09-21-2009 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAN1vING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 17,2009 6:30 o'clock p.m. (2. #OS-3164 CITY OF ORONO, CONSERVATION DESIGN ORDINANCE, 6:35 P.M. — 6:58 P.M., Continued) Chair Kempf opened the public hearing at 6:48 p.m. Jennifer Haskamp,453 Bremhall Street, St. Paul, stated she was asked to review the ordinance by the owner of Stonegate Farms. In her view,the ordinance is very positive in terms of looldng at conservation principles and ideas to protect our natural resources. In addition,using density incentives in an effort to encourage developers to develop in a more ecolog-ical sensitive way is a fantastic approach. Haskamp noted the ordinance uses a number of standardized tools, such as the MLCCS,which is extxemely helpful. One of her concerns relates to the definitions in Section 78-1633 regarding ecological quality levels. Haskamp noted the City's ordinance only includes definitions A through C and are slightly different from the MLCCS. Haskamp questioned why there is a departure from the MLCCS definitions. In addition, Section 78-1635,which is the section regarding basic conservation master plan requirements and evaluation criteria,Items 6 and 10 both allude to statements such as no negative impact or no modifications to the ecological communities. Haskamp asked what the definition is for negative impact and modification of ecological communities would be. Haskamp questioned how stringent those definitions would be. Haskamp asked if 50 percent of the property consists of wetland and 50 percent is in high quality woodland area,how the City would anticipate a developer working through that process if all of it is in the highest quality and whether that land would be required to be kept in that state forever or whether the City would allow some future development of that land. Haskamp stated her last concern relates to the density bonus system itself. The ordinance is very specific in the way it is written in that it states density bonuses will be considered for urban designations. Haskamp noted if your property is located in the one unit per two acres zone,under the ordinance as presently written,there would be no incentive for the developer to actually utilize the conservation principles but yet they would be required to do so. Haskamp pointed out that in order for someone to develop a two acre lot under those requirements, it would be very cost prohibitive, and asked whether there would be a way in which those properties could be incentivized as well, such as allowing an alternative wastewater treatrnent systems or perhaps a one unit bonus. If the City is going to allow an incentive,it should cross over to all properties in the community if the ultimate goal is conservation. Gaffron stated the fact that there are no incentives for the rural area was a conscious decision on the City Council a few years ago. The rationale for no incentives is that the rural area typically is not sewered but is not prohibited from becoming sewered in certain areas. Gaffron noted there are other incentives that make development less costly, such as clustering, and that perhaps an alternative wastewater treatment system could be another option. Those areas have not been defined specifically,but the City Council concluded that only in the urban areas would they allow those incentives. In the rural area the City Council did not want numerical incentives established but would prefer that each property would be treated separately. As it relates to the master plan requirements for ecological communities A and B, Gaffron indicated he is willing to review that section to whether there should be additional requirements. Gaffron stated those requirements were proposed by DSU a number of years ago. Gaffron stated he has not reviewed the standards in the MLCCS lately and that he would be willing to review those to see whether they should be included. PAGE 4 �