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 Staff's 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 />