Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 18,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Leskinen stated in her view the drainage does not rise to the level of being a practical difficulty, which are <br /> the parameters the Planning Commission has to operate under. <br /> Thiesse stated he would have difficult time arguing that. <br /> Lemke stated the City would be setting a precedent by allowing the pool in that location since there are <br /> other locations where it could be situated. Lemke indicated he does not have a problem with the home <br /> additions. <br /> Landgraver indicated he is in agreement with what the Planning Commission has stated so far. <br /> Murphy stated there is also a use and safety issue that they would like to address. Murphy noted there <br /> will be kids and grandchildren playing in the pool and that it would be safer to have the pool closer to the <br /> home. If the pool is placed anywhere, it has to be behind that 100-foot setback, and there are not that <br /> many places that are still visible from the house. Murphy noted there is a garage on the right side of the <br /> house and the master bedroom on the left side of the house. Murphy stated the pool would be basically <br /> nonvisible from the house if it has to be located behind the 100-foot setback. <br /> Thiesse stated if they are hooked up to City sewer,they would need to locate it behind the 75-foot setback <br /> and not the 100-foot. <br /> Curtis noted they would also need to meet the average lakeshore setback variance. <br /> Murphy stated they are asking to have the pool where it is proposed because otherwise the house would <br /> not have a view of the pool. Murphy stated even though it is a big lot, if it is located elsewhere, it will <br /> become very visible to the neighbors and the lake and nonvisible from the house,which creates a safety <br /> issue. <br /> Schoenzeit noted the Planning Commission is not here to redesign the application and that the project <br /> needs to meet certain regulations. <br /> Leskinen stated the pool does not meet the standards that would allow the Planning Commission to <br /> approve the pool. Leskinen stated an argument could perhaps be made for a practical difficulty as it <br /> relates to the average lakeshore setback line, but that in her view it does not meet the practical difficulty <br /> standard to approve it in the proposed location. <br /> Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission would consider tabling it to allow the applicant time to <br /> reconsider their options. <br /> Leskinen asked if the applicant is interested in tabling the application for potential redesign rather than the <br /> Planning Commission making a motion for denial of the pool. <br /> Thiesse stated they could also state a more succinct practical difficulty for the proposed location of the <br /> pool. <br /> Murphy asked if they would be able to split out the pool so they can continue with the additions. <br /> Gaffron stated in his view they would have that option as long as the applicant agrees to it. <br /> Page 5 of 37 <br />