Logansport council tables Peak Community Services housing plan after resident concerns; three funding resolutions pass

The Logansport Common Council on Monday tabled Resolution 2025-119, which would have advanced a proposed housing project by Peak Community Services that includes a remodeled group home and multiple duplexes, citing requests for more detailed site plans and engineering analysis.

Peak Community Services' representative said the plan would remodel an existing High Street property from a six-bedroom house to a four-bedroom group home and either operate it as a 24-hour home or as supported housing with limited nightly staff visits. "We're going to go ahead and remodel it because it needs some work. And then we're going to go ahead and change it from a 6 bedroom to a 4 bedroom," the representative said. The applicant also said a new group home would be the organization's "number 1 priority" and that it planned to finish other Wright Street work before building additional duplexes: "I have to build a group home first. That's my number 1 priority, because we've been looking for 6 years. And we'll get that built."

Why it matters: the project would place residential care units in an established neighborhood and requires state licensing for group homes, civil-engineering review for site suitability, and neighborhood access considerations. Council members and public commenters pressed the applicant for a site layout, confirmation of alley feasibility for a second entrance/exit, geotechnical testing and clarification of deed restrictions before the council acted.

Discussion and neighborhood concerns

Residents and neighbors suggested reducing the number of buildings and improving vehicle access. One resident recommended widening the alley to the southeast to create a second entry and ease congestion, saying the alley "goes through and it turns to the south out to about Nineteenth And High." The applicant acknowledged the suggestion and said they had discussed the idea with their contractor and would study it with a civil engineer.

Council members repeatedly asked for a drawn layout and for confirmation of subsurface conditions; the transcript records an exchange that the applicant had not done core sampling or paid for a civil engineer yet, though the applicant said they had performed informal due diligence and believed the site was "very doable." A resident told the council: "Oil samples to see what's underneath there. If you have not done that yet, it's important." The applicant replied that formal surveying and civil engineering would be sought if the council moved forward.

Project elements, costs and timeline

The applicant estimated the cost of a new group home at roughly $800,000 to $900,000 and said the duplex units being built on Wright Street were about $526,000 each. They described a phased plan in which the group home would be built first, Wright Street improvements would be completed, and then additional duplex construction would follow. If the council had approved the measure that night, the applicant said they would call a settlement engineer the next day and begin petitioning the state for a group-home license.

Constraints raised in the meeting included deed restrictions on the property, the absence of completed retaining walls and fencing on nearby Wright Street construction that had been delayed by weather and a variance process, and the need for ADA-compliant sidewalks that the Mayor's Office previously approved. The applicant said the retaining wall work was scheduled to be completed that month.

Council action and next steps

After public comment and internal discussion, Councilman Morrison said the proposal could be adjusted: "I think that we could live with that," referencing a reduced plan of fewer buildings. Ultimately the council voted to table Resolution 2025-119 to allow the applicant to supply a site layout, civil-engineering input, and more detailed plans addressing parking, ingress/egress and unit counts.

Votes at a glance

- Resolution 2025-119 (project approval / property authorization for Peak Community Services) — TABLED. Roll-call as recorded in the meeting: Dave Morris: Yes; Bailey Zinsmaster: Yes; PJ Cox: Yes; Susie Wamsley: Yes; Scott Petey: Yes; Chris Howard: Yes; Cameron Austin: Yes. Motion and second to table were recorded; mover/second names were not specified in the transcript.

- Resolution 2025-120 (authorizing additional expenditures from the GEO Bond Fund) — PASSED (unanimous roll-call as recorded). Roll-call as recorded in the meeting: BJ Cox: Yes; Chris Howard: Yes; Cameron Austin: Yes; Hailey Zensmaster: Yes; Scott Feeney: Yes; Susie Walmsley: Yes; Dave Morris: Yes.

- Resolution 2025-121 (transfer of funds into Community Crossings GRAMA fund for completion of the 2025 Street Revitalization Plan) — PASSED (unanimous roll-call as recorded). Roll-call as recorded in the meeting: Scott Beatty: Yes; Chris Howard: Yes; PJ Cox: Yes; Susie Walmsley: Yes; Bailey Zensmaster: Yes; Cameron Austin: Yes; Dave Morris: Yes.

- Resolution 2025-122 (commitment of funds for future purchase of a new fire engine for the Southside Fire Station) — PASSED (unanimous roll-call as recorded). Roll-call as recorded in the meeting: Susie Wamsley: Yes; Dave Morris: Yes; Chris Howard: Yes; Haley Zensmaster: Yes; Scott Beatty: Yes; Vijay Cox: Yes; Cameron Olsen: Yes.

What the council requested from the applicant

Council members and residents asked the applicant to provide a drawn site layout or floor plan, civil-engineering analysis (including feasibility of using the southeast alley for a secondary entrance/exit), any applicable deed restrictions, and results of geotechnical or soil testing before the council takes the item up again. Several speakers urged the applicant not to "overdevelop" the site and suggested presenting options with two buildings rather than four.

The council did not set a firm date for returning the item; the applicant said they would pursue engineering and state licensing if the council later approves the measure.