Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 18,�015 <br /> 5:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Leskinen stated in her view the drainage dces not rise to tha levol af being a practical difficulty,which are <br /> the paraineters 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 /> Lar►dgraver indicated he is in agrcemant with what the Planning Commission has stated so f�r. <br /> Murphy stated ti�ere is also a use and safery issue that they would like to address. Murphy noted there <br /> will be kids and grandchildren ptaying in 1�e paol 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 thero aro not that <br /> many places that are still visible from#he house. Murphy noted there is a garage on the right side of ths <br /> house and the master bedroom on tt�e left side of the house. Murphy stated the pool would be basically <br /> nonvisible from the house if it has to bc located behind tho l0afoot s�tback. <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 i 00-foot. <br /> Curtis noted they would also need to meet the average lakeshore setback variance. <br /> Mvrphy 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�ough it is a big lot, if it is located eLsewhere,it will <br /> become very visible to the neighbors and the latce and nonvisible from the house,which creates a safety <br /> issue. <br /> Schoenzsit noted the Planning Cotnmissian is not here to redesign the application and that the project <br /> needs to nneet certain regulations. <br /> Leskinen statad the pool does not meet the standards tt�at 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 /> relabes to ifie average Iakeshore setback line,but that in her view it does not moet the practical difficulty <br /> standard to approve it in the proposed location. <br /> Thiesse asked'cf the Planning Commission wo�ld consider tabling it ta allaw tlxe s}�plicant time to <br /> reconsider their options. <br /> Lesk.�nen asked if the applicant is interested in tabling the application for poteirtial redesiga rather than the <br /> Planning Commission making a motion far donial of the pool. <br /> Thiesse stated they could also state a more succinet pra,eNcal diffieulty for the proposed location of the <br /> pool. <br /> Murphy asked ifthey would be able to split out the pool so they can conti�uue with the additions. <br /> Gai�'ron stated in his view they would have that option as long as the applicant agrees to it. <br /> Page 5 of 37 <br />