Laserfiche WebLink
June 12, 1991 <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />Staff has reviewed the pattern of ownership (review Exhibit <br />P). Staff can confirm that none of the existing residence <br />achieve access via the alley. Two of the developed properties <br />own parcels to the north and south of the alley which includes <br />the subject property. Other lots defined on the key show <br />separately owned undeveloped lots owned in common ownership that <br />are located both to the north and south side. As already noted <br />abover we have received no comments from interested property <br />o%#ners who wish to join in the vacation. Review Exhibit E, there <br />is an extensive retention area designated as a wetland area on <br />the map (review Exhibit E), major portions of which are currently <br />owned by the City of Orono. The central location of the wetlands <br />would also place severe limitations on the installation of a <br />through road within the alley. <br />City staff had originally considered a total vacation of the <br />alley until the Public Works Director had expressed an interest <br />in obtaining easements over the alley for future water lines. <br />Gerhardson has also asked that the potential vacation be reviewed <br />by the Park Commission to determine if the area is suitable for a <br />bike trail. The application will be reviewed by the Park <br />Commission at their meeting in July (July 2nd). If the Park <br />Commission finds that the area is suitable for bike trail <br />developmentr the City will ask for bike trail easements over the <br />vacated alley. <br />Options of Action - <br />1.Approval based on one or more of the findings noted below. <br />Approval would be subject to applicant granting drainage and <br />utility easements over the vacated portion of the 14* alley. <br />It should be noted that applicant will receive only 7* of <br />the vacated right-of-way within the west 50* of the vacated <br />alley.Review Exhibit F, the City of Orono will receive the <br />remaining 7* of vacated right-of-way. <br />Review of the findings that would support the vacation: <br />a.Width of right-of-way would not support development <br />of roadway . <br />b.Location of designated wetland within right-of-way <br />of alley. <br />c.Based on pattern of development and current <br />ownership there is no use of right-of-way for access <br />purposes. <br />d.Public interest can be achieved with the granting <br />of necessary easements. <br />2.Denial. Based on certain findings noted above that suggest <br />a public use or Interest in the undeveloped or unused right- <br />of-way.