01-26-1998 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 26, 1998 (#4 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Van Zomeren referenced the plan for a hammerhead versus a cul -de -sac. She reviewed the unit design and preliminary plat layout. The exterior and interior layouts were reviewed. Entry into the units were noted. The 22' wide private drive would serve 11 townhomes. Due to conflicting viewpoints over the hammerhead, a cul -de -sac is proposed that shifts four easterly units to the north. This alternative requires removal of some trees including 34" and 24" oaks. Van Zomeren said the applicant is asking for direction on the cul -de -sac or hammerhead option. The cul -de -sac is required to be 50' from the property line and is being proposed at 30'. The applicant is asking for a change to the subdivision requirements. Van Zomeren reviewed the setbacks. A 30' front setback, 30' rear setback, and 10' side setback are required. The 30' front and 10' side setbacks are met. The 30' rear setback is from the edge of the right -of -way from the railroad requiring an additional 25' from the railroad right -of -way. Consideration of this request is necessary. The units on Livingston Avenue would be 15' from the road right -of -way but farther from the paved area because the right -of -way is 50' and the paved area is 30'. Density was previously discussed. Van Zomeren referenced a letter from City Attorney Barrett regarding this issue. With the PRD, there should be no need for a trade off with open space. Van Zomeren indicated that the adjacent property's density is 24 units on 7.6 is acres with no wetlands. Van Zomeren reviewed sprinklers versus looping. It was indicated that water pressure is not the issue but capacity is a concern. Looping destroys more trees. There are two plans proposed for road width; a 22' private drive with hammerhead or a 28' private drive with cul -de -sac. The subdivision ordinance does not recognize right -of- way or minimum paved road width standards for townhome developments. Van Zomeren noted City's concern with the design of the individual units. Guests would have to enter the units through the garage or walk around to the courtyard side for entry. The City's consultant planner expressed concern with the functionality of the units, including the inability for a temporarily disabled person to climb the deck stairs. The maintenance concern for the deck and staircase, especially during the winter months, was noted. The narrowness of the garage for additional storage is also a concern. Guest parking is an issue for the development. The question has been raised regarding the need for gaining permission from other residents for guest parking if parking needs exceed that allowed in the driveway. No parking is allowed on the private roads. 0