Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Tuesday, January 21, 2020 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />it would be a disapproval but with the recommendation that it not do anything other than allow the City to <br />discuss with both parties how to work the situation out. <br />Erickson clarified that Gettman suggested approval. <br />Gettman indicated he said disapproval and that either way it will go to the Council. The only way it <br />would not go to Council is if the Commission tabled it. <br />Barnhart and Oakden confirmed Gettman's statement. <br />Oakden said she does not believe this is an outlot but that it is a lot of record and so it could be built on, <br />according to Code. <br />Gettman apologized for using that reference and stated there does not appear to be any other access. <br />Oakden agreed and said the applicant is making the request because there is no access. <br />Gettman stated that is why it is appropriate to call it an outlot. For practical purposes it makes sense as far <br />as what the applicant is trying to do, but it does not make any sense to do it over the utility because it is <br />affecting the neighbor and the applicant can still access the other lot from his current lot. <br />Barnhart noted the back lot is an existing lot of record. By not permitting access through a protected <br />easement it could be seen as a regulatory taking, so Staff is trying to correct that. He referenced Gettman's <br />use of the word "practical" and said that is important. That is why Staff is supporting the variance. The <br />property owner has a right to improve the property, and if they can demonstrate to the Planning <br />Commission and City Council's satisfaction that there is a practical difficulty for 200 Bederwood to <br />provide access, that is how the City corrects it. <br />Barnhart said the Commission is welcome to recommend denial because of X, Y, and Z reasons, which he <br />has not heard. The issue with the sanitary sewer easement is an important part of it but is not the only <br />reason. He referenced comments about the easement as shown may impact the existing trees in that area. <br />Trees aren't a practical difficulty. One could make the comment that the easement be shifted to cover the <br />existing sanitary sewer line which kind of addresses two issues: the commenter, and the sewer service <br />line. He stated the property owner did not create the lot configuration. He inherited the problem, and he is <br />trying to correct it in the same manner that a property owner on a lake that is too small that wants to <br />rebuild or build a structure. <br />Gettman said if 3568 purchased the other vacant lot, they would not have access to it. The 200 has direct <br />access to that lot. He is not sure he follows the taking because at this point the 200 has access to the lot, <br />they just don't have access to that lot from a street. <br />Mr. Mueller said when the sewer was put in there, there was a driveway and a concrete culvert going to <br />that lot which the applicant drives their truck through all the time. <br />Gettman said that is their access point. <br />Mr. Mueller stated the applicant wants to move it towards them. He said the applicant does not want the <br />driveway in the middle of the lot, but when he bought it, that was already there. <br />Page 6 of 14 <br />