Laserfiche WebLink
I. <br />E <br />i <br />Tot <br />Datet <br />Subject t <br />Mayor Peterson & Orono Council Members <br />City Administrator Bernhardson <br />Orono Planning Commission <br />May 6, 1991 <br />Recommendation Regarding Need for New Municipal <br />Facilities and Preferred Site(s) for Location of <br />These Facilities <br />The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the <br />replacement of the existing^ substandard facilities of the City <br />and to adopt a plan to expedite the installation of <br />facilities consisting of City Hall and Council Chambers, Police <br />station and Public Works office and garage based on the findings <br />set forth in the Citizens* Facility Committee report* It is <br />further recommended that these facilities be located on a single <br />site to achieve economies in operation, increased efficiency <br />Xevel of services to residents, positive impact on staff morale <br />finally to create and/or define an indentification (ID) for <br />City of Orono. <br />The Planning Commission unanimously recommended Site #1 <br />(Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road) as preferrable to the four <br />other sites studied by the Facilitie • Committee. Sites #2 <br />through #5 (Site #2, old sewer pond» Site #3, " <br />current facilities? Site #4, North Shore Drive park land? Site <br />#5, County Road 15 - east of Hennepin Countiy DOT facility) <br />located in established or developed residential areas, some with <br />very high densities. If the total facilities were to be placed <br />on either of these sites, it would be impossible to minimize the <br />ismact on existing residential development. In addition to the <br />findings cited by the Facilities Committee in their report, in <br />consideration of the five sites, the Planning Commission notes <br />the following findings in their selecting Site #1 as their <br />preference? <br />1. The new facility must address the needs of the City for <br />at least 50 years. If expansion was necessary at some time <br />in the future, it would be impossible to expand without <br />granting excessive variances. <br />2. The Planning Commi sion unanimously concurred that <br />variances should not be granted by the City in tlw planning <br />for the new facility. At least 2 of the sites (#^ and #3 - <br />old sewer pond site and existing facilities) would require <br />multiple variances because of restricted building envelopes.