03-13-2006 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 13, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. • (4. #05 -3136 TROYBROITZMAN,1860 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) Gaffron stated that is part of the reason and also to create a portion of the basement. Coward inquired where the four -foot retaining wall is located. Gaffron illustrated where the retaining wall is located on the overhead. Coward inquired whether the retaining wall is necessary given the amount of fill. Kellogg stated the grades could possibly be manipulated to lessen the height of the wall. Coward noted the Planning Commission made a recommendation that a landscape architect be retained for this project, which he is in support of. Coward indicated he also is unsure of the location of the driveway and what trees might be removed in conjunction with that. Gaffron stated the plan submitted by the applicant does not show the existing trees. Coward indicated there are a couple of trees still left. White stated preserving some of the trees is one of the reasons why he does not feel the driveway needs to be 16 feet wide. White stated the proposed driveway is totally out of character with the neighborhood and is not very attractive. White stated this house does not add any value to the neighborhood and is totally out of character with the entire neighborhood. White indicated he is not in support of this proposal. White stated the plans still have not been totally defined. White stated a professional architect would help the applicant design a house that would help bring forth the vision of the city. Broitzman stated it was his understanding at the last meeting that the Council could not dictate architecture. Sansevere indicated the Council on a previous application did request changes in architecture. White stated the Council normally does not request design changes unless there is a request for a variance. White pointed out a number of the neighbors had also raised concerns about the appearance of this residence. Murphy stated in his view the Council is back to where they were before and that it is very important to the Council that this home contributes to the neighborhood. Murphy stated the Council may not be able to dictate the architecture of a home but that they do have the ability to deny a variance. Murphy stated the Council takes the whole package into consideration and not just the technical aspects of it. Murphy indicated he does not see a big difference in the appearance of the house from the previous plan. Murphy inquired what would happen if the Council denies the lot width variance. Gaffron stated the Council has the ability to deny both variances and that the lot width variance will need to be granted some day, for some project. • PAGE 16 of 27