Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, January 11, 2010 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  Page 6   <br />   <br />(3. #05-3164 CITY OF ORONO – CONSERVATION DESIGN ORDINANCE – ORDINANCE <br />ADOPTION NO. 67, THIRD SERIES, Continued) <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the first page of Ms. Haskamp’s letter does not raise any issues in his mind. Gaffron <br />commented low impact development is just part of a variety of planning buzz words and processes that <br />the City has been professing for many decades and should be incorporated into a project. Gaffron <br />indicated those items could perhaps be added to the list if the Council desires. The ordinance could be <br />made more detailed if the Council chooses, but at this point he would recommend the City Council <br />approve it and amend it later if necessary. <br /> <br />McMillan expressed a concern that without the objectives being listed specifically and the ordinance later <br />being revised, that it may result in increased costs for the developer. McMillan stated she is very <br />concerned about adding objectives after the fact because it can create confusion for the developer. The <br />ordinance basically reflects the philosophy of the City but may not be down specifically in legal form for <br />the developers. McMillan reiterated she has a concern on the smaller subdivisions about the costs <br />increasing. <br /> <br />McMillan asked whether the five acres is buildable acres or total acres. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated it is five acres gross. <br /> <br />McMillan asked as it concerns a development that has six acres, one acre of wetland and one acre of hard <br />woods, whether three houses can be put on four acres. McMillan stated on the smaller subdivisions, it <br />can become difficult for a developer if stricter regulations are applied. <br /> <br />Franchot indicated he is in agreement with the majority of the concerns raised by Council Member <br />McMillan. Franchot asked if there is a specific reason for not defining a density bonus. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the only bonus that has been brought to the City in the past by the developers is the <br />number of units that would be allowed. The City Council decided as part of this process that they were <br />not going to define a density bonus. Gaffron indicated he likes the idea of a collaboration process, which <br />is the nature of the ordinance. <br /> <br />Gaffron commented there are probably some philosophical differences with this ordinance and what the <br />developer would like. Gaffron stated they could make some changes to make it more of a give and take <br />process. <br /> <br />Franchot stated that goes to the issue of adding costs and asked whether there is a mechanism that can be <br />implemented to prevent that. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated a developer’s perspective will be different than a City’s perspective and that there will be <br />times when they will not be able to reach common ground. <br /> <br />Murphy stated in terms of dealing with past applications, there is a limited amount of collaboration that <br />the City generally gets from developers. Murphy stated in his view the City could do more collaboration, <br />but that collaboration requires an open mind on both sides. A number of developers come in with a set <br />agenda and they attempt to push that agenda. Murphy questioned how much honest collaboration they <br />can get from a developer in a situation like this. <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 01/25/2010 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 01/11/2010 [Page 6 of 13]