My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-28-2004 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2004
>
06-28-2004 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2023 12:17:53 PM
Creation date
1/25/2023 10:31:39 AM
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.
/
347
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
C2 <br />MI^JUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MONDAY. MAY 17,2004 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />and. to recommend denial of « hardcover variance to reduce the existing i9.48»/. hardcover within the <br />75’. 250' zone to 28.31% where 25% Is normally aUowed and to ask the applicants to reconfigure the <br />proposed driveway (or other hardcover) to meet the 25% hardcov er requirement. <br />VOTE: Ayes 7, Nay 0. <br />14. M4-3016 HENRY LAZNlARZ OF WAYZATA DESIGN AND DEVXLOPMENT. 120 BROWN- <br />ROAD SOUTH. SUBDIVISION, PUBLIC HEARING (10:29-11:02 p.m.) <br />Oaffron presented the proposed 7-lot residential plat (PRJD) of property abutting the Luce Line Trail and Long <br />Lake Creek. This property was the subject of extensive reviews by the Planning Corrarussion end Council <br />during the period 1999-2001. A variety of schemes ranging from 4 lots to 7 lots had been proposed, but the <br />ultimate result was denial based on the lack of suitable access to the site. The proposal includes a pnvate cul- <br />de-sac road that accesses from Brown Road South. The proposal includes obtaining municipal water and <br />sewer from the City of Long Lake. Legal actions taken by property owners, the Van Ecckhouts, resulted m <br />findings filed on May 5, 2004. City Attorney Tom Barrett reviewed the findings and concluded they indicate <br />the existing access casement does nfiLprovidc suitable access meeting all regular City requirements for <br />subdivision. However. Mr. Barrett suggests that the City proceed with review of the application lluough the <br />preliminary plat approval stage. If the developer ultimately curaiot meet the conditions imposed by the City for <br />final plat approval, final plat approval will not be granted. <br />In staffs opinion, the property is a candidate for development as a PRD, due the physical nature of the <br />property. There arc only 14 non-wetland, dry build.ablc acres that are proposed to be subdivided into seven <br />(7) lots. The seven home sites arc proposed to be clustered within an area roughly 300' by 500', on the high <br />latoU in the westerly quadrant of the property. <br />Gaffron indicated the proposed individual lot lines will go all the way to the property boundary and <br />emphasized that no open space outlots arc proposed. This is not typical of what the Planning Commission h.is <br />seen in prior approved PRD. where there were outlet open spaces. Gaffron <br />pointed out that with a larger, open space outlot. the perceptions of trespass arc different than when the area i8 <br />in individual lot ownership. The issue of individual lot ownership versus larger open space areas owned in <br />common is one that the Planning Commission needs to determine. <br />Gaf&on advised the proposed PRD for residential purposes would be in conformity with the Comraimity <br />Management Plan (CMP) as long as density standards are met, that is, a density at I unit per 2 acres. He
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.