Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Tuesday, January 21, 2020 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />Gettman said that was correct, and he was trying to get back to the taking. He stated the three items need <br />to be connected -- the applicant's access to the lot that's vacant right now, the utility easement, and the <br />neighbor's access to that utility -- and discussed by the City, the commenter, and the applicant. <br />Mr. Mueller said from his way of looking at it, the applicant wants the driveway closer to his house <br />because they've had other issues, and then the applicant will have the yard they want. <br />Libby stated Barnhart's additional information was helpful in trying to stay focused on the core question. <br />Based on the information and the City's ordinance, he would tend to favor this and allow the parties that <br />are concerned that are neighbors to stili have an opportunity to speak to the Council and thinks the <br />Council is the body to discuss the issue. There is kind of a lesser of two evils: An ongoing deprivation of <br />City service to a lot that's already identified and/or a neighbor that could be potentially inconvenienced by <br />what may happen to the infrastructure and the sewer during construction. The Commission has one group <br />of empirical information and that's what the ordinance says and how the Commission is guided. What <br />may happen to the infrastructure of the sewer is unknown, and he thinks the Council is the arbiter that <br />should hear that. He would vote in favor of approval and agrees with Staffs recommendation. <br />Erickson said he agrees with Staffs recommendation and Libby's comments. A lot of record indicates a <br />commitment for a buildable lot and that commitment has been there for a long time. The buildable lot will <br />not be saleable or usable unless there's an access to a public street, which the applicant is attempting to <br />provide in a way that follows the ordinances. In the long-term the applicant will have two separate <br />buildable lots, and this is a logical way to provide that access. He thanked the neighbors for coming <br />forward and alerting the Commission about the sewer issue, et cetera. He suggested adding a condition to <br />the motion that would flag that concern or a statement of policy to assure the driveway construction gets <br />done properly so it doesn't affect their sewer. <br />Gettman said two questions he still is struggling with are "why there" and "why now." The "why there," <br />the area where the applicant is proposing to put the driveway is not where the current access is; it is <br />literally on the border with 222. The place they currently are going over is where the utility easement is, <br />unless he misunderstood. <br />Mr. Mueller stated he was correct. <br />Gettman said it looked like the applicant was purposely proposing to move the driveway to minimize any <br />impact on their currently built-up home on 200 and give access to something McCutcheon brought up, <br />which is that today the plan does not allow for the expansion or the building on both lots, that is <br />something for years from now, and the Commission is talking about granting the applicant access. <br />McCutcheon said he believed he was mistaken on that point. <br />McCutcheon asked Oakden if the applicant would be allowed to build on that lot if they wanted to. <br />Oakden said he was correct. <br />McCutcheon indicated hindsight is 20/20, but when the applicant built the new house on 200, it would <br />have been nice to plan for a driveway to get access to the back lot. He asked if where the applicant is <br />driving now, they have the same problem. <br />Page 7 of 14 <br />