Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 26,1998 <br />- #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) <br />Van Zomeren referenced the plan for a hammerhead versus a cul-de-sac. She reviewed <br />townhomes. Due to conflicting viewpoints over the hammerhead, a cul-de-sac is <br />proposed that shifts four easterly units to the north. This alternative requires removal of <br />some trees includmg 34 and 24" oaks. Van Zomeren said the appUcant is asking for <br />direction on the cul-de-sac or hammerhead option. The cul-de-sac is required to be 50 ’ <br />proposed at 30 ’. The applicant is asking for a change <br />to the subdivision requirements. ^ ® <br />Van Zomeren reviewed the setbacks. A 30 ’ front setback, 30 ’ rear setback, and 10’ side <br />^tback are required. The 30* front and 10’ side setbacks are met. The 30 ’ rear setback is <br />from the edge of the nght-of-way from the railroad requiring an additional 25' from the <br />rwiroad right-of-way. Consideration of this request is necessary. The units on <br />Livingston Avenue would be 15 ’ from the road right-of-way but farther from the paved <br />area because the right-of-way is 50' and the paved area is 30 ’. <br />Density was previously discussed. Van Zomeren referenced a letter from City Attorney <br />Barrett regarding this issue. With the TRD, there should be no need for a trade off with <br />open space. Van Zomeren indicated that the adjacent property’s density is 24 units on 7.6 <br />acres with no wetlands. <br />Van Zomeren reviewed sprinklers versus looping. It was indicated that water pressure is <br />not the issue but capacity is a concern. Looping destroys more trees. <br />There are two plans proposed for road width; a 22' private drive with hammerhead or a <br />28' private drive with cul-de-sac. The subdivision ordinance does not recognize right-of- <br />way or minimum paved road width standards for townhome developments. <br />Van Zomeren noted City’s concern with the design of the individual units. Guests would <br />have to f.iter the units through the garage or walk around to the courtyard side for entry. <br />The City's consultant planner expressed concern with the functionality of the units, <br />including the inability for a temporarily disabled person to climb the deck stairs. The <br />maintenance concern for the deck and staircase, especially during the winter months, was <br />noted. The narrowness of the garage for additional storage is also a concern. <br />Guest parking is an issue for the development. The question has been raised regarding <br />the need for gaining permission from other residents for guest parking if parking needs <br />exceed that allowed in the driveway. No parking is allowed on the private roads.