Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, June 8, 2015 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />8. #15-3738 KUHL DESIGN BUILD ON BEHALF OF JOHN AND CYNDY BOWLSBY, <br />1025 SPRING HILL ROAD — VARIANCES (continued) <br />Walsh stated the original property owners constructed the house close to the lake and that the applicants <br />are proposing to extend the house closer to the lake with the addition of the pool. Walsh stated in his <br />view the 75 -foot setback is a high priority, and if this pool is allowed, it could open up a lot of issues. <br />Levang stated the 75 -foot setback is a hard and fast rule and hardcover is typically not allowed in that <br />zone by the City. Levang indicated she is not in favor of the pool in the proposed location and that there <br />are other locations on the property where a pool could be located. <br />Walsh stated some of the other issues could be mitigated, such as by planting shrubs and bushes, but that <br />the applicants are running into a concrete wall with the 75 -foot setback. Walsh stated the applicants will <br />need to look at other options. <br />Murphy stated the topography of the land also needs to be taken into consideration. <br />Cornick stated he fully supports the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Cornick stated in his <br />view the pool should be placed by the tennis court, which will solve the hardcover and setback issues. <br />Murphy pointed out it would be a long distance to the pool from the house and that the pool would likely <br />not get used very often. <br />Bowlsby indicated it is 150 yards. Bowlsby stated when he did his research on the 75 -foot setback, he <br />was told the City needed to find some kind of a guideline to use, which does not mean that 76 is okay and <br />74 is no good. Bowlsby stated this property is incredibly unique in the way it is laid out. Bowlsby stated <br />while the proposed location may not be the best place for the pool in regards to the sun, they are <br />attempting to do the best thing for the ecology of the area and maintain the property the way it was <br />designed. By relocating the pool, it will hurt the ecology and be visible from the lake and to the <br />neighbors. Bowlsby stated everyone who has looked at it agrees that the proposed location is the best <br />spot for the pool and that the 75 -foot setback is a guideline. Bowlsby stated in this particular instance the <br />setback does not work. <br />McMillan noted the Council has turned down previous requests for pools in the 0 -75 -foot setback, and if <br />the guidelines are not consistently applied, they tend to become meaningless. McMillan stated in her <br />view there are ways to mitigate the drainage and that Orono has been very hard and fast with the 0-75 foot <br />setback. McMillan stated while it may be hard to say no in this particular case, the 0-75 is a sacred zone <br />and the City does not want to see any hardcover in that area, especially something accessory like a pool. <br />McMillan noted the City has allowed people to have homes in that area simply because there is no other <br />place for a residence. <br />Levang moved, Printup seconded, to direct Staff to draft a resolution approving the lake setback <br />and average Lakeshore setback variances to allow construction of the eastern addition and the <br />modifications to the portion of the home on the west, and to deny the lake setback, average setback <br />and hardcover variances relating to the pool. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />Page 13 of 19 <br />