My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-17-1998 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1998
>
02-17-1998 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2023 1:14:04 PM
Creation date
7/27/2023 1:05:22 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
366
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
-rrr:. • r- —— <br />Zoning File #2324 <br />January 13, 1998 <br />Page 3 <br />at the road. <br />While this plan technically meets code standards, it creates the need fo«- an additional driveway <br />access serving Lot 3 directly onto the County Road. The subdivision code indicates that <br />development of new single family residences on major roads should be scr\'ed by interior road <br />systems and direct driveway access to the major roads should be limited. <br />Also, under this layout Lot 3 is just 0.50 acre and therefore maybe somewhat more limited in <br />development flexibility than Proposals A or C. <br />Proposal C: Cul-dc-sac Serving All 3 Lots <br />Proposal C results in 3 lots that meet all City requirements and which are serv’cd by a short cul-de- <br />sac. While this plan would appear to be the most conforming of the three proposals, applicant notes <br />that creation of a cul-de-sac adds a significant amount of hardcover as compared to Proposals A or <br />B. In Plan C, Lot 2 is the most limited in acreage and hardcover potential, but still would be allowed <br />as much as 3,570 s.f. of hardcover. See Exhibit F-2. For example, the existing house (excluding <br />the detached garage) has a footprint of approximately 2,250 s.f. A similar house could be built on <br />proposed Lot 2, and adding a 200 s.f. deck and 100 s.f. for sidewalks, could have approximately a <br />1,000 s.f. drivew-ay. At a nominal 16' width, the driveway could be approximately 62' in length. The <br />result is that the house would have to be set back appro.ximately 100-110' from the lake in order to <br />minimize driveway length to meet the hardcover standards. Lot 3 at 0.60 acre is slightly less <br />limiting; however. Lot 1, even with 0.68 acre, would probably use up the extra hardcover allowance <br />in additional driveway length. <br />Each of the three lot proposals results in lots that are somewhat limited by the 25% hardcover <br />allowance for the 75-250' zone. By contrast, a 2 lot subdivision with each lot being approximately <br />1 acre, could result in much greater flexibility for new home construction with relatively greater <br />ability to meet the hardcover standards. <br />Cul-de-sac Pros and Cons <br />Note tliat the cul-de-sac as shown in Concept Plan C would be only 150' in total length, being the <br />shortest cul-de-sac road developed to-date in the City. We have many other cul-de-sac roads serving <br />just three homes, but virtually all others are much greater in length. <br />Because this is an urban density zone, the Comprehensive Plan suggests that this cul-de-sac road <br />would be dedicated as public and maintained by the City. By code, the minimum paved width for <br />the straight segment should be 24', with an 80' diameter cul-de-sac, resulting in total hard surface <br />for the entire site, including road, of 21,000 s.f. (assuming all three lots are conforming to the 75- <br />250' zone 25% limit). This translates to about 24% of the entire property ending up hardcover, or
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.