Vacation - Alley - East of South Michigan from the North of E. Irvington St.

Home Browse Search

.: BAI~R & DA1~II~L5 EST. 1863 FIRST BANK BUILDING • 205 W. JEFFERSON BOULEVARD, SUITE 250 • SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46601 • (219) 234-4149 • FAX (219) 239-1900 • www,bakerdaniels.com RANDOLPH R. ROMPOLA DIRECT (219) 239-1926 e-mail: rrrompol~bakerd.com Apri17, 1998 Common Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana 400 County-City Building South Bend, Indiana 46601 INDIANAPOLIS FORT WAYNE SOUTH BEND ELKHART WASHINGTON, D.C. Filed i~ Ci~'~i~'~ office ~",~~' ' ~ 1~~u LORETiA J. DUDA C17YCLEA;:, SO. EEND~lM. Re: Ordinance Regarding Vacation of the Alley Located Adjacent to 101 Irvington Avenue. South Bend. Indiana Dear Common Council Members: Frick Limited Liability Company (the "Petitioner") desires that you consider and approve the aforementioned ordinance. Approval of the ordinance will allow the Petitioner to coordinate the development of the buildings located at the corner of South Michigan Street and Irvington Avenue and the parking lot located at 101 Irvington Avenue. The Petitioner has acquired these buildings and the vacant lot located across the alley on Irvington Avenue. The Petitioner is completing significant improvements to the buildings for the purpose of leasing the first floor space for commercial use and the second floor as two (2) residential apartments. Petitioner has acquired the vacant lot for the purpose of creating a parking lot. Providing for an improved transition to the parking lot on Irvington Avenue will also improve the appearance of the area greatly. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the ordinance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The Petitioner owns the two (2) parcels abutting the alley and by acquiring these parcels and making improvements, the Petitioner has virtually assured that the value of the adjacent properties will increase. The Petitioner will suffer unnecessary hardship if the ordinance is not approved. Without the proposed vacation, Petitioner will not be able to effectively develop the two (2) parcels. We ask that you also consider that Jim Frick, the principal involved with the Petitioner, is a successful businessman in the community and is committed to successfully