Laserfiche WebLink
� , <br /> MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 18,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Lemke asked what the advantage would be to tabling that portion of the application as opposed to <br /> denying it. <br /> Leskinen stated the applicants would have an opportunity to redesign or they could take the motion <br /> denying the pool forward to the City CounciL Leskinen asked if it is preferable for Staff to have a <br /> recommendation from the Planning Commission if the location of the pool is changed. <br /> Curtis stated the Council would have the benefit of the minutes and this discussion. If the applicant <br /> elected to make a change in response to tonight's discussion, the City Council could review that. Curtis <br /> stated at times the Council wants the Planning Commission to follow through with their analysis if they <br /> recommend specific direction depending on the changes. <br /> Lemke asked whether they would need to come back if the Planning Commission denies the pool and the <br /> applicant then relocates the pool behind the 75-foot setback. <br /> Curtis stated the Planning Commission would need to have some direction in the motion that they are <br /> accepting of an average lakeshore setback variance but not the lake setback variance. Curtis stated at the <br /> time the pool is constructed, if the applicants are able to connect to City sewer, that would be the setback <br /> that would apply. <br /> Leskinen asked when the properly will be hooked up to City sewer. <br /> Murphy stated they are in the process of obtaining the easement signature from the neighbor and that they <br /> have already met with the City Engineer. Murphy indicated the City knows what the route is going to be <br /> provided they can obtain the signature for the easement to the left of this property. As soon as that is <br /> done,then it is just a matter of whenever the City can do the wark. <br /> Schoenzeit stated they could also use that time to look at relocating the pool. Schoenzeit stated typically <br /> the City does not let people build in front of the setback. <br /> Murphy stated if there was a logical place for tbe pool,they would have placed it there,but the other <br /> locations will impact the neighbors more and have a greater impact on the environment. The proposed <br /> location is the most unobtrusive place on the lot and that they made sure they involved the neighbors in <br /> the location of the pool. The neighbars have signed a letter stating they are in favor of the proposed <br /> location. Murphy stated locating the pool to the left or to the right is a worst placement for the pool <br /> environmentally. <br /> Murphy pointed out the ground to the right of the tennis court has a 10 to 15 foot drop and that they could <br /> build a 10-foot retaining wall up to the same height but that they do not want to do that since it will have a <br /> greater visual impact. Murphy stated if they have to put a 10-foot retaining wall in, it would completely <br /> alter the whole environment of that area and have a much greater impact. Murphy stated the goal is to not <br /> impact the site. <br /> Murphy noted when the house was rebuilt,they pushed the house back further from the lake, which <br /> changed the average lakeshore setback. In front of the proposed pool is an old foundation wall of a <br /> previous wall,which is where the average lakeshore setback line used to be between the two properties. <br /> Page 6 of 37 <br />