03/29/76 Board of Public Works Minuites

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING MARCH 29, 1976 Velma Miller, 319 W. Marion Stre,et,= said 4.he owns a boat which is kept in a garage in the area and if this alley is closed she does not know how they will get the boat out of the garage and onto the street. Mr. Farrand asked Mr. Bancroft if he wished to make any additional comments. Mr. Bancroft said, in answer to the statements that this is a land grab, the petitioners will be paying taxes on the property when it is no longer a public alley. He said it will increase the.tax base in the area. He said the petitioners are willing to allow the neighbors to use the alley. In reference to the electrical lines, Mr. Bancroft said there are no lines in the alley. There are some lines running parallel to the alley on the petitioner's property. The I & PZ Electric Company ,wanted $7,000 to move those lines and the petitioners chose not ,to have them moved. He said the I & M Electric Company does have a utility easement in the alley and that will remain. Mr. Bancroft said, if the neighbors abused the use of the alley, the petitioner might then restrict the use of it. He said residents who use the alley can continue to make use of it in a responsible manner. Mr. Bancroft said the petitioner's building is already constructed. They feel that this alley should be vacated and that the benefits far outweigh any detriment to the closing. Ile noted that the Area Plan Commission did recommend the petition favorably to the Board of Public works by a nine to three vote. Mr. Farrand submitted the following written comments from Councilman Joseph Serge to be entered into the record: "There are two power lines going over the alley they are trying to vacate. Pictures were taken yesterday to show this. This is a valuable piece of property and the petitioner should purchase the alley from the City and should not be given the piece of property free of charge for his own purpose. The building does not match the area in architecture. The area is a historical preservation area and the building is of modern -design. The builder of the new building should have taken all of this into consideration before beginning construction. Residents have a petition in - that area for the alley not to be closed and I feel we should go along with the people. Joseph Serge, 1st District Councilman " Mr. Farrand said he would like to clarify several statements made. He said this petition was, as a routine procedure, reviewed by the Engineering Department to determine utility easements in the area. The petition was- then reported back to the Board so that it could be referred to the Area Plan Commission for a hearing. Any action taken by the Board to vacate this alley would be subject to the existing utility easements in the area. In regard to the use of the alley, Mr. Farrand said the petitioners have indicated the residents will still have use of the alley if the vacation is granted. However, the petitioners would have the right to close the alley if it is vacated. Mr. Farrand said he has driven the alley and there is no question that to make the turnat the alley intersection, you cannot stay on the alley right-of-ways, but must encroach on private property. Mr,. Farrand noted that a vacated alley does go on the property tax rolls and is assessed against the abutting property. Mr. Mullen said, in view of the information brought out in this hearing, he would like to take a look: at the alley in question and review the materials furnished to the Board. Mr. Brunner made a motion that the Board table the matter for two weeks to allow Board members to check the area, to review the minutes of the.Area Plan Commission hearing and to review the comments made this morning and to evaluate all the information before acting on the vacation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mullen and carried. 1