05/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (14. #04-3016 HENRY LAZNIARZ, Continued) Mr. Goodrum explained his experience with the City of Minnetonka and homeowner association on what is allowed in the conservation easements. He summarized there is a full range of what may be allowed or restricted, such as no removal of trees,no removal of dead brush,removal of fallen trees may allowed as well as buckthorn, foot paths may be allowed and some restricted access as a measure of pure conservation. It was a consensus that no structures,no fencing,no tree houses,no bridges,no storage,no logging or cutting of trees,no keeping of animals,no motor vehicles,no boats would be allowed in a proposed conservation easement. Gaffron asked for a consensus on the lot sizes. It was a consensus that the proposed lot sizes were acceptable. 5. Does Planning Commission feel that slopes of greater than 18% 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% slopes. Mr. Lazniarz reiterated that housing 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%. 6. Is Planning Commission comfortable with moving ahead with this review given that the issue of access to Brown Road is still unresolved? David McCuskey, Shorewood, attorney for David and Connie McCuskey, 130 Brown Road South, advised the McCuskey's property had a 10'road and utility easement over it in favor of the City. He questioned if this easement is proposed to be used for the private roadway. Chair Mabusth responded that an existing 40' easement 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 with the 40' easement. Mr. McCuskey asked if the City Attorney concurred with using a public easement in combination with a private 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 him of the City Attorney's opinion. Mr. Lazniarz confirmed the proposed 24' private road is situated within the 40' easement within the total 50' width. Gaffron indicated that normally the City prefers roadways to be centered within the easement due to snow storages needs, etc. He summarized the question if the 10' public easement can be used by a private developer for private 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 are needed on this issue. Chair Mabusth asked to discuss the road width issue, stating that if the spirit of a PRD is to minimize impact, would more trees be lost with the 24' road width section. Mr. Lazniarz 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. Gaffron 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 main access to the property for voting at this meeting. She suggested the Planning Commission wait for the Parks Commission to comment on the access to the Luce Line Trail. Gaffron indicated that the Parks Commission may look at this matter at its meeting on the first Monday in June 2004. He also stated the road access issue could be addressed as part of Final Plat approval. Page 37 of 40