Laserfiche WebLink
; • <br />► <br />' • <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONQ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />ICcinpf suggested the Fl&nning Cornmission focus on one issue et & time. He stated he liked the idee of s l&rge <br />outlot used es e shared amenity managed by a homeowners association. Kempf noted the matter of pedestrian <br />access perhaps should be left to the Parks Commission for review and decision. <br />Jurgens commented that with a large outlot it may create one giant access to the Luce Line Trail, <br />Gaffron asked Fritzler about his experience with observing winter skiers use on the former Ski Tonka slopes <br />since he lives across the Luce Line Trail. Fritzler replied there is more snowmobiler use coming off the Luce <br />Line ridge and running up the hill and not from the owners or residents. It creates a spot where there is no <br />enforcement. In the summer, there had been some dirt bike use some while ago but not recently. Also, <br />horseback riders usually stay on the limestone or horse trail. <br />Chair Mabusth asked Mr. Van Eeckhouts about his e.xpcrience with the snowmobilers going on the property. <br />He replied there are very few and it is post No Trespassing. <br />Mr. Goodrum commented that as an outlot no one will feel ownership o^ it and believed individual lots <br />provided more control of the area. <br />Rahn concurred that individual lot ownership is better than an outlot design. <br />Chair Mabusth polled the Planning Commissioners; individual lot ownership received 5 supporters, outlot <br />design received 2 supporters. Chair Mabusth c.xprcssed she supported the outlot design to have beucr controls <br />and enforcement than individually owned lots. <br />3. What type of Luce Line access should be allowed (m terms of pathways, etc)? <br />This issue was referred to the Parks Commission before the Planning Commission would raa'ice a decision. <br />4. Does Planning Commission accept the proposed lot sizes, configurations and setbacks? <br />Chair Mabusth stated she would not accept the lot lines as shown as she supports an outlot layout. Further, she <br />commented that she did not think each lot had to a certain square footage area but in an attempt to minimize <br />% <br />impacts on the surrounding areas building pads could be created within the setbacks to adjacent parcels, such <br />as in the Northgate subdivision. She concluded duU the proposed layout looks more like a standard <br />subdivision than a PRD. <br />Page SI of 58