Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, November 18, 2019 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 26 of 46 <br /> <br />Erickson asked if the money would go to the park fund or to the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Griffith said it would be to the City. They were not designating where it would go but thought that <br />was the purpose of the payment. <br /> <br />Libby said he saw what appears to be some capital improvements. He was not sure, since there seems to <br />be a uniform riprap shoreline, whether the City installed the riprap shoreline or not. <br /> <br />Curtis said she was not positive, but there have been occasions where applicants have asked for an <br />encroachment agreement to continue the riprap. <br /> <br />Libby said there seemed to be, closer to 4156 Highwood Road, a capital improvement of some type of <br />wall structure, and asked if this was something that was constructed by the applicant. He also asked <br />whether it was constructed with the City's knowledge. <br /> <br />Curtis answered that it was constructed by the applicant, there was not a permit, and the City did not <br />approve it. <br /> <br />Libby noted it almost looked obstructive to the alley right-of-way or the public access to the lake and <br />suggested the applicant speak to that. Libby noted the City Engineer mentioned it should be removed. <br />Libby indicated that it again is a situation where it's the good of many over the good of a few. They have <br />seen a lot of legitimate hardships with narrow lots and having to accommodate new and remodeled <br />structures. These lots are fairly good-sized, and as long as there is a public good served by the alley, he <br />would tend to not be in favor of granting a vacation. <br /> <br />McCutcheon stated he leans towards denying the application. <br /> <br />Ressler said he gives a lot of weight to the other governing authorities as far as their feedback. The DNR <br />preliminarily being opposed carries a lot because they probably know its use more than the <br />Commissioners do. Relative to the other ones the City has vacated, it appears this one is being used. He <br />appreciates the argument that says if there's not a formal driveway or paved road, it's not formally being <br />given as public right-of-way, but it is being used as such. Although he appreciates a lot of the arguments <br />by the homeowner as to why a vacation is prudent, he is opposed to this particular application. <br /> <br />Erickson asked if the public hearing would be continued. <br /> <br />Ressler answered it has to be continued. <br /> <br />Erickson asked if that would be with the Planning Commission. <br />