Laserfiche WebLink
f , • . <br /> Mr. Shampine asked where the Heritage development is located in proximity to this property. <br /> Ms. Miller stated that Heritage is on the west side of Charles and the subject proposal is on the <br /> east side of Charles. Ms. Miller stated that traffic is not affected now and would not be with the <br /> vacation as Runnin' Reds Drive is still there. <br /> Mr. Shampme stated that he did not see the purpose stated as to why the City would give up the <br />� right of way. Ms. Miller stated that staff does not feel that the right of way will be necessary in <br /> the future. The property owner was present to explain his request. <br /> Mr. Randy Waks,Attorney,Waks Investments,was present and spoke for the petition stating the <br /> vacation would relieve the City from mowing and maintaining the property which would be put <br /> back on the tax rolls. The addition of the fifty foot parcel of land to Mr.Waks' property would <br /> make the development of the land in the near future much easier. Mr.Waks stated that the future <br /> use is not yet known. He stated that he would be in favor of a road being built there but noted <br /> that would not be decided today. Access to adjacent property could be addressed in future <br /> development. Mr.Waks stated that development could potentially bottleneck traffic at the north <br /> end of Charles combined with the traffic from Heritage. He anticipates that access for the subject <br /> property would be from both Charles and Woodford. <br /> Mr. Sharpe asked where Hays Avenue is located in relationship to Runnin' Reds Drive. Ms. <br /> Miller stated that Hays Avenue is the first street directly south of Runnin' Reds, from the <br /> Woodford right of way to Charles. <br /> There were no objectors present. <br /> It was moved and seconded(Smith/Clevenger)to forward Cal. No. 02-39 to City Council with <br /> recommendation for approval. <br /> Mr. John stated that he would vote against the motion and that the decision to vacate would be <br /> irrevocable. He stated that there is the possibility for future public use and the request to vacate <br /> might be more appropriate once the Waks' plans are farther along. � <br /> Mr. Sharpe asked if the school could put up a fence now. Mr.Krieger answered yes, it is the II <br /> school's property and the neighbors would probably prefer it. <br /> Mr. Shampine stated that there has to be access to roads and he would be adverse to giving up the II <br /> property now and coming back to the tax payers later to build a road. He stated that he felt this <br /> was premature and he agreed with Mr. Johns' statements. <br /> Mr. Krieger stated that the City could require designation of right of way. Mr.Shampine stated <br /> that this was his comment. Mr.Krieger stated that he was merely pointing out that the right of <br /> way would be designated. <br /> Motion carried at a vote of five to two. Commissioners Clevenger,Peck, Sharpe, Smith and <br /> Anderson voted yea. Commissioners John and Shampine voted nay. <br />