09-16-2002 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#3) #02-2813 MARK WELSH,3625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued s.f. to the front of the house by adding a 4.5 foot prow, "v-shape" glass point on the lakeside of the residence. On August 19, 2002, the Planning Commission tabled this application and advised the applicant to revise the site plan to push the house and eaves back on the property to meet a 50' setback to the lakeshore. Furthermore, Weinberger noted, the applicant could not exceed 660 s.f., which was the existing hardcover in the 0-75' setback. Weinberger reported that the new site plan does meet the parameters as established by the Planning Commission. The revised application, however, requires review of the following variances; Side Yard Setback to permit addition to be 5' and 7.5' from the west property line. The 5' side yard setback was approved to provide one additional parking space on the property. Structure within the 75' lakeshore Setback and Hardcover are other variances for review. In order to redevelop this property, Weinberger noted that Lot Area/lot width, Side Yard Setback encroachment, and Required parking in a Residential Zoning District were required variances for this parcel as well. Weinberger advised that staff was recommending denial of the application as revised due to the fact that relocating the house to meet a 50' lakeshore setback pushes the house further back on the property and into the shared driveway. The new house on this property would encroach 5' to 6' into the driveway. The addition of the 4.5' "V-shaped"prow and overhang causes the driveway encroachment. The previously approved plan had the house meeting a 53' setback to the shoreline for the house, with the overhang being 48.5' from the shoreline, but no part of the house at that time encroached into the driveway. After visiting the property, Weinberger noted that staff determined that the two adjacent homes were located at approximately the same setback as the existing house. He cautioned that, if this house location were approved, it would set a new standard to where houses along this driveway would be built. Weinberger stated that the primary concern with the proposed relocation of the house is the house would be located 6' into the shared driveway, which two other properties must cross for their only access. Weinberger maintained that reducing the width of the driveway from the existing 22' to 16' would make parking and passing of vehicles more difficult than it is now. The decreased width of the driveway would also contribute to potential snow storage problems for the driveway. Weinberger indicated that there is little space to store snow along this street because of the steep grade up to North Shore Drive to the north. Weinberger continued that the reduction in driveway width would make backing of vehicles out of the garage stall difficult. Oftentimes, 16' is not adequate to properly maneuver in and out of a garage. Weinberger contended that the concept of shifting the driveway to the north or adding a PAGE 2