Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 <br />(#3 - nnmilSO Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) <br />those revisions. Staff has met with the applicant and her attorney, and both Staff and <br />applicant are in agreement with the language in the revised resolution in tonight's packet. <br />Gaffron said the applicant is appealing the park dedication fee, which is based on a pre ­ <br />development fair market value established by City Assessor of $22,000 per acre for 8% <br />of 7.6 acres or $13,376 for the two lots. A letter from the applicant ’s attorney appealing <br />the fee is included in the packet. <br />Gaffron updated the Council regarding the drainage and screening issue on the back lot <br />and driveway. Gaffron said he met with the neighboring property owner to the <br />southwest. They discussed the need for a berm to solve the issue of headlights shining <br />into the neighboring property's back yard. A letter is included in the packet from that <br />property owner. Gaffron said the applicant's engineer was asked to revise the plan to <br />show the revision for the berm. Gaffron said Greg Gappa has reviewed the roadway <br />drainage system and finds it should be adequate to handle the additional anticipated <br />stormwater from the proposed driveway and home; therefore, no drainage upgrade is <br />being required. <br />The resolution was presented for Council confirmation as well as the question of park <br />dedication fee appeal. <br />John Winston said Gaffron has addressed the concerns of language in the resolution, and <br />he is satisfied with the resolution as presented. <br />Winston said he has a strong opinion on the legality of the park dedication fee. He <br />distributed a synopsis on the law applicable to the fee. Winston said he has discussed <br />with Barrett cases before municipalities for park land or fee showing the need to show a <br />relationship between park use and any subdivision. He feels the two single family <br />homes will have a negligible impact on the park system resulting in the ordinance being <br />unenforceable and the fee unreasonable. Winston read sections from the State <br />ordinance. <br />Winston proposed a settlement which he believes to be of reasonable amount. He noted, <br />however, that the Whiteheads felt the amount was more than generous and should be <br />less. Winston requested the money be set aside in escrow and discussed in another <br />venue. <br />Jabbour informed Winston that the appeal should result in the application being tabled. <br />Flint agreed with Jabbour. Flint said he is strongly convinced that the fee is appropriate. <br />He opposed the fee amount being placed in escrow. Flint informed Winston that the cost <br />of parks and open space is not only paid by general revenue but paid by subdivisions.