Laserfiche WebLink
- MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (8. #04-3002 G & L LAND INVESTMENT, LLC, 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE, VARIANCE— <br /> Continued) <br /> the volunteer work of his parents for Orono. He cited the example of the decision to allow the <br /> Noerenberg boathouse to remain, and as other boathouses have been allowed to remain, he asked for <br /> a decision to allow the Hagberg boathouse to remain, also. <br /> Chair Mabusth asked for further public comments. There were none. <br /> Chair Mabusth asked if the applicant had further comments. <br /> Mr. Guilfoil declined to add any further comments. <br /> Chair Mabusth asked for Planning Commission discussion on the matter of the boathouse removal. <br /> Kempf commented that from standing on the lot and looking across the bay and from a boater's <br /> viewpoint, is the best argument for removing boathouses at the water's edge. There is a string of one <br /> after another at the lakeshore. He addressed Mr. Hagberg by saying, with all due respect, the <br /> boathouse and its condition on this property are not worthy as a monument for Hagberg's parents' <br /> contributions to the community, acknowledging that the Noerenberg boathouse has unique <br /> architectural and design elements and he is pleased it is there. Kempf pointed out the boathouse is <br /> actually two parts, one as a block building that is fairly unobtrusive and the second, which is a <br /> protruding feature on top of it that is obvious from the water. Further, he speculated the future <br /> residents will probably use golf carts to travel between the house and the shoreline. Finally, he stated <br /> his support for not permitting boathouses within the 75'zone and indicated he will vote to have the <br /> boathouse removed. Kempf expressed his opinion that the boathouse is not a visual addition and it <br /> will be a small impact to the owners because they will be able to deal with it in another way. <br /> Leslie expressed his appreciation for Mr. Hagberg's comments regarding the contributions made by <br /> Hagberg's parents. As a volunteer body, Leslie stated the Planning Commission understands the <br /> importance of citizen activism and providing contributions on a volunteer basis. At the same time, <br /> given the precedence set by requiring other properties to remove non-conforming structures, Leslie <br /> indicated he would support requiring the removal of the boathouse, not to ignore the Hagbergs' <br /> contributions but from an entirely different context. <br /> Rahn agreed with staff recommendation to require removal of the boathouse, and concurred with the <br /> comments of Kempf and Leslie. <br /> Jurgens concurred with the prior comments, as well, commenting that it is important to adhere to the <br /> City rules and be consistent. He stated he appreciated all the work Hagberg's parents did in the <br /> community and hoped he can make as big of contribution as they did. <br /> Bremer added her concern that removal of the boathouse may create more problems on the hillside. <br /> She observed that by allowing the applicants to wait until winter to remove it will provide enough <br /> time to investigate issues involved with the removal, such as the retaining wall, and find solutions. A <br /> prominent issue for Bremer is access easement for the manholes. <br /> Page 37 of 49 <br />