My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-26-1998 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1998
>
01-26-1998 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/5/2024 2:46:57 PM
Creation date
6/5/2024 2:39:03 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.
/
499
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
r <br />Sprinklers vs. Looping <br />The applicant previously indicated that they would do an analysis to determine whether the <br />development should be looped or use a sprinkler system. Looping destroys more trees. The <br />Public Services Director has indicated that water pressure is not the issue but rather capacity <br />would be a concern. <br />Road Width <br />The applicants have proposed two plans that include a 22' private drive ending in a hammerhead <br />and a 2S' private drive with a cul-de-sac to serve 11 units. The subdivision regulations indicate <br />that a p'ivate street serving over 7 units should have a minimum paved width of 28’. The <br />subdivisi in ordinance does not recognize right of way or minimum paved width standards for <br />townhome developments. ' .. . > . , =V <br />Unit Design & Access <br />At both the City Council and Planning Commission meetings, concerns were raised about the <br />design of the individual units. The applicants have indicated that guests to the units would either <br />enter the unit through the garage or by walking around to the front of the unit to the deck. The <br />City's landscape architect has discussed the design with staff and has concer«is about the <br />functionality of the uruts. It is not desirable from either an aesthetic or security viewpoint to have <br />the primary access to a unit be through a garage into a laundry room and then up a flight of stairs. <br />The secondary access is around the building to a wooden stairway and deck into a dining room. <br />The landscape architect has indicated that this design has serious implications for anyone who is <br />disabled or temporarily unable to climb stairs. The courtyard access via a wooden deck and stair <br />case is a high maintenance concern and is dangerous in typical winter conditions. A wooden deck <br />and stairway has a typical lifecycle of 20 years. <br />The consultant has also expressed concern about the effectual width of the garage and unit being <br />approximately 18’. This does not provide much room for two vehicles and storage in the garage. <br />Also, if the garages are not heated there will be problems with the bathroom located directly <br />above the garages. The unit design is also peculiar with the kitchen separating the dining room <br />from the living room. <br />Guest Parking <br />The ordinance requires planned residential developments to provide a minimum of two parking <br />spaces. The Planning Commission and City Council have raised questions about guest parking. <br />The applicant has indicated that in their other developments residents ask neighbors to allow <br />guests to park in their driveways as no parking is allowed on the private roads.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.