Laserfiche WebLink
� 1/ , � <br /> MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 22,2008 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#07-3335 Douglas and Margaret Franchot,Continued) <br /> Kempf indicated he is in agreement with the comments of Commissioner Zullo and that he was <br /> somewhat surprised this application came before the Planning Commission without that item being <br /> addressed. <br /> Franchot stated they originally thought their septic system was compliant,which later proved to be <br /> inconect. Franchot stated he is unsure whether the required testing can be completed during the cold <br /> weather but that they are willing to complete the septic testing prior to their application proceeding <br /> forward to the City Council. <br /> Kroeger stated he understands that the Planning Commission is being asked to approve or deny the <br /> variance to allow the pool and building to be located closer to the road than the principal structure based <br /> on the assumption that the septic issues will be resolved. Kroeger stated if that is the case, and given <br /> that the road is a private roadway,he is sympathetic to the concerns of the neighbor with having a pool <br /> located more towards the rear of the lot. Kroeger noted the rear location would also require the removal <br /> of some trees. <br /> Zullo commented having the pool located on the west side of the house would allow for more sunlight <br /> but that she would also like to see the pool screened and fenced. <br /> Franchot indicated they are planning on landscaping around the pool and building and that they would <br /> be willing to consider erecting a fence even though it is not required. <br /> Zullo stated she would prefer to see the pool landscaped,fenced and gated if it is located in the front. <br /> Kempf commented in his view the proposed pool building helps to screen the pool but that the rear of <br /> the pool building would face the street,which in his view is not an appropriate use of a building. Kempf <br /> stated the structure should have as little of an impact as possible on the neighborhood and that the <br /> proposed location of the pool and the building in his opinion does have a great impact on the <br /> neighborhood. <br /> Franchot stated the location of the pool building does help to screen the pool,which in his view is a <br /> benefit to the neighborhood. Franchot commented they actually would prefer the location of the pool to <br /> be in a somewhat shady area and that they intend to screen the entire back area with landscaping. <br /> Zullo recommended the pool building incorporate some more aesthetically pleasing features on the side <br /> that faces the street. <br /> Franchot indicated they are willing to look at that as well. <br /> Kempf stated the issue is the fact that the building is located considerably in front of the principal <br /> structure and that the building should be located on the other side. Kempf noted a variance is required <br /> for the pool regardless of its location and that he would like to see some screening required. <br /> Franchot stated locating the building on the other side of the property may cause it to be raised up. <br /> Kroeger noted there is a six-foot elevation difference from the south to the north. <br /> PAGE 5 <br />