Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Street Vacation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council approves ordinance to vacate portion of 1st South between 4th and 6th West

Preston City Council · March 6, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Preston City Council voted to introduce and approve Ordinance 2025-1 to vacate a portion of 1st South shown on the city’s major street plan. The motion passed after a public hearing in which the applicant and city planning staff described why the road was unlikely to be constructed.

After a brief public hearing, Preston City Council moved to vacate a portion of a future right-of-way shown on the city’s major street plan. The mayor opened the hearing and invited applicant Craig Thomas to describe his ownership history and the proposal; Thomas said he originally owned about 12 acres, sold the western portion to the county eight years ago and now retains roughly 2 acres where his daughter and son-in-law want to build a house.

Sean Alverson, the city’s director of planning, told the council that while the city generally favors completing major-street connections, in this location the county yard and existing structures make an extension impractical. "To put in one home, now you've put in a road that extends the entire length of the property, and the road would probably be more costly than the home itself," Alverson said.

Councilmember Brent Dodge moved to approve vacating 1st South between 4th and 6th West; Chris Larson seconded. The council introduced and read once Ordinance 2025-1 in summary. A roll-call vote recorded ‘Aye’ votes and the ordinance was approved; Todd Thomas was recused and Terry Larson was absent for the action. The clerk read the ordinance summary setting an effective date for the month indicated in the text.

The council noted that future development applications would still be subject to planning and that any required road build-out obligations would typically fall to a developer rather than the city. The city attorney explained that, if a future road alignment required removal of an existing home, the city would need to exercise eminent-domain authority in accordance with state law.