Laserfiche WebLink
•04-3027 <br />Jum2I.2004 <br />Page 4 of 7 <br />Lastly, many of the lots propose a building pad that almost maxes out the buildablc area <br />of the lot (For example, lots 6 and 7 of block 1, lots 4-8 of block 2, lots 1-5 of block 3 <br />and lots 12. 16, 18 and 24 of block 4). More importantly, many of the lots abutting the <br />v^-etland in the rear would have virtually no back yard as the building pad bumps up to the <br />edge of the wetland buffer. A result of these two factors is the future owtier’s inability to <br />construct an addition or even a deck in some cases, as well as providing no rear yards for <br />outdoor enjoyment. <br />Overall Site FunctionaUty and Visual Appeal <br />Because of the nature of the setbacks proposed, the largest gap between houses would be <br />16'. This would be the distance from the comer of the garage to the comer of the <br />adjacent home. In some cases, this distance is 12’ if the garages arc back-to-back (For <br />example, between lots 12 and 13 and 21 and 22 of block 4). Coupled with a 25* setback <br />proposed to the edge of the traveled road creates a t\pe of development not currently <br />existing in Orono. The Planning Commission should discuss this issue and determine <br />what impacts result with the close setbacks, both visually and functionally <br />The applicant has proposed 3-siall garage on all lots except lot 4 of block 2. Some <br />garages are side-load where others are front-load. The lots that show a side-load garage <br />show driveways that overlap onto the neighboring property. The applicant should <br />determine if all the lots, in this particular layout, can support a three stall garage. The <br />Planning Commission should also discuss the site fimctionality and any visual appeal <br />issues with the garages being proposed in front of the house. <br />Overall, staff feels the lot layout may be too intense. The applicants arc proposing to <br />maximize the 4.0 unii/acre dcruity with single family lots. Staff feels the concept of <br />providing this t>pe of housing product in Orono is positive, however, maybe not <br />throughout the entire site. The Planning Commission should discuss the CMP <br />recommendation for mixed housing txpes and a 2.5 unii'acre density and dctenninc if this <br />proposal meets the intent of the re-guiding <br />Road Layout and Standards <br />The proposed road layout consists of a horse-shoe system with access onto Oi l Cry stal <br />Day Road, a minor arterial, where the two ends terminate at tlic western boundary of the <br />property. The proposed road is 26’ in paved width located within a 50’ platted conidor. <br />It can be assumed to be public due to the large number of units that potentially would be <br />served by this access and a future access at Highway 12 once the Dumas property <br />develops. The applicant's intention with the dead ends at the western boundary of the <br />plat is to provide access for the future development of the Dumas property. Staff feels <br />there is some risk in allowing this property to develop, specifically the roadway system, <br />without at least thinking how the Dumas property might develop bearing in mind the <br />intentions with the CMP. The CMP has guided both properties for the same mixed use at <br />an ideal overall density of 2.5 unitsacre. The Plaiming Commission may want the <br />applicant to demonstrate how the Dumas property might develop to illustrate that the <br />roadway system proposed makes sense.