Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, November 23, 2015 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 14 of 41 <br /> <br />Brynes stated another issue that is unanswered relates to the existing drain field. The residents’ engineer <br />has said that design and location for an alternate site for the system should be shown that does not impede <br />upon the building site. The November 18 response makes no mention about the existing septic field <br />impeding on the location of the current site. The question is whether the developer is prepared to not <br />develop that site until Lot 4 is connected. Brynes stated the response on the 18th does not address that <br />specific issue. <br /> <br />Brynes stated the final point relates to the Hennepin County recommendation. As Councilman Walsh <br />pointed out, he had a conversation with Steve Grone. Another member of the homeowners association <br />has also spoken to Steven Grone, and what he came away from that conversation is vastly different than <br />what the e-mail implies. Brynes stated it might not be a misrepresentation but that it is an attempt to use <br />the information to bring their case forward in the best of light, which is what the residents are also <br />attempting to do. The Council’s job is to make a decision on what the final answer should be. <br /> <br />Brynes stated he would ask that the discussion and approval be tabled so the Council has the time to do <br />the necessary further consideration on their own. Brynes stated there are enough issues that seem to be <br />unanswered, and even in talking to relatively the same people, the residents are getting different <br />responses. Brynes stated this is something that the residents will live with forever and that they want this <br />to be something they can look back on 25 years from now and say the City did the right job. Brynes <br />stated in his view the City is rushing to approval before the Council has had the time to make thoughtful <br />and considerate decisions. <br /> <br />Dennis Libby, 1000 Heritage Lane, stated he is here tonight to give the Council some additional <br />information. Libby stated he does not need to remind the Council that in a democratic process and good <br />governance, they are obligated to serve the good of the many over the good of the few. Libby stated they <br />often forget to ask, when they have these discussions, is not whether the City of Orono and the developer <br />have the right to use Heritage Lane for access but whether it is the right thing to do at all. <br /> <br />Libby stated he took part of his afternoon today to take a couple of still photographs of the entrance and <br />exit from the Irwin Jacobs’ property and provided those to Staff. The Council has already seen the video <br />showing the school bus going down Heritage Lane. Libby stated the first picture is a panoramic view <br />looking out to County Road 15 from where the Heritage residents would typically have their dock system. <br />As you look to the left, you can see one of the monuments. Libby stated this is an obstructed corner and <br />that the line of sight from this spot is dramatically poorer than it is from Irwin Jacobs’ driveway. <br /> <br />The next photograph shows the approach from the Irwin Jacobs’ driveway, which has a longer line of <br />sight than the Foxhill residents do at their entrance. <br /> <br />Libby noted Exhibit D is the correspondence that has been mentioned on a number of occasions, which is <br />an e-mail correspondence from Steve Grone at Hennepin County. Libby stated during his conversation <br />with him today, he made no leading comments but simply referred to the 1700 Shoreline Drive property <br />address. In the e-mail, Mr. Grone indicated that Hennepin County would require that the construction <br />traffic use the existing city street, Heritage Lane. Libby stated when he asked Mr. Grone if he recalled <br />that conversation of October 21 with Mr. Gronberg, he indicated he did. Libby stated he then asked <br />Mr. Grone if he were knowledgeable of these two alternatives – the Heritage Lane access and the Jacobs’ <br />property access. His answer was that he has never been on site or done any research because he has never <br />been approached with an application, which is contrary to what the City ordered originally when they <br />requested that an alternative road be explored.