Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR MEETING <br />NOVEMBER 22, 1999 <br />BILL NO. 88 -99 A BILL TO VACATE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED <br />PROPERTY: THE ALLEY TO BE VACATED IS THE <br />SECOND EAST /WEST ALLEY SOUTH OF <br />LINCOLNWAY WEST FROM THE WEST RIGHT -OF- <br />WAY OF BLAINE AVENUE TO THE EAST RIGHT -OF- <br />WAY OF THE FIRST NORTH /SOUTH ALLEY WEST OF <br />BLAINE AVENUE FOR A DISTANCE OF <br />APPROXIMATELY 102.2 FEET AND A WIDTH OF 12 <br />FEET. PART LOCATED IN THE SUB. OF OUTLOT D, <br />KLINGEL'S MICHIGAN AVENUE ADD. AND <br />LEDERER'S SUB. OF OUTLOT A, CITY OF SOUTH <br />BEND, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA <br />Councilmember Varner reported that the Public Works and Property Vacation Committee met on <br />this bill and sends it to the Council with a favorable recommendation. <br />Mr. Clarence Blakley, 537 North Blaine Street, South Bend, Indiana, Petitioner, made the <br />presentation for this bill. <br />Mr. Blakley informed the Council that he owns property on both sides of the alley to be vacated. <br />He hopes that the closing of this alley will alleviate congestion, will allow him to park on that <br />property and he will be able to improve both lots. He also advised that he plans to join the two (2) <br />lots together and build a garage some time in the future. <br />This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and <br />opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. <br />Mr. Ed Magdalinski, no address given, informed the Council that he is against this vacation at this <br />time just as he was opposed some years ago when the previous owner of the property tried to close <br />the alley. He stated that closing the alley would be an inconvenience for him as he lives by the <br />alley. He noted that his wife is in a wheelchair and she gets in and out of the car off of the alley and <br />individuals utilizing the alley have no consideration for others. In conclusion, he stated that the <br />closing of this alley would create more traffic in the alley on which he lives. <br />There were no other individuals present wishing to speak either in favor of or in opposition to this <br />bill. <br />In rebuttal, Mr. Blakley indicated that in regards to the comment concerning increased traffic, Mr. <br />Magdalinski lives on the alley south of the alley in question and he does not believe Mr. <br />Magdalinski's alley will see increased traffic with the closing of this alley. <br />Council President Coleman noted that the specific criteria that the Council must take into <br />consideration is whether or not the closing would adversely affect the area and one consideration is <br />limited access. In this case, the affected party is the petitioner. President Coleman indicated that <br />he will discuss with Mr. Magdalinski some of his concerns not directly related to the closing of the <br />alley. <br />In response, Mr. Magdalinski informed the Council that if they close the alley as requested, it will <br />bring more traffic into his alley. <br />Councilmember Hosinski noted that he is familiar with the area and is not convinced that the traffic <br />will be increased should the alley be vacated as requested. <br />Therefore, Councilmember Hosinski made a motion for favorable recommendation to full Council <br />concerning this bill. Councilmember Aranowski seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote <br />of nine (9) ayes. <br />JI <br />I <br />