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