Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />SEPTEMBER 18,2000 <br />(#2596 Brenshell Homes, Continued) <br />Rasmussen commented it would be in the best interests of the conununity if an easement were <br />granted over the ponds with the City having the responsibility to maintain them. <br />Behnke stated they have provided their w'etland delineation report to the City as well as to the <br />Watershed District, and it is his understanding that whichever report is accepted by the Watershed <br />District, that is the one they must follow. Behnke stated as it relates to the public easement, it <br />would reduce the buildable area of the houses given the current City ordinances. Behnke stated <br />it is his u derstanding that the Watershed District requires a homeo^^’ner's association to do the <br />long-term maintenance on the ponds. <br />Hawn inquired whether the Watershed District has an inspection process to determine whether <br />the ponds are being maintained adequately. <br />Weinberger stated he is unsure whether the Watershed District has an inspection procedure that <br />they follow at this time, but to his understanding they would respond to any complaints received. <br />Weinberger stated the City is typically notified if there is a problem with a retention pond. <br />Hawn noted she has been handed a 1997 report tonight prepared for LG A Investments by <br />Scholl & Madsen. Hawn commented she has not had an opportunity to review the report at <br />this time, but requested that it be made part of the City ’s record. <br />Rasmussen stated that is her only copy and she would like to retain possession of it. <br />Hawn noted the Planning Commission at this time does not know whether a wetland exists on <br />this property or not. <br />Kaspriek inquired when in the proeess the Watershed District reviews the wetland information. <br />Weinberger stated the Watershed District reviews some preliminary information prior to approval <br />by the City Council but that a final decision is usually forthcoming following preliminary plat <br />approval. Weinberger noted the City lias not received any comments concerning this application <br />at the present time from the Watershed District. Weinberger noted the only response received <br />from the Watershed District at this time is that a watershed permit is necessary on this property. <br />Stoddard inquired why variances were being recommended for approval on Lots 2 and 3, noting <br />that a reduction in the cul-de-sac has been incorporated into the plan. Stoddard stated in his view <br />this application should be tabled in order to more fully address some of these unresolved issues <br />dealing with engineering and wetlands. <br />Weinberger stated the concept behind shortening the cul-de-sac involves reducing the amount of <br />hardcover as well as requiring less grading, especially in the areas that have been identified as <br />being more sensitive by the City. Weinberger stated another reason for shortening of the <br />cul-de-sac is that it enables the houses to be built on a flatter area. Weinberger commented that <br />extension of the cul-de-sac would allow each lot to have the required amount of width, but in <br />order to protect some of the environmental features associated w ith the land, it made sense to <br />keep the road at the shorter distance. <br />PAGE?