Laserfiche WebLink
� . <br /> A <br /> MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,May 22,2006 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (4.#OS-3136 TROYBROITZMAN, 1860 SHORELINEDRIVE, Continued) <br /> Sansevere questioned whether the County could deny the retention of the curb cut if the City <br /> allowed it to remain. <br /> Brokl indicated they could not force the removal of the existing curb cut. <br /> White stated that he,too,concurred with Murphy,and preferred the driveway from County Road <br /> I S with additional trees planted on either side.He felt the applicant would have better sightlines <br /> from the current drive than off Heritage and did not believe the elimination of one curb cut justified <br /> the impacts that would be made on the back side of the home. <br /> While he appreciated the applicant's efforts to bring down the massing, Sansevere asked how many <br /> trees were originally removed near County Road 15 and how many more would be impacted if the <br /> driveway were moved to Heritage Drive. <br /> Mr. Coward stated that he would support the front driveway with additional plantings along the <br /> driveway to lesson the impacts from County Road 15. He stated that the removals of the earlier <br /> pines doubled their exposure to the traffic on I5. <br /> Sansevere asked whether the Council could support the level of massing now proposed. <br /> Murphy stated that the Council needed to move on and could not allow the neighbor's to further <br /> design the house with regard to massing,but the Council could protect the neighbor's impacts from <br /> lights and curb cuts. <br /> Sansevere stated that he would support both Murphy and White's position. <br /> Wytaske requested that, if the driveway were placed off the front,whether they could be allowed to <br /> design a plan with trees that would not grow to excessive heights blocking their views. <br /> Broitzman questioned whether there were limitations which prohibited him from taking trees down <br /> on his lot that were outside the 0-75' zone.He pointed out that, if he was allowed to remove trees <br /> on his property,his neighbor's could lessen the impacts themselves by planting trees on their lots if <br /> they wish additional buffers. <br /> Sansevere interjected his opposition to the applicant's rationale, indicating that if he chose to go <br /> down that line of reasoning,they would vote to deny the application. <br /> Wytaske pointed out that the applicant has put forward his best plan on all fronts and was <br /> becoming frustrated by the limitations being imposed upon him. She asked that they be allowed to <br /> create a buffer within reason along the drive. <br /> McMillan reminded the Council that the City does not have a tree Ordinance in place which <br /> restricts residents from removing trees on their property which fall outside the 0-75' zone. She <br /> stated that she felt strongly that people can do what they want with the trees on their property,even <br /> if it impacts their neighbors.While it was unfortunate that the neighbor's were impacted by the <br /> removals,McMillan encouraged them to work together to replant,she stated that we don't want to <br /> PAGE 3 of 9 <br />