Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right Of Way Vacation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends denial of alley vacation behind 22 West Whitlock after neighbor objections
Summary
The commission recommended denial of a request to vacate and convey an 89‑foot section of an unbuilt alley behind 22 West Whitlock Street after neighbors and an adjacent property owner objected and commissioners raised concerns about precedent and use of the right of way.
The Planning Commission recommended denial of a right‑of‑way vacation request to convey an 89‑foot unbuilt alley segment behind 22 West Whitlock Street.
The request, submitted by the owner of 22 West Whitlock, sought to vacate roughly a 1,200‑square‑foot portion of an alley the applicant has been using behind his house. Staff said an earlier council approval had expired, prompting the applicant to reapply. Staff also noted existing temporary improvements and a small shed and said zoning rules would allow a shed in the rear yard if the parcel were consolidated, but the alley contains maintenance responsibilities and encumbrances.
Neighbors and the adjacent parking lot owner (a medical office property) submitted objections. Commissioners and commenters said the applicant had placed fencing, a “no trespassing” sign and storage in the alley before obtaining a final vacation and that key adjacent property owners objected. Commissioner Currell explicitly called out concerns about setting a precedent when public right‑of‑way is used for private storage and signage.
The applicant told commissioners he had cleared brush, added stone to address standing water and used temporary dog‑panel fencing for security, saying he had been told by a prior staff member that a permit was not required for a small shed. He also said he had attempted to contact the property owner and had discussed the strip informally with the parking lot owner and others.
Following discussion, the commission moved to recommend denial to City Council, concluding the proposal was “not consistent with good planning practice” and noting the public right‑of‑way status and the objections from the adjacent property owner. The motion to recommend denial passed on a roll call vote (majority yes). The matter will next be considered by City Council at a public hearing.
Commissioners asked staff to include the written objections and the applicant’s history of site activity in the packet to Council so the council can review maintenance responsibilities, prior notices of violation and the earlier expired approval.
