10-10-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

p and the garage, which while smaller then the original design is still a large 1,750 with 10 ft doors. Both of these spaces are just as relevant to me and the neighborhood as any other part of the project). ✓ Everything about this plan is large scale. With two ftoors (1 believe) at 10 feet and one at 12 feel, the overall height (peak) is about 35 or 36 feet from the rear grade, probably 42 or so feet from the front grade. I know that the City measures height differently, but folks, height is height and that is what we will be looking at. Other / Execution: This could well be a problem given the lack of experience of this builder. At our last meeting, Mr. Broitzman told me that he likes to use dimensional shingles. When 1 asked what he meant, he showed me pictures of the roof of the home he built in Austin. As I stared at the roof in disbelief, he explained that what 1 saw occurred because a “friend of mine built the roof’ • somehow the vertical lines merged, creating a perfect wave cHcct from the peak to the soffit. / Setback: The revised plan places the front of the new construction behind an imaginary line from the Nelsons to the Charrier ’s rather than from the Cowards to the Charriers. The Cowards and the Charriers agree that we prefer a variance to the average setback guideline, although perhaps 15 feet back from this line. I have not spoken with the Nelsons on this matter. ^ Driveway: The new plan replaces the existing driveway with a new one off Heritage Drive. This is fine in principle; however, as drawn the driveway bisects the back yard to run along a line 20 feet from our mutual boundary. For the Cowards this may reduce design opportunities for effective & attractive screening. For Broitzman, this seems to greatly reduce possibilities for landscaping, gardens and general enhancement of the back yard. His back yard is his business, but surely attention to the character of the land and the input of a professional landscape designer would benefit everyone. ^ Screening: Mr. Broitzman and I have discussed screening. However, such d'seussions have no practical value unless the City incorporates an acceptable plan for both adjoining properties and monitors compliance. 1 trust that you will continue to be sensitive to the potentially contentious nature of this matter. At this stage I believe everyone, including Troy Broitzman hin.self, is better served if the focus is on the City of Orono’s point-of-view rather than specific cita.ions of neighborhood objections. And after all. the City’s view, considering all factors, that will control. Sincerely, Greg Coward