10-21-2019 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 21, 2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. The City has received a number of written comments from the residents in the neighborhood, both in support of the request as well as against. The City must find that Smith serves no public purpose in order to vacate it. Ressler asked if Staff would still support the vacation if only one of the three items are completed. Barnhart indicated it would need to be all three before Staff would change their recommendation. Ressler stated also part of the consideration is the fact that there are municipal services that are located in the area proposed to be vacated. Barnhart illustrated the location of the manhole that the City would like to be protected for future maintenance. William Griffith, Attorney -at -Law, stated he is here tonight representing the property owners, and that he would like to point out that they agree with Staff's three conditions, which would then support the vacation request. This request is not about eliminating access to the Luce Line. Currently someone has to go over private property to access the Luce Line, and the property owner is offering to dedicate a public easement over private property, which would then provide permanent access to the Luce Line. There is presently no development plan for the property. Interest in vacating Smith Avenue came about because the City has plans to improve Smith Avenue in 2020. In looking at that project, Mr. Bonnett met with Staff on a couple of occasions and asked how the situation can be improved. The end of the road is not used unless someone gets lost on their way to 6 Smith Restaurant. Most of the pavement is in bad shape. If the vacation and cul-de-sac does not occur, the City is obligated to pave to the end of the road, and they would be putting asphalt where green space could exist. In discussing this with city officials, Staff's best recommendation was to submit the request for a vacation. Staff's recommendation could be, in fact, conditions for approval. Griffith reiterated that access to the Luce Line would not be lost. With the conditions of approval that are being offered by Staff, the public interest would be maintained and access to the storm sewer would also be maintained. Ressler asked if they are proposing an alternative to what is mentioned in Staff s report as it relates to the trail easement. Griffith stated the offer is to provide an alternative public easement and Mr. Bonnett can address that. Ressler asked if he is talking about including an easement to cover the utility. Griffith stated his understanding is if a cul-de-sac were built there, it would become part and parcel of the cul-de-sac, and the manhole would be covered by an easement. Ressler asked if the biggest issue is allowing alternative access to the Luce Line. Page 2 of 20