04-11-05 Zoning & Annexation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

y The Council Attorney noted that under current state law, the Area Plan Commission would need to approve any written commitments. Council Member Kirsits noted that the Area Plan Commission vote was 7-3 against, but that the staff gave it a favorably recommendation. Council President Pfeifer directed questions to City Engineer Carl Littrell with regard to traffic in the area. Mr. Littrell stated that there is alot of cut through traffic in the area, and that it is a bus line. Speeding is one of the most common complaints, along with persons not stopping for the stop signs. Mr. Littrell stated that he believes that any traffic from the development would lead to more compliance. Traffic calming could also be used to mitigate some of the cut through problems. He concluded his remarks by stating that 36 units would not have a significant affect overall. Dr. Varner directed questions to Building Commissioner Don Fozo with regard to the role of the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Fozo stated that the Army Corps of Engineers is only involved when there are actual wetlands involved. Building cannot take place in floodways. Building can take place in floodplains subject to further restrictions. Specific permits are required and building must take place 2' above the 100 year floodway. Fill can be used to reach the required limit. Council Member Puzzello stated that she believes the petitioner owns properties in the 4th Councilmanic District which are then rented to students. Mr. Mihalche stated that he does not own student rental property, but that he does own the former Kusbach attorney building. and the property at the corner of Ironwood and Edison for a Walgreen drug store. Council Member Kirsits apologized for arriving late to the Committee meeting, noting that he was helping rescue a person from the St. Joseph River. He noted that this project has alot of emotions evoked and that in the past he supported Nuner School. He appreciates everything which the petitioner has done, however the issue is MF1. He noted that he had the Council Attorney do research on the history of the zoning in this area. This is a beautiful site, and if the development is permitted, he believes it would result in spot zoning. He stated he believes the project is too intense and that the subject project should only have single-family developments. He added that he works closely with DNR and too often building begins without proper permits. He concluded his remarks by stating that he would be voting against the substitute bill. Mr. Fozo noted that their records are audited every two(2)years. Council Member Rouse stated that he is impressed with all of the parties, and that he hoped that all groups could work together. April 11,2005 Zoning and Annexation Committee of the 2005 South Bend Common Council -page 3-