03-13-2006 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OP THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL ME�TING Monday, September 26, 2005 ' 7:00 o'clock p.m. he believed the proposal would have a negative impact on neighboring propei-ty values and questioned how a substandard sized lot with a width of 133' and 1.9 dry buildable acres could support a house almost 6.5 times larger than the current home. In his estimation, it was a large home for a small lot. Coward continued, pointing out that the structure itself would appear to be 3 stories tall or more from their perspective on their site, and that the applicant would be constructing a i•etaining wall 5' off their property line the entire fength with inadequate room for screening. With regard to the neighbors on the opposite side, Coward pointed out that even at 30' fi•om the properly line, the home will still tower over the neighbor af�d shade them entirely. He noted that the screening that did exist, 40-50' tall pine trees, had been removed by the ap}�licant and no longer exist. In addition, the average lal<eshore as eGuated, gives the Cowards a very limited lake view, other than that of cars, now that the trees have been removed. Leonard Dayton, 1980 Heritage Drive, stated that this kind of project in a neighborhood like this is completefy out of character or not only the neighborhood, but also the community. Bob Stignna, 1930 Shoreline Drive, questioned whetl�er what tlie applicant was proposing to build was a residence or an apartment building/hotel,� s Alan Nettles, 1940 Shoreline Drive, stated that he believed the City Councif was asking the right c�uestions and understood the iieighbors' concerns. He agreed that the access should be changed to Heritage.Drive. Nettles poiirted out tltat hardsliips as recognized by the Code must be inherent to the land and not be imposed because the land does not fit the design of the applicant's proposed home. Jenny Charrier, ]910 'Heritage Dcive, the opposite immediate neighbor, acknowledged that, though the applicant can develop the property, she questioned the scale to wl�ich they proposed to do so. She stated that she would be subjected to viewing an enormous wall the entire length of her driveway and property line, views obstructed and entirely shaded, and any sense privacy that once existed would be greatly compromised. Charlie I<rogness, 185 S. Brown Road, stated that this proposal was absoluteiy not reflective of the character of Orono that the Rural Oasis Study was implemented to preserve. He urged the 4