My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
#5468-variances-2006-includes CC minutes
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
S
>
Shoreline Drive
>
1860 Shoreline Drive - 10-117-23-42-0004
>
Resolutions
>
#5468-variances-2006-includes CC minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2023 3:27:21 PM
Creation date
11/14/2018 1:06:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Address Old
House Number
1860
Street Name
Shoreline
Street Type
Drive
Address
1860 Shoreline Drive
Document Type
Resolutions
PIN
1011723420004
Supplemental fields
ProcessedPID
Updated
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
* . <br /> � <br /> MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday, May 22, 2006 <br /> 7:00 o'clock pm. <br /> ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT <br /> 4. #OS-3136 TROY BROITZMAN, 1860 SHORELINE DRIVE—VARIANCE— <br /> RESOLUTION NO. 5468 <br /> Gaffron explained that the applicant had submitted a new grading plan, new landscaping plan and <br /> new building plans and elevations since the May 8 meeting. The plans continue to have the <br /> driveway accessing to Heritage Drive,but show an attempt to direct drainage to the front. Gaffron <br /> indicated that the applicant requests final approval for the lot area,width, and average setback <br /> variances. <br /> The changes to the house plans included the length of the garage wing had been shortened <br /> approximately 6 feet,the bonus room above the westerly half of the garage wing had been <br /> eliminated,reducing the bulk of the structure above the garage area, and the basement theater had <br /> been lengthened while the storage below the westerly half of the garage wing had been eliminated, <br /> becoming an unexcavated area. <br /> Gaffron pointed out that the attempt to direct runoff toward Shoreline Drive is a positive <br /> improvement. He explained that the added runoff from the proposed rear driveway would be <br /> insignificant in terms of adding to any floodwater height if flooding were to occur.Additional <br /> information requested by the City Engineer included pre-post drainage calculations,information <br /> regarding what the impacts of a 100-year runoff would have on the small wetland on the <br /> applicant's properiy, as well a the Fo�ill outlot, and finally, noting that the grading around the <br /> front terrace has changed to include more fill exposing less of the terrace wall to Shoreline Drive, <br /> leaving the walkout opening toward the side lot line. <br /> Gaffron pointed out that staff does not support the retention of the driveway to Shoreline Drive and <br /> believes a driveway to Heritage Drive could be designed and implemented to have no unreasonable <br /> impacts to neighboring properties. <br /> Christine Wytaske, 1860 Shoreline Drive, and Jim Palmer of Advanced Surveying and Engineering <br /> were present with the applicant to address drainage and landscaping questions. <br /> Murphy stated that he went out to the site once again, and while he appreciated the willingness of <br /> the applicant to make some changes to the massing, knocking off the top of the garage wing, he <br /> still felt the home was massive and somewhat out of scale. In addition, he stated that he was more <br /> convinced than ever that the driveway should remain off Shoreline Drive,rather than disrupting so <br /> much in the rear of the home to lose one curb cut. <br /> McMillan complimented the applicant on the more natural proposed landscaping plan. <br /> Murphy continued, stating that he believed they could enhance the current driveway off County <br /> Road 15 with plantings and trees to provide screening. He asked whether the neighbors were in <br /> support of his proposal. <br /> McMillan disagreed, stating that she supported the opposite approach. She believed the applicant <br /> had adequate hardship to support his plans and had adjusted them accordingly to address staff and <br /> City issues, plus would eliminate a curb cut as requested by the County. <br /> PAGE 2 of 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.