02-22-2021 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 8, 2021 6:03 p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 26 19. LA20-000048 - TIMOTHY WHITTEN O/B/O I. JACOBS/A. JACOBS REVOCABLE TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT - RESOLUTION – Continued there is not enough room. There is not enough room – even if the Applicant was correct, which they are not – that only a 4 foot shoulder is required. He said if the City Council passes this plat in its present application, all they have done is create more problems. He told the City Council to make the Applicant go back and do the work to have engineer drawings, to have the County and MnDOT bless the turn lane that they say they can fit in, and they will have to have drainage. The culvert that is on the Jacob’s side is meaningless and does not provide any drainage for the Burwell residence. The Burwell residence is going to be in a perpetual state of flooding because there is not enough room in the right-of-way. He cannot believe they are even talking about these issues. Attorney Dean said they have a family who has lived here for 40 years and their rights are being trounced. There is going to be an effort to have this 6 lot or 5 lot development that does not address health and safety and the Burwell’s have to live with it and their property has to be taken to expand more right-of-way so that the drainage ditch can be built and so the utilities can be relocated. That makes zero sense. Attorney Dean stated instead what the City Council should do is force the Jacobs to go back and say “prove it, the proof is in the pudding;” give him the engineer drawings, not a conceptual sketch by a surveyor who is not a licensed professional engineer. He said show him the engineered drawings approved by the County that have the turn lane, show whether there can be an acceleration lane, show where the drainage ditch it, show where the utilities will be relocated, and prove to him that the Burwell’s will not have any of their property taken. Until those steps can be done, the City Council has to deny. Attorney Dean wants to talk a bit about the new change that was made for this meeting tonight where the Jacobs have put in those three parallel parking spots at the end of the private road – it does not do any good. All is does is transfer a problem from one location to a new location; one still has to go from the road and cross Shoreline Drive and the average vehicle traffic of 15,600 vehicles per day every day of the year. That does not make any sense and even if there is a walking easement on Outlots 1, 2, and 3, or A, B, and C, that does not solve the crossing problem. In the past, the City Council has always required showing a dock plan and the Applicant did not do it. Why didn’t they do it? Attorney Dean said because they are still not sure what they want to do and yet they want to come here and get preliminary approval. He said make them go back and have a complete plan. One of the things that has been glossed over, even though it is in Mr. Barnhart’s report, is what the County said and he asked the City Council to take a look at it on page 2 of the Staff report. He asked if the City Council sees it…it is the August 17, 2020 email where he quotes from the Hennepin County, when there is a discussion by the County about the right-of-way, this is what they say: “right-of-way, sufficient right-of-way is needed to accommodate a right turn lane at this location.” The County does not say there is enough right-of-way and the existing right-of-way is sufficient, but they say the reverse, sufficient right-of-way is needed. The only way to get that turn lane is to take more of the Burwell’s land – why would the City do that to a family that has lived there for 40 years? Attorney Dean noted the City will also have to grant two variances for lots 2 and 3 because they are not wide enough on the cul-de-sac. He asked if this City Council is really prepared to do that and grant two variances right from the get-go. That does not make any sense either. One of the things that has come up that he wants to use to illustrate the arbitrariness of the City Staff is this cul-de-sac. There is a 1,000 foot limit and everyone agrees that if they do not take in to account the center island, it is 997 feet. He said to use some common sense – the path of travel would require that they would go around the outside of the cul-de-sac and they will be over 1,000 feet. It is not just the 3 feet that causes a concern with a 1,000-foot limit, it is the momentum that has built with the City Staff that they will overlook any problem, any violation of the City code in order to assist the developer and not the current citizens that have lived in this location for 40 years. He said it is not fair and it should really cause some concern by this Council. Attorney Dean would encourage the City Council, even though they are already familiar with the property, to go out there and just walk along