Laserfiche WebLink
' 1VIINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,March 13,2006 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (4. #OS-3136 TROYBROITZMAN, 1860 SHORELINE DRIVE, Conti�aued) <br /> Gaffron suggested the Council look at Photo C-2,which would help to illustrate the area. Gaffron stated <br /> ° - -°--°-- � �-the houses are generally at ari-angle�with the shoreline and not�quare to the=shoreline: Gaffr'on stated••••-�--�--- —•- - - �•�- <br /> generally that means the houses are looking over the neighbor's lawn out to the lake. , <br /> Murphy inquired whether the house should be set back further than 15 feet. <br /> Coward stated if the assumption is that the proposed footprint stays,they would have the same reaction, <br /> but they might have a different reaction if the footprint changes. � <br /> Murphy stated on paper this footprint meets all of the City's standards and that he is assuming that will be <br /> the footprint that is built. <br /> Charrier stated locating the house further back results in the house ending up on the backside of the lot, <br /> which would make it more visible in his view. <br /> White inquired whether there is a more recent landscape plan. <br /> Gaffron stated the plan in Council's packets tonight is the current plan submitted by the applicant,which <br /> is proposing a nuinber of tall evergreen trees along the property line. <br /> McMillan inquired why screening is only being proposed for one side. <br /> Broitzman stated there is already screening on the one side and that he has committed all along to provide <br /> as much screening as possible on the other side and in the rear. Broitzman noted he did remove the trees <br /> at the rear of the properiy because that is where he originally thought the driveway was going to be <br /> located. Broitzman stated he does not want to remove any more trees than necessary and that he would <br /> like to protect the remaining trees on the property by possibly adjusting the grading. <br /> White inquired how wide the driveway is. <br /> Broitzman stated the driveway is proposed to be 16 feet wide. <br /> Coward indicated he was not aware of the width of the driveway and inquired whether that is half the <br /> width of County Road 15. <br /> Kellogg stated typically the width would be 12 feet for a driving lane. <br /> White stated in his opinion the driveway does not need to be 16 feet wide and that reducing the width of <br /> the driveway may help to preserve some trees. <br /> Coward commented that perhaps the applicant is planning a two-way driveway. � <br /> Sansevere inquired how many trees would be lost in the controlled burn. <br /> Broitzman stated he was planning to remove the four trees down by the bottom of the driveway. <br /> Broitzman stated Charrier did express a concern about the removal of those four trees but that they were <br /> PAGE 13 of 27 <br />