Laserfiche WebLink
� <br /> , ' <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, I860 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) <br /> get into the business of screening for our neighbor's benefit.In addition, she pointed out that trees <br /> do not block noise. McMillan stated that Mr.Broitzman had a right to develop his property and the <br /> Council did not have to be punitive about the removals. <br /> Murphy stated that he still disagreed and maintained that the City had tried to get the applicant to <br /> redesign this substantial home.He stated that he would not support the proposed driveway. <br /> Palmer pointed out that incorporating a driveway off of the back could be done very nicely. <br /> Murphy questioned the need for a tremendous amount of fill to do so. <br /> Palmer stated that very little fill would be necessary and that the trees that would be removed were <br /> not worthwhile trees,but box elders and some buckthorn.He maintained that a better buffer could <br /> be planted with nicer trees. <br /> Murphy stated that he believed there already was a worthwhile driveway. <br /> Sansevere stated that he might consider a driveway off of the back if a better buffer would be <br /> replaced out front. <br /> Brokl stated that,due to the 60 day limitation,the Council must take action this evening. <br /> Broitzman asked if he left the driveway where it was and added additional trees for a buffer,if he <br /> could get approval this evening. <br /> Murphy stated that,if the applicant would work with staff and his landscape architect to come up <br /> with a suitable plan,he would grant approval. <br /> Wytaske stated that it seemed somewhat strict to require them to plant trees all the way up the front <br /> of the driveway,as that would be more than was previously there. <br /> Murphy stated that he wanted the applicant to plant trees,not just to replace those that were <br /> removed,but questioned the plan in which trees were voluntarily to be planted everywhere before, <br /> • and now they feel the City was being strict requiring certain additions. <br /> Mr.Coward, 1950 Heritage Drive,stated that he felt the proposed rain garden was inappropriate, <br /> new trees to be planted in the back would not grow due to the conditions,and if the driveway was <br /> moved to the back it would be to their detriment. <br /> McMillan pointed out that the applicant could adjust the plantings to what would grow in the <br /> warranted conditions and encouraged the Cowards to make suggestions. <br /> Wytaske pointed out that they had approached the neighbors prior to the original tree removals and <br /> no one voiced their concern at that time. It was apparent that no one anticipated the impacts would <br /> be so great until after the removals. <br /> PAGE 4 of 9 <br />