Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, October 26, 2020 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 4 of 7 <br /> <br />2020 and met with surveyor Mark Gronburg, realtor Mike Stedman, and developer Tim Whitten. They <br />walked the property and at that point nothing was said regarding changes to the proposal. She noted they <br />now have two proposals, one of which is completely different, with only one business day notice. She <br />noted she objects to the first proposal with 7 lots and she is also not in favor of 6 lots. She believes it is in <br />Minnesota State Statute that there must be 10 days’ notice to bring a proposal. She has retained legal <br />counsel and will ask Attorney Aaron Dean to share what they have been working on. The second <br />proposal was 26 pages and it was not an incidental decision to put it forward the previous Friday night. <br />She feels this is a bait-and-switch as it is a high-density 7 lot development reminding her of a square <br />trying to be put into a circle and she does not understand it as the road goes right into her property and is a <br />very big concern. Ms. Burwell stated this is affecting her property in a big way; at a previous meeting, <br />she noted Mr. Whitten stated the neighbors ‘love the proposal and they have had lots of meetings.’ Ms. <br />Burwell said there has been one meeting on March 12, 2020. She was never asked for her consent and <br />never stated she is for this and has never wanted a development there for reasons such as density, safety, <br />the road, the forest, the beauty, and preservation. Ms. Burwell noted this development is a big step for <br />Orono and she knows the City does not take it lightly. She asked that the City Council deny the <br />application for the subdivision, start over and actually speak with the neighbors to disclose their true <br />intentions. <br /> <br />Aaron Dean from Moss and Barnett Law Firm stated he spoke with City Attorney Mattick earlier today <br />and was not surprised by what the Applicant has done; the Applicant owns that they are putting <br />themselves in harm’s way by not providing notice to the neighbors. Just minutes before the meeting, the <br />Applicant asked for a do-over and to table all discussion on the matter; they don’t want a vote because <br />they know they are in trouble. Wherever one lives, they deserve to have peace and the Jacobs Family <br />Trust and their consultants have turned that truth upside down. He said they want the Burwells, <br />Kuhlmans, Nelsons and others to live with uncertainty. Mr. Dean said the time is now to vote on the 7 <br />Lot subdivision and the 6 Lot subdivision and provide finality on those two subdivisions. He noted the <br />neighbors hate it and Ms. Burwell should not have to hire an attorney. He gave a power-point <br />presentation outlining the objections along with video clips of the August 17, 2020 and September 14, <br />2020 meetings. After audio difficulties, Mr. Dean asked the Council to go back after the presentation to <br />consider comments by the Applicants and in a closed session go back and listen to those very audio clips <br />so they have the benefit of a fresh recollection. Regarding one video clip, Mr. Dean noted Mr. Whitten <br />talking about how the neighbors love the proposal; yet the Applicant only scheduled one meeting in mid- <br />March with a little over one-week notice that no one was able to attend and they called it good because no <br />one attended and voiced any objection. He said it is a shameful act by the Applicant to stand before the <br />Council and say the neighbors are fine with it, when tonight three neighbors spoke and said they never <br />agreed to it. He hopes this colors the view of everything the Applicant says going forward. Mr. Dean <br />noted the Burwell property on screen and said somehow, they have lost sight that the Burwell residence is <br />located on that singular lot. Staff and the developer have said they can draw a new ALS line down to <br />1125 Millston Road where the caretakers’ house is…but that is not the purpose of the ALS line; rather the <br />ALS line is to protect the actual resident and there has been no consideration to Mrs. Burwell about her <br />actual home. Mr. Dean said the biggest problem with the application is that they are trying to have too <br />much density and they would have been far better off with 2-4 lots depending on configuration. <br />However, this is not the neighbor’s problem, nor is it the Council’s job to come up with a plan that meets <br />City ordinance or state law; it is the Applicants job. Mr. Dean noted Mr. Barnhart said previously that the <br />ALS line was arbitrarily created or “manufactured” in order to have some buildable areas on Lots 1, 2 and <br />3. The standard for the ALS ordinance is not to arbitrarily set or manufacture a line. This 7 Lot <br />development would require this City Council to ignore the problems with Lots 1, 2, 3 and 6 and possibly <br />Lot 5. Mr. Dean said they would have to overlook 4 lots that would require variances and that is not fair. <br />6 <br />6