My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1988/07/05
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1988
>
Agenda Packets - 1988/07/05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/16/2025 11:45:13 AM
Creation date
6/16/2025 11:45:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
7/5/1988
Description
Work Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
94
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
SITE DESCRIPTION (CONT.) <br />At the present time the parcel is capable of supporting only 1 <br />dwelling because of its limited access to Groveland or any other <br />) <br />public street. This is one of the alternative values for the <br />parce'__ The parcel has been valued as if it is only 1 building <br />site with 77.5 feet of frontage on Groveland and containing 1.7 <br />acres. <br />Another valuation alternative is the portion of the site which <br />fronts on Groveland or 77.5 feet and being 190 feet deep. This <br />is also assumed to be a site capable of holding a single <br />dwelling. It nmst Lc noted however that if the owner of the <br />subject propeziy were to sell this portion of the site, the sear <br />.=s <br />part would be land locked and therefore have limited value. It <br />could be sold to adjacent owners but probably at a very reduced <br />figure becaa_^, of the p.:�tential limited use as anything other <br />than yard area. Further, if the City of Mounfisview were to <br />? <br />condemn this hart of the site it would cause severance damage <br />5 <br />which would amount to basically a taking of the whole parcel. <br />The appraiser hay kept this in mind and has valued the frontage <br />area without regard to severance de.age. In affect if severance <br />damage were considered the value. of the front parcel and <br />severance damag:; would be very nearly the same as the value <br />ascribed to the wb ole parcel or the previously mentioned <br />i <br />valuation. <br />r <br />i <br />UMTJCt�E5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.