06-21-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONtMISSlON MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (14. INM.3016 HENRY LAZ.MARZ.ConllBMcd) Mr. Lazntirz continued that each lot vk'ill be custom graded to minimize the loss of trees and he committed to planting trees along the dn\-e>vay to make it a tree-lined road and to replace trees lost on house sites. He repeated their intention to minimize impacts to each site. Jim Dunn, speaking for Mary Dunn, remarked the agreement has not >'ei been reached as Mr. Lamiarz stated. It IS under consideration and not yet signed. Chair Mabusth asked for further public comments. Mrs. Coleman asked for further confirmation that there the houses proposed uill be 50' back from her property line. Mr. Lazniart responded that the setback is 50’ but the houses will not be positioned at the setback, resulting in potentially more distance, up to about 100* to the Coleman’s propcrt>- line because the 'nouses will be closer to the proposed sU. c’ Chair Mabusth closed the public heanng. Chair Mabusth led the Planning Commission is discussion of the following Issues for Coiuideniion 1. Does the Planning Commission agree w ith the use of the PRI) subdivision method for this property? It was a consensus that the PRD subdivision meihod should be used for ihis property. 2. Should the areas to be pre erved via conservation easements, be in an Outlot. or merely as an casement within each individual property? Chair Mabusih commented that to be consistent with pnor Planning Commission decisions, outlets owned by a homeowners asstK'iaiion were created. Gaffron concurred and explained that in standard subdivision plats usually individual lou were created wi*h a wetland easemert. He advised that within an outlot the City can put whatever conditions easements is deemed necessary. Bremer asked for information about why not have an outlot versus individual lot ownership; GafTron responded that with a homeowner’s association managing an outlot thae is greater recreations use by more people than if it is individually owned and had potential trespass issues Bremer commented that she would not support a path to the Luce Line Trail. Chair .Mabusth concurred with Bremer and thought there may be problems with people trespassing from the Luce Lme Trail mto the subdivision area. She suggested the Parks Commission should look at the proposed plan pnor to Planning Commission action to asceruin if they have an interest in a walking access to the creek and Its c.xisting bndge. .Mr. Van Ecckhout mtet}cctcd that m the winter skiers use the land but in the summer there are very few . Kempf suggested the Planning Commission focus on one issue at a time. He stated he liked the idea of a laigc outlot used as a shared amenity managed by a homeowmers association Kempf noted the matter of pedestrian access perhaps should be left lo the Parks Commission for review and decision Jurgens commented that with a large outlot it may create one giant access to the Luce Line Trail. Gafhon asked Fritzler about his experience .. iih obscrv mg wmla skiers use on the former Ski Tonka slopes since he lives across the Luce Lme Trail. Fntzler replied there is more snowmobilcr use coming off the Luce Line ndge and running up the hill and not from the owners or residents. It creates a spot where there is no enforcement. In the summer, there had been some dirt bike use some while ago but not recently. Also, horseback nders usually stay on the limestone or horse trail. Page35of40