Laserfiche WebLink
Orono City Council <br /> Committee of the Whole <br /> February 9, 2010, 6:30 p.m. <br /> Orono City Council Chambers <br /> o Rain gardens are depressional areas that allow water to soak into the ground. Rain gardens are more <br /> appropriate in residential applications than pervious pavement systems in terms of credit for <br /> shoreland management and they are easier for property owners to maintain. <br /> o The RainXchange system is another way to manage stormwater. Water is directed from a downspout <br /> into an underground storage system and then pumped back for use in waterfalls, lawn sprinkling, etc. <br /> o Trees are fantastic stormwater management features; protection of existing trees is important. <br /> o Minnesota Statute 103F allows the DNR to adopt rules for shoreland management. Standards <br /> developed by the DNR need to be adopted at the local level. <br /> • Murphy asked how experimentation with chemicals on the lake affects shoreline management. <br /> Westerland responded that invasive vegetation is not natural to the lake and the chemicals are supposed <br /> to be selective for Eurasion Milfoil. Although the DNR is promoting natural conditions, humans are part of <br /> the ecosystem and it would be difficult to get the lake back to a natural condition. <br /> • McMillan noted that once a natural area is degraded, it is more difficult to restore a natural environment <br /> rather than preserving it. <br /> • Bremer commented that the lake environment is complicated by water quality that varies on different <br /> bays. McMillan added that some bays were former sewage treatment areas with phosphorus impacts. <br /> Gaffron noted that most of the lower quality bays are on the upper lake and are the first bays to receive <br /> loading from creeks. <br /> • McMillan asked if the MCWD has been seeing any problems with maintenance on pervious pavers. <br /> Westerland responded that they need to be designed, installed and maintained correctly or they will not <br /> work. Maintenance includes regular vacuuming and may be different for different applications; i.e. no <br /> salt would need to be used on a city parking lot as snow melts through the pavers. <br /> • Tom Kellogg commented that Bonestroo has some experience working with pervious pavers and worked <br /> with Sartell on a project. He agreed with Westerland's comments that shoreline areas aren't necessarily <br /> appropriate areas for installation of pervious pavers. It's important to encourage the use of pervious <br /> pavers, but no credit should be allowed. Maintenance can be a major issue. <br /> • Bremer suggested that a position statement and literature be developed to share with developers who <br /> propose to use pervious pavers. <br /> • Kellogg added that there are other methods to control runoff. Medina has recently added a requirement <br /> to provide volume control, which means the first%" of rainfall is contained on site. <br /> 2. Comp Plan Update <br /> • Gaffron and Grittman have been preparing maps and discussing areas that could be guided for higher <br /> density that will satisfy Met Council requirements. After Council has reviewed the information at the next <br /> work session, another meeting will be scheduled with Met Council staff to confirm that Orono is moving <br /> in the right direction. <br /> 3. Common Bond Follow-up <br /> • Common Bond has provided a project proforma and schedule, which is driven by funding sources. They <br /> have requested that the city provide a letter of intent regarding zoning and utilities. <br /> • McMillan expressed concern with the compact schedule and obligations of the city in the next few <br /> months, including completion of the Comp Plan and working with the new City Administrator. She <br /> commented that the city needs to determine what it wants and not be driven by Common Bond's <br /> proposal, nor be rushed into a decision, and the public should be given opportunities for input. While <br /> CommonBond has proposed a good potential development, there may be other options for the site. <br /> Orono has been cautious in development which has served the city well. <br /> • Franchot agreed that more study could be done, but took the opposite view stating that at some point the <br /> collective wisdom of the group recognizes a good project. This proposal provides the city with a number <br /> of benefits and it may be a disservice to the citizens if the city continues "kicking the can" down the road. <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br />