05-24-76 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETT TC MAY 24 i Q7ti COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING (CONTINUED) Mr. Ed Manier, 1020 N. Twyckenham, presented a petition, signed by 176 people,. against rezoning this property, to the City Clerk. He then read the following statement from the Friends of South Bend Avenue: "We respectfully request the Common Council to vote to deny this petition. 1. Although South Bend needs agressive management in the attraction of convention, motel, and.restaurant business, the location of theproposed site is altogether inappropriate and unsound for motel construction. A motel at this site would attract business away from the downtown area. 2. A motel at the proposed site would do extensive damage to the privacy and quality of a well established neighborhood with currently high property values. 3. The University of Notre Dame assigns no priority to the sale of this property and would not have offered the land for sale if the city had not taken initiative re- questing this in 1969 -1970. 4. The true backers of this project have not come forward and the public is unable to ascertain the possibility of conflict of interest in the presentation and passage of this petition and ordinance. 5. If a Motor Inn were established at this location and operated at standards lower than those maintained by the Hilton Corporation, the neighborhood and the City and the University would have to live with the possibility of the operation of a night club and budget motel between Wooded Estates and the University of Notre Dame. The consequences would be much more damaging to the City's tax tolls than the denial of this petition. The friends of South Bend Avenue recognize the importance of attracting new business to the City o: South Bend, and we are particularly sympathetic to efforts to build and promote our city as a con- vention center. We agree that the agressive and;.progressive presentation of the hotel, motel restaurant and enter - tainment facilities of South Bend are crucial to the economic vitality of the city and to the genes tion of new tax revenues. We volunteer our services to assist the City in any way we can in such efforts. However, we do not find that the City's best interests would be served if the Linebacker Motor Inn were built in the northern sector of our neighborhood. We remind the council that well maintained residential property is the backbone of the city's tax structure. Ours is a beautiful shaded residential neighborhood with many streets which carry no traffic. Many of our residents have made a conscious decision to remain in the city rather than move to the surburbs because they find the amenities of life are provided to a greater extent in our neighborhood than they would be in the suburbs. Property values in the neighborhood are high, lots are large and many homes are in the $50,000 to $150,000 bracket. This is no place to locate another night club or bar, even if it is located within a motel with a prestigious logo. We consider the site of the proposed development to be part of our neighborhood because up until this time, the University of Notre Dame has provided the neighborhood with a free amenity -- very nearly a free park and recreation ground -- by leaving this land and its air rights in an undevelo state. One of the greatest assets of our neighborhood is its pleasant perspective overlooking the University. The neighborhood has always relied on the University's frequently declared policy of not selling land, and of developing it only for academic purposes. Although the terms of the University's option with the promoter prevents its:,.opposition to this rezoning ordinance, Philip Faccenda has informed us that the University has assigned no priority and intends to maintain a very low profile in relation to this project. Faccenda has informed the promoter that the Univer- sity has been unable to show a profit with the Morris Inn, raising a.basic question about the suitability of the location for this development. Moreover, the University indicates that it has offered the promoters an option to buy this land only because (in 1969 -1970) the City declared its interest in condemning the northward�xtension of North Twyckenham Drive. In the absence of such initiative by the City, the University would abide by its long standing policy of not selling land and developing land only for its own academic purposes. One of our most important objections to this project is that its true backers have not come forwarc to explain their interest to the public. We are correspondingly unable to ascertain whether a ser- ious conflict of interest may be involved in the development and passage of the promoter's petitioi The promoter who has come forward to explain the project has not prepared himself to answer questic concerning it. Further he has made a misleading representation before a caucus of the Common Counc (May 17th) by stating that he could arrange for the demolition of the current Linebacker Inn at th( time of thecompletion of the new Motor Inn. He is not now th.e� owner of the current Linebacker Inn. Nor is he the mortgagor of that property. It is held in a confidential land trust by the First Bank & Trust Company of South Bend for an unnamed beneficiary. The bank has indicated that Mr. Stanley.,.Pi.etzak is not the beneficiary of the trust,.-and a bank.representative indicated dis- pleasure at Mr. Pietzak's indiscretion in claiming that he could still control the disposition of that property. As promoter, Mr. Pietzak has called the financial substance of the project into question by stating that if he were required to finance the signalization and channelization of the intersection of North Twyckenham Drive and State Road #23, he would "call off the whole deal." Bus this improvement of an already dangerous intersection would add less than 1% to the total cost of the project! Our final objection to this project is that its preliminary site development plan contains a numbe of defects which could prove fatal to the quiet privacy of our residential neighborhood. The preliminary site plan contains no "elevations" nor architect's sketches of the finished motel. As a result, neither the neighborhood nor this council can even speculate concerning the likely impact of the development of the site upon the established privacy and quality of neighborhood life. We have for example, no assurance concerning the visual appearance of the finished motel, nor concerning the limits on the neon and other display advertising which may be used to attract attention to it. We are utterly unable to rely upon the promoter's allusions to $5 to $6 million dollars in total development costs, and as you know, the parent Hilton Corporation has not even conducted preliminary feasibility studies necessary before the. >promotors can be granted a franchis( •a- ns it