Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, July 14, 2014 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />  Page 10 of 19  <br /> <br />(6. #14-3672 REVOLUTION DESIGN AND BUILD ON BEHALF OF MELODEE AND KELLY <br />MARX – 3135 NORTH SHORE DRIVE – VARIANCE – RESOLUTION NO. 6421, Continued) <br /> <br />Acting Mayor Printup closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. <br /> <br />Levang moved, Bremer seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6421, a Resolution Granting a <br />Variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1279, for the property located at 3135 North Shore <br />Drive. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. <br /> <br />7. #14-3674 LORI GHERARDI ON BEHALF OF WOLVERTON PLACE, LLC – 4570 <br />WOLVERTON PLACE – CONSERVATION EASEMENT VACATION <br /> <br />Curtis stated the applicant is the developer who subdivided the original 10 plus acre property into two 5- <br />acre parcels. In April of 2013, the eastern property at 4550 Wolverton Place was sold to new owners. In <br />April of 2014, the new owners of 4550 Wolverton Place questioned the purpose and viability of the <br />conservation easement and specifically claimed they had not been provided proper notification of the <br />easement’s existence when they closed on the property. At that time the City Council vacated the <br />easement over the 4550 Wolverton property. At the present time the property owners of 4570 are <br />requesting a similar vacation for the easement located over their property. <br /> <br />Curtis stated the Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the easement vacation at <br />its June meeting. <br /> <br />Curtis noted that staff recommends approval of the conservation easement vacation. As outlined in the <br />information packet, the applicant received a monetary benefit as a result of the initial granting of the <br />conservation easement with the subdivision. It is Staff’s position that if the easement is to be vacated, it <br />may be appropriate for the applicant to pay back a portion of the credit. Curtis stated if the City Council <br />agrees, the fee reimbursement analysis has been provided in the Council’s packet as Exhibit C. <br /> <br />Curtis noted that the City Council should direct Staff to draft a resolution reflecting the Council decision <br />regarding the vacation request. <br /> <br />Printup asked why the City would not want to vacate the easement. <br /> <br />Curtis stated if there is a public benefit to the easement, such as stormwater benefits, the City probably <br />would not want to vacate the easement. <br /> <br />Mattick stated the original idea behind the easements is that the easements would match up with each <br />other and provide continuity on what was being preserved. Mattick noted the easement on 4750 <br />Wolverton has already been vacated and that it may be appropriate to vacate this easement as well. <br /> <br />Mattick noted the easement area is more of an open space and is not a true functional utility easement. At <br />the time of the original approval, the applicant did receive a financial benefit for granting the easement to <br />the City. <br /> <br />Printup stated in his view the vacation is appropriate and that he is in agreement with the fee analysis. <br /> <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 07/28/2014 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 07/14/2014 <br />[Page 10 of 19]