06-28-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

yiEETING e looked at as a standard subdivision remer commented that clustering the r. Goodrum indicated that the 12 acres uce Line Trail are features that make it a idards into the record, ipace but requires open space dedication perry unique characteristics. He stated ' but it in undoubtedly one of the most of the houses and its physical features conservation easements de» :ribed as 3tion and with monuments to mark the )c filed with the chain of title and the i^ithin the conservation easement. for drainage and utility casement and jquirement for subdivision. 'Minnetonka as an example for review. f.owage easements over wetlands and .ope or dry areas a and homeowner association on what is full range of what may be allowed or loval of dead brush, removal of fallen trees SQiM restricted access as a measure of pure . MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANKING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, MAY 17,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. ic bridges, no storage, no logging or cutting i be allowed in a proposed conservation Gaff.-on asked for a consensus on the lot sizes. It was a consensus that the proposed lot sizes were acceptable. 5. Docs Planning Commassion feel that slopes of greater than 18®/o should be protected from land alteration for this development? If so, a very different layout might result. Chair Mabusth commented that to develop this property would require land alterations of the IS% slopes. Mr. Lazniarz reiterated that housing costs will maintain smaller than proposed house pad sizes and this will minimize slope impacts. It was a consensus to not prohibit land alteration of slopes greater than 18%. 6. Is Planning Commission comfortable with moving ahead with this review given that the issue of access to Brown Road is still unresolved? David McCuskey, Shorewood, attorney for David and Connie McCusk^y, 130 Brown Road South, advised the McCuskey's property had a lO'road and utility easement over it in favor of the City. He questioned if tnis easement is proposed to be used for the private roadway. Chair Mabusth responded that an existing 40 ’ easement granted to an individual for access to the subject property, and there is also the 10* wide along the 40 ’ casement. Gaffron confirmed the 10 city easement is proposed to be used in combination with the 40 ’ casement. Mr. McCuskey asked if t’nc City Auomey concurred with using a public easement in co.mbination with a private road. Gaffron indicated staff will confer with the City Attorney to confirm these facts and asked for Mr. McCuskey’s phone and address to advise him of the City Attorney’s opinion. Mr. Lazniarz confirmed the proposed 24’ private road is situated within the 40 ’ easement within the total 50 ’ width. Gaffron indicated that no -m,illy the City prefers roadways to be centered within the easement due to snow storages needs, etc. He summarized the question if the 10 public easement can be used by a priva.e developer for pnvatc road purposes and there needs to be resolution of the question. Gaffron introduced a concept whereby the portion of road from Brown Road to t'ne subject property becomes public road. He indicated more discussions are needed on this issue. Chair Mabusth asked to discuss the road ^v^dlh issue, stating that if frte spirit of a PRD is to minimize impact, would more trees be lost with the 24' road width section. Mr. Lazniarz indicated the proposal includes curb and gutter but stated they are open-minded on whether the road would be an urban or rural road section design. Gaffron indicated the City Engineer should look at this and provide a recommendation. Page S3 of 58 J ______