03-26-2012 Council Work Session Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCEUPLANNING COMMISSION JOINT WORK SESSION Monday, March 26, 2012 . 5:00 o'clock p.m. the City is not just protecting the view of the water and the massing but there is also the view of the lake from inland properties. As people are constructing bigger structures closer to the road, the inland properties do not see the lake anymore. Rahn stated the third tier is what caused that. Gaffron stated approximately half of the lakeshore lots are deeper than 250 feet. A lot of those are 10 to 15 feet past the 250 foot line and there is also a large number that is further beyond that. Bremer asked on her lot that is 100 feet wide and 770 feet deep, what she can have under the performance based option. Gozola stated with a lot that large and excluding the 0 -75 foot zone, the property owner would be allowed a significant amount of hardcover under the existing ordinances. Under the performance option, there would be no set threshold that dictates where the structure could go. The property owner would need to show Staff their proposal. If they are not exceeding the threshold, they would be allowed to construct the structure. If they do exceed the threshold, they would need to provide Staff with additional documentation. If Staff finds administratively that it is allowed, then that permit would be issued. The next step up would be requiring a conditional use permit, which would need to go through the Planning Commission and City Council. Gaffron stated the new ordinance allows for more subjectivity on the part of Staff, which will require • additional time. If it is something that is there forever and needs to be monitored, it will require more Staff time. Rahn commented he would prefer the prescriptive option. Printup stated you may have people purchasing properties in the future with no idea of why something was constructed, such as a holding pond. Gaffron stated the City is hindered by the fact that the state's BMP study is not complete at this time. McMillan stated a number of groups want the BMPs to target neighbors. Bremer commented that perhaps the City should look at specific bays on the lake where the City feels the water quality is impacted. Levang asked what Staff feels about the neighbor targets. Gaffron stated that is an appealing concept and that the Watershed District is looking at a variety of projects within specific neighborhoods. It does not address, however, one person being able to get more than someone else could because they are using a BMP. Schoenzeit commented there is also a significant amount of city -owned land that could be looked at. Levang asked if it would be difficult to determine which neighborhoods are most in need. • Page 6 of 9