Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,February 21,2006 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#OS-3136 TROY BROITZMAN CONTINUED) <br /> Broitzman stated Mr. Coward suggested at the last City Council meeting that the average lakeshore <br /> setback be deternuned from the two other houses and that the City Council deternuned that that was <br /> reasonable and that the neighbors' views would not be negatively impacted by the new average lakeshore <br /> setback. <br /> Rahn reopened the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. <br /> Coward stated tonight is the�rst time he was made aware of the plan to construct another 1000 square <br /> foot garage area and that facing his property will be eight garage stalls. Coward stated in his opinion this <br /> is a big project and not a small one. <br /> Leslie inquired what position Mr. Coward has regarding the average lakeshore setback and whether he <br /> would prefer to have the structure located further forward. <br /> Coward stated the answer is dependent upon the style and size of the house. <br /> Leslie inquired if the proposal were to remain as is,whether Mr. Coward would prefer the neighbors' <br /> average lalceshore setback line be used or his line. • <br /> Coward indicated he would prefer the neighbors. <br /> Rahn closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. <br /> Leslie commented that the role of the Planning Commission and what they are being asked to comment <br /> on is not the architect, design, or size of the house since those are not the variances being requested. <br /> Leslie stated the variances before the Planning Commission consist of the average lakeshore setback and <br /> that he would be in support of the project even in light of the comments of the neighbors regarding the <br /> size and design of the structure. <br /> Jurgens stated in his view the Planning Commission does have some ability to mitigate the impact to the <br /> neighbors and that there have been concerns raised regarding the screening of this residence. Jurgens <br /> stated he would like to see a landscape plan that depicts how the applicant is going to mitigate some of the <br /> concerns of the neighbors. Jurgens stated it appears that the grading will be going all the way to the <br /> property line,and inquired whether in the general vicinity between the driveway and the four contour <br /> lines there are any trees that exist today. <br /> Curtis stated the neighbors have indicated there are not. <br /> Broitzman stated there are not to his recollection. <br /> Jurgens recommended that a retaining wall be considered for that area rather than grading it to preserve <br /> any trees in that area that may still be remaining. <br /> Broitzman stated he has made a commitment with Planner Gaffron that as soon as the house is done he <br /> will bring in as mature trees as he can purchase to alleviate the visual impact from the adjoining <br /> properties. <br /> PAGE 9 <br />