pm_070801 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 01, 2007 Page 3 property at 2574 Dunlap Street. Mr. Lloyd noted that, even though Rose Place was not a through street, the applicant’s property as considered a corner lot because it was situated at the southwest corner of the intersection of the Rose Place and Dunlap Street rights-of- way. Mr. Lloyd advised that the requested ROW vacation would move the side property line (and the related setback line) further north, thereby increasing the lot size and expanding the buildable area of the property. City Engineer Debra Bloom advised that, when reviewing requests for vacating public ROW, the Public Works/Engineering Department determines whether the request would immediately, or in the future, have an adverse impact on the general health, welfare, or safety of citizens. Ms. Bloom further noted that a determination needed to be made whether the ROW was or would be necessary to facilitate traffic distribution in a neighborhood, whether existing public utilities were located underneath the ROW, and how best to retain an easement protecting the public’s interest. Ms. Bloom advised that it had been determined, following thorough review by staff, that the City had no plans to improve Rose Place in that location and that the interests of the public would not be compromised by vacating the Rose Place ROW, as long as dedicated easements remained in place to allow continued city access to the underground sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water main infrastructure. Staff recommended APPROVAL of the request for a VACATION of the southern half of the Rose Place RIGHT-OF-WAY adjacent to the property located at 2574 Dunlap Street; based on the comments and findings of Section 5, and the conditions of Section 7 of the project report dated August 1, 2007. Commissioner Gasongo questioned how staff made their determination on potential future development and/or needs of a roadway. Ms. Bloom responded that considerations were given to paper ROW needs and projections and Comprehensive Plan guidelines. Ms. Bloom reviewed the extensive review and discussions held during the town home construction in the 1990’s related to possible connection of Rose Place to Lexington Avenue; however, noted that it had been determined, and favored by residents, that the cul-de-sac was adequate, and no future plans to connect to Lexington Avenue. Ms. Bloom advised that the ROW was determined to be surplus ROW, and other than retaining the utility infrastructure easement, the City had no need for the ROW. Ms. Bloom reviewed underlying fee ownership on dedicated ROW and easement properties; and vacating processes to revert fee ownership back to adjacent properties when deemed appropriate. Additional discussion included the property owner’s intent for the vacated ROW; process for neighborhood property owners to approach the City requesting connection of roadways; purpose of the original ROW; implications of the City retaining ownership versus vacating the ROW; and addressing the application before staff and the Commission at this time, not knowing whether the property owner on the north side will request vacation of the other half of the ROW adjacent to that property. Vice Chair Doherty opined that residents may not want the road connected to limit traffic flow. Additional discussion included setback impacts for existing structures on properties; and process for the City to purchase the property if it were deemed in the future that a road was needed. Applicant, Alan Livingston Mr. Livingston provided his rationale in seeking vacation of the ROW, noting that the property was currently an eyesore, with rodents, overgrown weeds, a refuse catchall, and general disreputable condition for the neighborhood and his property specifically. Mr.