My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-12-2004 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2004
>
07-12-2004 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2023 11:21:14 AM
Creation date
1/25/2023 11:15:30 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
104
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
^^04-3027 <br />June 21,2004 <br />Page 3 of 7 <br />feet, all showing 3 stall garages located in front of the home. Staff has noted below <br />several issues to be considered with this proposed layout: <br />Setbacks <br />The plan indicates that the setbacks will be as follow's: <br />• Front: 25 ’ (measure from curb not edge of ROW) <br />• Side (at garage): 6 ’ <br />• Side (at house): 10 ’ <br />• Rear: <br />o Abutting Hwy 12: 50 ’ <br />o Abutting Hwy 12 Bypass: 30 ’ <br />o Abutting Old Crystal Bay Road: 35 ’ <br />o Abutting Wetland: 0 + measuring from 35 ’ buffer <br />Staff finds that these setbacks arc minimal. For c.xamplc, the front yard setback should <br />be measured from the edge of the right-of-way (or front property line) not the curb, and <br />in cases where a sidewalk is proposed from the edge of the casement (if not included in <br />the ROW). This ensures visibility along the road should large vehicles be parked in the <br />driveway. It also ensures that vehicles will not overlap into area used for snow storage. <br />The current plan is showing appro.ximately a 13' front yard setback when measured from <br />the edge of the ‘ight-of-way. Under this setback a large vehicle has the potential to <br />overlap into the right-of-way by 8’. Staff would recommend that a revised plan <br />incorporate a 30 ’ front yard setback measured from the edge of right-of-way and/or <br />sidewalk easement. <br />Also, the side setbacks proposed differ between the garage and the house. The garages <br />arc proposed to be in front of the house at a setback of 6 ’ to the side property line. In <br />some cases there will only be 12 ’ between neighboring garages. The reduced setback for <br />the garages may interfere with the property’s ability to maintain its own drainage. A 10 ’ <br />side yard setback (proposed for the houses) is considered minimal for the construction of <br />drainage swales. Staff would recommend tha» a mininuim of a 10 ’ setback for both the <br />garage and house be incorporated into any revised plan. The applicant should also <br />consider tuck-under style garages in an attempt to increase setbacks and create a more <br />usable yard. <br />The rear yard setback proposed may also not be sufficient. For example, the rear yard <br />setback to Old Crystal Bay Road is 35 ’ where to the Highway 12 Bypass setback is only <br />30'. Realizing there is a significant grade change between Old Crystal Bay Road and <br />Highway 12 Bypass, the noise factor may cause similar problems due to the speed at <br />which cars will be traveling. Staff would suggest that an increased setback to the <br />Highway 12 Bypass be considered due to the unknown negative effects that may occur <br />once the bypass has finished construction. The Planning Commission may also want to <br />consider implementation of buffer yards on all lots abutting right-of ways. This would <br />require additional feet for rear yard setback to allow for construction of a berm and still <br />provide room for a usable rear yard.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.