Anderson Hauser sought multiple plat vacations on Nov. 10 as a step toward consolidating its campus parcels and recording a larger replat. The commission treated two separate petitions differently after hearing the petitioner’s engineering consultant David Marks and multiple staff presentations.

Lot 1, Block D (Wirtzville/Wartsfield): David Marks said Anderson Hauser wants to vacate Lot 1 and Block D to simplify title and allow a later replat. Planning staff recommended denial, arguing the lots are part of a recently approved subdivision with an interdependent master drainage plan; vacating without clear legal agreements could impair shared stormwater infrastructure and the operation and maintenance manual. Commissioners questioned how maintenance obligations would be preserved if the plat is vacated.

A motion to disapprove the petition produced a 4–4 tie, so no action was taken; the commission later voted to reconsider and redocket the matter for Dec. 8 so the petitioner can pair the plat vacation with a primary replat and produce legal documents addressing drainage and maintenance responsibilities.

CNM subdivision (three lots): For the CNM subdivision plat vacation – a separate set of three lots Anderson Hauser owns – staff recommended approval because conditions had changed and vacating the three lots would not diminish land value. The petition was approved by roll call vote, with an 8–0 tally recorded.

Why it matters: Planning staff repeatedly flagged the master drainage and legal‑instrument interdependencies across the larger development; staff asked that any vacation be conditioned on legal agreements (joint maintenance agreements and updates to operations and maintenance manuals) to ensure stormwater infrastructure remains protected. The tie vote on the first vacation left the issue unresolved and scheduled for further review.

Next steps: The Lot 1/Block D vacation will return to the Plan Commission Dec. 8 for reconsideration paired with a primary replat and any required legal agreements; the CNM vacation will proceed as approved, subject to the administrative recording steps noted in the motion.

Sources: Petitioner presentation by David Marks; planning staff report and in‑meeting roll call and discussion.