04/12/76 Board of Public Works Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING APRIL 12. 1976 in granting this vacation. He said a petition should be considered on the basis of whether the public will be benefited and whether the public need will be served by the vacation. Mr. Bancroft said this alley is not now on the tax rolls. If the vacation is granted, this property, 15 feet by 165 feet, will go on the tax rolls and produce revenue for the City.and the County. He said, if the alley is, as was represented two weeks ago, worth $6,000, it will generate over $2,000 in tax revenues. This is a public benefit. Mr. Bancroft said the alley is now being maintained by the City at City expense. If the alley is vacated, the petitioners will maintain the alley. The public will benefit. Mr. Bancroft said, if the alley is vacated, it will eliminate a tee intersection into the north -south alley. The petitioners plan to widen the intersection to eighteen feet at that point so that no one making the turn into the north -south alley will have to encroach on public property to make the turn. Mr. Bancroft said he had informed the Board at the hearing two weeks ago, that an electric utility pole was on the petitioners' property. He said he has now learned that the pole is out in the public right of way. The contractor for the petitioners has constructed a curb which will make it much safer for anyone driving in the alley around the pole. The curb is constructed out in the public right-of-way and Mr. Bancroft said as soon as he learned that fact, he immediately notified Mr. Farrand. Mr. Bancroft said if the alley is vacated, the petitioner will leave the curb in the alley to keep traffic away from the utility pole. Mr. Bancroft displayed a number of charts to the Board and demonstrated how the screening landscaping planned will have to be cut down if the alley is not vacated. He said the petitioners will lose three proposed parking spaces if the alley is not vacated. He said parkers will have to back out of the parking spaces and, according to the City Engineer's regulations, cannot back into an alley or street. Mr. Bancroft said the petitioners would like to put in as much landscaping as possible to screen the parking area but will not be able to landscape as planned if the vacation is not granted. Mr. Bancroft said the petitioners have no intention of closing the alley. He said if the Board intends to deny the vacation on the basis of use by the property owners, his clients would be willing to grant permanent easements to the property owners on the north -south alley allowing them to use the alley. Mr. Bancroft noted that the remonstrators had presented a petition to the Area Plan Commission containing thirty-four names and had advised this Board two weeks ago that they now have forty signatures. Mr. Bancroft said he has checked the petition and only eight of those signing it are property owners who live within three hundred feet of the alley. He noted that the petitioner is required to notify all property owners within three hundred feet of the proposed alley vacation. Mr. Bancroft said of the forty-four persons who own property within three hundred feet of this alley, only eight signed the petition. Therefore, there are eighty-two per cent of the property owners within three hundred feet of the alley who did not remonstrate. Mr. Bancroft said, in conclusion, the petitioners -are not blocking access of any property owner to this alley, the alley will remain open and the.alley is not necessary to the growth of the City. He said the petitioners have built a beautiful medical facility, they will landscape the grounds and maintain the alley. The petitioners want to be good neighbors and make the site more beautiful. Mr. Bancroft said he was.asking the Board to grant this petition and vacate the alley. Patrick Brennan, Attorney, spoke to the Board in remonstrance against the vacation. Mr. Brennan said the alley is actually 175 feet long, not 165 feet. He said the Board should take into consideration the fact that there is a three -car garage on the property owned by Dan Allin. He said there is an easement on.that property for public use. He said the property owner's next to this alley have a two -car garage and are building an extension to that garage for their boat. Mr. Brennan said the petitioners built a $100,000 building knowing they did not own the alley. They took their chances, knowing they would have to go through a hearing on this vacation. Mr. Brennan said the building