Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OI'THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL ME�TING <br /> Monday, September 26, 2005 - <br /> � 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> he believed tlie pi•oposal would llave a negative impact on neigllboring pi•opei-ty values aiid <br /> � questioned how a substandard sized lot witll a width of 133' and 1.9 dry buildable acres could <br /> suppoi-t a house almost 6.5 times larger than the current home. Tn his estimation, it was a large <br /> home for a small lot. Coward continued, pointing out that the structure itself would appear to be 3 <br /> stories tall or more fi•om their perspective on theii• site, and tl�at tl�e applicant would be <br /> constructing a retaining wall 5' off their property line the entire length with inadequate room for <br /> screening. With regard to the neighbors on the opposite side, Coward pointed out that even at 30' <br /> � fi�om the propei�ty Iine, tl�e home will still tower over the �ieig(ibor aiid "shade'them entirely. He <br /> noted that the screening that did exist, 40-50' tall pine tree5;��liad.�been removed by tha applicant <br /> and no longer exist. In addition, the average lakeshore as;�e'quated;'gives the Cowards a very <br /> limited lake view,other tl�an that of cars, now that tlie.:trees have been re�iioved:. <br /> Leonard Dayton, 1980 Heritage Drive, stated that:this.kind�of project in a neighborhood like this <br /> is completely out of character or»ot only the neighborllood,�but also the community. <br /> . .., .., ; . <br /> • . ���;''.�.;:;:='�:��. . . - �:,. . <br /> ,.j�,.. <br /> •..:�:.`"... .. '_::. • ':. <br /> Bob Stignna, 1930 Shoreline Drive;;;:questioneds_�wliether wliat�,�.tha applicant was proposing to <br /> ' build was a residence or an•apartment building/hotel;�:ti;;:;-;��:�,�,,°�-. <br /> ,- _ ::;..;_ _ "i':=�.;:.;;y:-;:. , . <br /> ��=�;.;;• `'=;';��;�?�;�:;�;;;}�' . - . <br /> • '{..;'� , - <br /> Alan Nettles, 1940';Slioreline Driv,e, stated fh`af<:lie.believed the City Council w.as asking the right <br /> . �!> <br /> � questions and understood:the�;iieigliboi-'s'�,concerris.�He agceed that the access should be changed • <br /> to Heritage:Drive. Nettles.poinfed vout`th.at;liardsliips as recognized by the Code must be inherent <br /> to the::land:'and:=:not%�be i�riposed�;�because the land does not fit the design of the applicanfi's <br /> proposed�:home. �� � . � <br /> , .Tenny Charrier,�.1910�:��Her.itage Drive, tlle opposite immediate neigltbor, acknowledged tl�ai, <br /> tliough the applicant can develop the property, she questioned the scale to which they proposed to <br /> do so. She stated tliat�she would be subjected to viewing an enormous wall the entire length of her <br /> driveway and property line, views obstructed and entirely shaded, and any sense privacy that once <br /> existed wou(d be greatly compromised. <br /> Charlie I{rogness, 185 S. Brown Road, stated that this proposal was absolutely not reflective of <br /> the character of Orono that the Rural Oasis Study was implemented to preserve. He urged the <br /> 4 <br />