07-12-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

^#04-3027 June 21, 2004 Paj*e 4 of 7 Lastly, many of the lots propose a building pad that almost maxes out the buildable area of the lot (For example, lots 6 and 7 of block 1, lots 4-8 of block 2, lots 1-5 of block 3 and lots 12, 16, 18 and 24 of block 4). More importantly, many of the lots abutting the wetland in the rear would have virtually no back yard as the building pad bumps up to the edge of the wetland buffer. A result of the.se two factors is the future owner’s inability to construct an addition or even a deck in some cases, as well as providing no rear yards for outdoor enjoyment. Overall Site Functionality and I'isual Appeal Because of the nature of the setbacks proposed, the largest gap between houses would be 16 ’. This would be the distance from the corner of the garage to the corner of the adjacent home. In some ca.scs, this di.sta^ce is 12’ if the garages are back-to-hack (For example, between lots 12 and 13 and 21 and 22 of block 4). Coupled with a 25 ’ setback proposed to the edge of the traveled road creates a type of development not currently existing in Orono. I he Planning C’ommission should discuss this issue and determine what impacts result with the close setbacks, both visually and functionally. The applicant has propi:sed 3-stall garage on all lots except lot 4 of block 2. Scune garages are side-load where others are front-load. The lots that show a side-load garage show driveways that overlap onto the neighboring property. The applicant should deterniinc if all the lots, in this particidar layout, car. .support n three stall garage. The Planning Commission should also discuss tlic site functionality and any visual appeal issues with the garages bei.ig propt)sed in front of the hou.se. Overall, staff feels the lot layout may be too intense. The a|>plicants are proposing to maximi/.e the 4.0 unit/aere density with single family lots. .Staff feels the concept of providing this type of housing product in Orono is positive, however, maybe not throughout the entire site. The Planning Commission should di.scuss the CMP recommendation for mixed housing types and a 2.5 unit/acre density and determine if this proposal meets the intent of the re-guiding. Uoad Layout and Standard.s The proposed road layout consists of a horse-shoe system with access onto Old Crystal Bay Road, a minor arterial, where the two ends terminate at the western boundary of the property. 'The proposed road is 26 ’ in paved w'ldth located within a 50 ’ platted corritlor It can be assumed to be public due to the large number of units that potentially would be served by this access and a future access at Highway 12 once the Dumas property develops. The applicant’s intention with the dead ends at the western boundary of the plat is to provide access for the future tlevelopment of the Dumas property. Staff feels there is some risk in allowing this property to develop, specifically the roadway sy stem, without at least thinking how the Dumas property might develop bearing in mind the intentions with the CMP. The CMP has guided both properties for the same mixed use at an idea! overall density ol 2 5 units.^acre. The Planning Cornu ission may want the applicant to demonstrate how the Dumas property might develop illustrate that the roadway system proposed makes sense.