Resolution 5468 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

� . A MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,May 22,2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (4.#OS-3136 TROYBROITZMAN, 1860 SHORELINEDRIVE, Continued) Sansevere questioned whether the County could deny the retention of the curb cut if the City allowed it to remain. Brokl indicated they could not force the removal of the existing curb cut. White stated that he,too,concurred with Murphy,and preferred the driveway from County Road I S with additional trees planted on either side.He felt the applicant would have better sightlines from the current drive than off Heritage and did not believe the elimination of one curb cut justified the impacts that would be made on the back side of the home. While he appreciated the applicant's efforts to bring down the massing, Sansevere asked how many trees were originally removed near County Road 15 and how many more would be impacted if the driveway were moved to Heritage Drive. Mr. Coward stated that he would support the front driveway with additional plantings along the driveway to lesson the impacts from County Road 15. He stated that the removals of the earlier pines doubled their exposure to the traffic on I5. Sansevere asked whether the Council could support the level of massing now proposed. Murphy stated that the Council needed to move on and could not allow the neighbor's to further design the house with regard to massing,but the Council could protect the neighbor's impacts from lights and curb cuts. Sansevere stated that he would support both Murphy and White's position. Wytaske requested that, if the driveway were placed off the front,whether they could be allowed to design a plan with trees that would not grow to excessive heights blocking their views. Broitzman questioned whether there were limitations which prohibited him from taking trees down on his lot that were outside the 0-75' zone.He pointed out that, if he was allowed to remove trees on his property,his neighbor's could lessen the impacts themselves by planting trees on their lots if they wish additional buffers. Sansevere interjected his opposition to the applicant's rationale, indicating that if he chose to go down that line of reasoning,they would vote to deny the application. Wytaske pointed out that the applicant has put forward his best plan on all fronts and was becoming frustrated by the limitations being imposed upon him. She asked that they be allowed to create a buffer within reason along the drive. McMillan reminded the Council that the City does not have a tree Ordinance in place which restricts residents from removing trees on their property which fall outside the 0-75' zone. She stated that she felt strongly that people can do what they want with the trees on their property,even if it impacts their neighbors.While it was unfortunate that the neighbor's were impacted by the removals,McMillan encouraged them to work together to replant,she stated that we don't want to PAGE 3 of 9