Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF TIIE <br /> ORONO 1'LANNTNG COMMISSION ME�TING <br /> Tuesday,T'ebruai-y 21, 2006 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. � <br /> (#OS-3135 ALLEN AND DEANNA MYJNSON CONTTNLTED) <br /> Jolu7son stated the house to the north is pushed as close to the lalce as possiUle, whicl�then pushed the <br /> sigl�t line forward. Joluison stated the average lalceshore setUacic has been creeping forward over the <br /> years and ihai they would like that creeping forward stopped, Joluison stated they would lilce to see ihe <br /> residence restricted to one story. <br /> Ralu� closed the public hearing at 6:37. <br /> Sjoholin stated his recollection of the conversation with Mr. Joluison is not consistent with what has been <br /> told by Mr. Joluison tonight. Sjoholm stated he called Mr. Joluison to discuss compromises��ith the plan <br /> and that he aslced tlu�ee times to visit the Wagener property. Sjoholm stated the Wageners did not accept <br /> that offer. <br /> Jurgens stated his st�-uggle deals w�ith whether there is a hardship on this lot. Jurgens stated he did visit <br /> the lot and that he is not sure what the guaranteed view of the lalce should Ue. Jurgens inquired where the <br /> applicant plans to view the lalce fi•om the majority of the time. <br /> Nelson stated the great roorn/Icitchen area would probably be the area that the applicants would spend the <br /> maj ority of their time. <br /> Jurgens stated�vhen lie views the applicant's plan, it de�icts a number of windo���s looking over the lake <br /> and ihat there would only be one small window that would have to be located behind the average <br /> lakeshoi�e setback. Jurgens stated in his opinion that one small window should not dramatically impact <br /> the applicant's view of the lake if it is Iocated behind the average lakeshore setback. Jurgens stated in his <br /> opinion this is a design issue and that there is not a hardship to grant a variance. <br /> Leslie inquired what the original grading and slope of that lot was and that there ��c�as some question <br /> whether it had been dug out previously. Leslie inquired���hether this f 11 would represent a restoraiion or <br /> a ne��condition. <br /> Gaffron stated Sta#f has not attempted to determine whether this is a restoration. Gaffron noted the City <br /> files do not contain an old topography map of the property and that it may be difficult to determine <br /> �vhether it is a restoration. <br /> Leslie stated in his opinion this is a desi�l issue and there is not a hardship to �-ant the variance. Leslie <br /> stated in his opinion a very fine home could be construcied ���ithout the encroachment. <br /> ICempf stated he did visii ihe applicant's properly and the Wagener property and tllat ihe insignificance of <br /> the inh-usion of the building into the Wagener's view of the lalce and the fact that that lot is shaped with <br /> Wagener's h-ees on one side and t11e trees on the other side, there is a fu1u7e1 effect to the view as you go <br /> furtller back on the lot. <br /> Kempf commented the Munsons have take.n sieps to reduce the impact to the VVagener property, Kempf <br /> stated in his opinion there is a hardship with having an adjoining property that is located 300 feet bacic <br /> fi-om the lal:eshore. Kempf stated the l�roperty to the nortll is probaUly the most extre���e case ihat he has <br /> ever seen of a house impacting the vie���s of the lalce. Kempf pointed out the Wagener residence is <br /> located on top of a hill. ICeu7pf indicated he does see a hardshi�and would support the variance. <br /> PAGE 5 <br />