Laserfiche WebLink
South Bend <br />Special Meg <br />2. NEW BU. <br />a. co <br />elognent Commission <br />- June 26, 1991 <br />(Cont.) <br />Ms. Auburn noted that it was nice to <br />have two substantial developers bid on <br />the project in this area. She agreed <br />that the Commission is concerned about <br />most of the same things Mr. Panzica <br />men Toned. There are strong <br />c ents in each proposal and some <br />dra vbacks to each. She asked for the <br />sta f recommendation on this <br />Mrs Kolata noted that the staff <br />recdmendation. was to award the land <br />to Monroe Park Associates. The site <br />plwi sulanitted by Monroe Park <br />Associates better addresses the site <br />which is a predominant view fran <br />No Street. However, the staff <br />rec that the Commission ensure <br />that what is proposed is what is <br />actually built by setting up design <br />revLew at several points along the <br />pr ess . The staff recommendation is <br />con ingent upon a 16-unit min i rrn nn for <br />the first phase of development and <br />tha the first phase be constructed <br />alo g Monroe Street. The staff would <br />also like to see a marketing plan. <br />Mrs Kolata stated that she would like <br />to have this additional information. <br />satisfactorily provided to the <br />C ssion prior to the execution of <br />Mrs Kolata recommended that the final <br />exterior design be brought to the <br />Cannission before it goes to the <br />Design Review Canmittee, because the <br />design and layout of the project is <br />the main reason for the staff <br />reoxarendation. of Monroe Park <br />Associates' bid. If that would <br />sig,lificantly change, the staff <br />rec tion would change. <br />0 <br />a motion by Mr. Doncho, seconded <br />1. Piasecki and unanimously <br />ME <br />COMMSSION ACCEPTED THE BID MADE BY <br />MI)NROE PARK ASSOCIATES WITH THE <br />