Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Alley Vacation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears unusual alley-vacation request at Dakota Circle; resident seeks fee waiver
Summary
Councilors reviewed a petition to vacate a small, L-shaped alley fragment adjacent to Dakota Circle. Planning staff said the segment is functionally part of a private yard and the urban-development department prepared an appraisal. A resident, William Smith, asked the council to waive the application fee, saying it represents more than 17% of his
Councilors reviewed an unusual street-and-alley vacation request (24008) involving a small L-shaped alley fragment adjacent to Dakota Circle during the April 21 meeting. Planning staff said the alley has not functionally served the public and that portions of it appear used as private drive and yard.
Steve Hendrickson of the Planning Department explained that the alley fragment resulted from historic platting that left a narrow outlot and that only the eastern portion of the alley has ever been used. He said the segment appears “to the average person driving past” as part of an adjacent homeowner’s front yard and that vacating it would “clean up the paperwork.”
An attorney from the City Attorney’s Office (Abby) advised council that an appraisal and deposit are required under city code before a vacation appears on the council’s agenda. Abby told the council the city “cannot gift property” and cautioned that a fee or sale price can be adjusted only with appropriate justification tied to valuation or public benefit rather than an applicant’s personal hardship.
William Smith, an adjacent property owner at 1630 Dakota Circle, told the council he moved to Lincoln recently and asked that the application fee be waived. Smith said the vacation application fee equals “over 17% of my annual income” and described difficulty reaching another adjacent owner who appears to be out of the country. Smith requested relief from the fee on those grounds.
Planning staff described the typical valuation approach (an appraisal and splitting value among affected owners by area) and said the Urban Development Department had produced an appraisal and deposit. Staff indicated there may be grounds to reduce the cost to owners in unique circumstances and suggested council could consider an amendment to the purchase price at the final vote. Staff also said the city typically waits for adjacent owners to apply because the city has limited ability to retain easements when vacating right-of-way.
No final council vote on the vacation was recorded in the provided transcript; staff told council the item would return for a vote at a subsequent meeting and that council could direct adjustments to the purchase price or fee in a motion at that time.
