11-25-1991 HRA Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING — NOVEMBER 251 1881 ##1691 — CONT. Mabusth noted that the lots have already been -reconfigured because of the configuration of dry buildable area and the higher elevations to the northeast, Lot 1, Block 2 must remain as proposed. The developer will once again be asked to address the issue of relocating the force main: may not be possible to avoid this easement. She asked the Council if they had any other development criteria, or comments on the Planning Commission's recommendation of covenant language. Charles Kelley, Planning Commission representative, noted the Commission's main goal was to protect Orono residents to the south. He felt they should try to restrict uses such as home occupation and accessory structure storage. Butler noted the proposed berm along the southern lot line. Kelley noted the first 3 lots along Orono Oaks Drive could be bermed but after that the elevations prohibit berming. He noted that trees may be used for screening these properties. He felt the City has the option through the PRD process to add conditions of development. Mayor Peterson asked Barrett if he felt the covenant language was specific enough. Barrett felt that under the agreement with Long Lake, the City, can set forth reasonable requirements. He noted if the covenants are too restrictive, the whole development may fall apart. He felt the City should look at general conditions, and provide for -some procedure that would allow a developer to readjust the covenants to a reasonable degree. Jabbour asked about enforcing restrictive covenants. Barrett noted they can be enforced by injunction, which would require applying to district court. He noted the plan is to provide the City with a legal document that gives authority in specific areas. Jabbour felt Orono should decide what is essential to protect its residents to the south of the development. Jim Palmer felt the request for a berm had been misinterpreted, as they were trying to limit access from owners of the new development from their back yards to Orono Oaks Drive. Barrett noted they can covenant that access could not be allowed from these lots to Orono Oaks Drive. Roos noted in the past they have found berms to be ineffective for this purpose, and felt that screening of another kind may be more effective. 2