|
REGULAR MEETING MAY 22, 2017
<br /> have been fears that the project would accommodate student housing, but Mr. Studer explained
<br /> that City mechanisms are in place to limit the use of houses by students.
<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 /> There were none from the public wishing to speak in favor of this bill.
<br /> Those wishing to speak in opposition to this bill:
<br /> Don Gimich, 2015 Peachtree Lane, South Bend, IN, stated that he does not think that this project
<br /> will be compatible with or enhance the neighborhood. He also stated that the project could be
<br /> argued to be an example of"spot zoning,"which is illegal.
<br /> Jim Galvas, 2101 Peachtree Lane, South Bend, IN, stated that he has concerns regarding whether
<br /> or not the sewers will be able to handle the additional homes, whether or not AEP would be able
<br /> to service the area in the event of a power failure, whether or not students would truly be kept out
<br /> of the neighborhood,how bad traffic would become due to the proposed project, and the
<br /> implementation of a French well.
<br /> Peri Mason, 1836 Peachtree Lane, South Bend, IN, stated that the neighborhood in question is a
<br /> fantastic neighborhood, and that there are probably other such neighborhoods in decline in South
<br /> Bend due to unchecked development. Ms. Mason stated that the proposed project is not
<br /> compatible with the neighborhood. In the event that the Council votes in favor of the bill, she
<br /> asked that they consider some concessions: that traffic and sewer be addressed; that the
<br /> neighborhood be made a fifty-five (55) and over community; that a cap on property taxes and
<br /> assessments for eight (8) to ten(10)years be instated; that parking be better addressed within the
<br /> development.
<br /> Mr. Studer returned to the podium to offer a rebuttal. He stated that Mr. Magliozzi stated that this
<br /> development is not an example of spot zoning, that the sewer capacity has been confirmed by
<br /> Public Works, and that for them to get approval for their project from the Department of
<br /> Engineering and other such departments,the property needs to be rezoned.
<br /> Councilmember Regina Williams-Preston stated she did not want to see the interests of
<br /> developers overshadow those of longstanding residents of a neighborhood, but thanked the
<br /> petitioner for their compromises to their project.
<br /> Councilmember Jo M. Broden asked,No on-street parking—so what is the garage, and what is
<br /> the driveway capacity, if somebody could answer that,please?
<br /> Mike Danch, Danch, Harner& Associates, 1643 Commerce Drive, South Bend, IN, responded
<br /> that the driveways would be wide enough to accommodate two (2) cars, and that the garages
<br /> would also hold two (2) cars, such that each home would have a four (4) car capacity.
<br /> Councilmember Dr. David Varner asked, In another single-family neighborhood, would the two
<br /> (2) car garage and maybe a larger driveway handle a couple more, perhaps? On-street parking is
<br /> what's left over when the space isn't used
<br /> Mr. Danch responded, The standard setback for a house in the City of South Bend is twenty-five
<br /> (25) feet. Basically, you can put your house at twenty-five (25) feet, which would give you the
<br /> same capacity that we're doing for this particular development. That gives you just enough room
<br /> to basically park a car in the driveway in front of the house.
<br /> Councilmember Gavin Ferlic stated, Thank you to everybody for coming out tonight and sharing
<br /> your thoughts. I do want to show my appreciation to the developer for really reworking their plan
<br /> and taking a lot of units out and making it more consistent with a single-family neighborhood.
<br /> Councilmember Oliver Davis stated that another meeting might be necessary before making a
<br /> decision on this project. Councilmember Davis stated that issues like traffic—where the
<br /> developer states that there is no issue and the residents state that there is—should not be
<br /> dismissed too easily, and that the views of residents should be taken more seriously. He stated,
<br /> People have to live after this development is over, and I have a concern that that part of it was
<br /> 4
<br />
|