Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Streets Elgin topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Green River planning commission discusses narrowing Elgin streets, flags survey and tax implications
Summary
Commissioners discussed requests to reduce Elgin street widths from 80 feet to more typical residential widths, potential property transfers, survey and plat requirements, and costs to property owners. No formal action was taken; staff will return with a recommended approach.
At its March 18 meeting, the City of Green River Planning Commission discussed requests from property owners in the Elgin neighborhood to reduce several street widths from 80 feet to a more typical residential width, a change that would increase the amount of private land adjacent to those streets.
The commission heard that two property owners — Edward Bennett and Ken Johnson — had recently asked the city to shrink roadway easements on specific streets in Elgin so the lots adjacent to those streets would gain additional land. Commissioners and staff noted the request is partly driven by a need to relocate utility poles and avoid placing poles directly in front of a house.
Commissioners said the Elgin townsite was platted with unusually large streets: “All streets are 80 feet wide except Sixth Street, which is 40 feet wide,” and alleys recorded at 20 feet, a commission member read from the plat map. By contrast, most Green River residential streets are roughly 48 feet, including curb and gutter and sidewalk, the panel said.
Why it matters: narrowing a street would change the legal description of adjacent parcels, require new meets-and-bounds descriptions for each affected lot, and could raise property tax bills because property owners would gain land. Planning commissioners repeatedly said the expense and administrative work would fall to property owners, not the city, if the city approves a vacation or narrowing.
Commission discussion focused on process and equity. Commissioners and staff said the city would be required to notify all property owners within 300 feet of any proposed street-width change. They discussed two possible approaches: 1) a city-led survey of road centerlines and submission of an adjusted plat for the county to apply uniformly, or 2) relying on individual property owners to resurvey and record new legal descriptions. Several commissioners expressed concern about a piecemeal approach that would leave “jagged” property lines if only some owners could afford surveys.
Commissioners identified several practical questions staff should answer before bringing a formal proposal: which Elgin streets would be reduced versus left at larger widths (for example, roads serving bus routes or primary access), an updated plat map showing existing 80‑foot and 48‑foot streets, the process the county requires to revise plats, and whether the city can submit a single, uniform amendment versus requiring new meets-and-bounds from each property owner.
No formal motion was taken. Commissioners voted to continue the discussion and asked staff to return with a plat-based analysis, notification draft, and options for how the county might implement a uniform adjustment to property lines.
Looking ahead: staff said the item will return to a future agenda with the requested background information so commissioners can decide whether to open a formal street‑vacation or width‑reduction proceeding.
