8.2. SR 01-19-2016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Request for Action To Item Number Mayor and City Council 8.2 Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Public HearingsJanuary 19, 2016Chris Leeseberg, Senior Planner Item Description Reviewed by Request by Ronald Dargis and James Burgoyne to Zack Carlton, Planning Manager Vacate the Portion of York Street located North of Peter Beck, City Attorney Main Street NW Reviewed by Cal Portner, City Administrator Action Requested Deny, by motion, the proposed street vacation for the reasons set forth in the attached Resolution of Denial, including: 1.The street vacation is not in the interest of the public, as required by state statute. 2.The Department of Natural Resources opposes the York Street vacation. 3.The Parks and Recreation Master Plan identifies connections to the rivers/water as an important community interest. Staff recommends the following: 1.A license agreement be entered into with the property owner of 1946 Main Street (75-413-0240) allowing the fire pit and boat dock within the right-of-way and providing for future maintenance of the driveway. 2.Signage stating no public parking or driving on the driveway be allowed. 3.Upon approval of the Department of Natural Resources, the concrete boat landing be removed. Background/Discussion Case No. EV 15-09 The City Council reviewed the easement vacation application at their January 4, 2016, meeting and after receiving comments from the public and discussing the request, the Council postponed action until January 19, 2016. The primary question left unanswered from the meeting was whether vacation of the right-of-way would increase the tax base, providing a public benefit. The Council directed staff to research the tax impacts and potential impacts to the city’s insurance premiums. During the meeting, there was discussion on several topics with some information that may have been a source of confusion. Clarification on these topics and information is outlined below. Ownership During the meeting Council asked for clarification as to whether the property is city owned. The property is dedicated public right-of-way. The city does not hold fee title, so the property cannot be sold. The statutory process for vacating public right-of-way is to divide the property down the middle with half going to each adjoining property. In this case, the driveway constructed by the Dargises is located in the middle of the right-of-way. The driveway will need to be relocated, or the property line adjusted by the