My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-20-2015 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2015
>
07-20-2015 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2020 8:43:11 AM
Creation date
1/12/2016 1:34:15 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
373
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE ' � <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June I5,2015 <br /> 6:30 dclock p.m. <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 have 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 92 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 enfarce 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 /> Page 12 of 79 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.