My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
RM 12-05-80
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1980
>
RM 12-05-80
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/5/2012 4:11:34 PM
Creation date
9/25/2012 3:18:33 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
South Bend Redevelopment Commission <br />Regular Meeting -- December 5, 1980 <br />7. PUBLIC HARING <br />a. continued... <br />Mr. McMahon; Mr. Commissioner, there will also be <br />a.i formal statement of findings on behalf of the <br />Redevelopment Department that will be filed prior <br />to our next meeting on December 19, at which time <br />the final Commission action will come forward. <br />Mr. imtz: As I mentioned previously, the only <br />question raised at the afternoon meeting at the <br />Park Department was the question of Niles Avenue. <br />Would you like to tell everyone about the plans <br />for Niles Avenue, Mrs. Kolata? <br />Hirs. Kolata: The plan that we have proposed had <br />sugg sted that in the future Niles Avenue, between <br />Jeff arson Boulevard and Washington Street, and <br />betty en Madison Avenue and Cedar Street, would be <br />clos d with the rerouting of traffic from Niles <br />Aven e over across Cedar Street and then down Hill <br />Stre t. There would be access to those businesses <br />or w atever development that is in;this area, there <br />woulJ also be access from Jefferson Boulevard and <br />Washington Avenue, but our intention is to limit <br />Nile Avenue as a through street so that proper <br />development can take place. It is not our inten- <br />tion to deprive people who are in the area or will <br />be g ing to the area their access, but we do want <br />to limit through traffic. We do not have intentions <br />of vacating those portions of the street because <br />there are utilities in place underneath. <br />Mr. McMahon: Perhaps when we refer to this in the <br />future, we should not refer to the street as being <br />closed, but we should simply say it will be closed <br />to through.traffic. In all other respects it will <br />remain open. <br />Mr. Kagel: In other words it will be limited access? <br />Mr. <br />the' <br />trai <br />as <br />one <br />Mr. <br />McMahon: Yes. No one will be denied access to <br />r property, simply that we would like the through <br />fic, the traffic which does not have that area <br />destination or source, to utilize Hill Street or <br />of the other nearby streets. <br />Cira: Will they be vacated? <br />20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.