Laserfiche WebLink
South Bend edevelognent Commission <br />Special Mee ing - June 26, 1991 <br />2. NEW BUSINESS (Copt.) <br />He cated that he saw his market <br />being single parent families and <br />elderly singles or couples. <br />Mr. Piasecki expressed concern about <br />seoLrity within the project. He asked <br />abait the proposed security for each <br />d lcpment. Mr. McCalley responded <br />that his units have a central hall and <br />he was thinking of having the doorway <br />1 ed, perhaps on a buzzer system. <br />Mr. Matteo responded that each unit in <br />his develort will have its own <br />seoirity system which the tenants <br />cotAd chose to have monitored by a <br />seaLrity service.Mr. Panzica addressed <br />the Commission on behalf of the <br />var ous Panzica controlled <br />d lcpm eats in and around Monroe <br />Park. He stated that they feel there <br />is eat potential for commercial <br />devLopment north of South Street. <br />They feel that commercial development <br />is the highest and best use of the <br />larxi and would like to see this land <br />be developed into small <br />one - two story offices. <br />How3.ver, if the Commission chooses to <br />dispose of the land for residential <br />dev�logTent, Mr. Panzica raised the <br />following concerns: 1) current demand <br />for residential development near <br />downtown South Bend; 2) the impact of <br />the appearance of the development on <br />Monroe Street; 3) what will happen to <br />parcel number one if the Monroe Park <br />Associates bid is accepted; 4) the <br />ity of the development (brick, <br />1 caping); 5) parking should be <br />con ined on the site; 6) what the <br />Cannission does under a lease /purchase <br />arr Bement if the first part of a <br />d lcpnent fails; and, 7) long term <br />aemment and maintenance of the <br />-7- <br />