03-26-01 Public Works & Property Vacation

Home Browse Search

Public Works and Property Vacation Committee March 26, 2001 Page 4 Land Trust. Bernie Feeney then introduced John Hosinski who would be representing the petitioner. Mr. Hosinski presented a proposed unofficial site plan (copy attached). He stated that the land would be developed so that a Walgreens could be constructed. He noted that a non-exclusive easement was approved by the Board of Public Works today . He further noted that Mr. Harris had two (2) primary concerns addressing delivery trucks and trash trucks--noting that both services were needed for his business. Mr. Hosinski suggested that upon the granting of the vacation that he would have his client deed back to Mr. Harris so that easement rights for such services could be preserved. He also indicated that his client would pave the alley and enclose the dumpster area. He stated that the development would cost approximately $ 2 million. He further noted that Representative Bauer who voiced concern early in the process has rescinded any objections since Walgreens does not sell alcohol. John Phair voiced concerns about the project since there has been limited communication by the petitioner or his representatives prior to the meeting. Council Member King noted that all documents must be in order before the Council would take any action on this proposed vacation. He cited the agreements which were required of the School Corporation noting that similar documentation from the petitioner would be necessary. Mr. Hosinski stated that the project could be subject to a final site plan and the requirement of producing the agreement from Walgreen's if the Council so desired. Kimberly Minter, a neighborhood representative, spoke against the proposed vacation. She noted that no documentation has been presented by the petitioner. She noted that no feasibility studies have been made and questioned whether a Walgreen's was the best use for the property. Mr. Hosinski stated that the zoning is correct and that an auto lot is one other possible consideration for the property. Mr. Phair noted that his company owns six (6) lots in the area which have one(1) access point. A non-exclusive easement through a commercial lot is unacceptable. James Harris of Harris Liquor Store noted that his family has had its business in the area for over forty (40) years. He stated that he personally opposing the proposed vacation and represents several other residents in the area in opposition. He cited the need for daily usage of the alley in question, that it is necessary for trash pick-up, that residents do not want to put their trash in the front yards which would be required if approved, that emergency vehicles need to use the alley, that the alley is used during Notre Dame football weekends when the streets are restricted, and that there has not been proper communication by the developer on many other concerns. Mr. Hosinski stated that he would agree to continue the ordinance to April 9th. Council Member King advised the petitioner to have all documentation in order. Council Member Coleman recommended that the petitioner meet with concerned residents and business owners in the area. Dr. Varner noted that he wanted to discuss the Administration's position on project labor agreements today, however, in light of the length of this meeting and its delay to the following meetings that this matter would be discussed at the April 9th Committee meeting.