My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-10-2000 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2000
>
01-10-2000 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/9/2023 4:20:42 PM
Creation date
3/9/2023 4:18:22 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
219
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
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 <br />(#9) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - Continued <br />Dave McCoskey, 130 South Brov^m Road, asked how the easement questions can be resolved. <br />Jabbour said that is between Mr. McCoskey ’s and the applicant ’s title companies. Jabbour <br />said the City cannot act as Mr. McCoskey ’s agent. <br />McCoskey said he does not want the development. <br />Jabbour said the applicant has the right to develop the property. <br />McCoskey asked if the access issue controls the whole layout. <br />Jabbour said it can be approved subject to access and it will be up to the applicant to get the <br />access. <br />Douglas Coleman, 140 South Brown Road, asked if the development of the property is <br />dependent on sewer. <br />Jabbour saio there must be sewer for this project. It would be hooked up to the Long Lake <br />part of the sewer. The cost of the sewer will be paid for by Mr. Van Eeckhout. <br />Coleman asked about the impact on the stream that runs from Long Lake to Minnetonka. <br />Jabbour said there are shoreline management ordinances that the applicant has to adhere to. <br />There are restrictions up to 300 feet from the creek. <br />Weinberger explained some of the restrictions. The original proposal contained a crossing of <br />the creek for a driveway and the sewer would have crossed the creek. <br />Van Eeckhout said the new proposal eliminates those crossings. <br />Kelley asked about the building envelopes and perhaps there isn ’t room for seven lots. <br />Van Eeckhout said the only problem would be the sewer and there is legally room for seven <br />lots. He showed where they would be located. <br />Jabbour asked what the Council wants, a standard subdivision or a PRD. <br />Kelley said he believes it should be developed as a PRD because of the topography. <br />Van Eeckhout said the Planning Commission was hung up on the size of the lots in the north <br />and that is what Van Eeckhout objected to. He said he had guidance from staff on the size of <br />those lots. He said staff felt the size of the lots waj appropriate from a transitional point of <br />Page 31
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.