Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-06-1991 Planning Packet
- *-I ' • r- Planning Commission Council m PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO MEETING DATE ‘ ■S.PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. ■V' NAME (please print)ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) 0- du Jit . JLII •s if (' ft f / 7. / d y 'i. i c -lOg 7 r / V X .0- vA A-y / TV ATfSMDAHCE - CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 6, 1991; 7:00 P.M. 1275 BRONN ROM) SOOTH - COONCIL CHA LW' SCHEDULED PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING - Municipal Facilities - Site Location 1. 7:00 p.m. Tour of City Facilities (Crystal Bay) Site Location Study - Review by Jac)c Boarman Facility Committee's Recommendation - C. Steven Wilson Public Comments Planning Commission Discussion and Recommendation T LIST OF EXHIBITS - Exhibit 1 - Bernhardson's Memo 8/17/90 Exhibit 2 - (1-7) Location Map & Site Plans Exhibit 3 - Bernhardson's Memo 9/18/90 Exhibit 4 - Bernhardson's Memo 10/16/90 Exhibit 5 - Bernhardson's Memo 4/30/91 A - Facility Committee's Recommendation B - Financial Site Comparison C - Minutes of Facilities Committee Meeting 4/4/91 D - Minutes of Facilities Committee Meeting 4/29/91 E - Information Presented by John Farnhaun to Council 4/22/91 F - EOS Letter Dated 4/24/91 G - Information Prepared by John Farnham Re: Response to Facility Committee's Draft (undated) H “ Financing Survey of Public Facilities - Boarman 'mm if ■'U ■: »' . • . . . . . .■m. ' -S s %w;. A i mm m • ' KU6 « 4 4 CCiT;2 i ■ •' • ‘ IiC TO:Orono City Council Orono Citizen's Advisory Committee RE:Orono Municipal Facilities Study FROM:Jack Boarman DATE August 17.1990 Comm. #:1124.02 » a 5!^^ n2S^lSto MunC and conanltwe r»naw. Also indud«l Is an area map - • ^ ^ ___ S S'cSimS^S McrnS^”* From the committees’ work to date, their direction to date is as follows: 1. SITE PLAN REVIEW The committee reviewed sites l through 4 as possible locations for the Municipal Center. Site 1 was felt to be the preference due to location. visibUity. anticipated cost, and adjacency to the future Hennepin County Library. ^ \ , f • It : n <1 S I f «f f sola 5 1 ■« ■ * I I J •» fia in jfliy#n4f% ■: w ^ ■A ,m ’ ^«mra i rrriJfr » *» *- • mmm. Sites 2 and 3 on tne scnool oropertv wera worKacle ajtnougn cufteni statements by tne school site planner maKes Site 2 cirectly across from the school potentialy not available due to their requirements for that area to be used as a new elementary school. Site 3 was viewed by the committee to be somewhat less visible and too removed. The school site planner stated that this area of the school site was for secondary functions and the architect took that to mean that there was some room for discussion on the availaoiiity of this site. Site 4 Is a part of a 50 acre track and with the frontage road access, cuts a portion or the area such that the city hall and the public works would be across the street from each other. The comer site proposed for the city haU would be at a higher cost premium in the S40 000 + /* per acre. The site does not seam readily avalable since the owner wants to keep the track intaa Ftom the geological maps there appears to be poor soU immediately adjacent to the public works area to the north. The committee direaed the con.-uitant to look at two more sites at Willow and Highway 6. BUILDING COST/QUAUT/'' EVIEW The committee reviewed the same options as the council reviewed with ail the respective materials and samples. The committee had questions on various items most of which were answered at the meeting. The discussion of floor materials brought up the issue of quarry tUe versus terrazzo. There were some discussions about cost maintenance and safety in regards to these hard surface lobby materials. The architect's concern Is ttie slipperiness of terrazzo. and the its respective cost Quarry tile Is somewhat less expensive arid can be installed with a texnra to maintain a less stippery surface when wet The cost comparisons from Qrazzini Brothers for these two materials presented that quarry tile is approximately S5.50 per s.f.. with terrazzo ranging from SS.50 up to S9.00/s.f. depending on the size of the installation The small lobby areas for this project would be in the S9.00 range. The attach ed list of cost/quality items illustrates the committee ’s concensus. Speciffcaily, the committee felt that the 18.000 s.f. projncted building size should be the maximum buPdIng developed, and earlier design schemes should be revised to maintain this 18.000 s.f. limit The committee rejected the use of interior brick proposing that the intenors be vinyl of a light and open feeling as opposed to dark and institutional. Several items were put on hold (l.a basement modular brick, lobby skyiight. and elevator) until a site has been picked. The committee felt that the overall cost of the project could be reduced If the respective site would allow a first floor and lower level design with windows into the lower level. This could create some savings, but would require an elevator. AU of the other items on the list were acted upon by committee. The committee reviewed 16 different dty hall projects as presented by the architect in the slide show that they prepared. Similar to the councP’s tour of facPities. the committees concern was to have a quality looking buPdIng but not one that was too General feelings were that the buPdlngs should have varying height sloped roofs with brick and stone exterior wall finishes. ^.1 • 4 ! I I At this point in the aovisory ccmmirt96 process the City Council needs to review the site recommendations of the committee and explore the option possibilities such that preliminary design work can begin at a specific site location. >r There was discussion about the existing city hall site for a new building wi^ concern by the committee members about the positive or negative attitudes of the immediate residents to the current site. Input directly from the residents about how the land is to be used would be discussed in any public hearing that would normally be a part of the project as it would move ahead from this point Preliminary discussions with respect to residents in the area would be helpful to get a general sense of where they are at To date, the concensus of the committee is that the site should be in the general area of the school for reasons of accessibUlty. visibility, functional definition with other institutiortal structures, non-conflict with residential and potential availability of land. The joint meeting of counefl and committee Is recommended to further pursue the issues. The committee is interested in moving forward on a specific design, cost and site for their final recommendations to the council. If in your review of this memo, there are any corrections that need to be made, please notify me at the next meeting on Wednesday, August 22,1990 at 7:30. r'. .Jj..' ' •1 1 i I m ORONO CITY HALL/POLICE . \dvisory Committee Cost/Quality Review OATE^APRfL RP/IEW) AUGUST 10. 1990 (REVISED) 1. 2. A. h B. C. ’ D. F. G. t- H. COMMITTEE ACTION I. A ■i j.. . 1 11 ----------------------------------------------- DAci: mill niKin S1.350.000 Accent Saxon 11 'ck, Asphalt Shinglas. Rock Faca Block 18,000 S.F.@S75/S.F. OPTIONAL ITEMS ManUatn fitnne fnr Rock FaCti Block S31.320 Accent H/latal Qnnfinn for A<?Ohalt ShiOOlSS S68.450 Accent Intannr Brink PubliC Ar©aS S41.435 Reject \/inwi Wall Pahric for Painted Wails S6.850 Accent -A'.. ■, f ■' HKyiciHiA jnnil Araa 524.580 Accent Pi imi<;hprl Block at Police Secured Ares S28.552 Accent S173.000 Hold 4,325 S.F. @ S40/S.F. Kyfnrii liar Rrirk for Saxon Brick S13.660 Hold 1 nhh\/ npi inn Skvlioht 516.460 Hold Eievatoc -------------------------------------------------560.000 Hold :4 L * ” ■ • d I vrblwriiAilivi ra\aMVAkM^ula.i^fileAsfear^A£r i-^cxr^r . . >i>n '^/ ZONE 1 - SCHOOL AREA CITY HALL/POUCE/PUBLIC WORKS ZONE 2 - CITY SEWER POND AREA CITY HALL/POUCE/PUBLIC WORKS ZONE 3 - EXISTING CITY HALL PUBLIC WORKS AREA CITY HALL/POUCE ONLY / , ZONE 4 - CITY OWNED LAND CITY HALL/POLICE ONLY ZONE^ - NAVARRE AREA CITY HALL/POUCE/PUBLIC WORKS 'a1 «iAR£njGk VfEDNA ' « R UT C • ^ ti _ j Official Zsrmyg M.to I Cly o< Orooo. .^Anneioia #3 ;'«! City of Orono, Minnesota IT- MiWWUMH JUIfA OCTAA MA* SBSmm 1 iiiiinAft*^ mil U. O K-i O F4>^ luiULS. ^U.sJkUV' ^ 1180 t4Kioi lO parc TD ^i>iuploCi^ : I. ^xnr4«. /J4V ’ /'#«/■ ,//*•«»•♦•/{•/*•»•, tf Aiitftg f $. y^4t-tc ii*fAAC£ 4, FOLlC£ CAJ^ACi s, roLicc or^/c£ ,*,A^y,t flsAe a» FUSi^iC WOflKS SHOf^ 7. FOfiLlC UVAKS C4t^^£ 3. couKfctL CAiA^tacas 9. FU3LIC i^Ofli^^ STUiAGEi, U^%tJ trt»% Mm A K‘l HOARMAN& ASSOCIAIES Anciiiiii luAi tNGiNCIKINO iNliaiOfi oi^iGii P R O J k C 1 ORONO MUNICIPAL FACILITIES ZONIE 3 SITE A EXISTING MUNICIPAL SITE *0n« Acre HliiliMMi *Ui wliltli |/.U*-0*i Sctli.ick I# •SIUk IO*-0“ •Her )0*-0‘* •S1.U (AJjuccni cu Str) 4 Ulll |i le New W.iler Mill kAiiil lug Scwiii t Lltfcirlc. Tvlc|>«IUl1«, Uuu 0__22_J0 J9< to io so ..oAEkii. t-'v- r -i ■ y- I ' ■• f. •.’ / / / , V % /w/ C '|»V. ■<; /«r« •/ ^U‘ *>-r 'r' S4\\ ^•vr/T *^040 y $$ >5^ >•<*/. (.0 *« .H ' ' ^V.* \. l'.'V •>S' C»'-^ » m V l5 , I -V ^ *^t«4.trt-/ 1.» (}) •y;f J X »*4«.f ’ t .A PUBLIC WORKS V 4 CITY MALiri TOLICE 1, _i ♦•••i* L [iL»« (••'S?A.'^ » »/!•/i.‘^ \ •»>—1 I, /^h: i / / * / / ♦ / ^1x5- /» / • ^ A I« « »•) 7*Tnr >>. /^>|L - \ 'f*^- HOARMAMfi ASSOC l/\l tS A IL i M I I I i I U n I I II i* I II I I l« I II (« III I I It IUi« IM ViGlI P R O J t C 1 ORONO MUNICIPAL FACILITIES ZONE 4 SITE D SEWER POND SITE Zii.'iiU: IM - I a *1 At:ru llliilMtirii ^1 •*! witllli Sudi.icktt ^Krwiit 3b*-ii*‘ IO*-l»’* •Kcir J0*-ir •Si.le 30*-li** (A«l)4<ii;ul iu Liir) UinItic^ llww Uuiur Well I.K 1 Ul llIK liewei , ll.ilci, !••< U • I a: I L 1 |<ll« lu.- 4 40U >^ri II fii v», ■>•» V •”•1 vt^ yi' I j ^0 U'* *. f m; • I I j T 'H'A ■7** j • •** *i '•< ’ll''* J *'**'* ^ M.*T -. -A ■i‘* ill •• .. I \ t « r-. Oif<r, . • fU M*' ., :j;j 4'...ji ,.s./f'''V|f, r- /p : -i*' (0 ' ) '>”!t-*'|-\^-i<.l,-,,^v.r,-. I n4* " ‘ • V V-*'./y ri^'/./♦ V <: >’/y /r^\<. - ■ - .1.1 V i •; t-- .-y--'-XV', ••' b'i •“;!•-'■ : I'i*!;vH-Kt3STis: yV\: i;0RT lERH VU ^‘. / •! '/ y / / • 1 2nar •r '12 3!; i * fi s 1 ' i >11III >i • I • 111 • >■ I'-'!!'..') i?.» ± r- ;l i I I v.u:|:c: : ;l‘’yirV.-(»7(KV' ■1 • t«! •) I•« ; II It 7?d{ ■'< u 1 in •II• * r M la.11 V r .’J A *4 i:••••. 4.1 ^ * ■* « i«r It n >t sK It to tl. II j . JVjNG* •I II »N •y ■J • I It I ll .•'* %%1 % f. A t . It Hr to P »^ll) SiC ^rOJ.117,R 23 BOAKMAN& ASSOCiAll S AUCIII ilC lUAi I II O I II I > i« ( I« IIII i i\ I o IV i) i 11 Cl II PROJECT ORONO MUNICIPAL FACILITIES ZONE 5 SITE E SIZE: \bl Acrctf |OCATIOM;“lll|iliWjy 15 ZOHtn; IJI - li: -I *1/2 Ai:r« hliiluMiv *iut wiaui luo rc. Stttbuckn •li.mt J0*-U ” *S|.lo lO'-vT* *Hcur 30*-U** •Side 30*-0 “ (AJ|uccfit lu Sir) Ul iMlJc^ Lxlullug U.iicr* Sew*. I, C.itt* Teli.*|>hi>iie • tleelric » 100 200 _ ^«i 300 mu dk' ••r • #. • 1- • i ■r* • • t MgBOB B BOBBO B WTUB B BiiMWi B iwisj^ B B?aMCH D Bcssaa u koxTa B ts3sr£t Q u^jffiBsa II imanpa B aaeica is r *• ..•! v 7 .•.,.••••.'••..•l'■. \ ... : » - - t •• . . • • ; ; ^ *• * *• ‘ * C ■ MC ^ • " • • • OROND ^ t . ^ SCHOOL PROP. r - L.'____I. 5 • • * *.. Cl D*C<Lr ‘ K£ . \ I1A I • 3d" ■ I •:__glii---------1 • • . • I I jaghi B Bgaia H • • * * • • • * •* . ^ .“••••« i ' • • \d ••••• ■X. ■ • i ■ '*!! ’/V' • • ■'.•••' i -' ’» • “'• •• ' . . • y L H * m. \ * ^ ' .’•I '• •»’ V‘V. '* ■; •* ’■•■ •' '■ • * ^ v^Tpv ' ••••• ••• ___- • •*- G LAKE I .* • f * 1 •r . . p . ^ • i • T .. ..*• • - V / » * . •** .... • : . ... . ■ .•’ •• •* •• • ••«> i w , II ]| rnrs ^^— ■ •••Vi/r. .\\ ••* ’»' * ••. •.••. Vv ■ '• • • • • . • • • VI \ . . • . ' ;.v J :Lv< ,- rr- A • . . • . • BOARMAN& associate? ArtClIlItClUOJ ^ H 0 I N f t f\ I M (i IHUfMOl' PP'^N 222 NORTH SECOTlO STREET MiNt;EAPOilS. MuiMESOiA (6U|iJJ UU ORONO MUNICIPAL FACILIIIES SITE PROPOSAL LOCATIONS . i I ' iiiMliliiillitliiilhi TOT • ;yj i) 1. _*C’f 1^------------i .i - •14 .O f i- , i yf ------------- I9S »;»?4 ••. :c($ .?< /< ? A< li)n» 1 Mir h ft t ‘ "• *r (^) ORONO SCHOOL BUILDINGS •> >v , V ^ 1 . # BOARMAN& ASSOCIA1E5 AdClIIIIC lUHl i N G i M C I i\ I N C I tl 1 C f\ I O 1% U I V I G l< p II o j i: c T ORONO MUN(CIPAL FACILITIES ZONi: 1 SITE F :SilZbt 1^ ktrau lOCATlON: Old try»li| tUy l(04id ZONCOi M - IB *2 Acr« Hliil«u« *l4it widtii 200 n Stftbut kit •Kru»l iU*-U** •Sld%: 30*-0** •Httui 50*-0** •:ild« 50*-0 ” (Ad)uc«:iil Tc» Scr) UillJilcb E« Inilag Scwsr, UuCvr, OrfM, Tcl«|t|iuti«, Electric 100 200 ^ dOC 300 • • ■ V •'S' *» fj«n ... f > , , . [■ m. 14J iCHttqCCUMPBYP^^PUBLIC vuoncs OARAGE I OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD f • • ■■'’ y..' f. ' ■ ■ >: "s'M .* -4 aid i^L FUTURE PROFFE8IONAL BUU)MQ SITE FUTURE HERNiPIN COUNTY LIBRARY SITE fc h()A:;‘.:A:-. y.Asso: :.-%i i s na NOfUN fKOMi sinuf ui«tf set a M40I |ht2)))i3?U ORONO MUNICIPAL FACILITIES SITE PLAN 1 PROPOSAL 1A A.-. '■‘■i \ .■4 F EXMN8I0N AREA I V- PI* I*' V WOODED MARSH AREA 8TDRACEYARO I AAMAMAAAAAA igi^iin l?Si t^Mitf. r a PUBLIC WORKS OARAGE •Um Uttar. ' ••• • •! CITY HALL r-"_ E.B ACRES (X:CUPgD BY PROPOSAL OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD CRYSTAL CREST CHURCH SUE iririirtMniHifef ifeiK /:<zzzz SKftn riOAKWAN' ASSOriATES 222 NQAtH SCCOHO MliLtf l«Nt4£M*aiS MtttfSOlA hUOl ORONO MUIICff>AL FACLITES SITE PLAN 1 PROPOSAL IB m HOMIIISCCCM $f f)i£? MNNCAfait. MMNE&Of A M40I #121130 3/U ORONO MUNICIPAL FACiLrnES SITE PLAN 1 PHOPOSAL J1F SITE PLAN 1 proposal id A' t- V; rnTM 1SJ ACRES OCCUPIEO B^PROPOSAL T PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE I 29,500 S.F. STORAGE Nof{T/^ I 0^ ApproilMte locillon iif Standird PenetrAtlon Tcsl Boring. la.OOO 8.F 'I ••=te S •-: ■• -r ;'S V - I f !V ! • LI 1 • 1 i *ii i» I 5ff-3 ^_ CS3 / FUTURE cm V BULDMG 7cn ( HALL POI ICE /JO'3ST>t-o*/adf'O-leo I ApproxiMt* location of Standard Penetration Test Boring (Sept lBd9)o OID CRYSTAl. BAY ROAD iFi BNCMCCRINQ TCSTING 90-594 PHUININABY rOlINflATION IIIVISTir.ATION Proposed Orono Nunlclpal racilUici IWy 12 and Old Crystal Bay Hoad Orono, MH / Uaui_!0:J:3a SkttCrIi it Orauij: D.IA ____ Si .•!»?: |* - liUl* /•i: 91490.7 TO: Mayor and City Council fBOM: Mark E. 3ernhardson, City Administrator DATS: September 13f 1990 SUBJECT: City Facilities Attachment: A. Facilities Report Dated ^17/90 B, proposed Newspaper Article ISSUE f-r *■1 c ..hii.h a oroo'« for detecming whether the City desires to ,'iercise\'t purlifes'e option on the land on Highway 12. 2. Presentation of infornation for a public information meeting ■? TNTRODacriOtl - ^ T Sta “ff was f??:rted'^obVai“n''a'opliVn r^pruperty on Highway 12. Thrs option has now been obtained. mm discussion - The ^ appro nominations by the Co unci , ‘litg has also been the general Highway 12. A Highway The facilities committee consensus of the ‘ ^%he Vi te* on Highway 12 recommended . tLl^ndV\"oa^r^"^ i‘n'’?f c\ystal lay area be converted W to park land for t.he neighborhood. "options for deciding whether Coucll exercise the land are: 1. Direct staff to exercise t.he option. 2. Place on the regular agenda for public input prior to exercising the option. If the City is to have a ^^io“tf a would be an appropriate ' ji. Article given the format ?”t“h«' b«n usii l5%he past for such transmissions indicating that it is from the City Council. anTERNATIVES - 1. Direct the City exercise the option. 2. Place as an item on an agenda for such input 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Take no action. fm: . fa;:,'; mmmJ PFroM ‘*ENDA'^'roii - It Is recommended that if the Council was to ^^ir^TTr?%^te for a oublic input meeting it be sec for the S^feober 22 1990 agenda a time for public input as part of the Regular Council agenda and that Attachment B be submitted to the r as an information item prior to that. OSED MOTION - Moved by _f seconded by —, that Council ct a public information meeting regarding exercising the m on the property. Ayes __r Nays — ■-•K. r /• .• ■*« •• =v -V ■ - ^ ■. ■- 4 mi . % i.'mm: - .'■- • ■ :'‘7v • . -c-- - ' ‘ -1 i-l i ■i 101650.2 !!ayor and City Council FItOH:Mark E. Bernhardson» City Administrator DAZB: October 16, 1990 SUBJECT: Facilities - Site Selection Attachment: c Letter to Facilities Comraittec/Planning Commission Dated 10/15/90 D. Minute Excerpts 9/24/90 Meeting E. Updated Cost Projections ISSUE 1. Detecmine if Council desires to select a site in order that further architectural work can be done. 2. If the option site is selected, when to exercise the option. 3. Provide Council with any additional information regarding the financial framework for the project. twtrqduction - AS noted in Attachment A the ‘1I9SAS „ nro<5ontation at the workshop on August 2J, lyyu recommendation select a site on Highway 12 as the and current C^ Bay site as a park. It :r.us. “• discussion - ■p ,ea *1 - <?it-o Selection - Soil borings have been completed on Issue tl z Sit^ seiecrioji -Ipiact »-he costs for tne site^on* H^"ghiari2° Jo^ether thV sew« |grs/« SHte\rn"lO%^S.tUVn=^ 3differential Is approximately j , aorikler support on a site ruric?pVi:^A«:r^^« \\“i°fr"t: w'?tls'’o?« l|?aVe® fl«.''ar%"j:e|u|?|f“”le“p^^^^^^«iiK worlcfl over ifOOQ square ceeii ww ----- This cost could go up to an additional $240,000. It should be IJL* f' m VtV. ♦. ^ 1^ t‘'6'- is a desira for Ciry Hall in Crystal Hay thenoted thau li. ■» -i*-o for the Public Works. It has Council then nee s Oo ^C,*nt- that the Orono sewer plantCouncil at^this ^oo'int that the Orono sewer plant been my ^^eotable site for Public Works, in whicnsite may not be an acweptable s Highway 12 site for thesite the’nighway 12 site for the case an /aect,mina 10 ac-es for Public Works it would Hall at accost of about 5103,000.) The basic reasons outlined in Attachment A and as the coheirs work session in August, were the following items. i - Parcel size to allow for combined facilities plus a reasonable expansion area; - Diminishing supply of available land; - compatability of facilities with surrounding land use; - Cost of land; - Degree of neighborhood intrusion; - Need for preservation of land for parks close to the lake; - Consideration of the historic nature of current site. "LVas .ee„ selectea. fini^rthe Ipt/on at thU time and “Aj,'It toJaids the end of the option. Once the option is exerclsea_ it ;,“rVe«St.“«"-iai*conthat b, ^elayi„, it, s.? f i-SCf BSi nonetary difference. r^mum «3 - Financial Information - Attachments B and C represent aaJTEionar financiar informacion Including three scenario : 4 ff •' 'm ■"4. A asing $3.3 million to cay off $3.5 million in bonds with no revenue flow back to the General Fund. the bonds with some money at a decreasing level back to the General Fund and leaving the City with approximately $2 million in 15 years when the bonds are paid off. C. Utilization of a 2% overall tax increase levy in conjunction with an ERA and a bond referendum which gene^'^al^^'fund^piis^^^^^ o«%hl bo°nds^plSs^l^ with over $2 million when the bonds are all paid off. iliSilliSfithird option would be in excellent financial shap«. through the funding of this project. A review of costs estimates from 1986 began with the building in ranae of $2.3 million which is now at $2.9 million. Following this initial space study done in January o^f estimated in the range of $3.4 million i ^ The estimate since last December has been $3.6-$3.7 million. ‘V. •ALTERNATIVES - Issue n - Site Designation 1. Select the option site. 2. Select an alternate site for: City Hall/Police Public Works 3. Table for further discussion. Isi^e >2 - Exercising the Option 1. If option site is selected , . ^ a. Select to exercise it with a closing date commenserate with timetable for construction 2. Table for further discussion pgroMMENDATION - T««n« *1 - It is staff's recommendation that Council accept the fUsL^dation Of “.Facilities comnittee tor »i\e “ that the next steps can be taken relating to complete schematic design and go to site specific design development. #4 M i k.i I Issue #2 - Given that the closing date probably will not change aubstantTialIv looking at a possible spring construction that the - “ris^So| a financial difference given the closing dates would probably similar. Issue *3 - It is recommended that the Council ask any questions period of time. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by Council designates site on Highway 12 as the site for construction and directs staf. ?o eaereisl tSe option by __________, 1990. Ayes :.ays Department Reads Facilities Committee Planning Commission 'M . ^ t *. ; > 7^ » *1. • > .w u.- >• 43091.2 TO:Chair Charles Kelley Planning Commission Members FROM: DATE: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat April 30, 1991 i)!J% SUBJECT: Facility/Site Recommendation Attachment:A. Facility Committee Recommendation B. Financial Site Comparison C. Minutes of Facilities Committee meeting 4/4/91 D. Minutes of Facilities Committee meeting 4/29/91 E. Information Presented by John Farnham to Council - 4/22/91 F. EOS Letter Dated 2/24/91 G. Information Prepared by John Farnham Regarding Response to Facility Committee Draft/Undated H. Financing Survey of Public Facilities/Boarman 1. Hold a public hearing related to a facility site. 2. Develop a recommendation for Council regarding site selection INTRODUCTION - At a joint meeting of the Council/Planning nn and Facilities Committee on April 4, 1991 the Council request d that both the Facilities Committee and the Planning Commission develop recommendations for it that would then be taken to the Council's May 13, 1991 meeting for a decision on a site. The Facilities Committee met on April 29, 1991 and Attachment A represents their recommendation. DISCUSSION - The Facilities Committee s^^mmary of their verbal recommendation to was the Highway 12 site on which the option. The Committee further indicated of Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road alternative, except for the cost that eminent domaine acquisition. recommendation was a Council last fall which City currently has an the southwest quadrant as being an acceptable might be entailed in At the Council's April 22, 1991 meeting Mr. Farnham presented Attachment F, outlining information he felt that was not available to Planning Commission and Council and that if made available would result in a different recommendation. The principal thrust of this together with Attachment G is that Mr. Farnham feels that the facilities can be downsized to the point that they could fit on existing property within the Crystal Bay neighborhood. (It is suggested that the size of the facility should be reduced by about 40 or 50% from the "prototypes" that has been worked with.) Attachment F represents Mr. Zack Johnson's response to part of the information in Attachment E. Attachment H represents a broader scope of information as it relates to various financing options utilized by various cities on facilities. Questions that are relevant to Mr. Farnham's information include; 1. Is site selection solely driven by cost or are factors such as compatible of use also relevant? 2. Can the building be reduced to the size that Mr. Farnham suggests in order to fit on the Crystal Bay site? 3. If so, what functions/staff/equipment should be cut out in order to accommodate that. V: (Site selection itself represents about a 10% cost of the overall project and capital facilities represent about a 10% overall operator budget cost. It is estimated that the cost of facilities at the present prototype on Highway 12 size would represent a 1-2% increase in peoples overall taxes and this is primarily to maintain the City's strong financial status.) ALTERNATIVES Site Selection 1. Highway 12 2. County Road 15/Navarre 1 j/* ■ • ; •. 3. Crystal Bay/South Brown Road 4. County Road 19/Park land 5. Old Crystal Road/Sewer Plant ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. Develop a site recommendation. .4 ■ . V 2. Table for further information. RECOMMENDATION - It's recommended that once the Planning Commission has the information they feel relevant, make a recommendation to Council regarding the site. cc;Mayor and City Council Department Heads John Farnham, 3225 Carman Road, Excelsior Jack Boarman, Boarman & Associates Facilities Committee 55331 »o oI 4 \\ C* it CITYof ORONC Nfunkiptl OfRccs Post Office Box 66 Cnxul Bay, MlnmsoU 55323 report of the orono citizens facilities COMI'ITTEE “ono City Council one or mote sites tor location of a new Cit ^all and Council Chamber/ Police Station and Public Works Office and Garage. 199o ”-Hl7^99;?%Smn9ro^ fiiy'I’e “AV o , 22', illS: ?he latter being a joint meeting with the Orono City council, and on April 29, 1991 to write its report. Committee a??endance at the si* (6) meetings averaged in excess of seventy- five percent (75%). The City's facilities consultant, Jeo^ Boatman of Boatman s Associates was present at all meetings to assist the Committee. Mark E. Betnhardson, City Administtatot> was Dtesent at most of the meetings. City staff including employees from administration, police and public works were available as needed. p?Lenrc\\^^^facllities^°r^^^ projectd City needs, new city facilities of comparable communities and proposed City facilities sites. III. Findings. following findings; Based upon its review the Committee made the beyond repair (recently structural problems have surfaced in the Public Works Garage which will require construction of a $ ' pole barn to serve as a temporary Public Works Garage if Public Works Garage is not commenced immediately}. 2. The ideal site for City facilities would have the following characteristics: (a) Easily accessible to the public. mmymm telephone -473-73S7 • FAX-4TWMI0 , i REPORT OF THE ORONO CITIZENS FACILITIES COMMITTEE (b) Not in a residential area. (c) Does not take residential property. (d) Easy to direct people to. (e) Near public facilities of a similar nature. (f) City utilities available. (g) Large enough for a campus of facilities with room for future needs as yet undetermined. (h) Open for building expansion and growth. The Committee determined that there are operating efficienciesr cost savings and morale benefits to City employees ir__ rtP a Hall- Police Station and Public Worksior locatioA of a City Hall, Police Station and Public Works Garage at one location. ■ The Committee discussed at length the desirability of having a central location within Orono for City facilities. The consensus of the Committee was that prominence of location and ease of access to the City facilities were more important than centrality. K IV. Site Review. The Committee reviewed five sites which the consultant and City staff had preliminarily determined to be available without condemnation and feasible for location of one or more City facilities. The five sites and the Committee's review findings are: (a) Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road (Orono School Site). This site meets all of the Committee's criteria. The committee felt that Highway 12 is the main feeder for the community, that the proximity of the Orono public schools complex further reinforces the identity of Orono and that the possible future development of a Hennepin County library and an ice arena nearby were additional pluses. The site has plenty of room for future development and utilities are readily available. (b) County Road 15 (adjacent to Hennepin County Public Works). This site also meets all the Committee's criteria but there was little interest in the site. The site was considered to be somewhat small and access seemed to e somewhat difficult. The site provided no real identity for the City facilities or for Orono. (c) South Brown Road (Existing City Hall). The site is too small upon which to locate all City facilities. Even its size for the proposed location of a City Hall and Police Station (without a Public Works Garage) is marginal without acquisition of several residential properties and/or t i, report of the oromo citizens facilities committee variances. There is some concern that a larger City Hall will create additional traffic incompatible with the surrounding residential area. (d) County Road 19 (Park Land Site). The Committee felt strongly that this site was far too residential and that use for City facilities would be inappropriate for the area. (e) Old Crystal Bay Road (Old Sewer Treatment Plant). The Committee felt strongly that this location was far too residential and that use for City facilities was inappropriate. Additional concerns with the site were its relative narrowness limiting flexibility in development and the current layout of Old Crystal Bay Road, specifically the narrowness of the road, the large curve at the entrance to the site and the availability of only one access road from the site to Old Crystal Bay. V. Economic Considerations. Economic considerations were not a primary selection criteria of the Committee for a site. It was recognized that costs of new facilities will be driven more by the cost of improvements built than by the cost of land. Rather, the Committee sought to recommend a site which would give the City the most flexibility to design and develop ultimately detrmined to be appropriate for Orono. Nevertheless, the Committee was aware that the principal argument in favor of the Existing City Hall site and the Old Crystal Bay Road site were that the sites were already owned by the City and that utilization of either or both of these sites would reduce land costs of new City facilities. The City's facilities consultant prepared an estimate of site costs exclusive of building improvements comparing costs for four possible sites. The sites were (1) all facilities at the Orono School site; (2) all facilities at the Old Crystal Bay Road site; (3) City Hall/Police at existing City Hall site and Public Works at Orono School site; and (4) City Hall/Police at Existing City Hall site and Public Works at Old Crystal Bay Road site. That estimate is attached to this Report as Attachment A. In general the attachment supports the conclusion that there is no appreciable difference in site costs of any of the four sites. This is due to the fact that the cost of acquisition of the Orono School Site is assumed to be substantially offset by the sale of Old Crystal Bay Road site and the cost of soils correction work at the Orono School site is offset by the need for water/sprinkler support at the Existing City Hall site and the Old Crystal Bay Road site. Of course, the attachment is only an estimate and is based upon certain assumptions such as the city's determination to sell property but the Committee believes the attachment provides a sufficient basis to reach the conclusion that economic issues rv,/- nl I (m. n hirinmril . U ; .* REPORT OF THE ORONO CITIZENS FACILITIES COF*MITTEE should not drive the site selection process. VI. Recommendation. It is the unanimous recommendation of the Committee that the City acquire the Orono School Site for development of combined City facilites including a City Hallr Police Station and Public Works Garage. The Committee notes that if the property at the southwest corner of Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road which is in close proximity to the Orono School site and which was previously investigated by the City as a possible site, could be acquired at reasonable cost, that property would also meet the Committee's criteria for site selection. April 29, 1991 orono Citizens Facilities Committee Nancy Walsh Gretchen Menze.i C. Steven Wilson Morris Nelson L. Bill Stubbs Dr. Robert Gehrman Mary Smith Marvin Kramer Helen Hauser George A. Johnson r C. Steven Wilson, Recorder my'ivm m 1 ■4 CITY PACILITIBS - CITY OP ORONO Capital Coats (Sits Spaeiflc) Land Costa Loss Sals of Fropsrtys Crystal Bay/Ksighborhood OCl/8swr Plant Bits Dspslopsunt Soils Corrsetion Mtsr/Sprinklsr Support Sstisr/Dtilitiss Landscaping Btrsst/Parking/Cnrb-Gattsr DMolitioo/Cnrrsnt Phasing Bidding Cliaats (if construction 0t\Post Offios (800 af t 160-70) (assuaas inooas currant Isvsl) Joint DsasIopMnt/Bidding Sits COKHON SITE SPLIT SITE C.City Ball/Polics D.City Hall/Polics B<» Old Crystal Bay Crystal Bay Crystal Bay A. Bighvay 12 Sswsr Plant Neighborhood Neighborhood Public Works -Public Works - Highway 12 OCB Sewer Plant 1292,000 <*W $0 $292,000 $0 (34,500)a >44,500)0 0 (200,000)W 0 i (200,000)0 \ 160(-415,000)15,000 75-150,000 15,000 0 162,800-282,800 162,800 285,000 25,000 25-50,000 35,000 240,000 60,000 60.000 60,000 60,000 90,000 120000 120,000 95,150 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 0 0 40,000 40,000 dslaysd)51-145,000 8%-145,000 0 0 50-60,000 50-60,000 5%5-101 0 0 of bldg of bldg savings savings (5«/145,000)(51/145,000) k;.‘- 0(7)35-50,000 30-50,000 Poasible realignment Possible rsaligrunent Acquisition of 100-200,000 of OCB (100-200,000) Bousss Minimun l-$S0,000/hou8e -75,000 427,500 408,300 Sits 145,000 282,500-537,500 145,000 263,300-626,100 704,800-949,800 670,100-860,100 1,000,000* :• /.I'M m i I MSm • Vv*. • - r:> *at o ■ - V xfi r^mmm IfW • '■ r yj' V r V.CIT» FACILITIES - CITY OP ORONO COMMON SPLIT 12) «,hS:v 12 ,Crv"irB.,MS.-rPl.«t, Vsbicltts Can stora Adaln/Polica vahlclaa in wintar without additional •«f. Pualinq on aita. Raaain outslda Pual at split sita (wastad awployaa tiaa) or 2nd fuel syataa •^lova parking < 4 r- ■A^f At a ainiauM raqoira racapt1on1at/sacrat a ry at Public Works or always hava suparvisor prasant ($30,000/yr). 2nd talaphona systaa for PHs. Ufa of Existing Propartiast tawar Plant facilitias Crystal iay/Currant City Ball Easidantial Sana as A If Public Works Diractor aovaa to this facility nead fddn confaranca spaca/^^q/acuip. Rasidantial Facilitias Facilitias Expandability of Sitai m Park or housing (plus post offica as is) Mora linltad than A Rasidantial Facilitias Extra bldg aita plus building axpansion of Joint Sita for Otbor Pnrposasi cb/pd/pw (big lots)m- CB/PD Vary linitad CH/PD Vary linitad PW Good PW Good Linitad Saa C (Library/Poat Offica) mm ■A. *Loeatability*i Baaidanta Could ba usad in conjunction with librsry/poat offica/achool/othar co—arcial, ate. Nona apart f ron incorporating axisting post offica Posaibla - but wav ba liaitad -Won^Rasidanta* Easily dascribad Raasonably aasy Saa C Raasonably aasy Easily dascribad Not ss assy Kora difficulT Raasonabla Easy Parsons mmy go to ona sita hoping to find tha othar. 1*; • M 1- I*!*' r ■■■;;;■ i > 1 r'* •'^1F. t- ■5e wmm \ : CITY PACILITIBS “ CITY OP ORONO COMMON B LOCATION CAasttMd Gaographic Cantar of City - OCB a Saver Plant) Diatancai froB "Cantar” Proai OCB/N8 Drive Tisat Proai OCB/NS Drive (Highway 12) (Sever Plant) CH/PD fw ^ (Cryatal Bay) Highway 12 (Crystal BayHSever Plant) SPLIT CH/PD 2 milaa 2.5 All reaidenta can raa.'h this site without going thru another comunity. 0 0.5 1.5 1 2 2.5 1.5 1 0 0 COMPATIBLB LAND USB Typei Commercial Hesidential/ Natural* Urban Residential Commercial Urban Residential Comercial *City Hall/Police-Office/Retail ^Public Nor)cs-Lt. Industrial *Scale*/Mass Similar/Small than current surrounding 4x5 times 6-12 times Equal/less 8-12 times 4-5 times Variances At current roning - yes Building Setbac)c8 None None (If no None or limited expansion) Crecruires street closing) See C None Parking1 Setbacks I of spaces Hardcover (DMB-proposed regulations - 25%) Hone Outside 1000* Hone Mostly outside 1000' Yes Possible About None None Outside 1000* See C About 40-50% Hardcover None Hone Mostly outside 1000* Operational Aspectat Capital Storage 40-50% Hardcover Boobs Trips Bat%#aan Facilities Can place it in PW's at less s.f. cost Lunchrooai, one less office PN*s plus meeting, training space On foot None 3-4 miles between sites ■ * u f-. •'• ^■». . t. 43091.1 MINUTES OP FACILITIES COMMITTEE FOR APRIL 29, 1991 The following people were present: Facility Committee members - George Johnson, C. Steven Wilson, Morris Nelson, Gretchen Menzel and Nancy Walsh. (Lyndon Stubbs had called from Fargo earlier in the afternoon indicating he had car trouble and was unable to make the meeting but fully supported the draft presented.) Public - John Farnham, Curt Quady, Wilbur Andersen, Gray Printup and Desyl Peterson. Staff/Consultant - Jack Boarman, John Gerhardson and Mark Bernhardson. At 7:05 the meeting was convened by C. Steven Wilson who presented a draft of a Committee Report that he had prepared summarizing the Committee's work from last year and which had previously been mailed to Facility Committee members. Mr. Farnham wondered if he would be able to present his prepared response to the proposed Committee Report. Mr. Wilson indicated that he felt that the purpose of tonight's meeting was to allow the Facilities Committee to prepare their recommendation and it would be more appropriate for Mr. Farnham to present his reaction to the Planning Commission at the public hearing scheduled for Monday, May 6, 1991. Mr. Wilson indicated that members of the public were welcome at the Facilities Committee meeting. Mr. Wilson stated that Council had requested that the verbal findings the Facilities Committee had presented to them last summer regarding site be presented in written form to them. Mr. Wilson then asked for general comments from the Committee. Mr. George Johnson asked whether the draft addressed both the Committee's strong feeling that the need exists for a new facilities together with the site recommendation. Mr. Wilson agreed that was correct. Mr. Farnham stated that his group also agreed that there was a need but differed on the site and size Issues. Mr. Wilson then began to go through each of the paragraphs of the draft recommendation. Mr. Wilson indicated as noted in the draft 4 m - --Hi'*111 that the Committee had set up initial site criteria and then judged the five (5) sites presented to the Committee for review against that. They felt the joint location of facilities was important/ not only for capital but also in ongoing operational costs. Mr. Jack Boatman addressed the advantages of a common site and discussed the three (3) "models" the cities use for siting public works, police and city hall facilities. They were: A. Campus facility 'Jt-- Vy' B. Split Facility in which city hall was included in the downtown and public works away from the downtown area. itr'. ■w/' iM ■ ' ^ A , C. A split facility in which there is not a traditional downtown. He further indicated that in most cities without an urban downtown, cities gravitated to a more campus approach because of the operational advantages together with the ability to buffer these uses from others. In review of sites the summary of comments by the Committee were as follows: Site #1 - Highway 12 - Clearly the Committee’s recommendation because of size, location and access. Lack of centrality was not considered a material factor in view of the site's accessibility and prominent location . Site #2 - Highway 15/Navarre - Committee indicated little interest in this site and felt it was a difficult site to develop. Site 3# - Crystal Bay/South Brown Road - Again as fecapped there was little enthusiasm by the Committee on this, in part because of the limited ability to put both facilities on here, no expansion room, potential for a 2 story fariiity, expenses and the intensification of placing all the facilities in here would generate more traffic in a residential neighborhood. IM —.Vi i ifiiiUMilii Site #4 - County Road 19/Pack Land - It was far too residential an area. Site 15 - Old Crystal Bay Road/Sewer Treatment Plant - Again the issue of non-residentia? uses in a residential area. There were also issues of the narrowness of the site and problems associated with the configuration of Old Crystal Bay Road. r-' m Mr. Wilson indicated that it had been suggested to him that perhaps the southwest corner of Old Crystal Bay Road and Highway 12 could be commented on by the Committee as to its acceptability as an alternate to the northeast side. It was felt that the primary impediment to this as an alternative was its availability absent condemnation and the expense involved in that. Desyl Peterson indicated that the draft did not address the cost advantage associated with the site recommendation. Mr. Wilson indicated that the City had presented a spread sheet in advance of the April 4th meeting and that would be helpful to have included in the recommendation to the Council. Mr. John Farnham asked what calculation had been done regarding the potential generation of taxes on the property up on Highway 12. Mr. Bernhardson indicated that because of Fiscal Disparities^ Levy Limit laws and new service demands that the property in and of itself would not generate "additional taxes" to the City but possibly only lower the tax capacity rate of other people in the community. Mr. Curt Quady indicated he felt the criteria was self fulfilling and that the Highway 12 site was the only one that was able to fit the criteria. He additionally asked a question as to what may happen to the Post Office in the Crystal Bay neighborhood. It was indicated that the Facilities Committee had previously suggested that the current site be turned into park land but that the Post Office would stay as long as the Postal Service wished to keep it there. It was not required that this force the Post Office out. However, if the City built a new facility on this site and charged rent comparable for the Post Office to be included in the new building that higher cost may well drive the Postal Service from the neighborhood. Mr. Quady indicated that he felc that instead of park land that the City should sell its existing facility for residential use if the facility was not to stay here. f-(k« a I Y Al* I i ■o*\ m e' :t& Mr. Steve Wilson asked for a motion on the draft with inclusion of the financial information together; with recommendation that the southwest corner of Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road would, except for financial consiaerations, be considered an acceptable alternative. Mr. George Johnson moved that motion and it was seconded by Gretchen Menzel. It was adopted on a 5/0 vote. The meeting concluded at 8:35 p.m. 5.‘ • I'M ?‘ n!■;•»* , ■\-m .; • JM. '-W I_ _ _ _ ^SF CITY FACILITIES CHART OBSERVATIONS Source of cost estimates: Zack Johnson, AIA, Vice President EOS Architecture Corporation of Excelsior, Minnesota, and the 1990 edition of Means Square Foot Costs. The chart clearly indicates that Orono, a city with approximately 41 eraoloyees and a population of 7400, would be treated . generously by the recently proposed plan for « losSng pproximately $3,700,000. The plan for a city hall and public works building as large, or larger, than some cities several times larger than Orono. As larger ®^je usually mean hitther costs this plan seems incompatable with Orono s tradition o£®80und conUrvative fiscal management Long other things, the availability of dollars in fSnds for a new facility, (page 1 of October l*. 1990, ^ty administrators communication to city council). Aimtnirn^rrt’ B % It would appear that on a comparative basis, dineinah e?to of its olan for a new city administration/police building from 18 000 to 10 000 Sq.Ft. and the public works building coul If vou consider the above reductions in size for the national average building costs, Lich now are about the ff1Sr^f ‘'El^nii^5r.ff-er?:‘aboi^t^?LJL'tL tSL fouowlng numbers B^?Id?nrbrick, 10,000 Sq.Ft. @$80.00-$800 ,000 Public works Building, 15.000Jq.Ft..,140.000 Broken Concrete Exterior „^heated 11,000 Sq.Ft.@$30.00 “$330,000 Total Cost $1,270,000 The verv laree savings could then:be used to help pay for higher SLISonil los“ £« the new facilities, or other l-t"® n®|ds, wLle continuing to hold down government expenses and taxes for Orono citizens. The building of a smaller facility would also make the Sly hall site more practical because there sould b® ®”Pl® ®P®^®* 5heVresent site of 2.5 acres or 107,500 Sq.Ft. would be covered by 25,000 Sq. Ft., or less, leaving over 75% of land space for parking, parks, green space, etc. Honefullv this information will initiate new points of discussion on^^the new city facilities question as we approach 1991 and a new round of discussions. T^e Orono Taxpayers Association tr i >iTii a^litiinT ih r-r- •’Vv ‘ -w*-; V. • . r\ t' t'|».T’,i:; ! ■' Very Interesting Comparisons and Highlights of Alternate City Facilit ies Chart 1. Comparing present and projected population (top line and next to bottom line) with other cities and Orono indicates very min- imul growth by year 2000 and no need to build for future growth. 2. Comparing employees per capita (line 3) Orono is number^ and the need for additional staff and space would seen very unlikely. 3 Size of present City Hall site, 2 1/2 acres, with more appropriate sized city hall and facillities, would be adequate. See cover letter {?S% covered with buildings and 75% left for parking or green space.) 4. Cities of Mound (population larger than Orono), Crystal (3+times Orono's population) manage with sites approximately the same as present Orono site. 5. The city of Plymouth with a population of 51,000 (7 times that of Orono) and growing rapidly, has a city hall/police building slightly larger (22,000 sq. ft. to Orono's proposed 17,729 sq. ft.) 6. The city of Plymouth is about to build a huge new public works building, but has managed with a facility of 22,000 sq. ft. until now—that's about 25% smaller than the proposed Orono Public Works building of 29,425 sq. ft. heated area, plus, another 5,000 sq. ft. of cold storage area. 7. The proposed Orono police facility would be veryyclose to the size of Plymouth's police facility which has a force 2 1/2 times as large as Orono's (50 Plymouth - 20 Orono police). 8.The size of the Orono proposed administration building (9,481 sq. ft. ) is almost as large as Champlin's (10,000 sq. ft.) and almost as large as Plymouth's (11,000 sq. ft.) Yet, both cities are much,.or many times, larger than Orono. 9. With further study of the chart, there are many more interesting comparisons that indicate Orono's proposed plans for a city facilities are in dire need of reduction if they are going to receive public support through a referendum which, as the chart indicates, is the method usually used. 10. The need for a city facility is not questioned BUT appropriate size and cost is mandatory for pablic approval. I'm FACILITY WORKSHOP MEETING APRIL A, 1991 - 6:00 P.M. iiHL Members present Mayor Barbara Peterson, CounciImembers J. Diann Goetten, Ed Callahan, Gabriel Jabbour and Mary Butler. Planning Commission members Charles Kelly, Ed Cohen, Maureen Bellows, Candy Rowlette, Jim Hanson, Sara Moos and Jeff Johnson. Citizen Committee members Morris Nelson, Steven Wilson and Bill Stubbs. Staff members Mel Kilbo, Jeanne Mabusth and John R. Gerharc son. Architect Jack Boarman and residents Curt Quady and David Peterson were also present. Mayor Peterson opened the meeting with a brief explanation of why the meeting was called and then asked foe introduction from everyone. Jack Boarman explained the process briefly as to what had happened previously and that after several meetings the site selection was reduced to three sites; Crystal Bay/Sewer Treatment Plant, Crystal Bay/Highway 12 and Highway 12. r.Jack explained some of the costs related to each site and then opened the meeting for discussions and questions. After brief discussion the Planning Commission and Citizen Committee members asked what was next. Gabriel Jabbour wanted a recommendation from the Planning Commission and the Citizens Committee in written form about site location only at this time and suggested Steven Wilson be the Chair of the Citizens Committee. Ed Callahan stated that perhaps tonight would be a good time to vote on the site he felt we did not have to wait any longer. ir i> 6!; V. j. Diann Goetten felt that the citizens Committee must meet one more time to select a site only and most important the Planning commission should have a meeting to offer their input regarding the site selection. Discussion followed regarding financing and having a referendum VS not having a referendum. m It was concluded that the Citizens Committee would meet on April 29th, the Planning Commission would consider the matter on May 6th and the Council would act on their recommendations on May 13, 1991. Gerhardson stated that a schedule would be prepared by staff to give to Council on Monday, April 8, 1991. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 P.M. s 4^: '-f'*- .u • ! r * * .-Vi\ s . y:'-- i.' ••jv-'- .:’. V V'-A ii i . - .r-... t •. f, . li • • wi•5? im m . y..v : . aiih 1 ■ ^ * .■ ....V, 4 )pulatlon 1990) otal No. nployees . 'uployees 2r capiCa *). Admin. 'nployees •ib. Wks. mployeesIoilce mployees R I.- Part ^ i npfn CITY FACILITIES COMPARISONS Shorewoodl Orono Present 5890 7400 38 FT. 6 RT- K'^80 11F.T. 2P.T. 16 FT. 4 PT. Orono i.lOrono Proposed Alt. 7400 7400 38 ET. 6 P.T. 39 f-t: hP.r // ^0 SO llET. 2RT. n f.f. A P-r. 16 ET. 4 RT. \{0p.r. //RT. Mound 9500 Chan- hassen 12000 K243 64* 10* CHam- plin 17000 Crystal 24000 108 izZZ Plymouth 51000 175 »/231 q. Ft. per/ dmin. mployee 544 255 790 mi 500 222 500 473 146 q. Miles erved 11 P.W. I X5-5 6.1 Adminll9.7Pol 15.5 I 19!7Po1. 3 Sq. Mi. 24 Sq. Mi. 10 Sq. Mi. 5.8 Sq. Mi. 36 Sq • Mi. Ize of ity Hall ite 10 acres over ^ is park 2-5 acres 15 acres!1.5 acres •ize of ’olice • ite 5.2 acres inc. LibJ fire sta. 2 hockey rinks + 12 acs Inc. fire, Police j Pub.Wks greenaref So. Shore Police 1/3 Ac. II Ac. Inc. in 15 Acs. Ina. in ;t.5<ures Inc. in 1.5 A<^ [^ne Inc. in xn# • li/2 acres 37 acres inc. ampi theater Inc. Tr 12 Acs. Inc. in lh/2 acres Inc. in 37 acres •ize of ‘ub. Wks. ;ite Inc. in I Inc. in Cty. Hall Cty.Hal^ Site I Site •ize of ;ity Hall 'Idg. 4896SqFf. 3063 full ISq.Ft unused basemt . •ize of ■olice »ldg. 5000 I 2210 SqFt used| SqFt. 5000 bsmt S.Shore Police 15 Acs.l;i.5 .... <(...■««* • * ■ , In 9481 5eco 8248 SqFt - - Sooc' Inc.in 1.5 Ac 5Acs.Inc.in 12 Acs. 3 Ac. 2 Ac. useable 40 acres 12000 Sq. Ft h poi dept. 6000 Sq.Ft Inc. City Hall 12000, 1800 unused Inc. Lib 2/3000S fover none 3 23600 18000 Cty .Hall 22000 SqF 5600 SqFt. Inc. in 22000 Sql ^ize of ’ub. Wks. Jldg. 6000+off 12768 site cold! SqFt. storage 1392 plan to I cold blc. morel storage 29425SF i5oooSjft heated 5000 cold storage. 5000 SqFt. 9Q00SF liles of itreets 45-50 miles 58.39 ..onst.Wood [ype 58.39 miles I Wood & ‘Brick 5S.3^ mWes Stucco B’'***'a.«<f IBriak or iBnr WiMt g 50 miles Stuccc Cement Block 7000 cold storage 150000 cost 35000 SqFt. 100 miles 89 miles Brick (city) broken block (pub, wks ) Brick 19000 rleated 13444 cold 21000 Sol 88000 SqF to be bui 3/4 cold storage 98 iniles 201 mile: Stucco iJood Brick ’roj.Pop !000 8000 8' '^000 6-9000 10000 xeferendum /es/no O OcluO no^ used liquor. revenues 36000 ir 25 years (V yes yes 26000 23400 75000 yes yes Assumes 10 police from Carver County sub-contract. ** Assumes 8 police-So. Shoi This information was collected and compilied during Novermber and December 1990, to aid the Orono Council and staff in determining an appropriate size MEANSUAREFOOT COSTS Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional 1990 11 th Annual Edition A Means mis r:ipi 5; COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONAL COSTS PER SQUARE FOOT OF FLOOR AREA tF.Aroe 6500 9500 11000.14000 17500 21000 24000 unnoituL 300 360 386 396 435 510 559 620 689 Fsct Md vitfl Coscrati SteiJosb 7145 OJtS 66.60 6175 6110 59.10 5810 57.65 Mod lodHip WoodJoids 71J0 69.10 65.75 6180 61.75 60.15 5735 57.00 56.45 Mmm vMi CMKralt SM Joita nta 7135 6830 65.40 64.30 6160 6030 5935 58.75 Mod Iod4l0 WoodJoisb 7C10 7115 67.60 64.45 6315 6135 59.15 58.15 5735 BOKM weed Frame 7080 6835 6535 62.75 61.75 6035 58.40 57.60 57.05 {1Wood Frame 67.80 6535 6195 6065 5930 5830 56.85 56.10 55.65 P».taota AdL Add or Deduct PVlOOLF.715 535 435 335 330 160 105 L70 130 Stay Hgt Adi. Add or Dodwt PlvlR 130 1.15 1.06 30 30 30 35 30 30 FOR BASEMENT, add S14-4S per square M of basement am Th»aboimeott»w»KC»louMtdutlngmbnte$p»elllCMtk)n»$hownpnth»ftangp»g^ Thim co$t» $hould bt •dfutttd wtmn memmy ^ dnign tlltnMh/H and iwquitwmtnti. Rtpo/tmi oomphtm/ proftet oostt for tN$ typt of stiuctun, fwng» (nm t4TM to i120M ptr SJ^. COMMON ADDITIVES DucripHsR twt Coft OMECTORV BOAMB^ Rtaic. ootata 30*i20*Each 6450 3ri4T Each 640 AAMdnm,24*il8*Each 405 STiir Each 505 4Ti3r Each 565 Mrtw Each 1000 UiUViiLm#T uuniimi^ la vux urkij opcriiBO Uodbataty Each 310 NcWctataHi Each 470 RAGmESLOsmpille AtataiM.2iriiii8i Each 1475 4orWih Each 3350 TOrnigh Each 11400 FtattataZTIiillt Each 1325 srriiBi Each 2375 SOrhigh Each SAFE. OMoe type, 4 hour nimg BOTririir Each 2550 6ri3ri2or Each 5250 OMOtRUon SMOKE DCIiCTORS omngtm Dud typt VAULT FRONT. Door I tane lHourM,3ri7r 2 Hour tat 3T door 4(rdoor Ekh Each 198 300 40* door Tim lodt nonnnC tm mvemil Oponinc Opening Opming Opmng Oponini Each 3275 3000 3825 1250 U m location factors on p«Qw3a9to383 A - W ti • V COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONAL _____ 2.670 Town Hall, 1 Story tnifi/coiPoiiciiT SPECIFICATIONS UNIT UNIT COST 1 .1 FootteiS A Foundations______p^rid c£Micretc: strip and spread footings and 4* foundation wall 1 .41 ^ Piles A Caisaont__________ CicawtiDn A BKkfill N/A____________________________________ Site preparation for slab and trench tor foundation wall and footing IF. Ground S.F. Ground to SUHTNUCnUE SItbonGndo SpodolSubrtnidiirw 11 typosTNucniit 4* rtinlorcad concroto with wipor borrior »nd jranoUr bosa h7a Si.SUb CtlWiwABw* SbudunI Wins CjmM Floors Nool Stein 10 rniniMCiosmE stool columns jncludod In 3.7 m N/A Mctii dock, open wob stod joists, beams, intowr columns m7a Wilts lilwlorWilFiHiibos Ooois ttfadowsAGliildWili Fko brick with concroto block bickup n Ta MoUl ind ilisswithtroniom 70% of wiU MoUl outward projocbni 30% ol will to MOFIM iMlOaMrinci Built-up Ur and Pivot with flishint PorliU/urothano composite Crawl stop and hatches ISTIUCTION Parbliens Interior Doon WoNFmtehw Flair rwishot CoinoFliiishos Interior Surtaco/Eatorior WaB Gwsuw board on motel studs 20 S.F. Floor/LF. Partition Wood solid core 90% paint, 10% corareic tMo 70% carpet, 15% torrano. 15% vinyl composition tile Hinaraltibortiloonconccalodioobars 2000 S.F. Floor/Door Painted ppsum board on lurring 70%olwaR S.F. Partition Each Si. Surface Si. Floor Si. Coiling Si. Wall Convowrs 14 ■ECWANICAl m Protection Cooling SnociolSoiloms Kitchon toilot and lorrica futures, supply and drainaio N/A lFiiture/500 Si. Floor tndudodinM htuttizone unit las hoabni, olactric cooling N/A Each Si. Floor lOniCfBICAl J SarvicotOtaltibution APwoor Elictrical IllJ SPKIAl CONSTNUCnON 400 amooro sorvico. panel board and faodors rnwrowont fiaturos. rocoptedes, switches and misc. power Alarm systoms and amorooncir Bthtini S.F. Floor Si. Floor Si. Floor COST PEI S.F. 2.66 .79 ——5-— —— Si. Root ~3.09 109 ——_____—* Si.WaM ~1580 525 1 _—— “Each 1513 J5 EKh 334 2.07 IF. Roof 1.79 PP-IF. Roof 124 124 : IF. Roof .18 .18 1 1720 TBTii tUltPING COST 1 tnJVirfWfI r , * llOOCIffWIM ___________ 1 SaiNMMk 1 N/A ____________________________________——** %M/A — 0m s Iteads li Nrtene N/A —**** 0m .7 SNo Imorowmonts M/A ------------- SUI4DTAI 50.05 BENERAl CONDITIONS (Owrboad aed ProlMl ___________________ ANCNincr FEES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------' 751 5.19 T>ri /•mrrr ’t>t^ 'Aj 11J i\£i 1 t h /» ?ri J. NICHOLAS RUEHL AIA BERTIL E. HAGLUND. AIA ' m: -rv ► L- April 24, 1991 Barbara J. Peterson, Mayor City Hall P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ^ ^ 7.1 Re; Proposed City Facilities Dear Mayor Peterson, I learned today that I have been quoted on tl-e matters of size and construction costs for the city’s proposed facilities. I can assure you that this came as a complete surprise. This office has not provided construction costs estimates or recommendations for an appropriate size of any facilities in the City of Orono to any agency or organization. If our firm is ever retained to provide such services, I will be happy to copy the city on all materials developed. Several weeks ago, a Mr. John Farnnam phoned our office and asked if we had experience in designing municipal facilities. He was told that this is an area in which we do have significant experience and he set up a meeting to discuss our work. At that brief meeting I learned that he represented a group of interested residents in Orono. He explained that he was concerned about the proposed size and costs of your planned facilities. I explained to him that we would not critique another architect's design unless hired by the city for a second opinion. I also explained that wo could not comment on the size or design of a building without first studying the space allocation program and feasibility studies. He asked how we would prepare a cost estimate for such a project and I explained that we often use cost consultants, our recent past experience and in the early stages of the work, usually rely on the published cost guides. At his request, I provided him with copies of a few pages from one of these publications. H^l-OS CORPOR^ION J 470 Water Street, Excelsior, MN 55331 (612) 474-3291 Pniijal Onnortiinitv Pmnlovpr JL±J\JX <JA.*dLJ I have never had a set of the design plans and this office did not provide a review of any plans for this project. We have had no contact with the Orono Taxpayers Association and did not give permission to use our name in an effort to assess this project. Professional courtesy, ethics and standards of practice would dictate that we not provide the services implied in the documents presented at the Council s April 22nd meeting, without prior contact with your architect, to gain a great deal more insight to the project and to establish a proper working relationship. I would appreciate being notified directly if future references to our involvement in this project are made. Thank you. Sincerely Zack jolnson, AIA Vice P.rAsident cc: Jack Boarma.i Mark Bernhardson J A wm mmm fmm::■ V.v' ■ < » Ri|mf:-V’. . X-.:' P •si .'Wf- i • •- r •'•Tx» A.-..- T. r I V-' /tW(5 cfim/?^ »5=.-ANOTHER VIEW ON THE LOCATION OF A NEW ORONO CITY FACILITY The following is a response to the findings of the Citizens’ Committee regarding the location of new Orono city facilities buildings. It consists partly of the findings of the Citizens’ Facility Committee followed by another view held by many of Orono's citizens, and a response to the Committee’s list of ideal Facilities site characteristics. 1. FACILITIES COMMITTEE; (SUMMARY) New facilities are necessary and the need is urgent. 1. OUR VIEW: This time the same vlew-A new city facility is a must. 2. FACILITIES COMMITTEE: The Ideal site for City facilities would have the following characteristics: a easily accessible to the public. 2. OUR VIEV.': a.The present site superbly meets this crlterla-far better than any other site. It can be approached from four different directions and Is located on, or within, a block of three major city thoroughfares (highways 15, 51, and 146), Is one block from the bus line, and being a block away from the lake Is even approachable by water. It would be difficult to find a civic center more accessible than ours anywhere In the world. f 2. FACILITIES COMMITTEE: b.Not In a residential area. 2. OUR VIEW: b. Orono’s present site has been in this area since the beginning, we’re accustomed to it. Many (Wayzata, Excelsior, Mound, Crystal, Etc.) other cities’ civic centers are located In residential areas. There Is nothing basically incompatible with the arrangement. A plus in our situation would be an upgrading of the nelghborriood that would reward the neighbors for putting up so long with the negative effects of the primitive and deteriorating structures that now exist. 2. FACILITIES COMMITTEE: c. Does not take residential property. 2. OUR VIEW: c. Good point, but neither does using the present site-plus we don’t have to buy any more land and take it off the tax rolls. For example, if the site near Highway 12 were privately developed It could produce many thousands of dollars worth of taxes every year. rp--.; m- rm 1 fe-: .1 2. FACILITIES COMMITTEE: • d. Easy to direct people to. 2. OUR VIEW: ^ ^ .. . ,. d. This Is probably not worth serious consideration, but if it is, it can be arguv-d that the present site is already familiar to our own citizens and a few signs would greatly ease any strangers task In finding it. 2. FACILITIES COMMITTEE: e. Near public facilities of a similar nature. 2. OUR VIEW: e This Is a very dubious Ideal. There seems little connection between a city hall, a school, a possible future library and an Ice arena- except that they are all tax supported, instead, the clustering of an these facilities together could create a serious traffic problem that could be very frustrating to deal with and costly to correct. rwwfr 2. FACILITIES COMMITTEE: f. City Utilities available. 2 OUR VIEW: f This Is always nice, but certainly not essential. There are plenty of city facilities around that have neither public sewer nor water. We have sewer and wells are still considered a viable source of water. g. Large enough for a campus of facilities with room for future needs as yet undetermined, o OUR VIEW: G. The present site Is large enough for an appropriate sized facility. The prelected growth of Orono is so minimal that future neeos will probably also be minimal. It Is almost a certainty that adjacent Parcels will become available from time to time to satisfy any future needs, if, Indeed, they do arise . 2. FACILITIES COMMITTEE: H. Open for building expansion and growth. 2. OUR VIEW: H. This appears to be a repeat of letter G. above but we would add that the design of the building (2 story, split entry, basement expansion or storage, etc.) can allow considerable space for expansion a the present site. I ^ V.. m OTHER FACILITIES COMMITTEE DETERMINATIONS: The Committee determined that there are operating efficiencies, cost savings, and morale benefits to City employees from location of a City Jl ir r ■< ■ Hall, Police Station, and Public Works Garage at one location. OUR VIEW.—The advantages listed for the single location case are difficult to measure, some very subjective (like morale) and should not be an over- riding factor In determining whether or not the facility should be In one or two locations. There definitely are two schools of thought on this subject and many cities have deliberately separated these facilities because of a sense of Incompatibility In their appearance and function. Chanhassen would be a recent example. Orono Is fortunate to have another site In close proximity that could be used for a public works facility. The old sewer site Is almost completely screened. In a very low density area and would seem to be In an Ideal site should a tw'o- site option be decided upon. THE FACILITIES COMMITTEE also discussed the desirability of having a central location within Orono for City facilities. The consensus of the Committee was that prominence of location and ease of access to the facilities were more important than centrality. OUR VIEW:—Centrality Is a major concern- probably should be top priority. City Facilities are built to serve the citizens who also happen to pay for them. Its seems clear , therefore, that they should be located as convenient to as much as the population as possible. The present location meets that requirement beautifully, and along with Its previously stated remarkable accessibility features makes for almost an ideal site to best and most efficiently serve the public. On the other hand, the Highway 12 site, located near the northern limits of the cities population concentrations, would be the least convenient to the most people of all the sites considered. The Highway 12 site would probably be a deterrent to attendance at Council meeting, Commission meetings, public hearings, etc. Locating the Police Station far from the population center seems even more Illogical and even dangerous when rapid response time is critical. It Is our understanding that the majority of police calls are not near the low density, northern Highway 12 site. Prenared bv the Orono Taxoavers Association ■nr r*.’-- m mi ■■M .Ml. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION OF ORONO TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION REPORT at public HEARING ON NEW FACILITIES LOCATION, APRIL 29, 1991. WE STRONGLY AGREE THAT A NEW FACILITY SHOULD BE BUILT. WHEN MEASURING ALL THE SITES AGAINST THE IDEAL OF ACCESSIBILITY, WE AGREE WITH THAT IDEAL AND BELIEVE THAT THE PRESENT SITE IS THE HANDS DOWN WINNER IN THIS REGARD. WE ALSO FEEL THAT THE OTHER “IDEAL" CHAR.ACTER1STIC5 LISTED ARE EITHER IRRELEVANT OR FALLACIOUS AS FAR AS ORONO IS CONCERNED. WE ARE IN TOTAL OPPOSITION TO YOUR CONCLUSION ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF CENTRALITY ^ AND BELIEVE THIS TO BE OF THE HIGHEST PRIORITY. COUPLED WITH ACCESSIBILITY, THE PRESENT SITE HAS AN OVERWHELMING ADVANTAGE. THE MATTER OF A ONE-SITE LOCATION VS. A TWO-SITE LOCATION IS VERY MUCH AN OPEN QUESTION AND WE ARE FLEXIBLE ABOUT THIS. IN CONCLUSION, WE ARE STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF A CONVENIENT, EASILY ACCESSIBLE, AND APPROPRIATELY SIZED NEW CITY FACILITY . WE FEEL OUR VIEWS ARE TAXPAYING CITIZEN DRIVEN AND ARE NOT COLORED BY ANY PROFESSIONAL, FINANCIAL, OR EVEN POLITICAL INTERESTS. BECAUSE OUR MEMBERS WERE NOT PRESENT AT YOUR MEETINGS WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH “GIVE AND TAKE ” TOOK PLACE BETWEEN CITY STAFF, MR. BOARMAN, AND THE INDIVIDUAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS, OR HOW MANY TOUGH QUESTIONS WERE ASKED. BUT ONE COULD EASILY CONCLUDE FROM YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS, THAT OF THE THREE INTEREST GROUPS PRESENT, THE CITIZENS ’ INTERESTS WERE GIVEN THE LEAST CONSIDERATION. THE EXCESSIVE RELIANCE ON STAFF AND CONSULT .ANTS IS A COMMON AND NORMAL EXPERIENCE BUT CAN OFTEN LEAD TO CONCLUSIONS NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC. WE BELIEVE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD CORRECT THIS INEQUITY OF INTEREST AND BETTER SERVE THE GENERAL TAXPAYING PUBLIC . ■ mmm m i .■i'v-1: mm h < M U 0m m < z <ztc < 0n X I < w-4 fi K. 0> o o FMANCMe REVCW bo «wmi» JUNEAiai ABKKMTES iMC. •9M«A40MI> - x'ir.>« >* iiHili urn--. .-1 itmibk' > ,'-:v;V!jlv 1 MPfnf VALLEY (Bl BURNSVIIJLJE }( 1 C )C ]( 1 i pMMyyuw }< 1 C )C 3( lx \ 1 t :( 1 PC i 9nani IkM IMMwl H m OHMm K 1 PC PC ]K 1 PC CMAN lx 1 ]k EMAN K 1 1 iPC K 1 MdMoii A MNioiMkiB CMAN 1 K x hdbi ||iEMME u X X 1 L».f BLMIWPI |x X X lx PoMlait.lirito MtfMONT |x X 1 X X ^OLi tidi wmoLEt 1 X X X X 1 •DUmVMLllBV X 1 X X I AlrfWn AiwnoAilwg •oumvwuiET ix 1 X X MO wow x 1 1 X X X MvmanovEiwm lx '1 X MvmenofVEHBTm X 1 X 1 La9*lMlMr IMEVIULE X 1 X X 1 PGNM«RmM»vito MAHJBVOOO X 1 lx [iiiinLPWDno lx 1 X itePLCiioao 1 k X X 1 MBiKME X 1 X X 1 X X MBNDOTAHBQNTe X 1 X X 1 1 IMNEfONKA 1 X X X X MNNETOMKA X 1 X 1 MiECTOWKA 1 X X 1 UNNEimarrA X 1 X X 1 ^ igwenoBTOM X 1 X X 1 1add•iMWPmOUE X 1 X X X lx X NOfmOTBD r X I L&igtrteilly KtMOimi lx I X H.'tMCXnH X 1 X 1 IMMRELD lx 1 X MDBBtttaOALE |x X X X 1 lij ar.aouo 1 X X 1 fliMoiiCeci mA dqI J wmME X 1 X X 1 MM M Ohm ' MVA6E X 1 X 1 X iAVAGE |x 1 X lAVAQE |x X mARDPBE ■*lx X Ik A <fnr. ppoHwim •NMEVEIV X 1 1 X X X X I X X 1 M WM Mm M tate WnnCBEAR x 1 X X 1 - . liooaiiUiiY X 1 X X X I J_____J -----------------1 111 . "V ■*.. ^ r •.. J' • ‘ 'j . -i . :, • ^i Kfi‘ ' ' TT." ,i t CTi'CF CffCNO tB(g[ir)W7rglij International Tours’ of LongyLak^931 Long Lake Town Center • 1865 W. Wayzata Btvd. • P.O. Box 380 • Long Lake. MN 55356 (612) 476-1714 • Fax (612) 476-1480 May 1 1991 Orono Planning Commission Members May 6th Public Hearing - City Facilities I will be unable to attend the May 6th meeting but would like to pass on my views regardint the site for a new city facility. I feel that of the three sites offered, the only viable site is the Highway 12 Property. As that is also the recommendation of the citizens committee, 1 think that we should support their findings. Candace E. Rowlette CC: Jean Mabusth .n- v- , > tmvoling? wo^ i - .Jr.