Laserfiche WebLink
f <br />k <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Moaday, 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 flows to Stubbs Bay. from a water quality <br />standpoint, they function u lakeshore lots. 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 provisians should be added to the plan in die form of required substantial <br />buffer strips along the creek, which must remain vegetated with high grasses and not be fertilized. <br />As with the park fee, there is some question as to whether this subdivision should be subject to the <br />Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee established by City Ordinance. The fee is established at <br />S2.700 per acre, with a cap of 4.0 acres to be charged per loL For this property. Lot 1 would be <br />charged the maximum 4.0 acre fee (S10.800) and Lot 2 would be charged for 3.47 acres (S9.369). <br />However, a case can be made that Lot 2 already exists as a viable building site, and the real intent <br />of the subdivision is to make Lot 1 buildable. An argument can be made that only the fee for Lot 1 <br />should be required. <br />With regard to septic, Gaffron noted that Septic Systems Inspector Matt Bolterman has reviewed <br />the submitted septic testing and confirms that each lot has suitable sites for adequately-sized septic <br />systems. <br />While the proposed plan appears feasible and appropriate based on the infonnation submitted to <br />date, Gaffron reiterated that the lack of a requested proposed driveway and creek crossing plan, and <br />the lack of proposed house locations to help in determining the feasibility of house development on <br />these somewhat limited sites, suggests tabling may be tpproprute until that infonnation 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 />plans. <br />Acting Chair Mabusth asked if the ipplicant had begun the process with the MCWD. <br />Henderson indicated that this had begun. <br />PAGE 28 of 64 <br />^ -