Laserfiche WebLink
� ` � MINUTES OF THE <br /> � ORONO PLAN1vING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,February 21,2006 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> � �r <br /> (#OS-3135 ALLEN AND DEANNA MUNSON CONTINUED) � . <br /> Johnson stated the house to the north is pushed as close to the lake as possible,which then pushed the <br /> sight line forward. 7ohnson stated the average iakeshore setback has been creeping forward over the <br /> ;.years.�and that they would like that creeping forward stopped. Johnson stated they would like to see the � <br /> � . . •� residence restricted to one story. <br /> . Rahn closed the public hearing at 6:37. � <br /> Sjoholm stated his recollection of the conversation with Mr. Johnson is not consistent with what has been <br /> told by Mr.Johnson tonight. Sjoholm stated he called Mr.Johnson to discuss compromises with the plan <br /> and that he asked three times to visit the Wagener property. Sjoholm stated the Wageners did not accept <br /> that offer. <br /> Jurgens stated his struggle deals with whether there is a hardship on this lot. Jurgens stated he did visit <br /> the lot and that he is not sure what the guaranteed view of the lake should be. Jurgens inquired where the <br /> � applicant plans to view the lake from the maj ority of the time. <br /> Nelson stated the great room/lcitchen area would probably be the area that the applicants would spend the <br /> maj ority of their time. ° <br /> � Jurgens stated when he views the applicant's plan,it depicts a number of windows looking over the lake . <br /> and that there would only be one small window that would have to be located behind the average <br /> lakeshore setback. Jurgens stated in his opinion that one small window should not dramatically impact . . <br /> � the applicant's view of the lake if it is located behind the average lakeshore setback. Jurgens stated in his <br /> opinion this is a design issue and that there is nbt a hardship to grant a variance. <br /> Leslie inquired what the original grading and slope of that lot was and that there was some question <br /> whether it had been dug out previously. Leslie inquired whether this fill would represent a restoration or <br /> a new condition. . <br /> Gaffron stated Staff has not attempted to determine whether this is a restoration. Gaffron noted the City <br /> files do not contain an old topography map of the property and that it may be difficult to determine <br /> whether it is a restoration. <br /> Leslie stated in his opinion this is a design issue and there is not a hardship to grant the variance. Leslie <br /> stated in his opinion a very fine home could be constructed without the encroachment. . <br /> � Kempf stated he did visit the applicant's property and the Wagener property and that the insignificance of <br /> the intrusion of the building into the Wagener's view of the lake and the fact that that lot is shaped with <br /> Wagener's trees on one side and the irees on the other side,there is a funnel effect to the view as you go <br /> further back on the lot. <br /> Kempf commented the Munsons have taken steps to reduce the impact to the Wagener property. Kempf . <br /> stated in his opinion there is a hardship with having an adjoining property that is located 300 feet back <br /> from the lakeshore. Kempf stated the property to the north is probably the most extreme case that he has <br /> ever seen of a house impacting the views of the lake. Kempf pointed out the Wagener residence is <br /> located on top of a hill. Kempf indicated he does see a hardship and would support the variance. <br /> PAGE 5 <br />