Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, July 21, 2014 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 23 of 30  <br />  <br />Curtis stated if new easements are required to access 2470 over 2490 because of a different layout of the <br />driveway, that would be something the City would want to have in hand and record with the lot line <br />rearrangement. Curtis stated they would be land locking 2470 without that easement. <br /> <br />Curtis stated if the easement cuts across the Edwards property and gives the applicant permission to <br />access 2470, the City needs to understand that piece of it as well. Curtis stated Staff would not dictate <br />that the Edwards grant an easement for this property at all but that Staff has to know whether there is <br />access to both properties. <br /> <br />Gustafson stated prior to the City Council making a motion on the application, there would need to be an <br />easement proposal as well as a Plan B. <br /> <br />Curtis stated the City Attorney is reviewing the information that is contained in the Planning Commission <br />packet and that at a minimum Staff would want a resolution of whether it will be Plan A or Plan B. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated with respect to the lot line rearrangement, the biggest sticking point is the easement, <br />which needs to be resolved prior to final approval. Leskinen asked if Staff is aware of whether there are <br />any other issues with the lot rearrangement. <br /> <br />Curtis stated she does not believe so. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked if Parcel 2 is a buildable lot at the present time. <br /> <br />Curtis stated there is a lakeshore lot and a non-lakeshore lot, and when the analysis was done concerning <br />nonconforming lots of records, it was determined to be actually three lots. <br /> <br />Gustafson stated they are combining Lots A and B with a portion of Parcel 1. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated if the lot line was not moved across the back, he would have access to the land locked <br />parcel. Thiesse asked what the difference would be if the lot line is granted as well as an easement since a <br />driveway still has to be constructed across there. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated it would impact the hardcover and structural lot coverage on Parcel 2. <br /> <br />Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:34 p.m. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked if Mr. Edwards is opposed to the lot line rearrangement or whether he would just like the <br />easement verified. <br /> <br />Edwards stated he is not opposed to the lot line rearrangement as long as they do not drive up the <br />driveway. <br /> <br />Leskinen commented she likes the idea of combining three lots into two. Leskinen noted this is already a <br />shared driveway arrangement but that she does generally get concerned about creating a landlocked <br />situation where there will be a need to create a shared driveway situation. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 08/18/2014 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes <br />[Page 23 of 30]