HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-08-2021 Council Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,February 8,2021
6:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:Mayor
Dennis Walsh, City Council members Richard Crosby,III,Matt Johnson,and Victoria Seals.
Councilmember Aaron Printup was absent. Representing Staff were Community Development Director
Jeremy Barnhart, City Attorney Soren Mattick,Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards and
City Administrator/Finance Director Ron Olson.
Mayor Walsh called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.,followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 25,2021
2. COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 25,2021
3. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JANUARY 11,2021 AMEND TO ADD PUBLIC
HEARING FOR BODY WORN CAMERAS
4. CLAIMSBILLS
5. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO 2021 ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS—
RESOLUTION
6. APPROVAL OF HENNEPIN COUNTY ASSESSOR'S 2-YEAR CONTRACT
7. WALTERS PORT WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT—AWARD
8. BUILDING SERVICES CONTRACT
9. LA20-000073—ALL ENERGY SOLAR OB/O BRIAN O'CONNELL AND LYNNE
RASMUSSEN,3145 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE
10. LA20-000076—CHRIS MOE,2425 THOROUGHBRED LANE,CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT—RESOLUTION
11. LA20-000077—PREMIUM CONSTRUCTION LLC,2967 CASCO POINT ROAD,
VARIANCE—RESOLUTION
12. LA21-000001 - CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO
APPEALS
13. LA21-000002—CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO DRY
BUILDABLE DEFINITION
14. LA20-000001—NEIL WEBER OB/O ORONO APARTMENTS LLC,2475
KELLEY PARKWAY,MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN EXTENSION
15. REPLACEMENT OF BOBCAT SKID STEER UNIT#452
16. PARKS AND GOLF COURSE SUPERINTENDENT RECRUITMENT
17. REPLACEMENT OF TRAILER UNIT#482
Page 1 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,February 8,2021
6:03 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA—Continued
Crosby moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted.
Johnson asked to add on to No) 16,he wished Jason the best of luck as he had a lot of passion for the golf
course.
Mayor Nelson noted Jason is the one who retired and whom Orono needs to replace.
Johnson seconded. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
POLICE DEPARTMENT REPORT
18. BODY CAMERA POLICY PUBLIC COMMENT
Police Chief Correy Farniok said tonight he has before the Council their portable audio and video
recorders policy. This covers State statute,League of Minnesota Cities,and the policy before the Council
has been reviewed by Attorney Mattick and his team to make sure it fits the requirements of the State in
regards to the mandates in place as well as the League of Minnesota Cities and other data practices. This
includes body cameras, squad cameras,and weapons-mounted cameras. Chief Farniok said regarding
public comment,he received one voicemail today and the only question/concern the individual had is
regarding the data practices of the video released and who can obtain that information—especially when
it pertains to police tactics or movements. He will have to review the policy more closely to make sure it
is covered,but usually that type of information is considered private and would not be released, unless it
was for public need or because of safety concerns.
Mayor Walsh noted that was always the biggest issue,that private information will not get out,pictures of
the inside of houses,medical issues,etcetera.
Chief Farniok emphasized that this includes body cameras,weapon-mounted cameras,so it is all-
encompassing;therefore if they should get involved in a situation they should have the best available data
as well as best available product. Then they can help preserve the evidence and protect the officers and
have that information available for the general public.
Mayor Walsh noted Chief Farniok received a comment and part of the requirement is to open up for
public comment to put in the record.
Mayor Walsh opened the public comment at 6:08 p.m.
Mayor Walsh closed the public comment at 6:08 p.m.
Crosby moved,Seals seconded,to approve the Body Camera Policy.VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0.
Page 2 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,February 8,2021
6:03 p.m.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
Mayor Walsh noted Bob Erickson from the Planning Commission is present tonight if the Council has
any questions.
19. LA20-000048-TIMOTHY WHITTEN O/B/O I.JACOBS/A.JACOBS REVOCABLE
TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT-RESOLUTION
Patrick B. Steinhoff,220 South Street,Minneapolis,Attorney for the Applicant,was present.
Staff presented a summary packet of information. Barnhart noted after hearing from the Council and
neighbors last fall,the Applicant revised the proposed Shoreland Estates plat trying to address a number
of concerns raised at that time. Those issues included Average Lakeshore Setback(ALS),number of lots,
road length,tree removal, and density. The Applicant has put together a revised plan and these changes
were routed again through the Planning Commission process and they held another public hearing in
January to gain some more feedback from the neighborhood. What the Council sees tonight is the
culmination of 4-5 months of work, changes made by the Applicant, and comments or reflection of
comments made by the Planning Commission in January; it is quite a bit of comment for this end project.
Barnhart said what is proposed today is a 6 buildable-lot subdivision which include 4 outlots—Outlot A,
B, and C along Shoreline Drive and Outlot D which is a private road for access for these lots. Of the 6
lots,4 are lake lots;3 on Smith Bay and 1 on Tanager;Lot 5 is a lake lot but Lots 4 and 6 are not. Access
to this project is via a new private road(maintained by the Association)off Shoreline Drive and the road
will terminate in a cul-de-sac. The Applicant is proposing a landscaped island in the middle of the cul-de-
sac bulb. The cul-de-sac length conforms to the City standard and the City code does not require a
measurement along the diameter of the cul-de-sac. The measurement is shown from the intersection of
Shoreline all the way along to the end of the cul-de-sac pavement. Barnhart commented on the ALS as
that was the big issue last fall;this plan removes all references to ALS and there is no"artificial"ALS;all
of the ALS's for all of these lots will be established at the time development is proposed for those lake
lots. They will follow the City code as it is written at the time those lots are proposed. He said for Lots 1,
2, 3 and Lot 5—the ALS will be established at the time a building permit is pulled. Barnhart noted there
has been some comment or question about the buildability of Lot 5. The ALS for Lot 5 is based solely at
this stage, because nothing has happened, on Lot 3 of Tanager Estates. The ALS for Lot 5 is based on the
distance 1100 Millston Road is from Tanager Lake; Barnhart showed an exhibit on-screen and noted 1100
Millston and Tanager Lake and the distance from the Ordinary High Water Line(OHL)to the nearest
point of the structure is 398 feet per the Applicant's surveyor. That is the distance that an improvement
on Lot 5 needs to be made to build on Lot 5. Barnhart pointed out on-screen the proposed Lot 5 shows
the 398 feet to the proposed red line which generally follows the contour of the OHL. He noted they also
see a yellow highlighted area showing the proposed setbacks for the zoning district on this lot to show
that there is a buildable site for a house on Lot 5.He clarified the house pads here(on-screen)—the
Council is not approving house pads at a time of preliminary or even final plat—these are just illustrations
to show that the lot can be built on. The buildable site for Lot 5 is within this envelope until something
happens with Lot 3 and then that may change. Barnhart said at this stage today, if this plat was approved,
and final plat and all the improvements were made,the property owner on Lot 5 can build within that
envelope. He continued saying during the review of this project, Planning Commission had a number of
issues, concerns,and comments they wanted to address before the City Council saw it;one dealt with the
turn lane as it could potentially impact the private property next door. The property owner there has made
it very clear they do not want any impact onto that private property which is a fair concern. Barnhart said
the Applicant has put together an exhibit to show that a turn lane can be improved within this right-of-
Page 3 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,February 8,2021
6:03 p.m.
19. LA20-000048-TIMOTHY WHITTEN O/B/O I.JACOBS/A.JACOBS REVOCABLE
TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT-RESOLUTION—Continued
way without impacting the private property there. Barnhart pointed out the design of the turn lane and the
design of how it is configured—it is a County Road so they look to the County for approval of any
improvements within the right-of-way. The County has said that any work within the right-of-way will
require their permit and they have not yet approved this; Barnhart would not expect the County to
approve a turn lane at this stage. However,the County said in an email that it looks like a good start but
they have had some back-and-forth with the Applicant to make sure their requirements are met and
Barnhart is confident that solution will be made. He pointed out that Staffs recommendation is that any
approval of this preliminary plat be subject to County approval of any work in the turn lane. Barnhart
said the Planning Commission wanted the Council to see that before they made a final decision so that is
where they see the drawing today. The Planning Commission also had comments about access to the
docks;Planning Commission and Staff anticipate that Outlots A,B, and C will house docks to serve lots
1,2, and 3 and the Planning Commission had some concern with access to these dock systems. People
will be crossing over Shoreline Drive and walking along the road with coolers,lake toys, etcetera, and the
Planning Commission wanted an idea of how that would be solved. The Applicant has shown three head-
in parking stalls along the new private road where people can park as the houses will likely be 500+feet
away from where the docks are and that is the proposed solution to that concern. Barnhart stated during
the discussion at the Planning Commission,there was an Outlot D which was really just an extension of
this road(on-screen)and there was some talk about having that area be dedicated for parking or a
community area. Staff was a bit concerned with that and so was the PC, so the Applicant has absorbed
this area into the larger Outlot C;therefore Outlot C is anticipated to be privately owned and combined
with lots 1,2,and 3.
Walsh noted the people that will come down there to get to the other lots will need some kind of egress as
they do not want them going down the road. He assumes they will give an easement to be able to go from
one to the other and not be trespassing.
Barnhart stated that is a good comment and they can certainly work that into a resolution. He noted that
is one of the Planning Commission's comments;however there is limited space in that area before diving
into the water and he will look to the Applicant for a resolution on how that is accomplished. He said at
the sketch plan level earlier the County had suggested that their preference would be to have access to this
subdivision and these lots occur via Heritage Lane. This makes sense from a County perspective but the
neighborhood opposes that on many levels. The challenge now is that this is privately held and they do
not have access on Heritage for alternative locations so that is not really an option at this stage. Barnhart
said there is a sanitary sewer easement through this lot that will serve the project but not an access
location. Engineering work to date has been completed consistent with what they would expect at a
preliminary plat stage;the City Engineer has provided engineering comments and they are confident they
are working towards getting those completed. Generally those are not completely done until it is seen as
a final plat approval and the development agreement. Barnhart noted Staff is recommending approval of
this subject to the conditions outlined in his memo. The Applicant is present tonight and can answer
questions;he stated there has also been a fair amount of comment from the neighboring property to the
east and the City Council received a letter this afternoon. The neighbor is also here and would like to
address the Council.
Johnson said if this is a blank lot with no houses,where would the City set the lakeshore setback from
Tanager if someone is coming to build for the first time.
Page 4 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,February 8,2021
6:03 p.m.
19. LA20-000048-TIMOTHY WHITTEN O/B/O I.JACOBS/A.JACOBS REVOCABLE
TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT-RESOLUTION—Continued
Barnhart asked if he is referring to Lot 5.
Johnson replied for the entire property. For example, it is a completely blank lot and someone wants to
put a single family home on this property. Where would the City's setback be from the Tanager side.
Barnhart clarified this is a vacant lot at 1700 Shoreline,the 20 acre parcel noted on-screen in blue. As a
setback from Tanager,three things will come into play: the 75 foot lake lot setback, some bluffs and other
things within the lot that will provide additional setback. Barnhart said this is his estimation of what the
ALS is:the neighboring lake lot to the west is Lot 3 of Tanager estates and that is not improved so that is
a vacant lot. Therefore the average lakeshore setback for this lot is based on the distance between the
improved lot to the east which is 1100 Millston and that is the 398 foot setback. He said that is roughly
what the red line on-screen is. Barnhart stated it is not perfect and he looks for engineers and surveyors to
give a better number,but based on his measurement tool that is what he was able to estimate.
Johnson said under the City's code they would not be drawing a line between the property to the east and
the property that does exist to the west. They would be using a distance from Tanager,from the ordinary
high water mark based on the property to the east only.
Barnhart replied yes.
Walsh stated it is because there is no other house on the other lot yet. Once there is a home,they will
have the measurement between the two if it is there before anything gets built.
Johnson noted the one that exists to the east is not relevant.
Crosby said the one to the east is relevant.
Johnson apologized and clarified to the west. They have the one to the east but there is a property to the
west existing.
Barnhart replied yes,but it is a lot over. The City only looks at the neighboring lots;the lot to the west is
currently vacant,which is Lot 3 of Tanager Estates. When the house is built,they will then draw that line
between the two.
Johnson asked if they come around the corner on the west side of the property, is that a different lot right
there.
Barnhart stated that is a different lot,yes.
Johnson said that is a different lot but they are not considering that lot.
Barnhart said that is a lake lot only on Smith Bay and it is not a lake lot on Tanager Lake. That is where
the line comes in. To his estimation it is the closest point to this house to Smith Bay and the closest point
of the neighboring lot to the east and that is where the line comes in.
Page 5 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,February 8,2021
6:03 p.m.
19. LA20-000048-TIMOTHY WHITTEN O/B/O I.JACOBS/A.JACOBS REVOCABLE
TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT-RESOLUTION—Continued
Johnson said the red line that is on-screen is going to that property.
Barnhart replied yes.
Walsh said that is the Smith Bay setback line.
Johnson noted because that line does not go to Tanager,the City code says they do not use it;rather they
use the vacant lot which then becomes the distance calculation.
Barnhart replied in the affirmative.
Walsh welcomed the Applicant to the podium.
Patrick B. Steinhoff,Attorney for the Applicant said the bottom line here is that this is a conforming plat,
it is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, it meets all the standards in the City's ordinance,and
the City Council should vote to approve it. As the City Council is aware,the Applicant has received quite
a bit of objections from one of the neighbors,Mrs.Barbara Burwell,through her attorney who has
submitted numerous letters totaling about 40 pages of objections. Mr. Steinhoff has made a list of the
most pertinent of those and using as few words as possible,he will quickly go through to explain the
Applicant's response to them. He started with the ALS issue and noted they spent a huge amount of time
trying to address objections to the ALS.He won't talk at length but will say if they were to
simultaneously build houses on all of these lots right now,they would be buildable behind the ALS where
it is today. Obviously the ALS is a moving target and it changes,however right now they have six
buildable lots if they all went up at the same time right now based on where the ALS is today. He said
there was an objection to the cul-de-sac road; in the original plan there was an objection to its length and
the Applicant redesigned it so it is shorter now and comes in at 997 feet which is in conformance with the
City's subdivision code and is no longer an issue. Mr. Steinhoff noted they have had comments regarding
the right-hand turn lane and Barnhart summarized them pretty well;they were addressed in the letter the
City Council received a couple hours ago from Mrs.Burwell's attorney Mr.Dean and Mr. Steinhoff will
address some of those comments briefly as the premise of the objection is totally wrong. If the City
Council read the attorney's letter, he said there is an eight foot shoulder requirement for this turn-lane.
Mr. Steinhoff stated that is not true as the attorney was citing MnDOT regulations and those apply to
travel lanes and do not apply to turn lanes. If one is on a traveling lane,the shoulder is to get cars off the
travel lane; if one is in a turn lane,they are already out of the travel lane so those concerns do not apply.
Mr.Dean's objection is also premised on characterization of Shoreline Drive as a principal arterial and it
is not;rather it is a minor extender according to the City's Comprehensive Plan. This is a Hennepin
County road and the County does not have it classified as a principal arterial. The Applicant's engineer
and surveyor Mark Gronberg have had discussions with the County and can explain more about those
consultations. The bottom line is that the Applicant is willing to build a turn lane,they are in consultation
with the County and the turn lane shown on-screen is consistent with what the County tells them they will
require. Mr. Steinhoff noted there have been objections to density and the number of lots and he noted
this City Council has already decided what the property density is for this property in its Comp Plan,
ordinances, and has already made the policy determination of what the density should be. The Applicant
has complied with the ordinances and they are consistent with the Comp Plan. He also noted they have
already reduced the original density as it used to be 7 lots and they have reduced it to 6 lots. Mr.
Page 6 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,February 8,2021
6:03 p.m.
19. LA20-000048-TIMOTHY WHITTEN O/B/O I.JACOBS/A.JACOBS REVOCABLE
TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT-RESOLUTION—Continued
Steinhoff said there were comments made about the docks and safety issues along the lake and he will
have Tim Whitten and Mr. Gronberg talk more about those,but the Applicant has addressed the
comments made by the Planning Commission. There have been lots of objections relating to trees and the
Applicant has done as much as they can do concerning preservation of trees and Mr.Whitten will speak
more about that. If the City Council has any other specific questions he is happy to answer them now or
later. In conclusion,Mr. Steinhoff said this is a conforming plat,the City should vote to approve it, and
he asks that they do.
Tim Whitten,Whitten&Associates,addressed the issue of the tree protection area and showed an exhibit
on-screen,noting the Applicant heard from the neighbor that they are concerned about tree preservation.
The Applicant identified areas on the site in green that are 30 foot wide areas which they would classify
as a"no touch zone." Any trees in those areas they would not touch. Mr. Whitten noted they shared this
information with the Kuhlmann's on the west side and Mrs.Burwell and her attorney on the east side.
They offered,through Mrs.Burwell's attorney,that they would also be willing to plan some evergreen
trees along the road on the east right-of-way to help buffer that. He noted that is something they will deal
with when they develop the landscape plan and they also have some City required trees to incorporate
into the plan as well;they will do that at the same time and are happy to work with them. The next
exhibit is on the shoreline and Mr. Whitten noted there were questions from the Planning Commission on
how safe it is for the residents on the south side of Shoreline Drive as they access their docks. Mr.
Whitten stated they took a photo and showed what it looks like today, and then showed a picture of Mrs.
Burwell's area and noted they would prepare the access to the docks in a similar way. They would keep
the main priority trees, cut down the brush, and make it a safe passageway through. He noted they are
committed to doing that. Mr. Whitten is happy to answer questions.
Walsh said regarding the easement for people going across and getting to the lots farther to the west,the
Applicant will put in some kind of walking easement so they can walk through Lot 1 to be able to get to
lots 2 and 3.
Mr. Whitten replied yes.
Johnson thinks there was a question that came up at the Planning Commission that a property owner to
the east was concerned about the roadwork that would be done and how that affected properties that were
on their property and asked Mr. Whitten to speak to that.
Mr.Whitten asked if he is talking about the turn lane.
Johnson said no,he believes it was talking about the private drive that goes up and thought there a
concern about how that activity was going to affect.
Mr. Whitten replied yes,in the tree preservation exhibit they identified the trees that would be removed.
Farther to the south there is a tree that would be removed and then as the road turns there are also trees
that would be removed. Along the east edge is where they are saying they would plant some evergreens.
Page 7 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,February 8,2021
6:03 p.m.
19. LA20-000048-TIMOTHY WHITTEN OB/O I.JACOBS/A.JACOBS REVOCABLE
TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT-RESOLUTION—Continued
Walsh thinks the question Johnson was asking at the Planning Commission,the Burwell's brought up that
in constructing the turn lane they were under the impression that their private property would be used to
do that turn lane. He thought someone at the time said they would not have to be on or take any of the
Burwell's private property to make that happen.
Johnson clarified it was not the turn lane but he thought there was some concern that the activity of doing
this development and putting in this shared driveway where it exists as a singular driveway now was
going to impact some of the trees on their property.
Mr.Whitten stated he is not aware that it will impact but he will let Mr. Gronberg reply to that. They are
putting the road basically in the same position that the existing road is but it will be a little bit wider.
Johnson noted the Planning Commission was also asked to get a dock plan and asked if the Applicant has
gotten that far.
Mr.Whitten said they have not gone through that exercise yet.
Johnson said the Applicant got rid of Outlot D which he thinks is a good idea based on the feedback from
the Planning Commission and asked if they will likely do a joint dock down there.
Mr. Whitten thinks that is a possibility and it will likely be up to the property owners to decide whether
they would have a joint dock.
Barnhart clarified the Code does allow joint-use dock facilities but that is done at the time of the
subdivision so that decision would have to be made as part of the final plan at the latest stage.
Walsh assumes the owners of the property would have to agree to do that.
Barnhart said yes.
Walsh stated they could have three individual dock formations and they would all have to get along to do
a shared dock.
Johnson said it is either that or risk your life heading to your dock on Lot 3. He understands the
Applicant will clear trees over 4 inches along the lakeshore but that does not necessarily make it safer.
He thinks the Planning Commission hit on it—the turn lane is relevant and Johnson does not know what
jurisdiction the City has in dictating that or not. However,there is no safe way to cross this as it is a busy
road;he noted he lives just down the street and goes by there all the time. For the value of the
development,the Applicant wants to mitigate that as much as possible and Johnson thinks that all the
crossings that occur here are at an increased amount of risk as it is a busy road.Whatever they can do to
keep people from continuing down this road even farther is something to be looked at whether that is a
sidewalk or whatever that is.
Walsh asked if Johnson would suggest that he would want a joint dock put in to solve some of that.
Page 8 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,February 8,2021
6:03 p.m.
19. LA20-000048-TIMOTHY WHITTEN OB/O I.JACOBS/A.JACOBS REVOCABLE
TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT-RESOLUTION—Continued
Johnson replied he thinks the Applicant is right and these property owners will probably come to that on
their own.If he was the property owner and looked down at the Fox neighborhood just down the street,
the one thing they have going for them is their dock access is straight out from their road. There are not
people going across and then going along that road. He said these people are not doing anything wrong as
they are just going off to their boat. Johnson noted there were two vehicles in the water right along there
this year and he does not know the responsibility the City has—maybe it is not their business—and
perhaps it is just up to the County. However turn lanes in both directions there just makes sense to
Johnson because it is a busy road and people are carrying things across.
Crosby asked if they could do docks like they have in the Fox neighborhood for all the houses or for 5 of
the 6.
Barnhart said there is a provision in the City code currently that allows joint-use facilities where riparian
lots can create an asset for non-riparian lots as long as the density of both does not increase over what is
allowed without that joint-use dock. He stated if he is reading that clause of the code correctly,that is
done at the time of a subdivision;the City has said no to neighborhoods coming and wanting to do a joint
use dock that did not have one before because it is part of a subdivision,which this would be.
Johnson was just talking about allowing the two lots that do not have dock rights;he is not saying to add
them down here as that is the worst thing they could do to add more people down there. It might just
make logistical sense for the three which will be after the lot combination as they will be lakeshore
owners. The three of them under the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District(LMCD)can decide to put
their docks together.
Seals thinks that makes sense as Johnson drives it all the time and she drove it and there is no room; one
is testing fate on Shoreline Drive and people drive like morons on that road. She is sorry.
Crosby noted that is every house along Shoreline Drive.
Walsh stated it is seven miles.
Seals understands what Crosby is saying but noted they are only increasing the problem as Johnson is
pointing out.
Walsh noted it is something to think about.
Seals agreed.
Crosby said the combination dock makes a lot of sense; as Johnson pointed out,something similar to Fox.
Walsh does not know if the City Council can mandate that they have to have a joint dock.
Crosby said yes, it would be recommended.
Walsh stated regarding the turn lane,the design shows it can be done.
Page 9 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,February 8,2021
6:03 p.m.
19. LA20-000048-TIMOTHY WHITTEN OB/O I.JACOBS/A.JACOBS REVOCABLE
TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT-RESOLUTION—Continued
Crosby asked if that turn lane is going in the western direction.
Walsh said regardless of whether it can or cannot be done, it would be contingent upon getting Hennepin
County approval to get it done correctly. The City Council is not making a decision on the turn lane but
rather making it consistent that it must be contingent on having that done correctly per County standards.
Johnson's only question with the turn lane would be, as a City Council, do they have any jurisdiction to
even have an opinion on it.
Attorney Mattick said they have the right to have an opinion on it but they do not have jurisdiction over
that road. To the extent the City Council starts adding requirements to it,they must make sure the County
signs off on it. He noted the County has provided the City with recommendations they feel is necessary.
Walsh said the City Council has the ability to making it contingent on having a turn lane.
Attorney Mattick said absolutely.
Johnson asked if they can have that request going both ways,to add a center turn lane for a left turn.
Seals does not think there is any room.
Walsh agreed.
Johnson said they are coming up with 14 feet on the other side.
Crosby would not think they'd have it on the western side but they may have it on the eastern side.
Mattick said part of what he would say in looking at turn lanes and seeing the recommendations,he relies
upon the engineers who put together the plans. He cannot sit there today and tell the City Council
whether a turn lane is necessary or not. He knows the engineers for Hennepin County have looked at it
and made the recommendations. If the City Council wants to have additional turn lanes,traditionally that
is because there is a professional opinion that it is,or may be,required. Mattick noted they can inquire
about it,there is nothing that prohibits the City Council for perhaps being more restrictive,but it must be
based on something at this point.
Crosby would like to hear Mark Gronberg talk about the turn lane.
Mark Gronberg,Gronberg and Associates,445 North Willow Drive,Long Lake approached the podium.
He said he has been working with the County on some designs and they said they are willing to work with
them to fit it within the existing right-of-way. As the City Council knows,Heritage Lane is down a
couple hundred feet to the west and they worked a turn lane in there in the same amount of right-of-way.
Mr. Gronberg noticed a drawing from the neighbors that showed a turn lane much closer to the Burwell
property and that started at the end of the pavement on the north end they already have a 4 foot shoulder
there and then showed an 8 foot turn lane and another 4 foot shoulder. He clarified the turn lane actually
starts at the driving lane,goes 8 feet, and then they try to fit a 4 foot shoulder in after that. Mr. Gronberg
Page 10 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,February 8,2021
6:03 p.m.
19. LA20-000048-TIMOTHY WHITTEN O/B/O I.JACOBS/A.JACOBS REVOCABLE
TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT-RESOLUTION—Continued
said there were some comments about ditch being required but in looking on the plans there is a culvert
about 200 feet north of the start of the road that goes under the existing Jacobs driveway and all the
drainage goes there, so there is no ditch required on that.
Johnson noted at the Planning Commission they also talked about having an acceleration lane coming out
and going the other way.
Mr. Gronberg said they did talk about that but there is not enough room there to do it.
Johnson said they were talking about if they made a right-hand turn out of there,a mirror image of that.
Mr. Gronberg said they did not determine there was enough room there with the wetlands.
Johnson asked who is"they."
Mr. Gronberg replied the County.
Walsh welcomed any other commenters to the podium.
Attorney Aaron Dean,representing Barbara Burwell,approached the podium and said he has been before
the City Council at least once before and the Planning Commission. He noted the City Council is being
asked to make a hard decision because they are being asked to do things out of order. The Applicant has
not done the engineering to show that what they"think"will happen,can happen,and that is leading the
City Council in a bad position. He has provided the City Council with the Kemper survey and the
Applicant has provided the City Council the Gronberg survey. Attorney Dean said they used the two
surveys so they will be identical and have an apples-to-apples comparison with just the 4 foot shoulder,
even though that is not the right width of the shoulder. He stated the problem with where this road is,it is
in the most congested part of Shoreline Drive. He gave the City Council the MnDOT information and
said 15,600 vehicles per day and the City Council is being asked to overlook all of the health and safety
problems inherent with a really dense development. The problem is not the City Council;the problem is
that this should be a 2 or a 3 lot development. They can talk around in circles as much as they want,a 5
and 6 lot development does not work but a 2 or 3 lot development does-he does not think a 4 lot
development would work, either. Attorney Dean wants to go through the reasons why it won't work.
First of all there is only a 66 foot right-of-way and in that right-of-way they have to have Shoreline Drive.
If they put in a 12 foot turn lane,they have to have a shoulder to the side of that,then they have existing
power lines and he has provided the City Council today with two videos—he hopes they were able to
review them. Think about those videos taken today at 10:00 in the morning on a Monday in February
with COVID and there shouldn't be any traffic at all...yet there is heavy traffic every day of the year. It
really illustrates the problem as it exists today which will be infinitely worse if they allow a dense
development to be built. He asked the City Council to imagine the construction traffic and how they will
even get into the Jacobs property. What he is showing with the MnDOT traffic application mapping
service was that they cannot even fit the turn lane that they say they will put in there. Mr. Gronberg's
survey just shows that it is possible to put a 12 foot turn lane but as pointed out there is no acceleration
lane because there is no room. Attorney Dean said they do not even consider the fact of the existing
power lines;they cannot have the power lines where they are, as they will have to move them out and
Page 11 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,February 8,2021
6:03 p.m.
19. LA20-000048-TIMOTHY WHITTEN O/B/O I.JACOBS/A.JACOBS REVOCABLE
TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT-RESOLUTION—Continued
there is not enough room. There is not enough room—even if the Applicant was correct,which they are
not—that only a 4 foot shoulder is required. He said if the City Council passes this plat in its present
application, all they have done is create more problems. He told the City Council to make the Applicant
go back and do the work to have engineer drawings,to have the County and MnDOT bless the turn lane
that they say they can fit in, and they will have to have drainage. The culvert that is on the Jacob's side is
meaningless and does not provide any drainage for the Burwell residence. The Burwell residence is
going to be in a perpetual state of flooding because there is not enough room in the right-of-way. He
cannot believe they are even talking about these issues. Attorney Dean said they have a family who has
lived here for 40 years and their rights are being trounced. There is going to be an effort to have this 6 lot
or 5 lot development that does not address health and safety and the Burwell's have to live with it and
their property has to be taken to expand more right-of-way so that the drainage ditch can be built and so
the utilities can be relocated. That makes zero sense. Attorney Dean stated instead what the City Council
should do is force the Jacobs to go back and say"prove it,the proof is in the pudding;"give him the
engineer drawings,not a conceptual sketch by a surveyor who is not a licensed professional engineer. He
said show him the engineered drawings approved by the County that have the turn lane, show whether
there can be an acceleration lane, show where the drainage ditch it, show where the utilities will be
relocated,and prove to him that the Burwell's will not have any of their property taken. Until those steps
can be done,the City Council has to deny. Attorney Dean wants to talk a bit about the new change that
was made for this meeting tonight where the Jacobs have put in those three parallel parking spots at the
end of the private road—it does not do any good. All is does is transfer a problem from one location to a
new location; one still has to go from the road and cross Shoreline Drive and the average vehicle traffic of
15,600 vehicles per day every day of the year. That does not make any sense and even if there is a
walking easement on Outlots 1,2, and 3, or A, B,and C,that does not solve the crossing problem. In the
past,the City Council has always required showing a dock plan and the Applicant did not do it. Why
didn't they do it? Attorney Dean said because they are still not sure what they want to do and yet they
want to come here and get preliminary approval. He said make them go back and have a complete plan.
One of the things that has been glossed over,even though it is in Mr.Barnhart's report, is what the
County said and he asked the City Council to take a look at it on page 2 of the Staff report. He asked if
the City Council sees it...it is the August 17,2020 email where he quotes from the Hennepin County,
when there is a discussion by the County about the right-of-way,this is what they say: "right-of-way,
sufficient right-of-way is needed to accommodate a right turn lane at this location." The County does not
say there is enough right-of-way and the existing right-of-way is sufficient,but they say the reverse,
sufficient right-of-way is needed. The only way to get that turn lane is to take more of the Burwell's land
—why would the City do that to a family that has lived there for 40 years? Attorney Dean noted the City
will also have to grant two variances for lots 2 and 3 because they are not wide enough on the cul-de-sac.
He asked if this City Council is really prepared to do that and grant two variances right from the get-go.
That does not make any sense either. One of the things that has come up that he wants to use to illustrate
the arbitrariness of the City Staff is this cul-de-sac. There is a 1,000 foot limit and everyone agrees that if
they do not take in to account the center island, it is 997 feet. He said to use some common sense—the
path of travel would require that they would go around the outside of the cul-de-sac and they will be over
1,000 feet. It is not just the 3 feet that causes a concern with a 1,000-foot limit, it is the momentum that
has built with the City Staff that they will overlook any problem, any violation of the City code in order to
assist the developer and not the current citizens that have lived in this location for 40 years. He said it is
not fair and it should really cause some concern by this Council. Attorney Dean would encourage the
City Council,even though they are already familiar with the property,to go out there and just walk along
Page 12 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,February 8,2021
6:03 p.m.
19. LA20-000048-TIMOTHY WHITTEN O/B/O I.JACOBS/A.JACOBS REVOCABLE
TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT-RESOLUTION—Continued
Shoreline Drive and then start imagining having either grandchildren who are small or young children and
trying to cross that road. None of this makes sense,he said if they just had 2-3 lots it would really be
easy,but they won't do it as they want a high-density development that does not work for this property.
It is the obligation of the Jacobs,not the City Council's obligation and not the Burwell's obligation,to
provide a plan that satisfies all requirements and it is not enough for Mr. Gronberg or Mr. Steinhoff to say
"well,maybe it will fit,"or"likely it will fit." No, it has to definitively fit within the right-of-way in
order for the City Council to approve. Attorney Dean said the City Council is being asked to take a leap
of faith without any engineering and approve a plan that has the potential to hurt only one person: Barbara
Burwell and her family. Yet, elevating the future potential rights of people who don't live here, it does
not make any sense. One thing that Attorney Dean also thinks needs to come to the forefront is the
Applicant is able to show the dock plan that exists on Tanager—why didn't they show any docks on Lake
Minnetonka? Because he thinks they are trying to reserve some wiggle room for themselves to create this
community dock that just came out today and the only reason it came out is they must have talked to at
least one of the City Council members before tonight but they have never said that before. He said that is
bothersome. Why is there this secrecy and lack of transparency? It should bother them as elected
officials that the neighbors next door are not given the same information...that should be bothersome.
Attorney Dean provided to the City Council a good photo that really illustrated the problem and it is on
page 10 of his letter. Mark Twain said something over a hundred years ago that remains true"if I had
more time, I would've written a shorter letter." Attorney Dean said if he would have had more time he
would have written a shorter letter; he had some family circumstances that prevented him from allocating
the time that he needed. The picture on page 10 really shows what is really at risk because it is taken
from a vantage point looking to the east from the Jacob's property and looking towards the Burwell
property. It clearly shows that there is not enough room. There is a telephone line and pedestal, existing
power lines, all of that is going to have to be moved out and the only way to do that is to take more land
from the Burwell's. Why? Because the Jacobs are proposing that high-density development and they are
asking the City Council's approval to take Barbara Burwell's land and if they think that is going to
happen without a lawsuit,it is not going to happen without a lawsuit. He said they will not agree to any
of Mrs.Burwell's land taken to allow the Jacobs to have a high-density development...it is not going to
happen. Attorney Dean said the Applicant has tried to cure their problems with the ALS line and he does
not think they fixed them. He thinks Councilmember Johnson's questions were spot-on. They have kind
of manufactured a new story on the ALS line to try to salvage a high-density development but really it is
right in front of them and the easy solution is 2 or 3 lots. Attorney Dean noted they would consider 4 lots,
but 5 or 6 lots do not work in this area. He said the City Council has a really important decision and he
hopes they do not suffer from fatigue as this is probably the fourth meeting they have had and he does not
know how much time they have spent reviewing letters and meeting with people. Attorney Dean asked
the City Council to do one thing: if they are not certain,do not approve. Don't even preliminarily
approve with 10-20 conditions—make them go back and do the work to provide a compliant plat and
prove that they can fit everything in that right-of-way. Until they do that,he asked the City Council to
please deny. Attorney Dean knows Mrs. Burwell would like to come up and tell the City Council what
she thinks of the proposed plat and he would ask that they give her a little bit of time.
Barbara Burwell, 1100 Millston Road, approached the podium, and said she is the person that lives to the
east on Millston Road. She thinks Attorney Dean has done a great job of summarizing a lot of the
concerns. She said there are concerns and that is why she is standing before the Council saying this is not
a clean deal. She was interested in that being a citizen she is trying to keep up with all of them as she has
Page 13 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,February 8,2021
6:03 p.m.
19. LA20-000048-TIMOTHY WHITTEN O/B/O I.JACOBS/A.JACOBS REVOCABLE
TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT-RESOLUTION—Continued
said before. In order for Mrs.Burwell to know what is going on directly next door to her, she has had no
other options than to get legal counsel in order to protect where she lives and understand that the course
of actions the Council will take on the area she lives and has lived and how it will affect her. Thus,she is
standing before the Council again saying"let's talk about this a little further." There are words that keep
coming up through this process that are rather simple,words like transparency,ALS,density, compliance,
cul-de-sac, might, maybe, could be acceptable,future,the possibility. She said these are all"what-ifs"
and she gets concerned as the person living next door about the concretes of what is going to happen. She
asked to show a picture of County Road 15 which she lives on; she stated in all the years she has lived
there,there has never been a dock on Smith Bay coming off of the Jacobs property. She thinks it is pretty
self-explanatory to say why that might be,because it is so blasted dangerous going across that parcel.
Going from their driveway to directly across,which on some plans is referred to as Outlot D,and there
are other plans that do not even show Outlot D. She said whatever they want to call that area,there is no
room for a car or a golf cart,let alone a turn lane to go in there. If they put a turn lane in there she does
not know where people are going to go. Tonight,when the word"easement"came up she asked,where
are they going to ease to, as there is not room. Mrs.Burwell stated if one is going to walk down that
roadway from the cul-de-sac—maybe in a golf cart—she does not know where they will put the golf cart
because there is no room on either side. She noted on the west side is the swamp or marshland or the
wetland—therefore the parking will be on the east because that is where the dense property is. The other
part is wetlands, she said if one has a child,a basket,a dog, a grandma...have any of the City Council
members ever tried to walk down across by the marsh,let alone try to cross the road and walk from Lot 3
to Outlot 3? That is almost a football field or more and when she was chatting with Meredith and Mike
Kuhlmann,Mrs. Burwell said if they were to do this in reverse-and they don't have a dock on Smith Bay
—and went from their mailbox and were going to take their three children down to Smith Bay. Mrs.
Burwell does not know if they are even able to have a dock on smith bay. However,they are not going to
walk their children across County Road 15 there.To Councilmember Seals' point, it is just plain
dangerous. God made it a difficult parcel of land. She asked to show a photo of her driveway and wants
to address something that came up at the Planning Commission meeting. She appreciates that
Commissioner Erickson brought up the acceleration lane and that is clearly a need and again,it does not
work as there is not room because it is wetlands. Mrs.Burwell again said there is very little room there
and when one comes to turn into the Jacob's driveway,which she has done, in making a left hand turn
into their driveway one is always stopping traffic. Traffic has to go around to the left in the center as
there is no way for them to go across because they would hit a tree. She showed another photo on-screen
that shows directly across from Mrs. Burwell's driveway. She said there is more room in this little parcel
and those two posts are where they have a dock and it is actually an air-base station—she does not have
the correct verbiage for them tonight but she will get it. There is a float plane that was referred to at the
Planning Commission and the plane is not the Jacob's,it is the Burwell's and is there in the summertime
and has regulations for air-bases on Lake Minnetonka. That part is the widest part in a stretch from her
driveway all the way down to what would be the Kuhlmann driveway. Mrs.Burwell said that is the
largest part and it is very scary to get across that. In that part they could maybe put a car to offload but
one would never leave a car there because there is not enough room. She wants to show from a
standpoint that she lives there and walks across there;it is very scary,they do not have a boat there and
only use it as an airplane dock. In the 40+years that Mrs.Burwell has lived there,the Jacobs family has
not had a dock on Smith Bay. She thinks it is pretty relevant to be able to say why: it is just plain old
dangerous.
Page 14 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,February 8,2021
6:03 p.m.
19. LA20-000048-TIMOTHY WHITTEN O/B/O I.JACOBS/A.JACOBS REVOCABLE
TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT-RESOLUTION—Continued
Crosby noted there is a boat over in that area.
Mrs.Burwell said,the community docks over at Heritage.
Crosby replied no,near the float plane he has seen a boat there before.
Mrs.Burwell asked if he meant the Stevenson's?
Crosby does not know.
Mrs. Burwell stated the Stevenson's over by Bracketts Point,and that is part of the Green Trees
development. She said the Stevenson's have a parcel but the Wilsons do not put a boat over there because
the crossing is so dangerous with cars coming across the roadway. The Stevenson's have even indicated
that they would be more than happy to move from Green Trees to be able to be on the lake because of the
danger of crossing with their three sons.
Crosby asked if Mrs.Burwell keeps a boat on the lake.
Mrs.Burwell replied they do on Tanager Lake and to that degree she would like to address that she owns
a property on Green Trees and took the house down. By ordinance or whatever the Orono rules are, she is
not allowed to have a dock there because she does not have a structure on it. She has a lot of lakeshore on
Tanager but she is not allowed to have a dock at Green Trees and she has been in consultation with
Melanie Curtis over the years to understand that. Mrs.Burwell said she has "X"amount of boats that by
code she is allowed to have at Tanager. Quite frankly, she thinks she has too many boats because she has
sons and they have too many toys, but that is a whole different story. She said Tanager is a whole other
discussion because it is becoming even more popular and there are issues with Tanager and the safety
because of the marina. Mrs. Burwell noted she and Johnson live on Tanager and have seen the traffic.
Johnson stated he is not part of the danger.
Mrs.Burwell clarified she is not saying that but as witness,they are seeing more traffic on Tanager. She
is trying to say when looking at the plans it is very frustrating to her—she said by the way, she voted for
all of the Councilmembers,and she just wants them to know that.
The Councilmembers thanked Mrs.Burwell.
Mrs. Burwell is standing before the Council asking for their help as a single-family home owner to the
east, and a neighbor to the Kuhlmlanns to the west;this has been a parcel of land that has been a single-
family home for a very long time. She stated they moved to Lake Minnetonka specifically as they wanted
some acreage and the beauty of the lake and did not want to have to go up north. She said it is hard for
her to understand that a development gets priority versus individuals that have been there and care about
the area, are trying to be upstanding citizens,and pay their taxes. She is asking to be able to say"please
listen"—which she thinks the Council is doing—she finds it difficult to say in some respects every time
she comes before the City Council or the Planning Commission, she is never quite sure what is going to
be an undercurrent or if there will be little shenanigans over"here." Mrs.Burwell does not mean to say
Page 15 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,February 8,2021
6:03 p.m.
19. LA20-000048-TIMOTHY WHITTEN O/B/O I.JACOBS/A.JACOBS REVOCABLE
TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT-RESOLUTION—Continued
the word shenanigans but that is kind of how she feels. She is just trying to understand to protect her
property and get on with life. She noted she has gone through a lot of changes in the last six years,losing
her husband,and her children are getting older and she just wants to be able to enjoy this. She is asking
the City Council to think about the individuals that have been there for a long time,as opposed to the
neighborhood, and by the way, she does like Mr.Rogers. Mrs.Burwell said she sincerely hopes that on
the grounds of safety, security,welfare, and happiness,that this is more than just density. The more
density in the area equals more problems and all she has to do is point to just one problem which is
clearly a road and cars and human beings coming down from what is currently a single family dwelling.
She thanked the Council
Walsh asked if anyone else would like to speak about this before he brings it back to the Council. There
were none.
Crosby thinks Mrs.Burwell made some important points. He has always felt being elected the City
Council's responsibility is to the people that are here primarily,the citizens. He would like to be sure all
of the lots proposed are completely conforming lots and if they are not that is a problem. Travelling
across that road,yes it is dangerous,there are a lot of people along Shoreline and people along
Shadywood and North Shore Drive have similar issues and safety is always the utmost for Crosby and is a
huge concern. He does not think the number of lots becomes the issue there, it is whether they are
conforming or non-conforming in what they are trying to do.
Walsh noted they have also guided this for a certain density within the City code and it is very specific
and like any other development nobody likes having more houses next to them but if people have had
open space they are never guaranteed to have open space forever. If people come in and meet the code
they have the right to develop their property as the Council cannot tell them they do not have the right.
From Walsh's standpoint on the Hennepin County road,they would require the Applicant to have that
(turn lane)and it is subject to Hennepin County. Walsh noted Hennepin County cannot require someone
to give up land so either it can or cannot be done,but no one goes through engineering drawings and gets
approvals up front;that is a very,very expensive process and he does not know that even Hennepin
County would do that without knowing that this development is going forward. They would not put the
time and energy in to it,either. Walsh clarified some things have to get done and that is why they have
conditions and those conditions have been pretty well spelled out from the engineer comments to the turn
lane and the ALS lines.
Crosby stated they should refer to it as average lakeshore setback(ALS) as people could be watching who
have no idea what an ALS is.
Walsh agreed that it is dangerous going across the street, absolutely,but there are 5, 6, 7, 8 miles of
people walking across the street all the time. He noted people from Heritage and said there are 15-20
docks over there.
Crosby said to him the worst house to cross on Shoreline is the one up on the hill on the curve.
Walsh clarified that is not a reason to say that they cannot develop.
Page 16 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,February 8,2021
6:03 p.m.
19. LA20-000048-TIMOTHY WHITTEN O/B/O I.JACOBS/A.JACOBS REVOCABLE
TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT-RESOLUTION—Continued
Crosby pointed out he was saying that this one is ten times better than that situation and people cross
there. He said it is what it is and it is not ideal to cross Shoreline Drive but people have lakeshore lots.
Johnson asked Barnhart,regarding the red line that he did,how does that relate to Lot 5 now. He noted
there was an s-curve line and there is a straight line.
Barnhart said he was trying to be cute and follow this here(noted on-screen)because it is a direct
measurement off this line. He wants to defer and thinks this will be more accurate in his line and asked
the City Council to keep in mind he is trying to draw that line.
Johnson said the red dashes that are there are the equivalent of Barnhart's rendering with the red squiggly.
Barnhart replied yes.
Johnson stated it is just showing the portion of the lot that it affects. They are showing that house pad
forward of that because their intention is to utilize Tanager Estates Lot 3; he asked if that is where they
will find themselves.
Barnhart said it will be likely closer to the lake than what this red line is, but they have to wait for this lot
to be built.
Johnson noted the purpose of what is showing there is a buildable pad.
Barnhart replied that this is a buildable pad.
Johnson asked if that is based on what they would use if this was a completely blank lot.
Barnhart said yes. For example, if this was final plat approval tonight,and if the entire road was built and
these were buildable lots,this is where they could build a house on Lot 5 with no variances.
Johnson indicated he is looking for a way to deny this because he does not like the idea. He does not like
the density here and thinks the argument could be that Heritage down the way has a lot more activity. He
said well,that is in place. They often use redevelopment as an opportunity to improve and this is not
improving that area. There is not anyone on the planet that drives that road that says"gosh, let's add a
bunch more houses on here,it's the best thing for everybody." Johnson stated it is not and it is not in
keeping with the use of that site or that stretch of road so it is a great hesitation. He said it is not anything
against the plan as it looks like everyone is working hard to have a conforming plan but it does not make
it a good idea and this is an example where the way this has been platted is not keeping with the spirit of
Orono. One,protecting the interest of property owners,this is an overdevelopment of a spot,but Johnson
said if this is what the City's code allows and there is not a reasonable objection the Council can have,he
does not know what to do. However, if there is a reasonable objection to prevent this from going forward,
that is what he wants.
Walsh agrees and has that same feeling. The problem the Council has is when things are in front of them,
they must make the decision based on the code that is in front of them and the development that is in front
Page 17 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,February 8,2021
6:03 p.m.
19. LA20-000048-TIMOTHY WHITTEN O/B/O I.JACOBS/A.JACOBS REVOCABLE
TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT-RESOLUTION—Continued
of them with that code. If they can say this should be a five-acre minimum but it is not zoned five acres
now,that is the issue they must work with. He said to deny something that conforms will now create a
problem for the City.
Attorney Mattick answered in the affirmative.
Walsh noted that would be denial of the value of the property owner's real estate and that is an issue.
That does not mean that the Burwell's cannot challenge whatever they want on whatever is going on with
Hennepin County,it does not stop any of that. Anything the City Council still does has all the
contingencies in place to meet the code that they have to meet, which they are following to the T and is
about the best they can do besides coming up with something made up that is not there right now. He
cannot find that either and is kind of in the same boat as Johnson.
Crosby said the City Council can hold teeth that the Burwells will not give up any of their property for
any of this.
Walsh clarified nothing can make them do that to begin with.
Attorney Mattick asked to comment on that. He said it has been said but he thinks it is worth reinforcing.
Hennepin County is saying that the turn lane needs to go in, so historically what Orono has done,
especially when roads are under a different entity's jurisdiction, is to look at their comments and
implement those comments. He said this approval,Hennepin County's wishes—none of that entitles
anyone to go outside that right-of-way. Hennepin County has that road right-of-way so in his opinion
they can build things like turn lanes in that right-of-way. However,none of this gives anyone access to
the Burwell's property, period. Not without their consent which has been made clear will not happen. He
clarified that none of the City's approvals,Hennepin County's approvals,none of that gives them any
approval.
Crosby asked isn't it true that sometimes people own property that is part of the right-of-way.
Attorney Mattick does not know how this is done.
Crosby said that is the one caveat; even if it is still"part of the right-of-way"is it still her property. The
right-of-way gives the ability to go on something, fix something,rectify a line,but put it back to the way
it was.
Walsh stated that would be more of an easement than a right-of-way.
Attorney Mattick does not know as the Counties and the State have started to change—he assumes this
was acquired a long time ago, and he does not know if they acquired it in clear via easement as every
entity does it differently. In terms of it going back to the way it was,he said let's be clear it is not,as
there will be a turn lane there instead of what is there now.
Seals said she does not feel good about this one either. She was hoping the Councilmembers would have
magically seen something that she did not see and was hoping Barnhart would show some lines that
Page 18 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,February 8,2021
6:03 p.m.
19. LA20-000048-TIMOTHY WHITTEN O/B/O I.JACOBS/A.JACOBS REVOCABLE
TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT-RESOLUTION—Continued
would be somewhat different. She doesn't like the plans either; she is sure the Applicant has worked hard
on it, but it feel like it creates a bunch of problems.At the end of the day if the City Council follows the
code which is the job, it kind of meets the requirements. Seals again stated she does not like it and she
agrees lots of people try to cross that death-trap of a road constantly but it is up to them. It does feel
overly congested and that back line with Tanager seems a little suspect but they have shown it over and
over to her. Seals noted they are right—that is what it is zoned for.
Walsh stated, obviously knowing the rules,the Applicant has gone and reshaped their plan to fit the rule
versus trying to massage the rule. He thinks they changed the whole ALS line to be consistent with what
the City code specifically says.
Crosby said the line on Tanager is set where it is simply because the lot next to it does not have anything
built.
Walsh agreed that is right and most likely it will actually be closer when it gets built or the permit is
pulled that flags that.
Crosby stated it is a timing issue and it wouldn't really affect that anyway.
Walsh noted if they want to wait for it then they can have a better spot to build.
Crosby stated it would not inhibit that.
Walsh said no,that would not inhibit it and that was partly Johnson's question.
Johnson asked if the Council is at the mercy of the County to decide about the turn lanes at the end of the
day.
Attorney Mattick replied not strictly,no. He would have concerns if the Council had decided that the turn
lane was not necessary.
Johnson asked if the City Council can put conditions in;he thinks the best use of that if this goes through
and it has to be there,then to him the best case scenario is a center turn lane coming from east bound
property,the west bound turn lane, and the acceleration lane on the other side. That is the perfect
scenario.
Crosby said there will not be enough room.
Johnson asked how they make sure that is understood. If he made a motion that it is his preference—
maybe it is impossible.
Walsh suggested they could say as a preference the City Council would like to get response from the
County on the feasibility of the middle turn lane and the acceleration lane.
Crosby asked if they are talking about an east bound center turn lane.
Page 19 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,February 8,2021
6:03 p.m.
19. LA20-000048-TIMOTHY WHITTEN O/B/O I.JACOBS/A.JACOBS REVOCABLE
TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT-RESOLUTION—Continued
Walsh replied yes. It would be more with the approval,please get the City Council the feedback as well,
so that is in the book.
Crosby said if they look at Fox Hill,they do not have one there.
Walsh knows that but that is not relevant to this;Johnson is just talking about in a perfect world,they
would want the feedback and if the County says they can do it,then they would want it.
Johnson agreed and said not just because it is more convenience to not do it,but if it is possible to do.
The Tanager Bridge construction is happening soon and it would alleviate a lot of problems there and
maybe that extends to Heritage.
Walsh noted they will find out by prefacing it and asking for the feedback on that because if the County
says it is an absolute no,there is no way to do it,or that the County is not going to do it because there is
just not enough room to make it work and redo all of that road. He stated that is the way to find out.
Attorney Mattick agreed.
Crosby said if they look on Google maps it looks like a complete impossibility.
Walsh said he knows,but that does not prevent them from asking and they can get the response in the
book one way or the other.
Attorney Mattick's only concern is that it is a preliminary plat and not the final. The premise is when the
City Council approves the preliminary plat it is saying"we're most of the way there,here are the
conditions we want,when you come back for final plat we want these issues addressed." Putting in
additional turn lanes and things like that are usually thing they have gone through at this point so if he
understands what the Council is saying,they would like the County to take a second look at an
acceleration lane and a center turn lane for east bound traffic.
Walsh replied,or just to give the City Council the feedback on it—maybe they have already received it,
he does not know.
Edwards cannot speak for the County but from a City perspective, if this was a City road, normally they
are applying City code or overall transportation best practices to that right-of-way and travel-way. The
County is going to tell the developer to prove that they cannot do what the County is telling them has to
happen here. He said it is a little bit backwards for the City to say"prove that it cannot happen." They
would have to ask the County to look at whether they think that a left hand turn lane is needed for this
type of development.
Walsh stated"is it feasible,and if it is would you do it."
Johnson said the only thing he read about from the County was an email chain asking how much space
was needed on that right turn lane. He does not know if the County took a full review of this situation
and concluded that this is what needs to be done.
Page 20 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,February 8,2021
6:03 p.m.
19. LA20-000048-TIMOTHY WHITTEN O/B/O I.JACOBS/A.JACOBS REVOCABLE
TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT-RESOLUTION—Continued
Attorney Mattick assumes so but he does not know if they examined those two items.
Walsh would not have any problem, even with what Attorney Mattick has said about the preliminary plat,
saying that as a condition,the Council still wants the feedback from that. That could change it a little bit
and everyone just has to go into it knowing that. Or it may not change it at all as they may say there is no
way that is going to get put in.
Johnson asked what the right sequence is. Do they say to the Applicant: submit to the Council what the
County says about this portion, as there are still conditions on a preliminary plat and that is why they have
them. What is the right process—is it to go back and tell the Applicant to get the study done from the
County and get their recommendation before the City Council votes on the preliminary.
Mattick stated they have a timing issue right now and the City Council is statutorily obligated to make
decisions on this application. He thinks the Applicant has voluntarily extended this application to the end
of February. The City Council would not have to make a decision tonight but could make it at the next
Council meeting. He does not know what turnaround time is on these kinds of questions from the
County.
Walsh said a decision with conditions is still a decision.
Attorney Mattick agrees with that.
Walsh thinks it would be more appropriate to put the condition in there that the City Council wants to
have that and that is just part of the process. They will know they have approval but just have to finish
that piece one way or the other. They need Hennepin County's feedback and if they say it is needed and
it can be done,then the City would want it done.
Mattick added, even if Hennepin County waffles on it and says maybe it can or maybe it can't,ultimately
if the City Council puts a condition on this that a center lane or acceleration lane is required,Hennepin
County gets to decide whether or not that happens. The City Council needs to be very careful about
putting conditions that another entity won't approve on there. He clarified they do not have the
jurisdiction to mandate that the County put a center lane in there.
Johnson said it would make this easier if this was already understood and they knew what they were
agreeing to. Now they are in the spot of saying"let's see what the County says."
Barnhart noted on-screen are the comments received from the County on the initial review from August.
He stated the County did consider that and did their own analysis on what was required versus desired.
He said is the question now for the County to reconsider or provide additional feedback.
Seals said if she is reading it correctly it does not say that it would not be possible because of size,rather
they just talk about cost,which is not what the City Council is debating here.
Barnhart replied no,but thinks that is part of the County's analysis when they start requiring things.
Page 21 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,February 8,2021
6:03 p.m.
19. LA20-000048-TIMOTHY WHITTEN O/B/O I.JACOBS/A.JACOBS REVOCABLE
TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT-RESOLUTION—Continued
Walsh said what he is reading in this is the County is saying"we don't want to do this,but if you come up
with something that shows it has to be and you have some analysis that shows us,we're putting that
burden on you." That is basically what they are saying which is the same thing Mattick said.
Johnson read from the screen"the City engineering is welcome to come to a different conclusion,"so are
they the local authority having jurisdiction.
Mattick said they are. If the City wants to pay for a full engineering study that somehow says the County
took a pass on this one,we're going to dig in and prove that those turn lanes are absolutely necessary
based on sound engineering criteria,then they are free to do so. He said they do not have that right now;
what they have are inclinations that it is busy down there.
Walsh stated the County could say in the end, "now we agree with your point but for$4,000,000 we're
not going to do this;however,if the City wants to come up with$4,000,000 you can do it." It looks like
the County has given their general answer.
Johnson does not know the context of this email,and he does not know how many lots they were talking
about at the time.
Barnhart said it was 7 lots at the time of the email.
Johnson is in favor of putting a motion together that tables the application until the City Council has
clarity about what turn lanes are feasible by the County.
Walsh said it sounds like they already know—they just answered it right there.
Johnson stated the County just said they are not going to pay for it, so is this a condition of the
development.
Barnhart replied no,the attached letter is a condition of the development. Staff put in as a recommended
condition that Hennepin County approval of the road access/intersection-and they could certainly add
the word turn lane(s)in there—is what they put in as a condition of approval for the preliminary plat.
Touching back on the timeline,it is situated such that Barnhart is asking for direction tonight and he will
come back with a resolution of either approval or denial at the next City Council meeting. He does not
have the authority to extend the timeline himself.
Crosby said unless he is missing something he does not see how the City Council can deny this.
Walsh stated they are not looking for any more input right now.
Crosby noted if everything is done as required,everything is fitting in,they cannot hold their hand in the
air and say they do not like five houses,they want three or two. He would say put one house but they
cannot do that.
Walsh said that is true.
Page 22 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,February 8,2021
6:03 p.m.
19. LA20-000048-TIMOTHY WHITTEN O/B/O I.JACOBS/A.JACOBS REVOCABLE
TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT-RESOLUTION—Continued
Crosby continued saying that is not what the Council is up here for,although he wishes that they could.
Then everybody who is a builder would be pissed off and the homeowners would love it.
Johnson thinks what they have satisfied so far is that the 5 lots they are proposing meet code and that is it.
So the question just becomes,what is a reasonable condition to put on the egress and ingress.
Walsh said they cannot make Hennepin County do anything,which is part of the City's problem because
it is not the City's road. The County has already said the only requirement from them is the turn lane.
Crosby stated the City Council can say the Applicant must have the west bound turn lane in.
In Mattick's opinion,yes.
Walsh said yes, because that is something the County has recommended, so the condition is following
that recommendation. In looking at the Staff recommendation with all the things,the resolution approval
has all the following conditions A,B,C,D,E,and F. All City Engineering comments addressed to their
satisfaction, on Exhibit F,get the Watershed District approval,Hennepin County approval of the road
access and the intersection. All the City Staff comments on Exhibit H and the combination of all the lots
when they do combine them and that would have to be followed through. Then there are the tree areas
that they showed on Exhibit E with the 30 foot widths on the east and the west. He said it's got all that
stuff,it has everything so far with all the little strings that tie it up to be sure that it follows all the
protocols. Walsh said they want to get more than what they've already got from Hennepin County just to
make sure that this is not something that is either required or that they would even consider;let alone if
there is even room to do it. That gives two weeks before the resolution on February 22,2021.
Crosby asked to put the plat on-screen. He asked where the caretaker property on the Burwell property is
in relation right now.
Barnhart noted on the screen that there is a house here, and there are some other structures.
Crosby asked if there are tree buffers to that property also.
Barnhart stated some tree buffers on-screen,but not immediately adjacent to the caretaker property. The
Applicant has suggested tree planting.
Crosby said there would be trees going in there.
Barnhart said it is proposed and would be an appropriate condition to add.
Walsh noted they talked about some kind of green,evergreen kind of screening.
Crosby asked if that is part of these.
Barnhart said not specifically,no.
Page 23 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,February 8,2021
6:03 p.m.
19. LA20-000048-TIMOTHY WHITTEN OB/O I.JACOBS/A.JACOBS REVOCABLE
TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT-RESOLUTION—Continued
Crosby asked if that would be item G.
Walsh stated they could make it part of G:the evergreen buffering for the caretaker.
Barnhart noted Walsh had also suggested an easement related for pedestrians to get to Lot A.
Walsh said basically an easement along A,B, and C for walking.
Crosby said it sounds like that would be G and H.
Crosby moved to approve preliminary plat with all the conditions A-F as shown,and adding G,
evergreen trees giving coverage to the caretaker's property to the east,and adding H which would
be an easement buffer along the shoreline so people can travel between the parcels.
Mattick asked to make a clarifying point. He thinks Crosby's motion was to approve the plat; what Staff
is looking for,because the resolution is not drafted the motion is to direct Staff to prepare a resolution
approving it with those conditions.
Walsh said"so said."
Crosby said yes,and thanked Mattick.
Crosby offered a substitute motion to direct Staff to prepare a resolution to approve the
preliminary plat application with Staff conditions and the added conditions G(evergreen buffering)
and H(easement for pedestrians).
Johnson asked if this is the right time to add the condition that there will be no communal dock there for
non-riparian properties.
Walsh thinks this is the appropriate time to put that, it would be condition I.
Johnson said with respect to J,does the City Council have to hammer home any more regarding the turn
lane and what options are available.
Mattick said they will be back here in two weeks and they can contact Hennepin County and tell them the
City Council is interested in a center turn lane and an acceleration lane and ask if that is on the table as
something they would require. He said they would get as candid of feedback from them as they can.
Walsh does not know that they put that as a condition but they would put it as a sidebar that they would
also like to get feedback from the County.
Mattick said they would direct Staff to try and facilitate that.
Crosby said that is good.
Page 24 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,February 8,2021
6:03 p.m.
19. LA20-000048-TIMOTHY WHITTEN O/B/O I.JACOBS/A.JACOBS REVOCABLE
TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT-RESOLUTION—Continued
Walsh said they have a motion by Crosby and an addition to the motion by Johnson.
Crosby amended his motion to direct Staff to prepare a resolution to approve the preliminary plat
application with Staff conditions and the added conditions G(evergreen buffering),H(easement
for pedestrians),and I(no communal dock). Seals seconded. Ayes: 4,Nays: 0.
Walsh said they would see everyone in a couple of weeks regarding that application.
Crosby thanked everyone for their comments.
Walsh said they would see everyone in a couple of weeks regarding that application.
Crosby thanked everyone for their comments.
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT
Crosby had nothing to report.
Seals had nothing to report.
Johnson had nothing to report.
Walsh noted he was in Lutsen over the weekend and decided not to ski with a-37 wind chill on Saturday.
They went out to lunch and he made the mistake of leaving his keys in his car which has a little chip in it
and is a push button start. Because it was frozen,it would not recognize that his keys were even in the car
so he had to blow them in his hands for five minutes before it would finally recognize to start the car. He
said it was nice to be away from the house and they enjoyed it. Walsh stated he left his bifocals in the car
when it was -20,he got in,put his arm on it,and the plastic exploded all over the car. He went in today to
get some new bifocals as it has been five years,and the woman said Walsh needs to get a new
prescription, and unless he has a current prescription they cannot make new glasses for him. He said he
has never heard that before. Because it was so cold out,the doctor had availability and was able to give
him the eye test and all kinds of drops. He walked out in to the sunlight and just about fell on the ground
because his eyes were dilated.
Crosby shared the previous weekend his daughter and her boyfriend were coming over for dinner. He
was hanging out in the garage smoking his pipe and he received a call that Mandy was locked outside the
house and it was-10 degrees. He went over and noted that people should hide a spare key someplace
where one can get at it because in the winter when it is that cold there is not a lot of time.
Johnson noted it has been a great winter.
Crosby agreed.
Walsh said while skiing they were still required to have a mask on while riding the chair lift,but one
could use a gator as a facemask.
Page 25 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,February 8,2021
6:03 p.m.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
Olson reported things are running relatively smoothly, and the department heads are chipping in.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
Attorney Mattick had nothing to report.
ADJOURNMENT
Crosby moved, Seals seconded,to adjourn the meeting at 7:48 p.m.VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0.
ATTE T:
' I ej, .
/ .
A a Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh,Mayor
Page 26 of 26