07-19-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 21,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (9, M04-3027 Brcnshall DevcIopmcBt on behalf of Thomas James Properties, LLC, SW Comer of Old Cr>'slal Bay Road aad Highway 12, Sketch Plan - continued) Fritzler asked about the exterior finish proposed for the houses' sides and rear. Mr. Johnston replied those sides would be sided w'iih ‘hardy planks'. Gaffron remarked that with the moratorium, minimum standards could be dc\ eloped. 7. Should the developer he encouraged to develop a plan that includes tow nhouscs along the adjaceni right-of-ways and develop single family lots in the interior? Chair Mabusth slated this issue had already been addressed. 8. Should the wetland be treated as an amenity to be shored with the entire development? Chair Mabusth stated this issue had already bwcn 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 ow ner's of these properties, would specific exterior finishes for the buildings help lessen the density impacts? There was a consensus ihal specific exterior finishes for the buildings would lessen the density impacts. 10. Arc there any other issues or concerns w ith this application? Gundlach pointed out the current plan show s approximately a 13' front yard setback when measured from the edge of the right-of-w ay. Under this setback a large vehicle has the potential to overlap into the right-of-way by 8'. Staff w ould recommend that a revised plan incorporate a 30' front yard setback measured from the edge of right-of-way and/or sidewalk c;iscment. Mr. Johnston responded that a 30’ front yard setback, larger rear yard setbacks, wetland buffers, a public right-of-way plus a SO' drivew ay would render the site unbuildable. As part of the moratonum, there w as a consensus that a standard should be included to not allow vehicles parked in driveways to extend over the sidewalks, as well developing other appropriate standards. Rahn questioned the driveway encroachments. 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 structures' rear setback, especially adjacent to Hw y 12. Mr. Johnston and Gundlach confirmed the proposed rear setbacks w ould be 50' on existing Hwy 12, 30' on the bypass and 35’ on Old Cr>-stal Bay Road, all are typical of .5 acre rear yard setback standards. Gundlach pointed out the subject property is adjaceni to major roadways and encouraged the Planning Commission to consider if ^e current minimum standards were appropriate. Gundlach suggested a buiTcr yard be implemented to alleviate problems on high traffic areas, such as artcrials and collector streets. Page 19 of 22 'T— •.1- • -