Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right Of Way Vacation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends denial of alley vacation at 1650 Dean Avenue after neighbors raise access concerns
Summary
The commission recommended that City Council deny a vacation of an L‑shaped alley adjacent to 1650 Dean Avenue after adjoining residents testified the alley is in active informal use and denial is preferable to preserve access and avoid dividing shared access across multiple private parcels.
The Plan and Zoning Commission recommended denial of a request to vacate an L‑shaped alleyway adjacent to 1650 Dean Avenue after neighbors described long‑standing informal use, garden and vehicle access that could be disrupted if the city abandoned public right‑of‑way to adjoining property owners.
Planning staff explained that the alley — a narrow 15‑foot passage that runs north–south and then east–west between East 16th and East 17th Streets — currently functions largely as private space and occasionally for parking or storage, but staff initially recommended vacation on the condition the city reserve utility easements. "We do believe that this alleyway does not serve a purpose of any access or maintenance, and therefore staff is supportive of the vacation request," planning staff said during the hearing, while also noting the requirement to reserve easements for utilities.
At the hearing multiple adjoining property owners and long‑time neighbors opposed the vacation. One resident, Eric McCann, said his family has used the east‑west leg of the alley to access his property and maintain equipment; he also presented photos of trailers and vehicles he said have been stored there. He said parts of the alley have been actively maintained by neighbors for years. Another neighbor said the alley contains a garden and other improvements that would be affected if an adjacent owner acquired half of the vacated right‑of‑way.
Applicant Janelle Patterson, who owns 1650 Dean Avenue and the contiguous parcel, said she had asked the city to vacate the alley because she uses the area for parking and maintenance and had mowed the strip for years. Patterson said she was willing to negotiate with adjoining owners and that some neighbors had expressed willingness to purchase parts of the alley, but that she preferred to formalize ownership for long‑term access.
Commissioners focused on whether the alley served a public purpose for access and emergency circulation, and on the likelihood that vacating the right‑of‑way would split ownership and potentially create access conflicts across multiple adjoining parcels. After discussion the commission voted to recommend denial of the alley vacation to City Council — a recommendation informed by testimony that multiple households currently rely on the alley for access and storage.
