03-10-1997 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 10, 1997 0 ( #7 - #2202 County Road 15 Reconstruction - Continued) Goetten asked who the City would speak with regarding the process and asked why the City was not considered when going through the process. Knowlan said he would have to take the responsibility. Goetten suggested the City be notified of the format taken by the County. Settles suggested the City also provide the procedural list. Jabbour noted that the data provided could assist the City through their process. Peterson asked if there would be a time schedule ramification if an EIS was required. Knowlan said it would affect the project by about a year. He noted that they have never been asked to perform an EIS as a result of such a project. Peterson was informed that the project date to begin construction was July 15. Gaffron inquired about the time frame for publishing results of the EAW and what effect the lack of approval at this meeting would have on the schedule. Jabbour indicated that the City Attorney has advised the Council not to grant preliminary approval but to wait until the EAW process is completed. Radio clarified that the definition of completion of an EAW would be when the RGU makes the determination that an EIS is not required. Settles indicated that the bidding does not occur until all of the permits are received. Jabbour questioned the distinction between public and private roadways. He noted that the County designed the plans as directed by the City. Knowlan indicated bids must be • taken in April to meet the July 15 deadline. It was determined that signature of the EAbV document could be made within 1 -5 days after the close of the comment period; that date would be March 17. Jabbour asked the Council if they would support the project if the EAW was approved. Kelley said he would support the project as long as the EAW results were favorable. Flint asked if there was anything the County could do from an engineering standpoint to lessen the impact on Lake Minnetonka. Settles said no given the site constraints. Knowlan indicated that private property would be further impacted if the road was moved to the south. Flint suggested moving the road closer to the railroad. Knowlan explained the clear zone requirements which the County and Railroad both have. Settles said the gain would only be a foot. He also indicated that there will be a larger improvement to water quality by contributing to a regional pond. Kelley added that the telephone poles were also an issue. Knowlan indicated the poles from Woodhill to the east will be removed and the cable buried. NSP has decided to move the poles to the west of Woodhill to the south side. Goetten asked if the County has obtained a signed agreement with the Railroad in regards • to easements. Knowlan said the agreement is not expected until June 1. He noted that it is not necessary to have acquired all of the easements prior to the start of the project. 13