11-28-16 Public Works and Property Vacation

Home Browse Search

Committeemember Broden asked, And what's the issue about the two (2) times sitting somewhere? Was this on someone's desk? Mr. Feeney responded, No, our office submitted this to the Clerk first rather than to Engineering. So, consequently, it's sat here for a much longer period of time. Our office did not follow technical protocol in submission of this petition. Committeemember Voorde made a motion to send Bill No. 60 -16 to the Common Council with no recommendation and Randy Kelly seconded the motion, which carried by a voice vote of three (3) ayes. Bill No. 68 -16 — Alley Vacation at St. Louis Street Bob Masters, of Nemeth, Feeney, Masters & Campiti, 350 Columbia Street, South Bend, IN, served as presenter and petitioner of this bill. Mr. Masters stated, We represent the petitioner, Blair Adams, Ret LLC. The petitioner owns both properties that abut the alley to be vacated. On the south side, Lot 80, the common address is 1018 St. Louis Boulevard; and on the north side, the common address is 1020 North St. Louis Boulevard. 1020 is presently a vacant lot and 1018 is improved with a residence. The petitioner is asking to have the alley vacated for future development purposes. Minimally, I think the idea would be to expand the yard of 1018 into 1020, possibly then replotting this as one (1) large lot, and expanding the home on 1018 over both lots. Another idea is, instead of replotting as one lot, to expand the yard but then build the house on 1020 St. Louis. This is, I think you all know, a part of South Bend that's experiencing a lot of development, and I think everybody in this room should be rightfully proud of the work that you've done to spark that redevelopment. Some points about the alley that I think are worth noting.'Number one (1), it's not used for trash pickup. The garbage trucks, they drive through this north -south alley along the property, not the east -west alley that we're asking to have vacated. It is not used for vehicular traffic or access to the properties, because the two (2) properties are owned by the same petitioner and may in the future be plotted as one (1). It's not a well- maintained alley. Maybe at one (1) point the garbage pickup went through that alley, but now it's kind of just there, not being well - maintained. We ask for a favorable recommendation from this Committee to the Committee of the Whole. Council Attorney Cekanski- Farrand informed Committee Chair Broden that this was a substitute bill accepted by the Council at the previous meeting. Mr. Masters thanked Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand and stated, I think the issue had to do with the description. There was one (1) that came from the City and then the more correct one is the one that Lang Feeney provided to us. Mr. Councilmember Voorde, you're looking at the map on the back of the petition of everybody within one - hundred and fifty (150) feet. They've been furnished notices; there's been no. objections. This has been in the works since, I think, September. Committeemember Broden asked, Can I ask you to address a recommendation with regard to some easements or something from vehicular traffic? I assume that's garbage trucks, or whomever, coming from the east. F.