My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-23-2007 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
04-23-2007 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/9/2015 2:03:15 PM
Creation date
4/9/2015 1:58:38 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
240
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, April 9, 2007 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />___________________________________________________________________________________ <br />(15. #07-3274 BRUCE PADDOCK, 1450 AND 1500 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD, Continued) <br /> <br />associated with the narrow road and the City receiving a letter from the affected property owners <br />accepting those risks. <br /> <br />McMillan noted this is going to be a brand-new road rather than an existing road and that she would like <br />to see the road constructed to 20 feet. <br /> <br />Bremer noted the City Engineer is recommending 24 feet. <br /> <br />Stickney reiterated he is attempting to save as many trees as possible. Stickney stated they are also <br />proposing to do a considerable amount of landscaping in the area. <br /> <br />Bremer stated she has a question regarding Item No. 12 and whether the City should receive any <br />compensation for the roadway vacation. <br /> <br />Murphy stated since the City would be receiving new infrastructure in this area and the other easement <br />would be vacated, he would consider that a trade-off. <br /> <br />Bremer stated in her view the biggest benefit realized by the City would be the removal of the hardcover <br />in the 0-75 foot zone. Bremer noted the Planning Commission felt rather strongly that there should be <br />some compensation given to the City and that there were a couple of Council members that had also <br />expressed that concern. <br /> <br />Rahn stated it was the Planning Commission’s desire that the applicant suggest an amount. <br /> <br />White commented the City has a responsibility to carefully look at this issue prior to a decision on <br />whether to vacate the roadway. <br /> <br />Stickney stated the public use has been in existence since 1903 but it has not been maintained by the <br />City since that time. Stickney stated another benefit is the removal of the hardcover in the 0-75 foot <br />zone. <br /> <br />Kellogg noted that public access was rebuilt in 1997 at the time the sewer was put in. <br /> <br />City Administrator Moorse stated one benefit to the public is that the City does not have to maintain the <br />road any longer. Moorse stated the access would be changed from a public road to a private road and <br />that the City would no longer have to maintain it. <br /> <br />Mattick stated when the City vacates a road, the City does eliminate its obligation to maintain the road <br />as well as eliminate some liability issues. Mattick stated when the City is not utilizing a public access, it <br />sometimes is better to turn it over for private use. <br /> <br />White stated he would like it stated very clearly in the minutes what benefits the City is receiving by <br />vacating this public access. <br /> <br />Stickney reiterated that the proposed roadway is an improvement over what currently exists. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />PAGE 17 of 22 <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 04/23/07 <br />Approval of Council Minutes From 04/09/07 [Page 17 of 22]
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.