Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> JOINT WORK SESSION <br /> Monday,January 9,2012 <br /> 5:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> There is the potential with the tiers that long, skinny lots will have double the hardcover closer to the lake, <br /> which is a problem. <br /> McMillan noted there are side setbacks and other controls in place that would help address that. <br /> Gaffron stated it might be doing a disservice to the lake by allowing more hardcover closer to the lake. <br /> Rahn stated with a longer lot, you will likely end up with a detached structure closer to the road. <br /> Franchot stated he can remember a conversation with a Woodland property owner on detached versus <br /> attached and that the guy was complaining that everyone immediately went to the activity that would <br /> allow them the most hardcover. Franchot recommended the City carefully consider the issues raised by <br /> Gaffron. <br /> McMillan commented the ordinance will not be perfect and will not address all situations. <br /> Franchot stated the ordinance needs to be based on reality to avoid some of these issues. <br /> Rahn stated there are pros and cons to both methods. <br /> McMillan stated she has a lot of respect for the DNR and that their shoreline regulations are similar to <br /> Orono's. McMillan stated the choices are pervious surface options,performance standards, or a <br /> combination of the two. McMillan stated in her view tonight's presentation was based more on <br /> performance and that she would suggest they take the impervious surface coverage section and tweak that <br /> as an option. <br /> As it relates to the performance standards,McMillan indicated she does not like having a CUP on a <br /> residential home and that she would prefer to have CUPs on businesses and services but not on a <br /> residential house. McMillan stated she also has a concern about the amount of engineering that would be <br /> involved with the performance standards. McMillan recommended that the Task Force compare the draft <br /> ordinance with the City's current regulations and see what advantages and disadvantages there are <br /> between the two. <br /> Rahn stated a potential purchaser of a property may not be informed about the maintenance plan and that <br /> his experience with other cities has been that they struggle with the maintenance issue. In order for the <br /> City to move forward,Rahn stated he would do it in pieces. Rahn reiterated he does have an issue with <br /> the maintenance component and yearly fees and the possibility of having to add additional staff. <br /> Thiesse commented that perhaps the City could require the owner to have the engineer perform an <br /> inspection by such and such a date and then submit that information to the City. <br /> Gozola stated if there are not performance standards, the discussion should be what goals the City would <br /> like to achieve with the new regulations. <br /> Franchot stated in his view it is a good thing to compare and contrast,but that one of the things he has had <br /> the most difficulty with is that the Council appears to be somewhat arbitrary on applications and that <br /> citizens leave frustrated and confused. Franchot stated the concept of performance standards makes sense. <br /> and that the goal is to control the runoff. Franchot stated he would be inclined to look at a performance <br /> model and then look at the various concerns raised, such as the maintenance,massing, or the need for <br /> CUPs. Franchot stated he is not sure it has to be a CUP and that they should look at other options. <br /> -- Page 7 of 11 — <br />