Council hears request to vacate alley at Dakota Circle; applicant seeks fee relief amid complex ownership

City planning staff and the city attorney’s office briefed the Lincoln City Council on a street-and-alley vacation petition affecting property at Dakota Circle (item 6E) on Monday, April 21, 2025. The request asks the council to vacate a small, L-shaped alley fragment and convey portions to adjacent property owners, including a condominium outlot and a single-family property at 1630 Dakota Circle.

Steve Hendrickson of the Planning Department described the alley as an unusual remnant of historic plats: the alley segment does not function as a through alley, is L-shaped, and appears to have been physically integrated into adjacent private driveways. Abby (Luttrell) of the City Attorney’s Office told council the city requires an appraisal and deposit for vacations, per code, and cautioned that the city cannot simply "gift" public property without appropriate consideration or statutory justification.

Hendrickson and Luttrell said Urban Development prepared an appraisal and split valuation according to area, as required by city code; the appraisal and deposit are prerequisites for proceeding. City staff indicated there is limited public benefit from retaining the parcel because it is not used as public right-of-way in practice, and removing it from public ownership could "clean up" title and reduce ongoing city responsibility for a fragment that appears to function as private drive.

Councilman Beckius asked whether the city has a mechanism to address rights-of-way that were platted but never physically constructed; staff said vacation is the appropriate remedy in such historic circumstances. Staff also noted consequences for easements: if the city initiated a vacation itself, retaining easements (for utilities, for example) can be legally complicated, which is why the city prefers adjacent owners to initiate vacations.

One adjacent owner, William (Wm.) Smith, who lives at 1630 Dakota Circle and appeared at the hearing, said the condo-owner structure is complex and that some owners — including a property owner he identified as from Thailand — are difficult to contact and may not be able to participate. Smith asked the council to consider waiving or reducing the application fee; he said the assessed fee represented over 17% of his annual income after he recently moved to the property. "I made a request for the fee ... because added to my property tax this first year ... the fee that I had to pay to apply for this vacation equals over 17% of my annual income," Smith said.

Staff told council that if members intend to propose adjusting the fee or purchase price, they should contact the City Attorney’s Office so an appropriate motion or amendment can be prepared before the vote; staff indicated a vote on the vacation would be scheduled for the following week, giving council time to consider possible adjustments and to request revised documents if needed.

No formal council vote on the vacation was recorded on April 21. Staff recommended lowering the assessed consideration for the applicants could be warranted because the alley fragment is an anomalous remnant that carries little public benefit; council members were reminded the code requires appraisal and consideration unless there is statutory justification for a different treatment. Staff also suggested city-owned utility easements and other constraints be considered before concluding any conveyance.

The council left the item on the agenda for a future vote and advised staff and the city attorney to prepare any motions if council seeks to amend fee or conveyance terms prior to the next meeting.