My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCMin_62May9
FalconHeights
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
196x
>
1962
>
CCMin_62May9
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/13/2009 4:53:01 PM
Creation date
6/23/2009 9:25:58 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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).
View images
View plain text
1752 <br />r <br />1 <br />Schwantes, 18150ur homes were designed for the width and depth of the lot. <br />Fairview: Our house is approximately 80' from the road. If my lot was divided, <br />there would be 18' from the end of our house to the end of the lot. <br />Vde feel this would be exceedingly detrimental to the value of our <br />nro-oerty. The decrease in property value and the assessments we <br />would have to nay would exceed the amount we could sell the proposed <br />lot for. <br />J. Strait, ti~`e came out because we were interested in having a little ground. <br />1763 No. We see no reason to indicate we have a lot that is und.eveloned <br />Fairviews and should be provided with a road so one-half could be sold. Ve <br />consider the lot has been developed by landscaping. fie would have <br />about 10 feet behind our house if the lot were divided. Vu'hat <br />determines when the road goes in? If the land behind. our homes <br />must be developed, it could be developed as a unit itself. <br />Nilsen: You exercise your rights as vronerty owners - as you see fit to <br />handle your oronerty. Possibly, if there were 8 or 9 property <br />owners who tiRranted to sell and there was 1 bald-out, I sur~pose we <br />would go back to the proposal. <br />Galvin; Someone would have to ap*~roach the Village and request that a road <br />be built. 'f~~ere would have to be a show of need and maybe the tax- <br />payers could block it as an unnecessary and unjustified expenditure <br />of money. Someone would have to petition the Vi?lane to put in a <br />road which would take a separate action. <br />Nilsen: I think we go back to the best interests of the neo~le to be served. <br />Strait: I don't see why this road can't be put entirely on P,4r. Lindig's <br />rnoperty. <br />Nilsen: Then, is it advisable to develoz~ the other oronerty with another <br />street? <br />Strait: I think it is possible if we took the view that we wanted to sell <br />as much property as we could. Z~de couldn't, but some of those <br />people with shorter houses could if they are interested in property <br />development. I think it would come closer than this Troposal would. <br />Nilsen: When the road went in would be determined by hearings and meetings. <br />Strait: I cap see where 35~ of the people could come from these small lots. <br />C. Steiner, Did you say you could condemn the property? <br />1825 Fair- <br />view: <br />Galvins The Council could, but that is not the question here this evening. <br />The tillage has the power of condemnation. <br />Steiner: The lot goes right through the middle of our property and West of <br />the lot line is 60' that cannot be used. There would be about <br />106 x 1~0' lef t. The sale price wouldn't equal the cost of the assess- <br />ments . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.