Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Road Vacation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Property owner asks commission to back reducing historic 80-foot street widths in Elgin; commissioners to refer matter to City Council
Summary
A property owner proposed narrowing historic 80-foot rights-of-way in Elgin to about 40–45 feet to increase lot sizes and resolve nonconforming parcels; he suggested surveys paid by property owners via special assessment and asked the commission to recommend support to City Council; commissioners discussed costs and planning implications and agreed to forward the idea to council, with no formal vote recorded.
During the meeting’s later agenda item, a property owner addressed the commission with a proposal to change street-width standards in the Elgin neighborhood. The owner asked the commission to support reducing certain historic 80-foot-wide street rights-of-way to roughly 40–45 feet, which he said would increase lot size and help bring many nonconforming lots closer to conformance.
He described having gathered signatures in support of the change and said the practical effect would be to increase buildable area for existing lots. On financing, he proposed that the cost of any required surveys be borne by the property owners who would acquire the vacated width, suggesting the city could require a special assessment on property taxes so the city would be reimbursed for survey or administrative costs.
Commissioners asked clarifying questions: which portions would be modified, whether the proposal would involve vacating entire streets or only reducing width, and who would pay for surveys and any property transfers. The property owner clarified he was proposing a change in width (not vacating entire street alignments) and that the survey and acquisition costs should fall to the homeowners who benefit.
Commission members also noted the proposal could resolve some nonconforming lot-size issues and that any final decision would rest with City Council; the commission said it would prepare materials to forward and recommended referral to council for formal action. There was no formal recorded vote on the proposal at the planning commission meeting.
