07-20-2015 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ' � ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,June 15,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. Lots 1 and 6 are corner lots with their defined front yards abutting Old Crystal Bay Road. The applicant has depicted both lots as having their front yards as the frontage abutting the private road. Given the layout of the subdivision, it would be appropriate to specifically and formally define the yards for setback purposes for Lots 1 and 6 as those proposed on the preliminary plat. The north and south yards will be considered as front and rear yards. The side yards abutting Old Crystal Bay Road will be considered as side street yards. The yards abutting the west boundaries will be considered as side yards. Gaffron stated the developer should be advised that unless site grading to create individual house building pads as part of the subdivision improvements is proposed, the existing grads for measuring building heights and number of stories will be the grades that exist today. Raised pads that are created must be acknowledged in the development approval stage as creating new existing grades. All six lots will be accessed via a private road contained within a 50-foot outlot and ending in a cul-de- sac. All lots are proposed to be served with private wells and septic systems. The driveway for Lot 1 does not meet the required 100-foot separation from th intersection of Lillian Lane and Old Crystal Bay Road. The proposed private road serving the subdivision is centrally located and approximately 970 feet in length, which meets the City's 1000-foot maximum length limit for cul-de-sac roads. The road design has been reviewed by the City Engineer and found to be acceptable. . It has been past City practice to provide corridars for future connections between private road systems where feasible in Orono's rural area. The reasoning is that if private roads become public in the future, City maintenance will be more efficient and cost effective with through roads as compared to multiple cul-de-sacs. A second benefit is the ability to have secondary emergency accesses to property should there be blockage from downed trees, etc. The applicants have not provided such a corridor, and while there may be some desire on the City's part to establish a connection to the west or south,there is no code mandate that this occur. Staff is prepared to discuss the pros and cons of such connections. It appears that in order to make such a connection,the applicant would lose one lot. The developer has submitted a Conservation Design Report and Master Plan. In general, the development will maintain the rura] character consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Wetlands and drainage Page 46 of 79