My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-20-2015 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2010-2019
>
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE 1 ' <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 15,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should reopen the public hearing and receive comments from the <br /> public. <br /> Lemke stated there appears to be a flatter area that can accommodate a septic site for Lot 5. <br /> Gaffron stated to his understanding the applicant is proposing a stormwater pond in that area but that it <br /> does appear to be a good location for a septic site. <br /> Leskinen asked when approval can be anticipated from the Watershed District. <br /> Gaffron stated the applicant can probably answer that. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if there has ever been a situation where the City has been a party to a covenant similar <br /> to what is being presented here. <br /> Gaffron indicated there have been a few situations where the City has some authority over the private <br /> covenant documents or changes to a covenant document. The developments of Sugar Woods and Stone <br /> Bay are instances where the City accepted some authority within the private covenants, such as authority <br /> to approve certain changes or to ensure that certain things are done. Gaffron stated the City does not <br /> typically seek to have that type of authority since there is the possibility to miss something as time goes <br /> forward. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if the Conservation Design is an opinion document and not a finding of fact. <br /> Gaffron indicated that is correct. Gaffron stated it has not been reviewed specifically by the City <br /> Engineer or city consultant to see whether they a�ree with the report. <br /> Gearge Stickney, Applicant, stated back on May 18, they proposed 11 single-family lots with eight <br /> outlots and that they received a]ot of feedback from the Planning Commission and residents. Stickney <br /> noted the plan at that time conformed in every way and the drainage over the site was not being changed. <br /> Stickney stated they also met with Staff over the Conservation Design report and had a positive <br /> discussion. <br /> Page 4 of 79 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.