03-09-1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r Zoning File #2324 January 13, 1998 Page 4 about 32% of the 75-250' zone. The creation of a conforming cul-de-sac actually would result in more hardcover than the City's development standard for lakeshore lots. This impact could be reduced by making the cul-de-sac diameter smaller, or eliminating it all together. The question then is whether cul-de-sac is strictly necessary. The code would require such cul-de-sac for public safety purposes primarily, i.e. for emergency vehicle ingress and egress, for ease of access for residents, perhaps to provide additional neighborhood parking, and for ease of maintenance. However, without the cul-de-sac the most distant home (Lot 1) would have a driveway 250' in length, which is not extremely unusual in rural Orono, not as common in the urban area of the City. The cul-de-sac likely would be desirable from a fire fighting staging standpoint. The public cul-de- sac layout also eliminates the need for homeowners' association and concerns about road maintenance. On the down side, though, such a large cul-de-sac will unquestionably change the visual character of the immediate neighborhood, and if this is a public road, there may be concerns about its use as a turnaround by boat trailer traffic when the Maxwell Bay access across the road is full. If this is a public road, the City should not restrict its use by the public. If it becom.ee a private road, the property owners would have greater control of its use in exchange for assuming maintenance responsibility. Staff Recommendation The intent of this sketch plan review is to provide the applicant with direction as to what type and magnitude of variances might be granted for development of this property, and to provide direction regarding how the road access should oe developed. Staff recommends as follows: 1.Option C most clearly meets the City's standards for providing access to urban density properties. Option C with a 24' private road with 80' diameter private cul-de-sac preserves the emergency access needs at the expense of eating up slightly more hardcover, and limiting the development capability of each lot due to hardcover. Making the cul-de-sac a private road preserv es the property owners' rights to control the use of that road, especially given the probable pressure on it by boating traffic. 2.Option A is less attractive from the public safety standpoint, but provides each lot somewhat greater flexibility. Option A requires variances to the City's road standard (3 lots requires a developed road) and also requires back lot area variances for Lots 1 and 2. Also. Lots 1 and 2 would have somewhat less flexible building envelopes due to the 15' side setbacks required because they are both back lots. The angle of the shoreline suggests that the houses will also be angled as compared to the side lot lines. 3.Option B is the least attractive to staff because it forces the creation of a separate access driveway onto the County Road for Lot 3. Lot! vnder Option B is still a backlot and subject to the 15' side setbacks which limit the shape of any house to be developed. Lots ! 'd 2