Laserfiche WebLink
4 <br />i <br />ht <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, September 26,2005 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />MS-3136 TROY BROITZMAN, 1860 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCE <br />Curtis explained that a CUP to allow the addition of 5,400 cubic yards of grading was added to <br />the applicant’s initial request for lot width and average lakeshore setback variances in order to <br />construct a new home on the property. The exported fill would facilitate walk-outs on the front <br />and back of the home. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot width <br />variance and denial of the conditional use permit. <br />Curtis stated that planning staff also recommends approval of the lot width variance subject to the <br />City Engineer’s approval of the proposed grading plan. She pointed out that the City had received <br />numerous comments from neighboring property owners, many of which were present, and that <br />issues for consideration include: is the grading plan appropriate for the neighborhood; should the <br />retaining wall along the driveway area of the 90X45’ parking apron be moved to meet a greater <br />setback to allow for no need to impose on the neighboring property, to allow for better screening <br />opportunities, and to reduce the potential impacts associated with a garage apron that could hold <br />nearly 20 cars. <br />. .. • • • <br />Sansevere stated that he had reservations as to even allowing the lot width variance to go forward. <br />He asked why the applicant chose to move forward to City Council having been denied by the <br />Planning Commission. <br />Curtis staled that, at this width, the applicant will be losing his ability to adequately screen the <br />proposed building if granted. <br />With regard to Sansevere ’s inquiry, Broitzman staled that he saw no where in the City Code a <br />reason for denial of what he proposed. He stated that he had gone to great lengths to be very <br />upfront with all of the neighbors with regard to his plans and, in fact, he had been granted <br />construction easements by his neighbors to build. Broitzman stated that the only comment he <br />recalled receiving from any of the neighbors was to change the proposed surface of the driveway <br />retaining wall to a stone, rather than brick, facade. With regard to screening, Broitanan staled <br />that he intended to plant mature trees on both he and his neighbors’ properties.