Laserfiche WebLink
� NIINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING EOMIVIISSION <br /> Tuesday,February 20,2007 <br /> 6:00 dclock p.m. <br /> (#07-3259 Lake Country Builders, Continued) . <br /> � from the shore and its patio is 63 feet from the shore. The pool extends past the average <br /> lakeshore setback. It is Staff s assumption'that grade level.pools at that time were not <br /> considered as an average setback encroaclunent but today they are. <br /> � � Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission provide direction to the applicants and then table the <br /> , application for appropriate revisions and/or additional information. <br /> Smolik stated he did spend some time discussing with Planner Gaffron options for remodeling the <br /> � house and whether that would be feasible. Smolik pointed out the mechanical room�currently is <br /> difficult to reach during the winter months,which would•be rectified with this project. <br /> Smolik stated they are attempting to remodel the structure to comply with existing codes and to reduce <br /> the hardcover on the lot. Smolik stated they have considered a number of different approaches to this <br /> project and that he has reviewed the project with both neighbors. <br /> Smolik stated by leaving the footprint where it is,it keeps the houses in line and is not out of character � <br /> with the rest of the neighborhood. ' <br /> Chair Rahn opened the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. <br /> �. There were no comments iegarding this application. <br /> � Chair Rahn closed the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. <br /> Zullo stated she would like to see the house located further back from the road to get it closer to the <br /> 30-foot setback. <br /> . Winer inquired what happened with the previous proposal. <br /> Gaffron stated the original proposal for a new house was tabled by the City Council and that the <br /> applicants have chosen to go with a new developer and remodel the existing structure. . <br /> Kempf noted the previous developer had requested the Planning Commission to deny the application <br /> so he could proceed forward to the City Council to gain their input on the proposaL <br /> Jacobson stated the pool was there at the time the Gangstees purchased the property and that at the <br /> . time the pool was originally installed,it could very well have met the setbacks and that the laws on <br /> how the setback is measured from the lake could have changed. Jacobson stated the Gangstees would <br /> like to retain.the pool since it is an important feature of theix property. . <br /> Jacobson commented he is not fully aware of everything that went on in the previous application and <br /> that what was proposed earlier was a new house and not a rebuild. Jacobson stated what they are <br /> PAGE 16 � <br />