Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, January 20,2004 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />basis that Lot 2 previously had a house on it. Thirteen years later, the structure on Lot 2 is still <br />there but has not been lived. <br />Since both lots drain directly to a creek which flews to Stubbs Bay, from a water (juality <br />standpoint, they fruibi. .n as lakeshore loti. There is little ability to collect significant amounts of <br />stormwater runoff from eidier lot before it reaches the creek. Therefore, Gaffron maintained that <br />Stormwater treatment provisions should be added to the plan in the form of required substantial <br />buffer strips along die creek, which must remain vegetated with high grasses and not be fertilized. <br />As with die park fee, there is some question as to whether this subdivision should be sulirject to the <br />Storm Water and Drainage Trurdc Fee established by Ct^ Ordinance. The fee is established at <br />$2,700 per acre, with a cap of 4.0 acres to be charged per lot For thif property. Lot 1 would be <br />charged die maximum 4.0 acre fee ($10,800) and Lot 2 would be charged for 3.47 acres ($9,369). <br />However, a case can be made that Lot 2 already exists as a viable building site, and the real intent <br />of die subdivision is to m^ Lot 1 buildable. An argument can be nude dut only the fee for Lot 1 <br />should be required. <br />Widi regard to lepdc, Gaffron noted diat Septic Systems Inspector Matt Bolterman hu reviewed <br />die submitted septic testing and confinns that each lot has suitable sites for adequately*sized sepde <br />systems. <br />While the proposed plui appears feuible and appropriate based on the information submitted to <br />date, Oaffron reiterated dut die lack of a requested propoaed driveway and creek crossing plan, and <br />the lack of proposed house looatioiu to help in determining the feasibility of house development on <br />these somewhat limited sites, suggests tabling may be qipropriate until that information is <br />submitted for review. He recommended that the Commission briefly review, provide comment, and <br />then table pending receipt and City Engineer review of requested driveway and creek crossing <br />plaiu. <br />Acting Chair Mabusth asked if the applicant had begun the process widi die MCWD. <br />Henderson indicated dut this had begun. <br />PAGE 28 of 64