My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-12-2002 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
11-12-2002 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/13/2012 4:06:31 PM
Creation date
4/13/2012 4:06:30 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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, November 12, 2002 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />5. #02 -2843 PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF ORONO, 2765 KELLEY PARKWAY — <br />Conlinued <br />Gaffron indicated that staff recommended approval per the attached "Resolution Granting General <br />Development Plan Approval for Planned Unit Development No. 3 for Professional Properties of <br />Orono, Inc. ". Whereas the enclosed resolution includes language that allows approval to become <br />effective only when the remaining issues have been resolved and all conditions requiring action, as <br />identified by the Planning Commission, have been satisfied. <br />Murphy inquired as to where the applicants stood with regard to the City's recommendations. He <br />asked if they found the path the City was taking to be acceptable. <br />Bob Ritter, of Professional Properties of Orono, reminded the Council that they were eager to get <br />going on the project. He stated that currently three contractors were bidding on the project and <br />each had suggested that the applicants lay hay over the site to prevent it from freezing. Ritter asked <br />if they could add their ability to go in and lay the hay as an addition to the Resolution. <br />White indicated that this was common practice, and if something happened to stop negotiations, the <br />City could require the applicants to remove the hay. <br />Murphy questioned whether there were other issues remaining, beyond the continuing trail issue. <br />He asked what alternatives the City had if MnDOT did not allow the trail to encroach on their r -o- <br />• w. <br />• <br />Gaffron stated that, to date, MnDOT had suggested that they were not interested in a trail on their <br />r -o -w. If the City does not require the easement from the applicants, the City may lose the trail <br />option altogether along this stretch. <br />Murphy asked if the diagram showed the best placement. <br />Gaffron noted that, as shown, the trail was quite low, however, if the trail were moved over it <br />would interfere with power poles etc. Gaffron felt that the public would be better served if the trail <br />could run in the MnDOT r -o -w, but the feasibility of that was yet to be seen. <br />Murphy asked who the City could deal with at MnDOT to further these discussions. <br />Moorse was unsure of the names of the individuals to whom he spoke. <br />Murphy indicated that representatives from the City would be meeting with MnDOT on Friday and <br />could bring in this issue to discuss as well. <br />Moorse maintained that the ideal would be to have Hennepin County reclaim this roadway and turn <br />it back into an urban section, likely to occur in 2007. Since this section would probably be turned <br />into a boulevard with curb and gutter at that time, Moorse felt they could talk to MnDOT. <br />Murphy concurred, suggesting they lay this scenario out for MnDOT and discuss it with their r -o -w <br />representatives. <br />PAGE 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.