Laserfiche WebLink
'Area Board of Zoning Appeals—October S,2011 <br /> MR. UPMANSKI: If I could answer that before we go on. From about 1993 until January of this year,I <br /> built probably 150 to 180 homes in the City of South Bend and a lot of them on 40';lats. Some Vin,maybe <br /> 36'was the smallest I've done,but we do a lnt wrth deszgrung homes to fit the older'nexglbdhoods. `And if <br /> you go down west Colfax Street in Sath B0 tdx'the's o Qr three when we get dune peopiesCed„ifwe <br /> remodeled the homes that were there. l01' not going against what you said but there have been a lot,a lot <br /> of homes built in the City of South Bend on 40'lots: <br /> MS URI3ACKE 'Yoah apd a#yard sell no,' 4 what.: end again the one lot on Rush <br /> Street,T':bolieve 3Q'wide, serlously? acarttlo�t pelt to it'and It d' <br /> W that's not.owned as <br /> part p th s but 1 believe that lot was eo f©rat sale c Ple fir ` ego, I she ti d dress,not <br /> bung privy to;th0,))his, btlt�ust earnces a far as the e th .p �g lot wQU1�1 easenrlly be <br /> W] ere right no�v. Agin on Kushtreot whereey'�ozig abdt} aid on tl�e �t'?!et t1'At's dot part <br /> of the p rluag lot right naw so that would even vo to ba sho t IX so eta�o sl bo a 30 65 fz�ot lot <br /> once theparking lot, I tlutak that's what you were asing fox onha , So;I was conceded that that was tibt <br /> going toibe attractive to anyone but an investor There was;a small duplex aorass tlie'stree#:from rne;a: ice <br /> two bedroom Dome no#hing wrong with but no yard,they had trob llg $ue sei 1`29000;I guess just no <br /> -interest.' I guess just as a homeowner in:the neighborhood I'd lilts to see something more attractive done <br /> with those vacant lots. So that would be my concern. <br /> MR. PHIPPS: dust because it is platted into two lots wouldn't prevent someone from buying both of them <br /> and building one house. It just makes it possible to put two separate houses. <br /> MR. URBANSKI: Anyone else wishing to speak in favor oft <br /> MR. REYNALDO HERNANDEZ: Residing at 702 E. South Street. My questions and my concerns are not <br /> so much about way of either support or opposition but trying to put some clarification. Can we translate this <br /> into everyday English enough to be able to say whether off street parking will be preserved for the parcels in <br /> question? <br /> MR. URBANSKI: That will be answered, Mike Danch will come up after the public hearing and respond to <br /> all the questions. <br /> MR. HERNANDEZ: My other question is connected with what Ms. Urbacke was talking about with respect <br /> to three, well two lots that are part of the area in question and a third lot which is adjacent and if you'll look <br /> at the aerial view you will see that there are actually three adjacent lots there and I do concur with her <br /> observation that any one of those lots would provide insufficient frontage for any acceptable new <br /> construction there, And what ever we end up with either the two lots which are currently apart of the area in <br /> question being combined into one lot with no consideration being given to the vacant lot or changing those <br /> three lots and having what is now that vacant lot, so that the three lots would become two lots. That would <br /> provide some fairly decent frontage for the construction of not one but two homes in that area,'So I would <br /> like to see That considered as part of the plan. .1 understand.that,that is not currently part of the plan but I <br /> would like us to take a long range view here. <br /> 21 <br />