Laserfiche WebLink
^ � o <br /> MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COD�VIISSION MEETIl�G <br /> Monday,Noveimber I5,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Leskinen stated there is no compelling reason to grant the variance since it does not meet the practical <br /> di�culty criteria. Leskinen asked if the applicant would lilce to reconsider other options or have the <br /> Planning Commission vote on it. <br /> 3ohnson noted t�e MCWD dces not have any objections to the plan and that they have met the MCWD <br /> setback. <br /> Curtis stated tt�e 35-foot setback is a City regulation and that this request does nat trigger Watershed <br /> permitting. <br /> Johnson noted the 75-foot line goes thrc�ugh the house and that the�e�s no flexibitity. There would be 400 <br /> feet tocatead inside the 75-foot setback and the pool would ha.ve littk to no impact on the wetland,let <br /> alone the lake. Johnson stated he is not familiat with the other propeity th�t#he Plannti�ng Commission <br /> was talkiag about. Johnson noted the pool is only 14 fe�t wide. <br /> Schnell stated she wo�ld just ask far the Planning Corr►mission's consideratiat� Schnell stated this is <br /> their dream home and that they would like to have a pool. Schnell indicated they are not planning ta <br /> build anything that would be an eyesore from CR1 S 1 aac�that in tluir view they are pxacing the pool in <br /> the right location. Schnetl stated she does not believe anyone woutd put a pool in their front yard and that <br /> this is the only locatian for the pool. <br /> Leskinen stated she understands what the�pplicar�t is saying and�Chat she would like to be able to say yes <br /> to what they are requesting but that the Plan�aing Conimi�sion has to abi�e by certain standards. Leskinen <br /> stated granting a variance frum those standards�vould require a pzactical difficulty and that she cannot <br /> find a compelling reason to be able to grant the variances,e5pecitlly when thexe are other places a pool <br /> could go. <br /> Leslcinen stabed it is unfortuu�te the house sits where it sits but that the Planning Gommission has to deal <br /> with what is in frc�ttt of them. Le�]cin�n st�tsd tbe applicants can either proceed forward to the City <br /> Council or table the�pplication. Leskinen notesi th�Planning Commission will not have a meeting in <br /> December and that the�r��ication v�x1l not be heard�til January if they wish to#able it. Leskinen <br /> stated ths P}anning Cosnmiseio�is a recommending body axid that the City Council could approve it if <br /> they thought it appropriate. <br /> Johnson requested ti�eir application be tabled. <br /> Landgraver asked if ehere is a 10-foo�t setback requirement from the house. <br /> Curtis stated thcre is. <br /> Landgraver asked if the City has granted variances to that. <br /> Curtis stated the City typically has not due to safety reasons. <br /> Thiesse stated the 75-foot lakeshore setback line is pretty sacred to the City and that he would encourage <br /> the applicants to do whatever t�►ey can to stay out of that area. <br /> McGrann asked if the applicants would still need to come back for other variances even if they stayed out <br /> of the 75-foot azea. <br /> Page 18 of 27 <br />