Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE �.-- � <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETiNG . � <br /> - . Monday, September 26, 2005 <br /> � ' 7:00 o'clock p.m. . <br /> 7. �#05-3136 TROY BROTTZMAN, 1860 S�TORELINE DRIVE-VAT2IANCE <br /> Curtis explained that a CUP to allow ihe addition of 5,400 cubic yards of grading was added to <br /> � tlle�applicant's initial request for lot width and average lakeshore setback variances in order to <br /> consti•ucf a new home on the property. The exported fill would facilitate walk-outs on the fi•ont <br /> � and bacic 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 plan»ing staff also recommends ap�roval of the:lot�i�vidth variance subject to the <br /> City Engineer's approval of the proposed grading plan. She pointed out.tl�at the City had received <br /> � � numerous comments fi•om neighboring property owiiers;:•many of wliioli'�'were present, and that <br /> issues for consideration include:is the grading_plaii:appropriate for the neighborhood; should the <br /> retaii�ing wal] along the driveway area of the 90X45'tip�rking°�"apron be moved�to meet a greater <br /> � .�;ti�..:. . <br /> setback to allow for no need to impose on the neiglib'oririg.�iroperty, to allow for better screening <br /> � oppo��li.inities, and to reduce the pofential,impacts associated`�with a garage apron that could hold <br /> � . .: . .. <br /> nearly 20 cars. •� ' � . . .� : <br /> , r.�':� 4.,.L1�.�.;��.F,�.��v <br /> .j,. ;��;. �.` <br /> Sansevere stated tha�_,lie.liadyr;eser.vations as�to��e'v.an;allo�ving the lot width variance to go forrvard. <br /> He asked why tl�e::applicant clio�'se::to move�:forward to City Council having been denied by the <br /> ... .. :,; . - . . <br /> Planning Commission.'.��:�:s�� � �.:�;:,°:>��`�;:.�,;... .. � <br /> ., <br /> - -. . "` <br /> Cuitis.stated tliat;�af�tl�is width,'tlie applicant will be losing his ability to adequately screen the <br /> pi�oposed�•.building if.gi.anted. �. � <br /> With regard to SanseYere's inquiry, Broitzman sta#ed that he saw no where in the City Code a <br /> reason for denial:of:.what he proposed. He stated that he liad gone to great lengths to be very <br /> upfi�ont 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 sto»e, rather than brick, fagade. With regard to screening, Broitzman stated <br /> � that he intended to plant mature trees on both he and his neighbors' properties. <br /> t <br />