11-12-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CT.T. , . -TTHB MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28,2002 7:00 o’clock p.m. 15. II02-2843 PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF ORONO, 2765 KELLEY PARKWAY DISCUSSION OF WETLAND AND OTHER ISSUES Gaflron reported that the Planning Commission on October 21 recommended approval of the General Development Plan for the proposed medical/dental office after reviewing the most recent plan sheets. This item is scheduled for Council action on November 12 assuming a number of remaining issues can be suitably resolved. Some of the remaining issues that require Council discussion and policy decisions include: 1 . There is still no purchase agreement for sale of the City property to the applicants. GaHron explained that issues, which appear to be holding up completion of the purchase agreement, include the following. a) Potential need for wetland mitigation: Gaffion indicated that the questions that need to be answered include, if the wetland requires mitigation, who will be responsible, the seller (City) or buyer; if the buyers are responsible, how will that affect the purchase price; while on site mitigation is preferable, it is not known if that will be possible. Gaff-on laid out staff recommendations to this first issue, as follows: The buyer should be responsible for the mitigation; if the buyer can mitigate on site, the usability of the site is not diminished, therefore the price of the land should not be affected; if mitigation occurs offsite, this becomes an issue of negotiation of if or how the costs are shared among the parties. With regard to the wetland issue, although John Smyth of Bonestroo, on the City’s behalf, filed an application for exemption with the MCWD (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District) on or about September 1st, the MCWD has made slow progress at reaching any conclusion on our request. In their view, Smyth and Ben Meyers of Bonestroo, believed that the wetland on this parcel should be considered as incidental, since it was something that was created based on the City’s activities on that site over the past 8-9 years. Therefore, they still believe the wetland that is out there should not be something that is subject to the WCA, wetland conservation act regulations. Gaffron stated that the MCWD convened a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) on Monday October 7 to view the site and attempt to conclude w hether the wetland is subject to mitigation requirements as filed, however, neither staff nor Smyth were notified by MCWD of that meeting and therefore were not given the opportunity to discuss the merits of our request. Gaf&on pointed out that as of October 25,2002, Mike Wyatt of MCWD staff had indicated that he was inclined to recommend denial of the exemption. Smyth still feels there is sufficient supportive information to change Wyatt’s mind. f 4 PAGE 12 of 20