Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,July 19,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> they are only talking about a small piece of the cul-de-sac.He noted it is not an entire cul-de-sac as the <br /> City already owns about two-thirds of it,Mr.Erickson will just be giving the City the other one-third. <br /> VOTE: Ayes: 2 (Gettman,Kirchner),Nays 3(Bollis,Ressler,McCutcheon). <br /> Barnhart feels that Council should receive a recommendation either to deny the vacation outright or <br /> amend the motion such that there is a recommendation of approval of a motion. <br /> Gettman would be glad to amend the motion. He asked Staff what kind of wording would be appropriate. <br /> Barnhart replied"recommendation to approve the vacation subject to provision of a drainage and utility <br /> easement, a pedestrian easement,cul-de-sac right-of-way, and$100,000 or the cost to improve 1/3 of the <br /> cul-de-sac,whichever is greater." <br /> Gettman moved to add the additional language by Staff that the caveat of$100,000 or greater if it is <br /> determined that the cul-de-sac is more than $100,000. <br /> Bollis understands the motion as$100,000 minimum; if the cul-de-sac costs more, it would be in addition <br /> to the$100,000. However if it is less, it is still the$100,000. <br /> Kirchner clarified if the cost of the cul-de-sac was$120,000 the cost to the developer would be$120,000 <br /> and the City would net zero for vacating this roadway.He summarized that generally the Commission is <br /> supportive of the vacation,supportive of the right-of-way of the cul-de-sac,supportive of the drainage <br /> and utility easement.Regarding the pedestrian access,there are some dissenting but the majority of the <br /> Commission is in favor of that. The biggest sticking point is the monetary value and that could be <br /> something that the City Council is made aware of and can be a discussion for them. <br /> Gettman suggested denying the application as submitted. <br /> Bollis suggested tabling to allow the Applicant time to go back and present them with a plan they could <br /> approve. <br /> Barnhart noted the Commission reacts to the request in front of them,there is no negotiation. In tabling <br /> something,they would generally give the Applicant direction of what they want to see different. If the <br /> concern is the cost for the cul-de-sac,the City will not know until February or March of the next year and <br /> it is improper to wait for that. Staff's recommendation was supporting of the vacation independent of the <br /> $100,000,because the additional cul-de-sac width offsets any"loss"to the taxpayer.A cul-de-sac that <br /> provides easy access and turnaround for emergency vehicles,deliveries, etc...offsets what they"lose"for <br /> the vacation.He is hearing from the Commission that they are hung up on the cost for the incremental <br /> improvement; if that is the issue,Barnhart recommends approval independent of that and to provide a <br /> secondary motion for the Council to better understand the impact of the cul-de-sac expense.By that time <br /> perhaps they will have a preliminary estimate or expectation from the City Engineer that Staff can share <br /> with the Council. <br /> Gettman goes back to the motion to deny as it puts it back on the City Council that if and when they get <br /> that additional information,they are the decision-makers and the Planning Commission are making the <br /> recommendation;they have heard everything that they have said and there is nothing additional that the <br /> Page 8 of 18 <br />