Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Tuesday, January 21, 2020 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />Oakden stated she believed the applicant used to have a gravel driveway access near the utility line. It is <br />overgrown and not really there anymore. She thought it was established with the way the old home was <br />set at 200 Bederwood, because they had a side -load garage. <br />Mr. Mueller indicated it was in the same place. <br />Oakden indicated it was overgrown and unused today. There was a gravel driveway there but no easement <br />or secure access space for the back lot. <br />Gettman stated that is the point of the "why there." The applicant owns both of those, so he can work with <br />himself to figure out how to gain access without negatively impacting the commenter/neighbor at 222. <br />Ms. Mueller said the applicant has access to the back lot. It's not totally overgrown, it's grass, and they <br />used it all summer and fall to go to their back lot. <br />Oakden agreed they have access and can drive over their property to get to that back lot. She clarified <br />there is no formal easement established today to access that back lot by anybody else. <br />Libby asked Staff if there were any considerations from the City's standpoint about an impervious surface <br />that would be a requirement, like would the City require a blacktop driveway, or could it be a class 5. <br />Oakden stated the applicant wanted to meet the City's driveway standards, with the first 50 feet being <br />paved. <br />Barnhart indicated the first 50 feet closest to the street needs to be paved but the City allows gravel or <br />concrete for everything else. <br />Libby noted he reread the two issues of consideration and he would have to answer yes to both questions <br />and would be in agreement with Staffs recommendation and in favor of it. <br />Libby moved, McCutcheon seconded, to approve LA19-000101 Al Azad, 200 Bederwood Drive, <br />Variance. <br />Gettman wanted to be clear on why the "yes" would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. <br />The current character is a gravel path and the owner on 200 still has access to the other lot. The <br />Commission is preparing to accept the movement of that path to a location that will alter the feel, the <br />look, and the impact to the neighbor. He does not see how one can conclude that that would be a "yes." <br />Libby stated he looks at a neighborhood as a much larger scope than a single lot line and two properties. <br />Gettman understands from an aerial view, but the reality is the Commission has looked at it from the <br />impact of one person's view, not from a neighborhood's view. He is struggling and cannot get to yes. <br />Erickson said in addition to the guide plan there is an existing zoning ordinance which calls for two -acre <br />lots. The current vacant lot fits that in addition to being a lot of record. The easement reduces the other lot <br />by a relatively small amount, but there have been other two -acre zoned lots much smaller than that which <br />have been approved in the past and could possibly be considered a precedent. The applicant is well on his <br />way to having two building sites, and one of them needs an access to a public road which the Planning <br />Commission is attempting to supply. He is in favor of the motion. <br />Page 8 of 14 <br />