10-23-85 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Counci~ Oct. 23, 1985 Krienke Dr. Krienke appeared before the Council on the matter of the Steneroden Property proposal and the possible condemnation of some of his property for this proposal. Krienke pointed out that the Steneroden property is not Agenda landlocked and that the property has access to Rice Street. Krienke Addition felt that the only reason that his property was being considered for condemnation was so the Steneroden proposal could have a commercial building on Rice Street. Krienke also felt that there was no public interest involved that would warrant condemnation and doubted that the City has the legal power to proceed with it. Dro Krienke pointed out that he and the people on County Road C have B-3 property and they have paid for improvements on County Road C. When the time comes, Dr. Krienke indicated that he would develop his property as B-3. Krienke pointed out that none of these properties would be served with a road in the back through the Steneroden property, and therefore, would not be willing to pay for the assessments of this road. Krienke also pointed out that Mrs. Pierce, Mrs. Cook and Mrs. Suchy are also opposed to a road through the back of their properties. Krienke stated that they realize that there is a problem with the development of this land. However, Krienke indicated that he has tried to get together with Mr. Waite to discuss it, but Mr. Waite has not gotten back to him. Dr. Krienke also indicated that at a previous Council meeting Messrs. Waite and Maddox indicated that he was asking a high price for the property. Krienke stated that the price he has indicated is what realtors have told him the property is worth and that he was not asking anything for the property as it was not for sale. Krienke indicated that he plans to develop the property as one piece and was not in favor of spot-seJ.ling. Mr. Fahey indicated that no decision has been made on the condemnation of the Krienke property. The Council did indicate that it would consider the condemnation in order to resolve the issue of the residential property in the back. Obviously, Dr. Krienke is opposed to this. Fahey felt that it would be appropriate for Krienke and the developer of the Steneroden property to get together. Fahey stated that he was not against condemnation if developers cannot get together. The City must ensure that property is developed in the best interests of everyone. Mr. Fahey indicated that there will be another meeting on November 13 to discuss the development of this property. Page -14-