <br /> like to see that considered as part of the plan. I understand that that is not currently part of the plan but I <br /> would like us to take a long range view here. <br /> 21 <br />