Laserfiche WebLink
' f , <br /> R <br /> MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANI�ING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 21,2010 ' <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#10-3470 STEPAEN&PAMELA WILSON,3508 IVY PLACE,CONTINUED) <br /> Curtis noted the survey does depict what existed in 1981. <br /> Turner stated the agreement references the survey and lists specific items that would be allowed. The <br /> sidewalk was added after 1981. <br /> Kang commented she wants to be very clear on what existed in 1981. <br /> Schwingler noted the 1981 encroachment agreement was never signed and executed. <br /> _ Leskinen asked whether the adjacent property owner has commented on the application since they are on <br /> the other side of the fire lane. ° . <br /> Turner indicated the City has not heard from that property owner. <br /> David Owen,the property owner,identified himself and asked to speak. <br /> Chair Kang reopened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. <br /> David Owen, 3486 Ivy Place, asked what would happen to future construction if the fire lane is vacated <br /> and given to the Wilsons. <br /> Curtis stated it would increase the Wilsons' building area. <br /> Turner indicated it would be counted as lot area for the Wilsons unless there was a covenant or easement <br /> placed over that land. <br /> Owen stated they do have a concern with that given the impact on the setbacks that it would have. � <br /> Chair Kang closed the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. <br /> Schoenzeit stated in his view it appears the vacation would set a dangerous precedent and that they should <br /> perhaps consider entering into an encroachment agreement. <br /> Leskinen indicated she is in agreement with an encroachment agreement and that some of the items that <br /> have been added over the years without City permission should be removed. <br /> Kang noted the applicant can still approach the City Council regarding the vacation if the Planning <br /> Commission recoxnmends denial. <br /> Kelly stated it would be expensive to remove all of the structures and that they are entitled to have a <br /> stairway down to the lake. If the encroachment agreement would allow them to retain what is currently <br /> there,they would not have a problem with that. The new buyers are not interested in building in that area <br /> but would like some assurance that the driveway and the stairway will remain. <br /> Wilson commented if the stairway and retaining wall are removed, it would result in erosion. <br /> Page 9 <br />