My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/12/76 Board of Public Works Minutes
sbend
>
Public
>
Public Works
>
Minutes
>
1976
>
04/12/76 Board of Public Works Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/15/2024 2:46:21 PM
Creation date
11/23/2016 10:50:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board of Public Works
Document Type
Minutes
Document Date
4/12/1976
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
REGULAR MEETING APRIL 12. 1976 <br />is not compatible with the houses in the .neighborhood, but looks <br />like a Pizza Hut. Mr. Brennan said both the Republican and <br />Democratic Precinctcommitteemen have remonstrated against this <br />vacation. Mr. Brennan said the property owners in the area have <br />lost about $10,000 valuation on their properties because of this <br />building and they are going to ask for a reduction in their <br />property taxes. Mr. Brennan said the Area Plan Commission staff <br />said there were no public utilities in the alley but the petitioners <br />now are talking about the public utility pole in the public right-of-way. <br />He said there have never been problems with maintenance of the alley. <br />Mr. Brennan said he and another property owner, John Horan, drove <br />the alley with an LTD Station Wagon, after marking the fourteen foot <br />line with barriers. They had no difficulty making the turn into <br />the north -south alley without going on private property. Mr. <br />Brennan said Earl Wilborn, a property owner who has a business on <br />Lafayette Street, purchased a private lot to provide parking for <br />his customers. Mr. Brennan said the petitioners have said the <br />property owners can use the alley if they do not abuse the privilege <br />and he questioned what would be considered abuse in'the use of the <br />alley. Measurements were made of the curb installed by the contractor <br />and it is out in the public right-of-way. Mr. Brennan said the <br />contractor removed a wire grate for surface water drainage from the <br />alley and asked the Board to order the removal of the curb and the <br />replacement of this grate. Mr. Brennan said the neighbors do not <br />want a permanent easement right. They want the alley to remain <br />open for everyone's use. <br />Councilman Joseph Serge spoke against the proposed vacation. He said <br />he felt the alley should remain a public right-of-way. He said if <br />the petition is granted, the doctors could close the alley if they <br />wanted to. Mr. Serge said the building was constructed in an area <br />where the neighbors are trying to preserve the heritage of the City. <br />He said the matter should have been studied before permission was <br />given to put the building up. Mr. Farrand noted that this Board <br />is not the body to hear a rezoning matter. He said the property is <br />properly zoned and the matter before this Board is the matter of <br />vacating the alley. Mr. Serge said it was his opinion that the alley <br />should be left open for the public. Mr. Brunner asked Mr. Brennan <br />what his feelings were regarding the offer of the petitioners to grant <br />permanent easement rights to the property owners. Mr. Brennan said <br />the property owners feel that they now have more than a permanent <br />easement. They have a public alley and they would like that alley to <br />remain open. He said he would ask the Board to decline that offer. <br />Mr. Mullen said, if Mr. Bancroft's value of the alley was set at <br />$6,000, the tax would be figured on one-third of that figure, or $2,000, <br />and the tax would amount to $240. Mr. Bancroft agreed that that figure <br />was correct. Mr. Brunner asked Mr. Bancroft how the owners would <br />limit the use of the alley to property owners if the easements were <br />granted. Mr. Bancroft said there would be no attempt made to <br />limit the use of the alley or restrict it to property owners. <br />Mr. Brunner said it would appear the only problem the petitioners would <br />have if the vacation is not allowed would be to reorder their parking <br />arrangement. Mr. Bancroft said the parking situation would be more <br />difficult if the alley is not vacated. He said the petitioners would <br />have to eliminate a major part of their landscaping plans and he said <br />they feel this landscaping is very important to the neighborhood. <br />Mr. Bancroft said it may be, if the alley is not vacated, that they <br />will have to remove the curb the contractor installed and that curb <br />is a safety factor in keeping cars away from the utility pole. He <br />said without the vacation, parking will be more difficult and there <br />will be less parking spaces. <br />Mrs. Joseph Stratigos, 527 N. Lafayette, spoke against the vacation. <br />She said her husband had sent a letter of remonstrance to the Board. <br />Mrs. Stratigos said they are directly next door to the doctors. She <br />said they have daughters living at home and there are four cars in <br />the family. Because of the one-way streets, they use this alley all <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.