Resolution 5468 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

� MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 8, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (4. #OS-3136 TROYBROITZMAN, 1860SHORELINEDRIVE, Continued) number of curb cuts on the County road,he realized that it made less sense to jeopardize the vegetation and impact the neighbors to do so. Broitzman stated that, at this point,he would prefer to run the driveway as proposed off Heritage Road. McMillan asked how many trees,in his estimation,would be lost to run the driveway from Heritage. Broitzman stated that roughly 6+trees of larger size would be removed to run the approximately 250' driveway to Heritage Drive, and showed some photos of the staked wooded area. Murphy stated that,he too,had been of the same opinion as Council Member White, since his last site visit. He indicated that he had come to the same conclusion that the driveway might be better off where it is than making so many changes to the property to move it.Placed in front,Murphy acknowledged the driveway would have far less impact on the neighbors as well.Murphy maintained that in his estimation,the proposed screening along the driveway off Heritage Drive was inadequate to screen the at grade driveway. He pointed out that they would be destroying a relatively undisturbed area and creating all kinds of drainage issues to boot. Murphy rationalized that in order to accomplish the elimination of one curb cut,too many other impacts were being raised,plowing through the undisturbed area,putting in fill,creating a new culvert,etc. He asked if a culvert would be necessary at all if the driveway were not going in off Heritage Drive. Kellogg explained that the culvert would only be necessary if a driveway were going in. Murphy commented that enough was enough. While he recognized Broitzman for making adjustments to address some of the concerns of the neighbors and City,Murphy maintained that the applicant was not entitled to put whatever he chose on the site.Murphy�eiterated that he did not feel it was worth it to plow the back side all up and that he still saw no hardships to allow this proposed plan to move forward. Broitzman pointed out that the current driveway runs along the property line and allows for little screening.He indicated that he believed his hardship to be that his proposed footprint is essentially the same size as his neighbors. White questioned whether the size of the home was out of scale given the footprint. White however did believe the applicant had overmanufactured the area of the lot.He urged him to reconsider using the current driveway position,pointing out that this would save him a great deal of money, rather than tearing up the rear and dealing with all of the drainage and landscaping issues. White maintained that the undisturbed back side had value. McMillan stated that the applicant's proposed driveway could be planted more naturally to provide screening and was hesitant to ask to change the road now. PAGE 5 of 17