11-25-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' i MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 12,2002 7:00 o*clock p.m. 5. #02-2843 PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF ORONO, 2765 KELLEY PARKWAY - CoD|inued GafTfron noted that, while the purchase agreement remained outstanding, issues related to the sale of the City property to the applicants would be dis. ’ssed at a work session later in the week. With regard to the wetland issue, Gaffron reported that the MCWD TEP panel had determined that the wetland should be considered incidental and therefore exempt from WCA mitigation requirements. As it is crucial to the City’s plan for a trail to run along Highway 12, Gaffron pointed out that if the MnDOT r-o-w is problematic, the City needs to obtain an easement over the dental office property, and argued that now is the time to do so. Gaffron maintained that public sidewalks would be located partially within the property and partially within the Kelley Parkway right-of-way, therefore the City should obtain an easement over the portion of sidewalk outside the r-o-w, as it would serve the public. Gaffron further recommended that the City calculate the acreage-based development fees on the gross acreage of the site, not exclusive of easements. With regard to stormwater management, Gaffron indicated that, just that day, the City had received the contingency plan demonstrating ponding on the neighboring parcel, if the Dahlstrom Development pond plan was not acceptable to MCWD. Engineering matters, as noted in Tom R^llogg s letter of September 25, 2002, Gaffron noted had not been formally addressed, however, would be prior to issuance of building permits. In reference to rezoning the parcel at “2745" Kelley Parkway, Gaffron noted that because the applicants had incorporated a portion of the adjacent parcel into their site planning, language w'as included In the final development plan approval that requires future development of the adjacent parcel to be via the PUD process. By developing the adjacent parcel via the PUD process, this gives the City more control and the developer a better opportunity to be granted certain things without demonstrating a hardship. In review of the final development plans, Gaffron acknowledged that the site plan, architectural style, and signage are similar to the layouts approved in the Revised Concept Plan approval phase. The parking easements/agreements would be subject to final approval of the City Attorney and would be required prior to Council approval of the final development plan. With regard to the lighting along Kelley Parkway, the City had not yet reached a conclusion on the style of street lighting to be provided. The site lighting plan consists of approximately eight treestanding 25 ’ high light poles with shoebox style fixtures. Gaffron noted that while staff believes the proposed lighting plan is reasonable, it could be improved by judiciously adding more lighting fixtures and placing them at a lower height. Finally, Gaffron pointed out minor changes to the landscaping plan, which included further screening of the trash enclosure to limit direct view by westbound Highway 12 traffic. Once again, since the City had not determined the strcetscape for Kelley Parkway, Gaffron felt that final acceptance of the proposed species and their spacing should be left for future consideration. PAGE 4 I