06-28-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17.2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. There followed general discussion about whether the proposal should be looked at as a standard subdivision with individual lot ownership, and what makes the proposal a PRD. Bremer commented that clustering the houses creates a more environmentally design without huge lawns. Mr. Goodrum indicated that the 12 acres of conservation and dedication of the area between the creek and the Luce Line Trail are features that make it a PHD. Gaffron referred to the PRD standards in E.xhibit N*l and read the standards into the record. He summarized that a PRD is not required to have an outlot for open space but requires open space dedication in some form and that a PRD can be done under the Code due to a property unique characteristics. He stated there is nothing wrong with the proposed layout if structured correctly but it in undoubtedly one of the most unique subdivisions done in a while because it is proposing clustering of the houses and its physical features for possible public amenities on this property. Mr. Lazniarz pointed out that on a plat in another city, they proposed conservation easements descri*^ td as drainage/utility easement on each lot with a metes and bounds description and with monuments to mark the casement crossing each property line. This type of easement would be filed with the chain of title and the association covenants would stipulate what can and cannot be done within the conservation easement. Gaffron added the City Attorney should review the various methods for drainage and utility easement and conservation casement and if these casements meet the open space requirement for subdivision. Mr. Lazniarz offered to provide casement language from the City of Minnetonka as an e.xamplc for review. Gaffron stated the City has standard language for conservation and flowage easements over wetlands and asked what the Planning Commission would want to allow on the slope or dry areas. Mr. Goodrum explained his experience with the City of Minnetonka and homeowner association on what is allowed in the conservation easements. He summarized there is a full range of what may be allowed or restricted, sxich as no touching of trees, no removal of trees, no removal of dead brush, removal of fallen trees may allowed as well as buckthorn, foot paths may be allowed and some restricted access as a measure of pure conservation. It was a consensus that no structures, no fencing, no tree houses, nc bridges, no storage, no logging or cutting of trees, no keeping of animals, no motor vehicles, no boats would be allowed in a proposed conservation easement. Ravft of S8 1