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 community 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 wetland 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 understanding that the Watershed District requires a homeowner'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 LGA 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 /> Kasprick inquired when in the process 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 has 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 with the land, it made sense to <br /> keep the road at the shorter distance. <br /> S <br /> PAGE 7 <br />