My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-25-1991 HRA Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
1991
>
11-25-1991 HRA Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/30/2019 8:54:19 AM
Creation date
4/30/2019 8:54:18 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING — NOVEMBER 259 1991 <br />##1691 — CONT. <br />Butler felt the citizens of Orono would be upset that they were <br />providing for a shortcut from Highway 12 through the subdivision <br />and onto Orono Orchard Road. <br />Barrett asked Roos to comment on the suggested covenant language <br />by the Planning Commission. <br />Roos commented that Item 2C indicates more of a concern for the <br />south property along Orono Oaks Drive. 'Mabusth noted that is <br />correct. <br />Roos questioned Item 6. <br />Mabusth noted that buildable lots are described as pads until the <br />final plat, at which time they will be noted as lots. <br />Jabbour asked if any comments had been received from the City of <br />Long Lake.regarding these covenants. <br />Mabusth noted that the memo had been sent to the City Council but <br />to date no comment had been received. <br />Mabusth reiterated Council's position that the exception of the <br />road should not be shown as an outlot with a future extension. <br />Jabbour noted that the existing road can remain, but it cannot <br />extend to any other development. <br />Roos noted the City of Long Lake's intention to indicate this <br />roadway as an outlot, to be held in reserve in case private <br />access is needed under the tracks. He would need to discuss this <br />issue with the City Attorney. <br />Jabbour noted it could be added to the covenant that the roadway <br />cannot serve any other development to provide through traffic. <br />Roos noted it will serve the lift station. <br />Butler recognized that, but indicated the intent would be to not <br />allow through traffic under the railroad bridge through the <br />development to Orono Orchard Road. Butler questioned the utility <br />easement that cuts through the middle of Lot 1. <br />Roos noted there is a forcemain located there now and they are <br />working with the MWCC to see if that main can be relocated. <br />Butler felt it would be an inhibitor for any future builder on <br />that lot. 'She asked if there was a way to reconfigure the lots <br />to avoid this. <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.