09-23-2002 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING • Monday, September 23, 2002 7:00 o'clock p.m. ( #02 -2813 MARK WELCH, Continued) While the Planning Commission could support the 1' shift for the house, Weinberger stated that the primary concern with the proposed relocation of the house was that 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. While this driveway is a private roadway, Weinberger pointed out that even private roadways serving 7 or fewer units in the City require a roadway width of 24'. This roadway is 22' wide or less for its entire length. 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 and the location of the row of houses does not allow any storage to the south of the road. 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 backout area beyond the driveway is not possible due to the extreme slope of the hill leading to North Shore Drive. Nor would the removal of part of the hillside that supports the County Road and the construction of a retaining wall system offer a feasible alternative either. 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. While this property does require a lot area and lot width variance, Weinberger stated that due to the decreased width of the driveway and its `inconsistency with the alignment of adjacent houses' staff could not recommend approval of the application. He added that staff would support any plan that would result in the house not encroaching further into the driveway than the existing house and not within 50' of the lakeshore. Both conditions which could be met by removing the roof overhang from the lakeside of the house and reducing the prow to 4' rather than 4.5'. Since the Planning Commission meeting of September 16, 2002, the Fire Marshal stated that the Uniform Fire Code (1997) requires access roads, including this driveway, must Page 7