Laserfiche WebLink
Public Comment With Regard to the Application - There were none. <br />P/C Questions to the Applicant - There were none. <br />Applicant's Summary - The applicant did not have a summary. <br />Staff Summary and Recommendation - I will clarify for the record that fences are not <br />determined to be permanent structures in the code. They still require a building permit. I was <br />referring more to housing additions or slab on grade accessory structures. Staff recommends <br />approval of right-of-way vacation with the following revised condition: That a utility <br />easement be reserved by the vacation ordinance in a width that matches the alley. <br />Public Hearing Closed Commission Discussion/Motion <br />Commissioner Lipton - It would appear from the vicinity map that some of the property <br />surrounding this site has yet to be developed or yet to be annexed. Is that correct? <br />A. Paul Wood - We have three lots directly to the west which have been annexed and <br />platted at this point. <br />Q. Is that what is shown as RE. <br />A. Yes. The only undeveloped property is the parish property zoned RR directly to <br />the north which has not been platted. <br />Commissioner Lipton - My concern is that once we give this up you can't get it back. If this <br />was in the middle of platted land that has been developed and we knew for sure we would <br />never have a need for that right-of-way it would be a lot more agreeable to give it up. Given <br />the fact that some of the surrounding areas have not been platted or developed I'm a little <br />reluctant to just say take it. If it is some benefit to the City later on we can't get it back very <br />easily. I don't mind giving up some sort or easement so they can develop it and use it for their <br />own use. I don't want to take away the future rights of the City to take it back. <br />Commissioner Renfrew - I don't see any problem with it. I don't think there is going to be a <br />need for access for any undeveloped lots there. If the adjoining property owners don't have a <br />problem I don't either. <br />Chairperson Boulet - As I recall when we looked at Bridgefield East we explored the <br />possibility of a trail here and the possibility of creating that in the other half of this alley. If <br />you look on the plat, right behind the proposed resolution you will notice there is an outlot, <br />Outlot 1, at the north end of Bridgefield East. That, if I remember correctly, is to provide the <br />bicycle access which then will connect up with an east west segment which will run past <br />Bridgefield. I don't see a problem with this because I don't see any future use of that narrow <br />strip. <br />Commissioner McAvinew - I would concur, I really don't have any problems with this. <br />18 <br />