07-27-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 13, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 14 of 28 The applicant is proposing a private road to connection with Wear Lane North, which abuts the south boundary of the property. It has been the policy of the City to create corridors for such connections where feasible to allow for future through roads or to provide access to neighboring undeveloped property. Gaffron noted the need for such a connection is not apparent at this site. In addition, it was noted at the Planning Commission that due to the shape of the property, the location of Wear Lane North and the subdivision lot layout, which is predicated to a great extent on the location of wetlands and available septic sites, creation of a connecting corridor would result in one less lot or a proposed lot would be split in two by the corridor. In addition, neighbors from Wear Lane North commented that they have no desire for a through road connection. The Planning Commission concluded that a connecting corridor should not be required. Gaffron noted a petition has been submitted to the Council signed by a number of neighbors requesting that that through road not happen. Gaffron stated another question worthy of Council discussion is the landscape plan. The applicants have provided a landscaping plan for the private road boulevard as well as along Old Crystal bay Road. While the plan appears to meet the overall requirement of one tree per 40 feet of frontage, it clusters many of those trees along Old Crystal Bay Road at the site entrance rather than spacing them along the private road. Council has allowed that in other similar situations. The southerly lot is very long and narrow but the lot would function. Lots 1 and 6 are corner lots with their defined front yards abutting Old Crystal Bay Road. The applicant has depicted both lots as having their front yards as the frontage abutting the private road. Given the layout of the subdivision, it would be appropriate to specifically and formally define the yards for setback purposes for Lots 1 and 6 as those proposed on the preliminary plat. The north and south yards will be considered as front and rear yards. The side yards abutting Old Crystal Bay Road will be considered as side street yards and the yards abutting the west boundaries will be considered as side yards. Staff recommends approval subject to standard conditions and requests Council direct to prepare a resolution for Preliminary Plat approval. Printup asked why the City likes the road to the east. Gaffron stated one of the values of the connection is if the City ever chooses to or is required to take over the cul-de-sac roads, the maintenance of a through road is much easier. The second issue would be that there would be only one road going in without a secondary access. Gaffron noted there was only one situation where the City had to take over a cul-de-sac road and that was to provide access to another property. McMillan asked if Staff feels there are any properties that will become landlocked if there is not a through road. Gaffron indicated he does not. Gaffron noted one parcel in this area was given to the City by Alan Carlson and that there is possible access through the land owned by MN/DOT. Gaffron stated if and when MN/DOT elects to sell that piece of land, the City will need to ensure they have access through there.