Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, November 24, 2014 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br /> Page 8 of 21 <br /> <br />(7. #14-3691 SOURCE LAND CAPITAL, LAKEVIEW PROPERTY, 405 NORTH ARM DRIVE – <br />PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH PRD OVERLAY, continued) <br /> <br />Levang stated it probably was not contemplated at the time the ordinance was drafted, and given the large <br />conservation area; the Council should be looking at this differently than they have in the past. <br /> <br />Bremer asked if there was a similar situation in Glendale Cove where they asked for a waiver of this fee. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated he does not recall Glendale Cove but that he has a listing of all the subdivisions that have <br />been created in Orono. Gaffron stated Graham Hill is probably the largest development that was subject <br />to this fee at 40 acres and in that case the developer paid $122,000. <br /> <br />McMillan asked if there were any conservation easements in that development. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated there were some around the perimeter but not to this magnitude. Gaffron stated he would <br />agree that this is a unique situation and that there is a large amount of the property that is being put into <br />conservation easements. <br /> <br />McMillan asked if the preliminary plat approval would be delayed if the City Council decided to consider <br />this. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated in his view it would not impact the preliminary plat approval. Gaffron stated on Page 5 of <br />8 the resolution provided it talks about a stormwater drainage trunk fee based on acreage and a dollar <br />amount per acre. In at least the two recent applications, the resolutions were worded essentially the same <br />way and the Council was able to make some revisions to that later on. Gaffron stated the other option <br />would be to leave it blank in the preliminary plat with the assumption that they will be responsible for <br />some level of trunk fee. Gaffron indicated he does not have a problem with that if the City Council does <br />not. <br /> <br />Mattick stated the way the language is written right now, the fee is based on a simple calculation based on <br />the City’s ordinance. Mattick stated the Council could leave it blank or leave it as it is since it is the <br />preliminary plat and then have the specific number in the final plat. Mattick noted the City Council is <br />looking at a reduction and not an addition to it. Mattick stated the fee would not even need to put in the <br />resolution because it is a function of what the code requires. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated in his view the resolution still needs some minor tweaking and he would like to bring it <br />back in two weeks. Gaffron noted City Planning Consultant Steve Grittman could not be here tonight due <br />to a family emergency and that in his view the resolution covers all the important points that have been <br />discussed for the past six months. <br /> <br />Levang asked whether the language on Page 2 in regard to Outlot I should be changed. Levang noted <br />currently it is excluded from the park dedication fee. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated normally outlots, because they are not buildable, are not assessed a park fee. Gaffron <br />stated the entire acreage of the plat is charged the stormwater fee. Gaffron indicated the City would <br />collect the park dedication fee for the outlot if it is turned into a buildable lot later on.