Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLAN1vING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 15,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gronberg stated the north side will be a cut and the south side will be a fill. Gronberg stated the city <br /> street is 24 feet wide and that the driveway will need to be 24 feet wide. Gronberg indicated it will <br /> require quite a bit of cutting and filling if a driveway is placed there. <br /> Gaffron asked how moving the cul-de-sac further down would impact the stormwater pond. <br /> Gronberg stated the pond could be pushed further to the east. <br /> Gaffron stated he is not sure whether the Planning Commission should try to resolve that tonight since <br /> there are both pros and cons associated with it. Gaffron stated where it is proposed is not an unreasonable <br /> site but that there is a potential it will need to be moved. <br /> Lemke asked how Staff feels about the length of the cul-de-sac. <br /> Gaffron stated the length of the cul-de-sac has been decreased by approximately 100 feet. Gaffron noted <br /> the cul-de-sac will be serving six lots and that the City has a number of private roads at that same length. <br /> Gaffron indicated he is not concerned about it. <br /> Leskinen stated the third item for discussion is any negative impacts related to Lot 3, Block 2, along <br /> Hunter Drive. Leskinen noted the applicant spoke at length about screening in that area and that the <br /> Planning Commission can make that part of a motion if the Commissioners would like to see screening of <br /> that lot. <br /> McGrann stated he would like to see something in the motion regarding screening. <br /> Leskinen stated Item No. 4 is design and preservation measures in the covenant documents. Leskinen <br /> noted the applicant has already stated he is not willing to grant city conservation easements within the <br /> individual lots and that there is pretty strong language within the HOA covenant. Leskinen stated she is <br /> not sure if it has sufficient teeth. <br /> Thiesse commented at some point you nave to trust the human race. <br /> Leskinen stated the City cannot force the developer to grant conservation easements. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if the covenant would allow any homeowner challenging any change to collect fees in <br /> that regard. <br /> Watson indicated it is included in Section 9.2 of the covenants, which provides for injunctive relief. <br /> Watson stated he is not sure how it could be drafted any stronger. Watson stated it is better to have the <br /> right to collect the fees rather than just the right to enforce the covenants. <br /> Landgraver stated he had a little bit of difficulty following some of the language in the covenants. <br /> Landgraver stated Section 8.5 is the uniform rate of assessment and cannot be amended without 100 <br /> percent of the homeowners. Landgraver commented this is probably a work in process. <br /> Watson stated Section 9.4 that was added later, in addition to making it very difficult to change Section <br /> 8.5, all of the preservation provisions of the declaration require a super majority. Watson stated the <br /> developer, by the terms of Section 9.4, cannot just amend those provisions himself as the owner of all the <br /> Page 8 of 53 <br />