11-12-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28,2002 7:00 o*clock p.m. (802-2843, PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF ORONO, Continued) Moorse argued that our engineer or consultant should have been given the opportunity to attend the initial TEP panel to represent our interests, and believed a second panel should be scheduled with our people present. Murphy added that arrangements should be made to meet with their TEP panel on the 7th, the same day we are scheduled on their district agenda, to get a decision made. Dr. Kotteman stated that the only way they would be able to begin building this year would be if the wetland was found exempt, otherwise everything may have to wait. Gappa indicated that, for example, with regard to the fire station, the District could not make its final decision the same evening and it had to be put off for two weeks, which in this case would be November 21,2(X)2. As the end of the growing season is typically October 15, Gafiron maintained that had the MCWD made a timely decision after the application was filed September 1st, we would not be in this quandary. Issue b) Potential need to construct Highway 12 trail within the property. Gafiron indicated that based on discussions with MnDOT, it is unlikely they will approve construction of a trail in their right-of-way. Staff suggests the City obtain an easement along the south 10 ’ of the property for the trail, ’just in case’. Murphy inquired where the County stood on this issue. While Gaffron could not say, ultimately, he believed that the City would have to include it a.s part of its conditions. Dr. Berg pointed out that the 10 ’ they refer to is where the sign and proposed landscaping would be placed. Item c) Public sidewalks and trails constructed within the property Dr. Kotteman explained that, originally, they entered into negotiations to purchase a »'vo acre parcel, which has now been diminished greatly by all of these conditions. Conditions, which will impact and not be considered for inclusion in the final purchase price of the site. Sansevere questioned whether it would be done this way even if the City were not the seller. Gafiron stated that it could be precedent setting to some extent, however, the bigger issue is that the applicants are purchasing the entire parcel and granting easements back to the City, if they don’t want to purchase the entire parcel then the City will have to do a subdivision to either dedicate more right-of-way or do something that changes the property boundaries. PAGE 17 of 20