My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-26-2012 Council Work Session Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1974-2024 work sessions
>
2012
>
03-26-2012 Council Work Session Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2019 12:48:26 PM
Creation date
11/19/2019 12:48:26 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
i <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIUPLANNING COMMISSION <br />JOINT WORK SESSION <br />Monday, March 26, 2012 <br />5:00 o'clock p.m. <br />Gaffron stated Staff could look at it in conjunction with the Watershed District staff and identify problem <br />areas. Consultants could also be hired to look at certain areas. <br />Bremer commented that water quality is also an important component of the hardcover regulations. <br />Gaffron noted water quality is not always directly related to the density. <br />Rahn stated the worst bays are the ones that have the streams flowing into them. <br />Rahn stated if we get back to what the initial group was directed to look at, the City is getting close to <br />achieving their goals with the prescriptive option, which is easier to understand and allows for some of <br />the things that homeowners would like. <br />McMillan commented she is in favor of the prescriptive option as well. <br />Levang stated she prefers the prescriptive option and that the performance option requires too much Staff <br />time. <br />Schoenzeit stated until the state study is finished on the BMPs, the City is probably premature in some of <br />its regulations, but that the City still has to be receptive to new technologies. Schoenzeit stated there are <br />probably some things the City can implement right now as far as technology and then revisit it later once <br />• the state study is completed. <br />Leskinen stated initially she was in favor of the performance based option, but that following tonight's <br />discussion, she is leaning more towards the prescriptive option. The bigger issue might be drainage, <br />which the prescriptive option addresses better. As the state finishes their study and there are more <br />technologies available, those can be incorporated or encouraged. <br />Bremer indicated she is also in favor of the prescriptive option. <br />Schoenzeit stated in theory the performance option is appealing, but that given Staff time and expense, the <br />City is not quite ready for it. <br />Rahn commented once the state completes its study, it could perhaps be incorporated into the prescriptive <br />option at some point in the future. <br />Gaffron stated by incorporating some of the suggestions tonight, more of the goals are met under the <br />prescriptive option. <br />McMillan asked what the group thinks about the tier concept. <br />Gozola stated the tiers are based on the City's current system and that they looked at it on a parcel by <br />parcel basis. <br />Gaffron stated the tier system assigns one number to every lot within that tier. Tiers 2 and 3 are non- <br />• lakeshore lots. <br />Page 7 of 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.