#5468-variances-2006-includes CC minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 8, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (4. #OS-3136 TRDYBROITZMAN, 1860SHORELINEDRIVE, Corztiniced) Mrs. Coward pointed out that they have already been im�acted by tree removals and that this would continue to impact them the full length of their property with the driveway proposed in the rear at grade. Morris Nelson, 1860 Shoreline Drive, stated that he continued to object to the�ro�osal,pointing out that the footprint of his home was 1900 s.f., even if the applicants home was placed over his footprint,the massing would negatively impact him and his neighbors. Broitzman indicated that the runoff along Heritage Drive currently runs onto his property. Mrs. Coward pointed out that based on the original aerials, the wetland on the applicant's property has always been there and was not simply created by the Cowards' driveway. White asked what the proposed footprint for the new residence would be. Broitzman stated that the footprint would be 4764 s.f., 1419 of which would be garage. Sansevere asked whether the Council could limit the massing of the structure or the placement of the driveway. Since the applicant was asking for three variances, Attorney Brokl stated that the Council could tie certain factors to their approvals if they deemed the lot was too narrow to support the proposed massing. He indicated that the Council could deny the application if they did not support the massing and could word their motion for denial accordingly. Sansevere asked whether the Council members were in agreement that they had trouble with the massing. Mayor Peterson stated that she had difficulty allowing the level of proposed mass, since the lot is so narrow and the proposed dwellin�does not fit the character or scale of what exists. She commented that she was disappointed in the clear cutting of the pines out front which might have helped screen some of the proposed massing. White moved,Mayor Peterson seconded,to propose that the driveway run from County Road 15 and a reduction in massing by 15%. While she admitted that massing is a problem, McMillan questioned how the City could deny the inevitable as massing continues to be a problem as property values get higher. She stated that, until something is put on the books about massing, she found it difficult to put her finger on just one isolated case and say it is massing. She believed that if the applicant's proposal fell within the codes,the Council should be consistent, though they may not like it, and allow him to do so. Brokl interjected that there is a motion on the table requiring a 1�%reduction as a condition that could not be easily administered. As there was a draft resolution within the Council packet,Brokl suggested that the Council deny the application or approve it as requested with conditions or alter the conditions as the Council sees �t. PAGE 7 of 17