My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-19-2017 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2017
>
06-19-2017 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/8/2018 10:48:13 AM
Creation date
2/8/2018 10:44:02 AM
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.
/
249
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
and the various scenarios for leasing suggested that the lessees would expect to enjoy some <br /> exclusivity of use which the City could not guarantee, or would likely result in ongoing <br /> management issues for the City. The three remaining options (sell, do nothing, or require dock <br /> removal) each had plusses and minuses: <br /> Sale of the City lots to the opposite owners would give them ownership of the lakeshore, but the <br /> initial transaction is necessarily quite involved due to the need for a subdivision/re-plat to <br /> guarantee the public's use of the traveled roadway (see the survey attached, which indicates the <br /> traveled roadway is partly within dedicated right-of-way and partly within the 4 lakeshore <br /> parcels). An appraisal to establish land value would be needed. Also, the City would have to <br /> transfer the lots via quit-claim deed, as that is how the City acquired them, and therefore all the <br /> potential off-site "bathing and boating rights" become the problem of the new owners. <br /> Doing nothing does not resolve the issue for property owners who are having difficulty selling <br /> their properties without a definite conclusion to this issue, but requires no further City action. <br /> Requiring dock removal potentially reduces the value of these four homes without providing a <br /> clear benefit to the public, given the nature and relative difficulty of public use of these parcels <br /> even if docks were removed (lack of parking, proximity to traveled road, etc.) <br /> Staff recommended that if the sale option was pursued, it would be appropriate to vacate portions <br /> of the unused 66-foot right-of-way and dedicate portions of the City lots for future roadway, as <br /> the existing traveled road is not fully within its dedicated corridor. The following process would <br /> be necessary: <br /> 1. Prepare initial subdivision/vacation sketch <br /> 2. Formulate necessary easements/covenants to retain <br /> 3. Discuss concept with opposite owners <br /> 4. Establish value and price (appraisal) <br /> 5. If buy-in from opposite owners, hold a public hearing <br /> 6. Proceed with subdivision/vacation/dedication via standard City approval processes <br /> The above is a summary of the information provided to the Council for the September 12, 2011 <br /> Work Session at which the Council directed staff to take no further action on this issue. <br /> Page 2 of 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.