Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,July 19,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Kirchner thinks they can all agree that the vacation of the roadway to allow for a cul-de-sac development <br /> is a sound judgment and the point of contention here is going to be the pedestrian right-of-way access <br /> point.Regarding the pedestrian easement,personally,he struggles to vacate that portion of it as they have <br /> heard numerous comments of limited use in the last 9-18 years and he does not see how a cul-de-sac at <br /> the end of the street is suddenly going to increase pedestrian traffic to that area. If the area remains signed <br /> as no parking,there may be someone who snowshoes or cross-country skis there to access it but if the <br /> roadway is entirely signed as no parking that would prevent the increased parking on the roadway.He <br /> does not see a problem with it and he would like to see the pedestrian right-of-way remain. <br /> Ressler is a little conflicted on maintaining the pedestrian access simply because he feels there are five <br /> total accesses on Stubbs Bay, some appear to be seasonal. He knows that the one that is guided for fishing <br /> access has been used for other uses besides fishing,as he personally has gone through the landing to <br /> snowmobile. If Ressler was an emergency vehicle looking for access to the lake he thinks that would be <br /> his first choice because of its convenience, efficiency, and direct access without any encumbrances. This <br /> particular property with the wetlands is telling as to why it has not been used. He is conflicted as he thinks <br /> they may want to reserve the right to future access and he is okay with the vacation not granting the <br /> access based upon the other accesses near this location.He is supportive of the vacation as applied. <br /> Gettman said in looking at the density of the different access points,he looks around at West Arm,North <br /> Arm,and they have similar density to the access points.More importantly,he learned that one does not <br /> give something up unless it is of equal value or more beneficial and that is the whole purpose of doing the <br /> vacation, it has to have a public benefit and Gettman is not hearing that.He would latch on to the <br /> suggestion that there be signage for public access,keep the cul-de-sac concept as that is good,but also <br /> keep the public right-of-way and there would not be the parking issue.He said if they were going to go <br /> really far,why not vacate the entire road and let them do the improvement next year and they cannot have <br /> their$100,000 invested in whatever but take care of the road. Gettman is not sure he is hearing anything <br /> that tips the scale to vacate that public access, it just does not make any sense to him. <br /> Bollis thinks they have to keep in mind that there might be five access points on Stubbs Bay but two of <br /> those they learned are not actual public access points but for the City's own purposes. Therefore,they are <br /> really only looking at three access points, and one has a winter restriction, so there is this access point and <br /> the one on Stubbs Bay Road are the only summer access points.He is not in favor of not having some sort <br /> of easement if they go the vacation route.He likes the idea of vacating and trading that for a cul-de-sac <br /> but would rather see that the developer builds and pays for the cul-de-sac versus the City. It might cost <br /> more than the$100,000 to actually build the cul-de-sac. Therefore,the City may be at a net loss. He is not <br /> in favor of it as it is applied for and would be a no vote tonight. <br /> McCutcheon was surprised there was not access today,and even if they put a cul-de-sac or any <br /> improvement in there,no one is going to use it. In the winter there may be someone walking a dog or an <br /> ice fisherman but going down there as it is public use to be walked on, and he does not want to see <br /> snowmobiles down there.He struggles because logically he says no,they do not need it because no one <br /> uses it,but they cannot predict the future and if it is already there,why take it away.He can understand <br /> the neighborhood concern on drawing people in and more activity with a cul-de-sac but he still does not <br /> see that.He understands right now the way it is,no one bothers the residents in the neighborhood and in <br /> putting any kind of improvement people are going to start using this place more so he understands the <br /> contention.He is torn but does not think there would be a lot of activity using it so he would be in favor <br /> with the Staff's recommendation in leaving the ingress and egress access. <br /> Page 5 of 18 <br />