My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-22-2017 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2010-2019
>
2017
>
05-22-2017 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/24/2019 2:54:40 PM
Creation date
5/24/2019 2:45:09 PM
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.
/
279
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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, May 8,2017 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />14. #17-3910 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 3245 WAYZTA BOULEVARD WEST, <br />INTERIM USE PERMIT: TEMPORARY USE FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGING. — Continued <br />Gaffron illustrated the location of the property. Gaffron pointed out the landfill area and the area for the <br />future development, the wetlands, the property boundary on the east, the access point, and the apple <br />orchard. <br />Seals asked if there is a way to verify that the contractor is truly only doing things related to this project. <br />Gaffron indicated it would not be a simple process to monitor everything that happens on the property and <br />that the City would likely have to hire someone and require submittal of daily bills of lading for what is <br />brought to the site. <br />Dankey commented this is a good location since it is far enough away from the businesses and residential <br />homes. It is also a good use of a vacant lot. <br />Walsh asked if the applicants are talking about storage or rock crushing or both. <br />Curt Fretham, Lake West Development, stated their first priority was to do rock crushing or asphalt <br />recycling for the Highway 112 improvement project but they did not recognize the amount of time it <br />would take for approval. As a result, the contractor started looking for alternatives and then began using <br />the Mn/DOT site. Fretham, stated he is hopeful that use of this site will help alleviate some of the <br />concerns that have been expressed. <br />Fretham stated in their view it is a good site for this type of activity and that they believe they can manage <br />the process well given their experience with other similar projects. Fretharn stated he understands there <br />has been concern that product will come in from other locations. Fretharn stated if that is not allowed, he <br />would be losing a competitive edge because the contractor is using a taxpayer owed property free of rent <br />and he does not have to go through the permitting process, which creates an uneven playing field. In <br />order to get the contractor to use this site, it is likely they will have to be given the opportunity to bring <br />other material to this site apart from the Highway 112 project. <br />Fretharn noted the contractor would be using the Mn/DOT site for this year and that he will need to <br />incentivize them in some way in order to get them to use this site. <br />Fretham. noted he did hear public comments tonight that the contractor was performing the crushing <br />downtown but that he did not hear any of them say it was dusty. Fretharn stated he is looking for <br />approval to perform crushing and storage on the site. <br />Seals asked if the other sites would go away if this site is approved. <br />Fretharn stated he believes so. Fretham stated it is hard to get the contractor to agree until he has <br />received approval. <br />Walsh stated the question would be where they would do it if this site is not approved and the Mn/DOT <br />site is not available. <br />Dankey stated if she was a business owner, she would not be happy. <br />Page 13 of 34 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.