01-11-2010 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

�v MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 11, 2010 • 7:00 o'clock p.m. (3. #05 -3164 CITY OF ORONO — CONSERVATIONDESIGN ORDINANCE — ORDINANCE ADOPTIONNO. 67, THIRD SERIES, Continued) Haskamp stated she is speaking on behalf of her company, Pulse Land Group, and the property owner, Susan Seeland. The second concern relates to the issue with the classification or how to identify what constitutes natural resources. Haskamp stated she made the recommendation at one point in time that the natural resources be classified according to the MLCCS since that is a pretty well respected way of classifying natural resources. The management classifications that are proposed as part of this document are at the discretion of the City to determine what constitutes high quality natural resources, which makes it very arbitrary and very difficult for the developer to understand and does not define who will make the final decision on a particular classification. That arbitrary process makes it difficult for common ground to be reached. The third issue relates to the ordinance itself. The ordinance does not give you any sort of parameters for what documents need to be submitted in order for the application to be determined complete. This results in a high level of ambiguity. Haskamp stated the ordinance also discusses the standards for a density bonus. The language specifically states that it is up to the discretion of the City Council whether a developer would receive the density bonus; otherwise the developer would only be entitled to the base density. If the City would like smaller developers to adhere to these principles, there should be some form of incentive for those developers; otherwise how would you encourage a small developer to protect a large wetland and upgrade it. • Haskamp stated the ordinance basically only talks about density bonuses but there are a number of other ways to provide incentives to developers. Finally, the ordinance references a number of definitions, but there are also definitions that are missing in the ordinance and some definitions that are quite subjective, such as view sheds and how that is quantified. Haskamp stated in her view there is quite a bit in terms of the definitions that are not completely accurate and not completely specified for someone reading the document. Haskamp commented that low impact development is a very common thing discussed in the engineering and planning world and is the foundation of almost every conservation ordinance, but yet it is not identified at all in the ordinance. Haskamp stated the property owner and her company, Pulse Land Group, are very conservation minded, but in order to achieve a great project, an ordinance has to be created that allows collaboration with the land owner. Haskamp stated a set of specific rules would give guidance, and this document falls short in that regard. Mayor White stated he believes the comprehensive plan issue is not a huge factor and he is not going to slow the process up due to that issue. There are some items that could be improved within the ordinance and that this document is a work in process. White stated he liked the idea of compiling a list of required documents, but that he is not willing to wait another two years for this ordinance to be adopted by the City. Murphy concurred that it is time to move forward with the ordinance and that in his view the ordinance does give some guidance to the developers and land owners. Bremer asked whether Mr. Gaffron feels any of the concerns raised by Ms. Haskamp tonight should be • addressed further in the ordinance. Page 5