Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (14. #04-3016 HENRY LAZNIARZ, Continued) <br /> Chair Mabusth asked Mr. Van Eeckhouts about his experience with the snowmobilers going on the property. <br /> He replied there are very few and it is post No Trespassing. <br /> Mr. Goodrum commented that as an outlot no one will feel ownership of it and believed individual lots <br /> provided more control of the area. <br /> Rahn concurred that individual lot ownership is better than an outlot design. <br /> Chair Mabusth polled the Planning Commissioners; individual lot ownership received 5 supporters, outlot <br /> design received 2 supporters. Chair Mabusth expressed she supported the outlot design to have better controls <br /> and enforcement than individually owned lots. <br /> 3. What type of Luce Line access should be allowed(in terms of pathways, etc)? <br /> This issue was referred to the Parks Commission before the Planning Commission would make a decision. <br /> 4. Does Planning Commission accept the proposed lot sizes, configurations and setbacks? <br /> Chair Mabusth stated she would not accept the lot lines as shown as she supports an outlot layout. Further, she <br /> commented that she did not think each lot had to a certain square footage area but in an attempt to minimize <br /> impacts on the surrounding areas building pads could be created within the setbacks to adjacent parcels, such <br /> as in the Northgate subdivision. She concluded that the proposed layout looks more like a standard <br /> subdivision than a PRD. <br /> There followed general discussion about whether the proposal should be looked at as a standard subdivision <br /> with individual lot ownership, and what makes the proposal a PRD. Bremer commented that clustering the <br /> houses creates a more environmentally design without huge lawns. Mr. Goodrum indicated that the 12 acres <br /> of conservation and dedication of the area between the creek and the Luce Line Trail are features that make it a <br /> PRD. <br /> Gaffron referred to the PRD standards in Exhibit N-1 and read the standards into the record. <br /> He summarized that a PRD is not required to have an outlot for open space but requires open space dedication <br /> in some form and that a PRD can be done under the Code due to a property unique characteristics. He stated <br /> there is nothing wrong with the proposed layout if structured correctly but it in undoubtedly one of the most <br /> unique subdivisions done in a while because it is proposing clustering of the houses and its physical features <br /> for possible public amenities on this property. <br /> Mr. Lazniarz pointed out that on a plat in another city, they proposed conservation easements described as <br /> drainage/utility easement on each lot with a metes and bounds description and with monuments to mark the <br /> easement crossing each property line. This type of easement would be filed with the chain of title and the <br /> association covenants would stipulate what can and cannot be done within the conservation easement. <br /> Gaffron added the City Attorney should review the various methods for drainage and utility easement and <br /> conservation easement and if these easements meet the open space requirement for subdivision. <br /> Mr. Lazniarz offered to provide easement language from the City of Minnetonka as an example for review. <br /> Gaffron stated the City has standard language for conservation and flowage easements over wetlands and <br /> asked what the Planning Commission would want to allow on the slope or dry areas. <br /> Page 36 of 40 <br />