02-24-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITV' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 10, 1997 (#2 - Orono Lane and County Road 15 Intersection - Continued) Jabbour asked Polaczyk to explain an alternative ingress-egress the County had considered. Polaczyk said the alternative would have realigned Orono Lane placing it 200' to the east It would have required a cul-de-sac at the end of Orono Lane, rerouted Orono Lane through a wetland area, and clear cut a large area. There is a high probability of substantial additional costs, both for constuiction and necessary right-of- way acquisition. Polaczyk explained that the City and County would share the right-of- way costs at a 50/50 ratio. Construction costs are paid by Hennepin County. Polaczyk indicated the City and residents would benefit from a site distance commensurate with the current proposed design. The alternate design would require substantial tree removal in the wetland area, but there would be less impact to the hillside. The discussion was opened for public comment. Karla Spooner, 1385 Orono Lane, spoke as a representative of the Orono Lane neighborhood. She indicated their concern over the dangerous intersection. Spooner said the neighbors had only heard last month of the design approval of the road improvements. She indicated the neighbors have agreed to take a "wait and see" approach and will monitor any increased traft'ic. Spooner asked for approval of the following requests by the residents. 1) Ability to readdress the road improvement in the future 2) If a neighborhood resident agrees to donate land for a new intersection, he could; a) realize a tax benefit for his donation, b) obtain a reduction in his property tax, and c) be allowed the same hardcover benefits as he is currently allowed. Spooner presented letters from the neighbors voicing their concerns and added her notes as part of the minutes for the record. Jabbour informed Spooner that anyone can ask the Council to reopen an issue. He indicated that conditions cannot be placed to bind a future Council but the record would indicate their request. Goetten said she would welcome hearing public viewpoints and had no concerns with their request. She said she was unaware of the new ’ impacts at the curve until this meeting. Flint indicated he would be willing to readdress the issue at a later date Peterson also had no problem with readdressing the issue. She questioned the hardcover approval request. It was explained that the neighbor would like to be allowed the same amount of hardcover as he currently benefits from with the amount of property he now owns after the land donation is made. This neighbor was not present at the meeting.