06-21-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (14. N04-3016 HOKYLAZMARZ.Continiied) Chair Mabusih asked Mr. Van Ecckhouts about his experience with ihe snowinobileTS going on the propertxv He replied there are very few and it is post No Trespassing Mr. Goodrum commented that as an outlot no one wil! feel ovsnership of it and believed individual lots prox'ided more control of the area. Rahn concurred that individual loi ownership is belter than an outlot design Chair Mabusih polled the Planning Commissioners; individ.ial lot ownership received 5 supporters, outlot design received 2 supporters. Chair Mabusih expressed she supported the outlot design to have better controls and enforcement than indnidually owned lots 3. What t>pc of Luce Line access should be allowed (in terms of pathwass. elcf.’ This issue was referred to the Parks Commission before the Planning Commission w ould make a decision. 4. Does Planning Commission accept the proposed lot sires, configurations and setbacks'^ Chair Mabusth stated she would not accept the lot lines as shown as she supports an outlot la>out. l urthcr. she commented that she did not think each lot had to a certain square footage area but in an attempt to minimize impacts on the surrounding areas building pads could be created within the setbacks to adjacent parcels, such as in the Northgate subdivision. She concluded that the proposed layout looks more like a standard subdivision than a PRD. There followed general discussion about whether the proposal should be looked at as a standard subdivision with individual loi 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 conserv ation and dedication of the area betw een the creek and the Luce Line Trail arc features that make il a PRD Gaffron referred to the PRD standards in E.\hibii N-1 and read the standards into the record. He summanzed that a PRD is not required to have an ouilui for open space but requires open space dcdicaticn m some form and that a PRD can be done under the Code due lo a property unique charactcnsiics. He staled there is nothing wrong w ith the proposed Ia>‘oul if structured conectly hut it in undojhtedly one of the most unique subdivisions done in a w hile because it is proposing clustering of the houses and its physical features fur possible public amenities on ihis property Mr. Lazmarz pointed out that on a plat in another city, th *y proposed conservation easements desenbed as drainage utiliiv’ casement on each lot with a metes and bo^ids description and with monuments to mark the easement crossing each propertv- line. This t>pe of easement w ould be filed with the chain of title and the association covenants would stipulate what can and cannot be done within the conservation easement. Gafiron added the City Attorney should review the vanous methods for drainage and unlit> easement and conservation casement and if these easements meet the open space requirement for subdivision. Mr. Lazniarz ofTcred to provide easement language from the City of Minnetonka as an e.xample for review. GafBon stated the Cit>’ has standard language for conservation and flow age easements over wetlands and asl nl what the Plannmg Commission would want to allow on the slope or dry areas. Page 36 of 40