Laserfiche WebLink
NIINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Mondsty,May 18,2015 <br /> b:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Lemke asked what the advantage would be to tabling ti�at portion of the application as opposed to <br /> denying it. <br /> Leskinen stated the applicants would have an opporiunity to redesign or they could take the motion <br /> denying the pool forward to the City Council. I.eskinen 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 ttte Cout�cil 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 ti�at. Curtis <br /> stated at times the Council wants tho 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 co�aoe back if the Planning Commission denies tt�e pool and the <br /> applicant then relocatas the pool behind the 75-foot setback. <br /> Cuitis statod tl�e Planning Commission would need to have some direction in the motion that they are <br /> accepting of an average lakeshore setback varianco but not the lake setback variance. Curtis stated at the <br /> time the pool is consttucted, if the applicants are able to connect to City sewer,ti�at would be the setfiack <br /> that would apply. <br /> Leskinen asked when the property will be hoaked up ta City sewer. <br /> Murphy stated they are in the process of obtaining the easement signature from tbe 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 sigaature for the easement to the left of this property. As soon as that is <br /> done,thon it is just a matter of whenever the City can do the work. <br /> Schoen2eit 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 froni of tho s�tback. <br /> Murphy stated if there was a logical place for tfie pool,they would have placed it there,but t#�e other <br /> locations will impact the neighbors more and havo a graater impact on the environcnent. The proposed <br /> �ocation is the most unobtrusive place on the lot and that they made sure they involved the neighbors in <br /> the location of the pool. Tfie neighbors have signed a letter stating they are in favor of the proposed <br /> Iocation. Murphy stabeci locating the pool to the left or to t�e nig�t is a worst placemont for the pool <br /> environmentally. <br /> Murphy pointed out the ground to the right of the tennis court has a 1 D to 15 foot drop and that they could <br /> build a 10.foot retaining wall up to the same height but tfiat they do not want ta do that since it will have a <br /> greaber visual impact. Murphy stated if tt►ey have to put a 10-foot retaining wall in, it wouid completely <br /> alter the whole environment of that area and have a much greaLer impact. Murphy stated the goal is to not <br /> impact the site. <br /> Murphy nated when the house was rebuilt,they pushed the house back ftuther from the lake,which <br /> changed the average lakeshare setback In front of�e proposed pool is an old foundation wall of a <br /> pravious wall,which is where the average lakeshore setback line vsed to be between the two prope�ties. <br /> Page 6 af 37 <br />