Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,July 21,2014 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Curtis stated if new easements are required to access 2470 over 2490 because of a different layout of the <br /> driveway, that would be something the City would want to have in hand and record with the lot line <br /> rearrangement. Curtis stated they would be land locking 2470 without that easement. <br /> Curtis stated if the easement cuts across the Edwards property and gives the applicant permission to <br /> access 2470, the City needs to understand that piece of it as well. Curtis stated Staff would not dictate <br /> that the Edwards grant an easement for this property at all but that Staff has to know whether there is <br /> access to both properties. <br /> Gustafson stated prior to the City Council making a motion on the application,there would need to be an <br /> easement proposal as well as a Plan B. <br /> Curtis stated the City Attorney is reviewing the information that is contained in the Planning Commission <br /> packet and that at a minimum Staff would want a resolution of whether it will be Plan A or Plan B. <br /> Leskinen stated with respect to the lot line rearrangement, the biggest sticking point is the easement, <br /> which needs to be resolved prior to final approval. Leskinen asked if Staff is aware of whether there are <br /> any other issues with the lot rearrangement. <br /> Curtis stated she does not believe so. <br /> Thiesse asked if Parcel 2 is a buildable lot at the present time. <br /> Curtis stated there is a lakeshore lot and a non-lakeshore lot,and when the analysis was done concerning <br /> nonconforming lots of records, it was determined to be actually three lots. <br /> Gustafson stated they are combining Lots A and B with a portion of Parcel 1. <br /> Thiesse stated if the lot line was not moved across the back, he would have access to the land locked <br /> parcel. Thiesse asked what the difference would be if the lot line is granted as well as an easement since a <br /> driveway still has to be constructed across there. <br /> Curtis indicated it would impact the hardcover and structural lot coverage on Parcel 2. <br /> Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:34 p.m. <br /> Thiesse asked if Mr. Edwards is opposed to the lot line rearrangement or whether he would just like the <br /> easement verified. <br /> Edwards stated he is not opposed to the lot line rearrangement as long as they do not drive up the <br /> driveway. <br /> Leskinen commented she likes the idea of combining three lots into two. Leskinen noted this is already a <br /> shared driveway arrangement but that she does generally get concerned about creating a landlocked <br /> situation where there will be a need to create a shared driveway situation. <br /> Page 23 of 30 <br />