Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,June 20,2016 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> provide cul-de-sacs. Gaffron stated per City Code, only one back lot is allowed to be served, but in this <br /> situation three lots would be served by the driveway. The Code requires 150 percent of the lot area and <br /> 150 percent of the required setbacks for this zoning district if a back lot is created. In Staffls opinion,the <br /> applicant's proposal is inconsistent with the letter and intent of the subdivision code. <br /> Gaffron stated in the 2-acre and 5-acre zones,the City only rarely deviates from the code provisions <br /> requiring a cul-de-sac when serving three or more homes. Where such deviations have occurred, <br /> identification of unique site factors have been critical in order to support the granting of variances. <br /> The applicant's proposed shared driveways appear to be only 12 to 15 feet in width. The driveway serving <br /> Lots 2 and 5 would be in excess of 400 feet in length. As proposed,these driveways would not be <br /> sufficient to provide suitable access for emergency and service vehicles. The applicant should be asked to <br /> provide a basis for the narrow shared driveways. In Staffls opinion, outside of the grove of trees,there <br /> are no other unique factors about this site that justify the narrow roadway and elimination of cul-de-sacs. <br /> Staff would recommend that the road design include cul-de-sacs. <br /> Gaffron stated the other items that are listed in Staff's memo preriy much follow the conditions that were <br /> established with preliminary plat approval last fall. <br /> The Planning Commission should discuss the following issues: <br /> L The proposed lot configuration does not meet minimum code requirements for access because it <br /> does not include private roads and cul-de-sacs meeting City standards. Does the Planning <br /> Commission find any justification for variances to allow the layout as proposed? <br /> 2. The proposed configuration results in the creation of back lots, some of which do not meet <br /> minimum back lot code standards with regard to lot area. <br /> 3. The proposed configuration creates back lots which require 150 percent of the RR-1B setback <br /> standards. The result is that for some lots the proposed house locations will not meet those <br /> setback requirements. <br /> Staff does not support the proposed configuration and recommends that the applicant be advised to <br /> consider revising the plan to provide for conforming roads and cul-de-sacs. Staff would further <br /> recommend that the application be tabled to allow the applicant to address the issues. Another option <br /> would be to forward this application to the City Council to determine whether there is any Council <br /> support for the proposed configuration. <br /> Thiesse asked if the Applicant is aware of Staff's recommendation. <br /> Gaffron indicated the applicant has had Staff's report since last Friday and likely has some comments on <br /> his proposal. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the impact on Kintyre Lane is virtually identical under either proposal. <br /> Gaffron stated the impact on Kintyre Lane is purely the number of lots that will access off of Kintyre <br /> Lane. <br /> _. _ __ __. ___ Page 2 _ _ _ -- _ --- <br />