07-12-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 21. 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. S. Should the wetland be treated as an amenity to be shared with the entire development? Chair Mabusth stated this issue had already been addressed. 9. With development at a density somewhat new to the City, to protect the aesthetics of the existing rural development, and also to protect future owner’s of these properties, would specific exterior finishes for the buildings help lessen the density impacts? There was a consensus that specific exterior finishes for the buildings would lessen the density impacts. 10. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Gundlach pointed out tlic cunent plan shows approximately a 13’ front yard setback when measured from the edge of the right-of-way. Under this setback a large vehicle has the potential to overlap into the right-of-way by 8’. Staff would recommend that a revised plan incorporate a 30 ’ front yard setback measured from tlic edg-i of right-of-way and/or sidewalk casement. Mr. Jolmston responded that a 30 ’ front yard setback, larger rear yard setbacks, wetland buffers, a public right-of-way plus a 50’ driveway would render the site unbuildable. F As part of the moratorium, there was a consensus that a standard should be included to not allow vehicle parked in driveways to extend over the sidewalks, as well developing other appropriate standards. Rahn questioned the driveway cncroaclunents. Mr. Johnston explained their decision to not use ‘zipper’ lot lines and that by turning the house pads, it resulted in the encroachment. Chair Mabusth questioned the proposed stmetures’ rear setback, especially adjacent to Hwy 12. Mr. Johnston and Gundlach confirmed the proposed rear setbacks would be 50’ on existing Hwy 12, 30 ’ on the bypass and 35 ’ on Old Crystal Bay Road, all are typical of 5 acre .ear yard setback Page 27 of 31 L