06-08-1998 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 8,1998 ( 96) #2339 Jim Render, 1365 Tonkawa Road - continued Render explained that his application had been removed from the Consent Agenda at the Watershed District's meeting because a permit was not required. A letter was written by the Watershed District to that effect. The applicant was willing to build a pond if the City required it, but would like it to be smaller. The plan for the current pond takes up almost the same amount of space as the two additional houses. A smaller pond would be aesthetically more pleasing and would allow the houses to be aligned more evenly. Goetten asked how this pond situation could affect future subdivisions. Gaffron responded that a standard was adopted in 1993 as an amendment to the Comp Plan that required NURP ponds in all developments. The Watershed District has a size threshold of 2 acres or 4 lots, below which ponding is not required. The City does not have such a threshold. Gronberg explained some alternatives to a NURP pond that the Watershed District suggested. One option was for a pond that was only 3' deep which would be about half the size of the proposed pond. Another option would be a buffer strip with some grassy swales and rock filters. The applicant would prefer the buffer strip as it is aesthetically more pleasing. Kellogg agreed with Gronberg that the pond was oversized for the site. He thought a smaller or dry • NURP pond (one that is wet only after a rainfall) could work. A filter strip with unmowed area between the lake and development could be just as effective and less obtrusive in removing sediment and nutrients. He suggested that the stormwater management plan would be a good place to set some standards for the City in ponding requirements. Jabbour commented that the City is interested in the benefits of sediment removal as well as flooding issues. He was unsure if size of a lot would be a good trigger mechanism to require a pond. Flint commented that enforcement may be a problem. He agreed that the pond may be too large but would work if installed. He thought this could be similar to enforcing hardcover regulations. For example, once an owner started mowing grass and decided he liked it, the unmowed area could disappear. He thought it was reasonable that the Watershed District would not want to regulate areas less than 2 acres or 4 lots, but that left regulation of those areas to the City. Kelley stated that issues regarding ponding on small lots should not be addressed as part of this subdivision, but should be addressed with staff in developing a policy. He felt the applicant should be allowed to propose something smaller and Council could then act on it. 12 �J