Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves vacation of right‑of‑way at 984 E. Rosefield Lane despite neighbors' plea to preserve pedestrian cut‑through
Summary
After a public hearing in which neighbors warned that vacating the right‑of‑way would eliminate a commonly used pedestrian cut‑through, Draper councilors voted to approve Ordinance 16‑25 to vacate the city right‑of‑way at approximately 984 E. Rosefield Lane; Councilmember Lowry recused from the item.
Draper councilors voted to approve Ordinance 16‑25, which vacates a city right‑of‑way located at approximately 984 East Rosefield Lane. The public hearing drew several residents who said the right‑of‑way currently serves as a pedestrian cut‑through between neighborhoods and asked the council to delay vacating the parcel so access could be preserved.
William Mark, a nearby resident, told the council he uses the pathway frequently and urged additional study before granting private ownership. "My kids have friends on both sides of that line, and that trail offers them safe access," Mark said, asking the council to consider options to preserve connectivity. Scott Hinkley and Janet Astell echoed concerns about losing the informal path and the potential for future owners to fence the property.
Applicant Mr. Nixon told the council it is not his intent to remove access, said he would prefer to improve the existing dirt path and that his immediate plan is to extend a detached garage. "My intent in the future . . . is actually improve the access," he said, adding "I have no once again, no intention to remove that." Barker, the city attorney, explained the legal mechanics: because the right‑of‑way originated as a dedication on a recorded plat, state statute provides that a vacation would typically divide the property between the adjacent owners if the city no longer needs it for the road.
Council members debated the legal options and whether the city could insist on an easement to preserve pedestrian passage; several members said that because the dedication was for a road, the city’s authority is limited and that, if the city will not use the land for the purpose recorded, it should be returned to the adjacent owners. A motion to approve Ordinance 16‑25 was made by Councilmember Roberts and seconded; Councilmember Lowry was recused. The motion carried and the council approved the vacation.
The council accepted public comment and asked staff to inform neighbors about options after the vacation, including private easement agreements between property owners.
