07-28-2014 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 19 (7. #14-3674 LORI GHERARDI ON BEHALF OF WOLVERTON PLACE, LLC – 4570 WOLVERTON PLACE – CONSERVATION EASEMENT VACATION, Continued) Stephenson stated he is having trouble understanding the fee reimbursement analysis. Stephenson stated there was $26,868 total available and that he did receive a discount of $13,433. Stephenson stated if the City had chosen to recover against the other property, $10,478 should be attributable to the east lot. Stephenson stated if the City receives the amount that is being recommended, they would actually receive more than the total amount that was paid, and that he does not understand why it would not be the $13,433 minus the $10,478 that is attributable to the east lot, which comes out to $29,055. Gaffron stated the original fee based on the entire subdivision prior to any credit would have been $26,866. The property owners received a 50 percent credit, which dropped it to $15,433. Gaffron stated after the Wilcox vacation, only 2.43 acres of the 10 acres were still encumbered by the conservation easement. Gaffron stated had that easement on the east lot never existed. The final fee would have been reduced by only 24 percent on the total of $26, 866. Gaffron stated the easement, however, was granted over the east property and the additional proposed vacation of 1.33 acres of grassland south in the west lot leaves 1.10 acres in conservation easements for the whole subdivision. Stephenson noted most of the land is on his lot. Gaffron stated 1.10 acres is to remain in a conservation easement at the end of this application. The original stormwater fee would have been reduced by 11 percent and the final fee would have been approximately $23,911. Gaffron stated the difference between the stormwater trunk fee paid by the applicants based on the credit and the amount that would have been paid based on an 11 percent credit is $10,478. Gaffron stated the City chose not to recover the portion attributable to the east lot. Bremer asked if that was because it was a different owner. Gaffron stated it was a different owner and a different situation. Gaffron stated the east lot share was 54 percent of the $10,478. The west lot’s share of that would be 46 percent. Gaffron stated the City chose not to recover the fee on the east lot but that they are recommending that it be recovered for the west lot. Stephenson stated he has a problem with the 54 percent and the 46 percent since it does not take into account how much land is being vacated and that essentially he is subsidizing part of the vacation on the east lot. Stephenson stated Staff is assuming that they are also vacating the other easements in a pro rata share in the same amount. Stephenson noted there are other easements on his property and most of those easements will remain. Stephenson stated they are still giving the benefit of those easements to the City. Stephenson stated when you take the individual property given back, there is a higher amount attributable to the east lot, and that all of the easements have not been vacated in a pro rata basis. Stephenson stated what was vacated by the east lot works out to the $10,478, which is the vast majority of what was under easement on the property. Stephenson stated if that amount is subtracted from the discount; that is the amount he is asking the City to vacate, which works out to $2,955. Stephenson stated the pro rata does not work because they were not vacated on a pro rate basis and not all easements were vacated. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 07/28/2014 Approval of Council Minutes 07/14/2014 [Page 12 of 19]