My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-09-2015 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2015
>
02-09-2015 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2021 3:42:57 PM
Creation date
4/2/2015 11:58:35 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
305
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
SW�DT Fee Review <br /> December 1, 2014 <br /> Page 8 <br /> to Forest Lake) leaving little room for downstream ponding to be created. But not <br /> all properties in Orono are similarly situated, and the ordinance does not <br /> differentiate between properties located at different points in the watershed. And, <br /> the expected TMDL remediation needs for Forest Lake will likely be expensive <br /> and are a future cost for which the City will be expected to assist in financing. <br /> 2. In theory, the concept of reducing the SW&DT fee based on providing excess <br /> ponding capacity to result in greatly reduced rates of discharge, may have some <br /> merit. <br /> Something similar to this was done in Stonebay. The developer was credited for <br /> a portion of the costs to construct the regional pond and offsite drainage facilities, <br /> the credit based on the difference befinreen the cost of a pond with capacity to <br /> just serve the Stonebay development, and the cost of the regional pond that also <br /> served areas adjacent to but not within the Stonebay development. In this case, <br /> the benefit accrued to the offsite properties, which avoided pond construction but <br /> paid their SW&DT fees to offset the City's costs of a reduction for Stonebay. The <br /> difference between this and Lakeview is that there is no offsite development <br /> expected upstream from Lakeview that will generate SW&DT funds to offset a <br /> SW&DT fee reduction for Lakeview. <br /> 3. Potential SW&DT fee reductions based on non-stormwater-related amenities <br /> being provided, would seem to not be in keeping with the intent of the SW&DT <br /> ordinance. Cleanup of contamination from a prior use, while contributing to the <br /> health of the environment, does not reduce the potential stormwater impacts. <br /> Provision of parks that are open to the public will not reduce potential stormwater <br /> impacts. <br /> Reduction or elimination of the the negative environmental aspects of a golf <br /> course use may have some value as compared to the conversion of raw <br /> farmland that was not used as a golf course. Whether this value can be <br /> quantified in a fair and reasonable way is questionable. <br /> Possible Alternatives for Discussion <br /> To be determined... <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.