Laserfiche WebLink
, �-�. . <br /> MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEE'TIl�'G <br /> Monday,November 1S,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m, <br /> Johnson stated he understands the Planning Commission has a responsibility and a job to do but that it is <br /> hard for them to propose hardships when they have certain goals they would like to meet. Johnson stated <br /> in his view placing this type of environment on the front side of the home is not practical to the clients <br /> since it will disconnect tne indoor space. Having a pool on the front side of the home will also impact the <br /> value of the property and that they would have to increase hardscape and structures by aciding walkways <br /> to access it. Johnson stated there would also be issues with privacy if the pool were located in front of the <br /> house. <br /> Beth Schnell,Applicant, ststed the south side of the house has a fabulous�iew and that having the pool <br /> behind the house is the right location in their view. Schnell stated she appzeciates the Planning <br /> Commission's consideration of their application. <br /> McGrann asked if there is another stnzcture on the property�. <br /> ]ohnson indicated there is a small barn. <br /> Chair Leskinen opened the pnbtic hearing at 8:05 p.m. <br /> There we3re no public comments regarding this applicatio�. <br /> Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:Q5 p.m. <br /> Leskinen noted this is similar to an application on Long Lnke Road fhat the Planning Cammission <br /> reviewed a few months ago. Leskinen stated the property�s isrge and it would seem that there would be <br /> other places that a pool aould go. Leskinen indicazed sbe is not inclined at this point to be in favor of the <br /> encroachment on the 7�-foot setback unless there is a very compel�ictg reason. <br /> tilcGrann stated it is a beatrtiftil piece o�property, but noted where the appiicants are proposing to build <br /> the pool it is�er��visible from Cou[tty RDad 151. In addition,it is aiso very close to infringing on t.he <br /> wetland. McCnan.n ertated he has a cczncern abo�,tt�ting�.precedent by having a portion of the pool in <br /> the 75�foot sethack. <br /> Thiesse indicsted he is in agrecment and tl�at the City bas not ever allowed a pool in the�5-foot setback <br /> when there are other lacations avail�ble for it. '�hiesse commented sometimes there is just not room for a <br /> pool in the spot wttete someone vvauts one. Thiesse stated a nonrectangular pool couid fit in there but a <br /> reetangular pool do�not fit in ther+a. <br /> Landgraver indicated he is it��ement with Commissioner Thiesse. <br /> Schwingler stttted a pool would be a great addition to ti�e property but not inside ti�e 75-foot setback. <br /> From a hardship standpoint,the applicants have not demonstrated a practical difficuhy far ti�e pool to be <br /> located there. <br /> Schoenzeit stated if it was the only location on the property for it to go,that would be a different story, <br /> but ti�at the 75-foot setback is critical in Orono. <br /> Landgraver indicated he is in agreement with the other design aspects contained in St�'s <br /> recommendation. <br /> Page 17 of 27 <br />