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 HENRY LAZNIAKZ, CoBliaued) Mr. Goodrum explained his experience with ihe Cuy ofMinneionka and homeowner association on what is allowed in the conserx’ation easements. He summanzed there is a full range of w hat may be allowed or restricted, such as no remosBl of trees, no removal of dead brush. rcmo\*al of fallen trees may allowed as well as buckthorn, foot paths may be allow ed and some restricted access as a measure of pure con .Tv ation. It was a consensus that no structures, no fencing, no tree houses, no bridges, no storage, no lugging or cutting of trees, no keeping of animals, no motor vehicles, no boats would be allow ed in a proposed conserv ation casement. Gaffron asked for a consensus on ihc lot si/es It was a conMrnsus that the proposed lot sizes were acceptable. S. Does Planning Commission feel that slopes of greater than I8?b 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 18"b slopes. Mr. Lazniarz reiterated that huusing 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*/a. 6 Is Planning Commission comfortable with moving ahead wnh ih'% review given that the issue of access to Rrowii Road is still unresolved? David McCuskey. Shorewood. annmey for David and Connie .McCuskey. 130 Brown Road .South, advised the McCuskey ’s property had a lO'road and utility easement over it in favor of the City lie questioned if this casement is proposed to be used for the pnvate roadway. Chair Mabusth responded that an existing 40’ casement granted to an individual for access to the subject property, and there is also the 10’ wide along the 40’ easement. Gaffron confirmed the 10’ city easement is proposed to be used in combination w nh the 40’ casement Mr .McCuskey asked if the City Attorney concurred with using a public easement m combination with a pnvate 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 h*m of the City Attorney’s opinion. Mr. Lazntarz confirmed the pro, oscd 24’ private road is situated within the 40’ casement within the total 50’ width. Gaffron indicated that normally the City prefers roadways to be centered w nhin the easement due to snow storages needs, etc He summarized the question if the 10’ public easemem can be used by a pnvate developer for pnvate road purposes and there needs to be resolution of the question Gaffron introduced a concept whereby the portion of road from Brown Road to the subject property becomes public road. He indicated more discussions arc needed on this is.sue Chair Mabusth asked to discuss the road w idth issue, stating that if the spint of a PRD is to minimize ii.. jct. would more trees uc lost with the 24’ road width section Mr Lazniant 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. Gaflron indicated the City Engineer should look at this and provide a recommendation Chair .Mabusth questioned the Planning Commission is there is enough resolution on the mam access to the property for voting at this meeting She suggested the Planning Commission wan for the Parks Commission to comment on the access to the Luce Line Trail. Gaffron mdteated that the Parks Commission may look at this matter at its meeting on the first Monday in June 2004. He also suted the road access issue could be addressed as part of Final Plat approval L Page 37 of 40