2005-102 VACATING EASEMENT - 821-1011 CEDAR HILL DRIVE

Home Browse Search

Excerpts for Plan Commission Meeting November 3, 2005 Cal. No. OS-58 Petition of JOHN AND DIANE SANNER AND DANE C. BRAGG, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER to vacate the utility easement on the west ten(10) feet of the lots at 821 to 1011 Cedar Hill Drive. , Mr. Greg Crowe was sworn in by Ms. Jesse. � Mr. Crowe presented the recommendation of staf£ John and Dianne Sanner are petitioning to vacate the utility easement on the west ten(10) feet of Lot 26 to construct a new garage. The petition by Dane C. Bragg, Assistant City Manager is to vacate the utility easement on the west ten(10) feet of the reinaining lots, with the exception of Lot 1 of Country Club Estates. The utility companies are not utilizing the platted easement and have approved of the partial release of the easement. A utility pole is located within the ten foot easement on Lot One (1) of Country Club Estates, 4015 East Cantrell Street. This area is not included in the petition; AmerenIP will retain the easement to secure access to the pole for maintenance. Since the utility easement is not being utilized, staff is of the opinion that the best interests of the City of Decatur would be served by approving the request to vacate the easement as indicated on the plat. Staff recommends approval of the petition. The Administrative Policy of the ��*y of Decatur requires that property vacation ��ec�uests be submitted for a public hearing Although a Plan Commission recommendati�n is not required, a motion to forward Calendar Number OS-58 to the City Council with a recommendation for approval is suggested. Mr. Anderson questioned whether this was Lot One (1)through Lot Nine (9)of Country Club Estates Second Addition. Mr. Crowe stated it was all lots along Cedar Hill and did not include Lot One (1) of first addition. Mr. Bragg's petition includes Lots Twenty-six (26) and Twenty-seven(27) of the first addition. Mr. John Sanner, petitioner, was sworn in by Ms. Jesse. Mr. Sanner stated he would answer any questions. There were no questions from the Commissioners. There were no objectors present. It was moved and seconded(Tom Smith/Nordholm)to forward Cal. No. OS-58 to the City Council with the recommendation for approval as submitted by the petitioner. Motion carried unanimously.