01-13-2014 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 9,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. (9. #13-3637 WILLI ABBOTT ON BEHALF OF THE BROADWAY GROUP, LLC, 2350 WATERTOWN ROAD,AND X�WILLOW DRIVE NORTH—PRELIMINARYSUBDIVISION, Continued) There is a proposed cul-de-sac road that wiil exit to Willow Drive that accesses directly across from houses on the west side of Willow Drive in the Hackberry neighborhood. The City does not have much flexibility with the location of the road exit. The Planning Commission looked at the potential impacts of traffic in and out of this development on the approximately half a dozen houses that are located across from this development. One of the optioi�s suggested was to reorient the angle ar the slope of the road access on to Willow as well as potentially offer that neighbor some screening. In addition,the Planning Commission looked at whether the road could be relocated north and south and the conclusion was that it would be too difficult. Gaffron noted there is a 20-foot corridor that goes to Watertown Road that is serving today as the driveway for the house located on the easterly parcel. That house, as part of this project, would be removed and that driveway would ��o longer be necessary. The Planning Commission concluded that rather than attemptin�to keep that as a trail or some sort of a corridor that serves this development, the road should be removed and t11e area returned back to natural vegetation. Since it is an Outlot, it could potentially be sold to one of the neig}�bors. In reviewing the RPUD lot standards, one of the concerns was that because Willow Drive is a col(ector road, it would require under the zoning code and the RPUD standards to have a 50-foot side street setback. Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 1, Block 2, the two lots on either side of the new road, would require a 50-foot setback from Willow Drive. A 25-foot setback is proposed. The Planning Commission concluded that 25 feet would e comfortable to them as long as there is some additional screening put in place along those houses on Willow Drive. The lot width requirements for the RPUD district is a 90-foot standard. Lots 3, 4, and S are located on a cul-de-sac. At the required setback, they do not meet that width. Gaffron indicated it is ��ot uncommon for the City Council in the past to grant variances to cul-de-sac lots that are pie-shaped and open up towards the back. The Planning Commission was not opposed to that. The other item of flexibility with the RPUD standards is the lot area. Lots 1, 3, and 4 contain contiguous dry buildable area that is slightly less than the required 15,000 square feet or a third of an acre. Gaffron stated on the basis that the overall density is achieved and is acceptable to the City Council there is sufficient area within those three lots to allow the homes to be developed. The Planning Commission also discussed the fact that the applicant is proposing to construct modestly priced homes aild looked at whether the 15 percent structural coverage is appropriate as opposed to the RPUD standard of a 50 percent floor area ration. The conclusion was that the floor area ratio of 50 percent would allow significantly larger hoines to be built on the site, which does not mesh with the lot size or the applicant's proposed house sizes. The Planning Commission determined the 15 percent limit would be appropriate and recommended that they did not or the tree preservation areas. Some of this same type of discussion was had with the Northern Avenue application; which encompasses the wetland areas as well as the areas to be preserved. In this case the Planning Commission stated they would rather have individual lots with an easement over it rather than a common outlot. Page 16 of 35 _ _ _ . _ _ _. __ _