Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,February 8,2021 <br /> 6:03 p.m. <br /> 19. LA20-000048-TIMOTHY WHITTEN O/B/O I.JACOBS/A.JACOBS REVOCABLE <br /> TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT-RESOLUTION—Continued <br /> Attorney Mattick assumes so but he does not know if they examined those two items. <br /> Walsh would not have any problem, even with what Attorney Mattick has said about the preliminary plat, <br /> saying that as a condition,the Council still wants the feedback from that. That could change it a little bit <br /> and everyone just has to go into it knowing that. Or it may not change it at all as they may say there is no <br /> way that is going to get put in. <br /> Johnson asked what the right sequence is. Do they say to the Applicant: submit to the Council what the <br /> County says about this portion, as there are still conditions on a preliminary plat and that is why they have <br /> them. What is the right process—is it to go back and tell the Applicant to get the study done from the <br /> County and get their recommendation before the City Council votes on the preliminary. <br /> Mattick stated they have a timing issue right now and the City Council is statutorily obligated to make <br /> decisions on this application. He thinks the Applicant has voluntarily extended this application to the end <br /> of February. The City Council would not have to make a decision tonight but could make it at the next <br /> Council meeting. He does not know what turnaround time is on these kinds of questions from the <br /> County. <br /> Walsh said a decision with conditions is still a decision. <br /> Attorney Mattick agrees with that. <br /> Walsh thinks it would be more appropriate to put the condition in there that the City Council wants to <br /> have that and that is just part of the process. They will know they have approval but just have to finish <br /> that piece one way or the other. They need Hennepin County's feedback and if they say it is needed and <br /> it can be done,then the City would want it done. <br /> Mattick added, even if Hennepin County waffles on it and says maybe it can or maybe it can't,ultimately <br /> if the City Council puts a condition on this that a center lane or acceleration lane is required,Hennepin <br /> County gets to decide whether or not that happens. The City Council needs to be very careful about <br /> putting conditions that another entity won't approve on there. He clarified they do not have the <br /> jurisdiction to mandate that the County put a center lane in there. <br /> Johnson said it would make this easier if this was already understood and they knew what they were <br /> agreeing to. Now they are in the spot of saying"let's see what the County says." <br /> Barnhart noted on-screen are the comments received from the County on the initial review from August. <br /> He stated the County did consider that and did their own analysis on what was required versus desired. <br /> He said is the question now for the County to reconsider or provide additional feedback. <br /> Seals said if she is reading it correctly it does not say that it would not be possible because of size,rather <br /> they just talk about cost,which is not what the City Council is debating here. <br /> Barnhart replied no,but thinks that is part of the County's analysis when they start requiring things. <br /> Page 21 of 26 <br />