My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-11-2015 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
05-11-2015 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2015 10:51:02 AM
Creation date
7/15/2015 10:44:14 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
365
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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, April 27, 2015 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 13 of 21 <br /> <br />5. #15-3722 STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEE – SECOND REVIEW <br />(continued) <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the City would not get high density without it being multi-family and that it is based on <br />what is currently in the code. Gaffron stated there is a distinction between four units per acre and less and <br />then greater than four units in terms of the fee. Gaffron stated that language initially had to do with how <br />much hard surface would be created with those two different types of development. <br /> <br />McMillan asked if they should do three units or less since they have a half-acre in there. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated they could do that. Gaffron stated multi-family will be attached units versus single-family <br />and that multi-family of two, three, or four units would still be considered multi-family. <br /> <br />McMillan stated a townhome could have three units. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated multi-family will be something that has two or more units attached as well as five to <br />however many. Gaffron indicated from a density standpoint, the City does not have a zoning district for <br />multi-family other than RPUD, which gives the City a lot of flexibility in the type of development. <br /> <br />McMillan suggested multi-family be listed as three units. McMillan asked how the Council feels about <br />the acreages listed on Page 4 under Item 8. <br /> <br />Walsh suggested the last two be combined in order to be consistent. <br /> <br />McMillan asked if there should be a credit. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated this is saying that with multi-family, regardless of what category it is, if the fee is based <br />on number of acres, the City is going to give them credit for the wetlands or the easements or stormwater <br />ponding or conservation easements. <br /> <br />McMillan suggested it read newly created wetlands. <br /> <br />Gaffron asked if the City would essentially charge them for all 20 acres on a 20-acre site that has 10 acres <br />of wetland. <br /> <br />McMillan stated they would have to put in a stormwater pond or create a conservation easement in order <br />to receive a credit. <br /> <br />Walsh stated it should be consistent with the other zones. Walsh asked if Mayor McMillan is talking <br />about all wetlands. <br /> <br />McMillan stated it would just apply to newly created wetlands. <br /> <br />Walsh asked whether Mayor McMillan would charge someone for 20 acres even if 10 acres were <br />wetlands before they did anything. <br /> <br />McMillan stated they would be charged for the number of lots. <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 05/11/2015 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 04/27/15 [Page 13 of 21]
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.