Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, March 28, 2016 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 5 of 17 <br /> <br />6. #15-3774 MICHAEL STEADMAN ON BEHALF OF IRWIN JACOBS, 1700 SHORELINE <br />DRIVE, EXTENSION OF HERITAGE LANE: AUTHORIZE CITY PURCHASE OF WETLAND <br />CREDITS (continued) <br /> <br />Michael Steadman stated he has nothing to add to Staff’s report. <br /> <br />Mayor McMillan asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this application. <br /> <br />Kevin Kokesh, Attorney-at-Law, stated he represents Dr. Komer, who resides at 1005 Heritage Lane. <br />Kokesh stated he has reviewed these materials and that there are a couple of items that he would like to <br />address. Kokesh stated it is a little upsetting that the City is now going to help the developer get the <br />wetland credits but that he can understand the developer doing it. <br /> <br />Kokesh stated everything that was told to the residents about deminimus exception or exemption is <br />apparently not true anymore and that there is a problem with the wetland being filled. Kokesh stated he <br />would not expect the City to stand in the way of that but for the City to go out of their way with a joint <br />application is a little bit disturbing since the Council knows the residents do not want this access. Kokesh <br />stated in the residents’ view there is an alternative access from Shoreline and that there is already a road <br />going through the back of the property. <br /> <br />Kokesh stated the other point he would like to raise is about the application itself. Kokesh noted on <br />Page 8 there is a section under avoidance, which states, “The applicant has to show alternatives that could <br />be done that would avoid having to fill this wetland.” It clearly states that no feasible alternatives for <br />access exist, which is a false statement. Kokesh stated he can understand the applicant saying that, but for <br />the City to be making a statement like that is dicey when they know there is an alternative. <br /> <br />Kokesh stated at the very least the application should be changed to reflect the facts of the situation and <br />not contain an intentionally misleading statement. <br /> <br />City Attorney Mattick stated the reason for the joint application is because it is a public road and is a city- <br />owned street. Since the City will have an interest in it, they need to sign off on the application. <br /> <br />Mattick stated he understands there is a disagreement on whether that road should be used but that is what <br />the City approved. Because it is a public road, the City is a joint applicant on the wetland credits. In <br />terms of the alternative access, Mattick stated he understands Mr. Kokesh’s point, but that access utilizing <br />the county road has been rejected. In order to extend that road through that corridor, it needs to be filled <br />in. It was considered a deminimus project right up to the point where the Minnehaha Creek Watershed <br />District said this is two separate projects. <br /> <br />Mattick noted it should be pointed out that the developer is paying for all costs associated with this. <br /> <br />Kokesh stated the assumption in the application that the right-of-way is there to connect to the <br />neighboring plat is not correct as well. Kokesh stated when you plat out subdivisions and you put a road <br />in, you start at one end of the subdivision and you continue to the other end of the subdivision. Kokesh <br />stated the intentionality of it to connect to the Jacobs’ property is an assumption that was made and that <br />nobody knew that the person who platted it originally wanted to connect to the Jacobs’ property. Kokesh <br />stated that road was never done and never approved, so the idea of avoiding a landlocked parcel is not <br />correct.