Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, April 24, 2017 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />PUBLIC COMMENTS - Continued <br />Rosha stated the position of the Erickson's is that what they have now works very well, and if the <br />entrance is narrowed down, ingress and egress will become problematic. The Erickson's position is what <br />is there should remain there. Rosha stated the Erickson's have done a great job improving the property <br />and that egress/ingress is important and helps dictates the success or failure of a business. There is also a <br />safety concern with the narrower driveway. <br />Rosha stated there is some dialogue taking place between Erickson's and Hennepin County, and that he <br />would request the City take a formal stance that the driveway be permitted to remain as wide as it <br />currently is. <br />Walsh commented it is a unique property since there is a gas station, a retail mall, and some professional <br />service offices located there. Walsh stated from a philosophical standpoint, he would say they should be <br />able to keep what they have since it is no fault of their own that this road project is happening. Walsh <br />stated he would be supportive from a grandfathering standpoint that they should be able to keep what they <br />have unless there is some overriding safety issue that needs to be addressed. <br />Printup stated from a policy standpoint, he would be okay with leaving the driveway at its present width <br />since the City routinely allows people to replace homes with like, kind and quality. Printup stated he <br />would want to make sure the City does not have any liability or be used as a negotiating tool with the <br />County. <br />Rosha noted there are condemnation proceedings with a couple of property owners, including Orono <br />West, which is related to the issue of the taking component during the pendency of the construction. The <br />condemnation action was withdrawn and it comes down to the question of valuation. Rosha stated in his <br />view it is highly unlikely there will be any impact on that pending litigation by the City Council <br />expressing its position on the width of the driveway remaining as is. <br />Seals stated there is value to the wider driveway for safety reasons and that she does not see any reason <br />why the City would not support that. <br />Walsh asked whether Mr. Rosha is interested in something more than a general consensus of the City <br />Council. <br />Rosha stated from a procedural postural standpoint, the City Council can go and articulate a consensus <br />but that it would not be nearly as effective as being able to present something in writing. Rosha stated the <br />document could contain language that there is no evidence at this time that the wide driveway has created <br />a safety hazard. <br />Walsh suggested he communicate with the City Attorney on a memorandum of understanding. <br />Edwards stated from an engineering perspective, the project is at the end of a three-year design process, <br />which the City was a part of. The City had indicated they are not interested in the County holding to the <br />City's 32 -foot width but rather would like them to apply best engineering principles to make the driveway <br />as wide as practical given the new configuration of the road. In its current plan, Hennepin County has a <br />36 -foot wide access through the trail section out to a 45 -foot wide access at the new curb. <br />Page 3 of 12 <br />